Creating Life 2.0



 Religions > Atheism > Creating Life 2.0

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Budikka666"
Date: 03 Jun 2007 08:48:00 AM
Object: Creating Life 2.0
Newsweek online has an article by Lee Silver called "Life 2.0" about
the work of scientists who are trying to create a new organism:
http://tinyurl.com/27jk8a
At one point the article states:
"...says Tom Knight, a professor at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab
who now focuses his engineering on microbes. 'The genetic code is 3.6
billion years old. It's time for a rewrite.'"!
Later we read:
"As a first step, Endy chose to design and construct a synthetic
bacterial virus modeled after a natural one named T7, which was
already well understood. Unlike T7, the synthetic virus (christened
T7.1) was stripped of unnecessary complexity in both design and
function-it was reorganized to be sleek and efficient with 57 separate
genes encoded in a 40,000-letter-long genome. And although its code
was just a distant, unnatural facsimile of nature's creation, T7.1
still behaves like a virus, infecting and reproducing inside bacterial
cells."
Budikka
.

User: "JabriolZarek"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 03 Jun 2007 10:43:26 AM
Budikka666 wrote:
snip...look what the article said right at the begining:
"It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago. a tiny living cell
emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its
progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns
down through billions of generations. "
This is about as bad as "God did it"
Abiogenesis has not been duplicated in a lab via the scientific method,
therefore the above statement require "faith" on the same level that
"God did it"
the artcles continue: "Scientists in the last couple of years have been
trying to create novel forms of life from scratch. They've forged
chemicals into synthetic DNA, the DNA into genes, genes into genomes,
and built the molecular machinery of completely new organisms in the
lab—organisms that are nothing like anything nature has produced."
Re inventing the wheel?
Synthetic DNA is not creating or making DNA from scartch, it
reassembling old DNA material into new structures:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041119214104data_trunc_sys.shtml
More detailed here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=10435113&dopt=Abstract
Therefore the Budikaka article of creating life is misleading, scientist
are just developing new life form by rearranging already existing DNA
material from previous life form. No abiogenesis here. just genetic
enginering.
a Dog breeder can do the same.
.
User: "Nolan & Sprigg Inc."

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 - jabbers suffers brain damage 04 Jun 2007 12:44:42 AM
"JabriolZarek" <jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:ykB8i.2250$554.827@trnddc07...
See this one Jabbers?
"Limbo Katt *~" <durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:f1o6jt$ckr$1@registered.motzarella.org...


JABRIOL is the psychocase that insured an elderly couple in TN and hopes

to

collect on the policy if he can find someone sick enough to murder them.

He

sees it as his way out of the slums of Camden NJ. He's been slandering
these old people for two years now. His real name is Antonio L Santana

from

Camden NJ. Mr Santana is a Jehovah's Witness suffering from several

serious

diseases including brain seizures and hallucinations (he sees rapes that
never occured).

.

User: "The Apostate"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0- JABBER *TROLL* ALERT!!!!!!!!! 03 Jun 2007 10:46:56 PM
"JabriolZarek" (JABRIOL)<jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:ykB8i.2250$554.827@trnddc07... SNIPPPPPPP!
\>
This is what Usenetters say about you Antonio L. Santana-Candia (JABRIOL).
There are hundreds more.
----------------------------------------
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:kqs3t2lq5svvtqinruih9hbmpbcft5fjr5@4ax.com...

On 13 Feb 2007 04:29:53 -0800, "PonderKoi" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com>
wrote:

And here is the evidence, I guess Jayne should feel like an
incompetent fool about now. Rec.ponds.moderated is being created to
get rid of Carol.


You're a lying sack of *****, Jabbers. It's to get rid of *you.*

-----------------------------------------
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:57k419F2cvi5bU1@mid.individual.net...

Zhadow [JABRIOL] wrote:

Hi Carol,


You are an insane piece of turd, but we *already* knew that, didn't we,
Jabbers?

<snip Jabber's droolings>
--

-----------------------------------------
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:7v3753hmu3ibafijl1if0cv2n6peal98rj@4ax.com...

On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:39:42 GMT, Gherren <jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com>
wrote:

I am not owned by John, however I own you. see the difference?


You *are* owned, Jabbers. You couldn't stop posting to groups where
you're considered a brain-dead moron to save your life. You thrive on
the abuse.

-----------------------------------------
"Phil MacDouglass" <JeremyQuest@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19540-4607FF5B-1066@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net...

i bet jabriol could start an NG called
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn.jabriol.slash-and-suffocate hmm?

one we need is alt.usenet.kooks.jabriol

-----------------------------------------
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 05:38:59 -0000, "Steve Leyland"
<steveREMOVEDOTINVALIDTOREPLY@meow.org.invalid> wrote:


JaBrIoLeGit [JABRIOL] wrote:
: Spam Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
: You have just been spammed

you
netKKKoping *****.
The Jabriol k0ok has a hardon for one of the posters in arj-w and has
stalked her for years.
hey, why not just -don't- read posts that offend you instead?
or is that too simple for you, fuckhead?
Jabriol is a lame troll who loves to stir up the shite. He has been
at this since 1995, with no signs of improvement. talk.origins had to
put in a special Jabriol filter to block Jabbers pro-rape, pro-suicide
posts.
-----------------------------------------
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:uf3l13lpb78po7g55thmfkna3qns250if7@4ax.com...

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:12:43 GMT, King_Bishop_Black [JABRIOL]

-----------------------------------------
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C269C0AC0002CD1BF0284648@newsgroups.comcast.net...


For example, a particularly noxious creationist troll who

posted (mostly) under the nym Jabriol was not banned, he was merely
restricted in what newsgroups he can cross-post to, if one of those groups
was also t.o, same as everyone else who posts to t.o. _No-one_ who posts
to t.o can post to more than four groups, including t.o. No-one who posts
to t.o can cross-post that post to another moderated group. No-one who
posts to t.o can cross-post to certain rape recovery groups and to certain
suicide-prevention groups. And, if you post to t.o _and_ cross-post to a
certain sects' newsgroup, you can cross-post only to those groups. Old
Jabbers was very annoyed about all of those restrictions, and screamed
that he was being banned... while posting to t.o and thereby showing that
he _wasn't_ being banned. Jabbers wants to be able to cross-post to dozens
of groups at the same time. Jabbers wants to be able to cross-post to
moderated groups, and they should not be able to stop him. Jabbers wants
to be able to cross-post to rape groups and to anti-suicide groups; in
particular he wants to be able to harass rape victims and to see if he can
drive (another) person to suicide. And, as Jabbers includes a cross-post
to his sects' group, he wants to be able to let his homies see him do
this. One of the things the bot does is to prevent him from doing any of
that, and so he sulks. He can still post to t.o, and does so every now and
again... but he can't cross-post all over USENET, which is what he wants
to do.
<checkMate@whitequeen.net> wrote:

***** off, Jabbers.

-----------------------------------------
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:9n5d43h4r5go3bjho3dvadk6p4qlk3sgcs@4ax.com...

On Sun, 13 May 2007 04:30:45 GMT, in alt.atheism JabriolZorBlack
<jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com> wrote <SNIP!>

Your claims are still false, no matter how many times you present them.
You have a long history of lying about science. This is one example of
your dishonesty.

alt.biology removed because Jabbers lies have nothing to do with biology
at all.

-----------------------------------------
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:59ee5vF2j2cu2U1@mid.individual.net...

You are arguing with usenet's genuine five star brainless, witless,
gutless fundie creationist moron - Jabriol.
You can take it from there... :)

-----------------------------------------
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2ida0312ijk8v83kpqfit6gvintd6obgcb@4ax.com...

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:04:37 GMT, "Shrike!" {JABRIOL}
<suffocate@withbag.es> claimed:

there goes 40 days 40 night thing eh?


Goodbye, idiot.

-----------------------------------------
"Phil MacDouglass" <JeremyQuest@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19540-4607FE17-1065@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net...

isn't making someone commit suicide murder in a way? jabbers is a
murderous psychopathic cultist!!

-----------------------------------------
"cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:mKANh.9207$JZ3.3487@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

Shrike! [JABRIOL} wrote:

Come back after you have service your porn addicted husband, and fed your
tadpaoles, you believe to be, fish

This is the jabriol we all know and loathe.

-----------------------------------------
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fp3qv29180agurd8k2tdkf6asm6toi3ef2@4ax.com...

You are talking jabriol.
He is pathalogically incapable of complying with your wise advice.

-----------------------------------------
"Sharon B" <sharon@lart.com> wrote in message
news:5e1dv2ho1ol6u380mnh7jb8r4sn97lrko5@4ax.com...

On 10 Mar 2007 03:27:45 -0800, "Zëbulon" impersonated by Antonio L
Santana/JABRIOL <JhemHad...@gmail.com> wrote
in <1173526065.100443.127...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

Did you know her husband download
porn? [ That Antonio Santana sent him.]

What is obvious is that you care a great deal about

her husband downloading pr0n. Seems kinda GAY to me, not that there's
anything wrong with that.

=========================================
"Demon Lord of Confusion"
<popesnarky.verwarring@verwirren.confused.k00ks.caballista.org> wrote in
message
news:pan.2007.03.12.04.10.51.167848@verwirren.confused.k00ks.caballista.org...

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:43:15 -0700, ~Sable~[Antonio L Santana/JABRIOL]
attempted to confuse the issue
further by squeaking: SNIP!

On Mar 11, 12:04 am, "Text Medium No. 5" wrote:

Your assertions about the Gulley family are not backed up. You are full
of *****.

No, you've made repeated veiled threats, Santana, and the only reason
you give a ***** about Randy Gulley is because his wife has been
subverting your fellow JW wackos. More power to her, I say, at least as
far as helping Witnesses who want to leave the WTS get out.

-----------------------------------------
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:pdc8v259kg1q19n226r8ibpqge0v4en5dt@4ax.com...


I'm not trying to reason with him. Jabbers is a closeminded liar.

-----------------------------------------
"Phil MacDouglass" <JeremyQuest@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18299-45EDD1F4-1244@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net...

kiss my ***** jabbers! you're a pervert!

=========================================
"The Demon Prince of Absurdity" <absurd_number_of_nicks@hell.corny> wrote in
message news:pan.2007.03.10.08.15.33.796251@hell.corny...

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:41:49 -0800, Zëbulon [impersonated by Antonio
Santana]

did the cha-cha, and

screamed:

she lives in a trailer on government property. She has been postering
since we all know her address now. The coward believes she going be
killed
in her sleep, by a usenet goon, she even filed a false police report.


Don't need to hear from you, since I know your k00ky ***** already...

=========================================
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:9kc9v2lmf8vfgptgtu8holncthguk6bmop@4ax.com...

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:37:23 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism Erasmus
{JABRIOL} <Dune@arrakis.net> wrote in <Dw%Ih.263$Eg4.80@trnddc03>:
Why don't you start to learn something about science instead of
regurgitating the lies that the Watchtower Society spreads?

alt.biology, rec.ponds, sci.anthropology.paleo deleted because I'm not
playing Jabber's vile game.

=========================================
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.03.13.18.02.116568@com.mkbilbo...

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 04:53:34 -0800, Zhadow [JABRIOL] wrote:

Perhaps<SMACK>


Shut up troll!

----------------------------------------
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:q724v21h2m9ntfmg669q2qnctercb6k4bd@4ax.com...

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:01:22 GMT, Erasmus <Dune@arrakis.net> wrote:

Shut the ***** up, Jabbers.


<PLONK!>

----------------------------------------
"K. A. Cannon" <kcannon@insurgent.orgy> wrote in message
news:es88s2$pir$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

On 1 Mar 2007 14:26:41 -0800, "PondMeister" JABRIOL<zodriol@gmail.com>
wrote:


NGP moderators won't allow me to post. Do I need to say more?


There's a bald faced lie.

----------------------------------------
"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:eridvk$a71$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

On 19 Feb 2007 04:35:21 -0800, "Nekojin" JABRIOL <ztradi@gmail.com> wrote:

If you knew about about Internet, you would know why My IP changes.


Your IP changes for the same reason your nic changes. You're a net
abusing little puke.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com

========================================
"Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi> wrote in message
news:L6KFh.6002$5V4.3858@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...

On 2007-03-01, PondMeister *JABRIOL* <zodriol@gmail.com> wrote:

NGP moderators won't allow me to post.


Really? Post something on-topic and civil and you might be surprised.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

========================================
"Martin" <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45baacfd$0$2444$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

Zhadow [Antonio Jabriol Santana] wrote:

Many of you on the ARJW new group were surprised to lern; Carol husband
downloads porn.
even though she accuse jw's of being perverts.


I'm much more concerned about you being interested in someone else's sex
life.

Oh, I'm NOT suprised about a guy downloading porn lol

JWs are sexual perverts, we all know that :) Maybe they should stick to
downloading porn

=================================================
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:5149u2d40u4vgqn632kql99h7na393lsvt@4ax.com...

"ZeroPoint" sock of (Antonio Santana/JABRIOL - net-stalker and sociopath)
<zodriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172579899.861649.227220@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 26, 9:28 pm, DärFläken <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

"ZeroPoint" <zodr...@gmail.com> wrote in message


Ah yes another attempt from Carol in busting a thread. Is this subject
to complex ............ /snip!


Shut the ***** up, Jabbers.

<PLONK!> for the hundredth time.

=================================================
.

User: "Nolan & Sprigg Inc."

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 - WARNING!!!!!!!!!! 04 Jun 2007 12:36:51 AM
"JabriolZarek" [Antonio L Santana-Candia] <jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com> wrote
in message news:ykB8i.2250$554.827@trnddc07...
< FLUSH JABBER aka Ghent aka "JabriolZarek" BS >
The couple known as the Santanas, violent criminals, who are trying to find
someone online to murder the Gulleys by suffocation or throat slashing are:
Antonio L. and wife Norma I. Santana of 1064 Everett St in Camden NJ. Phone
856-968-0004. This couple are devoted to silencing an apostate whistle
blower who helps people escape from the Watchtower Society.
The Santana's attend the Spanish Speaking congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses in Camden NJ. Antonio L Santana knows what he is and posted this
message on 3/16/07:
Ghent (aka JABRIOL/Antonio L Santana) said this about himself in:
news:1174085588.281549.270940@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
"But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night."
He knows what he is and admits it. He hides behind the WTS like a theif
hides behind a bush.
.
User: "JabriolZarek"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 - WARNING!!!!!!!!!! 04 Jun 2007 04:36:39 AM
Nolan & Sprigg Inc. wrote:

"JabriolZarek" [Antonio L Santana-Candia] <jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com> wrote
in message news:ykB8i.2250$554.827@trnddc07...

< FLUSH JABBER aka Ghent aka "JabriolZarek" BS >

The couple known as the Santanas, violent criminals, who are trying to find
someone online to murder the Gulleys by suffocation or throat slashing are:

And you haven't told the police? Oh yes you did, after I called them
about your supposed allegation of a two state investigation. The end
result was... You are a kook.

Antonio L. and wife Norma I. Santana of 1064 Everett St in Camden NJ. Phone
856-968-0004. This couple are devoted to silencing an apostate whistle
blower who helps people escape from the Watchtower Society.

The Santana's attend the Spanish Speaking congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses in Camden NJ.

Which you are all invited to....
And Carol, I still own you.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now then maybe we can get back on topic.
.
User: "The Apostate"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 - WARNING!!!!!!!!!! 04 Jun 2007 09:31:43 AM
"JabriolZarek" aka Ghent aka jabriol aka Antonio<jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com>
wrote in message news:H2R8i.4885$554.1781@trnddc07... (SNNNIIPPPPPPP jabber
BS)
Remember when you wrote this Antonio? You're pathetic. It didn't gain you
one bit of sympathy from anyone but for the first time in you wretched life
you were honest about what you are and how you see yourself:
Ghent (aka JABRIOL/Antonio L Santana) said this about himself in:
news:1174085588.281549.270940@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
"But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night."
.



User: ""

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 03 Jun 2007 01:41:27 PM
On 3 jun, 17:43, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

snip...look what the article said right at the begining:

"It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago. a tiny living cell
emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its
progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns
down through billions of generations. "

This is about as bad as "God did it"

Abiogenesis has not been duplicated in a lab via the scientific method,
therefore the above statement require "faith" on the same level that
"God did it"

the artcles continue: "Scientists in the last couple of years have been
trying to create novel forms of life from scratch. They've forged
chemicals into synthetic DNA, the DNA into genes, genes into genomes,
and built the molecular machinery of completely new organisms in the
lab-organisms that are nothing like anything nature has produced."

Re inventing the wheel?

Synthetic DNA is not creating or making DNA from scartch, it
reassembling old DNA material into new structures:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041119214104data_trunc_sys.shtml

More detailed here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_...

Therefore the Budikaka article of creating life is misleading, scientist
are just developing new life form by rearranging already existing DNA
material from previous life form. No abiogenesis here. just genetic
enginering.

a Dog breeder can do the same.

Sorry but I am quite sure a dogbreeder can't do it.
He can only trow the dice and gamble
and the chances of dogbreeder optimizing the number of genes needed to
make a dog, are surely less than for abiogenesis occuring.
(0 is less than 1)
I agree that the gene-engineers didn't start out with single atoms,
but then again, they aren't that stupid:)
Peter van Velzen
June 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
User: "JabriolZarek"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 03 Jun 2007 04:53:14 PM
wrote:

On 3 jun, 17:43, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

snip...look what the article said right at the begining:

"It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago. a tiny living cell
emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its
progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns
down through billions of generations. "

This is about as bad as "God did it"

Abiogenesis has not been duplicated in a lab via the scientific method,
therefore the above statement require "faith" on the same level that
"God did it"

the artcles continue: "Scientists in the last couple of years have been
trying to create novel forms of life from scratch. They've forged
chemicals into synthetic DNA, the DNA into genes, genes into genomes,
and built the molecular machinery of completely new organisms in the
lab-organisms that are nothing like anything nature has produced."

Re inventing the wheel?

Synthetic DNA is not creating or making DNA from scartch, it
reassembling old DNA material into new structures:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041119214104data_trunc_sys.shtml

More detailed here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_...

Therefore the Budikaka article of creating life is misleading, scientist
are just developing new life form by rearranging already existing DNA
material from previous life form. No abiogenesis here. just genetic
enginering.

a Dog breeder can do the same.


Sorry but I am quite sure a dogbreeder can't do it.

true.. not abiogenesis, I was referring to a new species of dog like the
pit bull.


I agree that the gene-engineers didn't start out with single atoms,
but then again, they aren't that stupid:)


No they are not ... stupid are the one who believe genegineer are making
life from scratch.
.
User: "Nolan & Sprigg Inc."

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 04 Jun 2007 12:37:32 AM
"JabriolZarek" [Antonio L Santana/JABRIOL]<jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com> wrote
in message news:eLG8i.2968$554.1608@trnddc07...
< FLUSH JABBER aka Ghent aka "JabriolZarek" BS >
The couple known as the Santanas, violent criminals, who are trying to find
someone online to murder the Gulleys by suffocation or throat slashing are:
Antonio L. and wife Norma I. Santana of 1064 Everett St in Camden NJ. Phone
856-968-0004. This couple are devoted to silencing an apostate whistle
blower who helps people escape from the Watchtower Society.
The Santana's attend the Spanish Speaking congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses in Camden NJ. Antonio L Santana knows what he is and posted this
message on 3/16/07:
Ghent (aka JABRIOL/Antonio L Santana) said this about himself in:
news:1174085588.281549.270940@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
"But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night."
He knows what he is and admits it. He hides behind the WTS like a theif
hides behind a bush.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 04 Jun 2007 12:35:52 PM
On 3 jun, 23:53, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

On 3 jun, 17:43, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:


snip...look what the article said right at the begining:


"It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago. a tiny living cell
emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its
progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns
down through billions of generations. "


This is about as bad as "God did it"


Abiogenesis has not been duplicated in a lab via the scientific method,
therefore the above statement require "faith" on the same level that
"God did it"


the artcles continue: "Scientists in the last couple of years have been
trying to create novel forms of life from scratch. They've forged
chemicals into synthetic DNA, the DNA into genes, genes into genomes,
and built the molecular machinery of completely new organisms in the
lab-organisms that are nothing like anything nature has produced."


Re inventing the wheel?


Synthetic DNA is not creating or making DNA from scartch, it
reassembling old DNA material into new structures:


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041119214104data_trunc_sys.shtml


More detailed here:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_...


Therefore the Budikaka article of creating life is misleading, scientist
are just developing new life form by rearranging already existing DNA
material from previous life form. No abiogenesis here. just genetic
enginering.


a Dog breeder can do the same.


Sorry but I am quite sure a dogbreeder can't do it.


true.. not abiogenesis, I was referring to a new species of dog like the
pit bull.

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.
It' quite an amazing feat, but if done with dogs, then too a dog
breeder it wouldn't be a new race (a pitbull is not a seperate
species!) as the outer appearance wouldn't change, it would be the the
same race (dog-breeders do not care one bit for redundant DNA).




I agree that the gene-engineers didn't start out with single atoms,
but then again, they aren't that stupid:)


No they are not ... stupid are the one who believe genegineer are making
life from scratch.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

I suppose they could now make lieve from a given bleuprint,
but in order to do it from scratch they possible need a oxygen free
atmosphere covering all the world and 500 million years.
I don't think that these conditions can be met:)
And maybe even that wouldn't be enough and they might need a billion
solar systems in order to succeed in one
(stole that idea from "The God delusion" Dawkinns isn't stupid either)
Peter van Velzen
June 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
User: "JabriolZarek"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 04 Jun 2007 06:23:51 PM
wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.

Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.



I agree that the gene-engineers didn't start out with single atoms,
but then again, they aren't that stupid:)

No they are not ... stupid are the one who believe genegineer are making
life from scratch.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -


I suppose they could now make lieve from a given bleuprint,
but in order to do it from scratch they possible need a oxygen free
atmosphere covering all the world and 500 million years.

Stanley Miller tried and failed.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 05 Jun 2007 10:35:34 AM
On 5 jun, 01:23, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.


Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.

Well the title of this thread may assume a little to much.
"recreating" would be a better word
but what they did is interesting nevertheless
especially for Budikka who sees many of his posts - where he mentions
redundant DNA over and over again - confirmed.


I agree that the gene-engineers didn't start out with single atoms,
but then again, they aren't that stupid:)

No they are not ... stupid are the one who believe genegineer are making
life from scratch.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -


- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -


I suppose they could now make lieve from a given bleuprint,
but in order to do it from scratch they possible need a oxygen free
atmosphere covering all the world and 500 million years.


Stanley Miller tried and failed.

I don't know him but I assume he didn't have the nescessairy resources
I mentioned above:)
Best to you
whether or not you desserve the adjectives thrown at you by other
atheists.
Peter van Velzen
May 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
User: "Budikka666"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 05 Jun 2007 07:21:44 PM
On Jun 5, 10:35 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 5 jun, 01:23, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.


Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.


Well the title of this thread may assume a little to much.
"recreating" would be a better word

Then it would be "Recreating Life 1.0". The "2.0" is why they use the
word "Creating".
The "creation" is of life that has never (to our knowledge) been seen
on Earth - and by an artifical as opposed to a purely evolutionary
method.
This *is* actually intelligent design, and the reason why the
creationists are so terrified of it is that it will show up that lie
for what it is. When we have real examples of intelligently designed
life we'll see once and for all just how short natural life falls of
this appellation.
[snipped rest]
Budikka
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 06 Jun 2007 04:57:08 PM
On 6 jun, 02:21, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

On Jun 5, 10:35 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 5 jun, 01:23, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:


pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.


Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.


Well the title of this thread may assume a little to much.
"recreating" would be a better word


Then it would be "Recreating Life 1.0". The "2.0" is why they use the
word "Creating".

The "creation" is of life that has never (to our knowledge) been seen
on Earth - and by an artifical as opposed to a purely evolutionary
method.

This *is* actually intelligent design, and the reason why the
creationists are so terrified of it is that it will show up that lie
for what it is. When we have real examples of intelligently designed
life we'll see once and for all just how short natural life falls of
this appellation.
[snipped rest]

Budikka

The reason I think "creation" (2.0 or not) is a bit much, is that I
presume the scientists have been using DNA to begin with, if they
started out with mere Amino-acids, I stand corrected.
Peter van Velzen
June 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
User: "Budikka666"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 06 Jun 2007 05:01:53 PM
On Jun 6, 4:57 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 6 jun, 02:21, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:



On Jun 5, 10:35 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:


On 5 jun, 01:23, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:


pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.


Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.


Well the title of this thread may assume a little to much.
"recreating" would be a better word


Then it would be "Recreating Life 1.0". The "2.0" is why they use the
word "Creating".


The "creation" is of life that has never (to our knowledge) been seen
on Earth - and by an artifical as opposed to a purely evolutionary
method.


This *is* actually intelligent design, and the reason why the
creationists are so terrified of it is that it will show up that lie
for what it is. When we have real examples of intelligently designed
life we'll see once and for all just how short natural life falls of
this appellation.
[snipped rest]


Budikka


The reason I think "creation" (2.0 or not) is a bit much, is that I
presume the scientists have been using DNA to begin with, if they
started out with mere Amino-acids, I stand corrected.

I may be wrong, but I think they're actually "growing" the DNA.
Exactly how they're doing this, I'm not sure. But remember that it's
very early days in this, and there's no telling what they'll be able
to do a decade from now.
But I think your standards are "artificially" high! I mean, would you
consider your builder a cheat if he didn't actually create the bricks
from wet clay before he used them to build your house?!!
Budikka
.
User: "JabriolZarek"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 06 Jun 2007 05:21:01 PM
Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 6, 4:57 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 6 jun, 02:21, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:



On Jun 5, 10:35 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 5 jun, 01:23, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.

Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.

Well the title of this thread may assume a little to much.
"recreating" would be a better word

Then it would be "Recreating Life 1.0". The "2.0" is why they use the
word "Creating".
The "creation" is of life that has never (to our knowledge) been seen
on Earth - and by an artifical as opposed to a purely evolutionary
method.
This *is* actually intelligent design, and the reason why the
creationists are so terrified of it is that it will show up that lie
for what it is. When we have real examples of intelligently designed
life we'll see once and for all just how short natural life falls of
this appellation.
[snipped rest]
Budikka

The reason I think "creation" (2.0 or not) is a bit much, is that I
presume the scientists have been using DNA to begin with, if they
started out with mere Amino-acids, I stand corrected.


I may be wrong, but I think they're actually "growing" the DNA.
Exactly how they're doing this, I'm not sure. But remember that it's
very early days in this, and there's no telling what they'll be able
to do a decade from now.

SO much For Budikaka and her desire to debate. If she would have read
my original replies to my post, she would have noted the sites I've
mentioned about synthetic DNA, which would have made her look the fool.
--scratch that-- she looks the fool now.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 07 Jun 2007 11:09:09 AM
On 7 jun, 00:21, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 6, 4:57 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 6 jun, 02:21, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:


On Jun 5, 10:35 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 5 jun, 01:23, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.

Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.

Well the title of this thread may assume a little to much.
"recreating" would be a better word

Then it would be "Recreating Life 1.0". The "2.0" is why they use the
word "Creating".
The "creation" is of life that has never (to our knowledge) been seen
on Earth - and by an artifical as opposed to a purely evolutionary
method.
This *is* actually intelligent design, and the reason why the
creationists are so terrified of it is that it will show up that lie
for what it is. When we have real examples of intelligently designed
life we'll see once and for all just how short natural life falls of
this appellation.
[snipped rest]
Budikka

The reason I think "creation" (2.0 or not) is a bit much, is that I
presume the scientists have been using DNA to begin with, if they
started out with mere Amino-acids, I stand corrected.


I may be wrong, but I think they're actually "growing" the DNA.
Exactly how they're doing this, I'm not sure. But remember that it's
very early days in this, and there's no telling what they'll be able
to do a decade from now.


SO much For Budikaka and her desire to debate. If she would have read
my original replies to my post, she would have noted the sites I've
mentioned about synthetic DNA, which would have made her look the fool.
--scratch that-- she looks the fool now.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Buddika does not look like a fool to me,
I suppose Budikka - like me - does look up all the sides you mention
in "your original replies" to "your post".
(I suppose you meant to say "her post" , but you didn't)
That however does not make you look a fool,
thinking you make Buddika look like one however might.
Peter van Velzen
June 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.

User: "Budikka666"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 08 Jun 2007 04:24:44 PM
On Jun 6, 5:21 pm, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 6, 4:57 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 6 jun, 02:21, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:


On Jun 5, 10:35 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

On 5 jun, 01:23, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.

Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.

Well the title of this thread may assume a little to much.
"recreating" would be a better word

Then it would be "Recreating Life 1.0". The "2.0" is why they use the
word "Creating".
The "creation" is of life that has never (to our knowledge) been seen
on Earth - and by an artifical as opposed to a purely evolutionary
method.
This *is* actually intelligent design, and the reason why the
creationists are so terrified of it is that it will show up that lie
for what it is. When we have real examples of intelligently designed
life we'll see once and for all just how short natural life falls of
this appellation.
[snipped rest]
Budikka

The reason I think "creation" (2.0 or not) is a bit much, is that I
presume the scientists have been using DNA to begin with, if they
started out with mere Amino-acids, I stand corrected.


I may be wrong, but I think they're actually "growing" the DNA.
Exactly how they're doing this, I'm not sure. But remember that it's
very early days in this, and there's no telling what they'll be able
to do a decade from now.


SO much For Budikaka and her desire to debate.

I'm right here, you pathetic lying piece of chickenshit. But keep
running. It's the onyl thing you *can* do, isn;t it? And everyone
knows it.

If she would have read
my original replies to my post,

Your replies to your post? LoL! Why isn't it a surprise that you're
forced to respond to your own posts to generate some traffic?

she would have noted the sites I've
mentioned about synthetic DNA, which would have made her look the fool.
--scratch that-- she looks the fool now.

Synthetic DNA? LoL! You've got pathetic DNA, Jabbers, and that's all
there is to it.
Budikka
.






User: "Budikka666"

Title: Jabriasshole Still Running Like the Pathetic Chicken He is. 04 Jun 2007 08:38:16 PM
On Jun 4, 6:23 pm, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

The gene engineers didn't do that, they just copied the nescessary
genes from the existing virus leaving out some redundant ones,
maneging to get a new virus that worked almost the same, but with far
less material.


Well, so much for Budikka "creating life" rant.



I agree that the gene-engineers didn't start out with single atoms,
but then again, they aren't that stupid:)

No they are not ... stupid are the one who believe genegineer are making
life from scratch.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -


- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -


I suppose they could now make lieve from a given bleuprint,
but in order to do it from scratch they possible need a oxygen free
atmosphere covering all the world and 500 million years.


Stanley Miller tried and failed.

Any time you can find the guts to actually debate these topics
jabriasshole, I'm here and waiting. I've been waiting for over two
years.
But you don't seem to be able to find two things, do you?
1. The guts to face me in a formal online debate
and
2. The scientific support for your assinine blather!
LoL!
Keep running you pathetic piece of pigshit. Go ahead, do your snip,
you spineless coward. It's all you are, all you're worth. The
"Mighty" Jabriol - reduced to a snip by me! LoL!
Budikka
.
User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?="

Title: Re: Jabriasshole Still Running Like the Pathetic Chicken He is. 04 Jun 2007 09:58:06 PM
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1181007496.524616.180690@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Keep running you pathetic piece of pigshit. Go ahead, do your snip,
you spineless coward. It's all you are, all you're worth. The
"Mighty" Jabriol - reduced to a snip by me! LoL!

He's not so mighty although he desires to be. He's a total nothing, a
loser. He wrote this on rec.ponds when he realized no one gave a crap about
him or his asinine war or attacks on his victim, a regular there. He had a
rare moment of honesty:
Ghent (aka JABRIOL/Antonio L Santana) said this about himself in:
news:1174085588.281549.270940@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
"But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night."
--
SA.........
How did we get here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
=================================
.

User: "JabriolZarek"

Title: Re: Jabriasshole Still Running Like the Pathetic Chicken He is. 05 Jun 2007 04:20:41 AM
Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 4, 6:23 pm, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Any time you can find the guts to actually debate these topics

I just did. I win you lose.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Jabriasshole Still Running Like the Pathetic Chicken He is. 05 Jun 2007 10:38:46 AM
On 5 jun, 11:20, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 4, 6:23 pm, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:


Any time you can find the guts to actually debate these topics


I just did. I win you lose.

True or not,
you just practized some exclusive thinking Jabriol
You should try and find a way in which we all win.
(that is called inclusive thinking)
Best to you again
Peter van Velzen
June 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
User: "JabriolZarek"

Title: Re: Jabriasshole Still Running Like the Pathetic Chicken He is. 05 Jun 2007 04:52:39 PM
wrote:

On 5 jun, 11:20, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 4, 6:23 pm, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
Any time you can find the guts to actually debate these topics

I just did. I win you lose.


True or not,
you just practized some exclusive thinking Jabriol
You should try and find a way in which we all win.
(that is called inclusive thinking)

I do, However with Budikka, her debates are argumentative. And many of
her questions to many so called creationist insults the intelligence of
critical thinkers...
She ask me creationist questions when she knows I am not a creationist.
.
User: "Budikka666"

Title: Re: Jabriasshole Still Running Like the Pathetic Chicken He is. 05 Jun 2007 07:28:09 PM
On Jun 5, 4:52 pm, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

On 5 jun, 11:20, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 4, 6:23 pm, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
Any time you can find the guts to actually debate these topics

I just did. I win you lose.


True or not,
you just practized some exclusive thinking Jabriol
You should try and find a way in which we all win.
(that is called inclusive thinking)


I do, However with Budikka, her debates are argumentative. And many of
her questions to many so called creationist insults the intelligence of
critical thinkers...

No, it highlights how stupid you are, thats why you won't answer them.
You conveniently forget that these questions came **directly** from
stupid things you were posting some two years ago when I first asked
them of you.
I asked them of you in ones and two within individual threads where
you posted and *you ran from them every single time* so I collected
them together and that's what you're still running from two years
later.
You conveneiently forget what an appalling coward you are. Many times
I offered you a debate or a discussion of your material and you ran
every time.
You wouldn't meet challenges, you couldn't support the things you
said, and you would run from even the simplest of questions after
posting the dumbest of material.
In short, you were just like Bob Crowley and you still are. But I
would take him over you any day, because you truly are a low-life.

She ask me creationist questions when she knows I am not a creationist.

So you don't claim there is no evolution? You haven't posted message
after message whining about evolution? You're not a Jehovah's Witness
(or at least a JW wannabe)? You don't claim a god created us?
You're a pathetic liar Jabberhole. And guess what?
*Everyone* knows it! LoL!
Budikka
.
User: "Ips-Switch"

Title: Re: Jabriasshole Still Running Like the Pathetic Chicken He is. 05 Jun 2007 08:59:09 PM
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1181089689.115408.19750@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...


You're a pathetic liar Jabberhole. And guess what?
*Everyone* knows it! LoL!

Could it be possible he realized the Witchtower Society was selling him a
bill of goods and he's joined the ranks of Atheists which he's always looked
down on and ridiculed? After all, if he's not a creationist as are all
JWs, then he believes in evolution - no gods needed.
.










User: "Budikka666"

Title: Professional Liar Jabriol Now Posting as JabriolZarek 03 Jun 2007 05:32:12 PM
On Jun 3, 10:43 am, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
Hey, *****-for-brains, how about answering these questions, which
you've been running from for some two years before you start in on yet
more of your unsupported assinine horseshit and lies?
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #1
http://tinyurl.com/c75ql
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #2
http://tinyurl.com/cla6m
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #3
http://tinyurl.com/d5ku3
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #4
http://tinyurl.com/btmpg
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #5
http://tinyurl.com/7hkz9
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #6
http://tinyurl.com/9c8hp
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #7
http://tinyurl.com/cqanx
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #8
http://tinyurl.com/bqydk
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #9
http://tinyurl.com/dkmd3
And how about apologising for these lies instead of running from them?
Jabriol Lies Series #1
http://tinyurl.com/2w7u9
Jabriol Lies Series #2
http://tinyurl.com/2l9rl
Jabriol Lies Series #3
http://tinyurl.com/27cvs
Jabriol Lies Series #4
http://tinyurl.com/33zrt
Jabriol Lies Series #5
http://tinyurl.com/2t944
Jabriol Lies Series #6
http://tinyurl.com/3776p
Jabriol Lies Series #7
http://tinyurl.com/82da6
Budikka
.
User: "JabriolZarek"

Title: Re: Professional Liar Jabriol Now Posting as JabriolZarek 03 Jun 2007 07:56:45 PM
Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 3, 10:43 am, JabriolZarek <jabriol...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
Hey, s

SSSSSNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
.
User: "Nolan & Sprigg Inc."

Title: Re: Professional Liar Jabriol Now Posting as JabriolZarek 04 Jun 2007 12:38:02 AM
"JabriolZarek" <jabriolzor@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:hrJ8i.2993$554.1069@trnddc07...
< FLUSH JABBER aka Ghent aka "JabriolZarek" BS >
The couple known as the Santanas, violent criminals, who are trying to find
someone online to murder the Gulleys by suffocation or throat slashing are:
Antonio L. and wife Norma I. Santana of 1064 Everett St in Camden NJ. Phone
856-968-0004. This couple are devoted to silencing an apostate whistle
blower who helps people escape from the Watchtower Society.
The Santana's attend the Spanish Speaking congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses in Camden NJ. Antonio L Santana knows what he is and posted this
message on 3/16/07:
Ghent (aka JABRIOL/Antonio L Santana) said this about himself in:
news:1174085588.281549.270940@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
"But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night."
He knows what he is and admits it. He hides behind the WTS like a theif
hides behind a bush.
.




User: "johac"

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 04 Jun 2007 06:29:46 PM
In article <1180878480.023431.237020@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

Newsweek online has an article by Lee Silver called "Life 2.0" about
the work of scientists who are trying to create a new organism:
http://tinyurl.com/27jk8a

At one point the article states:
"...says Tom Knight, a professor at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab
who now focuses his engineering on microbes. 'The genetic code is 3.6
billion years old. It's time for a rewrite.'"!

Later we read:
"As a first step, Endy chose to design and construct a synthetic
bacterial virus modeled after a natural one named T7, which was
already well understood. Unlike T7, the synthetic virus (christened
T7.1) was stripped of unnecessary complexity in both design and
function-it was reorganized to be sleek and efficient with 57 separate
genes encoded in a 40,000-letter-long genome. And although its code
was just a distant, unnatural facsimile of nature's creation, T7.1
still behaves like a virus, infecting and reproducing inside bacterial
cells."

This looks like good stuff. We know how to make synthetic viruses. Now
we can start varying genomes and look at the effects on viral
replication and the cell which is infected.
These viruses can also be used as vectors to add 'unnatural' genes to
existing organisms thus constructing in effect new organisms.
By the way, I noticed in the MSNBC article, they had a poll asking: "Do
you think it is a good idea to let scientists create life in the
laboratory?" The results were 45% Yes, 45%, No, 10% undecided. Science
education has a long way to go.


Budikka

--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 03 Jun 2007 10:06:49 AM
On 3 jun, 15:48, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

Newsweek online has an article by Lee Silver called "Life 2.0" about
the work of scientists who are trying to create a new organism:http://tinyurl.com/27jk8a

At one point the article states:
"...says Tom Knight, a professor at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab
who now focuses his engineering on microbes. 'The genetic code is 3.6
billion years old. It's time for a rewrite.'"!

Later we read:
"As a first step, Endy chose to design and construct a synthetic
bacterial virus modeled after a natural one named T7, which was
already well understood. Unlike T7, the synthetic virus (christened
T7.1) was stripped of unnecessary complexity in both design and
function-it was reorganized to be sleek and efficient with 57 separate
genes encoded in a 40,000-letter-long genome. And although its code
was just a distant, unnatural facsimile of nature's creation, T7.1
still behaves like a virus, infecting and reproducing inside bacterial
cells."

Budikka

You shouldn't have said it was "christened",
now theist may think it ony became alive after this magic event:)
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Creating Life 2.0 04 Jun 2007 07:19:25 AM
On Jun 3, 11:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

Newsweek online has an article by Lee Silver called "Life 2.0" about
the work of scientists who are trying to create a new organism:http://tinyurl.com/27jk8a

At one point the article states:
"...says Tom Knight, a professor at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab
who now focuses his engineering on microbes. 'The genetic code is 3.6
billion years old. It's time for a rewrite.'"!

Later we read:
"As a first step, Endy chose to design and construct a synthetic
bacterial virus modeled after a natural one named T7, which was
already well understood. Unlike T7, the synthetic virus (christened
T7.1) was stripped of unnecessary complexity in both design and
function-it was reorganized to be sleek and efficient with 57 separate
genes encoded in a 40,000-letter-long genome. And although its code
was just a distant, unnatural facsimile of nature's creation, T7.1
still behaves like a virus, infecting and reproducing inside bacterial
cells."

Budikka

So they started with the whole organism and worked backwards?
In other words, they had a fully functioning car and they took out the
seats, the headlights, the horn and some other items. Surprise,
surprise - the thing still moved along the road.
But they didn't just put all the disassembled parts on the road -- all
the bolts and screws, wiring, nuts, wheels, camshafts, spark plugs,
oil, water and try to see it would assemble itself without any help?
I suppose if you threw enough nuts, washers and stuff in a huge pile
and then just chucked oil and gas into it, it would naturally form
working mechanical entities?
That's what you're saying happened in the biological context.
.


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER