Thank you so much for cross posting this important information in
alt.free.newsservers. Otherwise I would not have seen it and would not
have learned of this important information. Please keep up the good work.
I know it's not on-topic at alt.free.newsservers, but I assure you that all
subscribers to alt.free.newsservers are in your debt for making us aware of
these facts.
Please cross post to the rest of usenet where it will be just as welcome. I
know that the people at rec.ponds may have missed it.
Follow-ups set.
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:25:52 -0500, FloorDragonBrown
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
If all the amino acids had to come together at once to form a protein,
you might be right. However, the earliest form of life may not have used
any protein we'd recognize. It may not have used proteins at all. It
could have been as simple as a molecule that acted as a catalyist,
creating copies of itself from availible simpler molecules.
Life as we know it was built up in stages, not all at once.
Speculation. look at another instance that biologists tried and the
failures was swept under the proverbial rug, another type of
laboratory experiment that has been publicized in newspapers as
"creating life." With complex equipment scientists have taken a virus
produced by a living organism and separated the components. Later they
have taken these components and reunited them into a virus. However,
biologist René Dubos explains in the Encyclopœdia Britannica that it
is really a mistake to call this feat "creating life." Neither these
scientists nor others have been able to make new life from inanimate
material. Rather than suggesting that life comes from chance, this
experiment showed that "all the biological machinery" needed for life
"had to be provided by preexisting life." Even if scientists could
produce living protein from inanimate matter, it would simply confirm
that preexisting intelligent life was needed as a directing force.
.
