The announcement that scientists have created so-called “synthetic ” life are in the headlines but the claims are simply false. What the scientists have actually accomplished is synthetically creating the “code” that goes into a cell, the DNA. While life is not possible without DNA dna is not, in itself, “life”.

So while DNA is not alive, and creating it synthetically has been hailed as a huge scientific breakthrough are we closer or further from determining the origin of life? In a way, yes we are, because now scientists can see how one incredibly complex component of life can be created. Now they can perhaps come up with theories of ways that such could have been created in nature and not in a laboratory. In other words, now that they have an actual process that can create the component they can now formulate theories of how nature could, itself, create that component. I look forward to seeing those theories develop in the coming months and years.

But as such work relates to the origin of life they still have such a long, long way to go. The scientists injected the DNA into a cell, and the cell then used the DNA to start replicating itself. They had the corresponding component (the cell) to accompany their own, new component. The origin of life then, is intricately tied to both the cell and the DNA. Life cannot start unless both come together as one.

A theory for origin of life must therefore start from a point where DNA and the cell evolved separately.  Such a proposition does seem quite absurd especially since evolutionary theory require huge amounts of time for random probability to enable such transformation.  For DNA and cells to evolve (sans DNA) to have evolved separately the evidence should have both readily available and numerous througfhout nature in today’s environement as well. After all, they are the basic building block.

No tags

With “synthetic life” being all over the headlines these days the discussion usually includes the possibilty of ’something’ escaping in a Frankenstein type way and causing “more” harm than good.

But what if something escaped and wiped out a continent’s entire population? Should the world accept a simple “Oops, where sorry and we promise we won’t let it happen again” from the scientists involved or should they be charged with unleashing ‘wepaons of mass destruction’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ charges?

in my own family tree I have a grandmother that I never met that died from the flu in 1918. It may or may not have been the same strain that had wiped out millions a few years earlier, I don’t know, but the possibility is certainly there. A few years ago, Canadian scientists discovered a corpse in the permanently frozen areas of that country that had died from what has become known as the deadliest flu virus ever to rage through the planet. The scientist began to culture that virus AGAIN, supposedly in order to help us.

The basic question I am asking is whether science is truly worthy to receive carte blance to gamble with millions of lives (that would be the cost of their failure to keep the deadly agent contained) and not face consequences if they fail.

I believe they should face dire consequences if they fail. After all, if a person murders another they will get life in prison and/or the death penalty. What would a fitting penalty be for scientists that killed millions or more? In such a scenario it almost seems life in prison and even death does not serve as enough punishment.

It basically comes down to statistics and probability. The ‘chance’ or ‘odds’ of their work escaping is minuscule they will tell us. And the cure? Well, we can depend on them for that too, they will say, so again the ‘odds’ and ‘probability’ are minuscule that the escape could lead to catastrophe. But just like a gambler at a roulette table, the losing roll will come up. That is also odds and probability. So what do we do when that happens?

While dealing with the punishment when it happens or shortly after would be an emotionally charged time where reason would probably be put to the wayside, we can deliberate and discuss the possibility rationnally now so that, heaven forbid, the unlikely happens we have at done at least some preparation.

At the root of such a deliberation is the problem, I think, of coming up with a punishment fitting the crime.As stated earlier, a murder of one gets a sizeable penalty so a murderer of millions should get an even greater penalty. So could/should a punishment “worst than death” be devised for any scientists that let such a catastrophe happen?

No tags

In a previous post I made I May Have Met A Neanderthal Or Two I wrote some points about a BBC article regarding an article claiming our (homo sapien) similarities with Neanderthals. Well, the BBC came out with a follow up (complete with charts and everything) and it turns out the French (of which I am 100% French Canadian ancestry) are among the most closely related to the Neanderthals. So, if they are right, I most often met a Neanderthal when I looked in the mirror. AMAZing! My ex was right?

No tags

The headlines read “A Human-Like” Fossil discovered and, of course, caught my attention. Briefly, the article makes it sound like the discovery of the proverbially “missing link” but does not come out that pointedly and say that.

While there is a huge diffence between what the general public believes Evolutionary theory is as compared to what the scientific community believes it is, there is a general belief in the idea that there is A (singular) missing link that will be found and will tie it all together.

The article states

A. sediba has a fascinating mix of features – some archaic, some modern.
…
Its small teeth, projecting nose, very advanced pelvis, and long legs throw forward to more modern forms. And yet its very long arms and small brain case might echo the much older Australopithecine group to which Professor Berger and colleagues have assigned it.

There is a principle commonly understood among animal breeders that the larger the number of traits that one selects for, the more difficult and slower the progress towards success in all of them. In other words, if I create a “wish list” that I want a cow that makes 50% more milk, but has excellent feet, excellent udder health, and has small calves I’ve created four criteria and unless a creature excels in ALL of them they may actually hurt in the area that they don’t excel in. So while it is much easier to make progress in one trait it is far more difficult to make progress in all areas.

We can look at the effect of human selection of such things as horses, dogs, swine, poultry etc. There have been tremendous changes affected by INTELLIGENT selection (but not random selection) and breeders have been able to often overcome the challenge of making progress in multiple traits simultaneously.

The problem with the report about the fossil discovery is the relatively large list of differences that the fossil has and that the physical differences (not genetic) become the basis for determining its species. While there are long armed, big toothed, small brained humans they don’t constitute a different species on account of those traits .

Another aspect of the equation is to consider how much potential change can one reasonably expect per generation. While nature certainly throws the occasional mutation the chances of that being the cause of five improvements (as we see it) are slim. Things that affect the probability of anything like that happening are dependent upon the generation interval, how long the time period where the changes have been observed, and the population or gene pool (related to the number of generations).

A farmer with a small herd has fewer opportunities for genetic improvement than a farmer with a larger herd. A farmer slecting for certain traits for a longer period of time could be expected to have made more progress in a certain direction than a farmer doing it for a shorter period of time.

While the discovery of a “human-like” creature may seem like a step towards a “missing link” it can also work the opposite. For example, as stated, to make those genetic changes one would expect large numbers of fossils (many generations) rather than few. Also, placing a date on the new find affects the time left remaining (in the time line graph of Evolution) that is available for the rest of the genetic changes to occur.

As to what is human like we can see that elephants have ears, and humans have ears. I guess it can be said it is up to us, then, to decide if that makes them human like.

No tags

Imaginary global warming huh? We’re starting to see islands disappearing under the waves.

Doesn’t sound very imaginary to me but what do I know?

No tags

I met a psychiatry student on the bus yesterday while on my way to an entrepreneur MeetUp. We had discussion on a wide array of issues and among them I asked if he had come across anything proving or disproving the claim that we humans only use 10% of our brains. His reply, for what it is worth, was that there was not, and a major area of his own studies was to “unleash” the unused potential of our brains”.

I would not have bothered writing about this except an article appeared in the BBC about “sophisticated” ancient humans etching on ostrich eggs. that brought my bus conversation back to my memory. The article puts a date on the etchings at 40,000 years ago.

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that in order for a “creature” to be classified “human” it requires that the creature have the same brain capacity that we have today. In other words, a larger brain is a trait of being human and our brains have not “evolved” anymore beyond that point where humans became a distinct species. If it had, we would have different species and subspecies of humans, each with larger brains than its predecessor.

So, based on my assumption then, I would believe the brain of the egg etchers were the same as ours but they were “primitive” by our standards because they lacked knowledge (specifically the knowledge written by previous generations which has accumulated over time). Had they had access to the wealth of knowledge we have today their brains would have been able to assimilate that knowledge as well as we do.

So now back to my bus buddy. I pointed out to him how odd it would be for a “creature” to evolve any unused capacity since evolutionary theory states that the traits that enable better survival are passed on. If evolving a brain with higher capacity resulted in higher survival that creature would flourish. If it was a detriment to survival it would diminish in the population. But it makes absolutely no sense that a creature would evolve any capacity and then NOT use it?

From what I gathered from my bus buddy, it is commonly accepted that we, as humans, have untapped potential. That is easy to accept just as presented but to then say that the untapped potential evolved would require some supporting scientific evidence. For example, how much “untapped” brain power does a chimp have? Are they at 10%? 20%? 50%? If they have, then in theory, at least, they could be also trained to surpass their used portion, tap into their unused portion, and the total then could easily surpass what humans utilize as a norm.

Evolutionist put forth a lot of ideas but the ideas they put forth also lead to other questions. If we look at the Creationist view, and the Biblical account of that event, then the explanation of why we have untapped brain power is readily explained. The entire Creation story has humans starting at a higher level, falling from that higher level, and being restored to that higher level. That seems to line up better with the unused brain capacity observation than the evolutionary theory does.

But what do I know, I’m still trying to tap into my own untapped brain power as I write.

No tags

This BBC article brings focus to an interesting dilemna created by the transient nature of information on the Internet and whether it should be archived or not. According to the article, a group that does, in fact, do archiving of websites describe how the vast majority of what gets posted on the web eventualy vanishes forever. It made me realize there is a paradox, a big one, in our current understanding of “right” when it comes to printed and written information.

The point that triggered this was when they said they needed the owner’s permission in order to archive the material. Well, that was news to me, and kind of a surprise, but I don’t live in the UK. Would the same permission be ruined if I wanted to place someone’s book in a time capsule for 1000 years?

There lies the paradox. We obtain certain rights when we get possession of written material. We can hide that book away for whatever time or reason we want. Why can’t that be done with information on a website?

The difference must be in the licenses conveyed, or more specifically the license that government or society is imparting to what I put on the web. In this case it is the government placing the curb on the uses of the material. But it seems this is an over-reach because they would not/could not do the same for books, movies, video, audio etc.

it all other mediums it is understood that there is a point when the material has left the control of the creator and it become the property of the holder to do with it almost whatever they choose. It is well understood that they do not have the right to distribute the material. That is not the case mentioned in the article.

So, I guess I’m at a loss as to why the UK government is maintaining such a position? It seems more like a power grab than it does of their protecting intellectual property.

No tags

I love it when they make scientific discoveries. One discovery can cause a cascade of rethinks, revamps and uh-ohs to a whole lot of other ideas built on a previously used false premise. Then what happens is a lot of “scientists” set out to debunk the new discovery in order to protect their own beliefs. People are people and it is their heart (which is evil or not depending on their position with God) that directs the mind…

Anyway, here is an article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8448660.stm that says (about the Neanderthals)…

“these earlier Upper Palaeolithic humans are not simply older versions of [today's] humanity”.

So, since “humans” didn’t evolve from Neanderthals and since it takes a lot of mutations to change a person (for good or bad see my article on smoking and cancer research ) then then the so-called gap between humans and a predecessor just got even bigger.

No tags