Aditya Malik writes "Wired has a very interesting story up about how a lab led by Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School, is building 'protocells' from artifical molecules which are very close to satisfying the conditions for being 'alive'.
"Szostak's protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication. Combined with a process that harnesses external energy from the sun or chemical reactions, they could form a self-replicating, evolving system that satisfies the conditions of life, but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe."
This obviously throws up very interesting questions about creationism, not to mention some scary bio-research-gone-wild scenarios."
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
This doesn't throw up any questions about Creation. Actually, to the contrary. Despite the fact that this doesn't even come close to "life" as we know it, a biologist creating something isn't a model of evolutionism, but of Creation. If anything, it would validate a Creator. You see, those believing in evolutionism think that all life as we know it "happened" without any intervention, be it God or man, or anything. So a biologist creating something actually is an invalidation of evolutionism.
No, not even close (Score:1)