Freethought & Rationalism Archive

charlie d · 02-12-2003, 07:02 AM

Also importantly, if all living things did not share the same genetic code and fundamental biochemistry, as well as some physiology (in a predictable, nested, hierarchical fashion), as the result of common descent, very little could be done in terms of purposeful biotechnological modification of organisms.

LiveFreeOrDie · 02-12-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
How do you make a transgenetic bacterium? Well you cut open its DNA with restriction enzymes and then splice your DNA sequence into it. However, this does not always work and you need to be able to retreive the few bacteria for which it does work. This is done through selection. By splicing in a selectable marker along with the target sequence, then only transgenetic bacteria will survive. This is usually done by plating the bacteria on an antibiotic and using a resistance gene as the selectable marker.

<npetreley_mode>

That's just microevolution. Until you demonstrate, in the lab, a bacteria turning into a fish, macroevolution is just a biased interpretation of the evidence, not science.

</npetreley_mode>

MrDarwin · 02-12-2003, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charlie d
Also importantly, if all living things did not share the same genetic code and fundamental biochemistry, as well as some physiology (in a predictable, nested, hierarchical fashion), as the result of common descent, very little could be done in terms of purposeful biotechnological modification of organisms.

Why should this indicate evolution? Sharing a common genetic code and biochemistry--sharing a common design--implies a common designer.

charlie d · 02-12-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Why should this indicate evolution? Sharing a common genetic code and biochemistry--sharing a common design--implies a common designer.

Except that for evolutionary CD this is a necessity, while for any designer-based model it's just an option. So, as an evolutionist I can confidently assume that a gene from jellyfish is going to make a transgenic bunny glow in the dark, while if I were a designist I would first have to check whether bunny and jellyfish share the same genetic code, the same aminoacid biochemistry, the same protein folding pathways etc (indeed, I should do this for every gene in any organism, since a designer could have chosen to have different genes in the same organism use different codes, just for fun).

KC · 02-12-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charlie d
Except that for evolutionary CD this is a necessity, while for any designer-based model it's just an option. So, as an evolutionist I can confidently assume that a gene from jellyfish is going to make a transgenic bunny glow in the dark, while if I were a designist I would first have to check whether bunny and jellyfish share the same genetic code, the same aminoacid biochemistry, the same protein folding pathways etc (indeed, I should do this for every gene in any organism, since a designer could have chosen to have different genes in the same organism use different codes, just for fun).

That is so true. And if one cannot speculate on the identity and/or motives of the designer, one cannot assume ANY option is any more likely than another. This is where ID hamstrings itself, IMNSHO

KC

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2003, 07:02 AM	#11
charlie d Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: here and there Posts: 56	Also importantly, if all living things did not share the same genetic code and fundamental biochemistry, as well as some physiology (in a predictable, nested, hierarchical fashion), as the result of common descent, very little could be done in terms of purposeful biotechnological modification of organisms.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.