Origin of Life

College Confidential Community
261

<p>
[quote]
Shouldn't we spend the money we pour into finding the origin of life instead into more beneficial research?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>surprisingly, I agree with you there, because I'm a NIH employee, and I've been seeing some budget cutbacks, and since NIH is going much more into biodefense, that means less money for people like me in basic research or people who are in other things like process development.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Those antibiotics were discovered without having to rely on evolutionary theory

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I know that, I was running a fever, lightheaded, and I had no idea what I was doing, so I'll say, whoops!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nothing in biology makes sense if evolution never occurs

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I say that because I do believe in evolution. How could proteins develop an entire complex coding system dedicated to their production? How did anything develop?</p>

<p>You may argue that God created everything, but I don't see any concrete scientific evidence that He did.</p>

<p>One example of short-term evolution: the HIV virus. It's well known for its ability to mutate rapidly, hence our inability to develop a useful vaccine. However, there do exist biopharmaceuticals that can block HIV infection (I work with one of them in my lab). Let us assume for the sake of argument that "pill X" was a successful biopharmaceutical that attached to the HIV's gp120 binding site and therefore, prevented the virus particle from attaching to a T-cell.</p>

<p>Well, pill X can't just simply attach to gp120, it has to attach to something on gp120, like a specific carbohydrate configuration in the gp120 glycoprotein.</p>

<p>There is a certain carbohydrate configuration that pill X attaches to. It's a very fundamental one found in 99% of all HIV viral particles. pill X is given to infected people all over the world, and HIV is nearly eradicated. However, that 1% were somehow mutants from the rest and were able to resist pill X still, and that 1% can spread out and infect others.</p>

<p>1% may nto sound like much, but since around 40 million people are infected worldwide, 1% is still a good chunk. Some of those people are still having sex thinking they're cured... some might not even know they had the virus to begin with. In fact, 25% of infected Americans do not know of their infection.</p>

<p>Anyway, HIV has now evolved to a different glycoprotein structure.</p>

<p>And even though the above situation is hypothetical, I based it off of real events:</p>

<p>3 years ago my current supervisor developed something called CV-N which does exactly what I described above: binds to the gp120 carbohydrate configuration. To test the efficacy of CV-N on various mutants, we had another lab group develop mutant after mutant after mutant of HIV. There was in fact, one mutant that resisted CV-N.</p>

262

<p>By the way, the when I say the virus resists something, it doesn't mean that the virus actually has defense mechanisms that can fight off CV-N.</p>

<p>Rather, it simply means that the resisting virus has mutated its glycoprotein structure so that CV-N no longer recognizes the new structure and therefore cannot bind to it.</p>

263

<p>
[quote]
endeavor to satisfy curiosity

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, like all mathematics and half of science? Great, I suppose all of us with any interest in these things are foolish.</p>

264

<p>"Oh, like all mathematics and half of science? Great, I suppose all of us with any interest in these things are foolish."</p>

<p>Hello? Mathematics is the reason we haven't already lost all online security (RSA, for example). Anyhow, Computer Science and Number Theory generally aren't required topics in high school curricula. Why then is the Origin of Life covered?</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with endeavors to satisfy curiosity. But there IS something wrong with attributing too much importance to those endeavors.</p>

265

<p>Oh, and as to the distinction we creationists draw between microevolution and macroevolution, by what right do you evolutionists draw a distinction between the Big Bang and biogenesis?</p>

<p>Things do evolve...within limits. That's my opinion.</p>

266

<p>The argument that evolutionary biologists make is that microevolution over time amounts to large change. Macroevolution is a series of microevolutions. Why should there be a limit to where things can evolve. Biologists have evidence on their side, there is no evidence of a limit. The Bing Bang is a physical theory of the origin of the universe. If you are up to it, read the original paper by Hawking and Penrose. Biogenesis is considered purely a biological science. Those educated proponents of the Big Bang theory do not make claims about evoultion or the origin of man. They stick to their physical theories. Same thing with biologists. They are two seperate things.</p>

267

<p>
[quote]
Hello? Mathematics is the reason we haven't already lost all online security (RSA, for example). Anyhow, Computer Science and Number Theory generally aren't required topics in high school curricula.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I suppose then that the 100 years of number theory discoveries before we used RSA, number theorists were thinking about the computer applications of nt. Get real. Hardy once said that he prefers this branch best because it has no applications.</p>

<p>Yeah, curiosity matters. That's why we're humans - because we wonder about why stuff happens. We don't just accept things the way they are - we think about it. And so what if number theory isn't covered in high school? That's just a weakness of the US school system.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There's nothing wrong with endeavors to satisfy curiosity. But there IS something wrong with attributing too much importance to those endeavors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So since you've got nothing to say, now the origin of life isn't important. Why argue in this post? Please, stop insulting all the scientists out there who investigate because they are curious. You're just embarassing yourself with these statements.</p>

268

<p>"So since you've got nothing to say, now the origin of life isn't important. Why argue in this post? Please, stop insulting all the scientists out there who investigate because they are curious. You're just embarassing yourself with these statements."
tetrahedr0n, I'll say more once you explain gravity's coffee break to me.</p>

<p>"Hardy once said that he prefers this branch best because it has no applications."
Did Hardy go around calling people idiots because they didn't care for his branch of science?</p>

269

<p>Tanonev, most people don't care enough for math in general to argue about number theory. Fact is, only a select group of individuals have a passion for number theory, myself included since I am trying to improve my olympiad-style math.</p>

<p>Evolution by common descent runs directly counter to what ID advocates want us - high school students - to learn.</p>