I encourage you, if nothing else, to make use of the reply button attached to the post you’re replying to rather than the reply button at the bottom of the page, which attaches to nothing. That would provide at least a little context to help in interpreting your comments. And people need a lot of help.
Scientists are allowed to do such things every day, but not neccessarily to human beings.
The professionals (physicians, clinicians, social workers) who were carrying out these acts felt as though they were doing so with good scientific warrant.
There’s no sense in denying it; virtually any science, or even moral teaching, can be misunderstood and misapplied.
The appendix doesn’t have to digest cellulose to be vitally useful; this alone makes the assumption that it’s a vestigial organ, whose “original” function no longer continues, a suspect one. How do you know it’s a vestigial stomach?
Either way, it amounts to a classification which, if misapplied or misconstrued, can actually be used to do harm.
If it was vitally useful then people would die without it. Obviously, this isn’t the case.
The appendix is part of a large caecum in other species, and that caecum is responsible for digesting plant matter. It doesn’t do that in humans. What we have left is a rudimentary structure that has taken on functions similar to the wings on ostriches.
Vestigial organs can still have function. Please catch up.
what about this paper?:
if its true that for a minimal cell we will need about 100 genes, then the first cell could not evolve stepwise.
It is not true. Solves that problem pretty quickly.
but how do you know that its not true? where is the evidence?
I know that we do not know how many proteins are required for the least complex cell possible and the paper you linked to has nothing to do with this either.
That is the minimal set for modern genes. It says nothing about primordial genes.
first: a tipical gene need big amount of bp to be functional.
second: even if we are talking about simpler genes we are still dealing with about 100 genes. this is a lot.
We aren’t dealing with simple genes. We are dealing with modern genes that are the product of 3+ billion years of evolution. They have evolved within large genomes, so they are adapted to large genomes. The number of modern genes it takes to get a functional cell can not tell us the absolute minimum for a simple organism.
but any tipical gene need big amount of bp even in its minimal state. so this notion isnt true.
no problem. but in sicence we go by the evidence we have and no by the evidence we dont have. so by the evidence we do have any cell we know of need many genes. again: i go by what the evidence show.
It isn’t the number of base pairs that matters. What matters is the function.
We don’t have evidence for how many primordial genes would be in a minimal set.
Exactly. We just do not know.
the function determined by the gene length. so the gene length is important.
so again: i go by what the evidence lead. if we have no evidence for a simpler cell then why we need to believe that such a cell exist? its like saying that even if we have no evidence that a blue cat exist, we can still believe that such a cat exist. thats make no sense.
There is no correlation between gene length and function for many, many genes. There are functional genes that are just a few hundred base pairs long, and others that are thousands and thousands of base pairs. They all have function.
If we have no evidence of what the sequence of primordial genes were, what functions they had, or how they interacted then we can’t make any claims about how many would be needed for a minimal set. No evidence means no conclusion.
but they have different function in most cases. so a globin for intance need a specific length and an insluin need a specific length etc. so the =specific function determined by the gene length.
so why you conclude that abiogenesis is possible at all? (if you believing so).
Atheists have no choice. They have to believe in abiogenesis – it’s the only game in town.