This article is very interesting. As you're reading it, consider the number of scientists (designers) working on this project, the number of times they mention create or design, and what the finished product will *really* tell us about how the complexity we find in nature today evolved from that first living molecule. Also consider how much time and effort the designers put forth trying to find the perfect molecules in which to experiment on. In the end, we're still left with this:
Conjuring simple life from nonlife in a dish would no doubt raise comparisons with the emergence of the first living cells on Earth about 4 billion years ago. "The closer we get to a simple system, the closer we get to a good early cell model," Murtas said at Synthetic Biology 3.0.
But the analogy is not perfect. As Murtas points out, "Using [modern] biological molecules, I find it hard to believe that an early simple cell ... can ever have existed with only 30 to 40 genes." But how could it be possible for the first cells to have already evolved more than 40 working genes?
The synthetic minimal cell envisioned by Forster and Church wouldn't reveal much about how life began. For one thing, the protein and gene "parts" from which scientists would build such a cell are all modern molecules shaped by millions or billions of years of evolution. Assembling these parts into a simpler system would be like building a Model T using Honda parts: It wouldn't turn back the hands of time on the parts themselves.
Gosh, I know evolutionists will read this article and jump for joy thinking that this is some kind of major breakthrough, but when I read it, all I see is the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for a Designer. Their lab is full of them!
