[continued from previous message]   
      
   > already existing design.   
   >   
   > If viruses are considered living, then directed abiogenesis has already   
   > been achieved.   
   >   
   > If you insist on a cell, then we can already produce lipid membranes,   
   > proteins and nucleic acids (up to full bacterial chromosomes) more or   
   > less abiotically. The question is how to put them together, and how much   
   > you need to kick start metabolism when you put them together. You'd need   
   > a genome, RNA polymerases, ribosomes and the rest of the protein   
   > assembly machinery, and a pool of amino acid monomers, ATP, and trace   
   > elements. The unresolved (to my knowledge) is how much can be   
   > bootstrapped through the synthesis and subsequent activity of proteins,   
   > and how much has to be present at the start.   
   >   
   > As you can see, while directed abiogenesis still has unresolved problems   
   > the questions you quote from Deamer are not relevant to the question of   
   > directed abiogenesis. The statements you dismissed as bullshit at first   
   > sight all relate to directed abiogenesis. (On the one hand they're more   
   > optimistic than I am - my guess is 25-50 years, provided scientific   
   > advance doesn't stall; on the other hand they're better qualified than   
   > me to make an estimate.)   
   >   
      
   I appreciate the distinction, and possibly need to make more allowance   
   for it.   
      
   Venter's work bypassed the design problem using an already existing   
   design (genome), and solved the construction problem with impressive   
   molecular manipulation. Though it seems to have little to do with   
   abiogenesis.   
      
   To create an entire replica cell by brute molecular manipulation would   
   be of course even more impressive, but is that really all those examples   
   are aiming to do?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)