Moderator: Welcome to Relevant Question. Tonight we have Professor Nong Ling of Dolphin Island University, specialist in evolutionary genetics, Dr. Samuel J. Noster of the California Institute of Neogenetics, Gates prize winner for his work on elucidating the mechanism of the lotus plasmid, and Dr. Patricia E. Lebacqz of Collett University, theologician and genetic ethicist. Today's question deals with Professor Ling's controversial views on the origin of life on Earth. Professor Ling, could you explain your theory?

Ling: Thank you. My research area is evolutionary genetics, the study of how the genetic code evolves. We have gone from the simple point mutation models of early neodarwinians to increasingly sophisticated mathematical models of genetic evolutionary flows. Today we have an accurate map of how every species is related to every other, despite things like horizontal gene transfer and the Miyasakow limit. We also have a thorough understanding of alternate forms of evolution from our simulations, showing what kind of circumstances allow what kind of adaptations to occur.

This brings us to the discoveries of "neogenetics". What it all boils down to is the existence of a very sophisticated system for genetic reprogramming that is an integral part of all living beings of Earth. The question I ask is: is it possible for evolution to design a system such as this?

My analysis shows that it is exceedingly unlikely, practically impossible to evolve in any natural way. Even the smallest deviation from the neogenetic machinery turns out to be highly lethal for the deviant cell. This means neogenetics cannot evolve at all - and that it is impossible to reach the neogenetic system through natural evolution.

Moderator: So this suggests that neogenetics is artificial?

Ling: Yes. Not only that: it is integral to the entire genetic code. A genetic code of our kind cannot work without the neogenetic part - both have to be present. This implies that neogenetics could not have been introduced into an already existent code: both have to be designed together.

Moderator: In your paper "On the Origins of Neogenetics and Terrestrial Life" you suggest that it was the Dragons that designed the terrestrial genetic code several billions of years ago.

Ling: That seems to be the only possible outcome. They appear to have had the means and opportunity. Only the motive is lacking.

Moderator: Dr Noster, what do you say of Professor Ling's theory?

Noster: I would not call it a theory. A scientific theory needs to be testable or at least falsifiable. The idea that the Dragons designed the terrestrial genetic code is not possible to test in any way. The part of Professor Ling's work that I admire and consider scientifically valid is the analysis of the stability of neogenetics. It fits with my experience and is a fine work of theoretical evolution. But one cannot derive the origin of terrestrial genetics from it.

Moderator: Do you think terrestrial life was deliberately created?

Noster: At present we have a fairly good model of how life can emerge on prebiotic planets, and I see no reason to abandon it.

Moderator: But if neogenetics cannot evolve, how did it get into our genetic code?

Noster: I think it is fairly clear that the Dragons - or a hypothetical ancestor species - appear to be a likely candidate, but quite later than what Professor Ling thinks. After all, I see no reason why beings that master genetics to the extent as the Dragons could not have designed neogenetics into a pre-existing genome. They arrived here in the past - the remote past, likely the Archean - and for inserted neogenetics into the universal ancestor.

Moderator: Dr. Lebacqz, what is your opinion in this matter?

Lebacqz: I consider it amusing that scientists now agree on the artificiality of terrestrial life but refuse to see that this is evidence of a creator. Moderator: And the Dragons?

Lebacqz: I do not have an opinion on their theological status.