Slashdot Log In
Researchers One Step Closer To Creating Life
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jan 12, 2009 04:50 PM
from the mad-science dept.
from the mad-science dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute are potentially one step closer to creating life. In an experiment they recently created enzymes that can replicate and evolve. 'It kind of blew me away,' said team member Tracey Lincoln of the Scripps Research Institute, who is working on her Ph.D. 'What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Researchers 1 step closer to 'Life' by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting
I bet robots would fascinate these people.
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Interesting)
Biotech research, and particularly creating artificial, but organic life like systems, is a parallel, and often directly contributory line of research in relation to robotics and AI. The two fields have a steady exchange of ideas.
Parent
Researchers One Step Closer To Creating Life!! (Score:3, Funny)
You mean some scientist out there almost got laid!? This IS one for the headlines! I just hope we'll be able to replicate the results with ease. God knows how many infeasible experiments big organizations have dangled in front of my low budget lab.
Please, noone is even remotely close of creating (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Robots the size of molecules would fascinate me.
Parent
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Interesting)
How many self-replicating-self-assembling robots have you seen. .. 0? The DIY stereo lithograph is close, but that self-assembling bit kills it.
-ellie
Parent
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
I see them everywhere. On the street, at the mall, at work. They don't even know they're self-replicating-self-assembling robots.
Parent
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory XKCD comic:
http://xkcd.com/387/ [xkcd.com]
Parent
Well they would but that's not the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> The primary reason this sort of research is interesting is because it might give
> insight as to how abiogenesis occured
Yeah right. This is just more grant money going to political cronies and left-wing, atheist Washington fat-cats. There has already been enough research on this topic [wikipedia.org] to consider the matter closed.
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
WTF? Is that the best you can do? Your Slashdot license please...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think your average person is content to admit that they don't understand the universe and everything in it. Religious or not.
Atheism is something of a loaded term since people seem to want to equate it with not only not believing in a god, but loudly denying the possibility of one.
What you replied to was a clear troll (or maybe Richard Dawkins), and since you mention "keeping score", please don't add that troll to the atheist side.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fair play to anybody who stands up and says "Fuck off, God doesn't exist, what are you fighting about !". So much energy and life wasted on something whose whole purpose was to promote peace (allegedly).
As a side note, it's vaguely interesting that the spellchecker in firefox complains about not using capital first letter
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO nothing can either prove or disprove the existence of God, at least nothing in the physical world. If god created everything, then he must by definition not be part of it because creation is an action and in order for an action to occur there must be two things A) the thing doing the action and B) the thing being acted on.
here is something to ponder for those of you who only believe the the physical world: Close your eyes, and twiddle your thumbs, now think what told your tumbs to twiddle? your brain
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And where...and where...and where... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you have experienced dickheads so lets take a look at a famous Atheist. Dawkins points out ALL religious people are also Atheists, they just went one god too far. ie: They don't belive in Thor, the FSM, etc, but they do belive in an alpha male in the sky using only blind faith as evidence.
"If life were replicated in a test tube would that disprove the existence of God? Please explain how, as I don't see any logical path of reasoning that leads to that conclusion."
No but it certainly pins the tail on the creationists donkeys. Dawkins entire point is that religion promotes "unthinking as a virtue" and that this permeates into politics and the rest of society. He does not claim he can prove god doesn't exist he claims that there is no evidence and therefore the RATIONAL course of action is to assume he doesn't.
Dawkins has the same fears as Sagan [wikipedia.org] did, and yeah, he's more agressive about it. I suggest you read Dawkins and Sagan's books and think about what they are saying, after all "doubting Thomas" was Jesus' favorite deciple.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Atheism promotes this just as much as religion. Every single atheist I have ever spoken to (hyperbole aside) has had the same mental block as every religious fanatic I have ever spoken to. They can't entertain ideas they don't support. It is truly dogmatic. However, a distinction must be made between "religion" and a belief in God. A belief in the existence of a higher power, whether it is the alpha male, or a mathematical equation or w
Re:And where...and where...and where... (Score:5, Insightful)
That bit of twisted logic is known as the "god of the gaps". Not knowing the answer to everything is not evidence that there exists "a higher power" that does.
"Why is the belief in a higher power any more or less "religious" than the belief in a big bang?"
Science does not prove anything, it provides the best explaination for observations. The observable expansion of the visable universe is EVIDENCE to support the big bang. Science does not claim that god didn't light the fuse, it claims there is no EVIDENCE of a fuse. There are lots of things you can believe in without evidence, such unicorns and fairies, why is a belief in fairies any more or less rational than a belief in "a higher power"?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, scientists have a theory, based on evidence, that there was a big bang. One tiny shred of (verifiable) contradictory evidence, and the big bang would be disproven.
Where did the infinitely massive object come from? Does your faith in science tell you that it was just always there?
No, the o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet you missed the point, science does not prove anything nor does it claim certainty.
"you cannot *prove* that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it doesn't make a sound"
There is evidence that a tree falling over makes a sound, ie: it can be observed. The only leap of faith required to belive a falling tree makes a sound when nobody is listening is that the real world continues to exist when nobody is watching it.
Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
Male Character: "God creates dinosaurs. God kills dinosaurs. Man kills God. Man creates dinosaurs."
Female Character: "Dinosaurs eat man... woman inherits the earth."
Hah!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People are going to jump for the creatures that don't exist anymore: wooly mammoths, sabretooth tigers, dinosaurs, etc.
Man: "Look honey, I made a dragonfly today!"
Wife: "Greaaaaat. I just squashed like 5 of them out back..."
Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Bots... (Score:3, Interesting)
We were so close... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
....In case you missed it, I think God is a concept, not a being...
Well, either your opinion is valid or Moses who talked to God. He asked God what his name was that he should tell the people. God replied: I am, tell them that "I AM" sent you. That expression is related to the word to be and that therefore makes God a being, not merely a concept.
Jesus claimed to be God come to earth. Jesus was very much a living person, just as you are. He proved his claim to deity by rising from the dead after being execut
But, but, (Score:5, Insightful)
Unintelligent design (Score:5, Informative)
Not entirely. According to the paper, they were in part designed by in vitro evolution, an "unintelligent" design method that makes use of random mutation and selection to derive better enzymes. The power of "unintelligent" design mechanisms (of which evolution is one) is that they do not require that the specific solution to a design problem be known in advance.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the mutation procedure used for in vitro evolution is unintelligent and nonspecific and produces both "better" and "worse" enzymes. It is selection that picks out the "better" mutations and discards the worse ones. No intelligence as to what changes will make the enzyme better is required.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
Aren't you be glad that you'd finally be able to create life without the services of a woman?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
Aren't you be glad that you'd finally be able to create life without the services of a woman?
GP appears to be a woman.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is slashdot, and you don't WANT to let 2 women be able to reproduce?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2 girls 1 dish
Here's an NPR story (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bit nicer than the print article: Here [npr.org]
They are very clear in saying that what they have created is "NOT ALIVE."
This is very interesting work.
Re:Here's an NPR story (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Steps to creating life often missed by nerds (Score:3, Funny)
1. Get woman
2. Sleep with woman
3. ????
4. Create life
A small, but crucial difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Strictly speaking they are not creating anything, but contructing it. Creation means "bringing into existence" from nothing; not something withing the boundaries of science, where preservation of energy, mass and what have you are the reality. Constructing a living entity, or one that is nearly living is still an impressive feat and an important step closer to discovering what life is.
Because that is one other thing we don't actually know; we know a lot of living organisms, and a lot of dead things, and they seem to be fundamentally different in some way, but we don't quite know where the boundary goes.
Re:Will never work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is consciousness a prerequisite for life?
Parent
Re:Will never work... (Score:5, Insightful)
..consciousness precedes matter. Just throwing matter together won't magically instill consciousness.
..understanding how the world actually works precedes posting a comment on /. Just throwing comments up on /. won't magically instill understanding of how the world actually works.
Parent
Re:Will never work... (Score:5, Insightful)
...assuming a person with whom you disagree is automatically wrong does not magically make he/she wrong, or anymore detached from reality than you are.
Unless you can point to any evidence, or even a credible sounding theory, which would back up the claim, I can pretty confidently dismiss it. I'm not assuming anything, other than that an unqualified assertion, of such a controversial nature, should be backed up by something.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More conception jokes please! (Score:5, Funny)
Great they cloned Keanu Reeves...
Parent
Obligatory Dave Barry quote (Score:3, Funny)
"Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it."
Easy? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:4, Funny)
If there's a chance it can evolve into Natalie Portman we're on the right track at least...
Parent
Re:Not life...not even close (Score:4, Informative)
You quoted the article, but you didn't read it. This is a huge breakthrough. As in Nobel Prize level. An RNA molecule that is able to directly self-replicate has never been seen before. Your first link is to a structure of an RNA enzyme, not an RNA that is able to make more copies of itself. You're equating a machine that makes lampshades to a lampshade making lampshades. The other link, just because I don't know exactly how the Sun came to be means that it doesn't shine? What exactly is the point of this?
Parent
Replacing God (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, this does not serve as a proof that a deity is unnecessary, since the research is based on observations of life. In other words, even if this is successful, already existing life was a prerequisite.
Regardless, unless there's an angle I'm missing here, man creating true life from scratch... real, living creatures from nothing... wouldn't that disprove the existence of God according to scriptures? Because according to the ones I read, only the God of the Bible can create life. If some scientist actually managed to create real life, then it seems to me that would prove that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob doesn't exist.
Which is why I don't believe it'll ever happen. Any other Biblical scholars/philo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of this kind of research is to see if life could have been created from the primordial soup and how that may have happened. This may give us insights as to the minimal requirements for life here and on other worlds.
In addition, one of the arguments religion uses is that life is too complex to have been created except by God (by accident so to speak). Putt