Scientists Creating Life From Scratch

Rubberbando writes "MSNBC is running a story about bioengineering organisms to do specific tasks such as produce hydrogen or ethenol. It also goes into the risks and ethical issues of playing with this sort of science. Some of the scientists involved are saying it's more of an art instead of a science due to its 'biohacking' style of experimentation."

Becoming a god

This type of biological research convinces me firmly that
the intelligent design (ID) is just another horse crap
made up by humans. The base of ID's claim lies on the belief
that the design of some rudimentary living organisms are
just too complex to be built by accident. Hence
some higher intelligence -- beyond human intelligence --
must be involved in creating such organisms. But now, we
are stepping closer to make one on our own. What does that
say about humans? Are we becoming a god?

No. It's all about perception. From our point of view, some
things may look too complex to be formed accidentally. But
as science advances, our perception does evolve (or should).
If our society continues to exist (not sure if that happens
in Kansas or in Bill Frist's home, but let's not go there),
then what it seems an impossible task may not be so impossible
any more.

Well, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Re:Becoming a god

Well, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Good for you! That's following the scientific method! Keep that mind closed up tight! ;)

Re:Becoming a god

The base of ID's claim lies on the belief that the design of some rudimentary living organisms are just too complex to be built by accident

I'm not saying anything for or against ID, but if they claim it couldn't happen by accident, then humans doing it on

Re:Becoming a god

This type of biological research convinces me firmly that the intelligent design (ID) is just another horse crap made up by humans. The base of ID's claim lies on the belief that the design of some rudimentary living organisms are just too complex to be built by accident.

The fallacy in your statement is in the fact that these organisms weren't merely created by accident - they were intelligently created by scientists in a lab. So the fact that this occurred only reinforces the supposition that it could not, in fact, happen on accident. As far as the supernatural beings requirement, manufacturing simple organisms is one thing, but we are still infinitely far off from being able to manufacture another human (at least without a few beers and some luther vandross). Put simply: they just proved intelligent design could occur.

Re:Becoming a god

Thats funny, because the article doesn't mention anything about creating life accidentally or in a manner than could occur in nature. On the contrary, it mentions that the scientists are "mixing, matching and stacking DNA's chemical components like microscopic Lego blocks in an effort to make biologically based computers, medicines and alternative energy sources."

If anything, this solidifies intelligent design's viability as an alternate theory. After all, this new life was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!

Re:Becoming a god

Or it could be that you didn't read the article, thus you don't realize that this isn't really "From Scratch." In fact, you probably don't realize that the article talks about injecting custom DNA into a pre-existing organism.

The true test of creating new life "from scratch" is still not even close to coming to frutition.

But don't let that stand in the way of a good rant. We all love a good rant. :-)

Re:Becoming a god

Not that I am a big supporter of ID (especially the now common lobbying that it be taught as/instead of science)-- I prefer to believe in evolution, but by your argument, this offers support for ID, not against it.

See, by your logic, this proves that intelligence can brew life from no life...thereby supporting ID.

Tangent: Personally, I've never understood why science and religion must be at odds. Why can't one's deity be the one who caused these scientific laws and phenomena, and either nudged evolution a little bit here and there or maybe just planned it all in the beginning (like writing a program, or planning a chess game ahead) and set it loose?

Re:Becoming a god

Feed the troll? You ARE the troll!

Man invented God, not the other way round. That's intelligent design.

Don't they listen??

Why have these scientists not heeded the dire warnings of Jeff Goldblum? You cannot control your creations! Life finds a way!

Their "science" and "bacteria" are going to cause random plot-convenient sex changes and bloody dismemberment of lawyers!!!
 
...well okay actually maybe this isn't going to be so bad

Re:Don't they listen??

... and bloody dismemberment of lawyers!!!

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Misleading Title

FYI, the title is incorrect. There is no "from scratch" component to the life. What they're doing is building custom DNA, then injecting it into a living cell.

Re:Misleading Title

A group of scientists decided that mankind had advanced far enough that they no longer needed God. So they drew straws, and the loser went to find God. When he found Him, he dithered a bit, made some small talk about the weather, and finally came out with it.
"OK, look God," he said, "We've mastered space exploration, we can cure any disease, we can talk instantaneously with people around the world, we can clone human beings; basically, we don't need you any more."
God listened patiently. Finally He spoke.
"Tell you what," He said. "We'll settle this with a man-making contest. Each of us will make a man, and the first one to finish wins."
"Sure," said the man, who headed off to consult with his colleagues.
"Wait a minute," called God.
The man turned.
"We're going to do this the real way; the way I did it in the beginning."
"No problem," responds the man, bending down to grab a handful of clay.
"No, no, no," says God. "You get your own dirt."

Re:Misleading Title

In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.

- Carl Sagan

Biohacking

Scientist #1: I am teh l33t bi0hax0R!!!!1111!lol!!!

Scientist #2: LOL j00 r bi -- ur teh ghey!!!

Scientist #1: STFU, n00b!111!

I am going to sue

I hold rights to all life and I will see you in court.

God

Re:I am going to sue

I hold rights to all life and I will see you in court.
 
God

Yea right, like you have any lawyers up there!

Title misleading?

The article states,

Though scientists have been combining the genetic material of two species for 30 years now, their work has remained relatively simplistic.

Combining the genetic material of different species, I think we can all agree, is hardly creating life from scratch.

Creating life?

Are they using the intelligent design method, or the waiting around to see what happens on its own method?

I can't believe they would do this

They risk making the Flying Spaghetti Monster furiously angry and being strangled by His Noodly Appendage. We should recognies that there are things man was not meant to do, and leave it firmly in the realm of pasta.

http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org]

We build organisms by mutations all the time

in fact, my job is to record all the data from hundreds, well tens of thousands, of such mutations, sometimes only in one small section of the exact same original organism or protein.

and then we crank out thousands of colonies for each of these, or at least we hope we do.

So, from my viewpoint, the concept of manufacturing an organism to crank out oil needs to be thought thru quite a bit - what if it harvests not just the biowaste of corn husks but starts eating grasses and other plant life? what if it hybridizes or mutates (there is solar radiation and chemical interference and ingestion) and loses its species-specific behavior - as bioengineered rice did in China and India when it hybridized with nearby "wild" rice crops due to their farming practices and this thing called nature (wind, storms, excessive rainfall, seeds falling out during transport ....).

Be careful what you wish for - sure you may be able to make a plant that creates oil, but it may end up turning your front yard from grass into sludge, or attack your food crops.

It's happened before, and that's one of the joys of biochemistry - biological processes change and adapt and mutate and it's always fascinating in this multiply interdependent bio system we live in.

Now, if you want to experiment on Mars or in space colonies inside large asteroids, be my guest. But we live here. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you need to do something right now...

Who do they think they are?

Creating life from scratch? Who do they think they are? Darth Plagueis perhaps?

stuff

Making stuff is the big deal. Most chemicals are made from petrol nowadays and the chemical companies are searching for a way out of this dependency on petrol. One way is plants (as raw material) + bacteria(for their enzymatic reactions). Quite a few microbiology labs are now working in discovery, selection and bio-engeneering of bacteria for this very purpose. Personally, I think the discovery part is very important since we know close to nothing about the biodiversity of bacteria. A number I heard recently is that 70% of the biomass of this planet is made of bacteria, and most of them live in the ground and are very difficult to isolate and study and thus mostly unknown. Look up metagenomic in google for more info.

IMHO

It's only an ethical problem if scientists create something that has free will. That is, something that can make decisions using a "mind" as well as a brain. If someone succeeded in doing that, then they would have to treat the life as a person, not an animal. The mind (by definition) cannot be explained by science, and I doubt we will ever be able to create that, no matter how perfectly a brain could be developed or free thought mimicked.

Of course, some people believe that animals deserve the same treatment as humans, but that's another topic.

Deep theory of biology

Some of the scientists involved are saying its more of an art instead of a science due to its 'biohacking' style of experimentation.

Much of biological science consists hacking, trial and error, dubious statistics, and manipulating life with cheap tricks and without deep understanding. I'm glad to hear scientists call as such. Given the daunting complexity of the subject matter, it is not surprising. But I wonder if there is there a deeper 'theory' of biology analogous to least action principles in physics, that could be illuminated by mathematics? Any biochemists or geneticists care to comment?

Re:Been done?

Not quite -- Miller-Urey succeeded in making organic molecules

While necessary for life, molecules are not living organisms.

Oro's experiment created the base adenine, which is one of 4 nitrogen bases in DNA. Again, not life.