This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Can humans create life?
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must. You do what you get paid to do.
Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must. You do what you get paid to do.
Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? (Score:1)
My favourite interpretation of the matter comes from Bertrand Russel's "History of Western Philosophy". There's the foreword, the ToC and then the introduction. The third paragraph goes like this:
"Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge -- so I should contend -- belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. ..."
Re:Very insightful. (Score:1)
They're probably just satisfying their own curiosity. All this trouble to figure out how the universe is constructed and how live evolved seems a little bit overkill to disprove the halucinations of ancient goat keepers.
Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? (Score:1)
"Create"? (Score:3)
Can we copy it? Probably.
Re:*ONLY* 350 genes required for life (Score:1)
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
Re:Evolution "banned" in Kansas? (FT.com article) (Score:1)
Is this a poor analogy? (Score:1)
Can I suggest that assembling 350 genes would be similar to assembling 350 simple subroutines? If that is a reasonable analogy, and my design and coding effort results in only one-half of one percent of the modules having potentially dangerous bugs...yikes! I can only hope that Dr. Venter and his buddies will design some thorough test cases.
Do *natural* bacteria have souls? (Score:1)
I also have no recollection of anyone making claims about bacteria souls.
Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? (Score:1)
>Would it be worth reading?
Yes, it's worth reading. The book was different (read: better) In the book, they send five people (the Machine has five seats) I have no idea why this got changed in the movie. The end is pretty similar, with the whole denial that anything happened. The bible-thumpers come off as more sympathetic characters in the book. It fits Stautz's third law: "The book is always better than the movie"
happy reading...
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:1)
What is creating life? (Score:1)
I'm not sure I understand the story. It seems like they try to combine a minimum set of genes to combine and try to make a minimum set that still works. That is hardly spectacular, i would say; I even think it has been done before. But this is not making new life, at least not really different from the genetical engineering we've been doing for decades. Or the selective breeding with plants and animals we've been doing for millenia for that matter.
What would be spectacular is bootstrapping life. Don't take parts of dead bacteria to get things going, but synthesize all the environment (enzymes, RNA, membranes, whatever) that is necessary to make an organism out of your freshly synthesized DNA.
For real artificial life though, i would say you'd have to design everything yourself. The article described only the use of known genes, that code for known proteins. We already understand a lot of the genetics. We know how the genetic code translates to proteins, but we hardly know how proteins function. Yes we have a lot of knowledge about them, but trying to design one from scratch with a specific function in mind is another matter. Alter an existing one and see what happens is the best we can do for now (although the guesses get more educated).
So, design your own genes, combine them to code for a complete organism, make an environment to get it going, sustain itself, and get it to procreate. Then you really have created new life! (I don't think Craig Venter will be around to witness this, though ;).
BTW, this is still about life as we know (RNA/DNA/proteins/etc.), probably there are easier ways...
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
Re:God's influence shrinking? (Score:1)
Re:God's influence shrinking? (Score:1)
On the subject of souls, many intellectually sophisticated Christians believe that the soul is connected irrevocably to our brains. (As opposed to the dualist viewpoint of a disembodied soul). Thus the "soul" is another word for our rational self, which has emerged through evolution.
Of course this now opens up the question, using this definition, can artificial life (clones or new species for instance) have souls? Can robots have souls? Certainly big issues.
Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? (Score:1)
Re:Santa and the easter bunny (Score:1)
It is ALLWAYS possible to craft fiction, or fictional evidence for ANYTHING
_______________________________________
Re:In shock (Score:1)
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:1)
This, of course, is exactly the problem. There is no "right" direction. There is no "fairness". The truth is that it is unknowable.
Laissez faire remains our best hope for long term survival. "Leave those genes alone".
The "right direction" only exists in the minds of the anointed ones, generally found in the ivory towers of science and on the Left.
F. A. Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom", though in the political domain, provides great insight into this kind of thinking.
Re:Oh, great... (Score:1)
As far as creationists versus militant atheists, this seems like a non-issue. A scientist merely uses the building blocks of life - atoms, molecules, amino acids, minerals - and those elements do what they (were designed to?) do. The real issue will come when scientists learn how to create matter out of nothing, and give birth to ordered universes with intelligent beings. Then, of course, the inhabitants of that new universe will wonder who created them, and whether it was a militant atheist scientist "god" or a creationist "god."
Yeah, I'm a Mac programmer. You got a problem with that?
God's influence shrinking? (Score:2)
You don't need to be alive to evolve ! (Score:1)
Computer programs can evolve, in the very darwinian meaning of the word; would you call them "alive" ??
The current theory is that bunches of self-replicating molecules (DNA, RNA or something even simpler that we still don't know of) appeared at some time, and grew more and more complex - until they gave something that could be called a really *living* thing.
Thomas Miconi
Quel vent souffle, O passant ? / Quel Ouest expire ?
De quels dieux terrifiants / s'eteint l'Empire ?
Re:Very insightful. (Score:1)
Lars-Olof Franzen, transl. from swedish.
_______________________________________________
It's a jungle out there (Score:2)
RNA strands alone can make a complimentary copy of themselves, given the right raw materials and environment. But it's SLOOOOOOOOOW, and it's error-prone. RNA can also have enzymatic activity.
So a plausable scenario for starting life is the random assembly of an RNA strand that occasionally folds up into an RNA enzyme that facilitates RNA-directed RNA synthesis - even slightly. The first time one of these folds up near a complimentary copy of itself that had been assembled by the random method and copies it, you've got your start. There's now a place in the soup where a particular RNA pattern is efficiently copying RNA patterns, in a concentration of RNA strands with its own pattern.
Once this occurs, it's a matter of incremental improvement through error-and-trial. You'll have RNA "parasites" - any other RNA strands with the right characteristics will also be grabbed and copied. Some of these will evolve into symbionts - additional RNA enzymes that complex with the basic copier to form a more efficient copying complex - thus giving themselves an evolutioinary advantage over the random parasites. One might facilitate binding. Another might hang a repeating code on the ends of strands - which are hard to copy correctly. Another might crack an energetic molecule and use the released energy to speed up a slow part of the reaction. Another might help stick the complex together, while yet another might break it appart occasionally so its pieces can be copied by a neighbor. Another might form a barrier, to let in raw materials while blocking parasites and toxic junk. And because these RNA gene/enzymes are all error prone they all evolve, with complexes contatining the improved models outdoing those without them.
Very quickly (in geological time) you have billions of these little machines doing parallel computation on the life/invention algorithm. You get major inventions, each with an incremental improvement: Gene-damage repair systems. Backup copies in the related, but more stable, DNA. Chemo- and Photo-synthesis of the energetic molecules that power the system. Protien enzyme synthesis - both of peripheral devices and of replacement or additional parts of the replication complex (though even now it's largely RNA-based.) Gene expression regulation. Cooperative groups of cells, each of which has an invention to contribute, forming a super-cell, with the original cells becoming organelles and perhaps consolidating their genetic material. An inner barrier to isolate the genetic machine from the surrounding factory. Synchronized replication of genetic material and the containing package(s).
But very early on you get hunters.
As soon as you have a self-replicating system it starts consuming the local raw materials. As soon as you have a divergent copy you have competition for raw materials. As soon as you have a self-replicating system you have concentrations of the raw materials in the form of the finished products. So it isn't too far along this path when one of the little replicants figures out how to take another apart and get something useful from the pieces.
Once that happens, you start a whole new set of evolutionary games: Arms vs Armor. Identification of relatives and selective predation on things not like onself. Mimicry and disguise. The list is long.
And in this battle zone the original, lazy, brownian-motion-powered, one-RNA-gene replicant is just food for these new war machines, with their armored surfaces covered with protien enzymes to grab the pieces and haul them in, and their guts filled with little vats of chemicals to tear them into their useful components and build more war machines, all powered by high-energy reactions running at blazing speed. The original model doesn't stand a chance- it looks like a slightly concentrated bit of nearly-inert food. And even at human time scales it is so slow we might not recognize it as alive. (It might have reproduced more slowly than a century palm.)
Getting one of the late-model war machines to work with only 350 genes is quite a feat.
Re:Very insightful. (Score:1)
Really not all that surprising (Score:4)
The only difference between this particular experiment and evolution is a few million years of experimental time to allow natural selection.
Now that mankind can understand what specific genes do, they can use this basic experiment to guide the evolution of life in the right direction.
Now, specifically on the article, I did not see mention if this artifical bacteria is based on an existing one or not. Chances are, it is, and all the researchers are doing is instead of manipulating existing DNA strands, they will build their own DNA stand that should be a clone of the above, one nucliotide base at a time. It's impressive, definitely, but it's still a far cry from developing species that are specific for a task, as we yet still don't understand the genetic makeup perfectly.
dust to dust (Score:2)
When someone creates an entire cell from a pile of dust, then I'll be impressed!
Re:nothing new (Score:1)
Some Points (Score:1)
Many people are intelligent enough that the overwhelming evidence for evolution is convincing. But as they still hold life mysterious they justify their belif in god as a corurpt version of the "life force" theories so popular before modern biology. They claim god is responsible for providing the breath of life in some sense. If we can make a bacteria, even if it is only from dead bacteria, we have shown no breath of life is necessery.
Does it challenge major world relgions? No! But it does challenge a huge number of peoples belif in god.
2) (offtopic) Targeted germ warfare. How long will it be before we can make a virus or bacterium harmless to nearly everyone (flu or some such) but owhen it infects someone with the right gene combincation it suddenly turns deadly. You don't like the russian prime minister invite him for dinner, find a piece of his hair, and a year later he will be struck down by an inexplicable diseases.
Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? (Score:1)
Of course, I might be wrong in thinking that a large part of those 90% don't truly believe in any specific religion or scripture of a religion as I'm so used to living in one of the most agnostic countries in the world(Sweden).
If you actually read the article--- (Score:5)
As far as higher organisms any time soon, I am VERY doubful. After all, the great breakthrough of mammalian cloning was later shown to have a number of flaws, like the fact that Dolly wasn't actually a true clone because the mitochondrial DNA wasn't duplicated. It's a FAR FAR bigger step to actually making such a creature from scratch.
Personally I think this is a puff piece triggered by the fact that Dr. Ventner likes to see his name in print, and he suckered in a couple of unwitting journalists.
Re:Great (Score:1)
How so? It's anti-creationism, certainly, but that doesn't make it anti-theism. Keep in mind that many theists are firmly anti-creationist as well.
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:1)
The Problem's In Defining What Life Is (Score:4)
Reverse Engineering Life, and Open Source (Score:2)
Announcement seen on sci.biotech.life:
Hello everybody out there using life -
I'm doing a (free) organism (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like God) for Carbon based lifeforms. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in human life, as my design resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the DNA (due to practical reasons) among other things).
I've currently ported hearing (though only wombat-level) and sight (sort of wall-eyed at present), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
PS. Yes - it's free of any real-life code, and it has multi-threaded reproduction.
It is NOT protable (uses DNA sequencing etc), and it probably never will support anything other than Carbon-based soups, as that's all I have :-(.
...and that's where it all started ;-)
Re:This is not what it's spliced-up to be... (Score:1)
*******
Re:God is about scale and power. (Score:1)
Yum. Radioactive Waste. (Score:1)
So how does eating radioactive waste make it any less radioactive? This is one powerful bacteria that can erase decaying atoms.
On my Post (Score:1)
My post was from three distinct (and VERY simplified) points of view. I cast the groups I described as "Believers" and "Scientists", I could as easily have named them "Foobies" and "Barites", and they represented simplified philosophys of the ethics of science. I was trying to, in a limmited space, provide a bit of thought on why I think a certain group (the "Foobies") is wrong, but not for the reasons that the other group (the "Barites") traditionaly gives.
As to my own, personal beliefs, they are none of your business, and I try to keep them out off my arguments. I did NOT say that scientists did not believe, any more than I said believers were against medical science. Perhaps if you had read the article more closely, you would have noticed the abstraction of the labels "Believer" and "Scientist", and would have noticed that I did not cast myself into EITHER camp.
-Crutcher
If true then Cell Theory is kaput (Score:1)
This also disproves a few religons too, I mean the ones that hold the strict beleave only there god can create life.
My quote on this issue:
If scientists can create life in a test tube, then can they create someone for me to go to my homecoming with?
Re:God's influence shrinking? (Score:1)
Life would be already in the cell. (Score:1)
My predictions... (Score:1)
On another (lighter?) note, someone mentioned that the Bible states that the Antichrist will 'be born not of God or flesh.' Next, take into consideration that AFAIK the pagan religion, and also Nostradamus, predicted the end of the world would come in 1999. The antichrist is closely tied in with the Apocalypse. Thus, perhaps one of these bacteria will be the start of a killer epidemic that wipes everyone out, ala Outbreak?
--
Jeremy Tout
photon-atsign-home.com
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:1)
Let's not forget that it is extremely improbable that some chemical reactions create life by coincidence. It only happened because there were so many reactions going on in early earth's oceans and it took millions and millions of years.
Once something more complex can live and reproduce effectively it will take over the biosphere, draining the resources from other, not-yet-so-effective life forms. Mitochondria are probably one such other form (they have their own DNA and reproduce themselves), they survived by entering a symbiotic relationship with cellular life.
Re:They'l deny it (Score:1)
I agree that man would probably be irresponsible with it's power of creation, whether it be machine intelligence or biological creation. We have a history of being pretty irresponsible when we have great powers.
The power of life is a very great power to wield. Seeing so many examples of the way that many people irresponsibly use procreation for purely selfish reasons doesn't give me a lot of reason to believe that Man would be more responsible with new, technological abilities to create and manipulate life.
I don't understand those who feel that caution in the area of biological experimentation is backward and parochial. It seems thoughtful to me.
Ultimately, I think that religion can give us a larger context for understanding issues that we might not appreciate. If biological science can realistically promise eternal youth are we going to examine this gift carefully? Are we better off today because we now have Sexual "Freedom"? Sometimes, there's nothing but religious conviction standing in the way of a "Brave New World".
A lot of people of scientific bent that I know like to identify Evolution with Progress. This is a view that real Evolution Scientists, like Stephen Jay Gould, reject.
I think I agree with those who identify Evolution with Progress. I think there is something wonderful about our use of language, our ability to be reflective, our hunger for understanding in the abstract. These are things denied to all but a few species at most.
Why is it that religion, which, I like to believe, is a high product of cultural Evolution, is seen as backward and limiting? Every culture has developed religion and every religion concerns itself with inculcating values.
Many of the same people who see as "healthy" the expression of the instinctual desire to mate, even when inappropriate and dangerous, have nothing but derision for our apparently innate desire to commune with the ultimate, to seek out transcendence.
Chaos? (Score:1)
If anyone else read (or has) the book this was in, please add some facts to my vague memory of it! :-)
----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.
Re: Only humans have souls? (Score:2)
From my point of view, this means that if someone runs my body through a blender, what's left can't be considered my body anymore. It has then lost its vital coherence. Really, the "energy cannot be created or destroyed" explanation for why energy beings can't be killed has gotten a little tired in comic books let alone real theological discussions.
Ultimately, it's about information. In this case, the information involved is the structure and organization of the matter that makes up the human body, or, if you think of the soul that way, the structure and organization of the energy that makes up the human soul. Can information be created or destroyed? Well, yes, it certainly seems that way. That's sort of what entropy is, after all.
Let's Return Creation Science to Public Schools. (Score:1)
Re:Environmental Affects of Bioengineered Bacteria (Score:1)
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:1)
Re:This is all wrong. (Score:1)
second: lets disect this posting
If you took a computer that didn't work because the monitor was broken and the power supply blew bla bla
Interstingly you are already comparing cells to something mechanical (a computer). But that's beside the point. Of course a single string of DNA won't do very much. You'll need a host cell. A host cell contains all sorts of stuff ranging from energy producing units to enzyme destructing units (i forgot the exact biological terms).
If you insist on the computer analogy that is like creating a cpu and plugging it into a dead computer and reusing the periferals.
Second, this is not creation like God did. In order for God to have created life, He had to be outside the universe, because if He was in the universe He would be living and someone would have had to create Him, and if THAT someone was in the universe, he would have had to be created by someone... ad infinitum.
So there's something outside this univers. Where, show me. But seriously, this is all crap of course. I if we would have lived 500 years ago you probably would have claimed hE would be looking down on us through those little holes in the sky we otherwise refer to as stars. Since were living now you just claim hE is outside the universe but to Me that seems to fall in the same category of ignorant claims.
"This is all wrong. (Score:)
by ForceOfWill on Sunday September 12, @06:21AM EDT (#)
(User Info)
First of all, this guy didn't do anything yet, and even if he did what his plan says, it wouldn't be creation of any sort. The article says his method calls for the use of dead cell parts. If you took a computer that didn't work because the monitor was broken and the power supply blew, and replaced the monitor and power supply, you didn't create it. Real creation is something from nothing or from things naturally occurring in an environment without life (as someone said, from dust).
Second, this is not creation like God did. In order for God to have created life, He had to be outside the universe, because if He was in the universe He would be living and someone would have had to create Him, and if THAT someone was in the universe, he would have had to be created by someone... ad infinitum.
Anyway, creation doesn't work when God is inside the universe. The guy in this article is definitely inside the universe, so what he's doing is not creation, it's merely perpetuation.
"Just my $/50", everything seems to be money related in the US
Anybody can create life. Duh. (Score:1)
Needed: 1. packet of dehydrated Sea Monkeys
2. water
3. glass container.
Alrighty, you know what to do now. Put the water into the container and then add dehydrated sea monkeys. Presto! Instant life. Wasn't that fun?
Next, children, for bonus points, get the sea monkey to swim through hoops, roll over and worship you. See? the fun never stops.
Um, did you read the response to the 4th comment? (Score:1)
There's still a place for God - slightly off topic (Score:1)
But if you decided that there were too many flamers evangelising Linux, would you therefore join the opposing team and say "linux sux?" Religion has done a lot of good in addition to the evils perpetrated across the centuries in its name.
I spent a number of years studying subatomics for my doctorate degree. It was a wonder and a great priviledge to see, and begin to understand, the beautifully complex components and processes which define the most basic matter. This, to me, did not refute the existence of a God/Creator; it reinforced it. What beautiful worlds of discovery he has created! We know (less surely than before) that most processes in the universe are governed by rules of physics. Who wrote them? We are learning that we can predict the outcome of most physical events in the most controlled environments *some* of the time, as we get into the quantum level. There is a large degree of chance there, and that, in my most humble of opinions, is where God "lives." The universe, and as a small part thereof, us, were not created by a regal-looking chap with a white beard, but by the physical and chemical forces he unleashed.
I disagree that religion and science are mutually exclusive. A scientific dimwit will do just as much ill work as a religious one.
On the matter immediately before us, I would say that the Vatican is only half wrong. It seems that they are saying, in addition to the "don't try to disprove a literal interpretation of the bible" nonsense, that it's ok to make unicellular life forms, but not anything more complex. This is largely irrelevent as nobody has the faintest idea of how to do so! It raises the question, however, of whether we as a species are ready for the power to create life. I would say, based upon a generous evaluation of our human race, absolutely not! I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode where Starfleet wants to take Data apart and build lots of androids. Picard argues that one Data is a marvel; but a hundred thousand Datas is slavery. We have to consider the ethics in applying our knowledge of bioengineering before the apprehension of this knowledge becomes responsible.
On this day of great significance for my people (Rosh Hashanah, the anniversary of the supposed date of the universe's creation), I pray that the coming year will yield us even more knowledge and understanding of this universe of God's creation.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated (Score:1)
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
Which then begs the question, "Where did THOSE building blocks of life come from originally?" Now we can start throwing in all the Star Trek and Doctor Who theories on the evolution of life. :-)
But seriously, if life's building blocks were extra-terristial in origin, what sort of environment would they be developed in? Maybe not one like Earth in that time, maybe one much colder (Mars like?)
However, it is hard to argue against the fact that *ONCE* those amino acids formed DNA and monocelled organisms, the environs of earth at that time were sufficient to cause mass reproduction and genetic drift (aka evolution). Specifically, the fact there was liquid water (Do you realize how *narrow* the radius band is for a planet to have liquid water orbiting the Sun? Makes one think...)
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
Re:Not sure this is a "good" thing. (Score:2)
The person you replied to was talking about the introduction of the Bt pesticide gene into crops, where it is expressed constitutively. Bt pesticide is a relatively harmless, natural enzyme which is used to treat certain types of infestations. It is one of a few such pesticides available to organic farmers.
The constant expression of Bt by engineered crops will make the enzyme useless as pesticide within 5 to 10 years. Additionally, it will likely kill off a few species of butterfly (possibly including the Monarch), as this gene product is going to be EVERYWHERE (it's even expressed in the crop's pollen which is blown by wind to cover a huge area).
I work in the biotech industry, but I still think the Bt pesticide thing is completely inappropriate. The government should demand Monsanto and the rest of the gang to develop some kind of conditional expression system, where the pesticide is only expressed in response to an infection. It wouldn't be that hard, and it would cause a vast reduction in the damage done to the environment.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated (Score:4)
I'm not a chemist, I'm an astronomer, but one of the things an astronomer knows is that oxygen is fairly reactive. In this context, this results in a rather short "life-time" for free oxygen...the oxygen gets bound up with other atoms fairly quickly so that what you end up with *is* a reducing atmosphere. Oxygen did not become a significant component of the earth's atmosphere until life (algae, etc) began producing large quantities of free oxygen. Hence, prior to the formation of plants, the earth *did* have a reducing atmosphere.
And if you want an astronomical argument... you never see free oxygen in the atmospheres of the cooler stars, it will always be bound up with carbon or in a metal-oxide (depending on the carbon/metal abundance ratio). In other words, you don't normally see free oxygen in a dense atmosphere unless there's something producing it in large quantities (eg plants).
Re:God's influence shrinking? (Score:2)
Here are some Catholic links which should help answer your questions.
Catholic FAQ [knight.org] - topic 'the soul'
Catholic Encyclopedia [newadvent.org] - article on the soul
St. Augustine [newadvent.org] - A Treatise on the Soul You will probably have more questions and they would be best directed to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic. [religion.c...n-catholic]
Re:There is no real diffrence betwen micro and mac (Score:2)
amino acid production not (really) demonstrated (Score:3)
> the ability to create the basic amino acids (the building blocks of protiens) can be made
> in lab conditions that simulated the Earth millions/billions of years ago (namely,
> lots of H2O, CO, NOx, and methane).
Yes, they could generate amino acids, but under totally unrealistic conditions. And what they did produce was useless for life.
The Miller(?) experiment relied on a reducing atmosphere, but as far back as we look, we find OXIDIZED material (Oxygen being totally destructive to the nature of the test).
As soon as the amino acids were formed, they had to be drained and isolated from the spark chamber lest the sparks that created them destroy them.
Last, but certainly not least, the amino acids produced were evenly split between left and right hand varieties, whereas all life uses strictly the left-handed variety.
In short, even with an unrealistic setup, they still couldn't produce viable building-blocks.
Re:God's influence shrinking? (Score:2)
Re:God's influence shrinking? (Score:2)
Hell... WTF is that? Translate hell properly from hebrew and you get the word death and or grave.. so whats the point. If your using John Milton's Paradise Lost, or Dante's version of hell based on old catholic doctrine, I feel very sorry for you're lack of true understanding. I don't blame you for disliking the Christian faith, but atleast have some knowledge of your enemy.
Why give a bigot a 2? (Score:3)
> two camps grow. One proclaiming that we are wrong to play God by doing this thing
I didn't see anyone saying we shouldn't do it b/c "we would be playing God". Most opposition came from people talking about the dangers of releasing a new organism into the environment.
The stance of most religious people was either:
1. this just shows the importance of design
2. this is not creating life b/c he's starting with life
3. I don't think he can do it
> The Scientists response to this is to claim that their is no God, and thus no reservation of action can be attributed to him
um, even if there is no God, that doesn't mean we shouldn't think before we do something. If I had the ability to create a disease that will decimate the human population, should I?
> The second claim made by the Believers is that there are certain decisions which, were we to choose one of the options available, we would be playing God. Aborition, Geneticaly Engineered Foods, Euthanasia, and the like are such decsions.
People don't oppose to abortion or euthanasia because "we would be playing God". They oppose it because it's murder.
And I don't know any Christians who oppose genetically engineered foods on those grounds either. In fact, most support it, and those who do oppose it do it for environmental concerns (like gene escape)
>Case 1: I do not know cpr, you have a heart attack, I rage at God for letting you die.
>Case 2: I do know cpr, you have a heart attack, I do nothing, I feel guilty (and am prosecuted) for letting you die.
Where do you come up with such twisted views of Christians? The movies? Christians (and notice I leave out Scientologists) have absolutely nothing against medical science and in fact, many have contributed greatly to the field.
> The general response of the Scientists is to say "go away you silly Believer, this is just the first claim rephrased".
That is an interesting claim considering many, many scientists are believers.
Characterizing believers as "silly" just shows your prejudice.
Re:I think Neon Genesis Evangelion said it best... (Score:2)
So then man, being created by God, shall succeed? This seems to contradict itself.
More background info (Score:4)
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0898issue/0898profile
L.
Re:Sounds like fun... (Score:2)
The churches will claim its of an evil nature and should be outlawed. No room for science, those simple minds. Mankind tinkering around in the lab creating life, linking DNA strands, or even cloning are not mentioned in the bible, so there's going to be an outcry.
The next giant leap? (Score:2)
From what i understand of this article's core is that Dr Venter has managed to find the 350 basic genes that are required to allow a cell to function. I would presume that this gives the cell enough information to make the proteins and enzimes required to convert food into energy.
From the sounds of it Dr. Venter has been able to artifically build a strand of DNA containing these genes. I guess the Frankenstein stuff about dead cell parts prebaly means that there is still a step that means he can't create the cell structure for the DNA so needs a cell to host the new DNA.
To put it in programming terms this is a very basic kernel for the hardware of a cell. This is cool but leaves you with a machine that sits there not doing much. Now they need to work out what genes they need to make things happen.
Well thats just my take.
LES..
Autocatalytic sets... (Score:2)
This is just the abstract version of the so called methane experiment that many
There is enough evidence to believe (including mathematical proofs under certain "well behaved" conditions) that over time, autocatalytic sets emerge eventually from almost any "reasonable" set of chemicals.
Of course, we are a long long way from understanding anything about life. But we have made a decent start and good progress.
By the way, the existence of autocatalytic sets under most conditions probably means earth is not alone
Oh, great... (Score:4)
Second, I don't see how this supplants any creation theories at all; all it would prove is that life could in fact be created by intelligent design. Of course, that fact is going to be ignored by fundamentalists and militant atheists alike, as fundamentalists brand it as something contrary to God's will and the militant atheists (note that I didn't say all atheists) try to claim it as proof for their side.
Personally, I have a lot of qualms about this, though. The potential for abuse is quite high. The article points out the potential for bio-weaponry, which is of course a possibility. What I'm more worried about is that if they ever do get to the point where they can create higher lifeforms they'll mass-produce them to use as slaves (or, in the case of the military, super-soldiers, not that there's much of a difference). Up until fairly recently I thought the world had outgrown that concept, but the recent violence in Eastern Europe (and the more recent violence in East Timor) plus the various hate groups worldwide seem to have proven otherwise.
This is not what it's spliced-up to be... (Score:2)
He does not intend to create new genes, he just wants to select an existing set of genes, that have been evolving for some time now.
The real news comes from him wanting to synthesize the DNA that contain these genes and then inserting it into an existing bacterium. This is the bacterial equivalence of a brain transplant.
His problem is that although bacterial DNA isn't long in the human/eukariotic sense, but it is still Very long.
And as for the matter of 'ooohhh, this might be dangerous': don't forget that we have been able, for quite a few years now, to insert foreign genes into bacteria to create a lot of wonderful things. (hormones: insulin, birth control, etc...) And of course the not so wonderful things.
His research, or lets be fair, his teams' research might lead to a speedup of experiments in the near future and maybe even the creation of actual new genes. But for now let's not too shocked.
Re:God's influence shrinking? ..hardly. (Score:3)
It's not surprising from my end that people can at some point create stable, real life. At some level, it is just a task in biological mechanics. Most traditional theologians believe issues such as sin, etc. are related to a being's moral responsibility as reflected by how that being bears God's image (and therefore a responsibility to be good in a maximal sense, just as God must be maximally good to truly be God).
I don't think anyone has ever said that doing the nasty is a prerequisite to having a soul (maybe a lopsided reading of Augustine would leave you with this idea), or to really being "alive" in the same sense as the rest of natural creation. ...we're a part of nature too, so our work in it is itself a natural thing, so I agree that we can fiddle around with them, but I also understand that we need to consider moral responsibility with them as well (I don't see a whole lot of debate on that, but maybe how "moral" is defined).
People create stuff all the time. We've just managed to form a hysteria around creating certain types of things. ...keep in mind that there was a time that making fire labeled someone as having the power of the gods (or something similar), but today I can hardly impress anyone with that ability. Much of what we are working with is simply convention.
Anyway.. so what do I do with my theology degree?? Why, I write software of course! :-)
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
Re: Dolly IS a true clone (Score:2)
I have this on good word from a biology geek who knows her stuff. That the mitochondrial DNA isn't the same does not make Dolly NOT a genetic clone, or somehow flawed.
----
On a different topic, I was quite annoyed at this article. I thought someone HAD actually CREATED life in some breakthrough, and here all they were talking about were the ethics of the situation. I was waiting to find out HOW it was done, where it was done, when it was done. I hope when somebody actually DOES create life the it gets a little more attention than some arm-chair ethics speculation.
Newton: I have created Calculus
World : Hmm...Calculus...that's new and strange...is it ethical? It doesn't sound too nice...what do you think peanut gallery?
A few comments (Score:3)
Second, as a microbiologist, the major difficulty with the idea is gene regulation. To use a programming analogy -- genes are subroutines, and a program is an organism. You just can't throw a bunch of useful subroutines together and get a working program. The subroutines need to be called at the right times and and at the right amount. So do genes. We really only have a vague idea of how gene regulation works at the moment. If the gene regulation is off, the cell just won't live.
Thirdly, if an artificial bacterium gets created, Venter himself will not have have done it. He is a scientific administrator (although quite a successful one) rather than a practicing scientist. His basic purpose is to organise scientific teams to tackle different tasks, to talk to the media, and to get venture capital.
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
to be taken as the ethically right direction,
as we obvious know that won't happen.
However, say you want to produce a bacteria that
will consume the oil out of sea water but is
otherwise benign (Hypothetical). Say you happen
to find a strain that does this, but at a slow
slow rate (a gram of oil every year). The
"right direction" in this case is to improve
the speed at which this happens, and this MIGHT
be found by manipulating the genes to get it.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated (Score:3)
It's still fascinating how basic chemistry lead to the first reproducing cell. Yes, it was a process that took millions of years to develop, so it becomes a "million monkeys and a million typewriters"-type situation, but it's still amazing how it all came together in the end.
Re:hahaha, yeah right (Score:2)
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? (Score:2)
You also see some of the reactions of religious and scientific zeolots towards the alien contact, and how many are quick to try to disprove the others' theories.
This is all wrong. (Score:3)
Second, this is not creation like God did. In order for God to have created life, He had to be outside the universe, because if He was in the universe He would be living and someone would have had to create Him, and if THAT someone was in the universe, he would have had to be created by someone... ad infinitum.
Anyway, creation doesn't work when God is inside the universe. The guy in this article is definitely inside the universe, so what he's doing is not creation, it's merely perpetuation.
Just my $/50.
"Humans Can't Create Life" is Absurd (Score:2)
To say that humans cannot create life is absurd.
Way back three point some-odd billion years ago, in the oxygenless primoridial soup that covered this planet's surface, a bunch of oils and proteins came together during a lightning strike to form an amino acid. That acid and others like it remained whole throughout that tumultuous period in Earth's history, and when things started to calm down a bit, found solace in a soap bubble with other amino acids, and merged with others like it, and began to undergo chemical reactions... and life was formed. That ain't too much of an oversimplification.
Half of this experiment was already reconstructed in a test-tube back in the 1950s - various chemicals and simulated lightning produced amino acids in laboratory conditions. This is reproducable. All we need to do is find the time (might take a long while) and recreate the other half.
Or maybe we'll find an easier, better way.
The reason we are the dominant species on this planet is that we possess reasoning brains. Humans have a knack for figuring stuff out, and for solving problems more efficiently than quasirandom genetic drift does. Saber-tooth tiger got big teeth? Use sharpened tree-limb to kill tiger at ten feet. Don't let him get within range! Eat good dinner.
The reasoning human mind also makes stuff like Slashdot, when it's bored.
I'm quite confident that the limits of what rational thought can accomplish lie approximately where the edge of the universe sits. If it exists, it can be understood.
Thus far, progress has not hit a single barrier it couldn't crush like a steamroller.
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
Life created? (Score:2)
This discovery/plan doesn't really have much to do with whether life was created at all. The primary argument for the creation of life is that evolution without some sort of intelligence guiding the process is impossible. Unless these bacteria are created in such a way so the bacteria develop systematically without human intervention, the creationist's argument still stands.
If, however, humans could create a life form more complex than ourselves, that would be a systematic process, and we would have an argument for evolution through slightly different processes, and one that would even explain the missing links! Basically, if we created such a life form, there would be a sort of "evolution" into that life form. Then it is trivial, given enough time, for that life form to create anything below itself, probably for the purpose of maintaining a stable ecosystem. I don't think that such a creation would ever be possible, though.
Someone mentioned an experiement in which basic amino acids were put together in just such conditions. But from what I understand of that experiment, the chemical chains that did result were not proven to be life, by any definition. To put it in a higher-level example, if man were to create a DNA strand by a process, not based on existing DNA, then it's probably not life; even though it contains all the right chemicals, the probability that the chemicals are in the right order are infinitessimally small.
Re:Really not all that surprising (Score:2)
And besides, even if you have random strands of nucleic acids, you still need mechanisms of replication, transcription and translation... which require huge amounts of protein and RNA. Where does this come from? These complexes just randomly coalesced and on cue, a happy little strand of genetic code happened to meet up? I find this a little hard to accept.
"short step" from bacteria to animals -- NOT (Score:3)
The other point that this article mentions in an off-handed manner is the use of "parts salvaged from dead bacteria". Before you can "make" the bacteria, you have to start with a dead one. My understanding is that they remove the DNA from the bacteria, and throw in their own. (Which, by the way, is essentially what was done to make Dolly.) You have to have the necessary pieces pre-assembled for any of this to work. The best analogy I've ever heard is to that of boot-strapping a computer. You need the hardware, but you have to have the BIOS (in this case the RNA and proteins already present in the "killed" bacteria) in order to _do_ anything.
And as a last note, I'll add my agreement to one of the previous posters. Craig Ventor is a HUGE publicity hound. He may or may not be in it for the money, but he is definitely in it for the glory. I understand that at one point he was actually lobbying the Nobel people on behalf of himself! Sheesh!
Re:Machine slaves?! (Score:2)
(Note: all this stolen from Hitchiker's Guide of course)
Start with a virus! (Score:2)
the virus starting from a RNA- or DNA molecule.
In addition other proteins could be added to the
code to get some biochemical functions (-> money).
Even though a virus can't live on its own it is
nevertheless a unit which reproduces itself. As
far as I know no one is able to predict the
tertiar structure of a protein from the primary
structure (and thus the DNA code). This means
that it is still very difficult to design a
protein from scratch which should catalyse a
reaction. Genetic optimization might be an
interesting way to get a RNA or protein molecule
with chemical activity without a priori knowledge.
I think Prof. M. Eigen (MPI Goettingen) is doing things like that.
Hic roma, hic salta!
We knew we could do it. But imagine what's next ! (Score:2)
The minute the structure of genetics were discovered, creating artificial life from scratch was only a matter of time. We knew we could do it. The difficulty was in discovering, then controlling the high number of different elements that get in the process of creating a body from DNA code, and replicating this very DNA code.
From what I read in the article, we now have finished the discovering part, and are not too far from mastering the controlling part too. Good.
Question : what's next ?
Multi-cellular bodies, probably. We still don't have a clue how they really appeared from single-cells beings (we have hypotheses, but nothing more). This could be great for testing.
Then, "Computer-Aided Evolution". Yeah ! Heard about Genetic Programming ? Generate a few thousands simulated bacteries, each with a given DNA; test these in software against a particular problem (eg disaggregating petrol pollution); apply Genetic algorithms principles, and once you've got the DNA sequence, "implement" it ! That is, make a real living bacteria out of the computer-designed DNA sequence.
Sounds nice, uh ? Technology has so often imitated nature - not it's time to give a little back !
Oh, BTW, for you all computer-lovers : Computers and Genetics were, as we all know, the 2 big revolutions of this century. But they happen to be more intermixed than you might think.
The DNA architecture, and the possibility to have some automaton replicating itself, was at the Heart of good ol'John Von Neumann's works. He designed several self-replicating systems, and was inspired by the Turing machine idea (a code read and executed by some machine) to the point of imagining a scheme were the reader-executer would be an arm, assembling several components following the code instructions, in order to build another machine exactly similar to itself...
Now doesn't this sound familiar ? You got it, this is DNA. And the guy imagined this at a time when nobody knew how DNA works. Wonder...
Thomas Miconi
Karma Police - enforcing peace of mind by all possible means.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated (Score:2)
Presence of oxidation would indicate O2, wouldn't it? Sure, oxygen atoms might have been present in molecules like CO2, but that wouldn't explain oxidation evidence? What you say is correct, life processes using CO2 would create atmospheric oxygen over time, not oxygen atoms themselves. So oxygen *atoms* were indeed present, but the oxidation would indicate O2 *molecules*.
(someone please correct me if I'm wrong, its been a long time since my last chemistry class)
Not sure this is a "good" thing. (Score:2)
created corn. Turns out that the polin kills off
butterflies!?! This was a totally un-forseen
consequence of what otherwise would be a
benign use of genetics.
I've got REAL concerns that we don't have the
knowledge or wisdom to go creating artificial
forms at this level because we don't know
how to predict the outcome if they're released
into the biosphere. We don't have a clue as
to how to forcast interaction with other
life forms at different levels of the food
chain if something we engineer is introduced
either intentionally or by accident.
I'd much rather these kind of experiments
were put on hold until they can be done in
a place outside the earth's biosphere - say
in space perhaps.
Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? (Score:4)
On a rational point of view, IMHO, religion has mostly led to destruction, murders and such. See the catholic chuch's attitude towards condoms and birth control, and the way they manage to enforce it in poor, overpopulated countries in Africa and South America. They're doing a wonderful job at indirectly killing millions of people. Same goes for science. Every time science goes towards dicovering or re-creating the conditions for the origin of life, religious zealots start screaming.
Consider religions as businesses (and they are, in many ways) who are afraid of running out of business because Human Evolution has proved antique beliefs are complete bullshit. Remember Gallileo. Remember the Inquisition. Remember also most christian organizations didn't say a word when the Nazis were developing and using Zyklon B to exterminate the Jews. Remember how the American government tested nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on its own citizens, although they keep swearing by a "god" in their very constitution. It's not only the christians (I take them as an example here), but religions have that nasty tendency to only protect what may serve them best as a way for them to be able to say "see, we were right!" later on.
Now, back to "Contact", I believe that if there's any advanced alien civilization out there, they'd think the human species is damn primitive on behalf of those 90% religious people who'd rather stop the human scientific evolution than trying to solve all the problem humankind is afflicted with, and all the ways to go forward.
I leave religion to those who refuse to admit the very facts that run the Universe.
This fascination for religious dogmas is so dangerous it blinds people from seeing what humankind is missing. I recall a comment made by the Dalai-Lama (very wise guy) in which he declared "If science can prove the Holy texts are wrong, and if the Texts get against progress, we have to change the Texts, not stop science. A stop in evolution is a regression since the Universe keeps going on." (I'm not quoting litterally here, I fon't have the book on sight). I think this is an excellent attitude, considering it comes from one of the most prominents spiritual leaders of the planet. Spirituality has to evolve along with life itself, otherwise you find yourself thinking with a 15th century mind in a near 21st century world. Basically, you live *outside* of reality.
I hope I have made my point a bit more clearly than in my first post.
Environmental Affects of Bioengineered Bacteria (Score:3)
NOT evolution (Score:2)
Re:Not sure this is a "good" thing. (Score:2)
--
Not much (but it's not as simple as it seems) (Score:2)
They infuriated me too... such flat characters who missed most of the subtantial issues involved.
On a rational point of view, IMHO, religion has mostly led to destruction, murders and such...
Yeah, that statement may have a basis in truth, but it says NOTHING to the issue of whether there there is anything beyond the natural universe, whether there is any intelligence in the 'beyondness' and whether such potential 'beyondness' has had any substantial interaction with what we experience with our five senses.
Very Bad Things, all those, to be sure. What does that have to say about the truth-claims of any religion? Or any belief system for that matter?
Well, in that case, I suggest that you avoid religion and instead seek truth. I'll warn you though. If you're open minded, you're going to run into a lot of those funny, religious-type historical documents that some religions claim are 'holy' or 'from beyond this universe'. You might even find that some of them stand up to modern 'scientific' evaluation quite admirably (but this is off-topic enough already. For more info check out http://www.christian-thinktank.com).
I leave religion to those who refuse to admit the very facts that run the Universe.
Well, I think most people who know me would agree that I 'admit the very facts that run the Universe' yet I don't throw away religion wholesale (though if you want to get technical you have to look carefully at how the word 'fact' is defined, which can get quite messy, leading into some deep epistimological debates which begin to make agnosticism and nihilism look attractive).
If your main point was that religion isn't very related to a scientific administrator getting a bit of publicity about some gene-splicing plans, I'd have to agree with you. However, your venom seems to indicate something more, which seems suspiciously like close-mindedness to me... perhaps YOU are afraid of what you might find out if you took a serious look at the beliefs behind some religions?
Spirituality has to evolve along with life itself...
That might be true, if we were making up spirituality ourselves, though I would tend to be suspicious of spirituality like that more so than 'normal' spirituality. One would think if any version of spirituality out there actually were true, it would somehow transcend time...
This fascination for religious dogmas is so dangerous it blinds people from seeing what humankind is missing.
I might be tempted to rephrase that as:
Instead I'll just leave with a few questions to ponder...- Why do people claim to belong to a group, and yet not truly exemplify the beliefs that group professes? (insert 'be religious', 'be scientific', 'be dedicated to truth' or 'be open-minded' for 'belong to a group')
- Why do we judge groups based on the actions of the visible few whose actions don't always align with what those groups believe?
- Why do we insist on referring to 'religion', 'science', and 'progress' as monolithic entities having their own will? What about individuals, beliefs, truth, evidence, individual responsibility and morality?
I dunno, maybe this doesn't make sense to anybody but me - it just seems some anti-religious people are just as (blindly) zealous as the religious zealots...Christopher
Not banned, elective (Re:Evolution in Kansas?) (Score:2)
The FT article is somewhat inflammatory, though the KS leg did a pretty brain-dead move.
The act removed evolution from the state-mandated educational curriculum. It can still be taught, but it is no longer a requirement for either schools or students.
It just goes to show that either|or Kansas state Legislators or the entire state just isn't as evolutionarily advanced as the rest of us.
<g>
Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com)
Anonymous under protest
On Playing God (Score:2)
The first claim held by the Believers is that there are regions of action reserved for God, things that, rather than being good or evil, are in some way beyond us, sacrsanct territory for God alone, and to tread within these areas is childish and irresponsible of us.
The Scientists response to this is to claim that their is no God, and thus no reservation of action can be attributed to him.
My response is to say "hogwash". If God had reserved an area for himself, it would STAY reserved, he being God and all; leaving us neatly in the realm of natural rights (those things we are physicaly capable of doing or causing to happen) that the Scientists support, without inviolating the God of the Believers.
The second claim made by the Believers is that there are certain decisions which, were we to choose one of the options available, we would be playing God. Aborition, Geneticaly Engineered Foods, Euthanasia, and the like are such decsions.
The general response of the Scientists is to say "go away you silly Believer, this is just the first claim rephrased".
My response is that this second claim, while dependant upon the first, is also "hogwash"; because If I posses the power to act, and choose not to, then THAT is an action, and I am as responsible as If I had acted for the outcome.
An Example:
Case 1: I do not know cpr, you have a heart attack, I rage at God for letting you die.
Case 2: I do know cpr, you have a heart attack, I do nothing, I feel guilty (and am prosecuted) for letting you die.
For once we have a knowledge or a power, we are responsible for every thing to which it can be applied (even if we don't apply it)
Militant Agnostic
- I don't know and you don't either.
-Crutcher