Slashdot Mirror
Researchers One Step Closer To Creating Life
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.'"
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.
Movie quote:
Male Character: "God creates dinosaurs. God kills dinosaurs. Man kills God. Man creates dinosaurs."
Female Character: "Dinosaurs eat man... woman inherits the earth."
Hah!
I'll finally be one step closer to creating my race of manbearpigs.
Web Hosting: Unlimited storage and bandwidth: $5/month
Apparently there are no fertile researchers at the Scripps Research Institute?
I have this feeling that in 100 years "mechanical" robots will be very passe.
meh
Researcher quoted as saying: "I was so close... I took her out to eat, paid for the movie, laid on the charm as heavy as I could, but it wasn't enough. However, I do feel that I'm one step closer to creating life."
the enzymes are being intelligently designed . . .
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It's a bit nicer than the print article: Here
They are very clear in saying that what they have created is "NOT ALIVE."
This is very interesting work.
import system.cool.Sig;
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.
Help fight spam
The primary reason this sort of research is interesting is because it might give insight as to how abiogenesis occured. Most of the current hypotheses revolve around small sets of molecules becoming self-replicating and eventually forming cells with DNA and protein and all that good stuff. Moreover, even if this were similar to robots doing it on a small scale is independently interesting.
Since when is consciousness a prerequisite for life?
That's because most men on /. can't last more then 8 min when trying to conceive.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your politician, and hitting them?"
Great they cloned Keanu Reeves...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it."
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
Easy? You must be new here.
If you haven't already heard of Andrew Crosse and his experiments this is well worth a look. http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/mystical/AndrewCroise.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse The biochemical experiments conducted in 1837 produced insects which were later named acari or Acarus Crossii
..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.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
If there's a chance it can evolve into Natalie Portman we're on the right track at least...
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
But...if they weren't there in the first place, we would never have existed and thus wouldn't be able to send them back in time, and thus, we would not have evolved from them and could not...argh, time paradoxon, cognitive dissona%/!!7?NO CARRIER[/lameattemptathumor]
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
...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.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
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.
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.
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 right? yes, but what told your brain to tell your thumbs to twiddle? this is what i would call god. i am god.
God wants pizza
1. Get woman
2. Sleep with woman
3. ????
4. Create life
Humans are flawed. Any interpretation of God by humans is therefore flawed. The problem is that there are loud (but not necessarily large) groups of people who don't seem to understand this.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I was disappointed you equated Richard Dawkins and a troll. It seems to me that most of the problems currently on this earth are due to a) the Muslims, b) the Jews and c) the Christians.
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 letters for christians and muslims, but misunderstands jews completely.
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?
"In my experience so far, atheists are more dogmatic, more aggressive and less rational than the average person of religion."
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 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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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 whatever, does not automatically imply religion. Let the flames begin.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
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/philosophers, if you see a hole in this argument, by all means, throw it out there.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Where did the infinitely massive object come from? Does your faith in science tell you that it was just always there?"
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"?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"P.S., I've read many of the works of both Dawkins and Sagan."
/sarcasm
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. In other words sticking ones head in the sand and pretending the real world does not exist will not save ones arse no matter how stong their faith is.
"[Dawkins is] a dimwit with too much backing."
Yea right, and an over rated zen riddle about trees is EVIDENCE for that.
"I am a Muslim."
What made you pick that particular god, why are you an Athiest when it comes to (say) the Hindu gods?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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). Putting aside any arguments as to if there is or is not a God and/or if that being created life, this research may show if it is at least *possible* to have happened on its own.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
life "ab initio". Even if a group managed to reproduce an entire human being "ab initio" from a protein replicator and an genetic map, this still does not count. We are not even close to understand why DNA/RNA/proteins act they way they do. This can be liken to someone dumping all the chips/resistors/capactiors for a modern PC with a schematic on how to connect it together to form a living PC (hint: the used to be called Heath Kits). Does that individual who assemble the CPU/GPU/memroy/rom capacitors, etc to form a working PC really understand how the central CPU is designed? F**k no. Or how a modern GPU works or is assembled or the material properties why it works? F**K no. I'll bet most Heath Kitt enthusiast couldn't even described dI/dt for a simple inductors, capacitor and resistor to a AC line. Please.
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 only scientific answer to your question is, "We don't know." And that is the difference between science and religion.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
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.