Florida Lab Gets Pregnant

eh by DaGoatSpanka · 2009-02-27 10:02 · Score: 1, Funny

Honey, we're pregnant.

AEGIS has been in commercial use for years by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-27 10:03 · Score: 5, Funny

KFC rolled theirs out years ago.

grey goo by cheesybagel · 2009-02-27 10:04 · Score: 1

Grey goo, here we come.

Re:grey goo by interkin3tic · 2009-02-27 10:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Green goo actually, or maybe grayish-green goo would be more appropriate.
On a more realistic note, those 12 artificial nucleotides they seem to have put in there probably aren't found in the environment make it unlikely anything to come out of it will get very far.
I do of course realize that "probably" is an issue for some people who seem convinced that any possibility, no matter how small, when it comes to biological nightmare scenarios is an absolute certainty (specifically biology ones, they're more rational when it comes to the chances of the hadron collider destroying the earth). Suprised no one has tagged "iamlegend" or "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" yet.
Re:grey goo by madcat2c · 2009-02-27 10:59 · Score: 1

Grey Goo Solution.
Re:grey goo by whong09 · 2009-02-27 12:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

You realize that microbes already in nature have been evolving the moment they've showed up?
Any sort of creation we make in the lab right now will ultimately be weaker than any successful microbe.

Green goos already exist, they cause common colds.
Re:grey goo by meerling · 2009-02-27 13:26 · Score: 1

grey goo is for nano-machines, not synthetic life forms. A better terror reference would be the Andromeda Strain.
Re:grey goo by maxume · 2009-02-27 13:51 · Score: 1

I think viruses are generally crystalline.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:grey goo by FlyingBishop · 2009-02-27 13:54 · Score: 1

By the standard definition, grey goo would be a synthetic life form.
Re:grey goo by marcosdumay · 2009-02-27 14:21 · Score: 1

You know that it only affects conductors that are, at least, a few meters wide, don't you?
If an EMP has some impact on grey goo it will be making their lives easier once it destroy our machines.

--
Rethinking email
Re:grey goo by ElectricTurtle · 2009-02-27 15:44 · Score: 1

A few meters? What are you smoking? I've seen HERF devices induce current on really small (inches) electronics. Whether that scales all the way down to nano I don't really know (probably depends on frequency and power), but it sure as hell isn't 'meters'.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit

many uses by phantomfive · 2009-02-27 10:04 · Score: 2, Funny

In addition to providing an example of how alien life might be cobbled together, synthetic biology has a broad array of uses on the home front

Oh yes! Like holding the world hostage!! Now where can I get some mind-controlling synthetic life forms? (don't forget the insulin dependence).

--
Qxe4

Re:many uses by TapeCutter · 2009-02-27 12:44 · Score: 1

"Now where can I get some mind-controlling synthetic life forms?"

Synthesize this

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:many uses by phantomfive · 2009-02-27 13:28 · Score: 1

Nice. On the one hand, it makes you wonder what happens if that thing evolves to attack humans. On the other hand, I don't really like ants.

--
Qxe4
Re:many uses by M8e · 2009-02-27 21:40 · Score: 1

When I finally meet my maker, "God?", I will ask, "Why are you such a deranged rapist?"
There, fixed that for you.
WWJFD? Rape a virgin!

I won't believe its alive until ... by Tired+and+Emotional · 2009-02-27 10:05 · Score: 5, Funny

it engulfs its first white lab coated scientist.

--
Squirrel!

Re:I won't believe its alive until ... by MadnessASAP · 2009-02-27 11:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Do you mean a white scientist with a lab coat, a scientist in a white lab coat, or a white scientist coated in a lab?

--
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
Re:I won't believe its alive until ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-27 11:49 · Score: 1

None of the above. He meant a scientist coated in white lab.
Re:I won't believe its alive until ... by rubycodez · 2009-02-27 14:16 · Score: 1

obviously, a scientist that an albino retriever leg humped
Re:I won't believe its alive until ... by gemada · 2009-02-28 05:40 · Score: 1

he means a white labrador retriever wearing a lab coat - kinda like a Disney movie.
Re:I won't believe its alive until ... by hyphen76 · 2009-02-28 05:54 · Score: 1

...or scientist coated in a white lab (the mind does boggle a bit)
Re:I won't believe its alive until ... by Calydor · 2009-02-28 06:20 · Score: 1

How about a white lab coated in scientist? That's what'll happen if this stuff blows up, anyway.

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-

Nerds + genetic-engineering = ...boobs by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-27 10:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Who wants to bet me $20 they just use this technology to invent the first self-replicating pet-boob?

Re:Nerds + genetic-engineering = ...boobs by Jeng · 2009-02-27 10:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Pffft. There are already synthetic boobies.
Aim lower.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Nerds + genetic-engineering = ...boobs by gardyloo · 2009-02-27 11:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Pffft. There are already synthetic boobies.
Aim lower.
Synthetic boobies for really old ladies?

Um, guys.... by Itninja · 2009-02-27 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

'It's evolving. It's doing what we designed it to do,'

Isn't that statement eating itself?

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.

Re:Um, guys.... by Intron · 2009-02-27 10:15 · Score: 4, Funny

It's the first intelligently designed evolving system.

--
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Re:Um, guys.... by jd · 2009-02-27 10:18 · Score: 1

What they MEAN to say is: we never came up with a design, we don't know what it's doing (besides fiendishly difficult quadratic equations) and we want to pass this off as deliberate so we get our next grant cheque.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Um, guys.... by $0.02 · 2009-02-27 10:45 · Score: 1

No. These are two statements eating each other.

--
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
Re:Um, guys.... by interkin3tic · 2009-02-27 10:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Subject confusion I think. They designed the system to produce evolving artificial bugs, which are the ones doing the evolving. Also they set the system up to evolve (design), but they arent' directing the evolution?
Re:Um, guys.... by marcello_dl · 2009-02-27 11:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

'It's evolving. It's doing what we designed it to do,'
Isn't that statement eating itself?
No, it is proof that the ID vs. evolution argument is bogus.
Something can both evolve AND be the product of the will of somebody. Also, for a hypothetical eternal god POV, not bound by time, there is no "let's setup something and see how it evolves". It is more like "Let's do it, done.", even if it involves uncertainty, free will, evolution: all of those concepts are bound to time, a god is not.
A more classic proof of the argument being bogus is the fact that evolution is not a dogma and ID is not an acceptable scientific theory (unless you have scientific proof of a god to back it up, which slashdot has not reported AFAIK :) )
A cynic proof of the argument being bogus is: it doesn't solve anything, it needlessly divides people, it is perfect for the media to fill up pages instead of giving people useful information.
No ruling class ever liked their sheep to get too smart.
Of course, having proved ID independent from evolution and doesn't mean either is true.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:Um, guys.... by Sibko · 2009-02-27 12:34 · Score: 1

Not if what they designed it to do was evolve...
Re:Um, guys.... by ildon · 2009-02-27 17:45 · Score: 1

I keep trying to explain this to people but no one listens. :(
Re:Um, guys.... by atraintocry · 2009-02-27 18:35 · Score: 2, Informative

I mean no offense here, but I think you're confused about what ID is, and what its purpose is. It's much easier of you just assume ID = Creationism and the attempt to get said Creationism into public schools. See here: See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
ID is not merely the belief in a god that could have designed the universe (plenty of theists acknowledge evolution. The entire Catholic church, for instance). ID is dependent on the creation stories in Genesis, and is strictly anti-evolution. It is a method of promoting the teachings of particular religion, which is something the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized.
The term Intelligent Design is, well, "designed" to cause a person to think, at first glance, "oh, they just believe in a creator. That's not so strange". Whereas in reality there is no question that this has to do with Biblical Creationism, at the expense of properly teaching mainstream science in schools.
What I mean to say is, it's not logic, it's just rhetoric. Don't read too much into it. By attempting to refute it on logical grounds, you do it the service of acknowledging that it's worth your time. Those people are liars and they know it, and the courts know it too. At this point we can just sit back and laugh as they flounder.
Re:Um, guys.... by nicodoggie · 2009-02-27 21:39 · Score: 1

Nah, Evolution and Intelligent Design isn't necessarily mutually exclusive, IMO.

The only problem about ID is that if life on this planet was designed by a vastly superior being/species, who created our creator/s?
Re:Um, guys.... by francium+de+neobie · 2009-02-27 22:37 · Score: 1

Ok. So now you're allowing something's definition to be infinitely expanded?

Now I say God isn't just not bound by time, it's also not bound by logic. In fact, logic does not exist, the logic we see is just an illusion produced by God. (NOT FALSE) is not (TRUE), (TRUE OR FALSE) is not TRUE, and 1 + 1 in binary is not 10. Nothing is true, only God is true. So there, argue against that. ;-)

Of course, I don't really believe in creationism either. But it seems to me it's fruitless to argue against those people, anyway. But hey... I guess I can ask the next creationist to prove black equals to white at the next zebra crossing.
Re:Um, guys.... by SpinyNorman · 2009-02-28 01:12 · Score: 1

Isn't that statement eating itself?
No - what's so hard to grasp about designing a system to evolve, or even to evolve a specific characteristic by controlling selection pressures (e.g. genetic airplane wing design for lower drag)?
Re:Um, guys.... by kungfugleek · 2009-02-28 04:44 · Score: 1

As another slashdot poster once said, "A plus 1! A plus 1! My kingdom for a plus 1!"
Re:Um, guys.... by Jannie+Ogg · 2009-02-28 13:27 · Score: 1

I, for one, welcome our new....
Re:Um, guys.... by marcello_dl · 2009-03-01 12:47 · Score: 1

> ID is dependent on the creation stories in Genesis, and is strictly anti-evolution.
"for dust you are and to dust you will return" seems evolutionary enough to me :D but i digress. Thank you for your comment.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:Um, guys.... by redxxx · 2009-03-02 07:23 · Score: 1

This is all correct. For instance, we know that ID in the Dover case is creationism dressed up as science, because the textbook originally advocated by the IDers was about Creationism in it's early drafts and was changed after the earlier court cases banning Creationism from being taught in schools. The diff was the cornerstone of the complaint's case.
We know that this is being done to introduce Chrisitanity into public schools, because those supporting ID, the Discovery Institute, said as much in the Wedge Document.
I think atraintocry is suffering from a bit of hubris. This is an ongoing fight that has not yet been won. While circuit and district courts have ruled on the issue, there has been no recent supreme court ruling and ID advocates have found their ways into School Boards across the nation. They have not given up, and this is no time to sit back just because we've won some small victories.
They are liars. They know it. The swarms of selectively ignorant religious folks that support them don't know they are liars or really understand the evolution 'debate'. So long as we are a democracy, we won't have won until we convince the public, not the courts.
Re:Um, guys.... by atraintocry · 2009-03-02 10:39 · Score: 1

You may be right. They surely have not given up. But I feel like when I look at the history of the movement, I see them trying again and again to convince school boards and getting slapped again and again by the courts. No one's buying the name changes, either. For instance, the most recent tactic is "teach the controversy" but Judge Jones said in the Kitzmiller ruling, "This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."
I'm not sure they'll ever give up, and the fact that we have such vocal Luddites in this country scares me quite a bit. I'm sure the only place the anti-evolution crowd is louder is within pockets of fundamentalist Islam. Still, I am somewhat comforted by the fact that our courts know better.
I guess what bothers me the most is the public's inability to understand the distinction between topics like evolution, abiogenesis, atheism, and morality. As I've said, the people pushing the agenda are liars. But the folks who believe it often just lack that understanding. They don't get that science has a very strict purview, and the supernatural does not fall within it.
Re:Um, guys.... by atraintocry · 2009-03-02 10:41 · Score: 1

Yeah, I always wondered about that one as well. God breathing life into mud sounds a lot like abiogenesis to me. But good luck trying to tell a young earth creationist or a flat-earther that.

That's by linumax · 2009-02-27 10:18 · Score: 1, Funny

the kind of pet I'll happily adopt and care for with "love".

Re:That's by Citizen+of+Earth · 2009-02-27 10:39 · Score: 1

the kind of pet I'll happily adopt and care for with "love".
You'll need to adopt two of them for that.

Excuse me, by faltriwall · 2009-02-27 10:23 · Score: 1

are there any details available? Please?

Sounds like Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-27 10:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

For the sake of argument, if scientists start "guiding" synthetic life through "evolution" in the lab, isn't that ID?

If so, does it boost the ID argument for *our* creation?

Hmmm......

Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by The+End+Of+Days · 2009-02-27 10:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Only if you're trying to make the argument that humans guided the evolution of humans. It's about as logical an argument as I've ever heard from the ID crowd, but it's still pretty stupid.
Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by MightyMartian · 2009-02-27 11:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

No more than breeding cows or strains of wheat is an argument for ID.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by Orion+Blastar · 2009-02-27 11:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Or aliens, we could have been some alien high school science fair project that went wrong, so they shot the "Grey goo" to Earth and it evolved into the lifeforms we now have.
Would it be interesting to find out that we created ourselves via AEGIS and shot it back in time via a time travel paradox?

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by MightyMartian · 2009-02-27 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Evolution is simply put " change in the frequency of the genetic makeup of a population over time". How is this not evolution?
Methinks you've spent so much time trying to justify your Creationist tendencies by calling scientists "elitists" that you actually have no idea what they're talking about.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by TapeCutter · 2009-02-27 13:29 · Score: 1

In it's broadests sense "to evolve" means to continually change over time but the popularity of that meme is a tribute to the power of Darwin's idea not an explaination of it. I agree that this could be seen as analogous to "creationism", just as deliberately breeding cows for more milk could be seen analogous as "intelligent design", but analogies are made to assist in understanding they are not meant to be taken literally.

"Why not go so far out on a limb that it breaks under our (mankind) massive ego and assume that evolution had to create the chemicals first?"

As Sagan put it, "we are made of star stuff". I have no problem with the analogy that all elements naturally evolved from hydrogen and that the universe is itself is evolving, I also have no trouble in recognising that they are analogies that in no way describe what the theory of evolution actually states. To continue arguing otherwise after being repeatedly corrected is to let one's massive ego get in the way of facts.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by imhennessy · 2009-02-27 14:34 · Score: 1

You didn't read that part of the /. policies either?
ivan

--
Like to brew? Want to talk about it? Brattlebrew: groups.yahoo.com/group/brattlebrew
Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by Posting=!Working · 2009-02-27 15:38 · Score: 1

"there are so many assumptions made with evolution."
As opposed to the incredible massive amount of assumptions and refutation of logic made with creationism.
"Evolution from a biological perspective does not include any design whatsoever so a scientist designing chemicals to self-replicate is not evolution; it does not evolve"
Try reading the article first. Self replication is not even mentioned or referred to. The scientist in the article is quoted as saying "It's evolving" without elaborating on it. So how the hell can you claim it's not evolution when you don't even know what exactly the experiment is doing?
Like most creationists, you don't even bother with any kind of research, you just make a knee jerk reaction to anything that has the word evolution in it. First you make an equivalence between a living organism and a bunch of chemicals to "prove" that this is Intelligent Design. (Ummm, no) Then you screw up and make wild assumptions like the above. After that, based on looking at a picture of a footprint, you call it absurd even though a) you've no experience with this (forensic scientist? anthropologist? geologist? No? didn't think so) and b)it has nothing to do with this experiment, article, or branch of science. Then there's this gem:
"is it even correct to ask how the chemicals enabled evolution"
Only if you are a rational human who has the slightest interest in science. If not, well then, absolutely not, you should never ask this kind of question.
"and assume that evolution had to create the chemicals first" - You really don't even understand the word "evolution" do you?
"As soon as a higher power (man, God) is involved evolution no longer is applicable." - So, as soon as man evolved to observe evolution, evolution is no longer applicable because man is involved. You seem to have confused quantum mechanics with evolution here.
By the way, good job of not coming off as rational.

--
This sentence no verb.
Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by Posting=!Working · 2009-02-28 11:36 · Score: 1

"automatically assume a) that the poster has no experience with the field"
His entire post makes it abundantly clear that he would never have anything to do with any of the subjects I listed. There was no "automatic assumption" about it. If there was the slightest hint of any understanding of science on his/her part, I wouldn't have stated it.
"Where are we to believe that anything could be derived from anything"
Well, the last I checked we were in the year 2009 CE, not 2009 BCE. And if we actually believed that nothing could be derived from anything, we would probably have never discovered how to make a fire, let alone have any kind of technology.
"science itself specifically states that matter may neither be created nor destroyed."
Science makes no such statements. As a matter of fact, it explicitly states that matter can absolutely be destroyed and converted into energy. Perhaps you've heard of Einstein, and the equation E=mc^2. He's quite famous in non-creationist circles, as is his work.

--
This sentence no verb.
Re:Sounds like Intelligent Design by redxxx · 2009-03-02 07:35 · Score: 1

1) Good for you Creationism is not science. You can't discover anything with it. It is religion. That's ok. We let people practice religion. We don't teach it as science in our public schools.
2) Yes, it is correct science to ask how chemicals enabled evolution. As a result of such questions we know how fairly complicated chemicals can form from simple situations.
The other of this is our understanding of the various nucleic acids. This has benefited everything from forensics to biological science to medicine.
It is a great question to ask. Asking it has improved our lives and created the groundwork for the next thousand years of biological and medical sciences.
Compare this to "Did god create the universe?" That's a bad question. We can't do anything with the answers. It doesn't lead to new interesting question. It's just a question that we can't answer. If we manage to answer it, we get nothing.
3) Yeah, I don't like people who misuse terminology either.

World domination by heroine · 2009-02-27 10:29 · Score: 1

So when it starts reproducing itself, how long will it take to stop it?

Re:World domination by MichaelSmith · 2009-02-27 10:39 · Score: 1

Might be easier to move to a new planet.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:World domination by pavon · 2009-02-27 10:48 · Score: 1

No kidding. I'm quite thankful that Aegis is not yet self-replicating.
Re:World domination by interkin3tic · 2009-02-27 11:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Anything to come out of those vats would probably need most of the 12 artifical nucleotides, which aren't found in any apreciable quantity outside of the vat. If any gets out it would quickly starve. Not to mention that depending on the conditions that they are evolving under, there might be more immediate problems for anything escaping. Early life evolved under anerobic conditions, oxygen is pretty toxic to cells. They're probably generating these things under anerobic conditions to mimic what were thought to be early conditions of the earth and to maybe encourage things to start growing. I would expect that any bugs growing in this system would be poisoned by oxygen once outside pretty rapidly, much as bacteria from early earth would. Also temperatures are probably much higher in the vats.
Since the vats are -probably- extremely rich in all 12 artificial nucleotides, devoid of oxygen, and very warm in all places, there wouldn't be any advantage or reason for the bugs to evolve ways of overcoming those conditions. There'd be no reason for them to develop ways of making their own artificial nucleotides since they're provided. In fact that would probably be a detriment, since any way of converting one of the natural 4 would be costly to the cell in terms of energetics and would have no gain, they'd quickly be out-proliferated by their bretheren who don't waste energy on things like that. In other words, once stepping out of the vat, they'd be presented with an extremely harsh environment they're totally unprepared for.
I am of course making some assumptions there. I guess we can't rule it out entirely, but there are millions of unlikely apocalypses you can't completely rule out.
Re:World domination by MightyMartian · 2009-02-27 11:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think those are not unreasonable assumptions, providing they're maintained in that environment. The more interesting (and much more nasty) experiment would be to let the critters breed for many generations, letting the fittest gain control of their little ecosystem, then slowly introduce elements of the external environment in, making the habitat *less* supportive. Eventually, and I'm sure this would take a long time (several generations of scientists, say), you would produce an organism potentially capable of surviving outside the vat.
At that point, of course, it would still have to put up with 4 billion years worth of evolution on the outside, with organisms of considerably more complexity in finding and utilizing food sources. A good example are nylon-eating bacteria. In the space of no more than forty years, a population of bacteria learned how to eat a food that hadn't even existed prior to 1935.
Any organism we make in a vat would, I suspect, not last terribly long on the outside.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:World domination by geekoid · 2009-02-27 11:53 · Score: 1

You could probably do that in the lab in less then a decade.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:World domination by jamstar7 · 2009-02-27 12:02 · Score: 3, Funny

Any organism we make in a vat would, I suspect, not last terribly long on the outside.
Particularly in the Deep South, where barbeque is almost a religion on its own.
People for Eating Tasty Animals, anyone?

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:World domination by interkin3tic · 2009-02-27 12:04 · Score: 1

Interesting, your post echoed mine but you got modded up faster than me...
I agree. I do not think that these bacteria would last long outside the AGEIS system. ;-P
In seriousness, I think the 8 artificial nucleotide dependance is a pretty high hurdle. Evolving to the point of being able to make all 12 nucleotides from the natural 4 or other natural building blocks is possible, but I'm doubtful that it would ever be competitive with bacteria that don't bother doing that. Lowering the amount of artificial nucleotide in the vat gradually until the artificial bugs had completely replaced that nucleotide in their genomes with the others could work, but I would think it would take a VERY long time with just one, going from 12 to 4... we certainly couldn't possibly get away with triming our nucleotide use down from 4 to 2. I'd expect an absolute dependance on all 12 since that's how they were raised.
On the other hand some of the artificial nucleotides probably are easily replaced with natural ones. BrdU is a commonly used artificial nucleotide that can be used by cells in place of thymidine, pairing with adenosine. If they used BrdU that could probably be replaced by natural thymidine, and depending on how the artificial bugs evolved that might not make any difference. On the previous hand, if they're using artificial nucleotides that only pair with other artificial nucleotide, that would probably not be as easily replaceable.
Re:World domination by scjohnno · 2009-02-27 14:23 · Score: 1

Life finds a way.
Re:World domination by interkin3tic · 2009-02-27 14:34 · Score: 1

Well, that's so short and pithy that it MUST be true. Tell that to the dinosaurs (keeping in mind that Jurrasic park hasn't actually happened yet.)
Re:World domination by scjohnno · 2009-02-27 14:36 · Score: 1

Alternatively it was just a reference.
Re:World domination by imhennessy · 2009-02-27 14:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

To quote Dr. Ian Malcom: "Life. Finds. A. Way."
It was almost like Jeff Goldblum was channeling Shatner, but acting him as more human than he was when not acting.
ivan

--
Like to brew? Want to talk about it? Brattlebrew: groups.yahoo.com/group/brattlebrew
Re:World domination by interkin3tic · 2009-02-27 22:24 · Score: 1

To quote Dr. Ian Malcom: "Life. Finds. A. Way."
If given enough time it might. I'm reassured by the fact that after more than 4 billion years, life on Earth apparently has yet to leave it's much much bigger vat. For that reason, I propose we don't leave AGEIS running for more than a billion years.
Re:World domination by Nazlfrag · 2009-02-28 00:56 · Score: 1

The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here staggers me.
Don't you see the danger inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever witnessed, yet you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun.
If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territory, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously.
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
Re:World domination by Timoleon · 2009-02-28 05:42 · Score: 1

I...am....PROTEUS. All your base is mine.
Re:World domination by interkin3tic · 2009-02-28 11:22 · Score: 1

Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever witnessed, yet you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun.
I do?!? Gee, I thought I was just idly commenting on someone who was doing what you just described. Or are you talking about my... er... extracirricular genetic experimentation? That's really none of your buisness and off-topic.

If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territory, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously.
And slowly (at least on the timescale for a human life). Again, how long has it taken us to colonize space? How long did it take life to conquer dry land? Was it weeks, years, or millions of years? I think we'll get bored with AGEIS long before a warlike tribe of superhumans comes out of it.

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
You're right, they're just spending the thousands of research dollars on a whim.
Wait, no, I'm sure if you bothered to RTFA or better yet their research proposal you'd see some reasons to do it.
I'm not understanding the notion that any creation of life in a lab is inevitably going to kill everyone. What's going on in AGEIS is not that dissimilar than many environments you can find existing in nature right now and throughout history. Is there anything other than baseless FUD that makes you think something terrible is going to come out of this? Absolutely not, you've just seen jurrasic park too many times, don't understand what's going on here, and jumped to the conclusion that biologists are goign to destroy us all.

OT: online news by MichaelSmith · 2009-02-27 10:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

TFA has this caption:

Researchers in a Florida laboratory are working with the most asic building blocks of life to try and understand how biology first arose on Earth â" and how it might appear on other planets.

Seriously, I know these pages are assembled by software from other sources but don't they have spell checking built into them? Lots of otherwise good news sources I read have stupid typos in their online versions. Right now firefox is underlining "asic" for me, pointing out the mistake. It seems like every second article has something like this. It just seems so easy to fix. I wonder why that isn't done.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Re:OT: online news by QuasiEvil · 2009-02-27 10:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Clearly if I made artificial life, I'd put it on an ASIC. Otherwise you'd just have too many discrete components and general purpose things to get it in a tiny package.
Then again I'm an EE, and I equate everything biological to the word "slimy" in my mind. Mechanical life for the win...
Re:OT: online news by hierophanta · 2009-02-27 10:48 · Score: 1

the answer to :" I wonder why that isn't done" is always because you haven't done it. please don't victimize yourself anymore - life will be much more fulfilling. (sorry that's not supposed to sound patronizing, but, alas, it does)
Re:OT: online news by Tacvek · 2009-02-27 12:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Artificial life on an ASIC? How quaint a notion. Artificial life would work better in an FPGA so as to be able to reconfigure large portions of itself. (Although I will of course grant that a custom FPGA may be used, perhaps with some special hard coded logic, which may make it an ASIC if the result is not sufficently general purpose.)

--
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Re:OT: online news by Merls+the+Sneaky · 2009-02-27 15:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah she was wearing a little pink number and she was HOT!

Re:ASICs? by MichaelSmith · 2009-02-27 10:40 · Score: 1

I didn't realize that life could be built from blocks of Application Specific Integrated Circuits. Hmmmm.

Actually that is how I always expected New Life to come about.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Re:A first by nsaneinside · 2009-02-27 10:41 · Score: 1

intelligently designed

Well, I guess we know which camp you're in.

naming... by binaryseraph · 2009-02-27 10:42 · Score: 1

And we Dub this "T-Virus"....

Re:naming... by interkin3tic · 2009-02-27 11:11 · Score: 2

A virus that infects single cells which have 8 nucleotides I don't is a virus I laugh at.

Re:Not my fault by DigiShaman · 2009-02-27 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

If she's between 25 and 30, she lied to you. Beware if the biological clock my friend, beware!

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Obama: troops to stay in Iraq until almost 2012 by interkin3tic · 2009-02-27 10:55 · Score: 1

Where are the tax cuts Obama promised for 95% of us?

AEGIS ate the economy, so there's no money left.

How can !self sustaining=evolving? by faltriwall · 2009-02-27 10:59 · Score: 1

Sounds like weird science x

where x=fiction

Alive! by samirbenabid · 2009-02-27 11:10 · Score: 1

It's ALIVE!

Re:A first by PitaBred · 2009-02-27 11:10 · Score: 3, Funny

Nope! That's why it's news.

--
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.

I wonder if a science lab by Orion+Blastar · 2009-02-27 11:13 · Score: 1

can sue a scientist for child support and alimony for getting her pregnant?

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.

Am I the one only who thought about dogs... by epsalon · 2009-02-27 11:14 · Score: 1

I mean breeding Labradors is not really big news. Even in Florida.

--

Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org

Re:Am I the one only who thought about dogs... by thedrx · 2009-02-27 12:08 · Score: 1

Reminds me of a zoophiliac joke (sorry :P): "Honey, I'll be in my lab."

welcome by MrPinstripeCom · 2009-02-27 12:02 · Score: 1

I for one welcome our new genetically-crafted superior being overlords. Almost... not.. quite.

Re:God Hates Fags! by budgenator · 2009-02-27 12:20 · Score: 1

Am I the only one that assumed the CHOPS program cured homosexuality via traumatic castration?

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Grey goo and hubris by TapeCutter · 2009-02-27 12:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why do ludites (not accusing you) think artifical nanotech would NOT be eaten by the natural nanotech found around and within us? The people who think scientists can build such a machine are the ones who are guilty of hubris, not the scientists.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:Grey goo and hubris by marcosdumay · 2009-02-27 14:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because artificial machines may be able to deal with a much wider set of chemical reactions than we can. Also because they are inteligently designed and, thus, can be way better optimized than we are.
I'm not very concerned about it destroying the humanity, but I can see how grey goo may disrupt other species.

--
Rethinking email
Re:Grey goo and hubris by ZosX · 2009-02-27 14:37 · Score: 1

What makes you think a T-Cell can eat a nanomachine? Can you eat a laptop? Chew it? Swallow it? Didn't think so.....

--
zosxavius photography
Re:Grey goo and hubris by TapeCutter · 2009-02-27 15:20 · Score: 1

How silly of me to think that humans are not the only life form. /sarcasm

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Grey goo and hubris by TapeCutter · 2009-02-27 15:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I didn't say we can't disrupt nature, we have already done that with the closest thing we have to grey-goo, ie: pollution. My point is that nature will disrupt grey-goo no matter how intellegent or efficient it's design. In fact most, if not all, of said designs will be inspired by observing their natural conterparts.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Grey goo and hubris by faltriwall · 2009-02-27 15:48 · Score: 1

Are any species other than 1 celled organisms becoming more complex/robust?
The more I learn about genetics, the more I see genetic "defects" becoming more rampant. I wonder how robust a human could be if genetically engineered to have all good genes that there are in the whole human population and no bad ones. Did you know humans with downs syndrome rarely die of cancer? one theory is b/c extra cancer fighting gene in extra Chromosome 21.
But I digress. My viewpoint is probably skewed by walking amongst prescription pill poppin' Americans (what word did you expect?) who at age eight are in need of a psychiatrist, remedial schooling are obese and have diabetes and asthma.
Re:Grey goo and hubris by Beomeph · 2009-02-27 23:32 · Score: 1

T cells don't eat (phagocytose) particles, you're thinking of macrophages. But you make a good point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis Asbestosis is a good example of how human cells try to swallow (admittedly large) molecules and end up dying, the end-result after 40 years being the cancer malignant mesothelioma.
Re:Grey goo and hubris by ZosX · 2009-02-28 06:01 · Score: 1

Interesting. I always wondered what caused the buildup of tissue in asbestos cases.

--
zosxavius photography
Re:Grey goo and hubris by marcosdumay · 2009-03-03 06:11 · Score: 1

My point about humanity being safe is because as soon as we are able to do a better fitted competing being, we'll quite probably also be able to improve ourselves to the point of overturning this competitor.
I place no bet at the robustness of any kind of organism.

--
Rethinking email
Re:Grey goo and hubris by marcosdumay · 2009-03-03 06:14 · Score: 1

Ok, disrupt isn't a good word here.
My point was that, as we get better on it, we may become able to outcompete nature, and even replace life entirely
Of course, that doesn't apply to this specific experiment. (Nor anything I'm expecting to happen at the next 50 years...)

--
Rethinking email
Re:Grey goo and hubris by faltriwall · 2009-03-06 11:50 · Score: 1

Now to just weed out reactionaries and those who would use this tech to detrimental ends...
Just think of the new kinds of WMD, chitin reinforced radicals.

Re:Not my fault by Loualbano2 · 2009-02-27 12:58 · Score: 1

Seconded.

Re:Not my fault by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-27 13:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Mod parent up, and enjoy this best of craigslist post about paternity -- "Vasectomy: $400. Speechless look on her face: priceless."

Interesting statement about evolution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-27 13:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

> 'It's evolving. It's doing what we designed it to do...'

It's almost like a scientist is saying that evolution can take place as the result of an intelligent design process.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that.

Things like, "Certainly not this evolution, and certainly no intelligence could be great enough to have foreseen it." After all, we're number one. The smartest. No possibility of anything greater.

After all, extrapolation is only for climate data, and then, only on hot days.

Re:Not my fault by mpitten · 2009-02-27 13:40 · Score: 1

Don't blaim me! I thought she was on the pill!

Yeah, here I was reading the title and anticipating a flood of "HOW LABBY IS FORMED" comments.

--
mpitten FTW.

Re:Not my fault by caitsith01 · 2009-02-27 14:02 · Score: 1

Ah, slashdot. Where astounding technical brilliance meets an understanding of gender relations based on "Two and a Half Men".

--
Read Pynchon.

Florida Lab Gets Pregnant by blue+l0g1c · 2009-02-27 14:14 · Score: 1

Georgia enters child support negotiations.

Re:A first by Timothy+Brownawell · 2009-02-27 14:19 · Score: 1

An intelligently designed biological system capable of evolution.

Gee, that's never been done before.

But there do seem to be evolved biological systems capable of intelligent design.

That sounds pretty similar, it's gotta count for something.

Send up a flare by imhennessy · 2009-02-27 14:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

when they trounce cell theory. A bunch of chemicals which preferentially catalyze feedstock to produce identical/similar chemicals is interesting, and very difficult to do from scratch, but I want CELLS! Self enclosed systems.

I suppose cells are not really needed for life, but it seems pretty clear that they provide certain advantages, especially in terms of not just getting washed away.

On the topic of ID: just because there is a chemical reaction that seems to be approaching the fuzzy definition of life we've developed so far, and that reaction is intelligently designed, does not really have anything to do with the real problems that exist with pushing Intelligent Design as an alternate theory to evolution for explaining life.

This comes up a lot when people want to talk about both religion and science. They exist in different domains. Religion does not propose testable, predictive hypotheses. Science does not purport to provide meaning for existence.

Intelligent Design is not scientific.
Genetic evolution is not religious.

People can chose to reconcile religion and science, or pit them against each other. It is only when one or both are misused that there is conflict.

That said, the misuse and conflict almost always comes from the religious side. That is based on personal experience and I have no numbers to back it up.

ivan

--
Like to brew? Want to talk about it? Brattlebrew: groups.yahoo.com/group/brattlebrew

Re:Send up a flare by atraintocry · 2009-02-27 18:42 · Score: 1

Viruses aren't cells. Of course, not everyone would call a virus "life", but of course they're not exactly non-life either.
There's also psions...it's interesting how much of a gray area there is between life and non-life. These guys are clearly having a lot of fun playing around in that gray area.
As for ID (sigh), it's a rejection of *evolution* theory based on Christian theology. This research seems like it has more implications for abiogenesis than it does for evolution. Also...don't do them the service of assuming that they have a consistent "theory". The arguments change depending on the weather.

Re:A first by witherstaff · 2009-02-27 16:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, I can see the nobel committee giving a prize for really shoddy documentation like so :

Diary of creating new life :

Turned on the light of the lab
Opened up the experiment to the rest of the expansive lab
Added a little water
Played with the lights to have cyclic on off cycles
We let the lab bring forth living creatures
Took a much needed day off

Re:A first by deimtee · 2009-02-28 04:52 · Score: 1

I think you missed a day in there somewhere.

--
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...

113 of 149 comments (clear)