Can humans create life?

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by os10000 · 1999-09-11 20:56 · 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. by jilles · 1999-09-11 20:56 · Score: 1

Those who try to take God out of the picture ...

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.

--

Jilles

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Dilly+Bar · 1999-09-11 20:56 · Score: 1

Does any one know where you could find that quote by the Dalai Lama?I would like to get it exactly as he wrote it for a class.

"Create"? by Bob-K · 1999-09-11 19:16 · Score: 3

Can humans create life? No. It's already been created.

Can we copy it? Probably.

Re:"Create"? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 14:57 · Score: 0

Create != Invent
Re:"Create"? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-13 05:02 · Score: 0

it has "appeared" we don't KNOW that it is "created" - No proof ... unless you believe those salesmen/women in certain places of worship.

Re:We are the gods. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:58 · Score: 0

You just finished reading Stranger in a Strange Land, didn't you? Great book, that. To keep slightly on topic, if your definition of God is the one who knows it all, I agree that we will never get there. *But*, I think that in any society, the person who knows the *most* will be looked upon as God (the God of your definition, of course) --AC

Re:*ONLY* 350 genes required for life by Adam+Knapp · 1999-09-11 20:59 · Score: 1

Actually only 1 gene is required for life. One single self replicating RNA strand is all you need. RNA, unlike DNA, can function not only as a carrier of genetic code but also as a enzyme. It is now believed that DNA is actually a product of evolution itself. You see DNA is actually a modified version of RNA (de-oxy ribonucleic acid vs. ribonucleic acid) that stabilizes the code making mutations less likely. (RNA is known for it high mutation rate and relatively short life span.)

Re:It's the other way around. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 19:17 · Score: 0

I wasn't a very sceptical child at all. As gullible as toddlers come in fact. I was convinced that Santa didn't like me, because all the other kids I knew got nice presents, while I got a sweater, socks and other useful but uncool presents (my parents were relatively poor at the time, and idealists too). I remember I was so relieved when I found out Santa was a hoax...
...such a relief will not be forthcoming for people struggling with the ever increasing conflict between faith and apparent reality. There is no conceivable way to prove once and for all that there is a God or not. If religion is a hoax, (as I believe it is) invented by narcissistic madmen like david koresh and L. Ron Hubbard, who skillfully preyed on people's fear and insecurity because controlling people's minds turned them on, there is no way to prove it, because the founders of most established religions have turned to dust centuries ago.

When thinking about religions, and their founders, I can't help but imagine how you (and I) would look at a man who today claimed to be the son of God, here to save me, and die for my sins. To me the difference is completely arbitrary, so that's why i suggested to restore faith in Santa and the easter bunny

I'm very sorry I had to post this as an A.C.
By the way, I think it's wrong of religious institutes to claim morality (don't steal, don't murder etc) for themselves as 'the nature and will of God'. It is probably not what you meant, but somehow it feels like an accusation that I as an atheist only act morally OK out of fear of being punished (this is what I heard a TV preacher say once).

Re:Really not all that surprising by MindStalker · 1999-09-11 19:17 · Score: 2

Ok then assuming we evolved from something much simpler, why did evolution seem to have been contained in a straight line up untill bacteria. I'm refering to the fact that all life shares a fairly high amount of DNA (I can't remember the percent exactly.. something around 80%). If evolution took us from something that wasn't even that complex (as that first 80% shared is extremly complex) why do we not see a greater variety of DNA patterns. Wouldn't it make sense that evolution would have found several other ways to define life than that.

Re:Evolution "banned" in Kansas? (FT.com article) by TheLionMan · 1999-09-11 20:59 · Score: 1

Actually what the state regents board voted was the de-emphasize evolution and let local school boards decide. However, realize this is not the view of most of the people in the state (including me). Next legislature session, a bill is going to be introduced to limit the powers of the state regents board on this issue. Apparently a lot of people are quite unhappy in this state about the decision. I think its a given next election cycle, there will be a few members of the state regents board who will be looking for a new job (of course they have their political connections so that won't be so tough for them unfortunately).

A good argument why this may never happen by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:00 · Score: 0

What I see to be the biggest problem to future progress is the fact that most people can't even spell simple words correctly.

Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 19:18 · Score: 0

Absolutely, This research demonstrates that we can piece together a complex machine with existing complex pieces. He's not creating new life from scratch per-se merely assembling it from pre-existing parts is IMHO not that much different than breeding many organisms together to produce the desired offspring.

Is this a poor analogy? by NullPointer · 1999-09-11 21:05 · Score: 1

Forgetting the ethical and religious implications for a moment, and understanding that I don't have a clue with respect to biology...

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.

--
NULL

Re:Is this a poor analogy? by dehuit · 1999-09-11 21:53 · Score: 1

Well, you do not assemble simple subroutines, but carefully select very complicated subtroutines, known already to work in other programs for ages.
And yes, you will get many bugs, but almost all bugs would cause the program to crash, and you'd just forget about it. The changes you create a program that would find its way onto the net and do something dangerous are really slim (not to be neglected, though).
You are of course only allowed to do this if the license of the chosen subroutines permits this. Well, Craig Venter has patents on many genes, so he should have no problems...
But i would say we really should start a serious open source movement here, i mean, patents on genes? Look at the license for human genes from TIGR, for crying out loud. This whole science thing started as open source, and it should have stayed that way. What if Newton patented the gravitational constant?

Do *natural* bacteria have souls? by volsung · 1999-09-11 19:22 · Score: 1

I'm not a theologian (IANAT), but I don't know of many churches (at least those of Christian descent) that claim that naturally occuring bacteria can sin either. Usually that ability hinges on whether the creatures understands good and evil. I really doubt bacteria fit that criteria.

I also have no recollection of anyone making claims about bacteria souls.

Re:Do *natural* bacteria have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 23:30 · Score: 0

Christian pantheism
I'm sure there must be people who claim to adhere to it, but this is a contradiction in terms! I'm certain Jesus would not approve.
Re:Do *natural* bacteria have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:17 · Score: 0

I also have no recollection of anyone making claims about bacteria souls.
Pantheists do (for a good summary of pantheism, read Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. IIRC How the Irish Saved Civilization by Tho mas Cahill had a discussion about Christian pantheism.

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Cid+Highwind · 1999-09-11 19:26 · Score: 1

>Does the book make more sense at the end?
>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...

--
0 1 - just my two bits

Re:Really not all that surprising by gid-foo · 1999-09-11 21:05 · Score: 1

It seems like God would be most interested in producing the weakest life form he could just to prove his incredible diesel life style. This behavior is continuously shown in the old testament (check out the book of judges, story of Gideon, my namesake for a fine example). That he could say, "you are a puny pathetic race and without me you would be nothing." And we would have to say, "Fair enough." Just to be somewhat realistic (if that's even possible in a conversation where the existence of God is pretty much assumed) the whole business makes 0 sense. That's why all you true believers out there have that mysterious quantity "faith." The ones who got hit bad might have even got the all-too-common disease "fundamentalism." Having neither of these qualities, nor a belief in a rational universe, I believe that this whole thing is patently ridiculous (I mean life). Also God doesn't think about anything, it or he or whatever is God. Omniscient and omnipotent are the rules of the day. Who needs to think when you not only know but are the past,present and future.

What is creating life? by dehuit · 1999-09-11 21:05 · 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 by MindStalker · 1999-09-11 19:27 · Score: 2

Yes, but viruses cannot self replicate, they require living cells to preform the replication. So given that it seems as if viruses have to have evolved (don't like using that term but it makes sense for my point) after simple cellular forms of life.

Re:God's influence shrinking? by Jackster · 1999-09-11 19:32 · Score: 1

...And how did the God of the Old Testiment show that good old respect and kindness to life? He flooded the entire globe and killed 99.999 percent of all life -- even innocent animals, mothers with unborn babies, the aged, and children.

Re:God's influence shrinking? by MDX-F1 · 1999-09-11 19:35 · Score: 1

I'm not sure there's really any clash here between science and religion. Most Christians I know accept the theory of evolution anyway, so I don't think the idea of synthetic bacteria is going to shake the faith of many people.

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?? by bnenning · 1999-09-11 19:40 · Score: 1

The book is much better. It gets more into the global implications of receiving an alien message, they send five people, and the ending makes a whole lot more sense and is much cooler. Read it.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.

Re:Santa and the easter bunny by dufke · 1999-09-11 21:06 · Score: 1

Yea, and The Silmarillion proves the excitence of Eru Iluvatar, and the Mindcraft benchmarks prove the inferiority of Linux...

It is ALLWAYS possible to craft fiction, or fictional evidence for ANYTHING
________________________________________ ___________________

--
__
Comment submitted. There will be a delay before you understand what you posted.

The more we learn about the universe... by MonkeyMAN · 1999-09-11 21:10 · Score: 0

The more we learn about the universe, the greater God's act of creation becomes. To believe soley in the text of the Bible as the only true truth and to not interpret the meaning behind it is naieve. But we can keep on explaining the universe, but eventually you reach the point where either it all came from nothing, or that there is some higher power that has always existed. Correct me if I'm wrong but right now, current scientific theory is: a 10th dimensional universe broke apart into a 6th dimensional universe (which was unstable and broke into 2 3-dimensional universes) and a 4th dimensional universe (our universe). At that point, our universe was an infinite amount of matter and mass put into something between the size of a baseball and basketball, which exploded (the Big Bang) and formed galaxies, including ours the milky way, which formed stars and planets and such. Of course, this 10-th dimensional universe didn't come from nothing, it exists in some "multiverse" where other universes (up to 24th dimensional) exist. So God taylored the existance of the multiverse so that all of this would happen (since we know that very few things in this universe are ACTUALLY random, and they have little effect on the outcome of things). And this seems a little more likely than all this happened "just cause".

Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:12 · Score: 0

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.

A simple, elegant explanation is the fact that there is only one lifeform left that made it. Nowadays, life is too efficient a competitor for resources to allow new lifeforms to spread and evolve. All life on earth today seems to decend from one single cell. The decendants of other early life forms just didn't make it. This one most likely had a single enzyme that synthesised protein from amino acids. Most enzymes are in fact stereo-selective, meaning the reaction doesn't take place as well with the 'wrong hand variety'.

Re:In shock by morbid · 1999-09-11 19:49 · Score: 1

assuming they're Christians, not Jews, Muslims, Seikhs (sp), Hindus, Bhuddists (sp), Confucians...

--
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.

Re:Really not all that surprising by ekiledal · 1999-09-11 21:13 · Score: 1

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.

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... by Slur · 1999-09-11 19:51 · Score: 1

Super soldiers that look like Kurt Russell!

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?

--
-- thinkyhead software and media

Re:Really not all that surprising by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:15 · Score: 0

>What would you improve in humans if you could, anyway? I would like world peace and an end to human suffering.

God's influence shrinking? by CocaCola · 1999-09-11 15:08 · Score: 2

Wondering what the Catholic Church (and other churches) opinion about this is. Do artifical bacteria have a soul? Are they a creature of God? Can they (pre-programmed human creations) Sin? Interesting questions I think.

--
--Coke

Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 23:34 · Score: 0

intellectually sophisticated Christians
I suppose this means those who have lost their faith...
the soul is connected irrevocably to our brains
What a bunch of materialistic popycock! Even true scientists admit that the mind/body problem is far from being solved. And then so-called Christians propose that our souls are intrinsically bound to bunch of inert matter. Heresy!
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Bouncings · 1999-09-11 21:23 · Score: 1

No, he's clearly talking about Jesus - that 60s haircut guy who hasn't been up to much for about 2 thousand years.

--
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Wonko42 · 1999-09-12 00:37 · Score: 1

Well, bacteria may or may not have a soul, but the Old Testament commands respect and kindness towards every living thing (which of course doesn't preclude killing and eating certain living things, so there you go).
Where does it say this in the Old Testament? I don't remember reading that. In the New Testament, we are commanded to love one another, but I don't recall reading anything in the Bible implying that we should have respect and kindness towards every living thing. Indeed, in Genesis I do believe God told Adam that he was dominant over every other living thing and could do pretty much as he pleased...
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:51 · Score: 0

This is all my opinion and my Father ( A senior Pastor ) wold disagree with most of it. Many people ( Including most Cristians ) have no concept of what seperates man from God in terms of power. Simply put it's not that "God can rais the dead but man cannot" or "Only God can create life". Rather it's about scale and raw energy requierments. I.e. A man may be able to use the energy from a nuclear plant to generate a few molecules of matter ( perhaps enogh to fill a test tube ) but will he be able to fill a galaxy with stars ? We rutinly "resorect" people who have drowned in ice watter 1/2 a hour latter but what about those who were dumped in the swamp 2 years ago ? ( You might not eaven find bones for such a corps ). We can move water around using air and energy in clever ways but how far is the technology for opening a walkway throgh a major sea ? Yes man achives many of the wonders God has done. This is understandeble since we were created in his "image and likeness". Most people think that is a phisical thing ( This has been a justification for racisim ) but it's more likely about brain function and potential power. Basicaly, we are all tiny minitures of god. We can with efort acomplish some of the things he did. Just not on the same scale. Forge, without my account.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:52 · Score: 0

>Bacteria don't have a soul, neither do dogs, >cats, or anything else. Just us - and that theory >assumes, of course, that we aren't evolved from >apes. No. Only that God is involved in the creation of the soul of every human being. If you are capable of intellectual discrimination, you should be able to see that this is orthogonal to the question of evolution.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:21 · Score: 2

Here are some Catholic links which should help answer your questions.

Catholic FAQ - topic 'the soul'
Catholic Encyclopedia - article on the soul
St. Augustine - A Treatise on the Soul You will probably have more questions and they would be best directed to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:56 · Score: 0

>Your talking about the Pope right? You really think he's a virgin? Give me a break
Just because you have no self-control doesn't mean that no one else are earth does. Perhaps your small mind simply has difficulty fathoming profound ideas.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by MindStalker · 1999-09-12 01:14 · Score: 2

It was humor, laugh a little geez. And there are many reported cases of catholic priest not staying selibate. Why not the pope, he is a man of action right?
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:57 · Score: 0

This is all my opinion and my Father ( A senior Pastor ) wold disagree with most of it.

Many people ( Including most Cristians ) have no concept of what seperates man from God in terms of power. Simply put it's not that "God can rais the dead but man cannot" or "Only God can create life".

Rather it's about scale and raw energy requierments. I.e. A man may be able to use the energy from a nuclear plant to generate a few molecules of matter ( perhaps enogh to fill a test tube ) but will he be able to fill a galaxy with stars ? We rutinly "resorect" people who have drowned in ice watter 1/2 a hour latter but what about those who were dumped in the swamp 2 years ago ? ( You might not eaven find bones for such a corps ).

We can move water around using air and energy in clever ways but how far is the technology for opening a walkway throgh a major sea ? Yes man achives many of the wonders God has done. This is understandeble since we were created in his "image and likeness". Most people think that is a phisical thing ( This has been a justification for racisim ) but it's more likely about brain function and potential power.

Basicaly, we are all tiny minitures of god. We can with efort acomplish some of the things he did. Just not on the same scale.

Forge, without my account.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Bilbo · 1999-09-11 15:32 · Score: 1

> Do artifical bacteria have a soul?
Do natural bacteria have a soul? I think not. I'm not Catholic, but I think only humans have a soul and are capable of sin.
Other creatures were created by God, but that doesn't mean we can't fiddle around with them.

--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Re:God's influence shrinking? by MindStalker · 1999-09-12 01:23 · Score: 2

I don't think the collection plate was exactly gods plan. (old testement sayed to gvie some of your work to god (translated money sometimes but thats silly) new testiment just says give freely from your heart (and doesn't really say where to give) Ministers have a way of twisting his words.

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.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:39 · Score: 0

he's clearly talking about Jesus - that 60s haircut guy who hasn't been up to much for about 2 thousand years.
Except maybe the thousands of documented miracles that have taken place since then...
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:53 · Score: 0

God ? Is that that guy how scares everybody out of their Lunch money ? Donate money to the collection plate or you will be sent to hell !: [Translation] Give me your lunch money or your dead after school
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Cassandra · 1999-09-11 23:04 · Score: 1

>Bacteria don't have a soul, neither do dogs, >cats, or anything else. Just us - and that theory >assumes, of course, that we aren't evolved from >apes. No. Only that God is involved in the creation of the soul of every human being. If you are capable of intellectual discrimination, you should be able to see that this is orthogonal to the question of evolution.

Sounds as if you are a dualist. What if your soul and your brain are equivalent (that is, spanning the same subspace ;) )? Would they still be orthogonal?
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 03:45 · Score: 0

The statement "Most Christians I know accept the theory of evolution anyway, so I don't think the idea of synthetic bacteria is going to shake the faith of many people." is an oxymoron in its most pure form. TRUE Xians do not accept the theory of evolution. People who claim to be Xians AND accept the theory of evolution either do NOT understand what Xianity is or are fooling themselves and other people who would like to consider themselves Xian, but dont understand what Xianity really is.

>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.

This is a confusing statement. To be dualist IS to be Xian. Intellectual Xians are smart dualists. YES, they do believe that the soul is connected to (or resides in) our brains, BUT they still believe that the body is the captive audience of the mind and the mind (soul) is the master of the carnal self. Intellectual Xians still believe that the mind (soul) is SEPERATE from the carnal self, even if it resides in the human brain, it is STILL SEPERATE from the carnal self. They may be smart Xians, but they are still NOT WHOLE. They are split in TWO! They believe that they must keep their carnal, natural self at bay by using the power of their minds (souls). This IS dualism, intellectual Xians are nothing more than smart dualists. Do smart Xians believe that the mind is the captive audience of the body OR do they believe that the body is the captive audience of the mind? Dualism! Dualism! Dualism! To be Xian is to be dualist. To claim to be Xian AND not dualist, is to claim to be NOT Xian!

>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.

Can artificial life have souls? What is a soul? Some would consider the concept of one having a soul a sickness common to Xians, or a peculiar form of brain damage that all Xians have to various degrees. Does a serpent sin? Does a natural carnal animal understand the concept of a soul? Perhaps artificial life could be created with a soul BUT this artificial life would have to suffer from the same kind of brain damage Xian humans suffer from. If a serpent was born with a soul it would shortly die, without instinct and the carnal self to guide it through the early stages of its life, it would surely perish! Human Xian dualists survive only because of their intelligence, e.g. they dont need instinct to know how to have children, they can learn about how to have children from books. Natural animals dont need to be taught how to reproduce!

Can a robot have a soul? Is there anything natural about a robot? is there ANYTHING carnal about a robot? A robot would be guided by its computer (its mind). If a robot encounters a dangerous situation where none of its programming can help it overcome, it will surely perish! The robot would be guided by pre-programmed instructions or if it has the capacity to learn, perhaps it would be guided by past experiences also. A robot does NOT have instinct. A robot must be taught everything it knows. Robots are NOT dualists, there is no body, only mind (programming/computer). Thus it can be said that robots DO appear to have souls, and appear to be perhaps better Xians than the human Xians themselves! Robots do not sin! Robots do not burn in hell!

--
"If you want to view paradise, Simply look around and view it. Anything you want to, do it. Want to change the world? There's nothing to it."
-- Willy Wonka, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"
Re:God's influence shrinking? by banky · 1999-09-11 16:37 · Score: 1

God's influence seems to be shrinking, but his PR campaign sucks. Look at his "main man" here on earth- a senile, drooling virgin in a funny hat. As an author, he hasn't produced anything in thousands of years (and his last hit was ghostwritten). No burning bushes anymore. He's just not.... hip.

Bacteria don't have a soul, neither do dogs, cats, or anything else. Just us - and that theory assumes, of course, that we aren't evolved from apes. The implication of this project, that lower forms of life can be "custom made" and that if you can do a bacteria then frogs and whales aren't too far away, is frightening for other than religious reasons. Given the tremendous amount of data about our own bodies that we just don't understand - specifics about thought and memory, why some people like Hee Haw - I think the idea of going and making "life" is a dangerous one if approached as a "wow this is neat" project. The introduction of things into the environment that weren't crafted by Nature frightens me. Suppose you make its antibodies so hardy, it starts killing everything? Any number of sci-fi holocaust stories spring to mind.

--
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 23:16 · Score: 0

...And how did the God of the Old Testiment show that good old respect and kindness to life? He flooded the entire globe and killed 99.999 percent of all life
Which just goes to show you, some things are just more important than mere life. Such as obedience to the Almighty.
Of course, according to evolution, 99.9% of all species are extinct. How cruel!
Re:God's influence shrinking? by DMoylan · 1999-09-12 15:15 · Score: 1

Part of sinning is feeling guilt and I reckon (having lived with cats, dogs and a few birds) that animals are capable of guilt.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Bombpop+Man · 1999-09-12 18:22 · Score: 1

I think that we all are forgetting that man believes that he has a soul because it makes him feel better about himself. It also puts him on a pedestal above every other living thing on the planet. It is our nature to want to be better than the next thing and our first creation was not bacteria or a cloned sheep. Our first creation was god, and our ability to do this, is what gives us a soul and a reason to live in our own minds. Therefore is my opinion that anything that we create in reality is equal to ourselves, soulless and looking for a reason to live.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by MindStalker · 1999-09-11 17:44 · Score: 1

Your talking about the Pope right? You really think he's a virgin? Give me a break.. And I doupt if asked that God would call him his main man, I doupt God is even Catholic in the first place (HAR HAR). And when did something have to be hip for you to believe in it. Personally if God ever did turn hip, I'd loose alot of respect for the guy, Absolute wisdom my ass.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by plasticquart · 1999-09-12 22:29 · Score: 1

Except maybe the thousands of documented miracles that have taken place since then...
"documented miracles"? 1000's of documented miracles? Where?
I would like to see the proof of one documented miracle... let alone a thousand.
And while you are at it... how about a shred of scientific proof for the existance of a God (let alone a particular God)? And/or, proof of the existence of the soul?
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 18:39 · Score: 0

Anti-catholic bigotry, the last frontier. The answer, by the way, is that of created corporate beings, only humans have souls. Hence, only humans can sin.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Rational · 1999-09-18 10:14 · Score: 1

Cruel evolution I can live with, because it wouldn't work otherwise. A cruel Creator, I cannot live with. A creator that will kill you for disobedience, I don't care for, you can have it all to yourself.

--
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Laitnedurp · 1999-09-11 18:17 · Score: 1

Two horribly wrong assumptions:

1) That all bacteria are virulent

2) God's PR has to be through the media
Re:God's influence shrinking? by dangermouse · 1999-09-11 18:47 · Score: 1

Hence, only humans can sin.

Lucky us.
Re:God's influence shrinking? by Pelerin · 1999-09-11 18:51 · Score: 1

Well, bacteria may or may not have a soul, but the Old Testament commands respect and kindness towards every living thing (which of course doesn't preclude killing and eating certain living things, so there you go).

One ethical/theological question for the future might be: what kinds (if any) of genetic manipulation constitute cruelty to these living things? And under what conditions (medical research, maybe?) might such cruelty be permissible?
Re:God's influence shrinking? by PG13 · 1999-09-11 20:52 · Score: 1

Read the article!!! Most of the article is explaining the position of the Catholic church on the development. I do not believe these were 'official' pronouncemnts but the article implied that the initial reaction was negative but eventually they said that making bacteria was okay as long as it was done for scientific purposes and not for immoral ones (dis-proving god etc..)

--
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
Re:God's influence shrinking? by BenLutgens · 1999-09-11 20:53 · Score: 1

Who cares! Genetically engineered Pamela Andersons for everyone.

--
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin

You don't need to be alive to evolve ! by Thomas+Miconi · 1999-09-11 19:53 · Score: 1

All a population needs to evolve is non-perfect self-replication. This is often seen as a prerequisite for life, but it is not a strict definition of it.

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:Santa and the easter bunny by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:15 · Score: 0

Well, I certainly still believe in Thor!

Mjollner, who has misplaced his password

nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:08 · Score: 0

> Like a modern-day Dr Frankenstein, Dr Venter
> hopes to use parts salvaged from dead bacteria
> to create his artificial bug.

it would be MUCH more impressive if he could start with raw chemicals

Re:nothing new by hellish · 1999-09-11 19:55 · Score: 1

if in fact someone could do this, peice together DNA and life with just basic chemicals, God and creationism would suddenly seem insagnificant because life can be made with a few simple chemicals floating around in a bowl. i can't wait.
Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 23:48 · Score: 0

I agree, but, if the belief is, "God created us and everything" where did he come from? Did he just pop up? Did some thing create him? I've been told he just came to be, but how? I mean he couldn't create him self so there had to be something else?
Either there is an infinite recursion back to, well, inifinitely recursing back to nothing. Because if it is infinitely recursing, it has no beginning, there is always a predecessor to the predecessor.
Or, there is an ultimate unmanifest reality from which everything else manifested.
The first is untennable. How can reality have no beginning?
The second makes complete sense. There is one ultimate reality from whence all reality sprung.
So you can ask, where did God come from? But the answer is that God did not come from anywhere. God is the ultimate reality from whence all of creation sprang. God did not come from anywhere. He does not have a predicessor. He did not create himself. He is existence itself from which sprung all things that exist.
Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:29 · Score: 0

I agree, but, if the belief is, "God created us and everything" where did he come from? Did he just pop up? Did some thing create him? I've been told he just came to be, but how? I mean he couldn't create him self so there had to be something else?
Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:13 · Score: 0

I don't understand your line of thinking. God creates life, man creates life. Why does that invalidate the first creation? I think it adds more credibility to the creation argument. If man can create it, how do we know someone else didn't create it too?
Re:nothing new by techt · 1999-09-11 15:41 · Score: 1

This will happen eventually. But to get there, we have to go through here.
Re:nothing new by hellish · 1999-09-12 03:12 · Score: 1

if dna can be peiced together easily, its not that hard to imagine it being formed naturally over billions of years. i saw this analogy in someone elses quote 'if you throw matchsticks in the air for billions of years, they will eventually land and spell life'.
Re:nothing new by Gorth · 1999-09-11 16:46 · Score: 1

> Like a modern-day Dr Frankenstein, Dr Venter

That is the scary part. Frankenstein's monster turned on him. Will this little game of creating life come back upon us?
RE: nothing new by baglunch · 1999-09-11 18:33 · Score: 1

it would be MUCH more impressive if he could start with raw chemicals
When you reduce to a certain level, you ARE using raw chemicals (indistinguishable as coming from any particular host). Think of it more like... he is doing object-oriented genetic construction.

--
Work is for people who lack the imagination to play.

Re:On Playing God by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 19:54 · Score: 0

"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) "

Not in the States. No one is responsible in the US. (Perhaps responsible is the wrong term... responsibility is what a person feels. No one here has accountability.) That's what scares the crap out of most people.

-Derek

Re:Very insightful. by dufke · 1999-09-11 21:16 · Score: 1

"The only honest answer to the great questions of life is: I don't know."
Lars-Olof Franzen, transl. from swedish.

________________________________________________ ___________

--
__
Comment submitted. There will be a delay before you understand what you posted.

Its the chicken/egg scenario+something else by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:11 · Score: 0

For the most part it is the chicken/egg scenario. That and I wonder if anyone has IP on designs of life, or if they could.

Re:Its the chicken/egg scenario+something else by Coward,+Anonymous · 1999-09-11 15:39 · Score: 1

I wonder if anyone has IP on designs of life

God does, the church will be filing a lawsuit on his behalf.
Re:Its the chicken/egg scenario+something else by redhog · 1999-09-11 16:17 · Score: 1

In Europe, it's ruled - you can not patent or copyright life. The law was about genetic manipulation, but from what I know, it will cover this too (But I'm not a lawyer). So the church may not file any lawsuit here...

By the way, think of an OpenGenome creature with everyone assembling bugs in their basements - what a wonderfull and scary future!

--
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:Its the chicken/egg scenario+something else by ToastyKen · 1999-09-11 17:29 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that there currently are patents on genetically modified foods and such in the U.S.

It's a jungle out there by Ungrounded+Lightning · 1999-09-11 19:54 · Score: 2

How did the bacteria have a chance to evolve from 100 genes to 350 if it could not survive with 100?

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.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Re:Very insightful. by Bedemus · 1999-09-11 21:18 · Score: 1

I'm aware of this, was simply making a generalization about those that I have met.

Really not all that surprising by Masem · 1999-09-11 15:12 · Score: 4

Well back before the genetic code was being worked on, some experimenters demonstrated 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).

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.

--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:

Re:Really not all that surprising by CocaCola · 1999-09-11 15:23 · Score: 1

Not surprising, but only if you accept the theory of evolution. Many people (almost exclusively religious ones) do not accept evolution as a driving force behind Life On Earth. This experiment - maybe for the first time in history - directly demonstrates how life supposedly got created on Earth 4-5 billion years ago.

--
--Coke
Re:Really not all that surprising by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 19:58 · Score: 0

The only improvement that I would make to humans would be to add a serial port.
Re:Really not all that surprising by Andreas+Bombe · 1999-09-11 23:51 · Score: 1

It doesn't mean that all simpler reproductive systems (some of which wouldn't even classify as life) evolved into one cellular life. It could mean that all other forms died out.

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:Really not all that surprising by hellish · 1999-09-11 20:01 · Score: 1

ok, lets assume God created all life. why is there even DNA, a 'natural' molecule made up of some relatively simple things behind the reproduction of cells and all of the life processes. If i were God i'd uh... 'think' of something a little less complicated and something that didn't point towards evolution quite so much.
Re:Really not all that surprising by bcboy · 1999-09-12 00:08 · Score: 1

> Humans have way more genes and DNA than bacteria

DNA, yes. genes, no. humans have huge amounts of non-coding DNA, but most human genes have bacterial analogs & the difference in number of genes isn't nearly as great as the difference in amount of DNA. i.e. we have a lot of noise in our DNA (including things like reminants of extinct retro-viruses which have spliced themselves into our genome. pretty wacky.)

the "noise" can be used to measure raw mutation rates (since a mutation in the non-coding region doesn't alter the animal much, though possibly affecting structural properties of its DNA), and it can be used to verify ancestral relationships.
Re:Really not all that surprising by Masem · 1999-09-11 20:09 · Score: 2

This is why most of the establishment believes the "building blocks" of life came on a meteor or some other extraterrestrial vehicle.
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...)

--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Re:Really not all that surprising by MindStalker · 1999-09-11 20:12 · Score: 2

Ok, your the ultimate suprime being in the universe. You decide to create life. So you think of the simplist solution, instead of the one best suited for survival and deversification. That makes sense. (not arguing existance just arguing against your logic)
Re:Really not all that surprising by jilles · 1999-09-11 20:19 · Score: 1

Technically we'll soon be able to it ourselves: find a nice planet. Engineer a nice sample of bacteria. Release them on the planet and leave them alone to do their stuff. Evolution will do the rest.

Of course the suggestion that that is how we were created is slightly rediculous but not impossible.

--

Jilles
Re:Really not all that surprising by matthead · 1999-09-11 21:54 · Score: 1

Sure, I can see it now: we drop off a few thousand single-cell life forms on a turbulent, relatively new planet in some distant solar system. Then, thousands of thousands of millenia later, our unrecognizable (what will another three or four billion years do to us, especially since we can accelarate the pace of evolution?) descendants come by to pick up the new intelligence-
"How ya doin', cuz?"

I see a different future, where we take three paths to understand life:
Genetic Engineering: we take what's already here, change it slightly, and see what happens.
Synthetic Life: what prompted this post. We make new, unique organisms. How might they fit into out biosphere?
Artificial Life: a la John Conway. It doesn't bear any kind of resemblence to what we know today, but how many of you saw the episode of Star Trek where Moriarti wanted off the holodeck? Take that to a different level; we can create organisms that aren't necessarily tied to matter.

It has nothing to do with supplanting God, or reducing his influence. If anything, it seems we're getting closer to him. Is "playing God" a bad thing? Perhaps we're just in training...

In much less than several billion years, we can find ways to create new races. If you're worried about corrupting Earth's biosphere, then we'll just have to find a way to travel between stars. I think we can do it, but perhaps I'm an unreasonable optimist.

--

-Matthead
Re:Really not all that surprising by jilles · 1999-09-11 20:29 · Score: 1

, why did evolution seem to have been contained in a straight line up untill bacteria

Who says it did. It's kind of hard to find DNA of species that got extinct billions of years ago. So its difficult to prove/disprove.

as that first 80% shared is extremely complex

I'm not a biologist but something tells me this is BS. Humans have way more genes and DNA than bacteria (this is the reason biologists started documenting the DNA of simpler organisms first).

Your assumptions all seem to be incorrect. I won't bother attacking the conclusions. I leave that as an excersise to the reader.

--

Jilles
Re:Really not all that surprising by ralphclark · 1999-09-12 01:22 · Score: 1

Miller's experiment was important because it opened up a whole new line of research. Many people followed with similar experiments using different starting atmospheres and different methods of energy delivery but they all broadly achieved the same sort of result: simple reagents combined in aqua to make ever more complex organic molecules.

Now that's fine as far as it goes. But as I understand it the most common criticism offered by the unwary is that the reagents would have been too dilute in seawater for the necessary chain of reactions to progress very far, and the natural environment doesn't provide any way to collect the reagents in more concentrated form to overcome this.

However that's just plain ignorance I'm afraid. Several theories have been advanced to explain this, including evaporating pools at the shoreline and clay beds - which can contain rare metals by the way, and make excellent catalysts for organic reactions.

Currently the most popular theory is that life arose in or near "smokers" - chimneys at the bottom of the ocean where heat and hot gases escape from the earth's interior. Several species of archaeobacteria have been found subsisting on the environment these thinge provide. These archaeobacteria are virtually identical to the oldest fossil bacteria ever seen, and moreover genetic studies indicate that their kind are the common direct ancestor of every living species on the planet.

The smokers certainly provide a constant source of heat and raw materials, maintaining a high concentration of useful reagents in the immediate vicinity - the perfect environment for life to evolve in. And there's not too much oxygen down there, either, regardless of the makeup of the atmosphere.

As far as the theory of the seeds of life arriving as passengers on a meteor, or in the tail of a comet - only a few relative wackos believe in that stuff (the idea was pioneered by the eternally rebellious Fred Hoyle after all).

To start with, it would not be enough for non-self-reproducing molecules to arrive that way as there simply wouldn't be enough material to make a difference; and anything complex enough to be interesting is likely to be incinerated on the way down.

Since the discovery of possible nanobacterial fossils on the Martian meteorite the idea has become more popular but remember that these tiny structures are not yet proven to be real fossils, and even if they were it seems unlikely they could have survived the trip.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Really not all that surprising by Rhys+Dyfrgi · 1999-09-11 20:31 · Score: 1

If evolution took us from something that wasn't even that complex (as that first 80% shared is extremly complex) why do we not see a greater variety of DNA patterns.

Because the one's that survived are the ones that are most fit. That happened to lead to what we have today. It just so happened that the shared DNA was the best for the job. It didn't have to go straight to bacteria, in fact, it probably didn't. Probability says that it should have taken several other paths at the same time, but the path leading to bacteria was the only one that survived.
---

--
END OF LINE
Re:Really not all that surprising by tragedy · 1999-09-11 22:10 · Score: 1

I think that the shared DNA you're talking about is all stuff describing how to make various enzymes, amino acids, proteins and what have you. Stuff that all life uses. And, since human beings have much more DNA in any of their cells than most (any?) bacteria, I have to assume that you mean that 80% of the DNA found in most bacteria is also found in humans, and not the other way around.
This is not, of course, particularly surprising. Bacteria are single celled organisms -- they're made of cells. Humans are multi-celled organisms -- also made of cells. So, it is not unusual that most of the DNA in a bacterium would describe how to make the various bits of a cell that don't make themselves (I'm thinking of things like mitochondria, which presumably aren't made from scratch by the DNA in the nucleus), and the various chemicals that keep the cell running. The rest of the DNA would be about specialization, throw in a plasmid (kind of like a weapons upgrade in an old video game like gradius) here and there, and you've got your complete, distinct bacterium. Meanwhile, the human cells need to do most of the same stuff that the Bacterial cells need to, plus, they need a slew of other instructions telling them how to behave relative to other cells to make tissues and organs, and how to put those together to make a complete body.
So, the reason we don't see all that much variation from the basic building blocks is that they're the basic building blocks. We're very complex. We maintain homeostasis by stacking all sorts of biological factors against one another. It's kind of like a house of cards, try moving around the cards at the bottom and the whole thing collapses. So, we don't evolve new basic building blocks because when such mutations occur, they are usually fatal.
Re:Really not all that surprising by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:24 · Score: 0

>This experiment - maybe for the first time in history - directly demonstrates how life supposedly got created on Earth 4-5 billion years ago.
Except for the small detail of how the dead bacteria pieces got there in the first place. Minor detail. NOT!
Re:Really not all that surprising by tragedy · 1999-09-11 22:30 · Score: 1

Yes, and what Masem was saying is that, using a similar process to that discussed in the article, you could take these bacteria, strip off all the stuff in their DNA that they don't need, optimize them for eating oil, and set them loose on a spill. Presumably, the bacteria that do eat oil can eat other things as well, they just happen to be able to survive on oil. They might be far better at eating oil if they were altered so that it is the only thing they eat.
Re:Really not all that surprising by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:45 · Score: 0

> This experiment - maybe for the first time in history - directly demonstrates how life
> supposedly got created on Earth 4-5 billion years ago.

I, and I trust most people, would be truly shocked if this was the case. Can you imagine alien scientists with their gene sequencers creating the first DNA for this planet! Might make a great sci-fi series though . . .
Re:Really not all that surprising by jilles · 1999-09-12 09:44 · Score: 1

I think your wrong but then again I'm not a biologist. So please post a reference to relevant literature when you make such claims.

--

Jilles
Re:Really not all that surprising by Sith+Lord+Jesus · 1999-09-11 22:48 · Score: 1

>Laissez faire remains our best hope for long term survival. "Leave those genes alone".
Sorry, no. I *like* the idea of genetic engineering and people being able to reconfigure their unborn children to be stonger, faster, more intelligent and have open-ended life spans. And make no mistake, that's where it's headed eventually, you know--even if Luddites here in the U.S. succeed in getting such modifications/research banned, the Fedgov doesn't control the world, as much as they may like to imagine otherwise. Science is science, weather here or in labratories in China, Iran, Japan or wherever else. Sooner or later, my friend.
>The "right direction" only exists in the minds of the anointed ones, generally found in the ivory towers of science and on the Left.
Interesting terminology. I have never heard of such people described as Leftists; usually they are tarred as Neo-Nazi eugenicists (sp?).
>F. A. Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom"
I've heard this book mentioned before on this page and elsewere. As soon as I'm done with "The Diamond Age" I'll have to check it out. What's it about?

--
Re:Really not all that surprising by hellish · 1999-09-12 03:17 · Score: 1

if god created all life and created science, why did he make DNA some huge complicated molecule wiht hundreds of atoms. why is there even dna. why isn't life something special physically, not just carbon and other simple junk. to me, the fact that we are made up of simple atoms and our dna is nothing more than a relatively simple molecule (when you look at its composition) is support for theories of evolution, natural selection, etc.
Re:Really not all that surprising by Wulver · 1999-09-11 16:35 · Score: 1

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.

Guide the evolution in the right direction ???
As long as contempt-deserving corporations like Mon$anto are around, there will be no right direction, but only profit maximization.
Re:Really not all that surprising by Ferzerp · 1999-09-12 03:40 · Score: 1

It's a southpark thing
Re:Really not all that surprising by awaterl · 1999-09-11 23:12 · Score: 1

Forgive me for a minor degree of pedantry, but I am not a little confused by your usage of the term '[to] beg the question'. The conventional meaning of the phrase of concern is as follows: to assume the correctness of a proposition while attempting to prove it so. Perhaps our rapidly evolving language can support another sense of the phrase, such as the one intended by yourself.
Re:Really not all that surprising by holloway · 1999-09-11 16:45 · Score: 1

to guide the evolution of life in the right direction.
right? I would ask how could anyone possibly know right but you're taking the piss, eh?

--
-Docvert converts MSWord to OpenDocument, clean HTML
Re:Really not all that surprising by gad_zuki! · 1999-09-12 04:49 · Score: 1

God could have made us immune to NAME ANY DISEASE
or Buy a medical book and make a LONG list.

Think about that if you think 'God did a pretty good job.'

Not that I believe in that religious mumbo jumbo/
Re:Really not all that surprising by MindStalker · 1999-09-11 23:21 · Score: 2

Ok I thought the previous guys statement was completly rediculus so I choose to simply not respond to it. But obviously you choose otherwise. Except your responce makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. Please explain.
Re:Really not all that surprising by MindStalker · 1999-09-11 23:23 · Score: 2

I'm not all that surprised that we share the basic building blocks of a cell. What I'm surprised is is the fact that the super simple replicated life forms disscused earlier all evolved into one cellular life, which then split, instead of many different ways of orginizing life, cellular or not.
Re:Really not all that surprising by SimonK · 1999-09-12 15:13 · Score: 1

Ok then assuming we evolved from something much simpler, why did evolution seem to have been contained in a straight line up untill bacteria.

I don't see evidence for any such thing. There are non-bacterial replicators still around. Had a cold recently ? Viruses seem to be doing just fine.

The dominance of bacterial and larger life forms is probably due to the much greater success of replicators that can control their chemical environment by surrounding themselves in cellular membranes. Once that happens, all the useful chemicals in the environment will soon be in some cell or another and non-bacterial life-forms will have to find a way to attack them - hence viruses etc.

On a meta-level note: are you seriously trying to challenge the theory of evolution with this example ? If so, you must be the world's first Slashdot reading creationist. You might like to note that this is in the "proof by personal incredulity" category of arguments, which goes "X is very remarkable, therefore god must have done it". You might like to read the talk.origins FAQ, and save us all a lot of time.
Re:Really not all that surprising by SimonK · 1999-09-12 15:33 · Score: 1

The right has its fair share of annointed ones. So does the libertarian movement for that matter.

Laissze-faire applies to people because they are capable of making up there own minds. It does not apply to genes, trees, cows, or stones, because they are not.

All of these other things do a good job of arriving at stable configurations over very long periods of time. Thats no reason not to interfere with them if they happen to be inconvenient.
Re:Really not all that surprising by Masem · 1999-09-11 17:06 · Score: 2

What I meant by "right direction" was not meant
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.

--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Re:Really not all that surprising by MindStalker · 1999-09-12 17:11 · Score: 2

No not really a creationist in so many words. Generally believe that there may be evolution going on.. and there may not be. There really isn't much evidence, but I still find it amazing improbility that the first life even got created. And my example was equating that to the probility of a computer being created by mineral deposits at random.
Re:Really not all that surprising by MindStalker · 1999-09-11 17:36 · Score: 2

Sure, and my experiment building a circuit board shows that nature could have designed a simple computer out of mineral deposits in the earth. The simpliest bacteria known is as or more complex than most processors, yet I doupt nature is going to randomly create one nomatter how many billions or years you give it. (I'm not talking bout evolution here folks, talking about the chance of that first life form that was created by the mix of amino acids and a lot of heat and or pressure)
Re:Really not all that surprising by Laitnedurp · 1999-09-11 18:24 · Score: 2

Well, the guy who did the experiment was Stanley Miller, I believe as his Ph.D. thesis. Sad thing is, not only did he get Ph.D. out of this crockpot experiment, I believe he also won the Nobel. I don't believe any scientists today give much credence to the Miller experiment (though for some reason I don't exactly recall why... I guess age, huh..) This is why most of the establishment believes the "building blocks" of life came on a meteor or some other extraterrestrial vehicle.
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.
Re:Really not all that surprising by crayz · 1999-09-11 17:54 · Score: 1

Don't they have bacteria that consume oil? I'm pretty sure I've heard of it.
Re:Really not all that surprising by SimonK · 1999-09-16 15:17 · Score: 1

It is improbable, yes, but the anthropic principle says that since we exist, everything that needed to happen to bring us into existence must have happened. Therefore it is not surpprising that life somehow appeared - if it hadn't we would not be here asking questions about it. It seems to me that you therefore can't doubt the correctness of theories about the origins of life on the grounds that they require staggeringly improbable events to have occured, unless you can extend the sample size beyond one planet.
Re:Really not all that surprising by Phlip · 1999-09-11 18:48 · Score: 1

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.

What are the chances of humans allowing this to happen? Are we likely to purposely create a life form that will be better than us and overtake us, then call it "the right direction?" What would you improve in humans if you could, anyway? I think God did a pretty good job of creating us the way he did. Imagine all the problems that would ensue if we tried to change things even a little.
Re:Really not all that surprising by znu · 1999-09-11 18:48 · Score: 1

Sure. If you assume that something has to be at least as complex as a bacterium to reproduce. This isn't the case at all however. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.ht ml. Once you have something that can reproduce (with variation), evolution deals with the rest.

Note that abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues, and it's possible to believe in the latter without believing in the former.

--

--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Re:Really not all that surprising by ucblockhead · 1999-09-11 19:03 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that bacteria aren't the simplest forms of life known.

A virus is far simpler, to the point where scientists still argue about whether or not they are alive.

--
The cake is a pie

dust to dust by Bilbo · 1999-09-11 15:18 · Score: 2

Sounds like they are just fiddling around with the DNA in an existing cell - like cutting and pasting the codes in a computer program.

When someone creates an entire cell from a pile of dust, then I'll be impressed!

--
Your Servant, B. Baggins

Re:dust to dust by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 23:00 · Score: 0

That can't be done and was never done.
Re:dust to dust by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 11:50 · Score: 0

I beleive that life was created by German Scientists by using gasses near a volcano, only a year or so ago.
Re:dust to dust by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 11:54 · Score: 0

You suck. With your one minded attitude youll get nowhere in life.

Re:Evolution "banned" in Kansas? (FT.com article) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:18 · Score: 0

Actually, if I recall correctly, the curriculum revision was a little bit more fine grained than just evolution / no evolution. The board's specific action was on the concept of macro-evolution.

I'm not a biologist, but..

They think micro-evolution (a species adapts but is still the same species) is ok to teach. They have a problem with macro-evolution (species evolves into a new species). This was a critical distinction that was overlooked in most of the press coverage of the decision.

Their position is a little bit smarter than the one most anti-evolution zealots take because most of the evolution evidence (recall Bio 109 here and some fossil pictures) is just micro-evolution evidence. This isn't to say that the macro-evolution evidence doesn't exist. It just seems to be harder to come by (probably because it is a much less common occurrance).

Some Points by PG13 · 1999-09-11 21:18 · Score: 1

1) First, many people have asked why this affects religion. Technically it doesn't as organized religion is usually sophisticated enough not to rely on such shaky premises. But most people aren't philosophers and if you talk to them at least half of people justify there belif in God by claiming he is the only explanation for life.

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.

--
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,

Re:Some Points by Xane+Havenstar · 1999-09-11 22:21 · Score: 1

>>If we can make a bacteria, even if it is only
>>from dead bacteria, we have shown no breath of
>>life is necessery.

The question isn't really, "Can God alone make life?" but rather, "did God make _this_ life?" i.e., the life we're living right now. For a created being like a human to create life doesn't disprove the need for creation in the first place... even if we were able to create copies of ourselves (a la cloning)

God was the Original Creator of life ... once He got us started and gave us the ability to learn and reason, then He oppened the possibility (please remember that this experiment has _not_ been successfully performed yet) for us to emulate his creation.

But could we create something without the original blueprint to life? We'll never know, because our very existance gives us a pre-existing familiarity with life -- although it is counter-intuitive to believe that anyone could perform this "creation" without years of biological training.

In short, this does nothing to prove that God is not the original creator ... if you want to do that, go create your own Universe, complete with an artifical bacteria. _Then_ I'll be impressed.

...Life is open source. God gave us the code (DNA) ... it just took us a while to develop an editor to play with it in. Now all we need is a compiler. Don't claim you wrote Life to start with though. You didn't. I wonder if He GPL'd life?...

Just a thought.

Xane.

--
The day we say, "Everyone's ideas are equal, except bigots," is the day we all become bigots.
Re:Some Points by PG13 · 1999-09-11 22:33 · Score: 1

Yes, I agree it doesn't say anything about whether god created *this* life my point is merely that many people (stupidly I think) hold to the notion that only god can create life as a very important tenant to them.

--
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by WoDDemandred · 1999-09-11 19:56 · Score: 1

I think you're really underestimate those 90%. I would probably count as one because I believe in science foremost but I also believe that there may very well be a higher intelligence that created the universe. To believe everything it says in the Bible or something like it is just dumb though.
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--- by the+eric+conspiracy · 1999-09-11 15:20 · Score: 5

You will see that baglunch got it badly wrong. All that is being discussed is a plan to create such an organism. While Dr. Ventner is a good scientist, he is also a notorious publicity hound, and what he has is more likely a list of problems that have to be solved before an organism can be created, rather than an actual method for creating such a thing.

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:If you actually read the article--- by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:22 · Score: 0

Yes, I agree that the article seemed to be a piece of puffery. Remember Dr Seed or whatever his name was, who was going to do human cloning last year? That's what I'm reminded of. And what about that horrible photo of Dr. Ventner grinning like Timothy Leary? Or like that life-extension guy, Dirk Something? The Enquirer used to run stories like this all the time. "Scientists Create Plant Soldiers that Could Do Anything You Want." Oh, and this has NOTHING to do with panspermia, either.

Re:Great by MDX-F1 · 1999-09-11 19:56 · Score: 1

More anti-Jehova ammunition for those boring Sunday mornings.

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.

The Problem's In Defining What Life Is by madjack · 1999-09-11 19:57 · Score: 4

Before we can know that we've created life, we should reach some consensus on what life is. Self-awareness would seem to be too high of a standard, for surely a single-celled bacterium has no idea it exists, or that a universe of other entities exist. It's doubtful even higher order plants and animals have such awareness, though my cats seem to possess an inordinate sense of self-awareness. On the other hand, reproduction would seem to be a requirement for all life. So would a requirement that the entity engage and manage some internal and external processes. Breathing, eating, foraging, mating, waste disposal, etc. are examples of processes. Rocks just sit there and engage or manage no process, so we say they are not alive. Conversely, the tiniest thing that does something, we immediately recognize it as living. Therefore, I'm not entirely sure life hasn't been already created in software form. That fact that a software entity may only survive in the virtual environment it was created in, hardly seems to exclude it from consideration as a life form. My tomato plant can't survive outside the soil I planted it in, but still, it's alive. So what if we can we create a something that consumes ever-more resources, bloats in size, mutates, and experiences exponential growth in its distribution? Bill Gates and company have been doing that for years.

Re:The Problem's In Defining What Life Is by sesquiped · 1999-09-11 20:29 · Score: 1

Ive been thinking about the definition of life for a while. I guess it was inspired by the continual debate about whether viruses were alive (and we can extend that to prions) or not. It always seemed to me that they should be called a life form, and I tried to find a simple criterion. What I've come up with is this: if something can reproduce if put in a suitable envrionment, it is living. This definition is actually very broad, and I like it that way. It includes computer viruses and other forms of inorganic life. And why not? Isn't it a little anthropocentric to say that all life must be carbon-based? Of course there is a difference between computer viruses and real ones. The computer ones were created by humans, but the real ones evolved over millions of years. They should, however, both be considered "living," in some way or another.
Re:The Problem's In Defining What Life Is by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:08 · Score: 0

So does this mean that my crond is alive??
Re:The Problem's In Defining What Life Is by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 01:51 · Score: 0

FIRST post!!!!!!! Muahahahhahahahahaha
Re:The Problem's In Defining What Life Is by hawkfish · 1999-09-12 19:55 · Score: 1

It's doubtful even higher order plants and animals have such awareness

One interesting take on this is research with mirrors. Some animals can learn to recognise themselves in mirrors and the suggestion is that this is because they have a seperately manipulable self-image. Only humans, chimps, orang-utangs and the occasional gorilla can do this. Also, it seems that chimps have to reach puberty in order to do this and human children cannot reliably recognise themselves in a mirror until about halfway through the second year.

--
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
Re:The Problem's In Defining What Life Is by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:54 · Score: 0

for surely a single-celled bacterium has no idea it exists or that a universe of other entities exist.
and how would YOU know that?
Rocks just sit there and engage or manage no process,
and what about crystals??

Built in factors by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:25 · Score: 0

None of this bothers me except that if we can create these things, we must have a kill switch. We def. don't need to create things we can't turn off.

Re:Built in factors by znu · 1999-09-11 18:59 · Score: 1

It should bother you. Biological stuff mutates. That kill switch of yours might not hang around in all individuals past a bunch of generations. So what happens when you hit it? The individuals with the switch die, leaving those without it to fill the now mostly empty niche.

--

--
This space unintentionally left unblank.

Great by morbid · 1999-09-11 15:27 · Score: 0

More anti-Jehova ammunition for those boring Sunday mornings.
I only wish they'd stop getting me out of the bath!

--
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.

Re:Great by morbid · 1999-09-12 00:31 · Score: 1

The Jehovas Witnesses are Creationists plain and simple (with the emphasis on the simple).

I knew one who stood next to two nuclear reactors and denounced all of the physics upon which those reactors worked. They paid his wages, lit his house etc.

Fruit break?

--
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.

Reverse Engineering Life, and Open Source by sam_vilain · 1999-09-11 23:28 · 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 :-)

Tinus Lorvarlds.

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... by Judg3 · 1999-09-11 23:29 · Score: 1

Maybe he isnt trying to create new life, but you can be almost positive someone will look at this and attempt to. Might be a little far fetched, but a hybrid "Super Assassin" developed in some small quiet country thrawt on the intent to control the world. This is just all wrong in my opinion, there ARE lines which shouldnt be crossed, and this is one of them. This can lead to nothing but problems. Call me the Doomsday prophet, but Im sure there alot of organizations that would LOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE to use this technology for something other then "good, clean fun". But, I suppose the same could be said for alot of things right now.
*******

--
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!

I cannot see anything created here by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:18 · Score: 0

Honestly. Creating something new seems to be something quite different here. A life form based on something completely different, that would be really something.

Here it is still the same old story, DNA and RNA and all that on which most on earth is based upon.

To me it is mostly fine mechanics on a cellular level and some fiddling around. Technically an achievment for sure but nothing new else.

IMHO it is rather out there where something really new to use was, is or will be when we are all gone but up to know most people project their world onto their ideas; how naive.

Re:God is about scale and power. by orabidoo · 1999-09-11 23:31 · Score: 1

wow, neat. it's not often that one hears an explanation of a christian point that comes across as making some amount of sense.

Yum. Radioactive Waste. by BubbaFett · 1999-09-11 21:20 · Score: 1

He says the synthetic "designer bacteria" could have positive applications. Scientists could learn how to produce customised genes that could help build organisms for eating radioactive waste or cleaning up after oil spills, for example.

So how does eating radioactive waste make it any less radioactive? This is one powerful bacteria that can erase decaying atoms.

On my Post by Crutcher · 1999-09-11 23:38 · Score: 1

I am sorry if this is offtopic or flaimbait, but I feel that I must defend myself, as I spend a great deal of my time fighting bigotry, and can't stand to be accused of it.

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

--

-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>

Re:Wait a minute here. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:22 · Score: 0

I think this AC's first line has it right WRT artificial life. Complex life forms will eventually be in other media such as computers. Chemicals and genes are just too limiting. Physical life forms are too difficult to repair, recombine, transmit, modify, etc. The future is virtual. Virtual life forms may occasionally want to "print" at least part of themselves into "hard copy" chemicals. It would be a way to remember what it was like to have limitations, play a few sets of tennis, or maybe to visit Museum Earth (disaster site or well-kept home town?). This whole topic reminds me of Joshu's answer to the silly question about whether a dog has Buddha-nature or not.

If true then Cell Theory is kaput by [kilroy] · 1999-09-11 19:58 · Score: 1

If this is proved correct , What about the cell theory (all cells are created from other cells), this has been a widly held beleave in the biological field of science for quite sometime (ever since flys coming from rotten meat was disproved).

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?

Life would be already in the cell. by Zapdos · 1999-09-11 21:24 · Score: 1

No life would be created as it would already exist in the living cell the foreign DNA is placed into. Better to say lifeform created because life was already there. Just the same as cloning except the dna has been assembled.

--
Get a free ipod.

My predictions... by Photon · 1999-09-11 19:59 · Score: 1

If the scientists have now created a bacterium, then of course the logical progression, drived by the thirst for knowledge, is to create more and more complex organisms, culminating in creating humans. Now, at this moment, the Church can say things like 'Only humans have a soul, so this doesn't really matter' but what is going to happen when a human being is CREATED not by a mother and father but by a scientist in a lab? I will bet ya, dollars to donuts, that the Church is gonna raise holy hell (pun intended :).

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:They'l deny it by JordanH · 1999-09-11 23:52 · Score: 1

I don't know if you classify The Catholic Church as being on "the religious right", but seeing as The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution, I doubt that they would have a problem with the possibility of man creating life.

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? by kuro5hin · 1999-09-11 19:59 · Score: 1

Ok, I don't have any names, but in either the book "Chaos" or "Complexity" there was a whole section about this. Basically they recapped what other people have said here (Miller's experiment was totally unrealistic, doesn't mesh with what we know of the Earth's atmospheric history, and didn't really produce "the building blocks of life" anyway), and then proposed a different theory, based on the fact that certain chains of chemical reactions can basically repeat and amplify, given the right initial conditions. As in the byproducts of a several-reaction chain will be the starting point for a new cycle of the same chain of reactions. It's your basic positive feedback loop. Someone (I believe) demonstrated that amino acids could be formed this way, and it'd be way more likely that amino acids would have formed and become so common due to a self-feeding reaction like this, than if the "primordial soup" had sat around and waited to get struck by lightning in the right spot. They also did some statistical estimation on what the actual chances of that were (the Miller scenario, based on what we now believe the early atmospheric conditions of the Earth to have been), and discovered that probability says we should still be waiting for that lightning strike.

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.

--
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.

Re: Only humans have souls? by tragedy · 1999-09-11 21:25 · Score: 2

On the other hand, the body is matter. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. That matter survives the body.
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. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:25 · Score: 1

The debate conducted in response to this story illustrates why I believe that Creationists should be allowed to introduce Creationism as a scientific theory to students of science in the public school system. Not because I agree with the Creationists, but because I believe the open debate between Creation Science and Evolution is a good exposure to the philosophy of science. Kids should hear and participate in this debate. It's the essence of science to observe, provide competing explanations for observed phenomena, then eliminate some of the explanations by applying logic and making further observations. In schools today, many students get the impression that doing science consists of memorizing accepted scientific "facts" established by "qualified scientists". In that view science is no more than another type of religion in which scientists are the accepted priesthood. My only reservation is that creationists may find it difficult to separate the scientific theory of Creationism from religious dogma. But I wouldn't object if Creationist cited the existence of religious accounts of the creation as a point of evidence to support their view that life was created.

Re:Environmental Affects of Bioengineered Bacteria by slinted · 1999-09-11 23:57 · Score: 1

Until I went back and looked, I didn't realize that most of the work in this arena was also done by Craig Venter's TIGR (The Institute for Genome Research). It would seem (from stories like this one) that his "new" organism, might just be new, but will be largely based on the research done in studies using this minimalistic technique.

Re:"Humans Can't Create Life" is Absurd by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:03 · Score: 0

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.

It was based on the assumption that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere rich in methane and ammonia (in a nutshell: favourable for complex carbon compounds to form from simple ones spontaneously). Nowadays the earth's early atmosphere is assumed to have been more inert, consisting mainly of Carbon dioxide and Nitrogen. I't more likely that early life formed in hot vents on the bottomn of the oceans. Conditions there are still highly reducing. Furthermore, under extremely high pressure and with high temperatures, the citric acid cycle (the process in our cells where sugars are 'burnt' to CO2 and water) can spontaneously occur in reverse (i.e. sugars(etc) are formed from CO2).

Re:This is all wrong. by jilles · 1999-09-11 21:26 · Score: 1

first: who moderated this nutcase up

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

--

Jilles

Anybody can create life. Duh. by fliptout · 1999-09-11 21:26 · Score: 1

Ok boys and girls, all the things you need for todays experiment are common household items.
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.

--
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.

Um, did you read the response to the 4th comment? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:03 · Score: 1

http://slashdot.org/comme nts.pl?sid=99/09/12/0752254&cid=10

There's still a place for God - slightly off topic by M.+Piedlourd · 1999-09-11 21:27 · Score: 1

I'm not too fond of the Christian religions either (I'm a French Jew, it's genetic). Yes, their simpler followers are responsible for all manner of calamity in the 15 centuries they have existed. Yes, many practitioners of Christianity have been corrupt hypocrites - particularly when in positions of power, and I would say power is the larger corrupting influence than religion. Yes, the Catholic church is quite silly sometimes. "Your experiment is ok unless you aren't prejudiced in our favour."

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 by hellish · 1999-09-11 20:04 · Score: 1

unfortunately, we haven't found rocks from very far back.

Godel, Escher, Bach, Watson, Crick, Dawkins :-) by dto · 1999-09-11 20:04 · Score: 1

Heard about Genetic Programming ? Generate a few thousands simulated bacteries, each with a given DNA; test these in software against a particular problem

I don't think you can do this the way you want. One can apply genetic algorithms to programs to get the best solution because the environment you use to evolve the programs is the same as their natural habitat. So your evaluation means something. You don't have to simulate anything.

Your idea is to use a computer to evolve real-life DNA sequences. But DNA sequences do not have the precisely defined semantics of a computer language-- they work by virtue of their interactions with each other and with their environment. "Simulating" this inside a computer (for the purposes of weeding out weak sequences) would require simulation of the organism's environment, right down to the last atom and molecule.

In other words, you can't cross-compile with Genetic Algorithms.

Yoda? Is that you? by kuro5hin · 1999-09-11 20:05 · Score: 1

In shock I am by the balance of secular and religious opinions here... When 900 years old you reach, look as good, you will not!

----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.

--
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.

Re:Evolution "banned" in Kansas? (FT.com article) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:08 · Score: 0

Please don't rehash BS.

Life and Computers by Ken+Broadfoot · 1999-09-11 23:59 · Score: 1

It seems to me that if we can engineer the DNA nessesary to create these bacterium, ( using computers I am sure ), and if "more complex plants and animals" are not such a stretch from creating the bacterium, then we should be able to model these life forms entirely on a computer.

This would be AI for sure.

I can't wait for bacteriumEMU.tar.gz for my box.

--
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!

Re:not on my planet, you dont. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 00:00 · Score: 0

Nothing to worry about. It took life as we know it over 3000 million years to adapt, there is no way a new construct can compete immediately.

Re:i have a question by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 00:08 · Score: 0

The basic idea, which has been around in theology for a long time, is that God is outside of space-time. He existed as pure consciousness, and created spacetime--came up with the whole idea. Since the Big Bang theory says spacetime did not exist before the Bang, this does not seem to be much of a reach anymore.

There's turtles below turtles however you play it, unless you're willing to say something is primary and uncreated, even if that something is the very laws of physics. To say that the laws of physics are primary, seems to me no more likely than to say that a consciousness called God is primary--a consciousness who invented physics in the same way a programmer invents cellular automata.

Re: Only humans have souls? by Bouncings · 1999-09-11 21:28 · Score: 1

I don't think you get what he said. He said that one's personality (soul?) continues in the sense that others remember your personality... If everyone you knew was dead, then perhaps your personality dies?

It's a little more concrete than the supersticious religious view of a soul.

--
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/

Re:Oh, great... by doomy · 1999-09-12 00:09 · Score: 1

That movie sucked..
--

--
...free your source and the rest would follow...

An interesting point... by Neux · 1999-09-11 21:31 · Score: 1

My thought about this is, does this mean that perhaps we were created by another species that was eventually wiped out? I don't want to get into that whole existence/nonexistence of God thing, but I find the thought intriguing.
-Neux

--
"This sentence no verb." -Anonymous

:) ya beat me to it . . . by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 00:27 · Score: 0

I'll bet the probability will be pretty low -- it will probably turn out that you need a pot of chemicals about the size of the earth and a few hundred million years to cook it to ever create one bacteria...

Heh heh.

But wait, there's more! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 00:29 · Score: 0

RNA, unlike DNA, can function not only as a carrier of genetic code but also as a enzyme.

And a floor wax, too!

Re:But wait, there's more! by Adam+Knapp · 1999-09-12 09:08 · Score: 1

No actually waxes have a completely different chemical structure... Oh wait, that was a joke :) Heh Heh

Re:Not much (but it's not as simple as it seems) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:34 · Score: 0

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. >The problem with this is that most belief systems claim to know and act based on the assumption that they know and understand what this "beyondness" is all about. Not just that, most of them are in active competition to claim followers. Most conflicts arise when there is a disagreement between differing belief systems. Most posters here think that this is a process of discovery and evolution that ain't over by a long shot and in the long run each individual has to reconcile with himself and develop a belief system that works for him/her rather than try and fit into and existing dogma. 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? 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 .. >Because when all these bad things happen and the followers of the various belief systems respond with a deafening silence it is a reflection that there is something that needs to be fixed in the underlying belief systems before they start handing out the Viagra of life. 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. > Why not? Every passing moment in our life is a differing viewpoint so why not spirituality itself. >I personally believe in God but God to me is a giant 'Son, you don't know squat!' sign board hanging over my head rather than a deity I worship. I just strive to know more today than I knew yesterday. k_george@usa.net

Re:Santa and the easter bunny by hellish · 1999-09-11 20:12 · Score: 1

uh, which parts of the bible have been 'verified to be true?'

Re: Only humans have souls? by jilles · 1999-09-11 21:37 · Score: 1

so that's about a 100 years. After that nobody will remember you unless you did something so significant people remembered it.

--

Jilles

Thank you. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 00:35 · Score: 0

It's like snacking on razor blades sometimes watching people try to pluralize around here.

"Post Anonymously" is broken -- undoes moderation by KMSelf · 1999-09-11 21:39 · Score: 1

Mailed to malda

This is a bug, Rob. If I were to log out and post anon the behavior would be different.

I disagree with the entire "don't moderate and post to the same discussion" rule -- it's too easily circumvented by either posting anonymously or by obtaining multiple IDs (kmself & kmself-post). I'm also much more likely to be interested in posting and/or moderating to articles I am interested in. I don't post much, but when I do this is a really annoying restriction.

I have a couple of other gripes with moderation:

Moderation should not be anonymous. No faceless judges.
Moderators should have more points, or up|down points should be seperately allocated. Five is simply too few on many discussions -- it's too painful to weigh whether or not to spend a point on a specific article.

Additionally, I think most of the AC abuses would be curbed if AC posts had to pass through a moderator for approval (seperate point basis, non-anonymous).

But the 'post anon' mod-undo is really bugging me.

--
Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com)
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

SAS for Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html
Mailing list: "subscribe sas-linux" to mailto:majordomo@cranfield.ac.uk
11:24am up 2 days, 15:04, 0 users, load average: 0.23, 0.17, 0.17

--

What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

Darwin's Black Box. by mineralfan · 1999-09-12 00:36 · Score: 1

I've all of the reviews and articles and have found nothing that attempts to explain evolution on a celluar level. I did however find a lot of talking around the subject and somewhat chilidish attempts to discredit Behe and his efforts to bring bio-chemical studies into the limelight of evolutionary thought. Also, I would suggest reading the book for yourself, if you have not. I assure you that there is a great amount of material that was conviently not touched upon (for good reason) in the articles and critiques listed above.

Re:Darwin's Black Box. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:49 · Score: 0

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/box/behe.htm
http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwi n97-09.html
http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/br21.6/orr .html
http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/evolution/irred_compl.h tml

Re:Sounds like fun... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:42 · Score: 0

>There's no mention of airplanes, hamburgers, ...

Actually, what's completely missing is any mention of bacteria whatsoever. Surprising, if one puts any faith in the bible's enumeration of Creation, as the kind & number of bacteria mean they represent by far the greater portion of living organisms.

Or maybe that's what was meant by "angels." To wit:

"..shepherds, tending their flock, were visited by the angel E. Coli..."

Mjollner, who has forgot his password

Re:Not sure this is a "good" thing. by nitsuj · 1999-09-11 20:13 · Score: 2

What the people who go on about genetically altered corn seem to overlook is the damage conventional pesticides do to the environment. Genetically altered crops do away with most of the need for those.

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: Only humans have souls? by jilles · 1999-09-11 21:43 · Score: 1

So my PC has a soul. (it runs on electricity which is a form of energy). I'm glad you explained that to me.

--

Jilles

Re:Let's Return Creation Science to Public Schools by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:46 · Score: 1

Creation "science" is not science. It's a religious dogma that postulates an unfalsable "explanation" of events. We might as well teach that the world arose from green cheese last Thursday from the great turtle god.

Re: Only humans have souls? by jilles · 1999-09-11 20:14 · Score: 1

dream on.

What makes you think you (or anyone else) is important enough to survive the mortal body. The only thing that is going to survive is molecules. They're simply reconfigured into new stuff.

All this bullshit about souls (if you insist on using that word please define it in a proper way). I think the soul is just the reflection of the egocentric wish of people to live forever. Some people just can't live with the idea that they will cease to exist some day.

--

Jilles

"Natural" is more fun anyway ;-) by JSBiff · 1999-09-11 21:47 · Score: 1

see subject :-)

Re:Santa and the easter bunny by hellish · 1999-09-11 20:17 · Score: 1

like you said, religion is right along side thinking the earth is flat and the universe revolves around it. some great work of fiction, designed to scare little children into respecting their parents and giving people a reason to be good during their life.. to get into heaven. (wouldn't the idea that there is simply no afterlife make people value their life more?) its nothing more than a parable, a fictional story with a good lesson (while i dont believe the historical aspects of the bible, some of its lessons can be applied to non-religious life). the only reason people still believe is that it can't be disproven. we have proved that the earth is a sphere, and we have also proved that the earth revolves around the sun. atheists and non believers are becoming more apparent in america, and i think proof of non religious beliefs is coming soon. (you dont believe in Zues or Thor anymore do you?)

Re:entirely fallacious by MDX-F1 · 1999-09-11 20:18 · Score: 1

Religeon makes a villain of doubt, an enemy of knowledge. Religeon is dishonest, rooted in fear, and is pure bunkum.

Needless to say, your statement is, as luck would have it, entirely fallacious. Religious belief for many people is best described as "faith seeking understanding". Far from an enemy of knowledge, it can be a spur to obtain greater knowledge. Doubt is simply a natural by-product of our quest for understanding.

Making a strawman of religious belief and then knocking it down is an intellectually dishonest tactic, and dishonesty is never an ally in the search for truth.

Re: Only humans have souls? by sodergren · 1999-09-12 00:39 · Score: 1

Maybe it's good if PCs have souls.
Then the lot of 'em can get sent straight to hell.
I've often thought that mine deserves fiery damnation...

Re:Oh, great... by ralphclark · 1999-09-12 00:43 · Score: 1

The main risks depend upon whatever directions such research should take. I don't think we have to worry about higher life forms yet though, since the human genome (for example) is really only poorly understood.

Those genetic scientists who imagine that the human genome project will quickly lead to easy tailoring of human beings have obviously never seen a large, poorly documented computer program written in a low-level language with lots of unstructured GOTOs. Which is what the human genome is, in effect. For the non-programmers out there - such programs can hardly accept the most minor modification without unwanted side-effects. And for 99.9% of the time, unwanted side-effects in a genome will mean that the organism doesn't survive very long (if at all).

No, there is a far more dangerous threat posed by this technology anyway. Many people worry about the "grey goo" scenario made possible by nanotechnology. Well, what about a green goo? Or a pink goo? Laboratory-designed microorganisms could in theory be so efficient that they just eat up everything in sight. Natural organisms simply might not be able to compete with an organism like that.

So that's the great nightmare for the children of the 21st century: mad scientist creates a bug from scratch, so different from everything else that it turns the surface of the planet into a giant turd within a matter of months.

I used to think that scientists were a fairly responsibly bunch on the whole. But announcements like this make me wish they were kept under even tighter control.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction

Ya shoulda done "foobies" and "barites" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 00:46 · Score: 0

. . . because when you use a specific term that has specific meaning in the real world, people will assume that you're using it to mean what it usually means. This is how language works. That is the reaction you'll get, regardless of whether or not you meant somethign somewhat different by it. I can see that you were assuming that the reader would give you credit for not being a bonehead, and that the reader would therefore say, "Ah! Since this guy's not an idiot, he must not mean this to be taken 100% literally". Well, to be frank, that didn't occur to me when I read it, and I doubt that my experience was all that rare. All I knew about you was that post, so I based my opinion on that (in retrospect, I'm glad to see I was wrong). Naturally, you can go back later and explain yourself, but that takes a lot more effort than just playing by the established rules the first time. As it is, a side-issue about an artistic (so to speak) choice on your part has taken over the discussion. If you'd've called 'em "foobies" and "barites" as you suggest, we'd've stayed on topic.

Religion + Science = Compatibility by Wonko42 · 1999-09-12 00:48 · Score: 1

To date, I have yet to talk to a single religious "official" (i.e., pastor, priest, bishop, pope, whatever) who agrees with me on this, but here's my take on things:

if (religion==true){
if (science==true){
everything='groovy'
}
else {
self='delusioned'
}
}
else {
science=true
}

(yeah, so it's not really any specific programming language, but it looks enough like one to fool someone)

Re:The rest will accept it by sodergren · 1999-09-12 00:54 · Score: 1

I think that many religious people misinterpret the standpoint of many atheists- atheism only indicates that a belief is not present; it does not indicate a belief in the absence of something.

'Lack of belief in xxx' does not equal 'belief in the lack of xxx'.

In a book on atheism that I recently read, the
author points out that all children are atheists
when born- not because of refusal to believe in one thing or another, but because they do not yet have the experiences on which to base theistic beliefs.

"Programming" by QuantumG · 1999-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1

They could also be programmed to produce a whole new generation of powerful drugs.

With every misuse of the word, my job description gets bigger. Another form of IP? Probably, we already have genetically engineered foods that are patented.. why not entire lifeforms? Oh.. can we say "Red Dwarf"? Genetically engineered cars and couches?

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

Nothing new, just more FUD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:51 · Score: 0

Big deal. He's not designing any genes from scratch, just making synthetic copies of those that already exist in nature. Chemical synthesis of DNA has been around for quite some time and researchers insert different genes into bacteria every day. Venter is just going use a fully synthesized genome. My question is how is he going to bootstrap the system (probably use an existing cell from which he removed the original DNA)? Big deal.

Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by JetJaguar · 1999-09-11 20:20 · 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).

--

Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

Infinite regress. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 01:02 · Score: 0

[Yadda yadda God God] And this seems a little more likely than all this happened "just cause".

So how did God "happen"? God springing out of the void from nothing is no more plausible than a ten-dimensional universe pulling off the same trick. According to one's taste in phenomena, it might well be considered less plausible.

Your "insight" was disposed of, in that manner, centuries ago. Next?

Um, yeah? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 01:04 · Score: 0

I assure you that there is a great amount of material that was conviently not touched upon (for good reason) in the articles and critiques listed above.

Heh. Right there you're giving yourself away; it's not a conspiracy, kid, okay? It's not a conspiracy.

I do have a few questions, though:

Are you even remotely qualified to evaluate what this guy has to say about biochemistry?
Is he actually a biochemist himself, or just another one of these physicists and astronomers who anoint themselves as biologists and go out to do battle with the Evil Secular Humanists?

By the way, even assuming that Behe is qualified and that his arguments make sense, bear in mind that he's "disproving" something in favor of which we have a tremendous amount of evidence. If two equally compelling theories flatly contradict each other, the argument is not over. One of them is wrong. You've chosen which one to believe on the basis of religious faith, not knowledge. On a really obvious and simple level, if snakes didn't evolve from lizards, why then do they have hips? And don't give me that God nonsense. Once you resort to God, you've abandoned causality and you don't need science to prove anything any more. Anything that contradicts your Holy Writ can be reconciled with it by invoking God -- a.k.a. magic.

Re:Um, yeah? by mineralfan · 1999-09-12 08:03 · Score: 1

Yes, Micheal Behe has a Ph.D in biochemistry for Lehigh University. And yes, I believe that I have a fairly decent understand of chemistry and have read enough material by those on both sides of the debate to make a qualified evaluation. As for faith, I have spoken nothing about my faith, or lack there of. As a side note, I have noticed that when the creation/evolution debate arises, people tend to refer to two sides as either brillant established scientists, or as crazy right-wing christians. I contest that one need not be crazy, christian, or right-wing to observe the giant flaws in species to species evolution. As for the question concerning the lizard, it seems as though you are assuming that you know everything about the way snakes work, perhaps their "hips" are intregal to their skeletal structure, or perhaps not, but either way. That observation in NO way concerns itself with the way the proteins organized (in only a few steps) themselves in a manner that resulted in a fully functioning cell. I think that this is a much larger hurdle than mysterious hips.
Re:Um, yeah? by Mike+A. · 1999-09-12 05:42 · Score: 1

I feel I should point out that Michael Behe does indeed have a Ph.D in biochemistry, though none of the work he has published in official journals incorporates his work on intelligent design.
On the other hand... I think the stone arch completely demolishes the notion of irreducible complexity. A stone arch is irreducibly complex - remove one stone and the structure collapses. Which is why you must have a scaffolding when building a stone arch, after which you remove the scaffolding. Since the "scaffolding" that went into building things like the blood clotting cascade is long gone, it's pointless to look for it, or conclude that the things are "designed" because it isn't there.

--

--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Re:Um, yeah? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 17:17 · Score: 0

The stone arch is designed, isn't it?
Some of you guys are missing Behe's fundamental point. Evolution doesn't work without a gradual approach to a solution. You can use a genetic algorithm for all kinds of optimisation problems, but you can't use it to brute-force an encryption key, because that's an all-or-nothing problem. In that situation it works no better, probably worse, than pure chance. So Behe says, here we've got all these biochemical structures which are all-or-nothing. They don't work at all unless everything is in place. In fact, some of them are maladaptive until everything is in place. Since we know what all the proteins are, we know their genetic encoding, and can count up how many bits of information are represented there. Then we can figure the odds that this bit sequence will occur by chance.
In the absence of a gradual approach, the chance of these sequences occurring is astronomically low, even given the very large number of "attempts" on this planet and perhaps others. It's kinda like trying to use genetic algorithms to brute-force a 100,000 bit encryption key.
This does not necessarily mean that there is no naturalist solution, but it certainly means that the current model is inadequate, and we'll never get a better model if evolutionists respond with jeers and namecalling.
Re:Um, yeah? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 17:22 · Score: 0

In other words: Don't ask me how it happened, it just did. It's pointless to look for evidence.
Tell me how this is more scientific than creationism. The hallmark of science is that theories are falsifiable--please tell me what evidence would falsify evolution. I submit that there is no such evidence...that no matter what we find in biology or the fossil record, it will still be said that it evolved, and that it is pointless to ask how.
Re:Um, yeah? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 17:25 · Score: 0

Unless the scaffolding has evolutionary value of its own, aside from it's value in building the arch, your argument fails.

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by PooF · 1999-09-11 20:23 · Score: 1

I really like that quote. I agree.

I'd ask you to consider that, many people who say they are Christians are not. They simply say they are, and act like it, but they don't follow it. Most Christians I know (who are true Christians) are rational and DO believe in science. They are just harder to convince but they do listen to reason.

The Church that (tries to) understands science, but agree's with the bible, is one that is most of /. wouldn't mind.

I do with people here wouldn't be so slanderous towards a group of people where some people are idiots.

Trolls are like "Sunday Christians" or extremist Christians. They don't belong, and can give everyone a bad reputation.

Aaron "PooF" Matthews
E-mail: aaron@fish.pathcom.com
To mail me remove "fish."
ICQ: 11391152
Quote: "Success is the greatest revenge"

Is this how they are going to... by sporty · 1999-09-12 01:07 · Score: 1

Is this how they are going to make the evil sheep in the cloning sheep slashdot article, more evil?

Ok.. I'll stop with the evil sheep puns...

--

-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

Cool... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 21:53 · Score: 1

but how long until we can genetically engineer bacteria capable of running Linux? A few billion of them would make a mean Beowulf cluster..

Re:Santa and the easter bunny by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:24 · Score: 0

I always thought of god as a process. Not a being, nor a HIM, nor HER, but everything. Santa?- there's LOTS of 'em... both santa and the easter bunny are symbols. and in a way- the universe does revolve around the earth. Have YOU ever been anywhere else? "God" is a symbol, also. but people personify it. And as far as this article is concerned, I think its dangerous due to gene "crackers",

offtopic by dlb · 1999-09-11 20:26 · Score: 0

Sure is nice to see a techie conversation that doesnt revolve around who's OS sucks more.

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Max+von+H. · 1999-09-11 21:54 · Score: 1

I've read it in a French book written by Jean-Claude Carrière. Basically, the book is a big interview with the Dalai-Lama. The title, roughly translated in English is (if my memory is right)"Understand Buddhism - How to improve your life in today's world".

I don't know if it's been translated though. The book isn't very big (about 180 pages, paperback size), but extremely interresting since the interviewer raised numerous questions related to the application of buddhist philosophy in the Western culture.

Mail me, I might manage to find the references, and see if there's an English version. In case there isn't, I'm sure youo can find similar comments in one of the numerous books published by the Dalai-Lama himself or one of his interviewer. He doesn't change his mind on such things, I guess...

Cheers,

M.

--
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.

Re:entirely fallacious by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:26 · Score: 0

If you were truly confortable with your beliefs, wouldn't you want that to be shared with as many people as possible? Wouldn't it be wrong to keep others from knowing true happiness?

Yes and no by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:27 · Score: 0

Humans can not create life the way God did. We can, however, create life through the fucking process.

Did Adam have a navel? by plunge · 1999-09-11 20:30 · Score: 1

This whole theological debate is quite similar to a long long one about Adam, the supposed original man. In many some religious depictions of Adam, you'll notice that the area where Adam's bellybutton should be was hidden by something- this was because no one could really decide whether or not Adam should have a smooth belly (since he had never had an umbilical cord or came from a woman) or a purely cosmetical bellybutton. The heart of this question was whether or not God would create something with the appearaance of a past it didn't have, just for consistency's sake. Seems to me that this scientist is going to be struggling with a similar question.

I think Neon Genesis Evangelion said it best... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 07:10 · Score: 0

"If man created it, it will fail. If God created it, it will succeed." Great series BTW, I highly recommend watching it.

Re:I think Neon Genesis Evangelion said it best... by warrior · 1999-09-12 08:07 · Score: 2

If man created it, it will fail. If God created it, it will succeed."
So then man, being created by God, shall succeed? This seems to contradict itself.

--
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn

Re:There is no real diffrence betwen micro and mac by Mike+A. · 1999-09-12 07:13 · Score: 2

Actually, speciation events have been observed, both in the lab and in nature. References available upon request. Besides, if some calamity killed off all dogs except for the chihuahua and Great Dane, would this not be speciation? After all, chihuahuas and Great Danes can't mate directly. (At least, not unless the male chihuahua uses a stepladder ^_^... er, I don't want to think about the opposite pairing...)

--

--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?

Re:entirely fallacious by cthonious · 1999-09-12 07:20 · Score: 1

Needless to say, your statement is, as luck would have it, entirely fallacious. Religious belief for many people is best described as "faith seeking understanding". Far from an enemy of knowledge, it can be a spur to obtain greater knowledge. Doubt is simply a natural by-product of our quest for understanding.

This is just unintelligible. Religeon, as the most honest theists will admit, is just faith. "Faith seeking understanding" is an oxymoron.

--

support gun control: take guns from cops

Deep thoughts by Foogle · 1999-09-12 01:10 · Score: 1

I try not to push my own personal views in any direction, but it does make me angry when people say that creationism and religion are "silly" or "ludicrous". It's a plausible explanation to the existance of the universe, it just doesn't adhere to the rules that we, as a scientific culture, believe to be the bottom line. "Well, who made God?" they say. That makes certain assumptions about God as an entity that we would definitely not be in any place to make. It takes a differnent type of thinking to even accept the possibility, and a lot of people (those who claim to be open minded and scientific) shut their minds to it.

Re:Yes *MUCH* more impressive! HOW much more...? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 07:20 · Score: 0

Analysis? It's, um, science, and uh, hard numbers.

"All that needs to happen is for one lifeform" (rest omitted)

YOU conveniently overlooked that the whole article described the CHANCES OF EVEN ONE LIFEFORM FORMING.

Uh duh.

Re:not on my planet, you dont. by flatrbbt · 1999-09-12 01:11 · Score: 1

no, im far from serious. I would have to see something that stood a chance of being "alive" first.
On the other hand... I trust "scientists" almost as far as I could throw them. The big question is always "can we". and almost never "should we".

Steve Ruyle

--
Ex Libris Veritas

Religious nut LOVES to see free robots (film@11) by leonbrooks · 1999-09-12 07:29 · Score: 1

Never would they create robots (whetever made by iron and silicon or carbon) to give them freedom. This makes it a sin.

Only if you're a Roaming Cattletick. Personally, I'm all in favour of independent robots. You could expect them to respond rationally (unless they were M$-based), and so deny the evolution theory.

I think the religious right will deny this forever.

Deny what? The guy plans to recycled used bits of life. He hasn't actually done it yet. Read this and weep.

Would that animal have the right to be free, as humas has?

Humans aren't. Nor would "the religious right" in general want them to be so. They would prefer that the animal (and us) were required to accept a parody of freedom, and "disruptors" like us would be forced to convert or euthanased. As one of Singapore's leading policemen said, they can think and believe what they like, as long as it's correct. Instant Dark Ages. Rerun the Reign of Terror (or would atheists rather forget that little episode?). St Bartholomew's Day, Take II.

And speaking of euthanasia, have you noticed that Humanists are now campaigning for "post-birth abortion?" Between that and euthanasia, the gap is closing. It won't be long before you are on a death-list somewhere, whoever you are.

All of this from a debate about artifical bacteria. My, aren't consequences interesting things?

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:29 · Score: 3

> Well back before the genetic code was being worked on, some experimenters demonstrated
> 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:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 07:48 · Score: 0

Not quite... Plants/algae are also oxygen consumers, and cannot live in its absence. The initial supply of free O2 in the earths atmosphere is generally thought to have been the waste product of lots and lots of anaerobic bacteria, prior to the evolution of aerobic bacteria. Once the O2 concentration reached a certain point, the places anaerobic bacteria could colonize became limited, and evolving aerobic bacteria were free to move in.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:33 · Score: 0

Actually, the atmosphere of the early earth was reducing. It was through the action of living organisms that created the oxygen-rich atmosphere we have today.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by tragedy · 1999-09-11 22:15 · Score: 1

I think you may be ignoring the effects of trace amounts of oxygen over large amounts of time.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 08:15 · Score: 0

"Once again science fails in the face of overwhelming religious evidence..."
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:39 · Score: 0

> Actually, the atmosphere of the early earth was reducing

As far as I know, there is no evidence of this. Hence the comment that even in the earliest rocks we can find, there are traces of oxidation.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by tragedy · 1999-09-11 22:22 · Score: 1

Well, seeing as the oldest known rocks are believed to be about 3.96 billion years old, I don't know if I can really agree with that.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Biggles · 1999-09-11 15:42 · Score: 1

Yes, the guy's name was Miller (I had to do an essay on this years ago)
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:29 · Score: 0

>Actually, the atmosphere of the early earth was reducing. It was through the action of living organisms that created the oxygen-rich atmosphere we have today.
Actually, I thought oxygen was produced from photosynthesis, which requires chlorophyll. Are you suggesting that the first living cells were capable of photosynthesis?
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by hellish · 1999-09-12 03:19 · Score: 1

and the earth/life is believed to be somewhere around 8 billion years old. the proof we're looking for would be found in rocks older than 3.96 billion years.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Tardigrade · 1999-09-12 05:51 · Score: 1

5 billion, not eight billion. The oldest rocks we can find have been dated within about half a billion years afterward.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Mike+A. · 1999-09-12 05:52 · Score: 1

This is incorrect - the earth is theorized only to be about 4.6 billion years old or so.
That said, I still haven't seen anyone coherently explain why we should conclude that the early Earth's atmosphere was oxidating.

--

--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Masem · 1999-09-11 17:15 · Score: 3

True, it's unrealistic, but because the chamber was continuously charged as to accelerate the process (At least, of what I can remember of the details). They postulated that during the time life was created, the earth had much more in the way of electrical activity than it does now in addition to higher temperatures. Certainly, the 'soup' wasn't charged all the time, and given a few millenia, it would be expected that enough of the amino acids would be formed near the surface, then transported to some point sufficiently distant such that the molecules were not as exposed to the charge, and thus had time to form more complex structures (the proteins). OF course, as scientists, we don't have that kind of time to wait :-).
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.

--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by hellish · 1999-09-12 06:42 · Score: 1

i always read 8 billion. anyways, how could rocks prove wether there was oxygen in the atmosphere or not?
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Laitnedurp · 1999-09-11 18:21 · Score: 1

"Oxidizing" is a misnomer...oxygen is not the only oxidizing agent.
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by pohl · 1999-09-11 17:49 · Score: 1

Isn't that exactly what he's saying: that there were oxygen atoms on earth but that they were bound (oxidized) to other atoms -- and life processes slowly freed some over time? Certainly he's not suggesting that life processes created the oxygen atoms themselves.

--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by JetJaguar · 1999-09-12 22:58 · Score: 1

You're right, I kind of skipped a step for the sake of simplicity...

--
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
Re:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated by Jburkholder · 1999-09-11 18:10 · Score: 2

Well, I'm not very sure about that...
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)

Re:There is no real diffrence betwen micro and mac by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 07:29 · Score: 0

(one of the requirements for being classified as "alive" is the ability to reproduce. A lion and a tiger can produce offspring, called a "Liger" I believe, but that offspring cannot reproduce, and so, by the strictest Biological classification, is not considered alive)

The inability to produce offspring classifies an organism as non-living? By that definition, a newborn baby, your 85 year old grandmother, a spayed/neutered pet, or a human who'd had one of the various operations to prevent reproduction (ie a vasectomy) would all be classified as non-living. Interestingly enough, that could mean that the vet killed my dog when I had it spayed...

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong. I'm just saying it doesn't really look like you took the time to think through your post.

Can humans create life? by cluke · 1999-09-11 15:30 · Score: 0

Uh, I think humans can indeed create life, unless all that stuff about the storks is true.

Re:Can humans create life? by turbohavoc · 1999-09-11 16:49 · Score: 1

Well.. If we would make artificial life, well probably need artificial storks as well ;)

Re:There is no real diffrence betwen micro and mac by InSaNe+ASyLuM · 1999-09-12 07:44 · Score: 1

I'm just going by what I read in my Biology textbook. I agree, it sounds rather stupid, but being able to reproduce *is* a requirement for being classified as alive. However, I'm pretty sure that it applies to the species as a whole, rather than individual members of that species (I should have made this a bit clearer in my first post) Since most humans can reproduce, all are considered alive, even if individual members cannot for one reason or another.

--

Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.

Re:God is about scale and power. by Dreamweaver · 1999-09-12 01:19 · Score: 1

And in another 2000 years? A few hundred years ago people hadnt even a concept of how things we now do regularly could have been accomplished. We cant make a galaxy-worth of stars at the moment, but given time i see no reason why it would be impossible. Same thing with ressurection. Every year we get better at bringing people back from what was beyond the point of no return previously. Given time and that we dont blow ourselves up, i'm sure we'll eventually be able to reconstruct a living person from any scrap of their body.

So what will it be then? Saying there's some limit to what we can eventually accomplish is just stupid.. because we cant do it now doesnt make it impossible or even unlikely. Go back a few million years and only god could make something as astoundig as fire.

Dreamweaver

--

"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.

Heh by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 01:20 · Score: 0

Given that Behe's basic premise is logically indefensible -- it relies utterly on a fundamental misreading of Darwinism -- I don't really care what may have been left out of the reviews. He's attacking a strawman. However well he attacks it, it's still a strawman.

i have a question by sh_mmer · 1999-09-11 21:59 · Score: 1

you said: 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. (end quote) you seem to have a semi-clear idea about this, but what does it mean to exist, but not be in this universe? i don't think this is as intuitive as, it seems, you do.

--
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona

Re:i have a question by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 04:31 · Score: 0

It's not that hard if you have a clear concept of what the universe is.

They'l deny it by redhog · 1999-09-11 15:30 · Score: 1

I think the religious right will deny this forever. They can not accept that anyone except god may create life. And if they are convinced by evidence otherwise, they'l deny it as long as possible, and then say it's a sin. Anyway, to answer a question in one of the other comments "do such a bacteria have a soul": Let's say someone in the future creates not a bacteria but an animal (perheaps as smart as a human). Would that animal have the right to be free, as humas has? If its is created from silicon and iron (a robot), would that affect its rights? I think that, if humans where able to, they would create machine slaves. Never would they create robots (whetever made by iron and silicon or carbon) to give them freedom. This makes it a sin. So, once, the church has right. But in a way they didn't meant it...

--
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.

Re:They'l deny it by Bilbo · 1999-09-11 15:38 · Score: 1

I don't think they have anything to deny yet. We're talking about a bunch of speculation at this point, with little more that what you'd see in a Science Fiction novel.
Show me an actual living creature created from scratch and then we'll have some interesting discussions!

--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Re:They'l deny it by Ex-NT-User · 1999-09-11 19:12 · Score: 1

God created man in his image. The Bible does not say God created man in his own image.. but limited his capabilities. It seems to me that an all powerfull and all knowing God may have instilled in us the capabilities of creation. (AKA: creating life) among many other things that we will learn some time in the future.

Sure the ultra religious people will deny this, in the same maner as they deny evolution. But the majority will accept an answer that allows for both religion and science.

Ex-Nt-User

i have a question by sh_mmer · 1999-09-11 22:01 · Score: 1

you said:

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.

(end quote)

you seem to have a semi-clear idea about this, but what does it mean to exist, but not be in this universe? i don't think this is as intuitive as, it seems, you do.

--
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona

Re:entirely fallacious by MDX-F1 · 1999-09-12 07:49 · Score: 1

This is just unintelligible. Religeon, as the most honest theists will admit, is just faith. "Faith seeking understanding" is an oxymoron

Let's consider an example: "I have faith in God, and seek to understand His creation more fully". I think any honest person would admit that this is a coherent statement, whether they agree with the sentiment or not.

God is about scale and power. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:01 · Score: 1

This is all my opinion and my Father ( A senior Pastor ) wold disagree with most of it.

Many people ( Including most Cristians ) have no concept of what seperates man from God in terms of power. Simply put it's not that "God can rais the dead but man cannot" or "Only God can create life".

Rather it's about scale and raw energy requierments. I.e. A man may be able to use the energy from a nuclear plant to generate a few molecules of matter ( perhaps enogh to fill a test tube ) but will he be able to fill a galaxy with stars ? We rutinly "resorect" people who have drowned in ice watter 1/2 a hour latter but what about those who were dumped in the swamp 2 years ago ? ( You might not eaven find bones for such a corps ).

We can move water around using air and energy in clever ways but how far is the technology for opening a walkway throgh a major sea ? Yes man achives many of the wonders God has done. This is understandeble since we were created in his "image and likeness". Most people think that is a phisical thing ( This has been a justification for racisim ) but it's more likely about brain function and potential power.

Basicaly, we are all tiny minitures of god. We can with efort acomplish some of the things he did. Just not on the same scale.

Forge, without my account.

40% of 'scientists' believe in a god of some sort by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 01:23 · Score: 0

> Why do the moderators encourage such an extreme > show of bigotry
Perhaps because the moderators are bigotted (although not all of them clearly, your post got uprated, which i actually found very refreshing).
While slashdot news is interesting to read, the postings normally deteriorate into some kind of 'soft' flame war with the 'anti-linux' or 'anti-scientist' or 'pro-god' sides of arguments never getting uprated despite several good points. And yet random mindless drivel getting uprated as long as the prattle is sufficiantly PC (slashdot PC i mean) Being someone with a physics degree, working in computing science and being a Christian i find it preposterous that theres such a prevailing opinion of 'anybody believing in a god is stupid or completely irrational'. If people wanted to check out statistics (see this months scientific american) actually 40% of members of the National Academy of Sciences believe that there exists a god and approximately the same number that there was some kind of afterlife.
Chill.

Sounds like fun... by flamingdog · 1999-09-11 15:34 · Score: 0

I'll bet the church is gonna go nuts over this one. I mean, they get pissed off when someone SAYS something that contradicts what they say. Imagine what its gonna be like since someone actually DID something against what the church beleives. Not to mention, I forget what chapter/verse/whatever, but in the bible it says something along the lines of the anti-christ will be born not of god or flesh. That oughta make the catholic church shit itself.

---------------------------
"I'm not gonna say anything inspirational, I'm just gonna fucking swear a lot"

--

---------------------------

Re:Sounds like fun... by dattaway · 1999-09-11 15:46 · Score: 2

Imagine what its gonna be like since someone actually DID something against what the church beleives.

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.
Re:Sounds like fun... by Stonehand · 1999-09-11 16:42 · Score: 1

Did you actually read the article? The (religious) spokesperson cited seemed quite calm about the whole deal...

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:Sounds like fun... by flamingdog · 1999-09-12 04:32 · Score: 1

What the hell? Now theres a biased moderator. I state an opinion that is held by the majority of people I know, and parts of it can actually be proven as fact, and its labeled as flamebait? Geez, I guess I should have known a moderator or two would be a radical religious fanatic. Moderating that down only served to prove my point of the church and its fanatical followers hating when people say something that goes against what the church beleives. Thank you. I'd assume they've got some points left, so this should be flamebait soon too.

---------------------------
"I'm not gonna say anything inspirational, I'm just gonna fucking swear a lot"

--

---------------------------
Re:Sounds like fun... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:16 · Score: 1

WARNING: Can be interpreted as a flame.

If you read the article the Catholic representitive said that God gave human beings minds and if this is within their capability the representitive would see no harm in it. He went on to say that intent was the key. If the intent was to do harm or was to do it as a poke in the eye to the idea of "God the Creator" then he would have objections.

This sounds reasonable and intelligent. I don't like people whose intent is to do harm, no matter what the technique, either with a baseball bat or
a designer virus.

No mention of the Bible was made because Catholics are not fundamentalists. That is, they do not say every word of the Bible is literal truth. The Bible to Catholics is a collection of writings, some literary, some historical, all of which intend to show the relationship among people and between people and their God, not as a science textbook or as a physics tutorial.

"What the church believes" depends on the church. If a church, or member thereof, believes in close mindedness and ignorance then it is not worth listening to. If someone is not a member of a church but is still closeminded and ignorant, such as someone who lumps all members of a group into one category and believes in stereotypes then that person is also not worth listening to.

Not all "simple minds" are members of a religion. Not all members of religious groups have simple minds.
Re:Sounds like fun... by JordanH · 1999-09-11 18:27 · Score: 1

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.
There's no mention of airplanes, hamburgers, computers, microwave ovens, televisions, firearms, drywall, modems, heart bypass surgery, potatos, eye glasses, aluminum, tomatoes, helium, helicoptors, batteries, automobiles, olestra, liposuction, plastic, transistors, golf balls, radio, safety glass, bean dip, telephones, semiconductors, FORTRAN or Fortran, MP3, CDs or DVDs, EMF radiation that cannot be perceived as heat or light, and about a million other things that we use everyday in the Bible. Except for a few Amish, religious people generally have no problem with any of the above.
One of the most notable experiments involving living beings was Eugenics. I'm not comfortable with the possibilities surrounding Humans experimenting with life. A lot of religious leaders are expressing this same view.
Man-made viruses have the potential to eradicate human life and possibly all life on earth.
Perhaps you feel that there are no potential downsides to such experiments?

Re:Not sure this is a "good" thing. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:32 · Score: 0

as if pestisides are actually 'needed'.

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:02 · Score: 0

>Firstly I don't believe in a "soul" (the same one religious people believe in).
>
>But to think that only "humans" have "souls" is so utterly arrogant.

How utterly inconsistent. First you don't believe in X. Then you insist that the idea of X having attribute Y is utterly arrogant. Go look in the mirror. If you don't believe in X, how can you make any claims to as to be able to make an authoritative statement as to what attributes X has? Talk about arrogance!

Why give a bigot a 2? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:32 · Score: 3

Why do the moderators encourage such an extreme show of bigotry

> 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:We are the gods. by Dreamweaver · 1999-09-12 01:29 · Score: 1

Point 1: 'Why are we so arrogat to presume that *we* are the only creatures in the universe that are persons'

On the whole, we're not. Most people think there's intelligent life other than us out there someplace. The difference is that you want us to believe that there are not only other 'persons' made up of the typical molecules.. but also this amazing super-person who somehow came into beig without anybody else (if we would just be molecules without this person, who made him/her/it?) and then went on to make everything and everyone else.. that's the part that's a bit hard to swallow.

Point 2: 'We are finite. God is infinite.'

So this 'person' is somehow not only exactly like us in that it's made up of the same type of matter, but is also somehow made up of all matter? So are we floating around somewhere in it's eye? Or maybe an arm? And if it's infinite, wouldnt that mean it contains all the 'evil' and 'wrong' things in the whole of the universe as well as all the 'good' things? Doesnt sound too perfect to me.. Anthropromorphic infinity is silly at best.. afterall, can the amazing first-person-infinite-man create the proverbial stone that he cant lift? Yeah it's an old and silly question, but it points out the main flaw in a supposedly 'infinite' being.. infinity in that sense is impossible.

Dreamweaver

--

"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.

Frank Zappa by CC · 1999-09-12 01:36 · Score: 1

To all the religious freaks, devil worshiping secularists and the namby pamby 'sit on the fence' agnostics .... this little gem from the much missed F.Z.

"Ultimately ... who gives a fuck anyway"

CC

--
"Pray arm me further by your reply" Winston Churchill

Darwin's Black Box. by mineralfan · 1999-09-11 20:33 · Score: 1

A fantastic book by Micheal Behe that I strongly recommend to all those that are interested in this whole debate. Basically Behe destroyed the theory of macro-evolution (species to species) by examining life on a bio-chemical level and citing at least a dozen examples of irreducible complexity on the cellular level. I realize that this may not tie in explicitly with the discussion about engineering life, but this book presents an excellent argument as to why Darwin was simply wrong. One might also note, that in order to "create" this bacteria, they are just (i'm sure it is still quite difficult) rearranging materials already available to them in a labratory environment.

Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:39 · Score: 0

Has annyone found annything that points in a different direction? I can't see anny reason at all that we couldn't produce new life forms. It can be some technical difficulties, but I can't see anny real reason to say it is immpossible. It could be that I'm wrong. I have seen no proof for the denial of the existence of the allmighty God either. My self belive we are made by mice and the answer are indeed 42.

Re:Why not? by Vidar+Hokstad · 1999-09-11 15:43 · Score: 1

Uhhm... I've seen no proof for the denial of the existence of the invisible pink unicorn either, but that's no reason to believe in it.
But the answer is of course 42 :-)

Re:Doesn't this worry anyone else? by Cracker · 1999-09-11 20:35 · Score: 1

God creates Dinosaurs.
God destroys Dinosaurs.
God creates Man.
Man creates Man.
Man destroys God.

you forgot "Man destroys himself"

unless your talking about god as the collective intelligence of mankind as mentioned earlier. IF man ever successfully creates life capable of sustaining itself, it WILL backfire. we can't possibly predict all outcomes of genetic manipulation - as cited earlier with the genetically altered corn that killed off butterflies with its pollen - and therefore something will come up that leads to our imminent destruction.

maybe what so many others have said is true. maybe we're the disease.

Re:entirely fallacious by JSBiff · 1999-09-11 22:11 · Score: 1

This is not entirely true, There are some factions of Theists that are like this, closing their eyes, closing their minds. . . others of us are not that way. I went to a Christian high school where they encouraged us to think for ourselves, to believe because we feel it is _true_ based on evidence we have.

But let's turn it around, let us question and doubt these statements and theses. Many of us look at findings like these, and don't deny the actual findings. . . that'd be pretty foolish (well, unless there is scientific evidence to show the experiments were/might be botched up) . . . but the conjectures others then make based upon those findings. For example, just because a scientist might be able to create a bacteria in a laboratory, with extremely controlled conditions, doesn't logically "prove" that these conditions could, or more to the point, did, occur to start life. Further, a bacterium is a much more complex form of life than I've heard most evolutionists referring to as the hypothetical "first spark" of life. Unless theories have changed since I was in school, no one has speculated that bam! a bacterium suddenly appeared in the primordial soup. . . I'd be much more impressed if a scientist could create, in the laboratory, a life form simple enough to have happened by instantaneous chance, and that doesn't require other life forms to survive (e.g. a virus is so simple it needs a "host"), and that can survive and reproduce. A bacterium survives because of its complexity. Please, someone, show me. . .

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:39 · Score: 0

You are brain dead if you really believe what you just said. The cause of more murders is a result of people/governments trying to get rid of religion. Just look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. I don't suppose you can provide an example of Christians killing 150+ million people because of their beliefs in the span of about 60 years? Your rhetoric against religion sounds like something Hitler would say to get people to encite violence against Jews. BTW, there were almost as many Christians killed by Hitler as Jews, so to say that Christians didn't care is BS. Most of the world didn't even know what the truth was until after the war was over.

Create life? Uh.. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:39 · Score: 0

look up "sex" in the dictionary, spiffo.

Re:The next giant leap? by Dorao · 1999-09-11 22:15 · Score: 1

Creating lipid bi-layers is not a problem (I've used it to do transfections using a kit out by Clontech IIRC). In a simple procaryote, all you really need are proteins (a couple polymerases and ribosomes) for translation and transcription(DNA - > RNA, RNA -> protein).

Any of the simpler protiens can already be created in mass quantities using bacteria... the key here is mixing things up, putting the "artificial cells" in the correct media and pray a lot.

One interesting side note: When I was doing my thesis, the head of my lab had successfully created T-cells with receptors (which he had modified, by altering the sequence for the VDJ segment) to target HIV infected cells (I believe it targeted gp-120). The problem here was that, doing CTL-assays, he could not get enough killing (i.e. not enough of the receptors were being expressed).

The key here is that, if one could figure out exactly how genes were being expressed/regulated, and be able to reproduce this artificially with out side-effects, we could generate anything. (use a modified HIV virus to infect t-cells inserting DNA so that the CTL would express receptors that recognized a specific cancer; for example).

Just a though. (btw, I have not been in touch with the cutting edge biochem for several years now so if I said anything wrong, correct me.)

Dorao

Really? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:42 · Score: 0

If that is so, then why has religion brought out the worst in people?

How many have died in religious wars/purges?

LINUX RULEZ! FREEBSD AND NT SUX!

Re:We are the gods. by Dwonis · 1999-09-11 20:43 · Score: 1

God isn't a person. It's knowledge. And the more we learn, the more god like we become.

Wrong. God is wisdom with knowledge, not just knowledge.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."

Souls-Re:God's influence shrinking? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:43 · Score: 0

I like to think of the soul as the 'life force energy'. What makes humans so great as to not be on the same level as all life? Humanist !!! Lots of people believe that other humans are lower form of life, based on the color of your skin.

Not make.. perhaps fabricate. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:44 · Score: 0

Thus far, we haven't been able to actually create life. In order to create life, you have to be able to make it from nothing. What the scientists are doing is essentially just fabrication; take a bit of this, add a pinch of that, and ta-da.

So no, man has not become like God. If anything, we've become like Dr. Frankenstien.

James

Wake up! Religion is for primative cultures. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 08:19 · Score: 0

No one with a rational mind can buy into any superstitions that claim there is some magical god thing that exists. You Fools! You are no different than neanderthals that thought the sun was a god and that animals were gods. The ignorant cling to religion and prevent human culture from solving simple it's most simple problems. Die religeous scum! I hate you all!

Re:Wake up! Religion is for primative cultures. by arielb · 1999-09-12 10:23 · Score: 1

so how come the only countries that are atheist are completely backwards? north korea comes to mind...not my idea of progress.

--
---
Re:Wake up! Religion is for primative cultures. by Shockerman · 1999-09-12 18:22 · Score: 1

Wouldn't you agree that articles and experiments like this only prove more and more that there in fact is some sort of god. The fact that it took scientists years of research to create a bacterium shows that life cannot just spontaneously be created, but rather, it takes some sort of being ( in this case, a scientist) to create life from nothing. In the beginning of time, that scientist happened to be God. Science contradicts itself in reinforcing the big bang theory while having numerous laws of physics and science that say that spontaneous generation of life is impossible.

nuclear nitpicking by decomp · 1999-09-12 08:26 · Score: 1

i'm no physicist, but the idea of gaining any benefit from "eating nuclear waste" sounds like some serious physics/chemistry confusion. i could see the point of "eating" and breaking down toxic (to someone/thing else) organic compounds...such that after being eaten they are no longer toxic. but nuclear waste...it just keeps on going and going, half-lifing away, right?

now, if you could get them to ingest the stuff, concentrate it, not sh*t it out, and then on some chemical cue, all gather in the same place, hey, you've got a refinement scheme (or at least a way to collect the waste before sticking it in a barrel and burying it somewhere for the next x-thousand/million years).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People create life all the time. by Kismet · 1999-09-12 01:39 · Score: 1

Hey, what happens when a male and female get together in sexual intercourse? Wow, people have known about this for who knows how many millenia. Actually, it's a rather simple procedure which requires no scientific knowledge whatever.

The prospect of humans creating life asexually is intriguing, yet hardly unprecedented in nature. The difference is that it requires all of our sentience to put the pieces together.

For many this is a feat of science. For others, a issue of religion. So tell me what is life, really? What is God? Some have answered those questions for themselves, yet rarely the answer seems the same. But this much I know: judging on the amount of posts I'm seeing, it's an important topic for just about everybody.

If the power of God is creation, or procreation, then science can certainly be justified to the theist. To some this is enobling, and to others, heresy. Pick your side.

My only grief is to see the human creative genius and procreative power be abused. Science for war, and sex for entertainment and lust. At the end of it all, I suggest that the theist and the atheist alike are left with their own reward: themselves.

You win the prize! Moderate this guy up! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 01:46 · Score: 0

You dragged Linux and Beowulf into it! Heh heh. cool.

:)

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 08:50 · Score: 0

>>Actually, the soul is Spirit. Energy is part of the created world and is measurable by science. What do you mean the soul is spirit?!? Have you suddenly become the only person in the knowen universe thats got the answer to some of the biggest questions around? Lets stick to FACTS (science), and in general.. what we KNOW. We know we can build life, the way to find out if we SHOULD build life is by doing it and finding out if its a mistake. If it is.. then dont do it again. Bugger this idea of morality/spirituality, we're here to live/learn lets DO THAT! methuselah@aurum.net.au

uh hello by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 01:50 · Score: 0

yes humans can create life.. it's called fucking. you see, the male sperm hits the female egg, thus starting the creation process.. dumbasses.

More background info by Lucius+Lucanius · 1999-09-11 15:39 · Score: 4

Scientific American article on the guy -

http://www.sciam.com/1998/0898issue/0898profile. html

L.

Re: Only humans have souls? by Lord+Kano · 1999-09-12 09:25 · Score: 1

>But to think that only "humans" have "souls" is so utterly arrogant.

It's a common belif that only humand have "souls" other animals are though to have spirits, but only humans have "souls", what other animal is capable of contemplating concepts such as "right" and "wrong"? We're the only ones who can decide to perform acts of good or acts of evil, therefore we're the only ones who have souls ar risk.

Arrogant, maybe but it makes sense if you understand what a souls is and what purpose it serves in a theological sense.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Re:This is not what it's spliced-up to be... by Pascal+of+S · 1999-09-12 09:25 · Score: 1

As I pointed out, for now there are much, much simpler ways to achieve deadly things. 2nd year university students are doing it today. It's just like cutting and pasting. Okay, it takes some work to get it right, but bacteria in a dish multiply FAST. You only need to find one that works and then you're set to do the damage.
Remember that you don not need to create a whole new bug to do the damage. The highly successful e.coli (apearing in a bowel near you) can be augmented with two or three new genes (copied from a harmful species) and it'll do just the same thing as a fully enginered bug.
As for the line crossing, do you know what line is being crossed right now?

Re:We are the gods. by fustflum · 1999-09-12 02:01 · Score: 1

WHY THE HELL did this persons opinion get moderated down???
I didnt post this by the way, but i think that it is a very intelligent comment. (and a nice Arthur C. Clark quote).

The poster is completely right, the more science developes and the more we learn and discover, the more "god-like" we will become. Show someone from ancient roman times what we can do now and they might call us gods. The people, nay the scientists of tomorrow will be called gods by us.

message from God by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 02:03 · Score: 0

Attention all believers!
This is God speaking.

I can no longer watch your erroneous behaviour. I am greatly disappointed with your wrong beliefs. This time I want only to address Creationism.

I did not create life on Earth. All life evolved from one organism, which in turn evolved from some molecules. (I am oversimplifying, so that all of you can understand me.)

I command you NOT to believe in Creationism and accept the evidence of science (All life forms share part of their DNA with each other).

Science is the only TRUE way to explain the universe.

For those who disbelieve that it's a message from God, know this: You can't disprove this fact, and if you are a TRUE believer you will believe this message. Otherwise you will burn in Hell like all disbelievers including atheists and agnostics.

This isn't a big leap from what we already do. by jht · 1999-09-11 15:42 · Score: 1

Think about it: we design life forms today (spoil-resistant tomatoes, corn that produces natural insecticides, etc.). We've been tinkering with life through selective breeding for centuries - we had domesticated cattle, dogs, and horses generations ago and designed crops before scientists began to understand genetics and inheritence. Once we understood the science, it became less hit-or-miss in nature.

And once we started to understand the actual genetics behind things this century, the last 10-20 years or so have seen all sorts of directly "designed" life forms - they just started from an existing base and had the desired characteristics added. So we're already creating life. I'm not sure just how big a step this is, really. We're still designing a custom life form, just from smaller parts.

- -Josh Turiel

--
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."

Re:This isn't a big leap from what we already do. by Yosemite+Sue · 1999-09-11 18:10 · Score: 1

Someone has already pointed out that this article concerns someone who *thinks* he can create an artificial bacterium, which is good to remember. But the thing I kept thinking while I was reading was, "Why bother?"

Microorganisms are very easy to manipulate (compared to the so-called "higher" lifeforms). We already swap genes from bacterial strains that are hardly related, and can put genes from plants or animals into bacteria. (Many therapeutic products are produced in this manner.) In terms of "germ warfare" it would be much more efficient and less unpredictable to use strains we already have and modify them - I am not advocating use of such weapons, but I suspect many people will seize on that potential when talking about this story.

It would take us a *long* time to create a GOOD artifical bacterium - Nature has the jump on us there! With the time and expense involved, I don't quite know why someone would bother ... unless they feed off of the "Should-we-be-playing-God" controversy, of course!

YS

--
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender

Re:Yes *MUCH* more impressive! HOW much more...? by Mike+A. · 1999-09-12 09:39 · Score: 1

No, it didn't. It thought it did, but it didn't. The fact is, we don't know how simple a collection of chemical structures can be while still able to self-replicate, or how complex a chemical structure can be made by nonliving processes. And without knowing those things, we cannot really estimate the probability.

Abiogenesis is the subject of ongoing research, and while we've a long way to go before demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt it's possible, the issue cannot be dismissed by something as simple-minded as the paper you quoted.

--

--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?

The creation of a new bacterium by zp · 1999-09-12 02:04 · Score: 1

In the first place, it is not easy to create a cell, be it bacterial or be it any other type. Cells are amazingly complex. In the second place, creating a new cell involves being able to make all the ancillary parts in addition to DNA. In the case being discussed, only the DNA is synthetic and the ancillary parts are provenient from dead natural bacteria. Therefore, what this researcher is about to do (or just has done) doesn't seem to be that impressive. A question: If I were to, say, write a new kernel but borrow all the other parts from pre-existing sources, would I have created a new OS? ZP
--

--
ZP
We only can learn from our mistakes.

--K. Popper

A helpful reference by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-09-11 22:28 · Score: 1

Unfortunately Amazon doesn't carry it, but anyone planning on creating life will probably find "How I Did It" to be a handy guide.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Lord+Kano · 1999-09-12 09:40 · Score: 1

Religion can in many ways be a good thing.

I, being a neo-pagan, have a slightly diferent perspective that the Christians and agnostics and athiests.

The journey is just as important as the destination. Many charitible organizations are driven by religion. Yet at the same time the KKK is a protestant Christian organization.

>If scientists can't work in good conditions because of some bible-driven morons, they should move their facilities to countries where intelligence has more power than god-botherers

Are you aware that the two groups of people who are most likely to believe in a "God" are

1. The undereducated.
2. The highly educated.

PHDs are statisticly more likely to believe in "God" than are college drop-outs.

The more you understand about the complexity of the world, the more likely you are to believe that there was a Creator or a higher power.

Science and Religion are NOT mutually exclusive concepts.

We can not allow Science to do to religion what religion did to science 500 years ago.

We can't begin to shun people because they believe that there is a higher power than mankind. We can't marginalize people because they believe that when they die, something more than a "lights out" will occur.

By doing this you become as bad as the zealots who threatened Galileo to recant under the threat of death.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Interesting Logic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:43 · Score: 0

Hummm... We go from, "Man says he can create artificial DNA," to, "God doesn't really exist." Not that is an interesting logical jump.

The butterflies are fine. by cduffy · 1999-09-12 02:09 · Score: 1

If you actually look at the methodology of the experiment your claim is based on, it involved basically force-feeding butterflies with stuff they wouldn't eat in the wild (I don't still have the WSJ this was discussed in handy, so I can't give any further details).

In short, the butterflies (like everyone else) are fine -- despite the objections of alarmists like yourself.

Re: Only humans have souls? by pohl · 1999-09-12 02:40 · Score: 1

I must not be communicating clearly. I never implied that a cohesive self could survive death, but rather that memetic echoes could continue indefinately after death. Someone who is remembered by no one would have little or no immortality, but someone who contributed greatly to humanity would get quite a bit. I definately do not insist on using the word "soul". I actually don't like it very much, because of the religious & superstitious baggage. It's all just ripples in a pond -- except that some people leave fairly persistent ripples.

In case that wasn't clear enough: I'm an atheist; I don't believe in an afterlife. Nevertheless, I know that I can spawn memetic progeny that could survive me, and that does, technically, qualify as influence from beyond the grave. 8^)

--

The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

Re:Coding a DNA: Right On Bio-Hackers! by exa · 1999-09-12 02:48 · Score: 1

Hey, sorry for being naive but I'd just wanted to point out to DNA design becoming a reality. Blindly tinkering with nucleotids, disabling /*commenting out*/ a gene or two, patching genes up and observing is one thing. Designing novel organisms is another.

When you get to design things, the empirical approach needs to be supplemented by more rigorous methods. Being a CS person, I think one would wish to formalize the semantics contained in a DNA strand, even if this might mean that all kinds of bio-chemical interactions should be known. On top of this kind of a "virtual machine", a "soft" gene development environment could be fitted. One could imagine PL's and simulation engines, visualization / editing tools in this development environment. I have a sneaking suspicion that logic languages can be useful. (together with theorem-provers that will check semantics from a biochem KB)

Why is all that necessary? It's simply because the gene design would be such a task that it will exceed the cognitive abilities of a single human. A single chunk of data will dwarve the bandwidth of 1 researcher, so research groups won't help either ;) (Stack Overflow) Biochemists will need to borrow all the techniques and tools from AI. Surely, this will mostly consist of software work. Even as of now, simple tools seem to exist. I think that more advanced gene analysis/design will benefit from software systems with better AI.

About the designs themselves, the cause for medicine is most interesting. The applications surely hold the capacity to cure diseases that resist the more traditional treatment. But the second application area, I speculate, is nano technology. The single cell organisms might lay the foundation for a variety of nano devices. Once the means to produce biological machinery is worked out, we can take the leap into a Drexlerian world.

BTW, it's great if the actuation of genes is a probability and function of chemical equilibrium (or the probabilistic fun. of ;) since you can compute that. If the DNA is representable as a sequence of symbols, than I'd expect some order in the chemical reactions that govern its functioning, that's why we can reason about them; they're not totally uncomprehensible... Actually, I believe that developmental systems assume order over time.

--
--exa--

Re:Antibodies? by Dorao · 1999-09-11 22:39 · Score: 1

This can already be done I believe... As I stated in one of the above posts, all you need to do is alter the VDJ sequence. (antibodies are very similar to t-cell receptors).

VDJ segment == CDR3 for those who are interested. (look up Kaye, et al. 1991 Structure and specificity of the T-Cell Antigen Receptor in Sem in Immunology.)

What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY??? by Max+von+H. · 1999-09-11 15:46 · Score: 0

Hey, we're talking about SCIENCE here, not about those anti-progress, archaic nitwits who believe in that "god" thingo.

If scientists can't work in good conditions because of some bible-driven morons, they should move their facilities to countries where intelligence has more power than god-botherers.

My angry .02

--
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Bilbo · 1999-09-11 22:42 · Score: 1

> You don't need to be religious to be zealous.

And, not all religious people are dimwitted zealouts (contrary to popular belief).

--
Your Servant, B. Baggins

Re: Only humans have souls? by jilles · 1999-09-12 09:42 · Score: 1

There you have this strange soul issue again (now it is defined as subjective intelligence)

To deal with your first question:
- the matter is not inert since it can be manipulated?
- what exactly is a personal god? You actually make an intresting modification to a religios view here: universe creates god instead of the other way around.

Then question nr. 2
- science has not defined individual soul
- hence it is not scientifically proven that there is such a thing as a soul
- hence your question has no scientific meaning. Your real question is how can I make my concept of a soul consistent with reality. Judging from your first question you choose to adapt the definition of a soul. I choose to abandon the concept altogether.

--

Jilles

hahaha, yeah right by Crow- · 1999-09-12 10:07 · Score: 1

haha, and the thousands of documented deathts too all because some dumbfuck rednecks refuse medical attention because "jesus is going to heal me".

The most sinister part of it is, the people die fully believing they are going on to a better life, living a lie their entire lives. It's one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed, and people are so attached to it they will fight to the death.. it really is pathetic.

Re:hahaha, yeah right by MindStalker · 1999-09-12 17:06 · Score: 2

Accually most of them arn't redneck. Generally fairly well off people suckered into a cult using the name of crist for their money. You think this cult wants those people to accually survive given they are already in their Will.

Re:Let's Return Creation Science to Public Schools by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 10:12 · Score: 0

And the notion of "falsifiability" is exactly the sort of thing that students would begin to get exposure to in an open debate. We shouldn't be telling kids to accept evolution because "that's what intelligent people believe" but should be teaching them how to select the truth for themselves. The exposure to the debate between opposing points of view would do more to advance science than teaching what we currently regard as scientific facts.

Re:A few comments by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 02:53 · Score: 1

Also, he's not going to be able to synthesize something as long as a chromosome from scratch; the reaction simply isn't effecient enought. Even if it were 99% effecient after 1000 nucleotides he'd have a yield less than 1/20000. Just for the sake of comparison, the human genome (which is *much* longer than what he's talking about) is about 3 to 9 billion bases long. He can probably get away with thousdands of bases, but it's still not something that can be done from scratch. So if he wants to produce this sequence he's going to be cutting and pasting from existing bacteria. (using enzymes from existing bacteria to do it)

He's also stealing the sequences from existing organisms. He didn't say: "I need a gene for phosphofructose kinase - let's try ACTGACTG....". Biochemistry isn't anywhere near that advanced yet. We can't even tell you what the 3 dimensional structure of a protein will be based on it's amino acid sequence. Protein structures are determined by methods like x-ray crystalography and NMR. All this guy said is: "Gee, these are the enzymes necessary for glycolysis and a few other pathways" and grab the sequences from elsewhere.

Finally, having the genome for an organism is a far cry from having that organism. DNA is useless outside of the context of an organism. You need to have the DNA in the cell with the appropriate machinery around to go about the business of life. It's all well and good to say "Look! I have the sequence of a chromosome!", but it's a far cry from: "I synthesized this and assembled a cell around it without using other bacteria"

In other words, I found the article a little on the foolishly optimistic side.

-Doug

Kindness to animals and so on by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 02:53 · Score: 0

Where does it say this in the Old Testament? I don't remember reading that.

This is sure to be moderated down (offtopic, definitely), but: one place is the commandment to send away the mother bird before taking eggs from her nest (to spare her feelings, notwithsdanding the fact that when she comes back she will be at least a tad confused :-) )

Pelerin, posting anonymously in a craven attempt to preserve my karma.

Right on! by Crow- · 1999-09-12 10:30 · Score: 1

Couldn't have said it better itself, all the stuff we do for "recreation" and whatnot is just a side-effect of our evolutionary past. Really its pretty disappointing, but the truth hurts.. and the sooner we realize that the sooner we can progress as a race.

Only shows importance of intelligence by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:49 · Score: 0

Notice all the work and thought that would go into something like this.

This is of no relevance to origins discussion because it doesn't show what can come about by chance.

I'll be impressed when they cook a pot of chemicals into a bacteria

Re:Only shows importance of intelligence by deltavivis · 1999-09-11 17:19 · Score: 1

I believe this DOES have relevance to origins discussion--if it can be done it proves that the "spark" of life can be created without resorting to divine intervention. All that is required is ordinary materials arranged in a particular pattern to create life, no miracle required.

"This is of no relevance to origins discussion because it doesn't show what can come about by chance.
I'll be impressed when they cook a pot of chemicals into a bacteria"

If it can be accomplished, i believe we have a starting point to determine exactly how difficult the arrangement of chemicals to form life is. Someone who is a greater chemist than I should then be able to roughly calculate (model more likely) the probabability of given a solution of the required chemicals, what is the probability that they will combine in the proper pattern to create life. I'll bet the probability will be pretty low--it will probably turn out that you need a pot of chemicals about the size of the earth and a few hundred million years to cook it to ever create one bacteria...

Atheism vs Theism OR Atheism vs Christianity? by Hasdi+Hashim · 1999-09-12 03:00 · Score: 1

Is it just me or it seems that whenever somebody bash down theism, I see references to Christianity? I mean, I am sure there are other religion out there. Is it possible that you don't agree with the execution rather the principle behind christianity? In addition to contact, maybe you should watch "Stigmata" or wait till it comes out on video.

Hasdi

Re:Atheism vs Theism OR Atheism vs Christianity? by Mike+A. · 1999-09-12 05:59 · Score: 1

It's because in the United States, Christianity is overwhelmingly the predominant form of theism. If the US had a larger proportion of militant Muslims, for example (a proportion large enough to set policy at least in local areas), you'd see a lot more references to Islam.

--

--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?

BioEng will become more elite than CS in 21st Cent by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 03:08 · Score: 0

I wonder if BioEngineerng will become more k-rad elite than CS in the next century.

*ONLY* 350 genes required for life by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 15:55 · Score: 1

> The scientists discovered that as few as 350 of the bacteria's 470 genes were necessary to sustain its life.

Now that is a truly interesting statement.

How did the bacteria have a chance to evolve from 100 genes to 350 if it could not survive with 100?

Re:*ONLY* 350 genes required for life by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:35 · Score: 0

The bacteria didn't evolve from 100 genes, well maybe it did, but not like you suggest. Those 100 genes either produce garabage, are not turned on, or are duplicates. I forget what genes that are not turned on are called. Also, there is a *lot* of duplication in DNA.

theory == truth by delmoi · 1999-09-11 22:43 · Score: 1

Actually, the scientific community views evolution as a truth. The reason that they call it a 'theory' instead of a 'law' is because it can't be described as a mathematical equation (ie E = mc^2). Gravity is also a theory (as well as a law). You can't 'prove' evolution and more then you can 'prove' that holocaust occurred. That doesn't mean they didn't happen
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

--

ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n

Genetic Algorithm by Boomstick · 1999-09-12 10:33 · Score: 1

What is life?

The definition of intelligence is continually redefined to exclude non humans, and
the definition of life redefined to exclude man made creations. I think we'll find that if our technologies evolve enough they will create something of great enough complexity that it manifests a soul.

I think that the best scientific definitions of life include the Earth, corporations, economies, etc...

Ever write a genetic algorithm? Problem solving using the same techniques as evolution - reproduction, crossover, mutation. You have an array of potential solutions (genomes) that comprise the gene pool, and the ones that get selected randomly (chances increased by viability as assessed by an objective function) are randomly crossed with an other randomly chosen solution. The gene pool goes from being worthless to having some perfect solutions (if one exists, otherwise as good as possible, if done right). May take 25 or 50 generations, but you definitely are building a petri dish and growing solutions to problems.

The issue of soul is more scientifically refered to as consciousness. If technology's growth continues exponentially, I wouldn't rule out any goals.

There are HUGE issues of safety here far before we get close to creating things that can sin!

Soul

anti-religious hysteria by arielb · 1999-09-12 10:33 · Score: 1

Quote from article: "The work appears to have the blessing of much of the religious establishment, which has reacted with caution to the development. " I'm sorry, I don't understand why so many people here have a "problem" with God or religion. Most people believe in God. It's not such a "radical" concept. Most scientists believe in God. Maybe a few eccentric types who are locked up in their universities or cubicles don't and go ballistic at any mention of the "G" word but maybe they should just get out in the real world and get a life. It's not such a big deal.

--
---

Re:Coding a DNA: Right On Bio-Hackers! by hmn_being · 1999-09-11 22:44 · Score: 1

In some previous /. discussion, it'd been expressed that genetic engineering is still unlike software engineering in which one designs systems from scratch or in most cases from some level above that.

That might change.

Not any time soon. The difficulty with gene work right now is that you can't do fast large scale editing of any kind. Small, minor changes are quite practical which means you can modify and move around existing genes. Even this though is a process of a few days from start to finish. You don't decide you want to change something and type it out on a keyboard. Without a template to start from, chains of nucleotides are usually only constructed in pieces of 100 bases or less. This is enough for the 'primers' used for the start and finish of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification, but would make only a teensy fraction of a given gene which may cover a few thousand base pairs or more in the genome. You can't really link chains of a hundred or so together sequentially either because it's too difficult to get right. Use of existing genes and single base pair changes are usually the way things are done.

If someone were to come up with a higher resolution, more directed method for determining sequence, handling and manipulating the DNA chain without damaging it (it snaps easy!); i.e. if we could see what we were doing in real time, then 'Bio-Hacking' [I actually think of myself that way sometimes] would shift into high gear.

Taking a microbiology class wouldn't net you much on this scale. It's more concerned with types, care, and feeding of cultured cells and single-celled organisms ("this is a car"). Molecular biology is the large scale molecular structure, cytoskeleton, chromatin, and manipulation of same ("this is an engine"). Biochemistry is the small scale function of individual amino-acids in proteins, bases in DNA, organic co-factors, reaction mechanisms, interactions with chemical environment, etc ("this is combustion in the cylinder").

'Bio-hackers' probably won't borrow all that much from modern software design. The actuation for the genes via the proteins they code for is more a probability and function of chemical equilibrium than an all-or-nothing program execution. Though as an aside: with gene systems layering of one function on the previous abilities of another which only works with the presence of a third, there is a striking resemblance to a Unix system. Chaotic evolution in both cases :).

As for gene-libraries being General Public Liscense... Er, alot of them already are:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/

http://blast.wustl.edu/

http://www.tigr.org/tdb/

I'll believe it when I see it by Biggles · 1999-09-11 16:03 · Score: 1

Sounds to me that all they have is the genome sequence of a very simple cell i.e. an idea of the minimum set of genes needed to sustain a free-living organism. This is a long way off being able to build your own bacterium. For one thing do they know what all those genes are actually doing? Secondly DNA alone does not make a cell, are they proposing to synthesise all the enzymes, cell wall components etc from scratch and put them together-if so this would be a pretty substantial technical challenge, if not I'd say they were cheating. On top of that being able to make a very simple cell is not the same as making a novel plant or animal there would be a lot of extra cell structures to deal with let alone getting the gene regulation right so that it developed properly into a muticellular organism with differentiated cell types and tissues.

Coding a DNA: Right On Bio-Hackers! by exa · 1999-09-11 16:06 · Score: 1

In some previous /. discussion, it'd been expressed that genetic engineering is still unlike software engineering in which one designs systems from scratch or in most cases from some level above that.

That might change.

At the end of the article, Prof Magnus states that the next century is going to be about designing genes. Now taking micro-biology classes makes sense! Seems like the gene-designers will need a lot of the knowledge from the software area. After all, it's us coders who are gurus about things like editing, compiling, debugging, bootstrapping... Looking forward to first GPL-ed gene-libraries.

--
--exa--

Re:Coding a DNA: Right On Bio-Hackers! by hmn_being · 1999-09-12 07:01 · Score: 1

Hey, sorry for being naive but I'd just wanted to point out to DNA design becoming a reality. Blindly tinkering with nucleotids, disabling /*commenting out*/ a gene or two, patching genes up and observing is one thing. Designing novel organisms is another.

? It appears you may have taken some sort of offence to my post? Anyway... Gene design is a reality right now, has been since the late '80s. Just not on a large scale or at a time frame measured in less than days. This is because of the difficulties in manipulation. It's not 'random' or 'tinkering', just slow. The actual work is the limiting step.

As to designing things, mathematical modeling isn't the only method of approaching it or sometimes even the most practical. The vast majority of modern drug design is done on a chaotic basis; with multiple iterations being screened and recombined until a specific effect is reached. The drug designers have very little idea of the specific path used to move from A to B, but arrived there nonetheless. Also, the semantics you are referring to 1. aren't known and 2. aren't contained in the gene itself. The coding of a gene _only_ contains the sequence of amino acids for a particular protein. The 'information' for the function of a protein is only imputed when the peptide sequence interacts with the unique environment into which it has been released and with itself and assumes a mutable tertiary conformation. It is itself and is interacting with a chaos system; said another way it is empirically impossible to determine all of the variables effecting the system.
I thought the same things you are saying when I started protein work, specifically that if one could simply make dynamic electron density maps then the full range of reactions of a given protein could be determined. Not so. It's far more complex than that. There are modeling tools out there, like Sybil and O, but only as visual aids. There are sequence tools like GCG, but only for scanning long strings of symbols and comparing them.
If all possible factors could be determined and accounted for in a program, then yes you could model a cell, but it would be such a herculean task that it would be impractical in comparisson to the method used to produce the original proteins: selection towards the desired effect. Like I said, 'Not any time soon'.
It's easier to just do it, then see where it came from than to try and guess where it's going to go.
The same problem shows up in a lot of fluid dynamics. Two of my best friends are Aerospace Engineers and they continually complain about how aerodynamic models continually fail to live up to actual wind tunnel tests on mock ups. The programs help, but they miss subtle things.
There's a lot of talk in the biotech community about 'moving towards more rational drug design'. But again this is refining the selection criteria.
As to 'grasping the concept of a gene' causing a 'stack overflow' in the human brain, most of the Proffessors, Post-docs, and Students on this floor would object to that, including me since I've got a modification of hemoglobin being produced by bacterial culture in the shaker right now... Again, once it's there it's quite possible to comprehend but you have to have it there first to know that. I can guess what this iteration is going to produce, which is why it's being tried, but we won't know until it's done.
---
BTW, it's great if the actuation of genes is a probability and function of chemical equilibrium (or the probabilistic fun. of ;) since you can compute that.

It's called an equilibrium constant. K such that for A + B -> C, K = [C]/[A][B] where [ ] represents concentration. Further ^Go = -RTln(K) where R is the gas constant, T is temperature in degrees Kelvin, and ^Go is the Gibb's Free Energy under standard conditions. With one more step ^Go=^Ho-T^So where T is again temperature and ^Ho and ^So are the standard enthalphy and standard entropy respectively. Nice, solid, well-trodd mathematical basis, yet Kd (binding equilibrium) for proteins is _only_ determined experimentally.
Developmental systems do not necessarily assume order. They tend to _approach_ order as seen in homeostasis, but do not achieve it until all inputs stop. In a living system this event is death and it doesn't matter anymore.
Re:Coding a DNA: Right On Bio-Hackers! by Thomas+Miconi · 1999-09-11 18:53 · Score: 1

Seems like the gene-designers will need a lot of the knowledge from the software area. After all, it's us coders who are gurus about things like editing, compiling, debugging, bootstrapping... Looking forward to first GPL-ed gene-libraries.

Oh my... imagine Microsoft taking up on genetic engineering !!

"Well, I love the new gen. mod. pet you sold me, but the problem is it falls right asleep every time I touch him !"

The problem being that with living animals, you cannot just reboot and forget it... :p

Thomas Miconi
Karma Police - Enforcing Peace of Mind by all possible means.

Re:We are the gods. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 10:39 · Score: 0

>God incarnate is called "Jesus" by Christians, "Mohammed" by Mulslims, et cetera.

Heh. Close but no cigar--to Muslims, Mohammed (PBUH) is merely the last Prophet sent by Allah, not Allah incarnate. That's kind of a Christian concept (re: Jesus).

What a bunch of Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 03:16 · Score: 0

but eventually they said that making bacteria was okay as long as it was done for scientific purposes and not for immoral ones (dis-proving god etc..)

Which Means that they won't science, unless science tries to demonstrate ("prove") that Creationism is just rubbish.

What a bunch of Hypocrites

many people would agree here. by arielb · 1999-09-12 10:43 · Score: 1

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990830.asp

--
---

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:50 · Score: 0

What makes you think you (or anyone else) is important enough to survive the mortal body.

What makes you think you have an mind and are an individual, subjective intelligence? You are just a bunch of random molecules engaged in random activities. Can you prove to me that you are an individual living person?

FIRST QUESTION: If a bunch of inert matter can create the appearence of a subjective intelligence, why can't the universe create the appearence of a Personal God?

REAL QUESTION: The previous question actually has it backwards. The REAL question is how an individual soul is capable of manipulating and controlling inert matter. This has not yet been explained by science. Of course, God did it first. So even though it is not explained, it is not surprising.

bacteria that eat atomic waste by os10000 · 1999-09-11 16:20 · Score: 1

I just loved that quote where they're talking about making bacteria that eat atomic waste. And how is that going to help? Sorry, but I'd rather have my nuclear waste to be inanimate (oh, now I've brought up philosophical questions: anima is latin and means "soul", can I bring nuclear waste to life? Or is everything alive, like Demokritus thought? ... but I digress.)!

Re:bacteria that eat atomic waste by Stonehand · 1999-09-11 16:44 · Score: 1

Oh god, does that have Hollywood potential... :)

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.

The next giant leap? by LES.. · 1999-09-11 16:25 · Score: 2

This is just my reading of the article so all opinions are probaly flawed but a lot of people seem to be getting ideas mixed up here.

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..

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:53 · Score: 0

>the soul is energy. energy cannot be created nor destroyed.that energy survives the body.

Actually, the soul is Spirit. Energy is part of the created world and is measurable by science. The soul is part of the supernatural world and is not accessible from science. Science is incapable of making any statement about the existence or non-existence of a soul because it exists outside of its domain.

Birds and Bees by NII+Link · 1999-09-12 03:20 · Score: 1

I'm happy to report that humans have been creating life for a long time now. Just ask your parents, kiddies. :-)

-Rafi

--
-Rafi Remove the Spanish to email me.

Re:The rest will accept it by Hasdi+Hashim · 1999-09-11 16:29 · Score: 1

This is bad karma but...

I think the non-theists will accept anything of this sort forever.

It seems to me that non-theist will believe and pursue anything that shows that the creation of the human species is independent of God or the existence of God. Which begs the question of is this lack of belief or refusal to belief? Does have anything to do with bad experience with some members the religious right? they being too imposing? curious.

Hasdi
- Watch Stigmata! 4/5!!

Re: Only humans have souls? by Bouncings · 1999-09-12 03:38 · Score: 1

well, yeah... it's not a very solid idea. Our true effect on the world is unmeasured. Chaos theory anyone?

--
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/

There is no real diffrence betwen micro and macro by delmoi · 1999-09-11 22:57 · Score: 1

That is a falicy, Evolution is evolution. 'Species' are only an artifical clasification of life put in place by humans
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

--

ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Hasdi+Hashim · 1999-09-11 16:35 · Score: 1

Since I suspect you will not accept any religious reasoning anyone have to offer to you, let me just say:

You don't need to be religious to be zealous.

Hasdi

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 22:59 · Score: 0

This is a thoughtful response. But the fact is, that a soul is eternal because it was created and 'uniquely configured' by God. This 'unique configuration' could be considered a universally distinct quantum of information. However, the soul's eternallity is due to the fact that it was created by God from 'Spirit' which, for purposes of this discussion, is an indestructable medium. That is not to say it is not subject to entropy...ever heard of hell?

Malicious Moderation by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 11:03 · Score: 0

Dude has a very valid point though...
AFAIK, yes we HAVE been creating life for millenia~

ti_dave

Re: Only humans have souls? by KernR · 1999-09-12 11:18 · Score: 1

Let's see. Where to start?

Axioms are not accepted on faith in any sense of the word. They are taken as given to give a framework in which one can make mathematical deductions. Deductive logic can take you from one idea to another and show that one idea logically entails another. Where do we start? From the axioms.

The results we can derive depend on what axioms we accept. What axioms we accept differ from instance to instance as we try to solve different classes of problems. In Euclidean geometry, we accept as an axiom that given a line and a point not on that line, there is only one line through that point which is parallel to the original line. Any results that we derive based on that axiom are then only necessarily true when that axiom holds. Thus, if I were designing a computer game that took place in a Euclidean world, I could apply those results to my heart's content because the axiom holds in that instance.

On the other hand, if I were to try solving problems in General Relativity, where that axiom does not hold, I could not use the results which I had derived.

One can (and does) change the axioms one accepts as long as all of the axioms accepted in a particular instance are mutually consistent. The axioms you hold for doing real-number arithmetic are different from the ones you use when computing with (say) Clifford algebras.

For example, real numbers are commutative with respect to multiplication. a*b = b*a when both a and b are real numbers. The commutative property of real numbers is only an axiom that we accept because we can get useful results out of that axiom. Rather than an axiom's truth being defined by whether or not a*b actually does equal b*a, the real numbers are in part defined by that axiom.

You can generate a Clifford algebra by not accepting this axiom (and adding a few desiderata into the mix). Thus, in general a*b != b*a in a Clifford algebra. This property does not make Clifford algebras untrue. It is simply that we don't use a particular axiom.

The logical truth of a statement can only be deduced from the background, as it were. What is true against one background of axioms may not be against another.

Now, back to science. Science uses mathematics as a tool. Which axioms a scientists accepts for a particular calculation depends on what axioms he can realistically apply to the situation. When measuring the volume of a room, for instance, one accepts that the axioms that apply to real numbers apply to the length measurements one makes. The axioms may not actually hold because, for example, space may be quantized and not continuous, but our errors in physical measurement make such a distinction pointless. To the limit of the accuracy of our physical measurements, length quantities seem to obey the axioms of real numbers. We can then apply our commutativity axiom to show that V = l*w*h = w*h*l = ...

Should evidence show that an axiom does not hold in a particular instance, that axiom its consequences are dropped and work continues with the axioms that do hold. For example, we had once believed that space obeyed the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Early this century, we found that we were wrong, and we had to replace the non-applicable axioms with others.

I think I'll stop now. This is off-topic.

--
Robert Kern
kern@caltech.edu

Please use the right name! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 12:52 · Score: 0

It's the GNATURAL/Artificial life system, not artificial life.

Many years ago[1], myself and a bunch of other gods[2] got together and created the Gnatural life system.

And now some little pissant microbiologist picks the eyes out of some of our best work, whacks a few genes together, patches it all up and tries to claim he's "created" artificial life. Oh sure, he gets all the credit now, but where were all you other scientists back when we were creating the firmament? I'll tell you! You were nothing but a twinkle in my eye!

Come back and impress me when you can make the words "Let there be light" really *mean* something!

1. How long ago? Man, I'm not falling for that one! You'll find out eventually.
Muuahahahaha!

2. You actually thought there was only one, didn't you? We're never gonna live that down. here's what really happened...
That vain prick Jehovah gave his wish list to Moses! What else is a mere mortal gonna do, but take it as a set of commandments? But we fixed his little red wagon! Why do you think Jehovah was a forbidden word for so long? We changed his name so that he would only be worshipped by the craziest nutjobs around!
Sometimes I think he's learnt his lesson. Maybe it's time to give Cthulu his old name back.

so where is the soul? by LuckyStarr · 1999-09-12 13:48 · Score: 1

show me the carrier of the "soul-information"
and i'll believe you. planck-length and -time?
mini-wormholes in the vacuum? aether?

but afaii there is no carrier-medium for a soul.

another question: how much energy does a soul
posess. 100kJ? 200kJ? 2J? show me the
measurements. what? no measurements? what a pity!

--
Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.

Re:We are the gods. by Metuchen · 1999-09-12 03:49 · Score: 1

Ummm....God is not a person. He (if you can call God a he) is a BEING--not a person at all!!! In our minds and in our representations, "he" is a person, yet "he" is not really a person. Humans have routinely viewed God as a person because it makes the concept easier to grasp. God incarnate is called "Jesus" by Christians, "Mohammed" by Mulslims, et cetera.

--
# They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Fran

Autocatalytic sets... by ainvy · 1999-09-11 16:40 · Score: 2

Under a wide variety of models, it has been shown by several scientists that autocatalytic sets arise. What is a autocatalytic set? Basically a sequence of "chemicals" A,B,C,D etc with the property that A->C using B as a catalyst, B->D using C as a catalyst (and so on) so the the set of chemicals does not require any "new" catalysts outside of the set to be endless self sustaining chemical reaction.

This is just the abstract version of the so called methane experiment that many /.ers have quoted.

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 ...

Re:Not much (but it's not as simple as it seems) by Christopher+Whitt · 1999-09-12 04:12 · Score: 1

Your reply is interesting and thoughful. Though I don't agree on all points, I respect your point of view.

Every passing moment in our life is a differing viewpoint so why not spirituality itself. I personally believe in God but God to me is a giant 'Son, you don't know squat!' sign board hanging over my head rather than a deity I worship.

Well, I can't be sure if you mean by the above that you believe in a literal diety, or just a ruling principle which guides your intellectual life, but I'll assume for the moment it's the former.

I totally agree that we don't know squat. This then leaves us two options. Either God (who we both believe exists) doesn't want to know us, and is therefore unknowable (since, being God, he/it can create the universe such that we will never find a way to observe of interact with him/it), or God must take the initiative to make some 'intrusion' into the natural universe so that we can communicate with him.

This is where honest truth-seekers start running into ancient 'holy' texts. There are some pretty simple and logical assumptions you can make if a God were trying to communicate with humanity:

the communication would probably form a pattern throughout history so that we could access it
it would be recorded, and in everyday language so that we could translate, access and comprehend it
deal with some tough issues like morality and post-death, and so show up in areas typically considered religious
not depend primarily on personal feelings, emotion, individual revelation etc (these things are easily misinterpreted, confused, affected by the pizza we ate last night etc)
make some bizarre claims about being from 'beyond' and perhaps have an authoritative or exclusive tone
it would probably affect us strongly

Upon consideration it seems that there may be some candidates which fit this description.

Anyway, it is up to us individually to decide if such a supernatural communication has occured, but I think it is valuable to recognize that honest truth-seekers come from all backgrounds. A serious attempt can be made to decide if God exists, without resorting to dogma.

For the record, I have decided that God does indeed exist and that He HAS communicated to us throughout history as recorded in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. I believe that Jesus Christ was God in human form, and provided a way for us to bridge the gap between us and God. You can agree, or disagree as your conscience dictates. If you would like to discuss it more, feel free to email me privately.

Christopher

(Observant readers may have noticed I made a bit of a jump from 'supernatural being' to a diety with personal characteristics - 'him' or 'her' as opposed to 'it' or 'the force'. I think its a reasonable simplification for the point I'm trying to make. Also, those of you who looked at my earlier web-reference to www.christian-thinktank.com might recognize some of the above points from the authors "slow-paced, low key argument" which I highly recommend you read fully.)

--
Mozilla

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 23:05 · Score: 0

>It's a little more concrete than the supersticious religious view of a soul.

What is so supersticious about the religious view of the soul. If you think that everything is expainable from a materialistic point of view, then you (in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo) have a lot of 'spaining to do.

Do you realize that all of science is based on math, and that all of Math is based on AXIOMS, and that these axioms are UNPROVABLE and accepted on FAITH???

Everyone has a religion. Your's may be called 'science'.

Actually it HAS created it by random by GauteL · 1999-09-12 14:00 · Score: 1

Unless you totally separate yourself from nature, as most christians have a tendency to do, nature HAS created that circuit board by random, by creating you, who in turn makes that circuit board.

yay science! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 23:07 · Score: 0

mwwhaha i am just moments away from creating the perfect woman.. 3'6" only a mouth and tits, her head will be flat to hold my beer conveniently. wwoohoo yay science

This is serious flamebait by GauteL · 1999-09-12 14:22 · Score: 1

But I think I'll behave, and try to think rationally.

Actually I have heard "It's not up to us to decide
what lives and dies" as an argument against
abortion a million times. That is just a
rephrase of "we shall not play god".

Besides "not playing god" is also an argument
used heavily against euthanasia.

How can you characterize euthanasia as murder?
What other argument other than "let's not play god".. or "it's not up to us" do you have
against euthanasia?
I can think of one:
It can be abused.

But I challenge you to come up with _one_ other
argument for not helping my grandmother die, if
she's in terrible pain, is 90 years old, and
there is no hope of her living more than two weeks.
If you cannot, I can rightly call you the bigot.

Re:This is serious flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 15:18 · Score: 0

> But I think I'll behave, and try to think rationally.

Sorry to tell you that you failed.
The original post that the person was replying to had been moderated to +2 (it has now reached the heady heights of +4) and yet comes across as nothing but a bigotted attack on 'believers' and proffers the outrageous suggestion (by classification of believer and scientist) that the two are mutually exclussive. The response pointed out several problems with the original post and included in part a mention of euthanasia which you then devote a follow up to [as if 'believers' were all against it, utter bollocks], without actually realising the point of the post, and still you call it flame bait.

As I mentioned in a response above, in actual fact the National Acadamy of Sciences has around 40% of members are 'believers' of one variety or another. This whole idea that belief in a god somehow marks the person as being an ignoramous worthy of contempt is a sad state.

Oh, great... by Millennium · 1999-09-11 16:43 · Score: 4

First, perhaps I should point out to people that it hasn't been done yet. This is only a plan to do so. I'll believe this guy's claims when I see them.

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.

Re:Oh, great... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 06:18 · Score: 0

For bio-weaponry, one would probably be better off using a existing nasty - eg. anthrax. Cheap, and its had a *really* long beta testing period :) If you wanted a couple of extra thingys, better to tack them onto some existing organism than build a whole new one.

Don't post about stuff you dont know by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 14:43 · Score: 0

Given the scarcity of carbon in the universe

Are you mad? Carbon is extremely common on the earth's crust. Looking at the universe as a whole you could argue that any element other than helium and hydrogen is extremely rare in the universe, but we dont live on a ball of hydrogen. Oxygen is a very common element on earth too. It's commonly found bound to silicon, or carbon; other light elements (the heavier elements largely sank to the centre of the earth when it was still mostly liquid.) and in a gaseous form in the atmosphere, there as a waste product of the process of photosynthesis, which is a process that certain bacteria, and even these odd green dangly things that stick in the ground here and there use to reduce CO2 to larger molecules.
A fine example of a reducing atmosphere containing the same elements as the earth is venus.
The link you included is a lie. Molecules don't randomly interact. It's energetically favourable for them to do so. To explain to you how this works would require the explanation of molecular quantum mechanics, which would be too difficult for someone as gullible as you to understand. I'll give an example: you mix one liter of Oxygen with two liters of Hydrogen, inhale the mixture, and then light a cigarette calculating the enormously tiny chance that nearly all these Hydrogen ande Oxygen molecules find each other and react.
Without lighting a match the mixture will still burn by the way, but very slowly.

Aminoacids may not react as quickly as hydrogen and oxygen, but that's not a problem: you have plenty of time. A billion years or more.

4. Finally, even presuming a reducing atmosphere, how do you select for desirable compounds as the experimenters did, and how do you keep them from disintegrating, as they are wont to do in minutes?

The researchers didnt have a billion years, so they had to accelerate the experiment a bit. They only showed that amino acids can be formed with very simple chemistry, and (once again) disproved the paradigm that only life can produce certain 'complex' molecules. The selection of the right ones has taken approximately 3.5 billion years (the time life has apparently existed on earth). Survival of the fittest. You can observe this as a technique pharmaceutical laboratories to synthesize a large amount of similar (but not identical) molecules, and then selecting the most effective one. Takes just hours.

This is not what it's spliced-up to be... by Pascal+of+S · 1999-09-11 23:12 · Score: 2

Well... From the looks of it, he isn't creating new life (or trying to). It's probably fair to consider that LineOne may have misquoted him.
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. by Gene77 · 1999-09-11 16:43 · Score: 3

I'm not Catholic either, but I have a degree in theology, so take my opinion with a grain of salt and forgive the slight tangent.

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! :-)

--
"Man has always been his own most vexing problem." --Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Nature and Destiny of Man"

Is this a good thing? by Wah · 1999-09-12 04:36 · Score: 1

We engineer a plant that can live in the vastness of space. It depents on the sun and moonrocks to grow and it's fruit provides all essential vitamins and minerals, tastes like plums in the fall, apples in the spring, corn in the summer, and jalepenos to warm up the winter nights. It release an special customizable waste product to sanitize and stimulate the natural environment (it spread life, recursion). And oh yeah, you can smoke the flowers and get high on the moon, which happens to make you smarter and slimmer and makes your bones strong enough to survive the low gravity levels for a lifetime. Welcome to the future boys, smoke up (Tagline for Space Army 2000, coming soon to a government near you).

--
+&x

my (buddhist) perspective by shomon2 · 1999-09-12 14:45 · Score: 1

We are already an amalgam of biology and the cultural/technological "life" that we've already been creating for the past 10000 years. This amalgam is present day society. Could it survive without all the things we've created to live with (money, computers, drains, etc)?
I'm really not sure about other buddhists (I'm a member of the SGI) but I really don't think we should pose limits on our natural ability to create things. I know change can be scary but it IS a good thing! By valueing our wisdom as much as our intelligence we can create things of value, and not just of academic interest, with doubtful application in the real world. In fact, if we can create a thinking thing, that's a really incredible cause, and that's one of the reasons I'm in computing in the first place (I think it'll be more of a society thing than a one-off organism though)

"But she said the Catholic Church would not countenance the creation of higher lifeforms - or even of bacteria if the motivation was to do harm. "

There is a principle in buddhism which is called the philosophy of value: information and science, facts and philosophies have no value in themselves. We are the ones who give these things value.

So we shouldn't pursue science for the sake of science: we should do it for the value that we can make out of our discoveries and creations. If we follow this principle in any situation where morals and science might clash, we'll have a good balance between wisdom and intelligence.

& then the creation of these life forms will be a positive change.

Mod up by KMSelf · 1999-09-11 23:13 · Score: 1

My moderation of this post was undone through the broken "Post Anonymously" button (post is anonymous but moderation is undone).

If anyone else shares my sensayuma, give the post a well-deserved point. It's spot-on.

--

What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

Re:Mod up by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 06:19 · Score: 0

Thanks for the support, man.

Re:The creation of a new bacterium (semi-offtopic) by Mike+A. · 1999-09-12 05:19 · Score: 1

It worked for Linus Torvalds. After all, the majority of the basic utilities (beyond the kernel) are the GNU tools - ls, cp, gcc, and so on. Why did you think Richard Stallman is so determined to have it called GNU/Linux?

Still, enough is done by the DNA that it's a fairly major step to have reverse-engineered the existing source that well. (feeble attempt to stay on-topic...)

--

--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?

Spontenous Generation Theory by Hasdi+Hashim · 1999-09-11 23:16 · Score: 1

Unless theories have changed since I was in school, no one has speculated that bam! a bacterium suddenly appeared in the primordial soup. . . I'd be much more impressed if a scientist could create, in the laboratory, a life form simple enough to have happened by instantaneous chance, and that doesn't require other life forms to survive (e.g. a virus is so simple it needs a "host"), and that can survive and reproduce. A bacterium survives because of its complexity. Please, someone, show me...

I just wanted to note until Louis Pastuer(sp?) came around, many scientist believe in 'spontaneous generation' theory. In this theory, when you leave food in the open, with air and water, bacteria will automagically form. The scientists who claimed that bacteria came from the open air, rather spontaneously generated, were viciously shot down.

One scientist conducted an experiment, cooked a glucose solution in a beaker and closed it with a cork. no bacteria were formed. Spontenaous theory advocates argued that when you stuffed the beaker with a cork, you cut of the air supply so the theory still holds.

Louis Pasteur did something similar but this time stuff it with cork with an S-tube. This should supply the beaker with fresh air but the bacteria will be trapped in the S-tube. No bacteria were formed until this day.

I can probably relate why these scientists were so defensive about the theory. It bacteria can be spontenously generated, and you add that with darwin's theory of evolution, you can show that the human species were not created by outside intelligent force(s)... just random chance.

This brings us back to the original question: Lack of belief or refusal to believe? Are scientists like lawyers were they gather evidence to prove their side of the case or independent investigators who are just interested in figuring out what really happened? still curious...

Hasdi

Re:There is no real diffrence betwen micro and mac by InSaNe+ASyLuM · 1999-09-12 05:32 · Score: 1

Uh... you're wrong there. Two members of the same species can produce a living offspring. Two members of similar species can produce a "non-living" offspring (one of the requirements for being classified as "alive" is the ability to reproduce. A lion and a tiger can produce offspring, called a "Liger" I believe, but that offspring cannot reproduce, and so, by the strictest Biological classification, is not considered alive) Two members of completely dissimilar species cannot produce any offspring at all. So there IS a distinction between species. It isn't just an artificial classification. Macro-eveolution is where an organism evolves into a complete new species, incapable of breeding with members of the species its ancestors were once a part of. Micro-evolution, by contrast, does not produce a new species, since the changes do not render the organism incapable of breeding with members of that species.

By these definitions, there is very little evidence for macro-evolution. Nearly all evidence has been in support of micro-evolution.

Anyway, IANAB, but I am pretty sure these things are taught in junior-high Biology classes. At least, they used to be.

--

Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.

Very insightful. by Bedemus · 1999-09-11 16:49 · Score: 1

This is something I have felt for a long time. Those who try to take God out of the picture by looking for evidence of a big bang, or microevolution, or whatever, are placing just as much faith in the non-existence of God as those "religious right" (one wonders how this became considered a derogatory term) place in the assumption that God does exist.

Re:Very insightful. by znu · 1999-09-11 19:12 · Score: 1

Looking for evidence of microevolution (something that has been observed) and the Big Bang requires no faith in the non-existence of a god, as even if both are true they do not preclude the existence of a god in any way.

There is, in fact, no way to prove the non-existence of god.

--

--
This space unintentionally left unblank.

Re:We are the gods. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 23:27 · Score: 0

God isn't a person. It's knowledge. And the more we learn, the more god like we become.

1) God is a person. Why is this so difficult for people to accept. We are nothing but a collection of molecules, but yet we are people. Why are we so arrogant to presume that *we* are the only creatures in the universe that are persons. The reason that we are persons to begin with is because God was a person FIRST! And he granted us his personhood. Otherwise, we would just be collections of molecules. Where does our personhood come from???!!!

2) Why is it that people have such a hard time understanding that there is an intrinsic disconnect between the finite and the infinite? We are finite. God is infinite. Although there are many things that we are still capable of learning, there is an unbridgable gap between the finite and the infinite. We are finite. God is infinite. And even though we are commanded to be "perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect", that does not mean we become God! Althoug I am in complete agreement that because we are children of god, we can become ever more 'like' god.

Re: Only humans have souls? by rookkey · 1999-09-12 05:38 · Score: 1

Science is replicable. This means that when an experiment is performed in one lab -- that same experiment must have the ability to be performed elsewhere if the conditions are the same. (This does not mean that all science is conducted in a laboratory!)

Theology is not replicable in any way. When Bernadette (sp?) of Lourdes saw the image of the Virgin Mary in the rock, no other person could replicate that event. The event very well could have been a psychological defect. The fact that her body was found well preserved is unrelated. Bodies found enclosed in mud tend to be well preserved!

Faith in the theological sense is much different from the scientific/mathematical side. Certainly when the scientist from this article began his pursuit to create life, he had some faith that he would be able to. However, the scientist also gathered factual information of biology, chemistry, etc... The scientist did not accidentally discover life -- he took procedures that allowed him to create an event. Also, any other scientist could replicate this!

Also, who said all science is mathematical? The digestive system of a snake does not require much math to see how food gets from point A to point B. All math is based on axioms? Maybe, but let both of us solve y = (x^3 + sqrt( 64 + x ))/( 5x ). I would hope both of us could come to a similar answer.

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 15:26 · Score: 0

He does believe in X (humans), it is Y (souls) he doesn't believe in.

A simple comparison by celeri · 1999-09-12 05:43 · Score: 1

An interesting comparison can be made with creating computer viruses.

In my mind, creating viruses and bacteria is allright (read on before jumping to the ceiling), so long as they are not put into the "real world". Let alone being put into mass production.

From what I read, there are quite a few scientists thinking that artificial bacteria could spell bio-bonanza. Now doing research is allright by me, but we should concentrate on preserving whatever natural integrity there is left on earth - even though it might not be as commercialy enticing as creating new stuff.

Rabelais said 500 years ago...
"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme"
He still is right on the mark.

Obi Wan Celeri

The Road to Serfdom by SimonK · 1999-09-12 15:29 · Score: 1

Hayek is one of the foremost thinkers in liberal and libertarian thought, especially in Economics, which was his own subject. "The Road to Serfdom" is usually taken to be his magnum opus, and might better be titled "Why Socialism Sucks".

Hayek is generally misunderstood both by the people who quote him and the people who revile him. He did support a limited amount of government intervention in the economy. He started out his political life as a member of the Fabian society, and was opposed to concentrations of power in general. His support for free markets was based on a belief that they are the best way of providing economic goods. Both his supporters and his opponents paint him as a some kind of wild eyed libertarian fanatic, which he wasn't.

Santa and the easter bunny by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 16:55 · Score: 0

I never understood how seemingly reasonably healthy and intelligent adults can believe in God (or something similar with a different (set of) name(s)), yet wholly renounce the possibility that Santaclaus is real. After all Santaclaus actually gave you presents when you were a kid, and the easter bunny left chocolate eggs in your garden. To call Santa a hoax when you grow up, yet retain a firm belief in another deity that never gave you presents, never laid an egg, in fact all accounts of His achievements are hearsay, written down by people who also believed the earth was flat and the universe revolved around it.

Re:Santa and the easter bunny by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 16:56 · Score: 0

...seems ungrateful to me. Sigh, didnt finish my sentence properly.
Re:Santa and the easter bunny by es-mo · 1999-09-11 18:10 · Score: 1

If my view of God were that He is some benevolent present-giver sitting on a cute throne made of clouds, then I would put every bit as much stock in Him as I do in Santa Claus (none). He is to me something entirely different -- my Creator and Savior.

Yes, not all of the Bible is independently verifiable; however, it is far from hearsay. Much of it has been verified to be true (and yes, there are inconsistencies, but we won't get into the question of inerrancy vs. infallibility). I cannot use the Bible to prove God's existence, yet I personally feel it provides a decent bunch of evidence.
Re:Santa and the easter bunny by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:47 · Score: 0

I think its dangerous due to gene "crackers",

What are gene crackers supposed to be? I don't take 'just because' answers to 'why' questions: why is genetic engineering wrong/dangerous? How can the pursuit of knowledge be wrong? I do feel a reason or method (Mengele) or an application (hiroshima) of research can be thorougly evil, but I don't need a deity to tell me it's wrong to experiment on people against their will or to blow up civilian targets with nuclear weapons. If you tell me it's because genetic engineering is like 'playing god', you will have to explain why 'playing god' is bad, and what activity is exactly defined as 'playing god'. In a way the moon revolves around your head too. Don't tell me 'the earth is flat' actually means something else.

Take it literally by Wah · 1999-09-12 05:50 · Score: 1

To beg a question:"Because of a, b must be asked."

Perhaps....then again I gave up most forms of grammar after having a Nazi grandma for seventh grade english.

--
+&x

Antibodies? by BlueCalx- · 1999-09-11 16:57 · Score: 1

This also raises the issue on whether or not antibodies can be created to fight bacterial and/or viral infection. This could prove quite a boon to the pharmecutical(sp?) industry.

--
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/

Re: Dolly IS a true clone by Hard_Code · 1999-09-12 15:55 · Score: 2

Dolly IS a true clone. Mitochondrial DNA (AFAIK) has nothing to do with the traits of an organism. It just happened that the egg somehow mashed the mitochondrial DNA incidentally introduced during the procedure.

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?

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

A few comments by Jonathan · 1999-09-11 16:58 · Score: 3

First, as a few people have already pointed out, no artificial bacterium actually has been created -- Craig Venter just threw an idea at some journalists and the media decided to run with it.

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:Yes *MUCH* more impressive! HOW much more...? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 16:06 · Score: 0

Very true. It can't be dismissed. I guess the whole point is:

Why bother?

What is the end result of knowing that we aren't divinely created?

If your trying to distance yourself from a 'God made us' stance, or even admit that there is a higher being, if one such being exists, then, here's a thought:

All those simple chemicals -- who, or what created them?

And if you REALLY want to start a thread, reply to this.

Experiment on something you can afford to lose by Throjan · 1999-09-12 16:31 · Score: 1

He and his team worked out the basic number of genes necessary to sustain life after dissecting the DNA of a simple bacterium, mycoplasma genitalium, which is found in the human genital tract.

Does anybody else find it disturbing that they are experimenting with this particular bacterium? Let's say they accidentally released an altered version that changes the pH balance in the genital tract by a point. POOF! no more children!

8 billion year old life? by tragedy · 1999-09-12 05:52 · Score: 1

Um, hang on. My geology text claims an age of about 4.5 billion years for the planet. How could earth life (provided it didn't sail in from interstellar space) be older than that?

entirely fallacious by cthonious · 1999-09-11 17:08 · Score: 1

To the "non-theist" gods existence is simply irrelevant and meaningless - see AJ Ayer's "God is meaningless" (links to other arguments here). It is highly erroneous to suppose that atheism represents some refusal to believe; this is just disingenuous and wishful thinking on your part.

Man is driven to discover these things through doubt and rigorous self-examination, out of a desire to live honestly, not out of some ridiculous desire to demonstrate god does not exist. We don't need to demonstrate anything vis-a-vis gods existence. Religeon makes a villain of doubt, an enemy of knowledge. Religeon is dishonest, rooted in fear, and is pure bunkum.

God does not matter. Man makes gods. It's time for man to stop being so primitive.

--

support gun control: take guns from cops

Re:entirely fallacious by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 17:43 · Score: 0

Faith does not consist of closing off your brain and arbitrarily believing something that makes no sense. Here is what faith really is: I have two intellectually credible alternatives. One is atheism--with the logical consequence that nothing really matters at all. The other is theism--which means that human life does have meaning. Given this choice, neither one of which I can really prove or disprove, I choose to believe the one that makes life worth something.
Re:entirely fallacious by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:33 · Score: 0

It's amusing how people so vehemently attack religion. The passion in the attack, is what seems to suggest that you just refuse to believe, rather than you do not believe. Its one thign to say, I don't think god exists, and that's the end of that. It's another tihng, to mention that god doesn't exist everytime an article comes up that could possibly support your point. This in itself is more 'right-wing' then the religous right itself. I haven't had one jehovas witness come knock on my door to ask to convert me. But ever other /. article, 20 people are trying to convince me that this is just more proof that god doesn't exist. Believe it or not, many people who believei n religion aren't idiots. Many of the people who established the foundation that you base your beliefs on (science) are/were religously devout. Perhaps you shoudl think about that. If you don't want to believe in God, that's fine. But please, you don't have to go try to convince everyone else, every other artcle. The athiests on /. are by far worse than any religous group today.
Re:entirely fallacious by es-mo · 1999-09-11 18:31 · Score: 1

Interesting. As a Christian, I take almost the exact symmetrical view -- too many "Christians" out there seem to be trying to force their own view on others, blindly attacking anything remotely atheistic, or obnoxiously yelling hooray at anything supportive of Christianity.

I think there are two kinds of Christians and atheists: those who are confident and secure in their belief and are content to simply live out their life as an example to others (well, Christianity at least has an evangelistic bent :-); and those who, for whatever reason, feel the need to defend their beliefs overly much.

I'm actually impressed whenever I discover a person (Christian or atheist) who belongs to the former category. Kudos!
Re:entirely fallacious by cthonious · 1999-09-12 22:39 · Score: 1

theism does not mean that life has meaning, nor does it imply - in and of itself - that there are absolute values: what if god is not good? what if god was indifferent?
Nor does atheism "prove" that "life has no meaning" - you give your life meaning. The fear of atheism is the fear of no absolutes, ... but this is just a popular opinion, it doesn't have to be this way. Religeon is just a retreat into culture, an excuse for misery and war.

--

support gun control: take guns from cops
Re:entirely fallacious by MDX-F1 · 1999-09-13 05:48 · Score: 1

theism does not mean that life has meaning

The goal of the theist is to grow closer to God. This sounds like meaning to me.

Nor does atheism "prove" that "life has no meaning" - you give your life meaning.

What's the point of trying to give your life meaning, except perhaps as a cruel joke on yourself? When you're dead, you're dead, and your "meaning" is suddenly rather meaningless.

Religeon is just a retreat into culture, an excuse for misery and war.

This is a very narrow-minded view, I'm afraid. Try looking at the world and the human experience in general, and you will see that religion is much more. Like anything humans engage in it is imperfect (sometimes very imperfect). However, you're making sweeping statements which badly misrepresent the reality of the situation, IMHO.
Re:entirely fallacious by AndyL · 1999-09-11 18:03 · Score: 1

This is silly. For every 20 posts you can find to demonstrate your point, I can find at least twice as many that state that there IS a god. Many of those vehemently attacking the athiests. But does this somehow indicate that the athiests are right and you're just refusing to beleve that the athiests are right out of some knee-jerk reaction?

Of course not.

Besides, many athiests beleve that Religion is damaging to society. Perhaps they're trying to save you.
Re:entirely fallacious by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:48 · Score: 0

Why?? Is happiness a cookie cutter thingy? I think this is the main problem with evangelists (of both the religious and non -religious varieties) where they think that their happiness has to be forced down everybody else's throat. The truth is within and the individual has to make a conscious effort to discover it. If some one wants your help they'll ask and if you do reflect your happiness to people around you they will definitely ask you. So practice more and don't preach unless requested.

Yes *MUCH* more impressive! HOW much more...? by leonbrooks · 1999-09-12 05:57 · Score: 1

Given that the generally accepted term for "impossible" is odds of 1E50 against, and that the odds against one small protein forming by accident are phenomenal, forming hundreds or thousands of them by design should at least be interesting.

Finding somewhere to clamp the jumper leads on will be even more interesting. (-:

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Yes *MUCH* more impressive! HOW much more...? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 06:25 · Score: 0

The page conveniently overlooks the power of natural selection in its "analysis". All that needs to happen is for one lifeform, no matter how primitive, to appear; shortly thereafter (shortly compared to the amount of time it took to appear) an entire biosphere will be filled with variations on that lifeform. This is known as "natural selection"

Repeat a few million or billion years to get to the next level of complexity which has an evolutionary advantage.

If it helps, think of our biosphere as a home to billions of script kiddies. Sure they're not terribly bright, but once one of them innovates, all of them have the knowledge a few days later.

Machine slaves?! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:16 · Score: 0

Machine slaves?! We're talking about genetic engineering here. I want real live flesh and blood human slaves, for Christ's sake. Granted, I want them to lead very contented lives. But if we're talking about building up beings from scratch, I wouldn't think it would be terribly difficult to throw in a bliss loopback. Perpetually contented to do whatever we say and recieving a great deal of pleasure from doing such.

And if they were truly happy, why would this be bad? If you start spouting shit like inaliable rights and human nature, you're making the same arguments as the creationists that you so vehemently despise.

I'm admittedly befuddled by your comments implying that the church thought slavery was bad. They thought it bad when being enslaved, of course, but on moral principle I don't remember the church historically condemning slavery (or the systematic degredation of women, for that matter) until very recently. Their beef was just fucking around with God's creations.

But seriously, anyone. We wouldn't need to rely on a protestandt ethic "work hard and you'll go to heaven" kind of deal, rewards would be instantanious and immense. If you could grant someone absolute while getting a handful of cheery slaves out of the deal, why would that be wrong?

Re:Machine slaves?! by cthonious · 1999-09-11 17:41 · Score: 1

And if they were truly happy, why would this be bad? If you start spouting shit like inaliable rights and human nature, you're making the same arguments as the creationists that you so vehemently despise.

Duh - the argument would be that a rational being can't be happy under such circumstances.
We already have "pleasure loopbacks" as you describe them, and they do not make us happy. Then, we must go back what is "pleasure" and what is "happiness".

--

support gun control: take guns from cops
Re:Machine slaves?! by MindStalker · 1999-09-11 17:52 · Score: 2

Personally I want a cow that walks over to my table at a resturant and ask what part of him do I want to eat. This cow of course is genetically altered to have a desire to be eatten. He takes great pride and joy out of his work.
(Note: all this stolen from Hitchiker's Guide of course)

Catch 22 (not flamebait) by Wah · 1999-09-12 06:04 · Score: 1

from the Catholic FAQ: topic "the soul"

"Knowing that hell is a reality, any sane man will live so as to avoid going there. "

hmmmmm

--
+&x

Self organisation of molecules. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 16:51 · Score: 0

That observation in NO way concerns itself with the way the proteins organized (in only a few steps) themselves in a manner that resulted in a fully functioning cell.

Creationists always seem to make assumptions about the theory of evolution without knowing anything about it. No one claims a fully functional cell the way we know them now spontaneously organised itself out of random proteins. There are many examples of self organising, self replicating chemical systems that are very very very much simpler than a fully functional cell. Take a chrystal for instance. Statistically, if you take one random leap, the chances of you jumping from Berlin to Paris are very remote. However if you take a billion people, and let them take random leaps for a billion years, starting in Berlin, sooner or later some of them are going to end up in Paris. Others in Moscow, Bejing etc.

Atoms organising themselves into molecules is not a completely random event. In a reaction between Oxygen and Hydrogen, the chance that H2O forms is not identical to the chance for O3, or H2O2 or H3O+ to form. A protein is not a mystical magical component of life, just a polymer of amino acids. An amino acid is not a mystical magical component of life, just a reaction product of nitrogen, carbon and oxygen compounds in a reducing environment. A self replicating chemical system completely without DNA or even proteins is not at all difficult to imagine. The fact that all life on earth today seems to be based on DNA/RNA to protein replication only proves that out of perhaps billions of possibilities, this was the one that made it, because it was more successful at surviving than any of the possible alternatives.

Re: Obiously you know NOTHING of philosphical by TummyX · 1999-09-12 06:04 · Score: 1

arguments

You can say you don't believe in something - but that doesn't mean you don't understand what that something is.

"I don't believe in angels"

That doesn't mean I can't imagine an "angel" existing and say something about it like "for an angel to exist, he would have to have really big wings"

You're stupid.

Re: Only humans have souls? by tragedy · 1999-09-12 06:07 · Score: 1

Fair enough I suppose. God is outside of the context we are bound to (or perhaps God could be seen as actually being the context we are bound to), so isn't limited by things like entropy. Inside that context, it seems that absolutely nothing is eternal. It is believed that even protons have a half-life and that they will all eventually decay (it's a very, very long half-life).

Man=God's Image; there4 Man CAN Create Life by Cy+Guy · 1999-09-12 06:09 · Score: 1

If you follow the reasoning of Genesis, God created Man in His own image. Therefor, Man is God's clone. Presumably, this gives Man all the power of God (though we have been forbidden the knowledge to take advantage of this power).

Given that we are willing to take the risk in disobeying God's instructions not to try and obtain the required knowledge (i.e. eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge), then we must conclude that Man will obtain the required knowledge to create life in Our own image. Though I would expect that we likely have the power to do this by fiat, as God did, it is easier for us to comprehend doing so through science, first starting with simpler life-forms and then progressing to Man (this coincindentally parallels God).

--
Work for Change & GET PAID!

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Masem · 1999-09-11 17:21 · Score: 2

Read or rent "Contact". (The book's a bit better for this purpose). Sagan appeared to have spent a lot of time debating with himself what effect science and religon would have on a major God-disproving event. A quick summary of this is that when the board responsible to select candidates to send in the probe, the question of the main character's atheist beliefs are brought up, and it's pointed out that 90-some percent of the world population believes in some higher intelligence/God-like figure. As such, she's initially prevented from going on the journey (although later she does get to go under different circumstances).

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.

--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:

What if life is "uncreatable" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 17:35 · Score: 0

20th century science has made tremendous strides in explaining living matter by reducing it to its component biology, chemistry and physics. But what if something is missing? We won't know for sure until we completely fabricate living matter. Although I am a fan of the modern scientific paradygm of reductionism, there lurks in back of my mind the possibility that this could be true. In previous centuries the missing factor was attributed to the divine and called "vitalism". Neo-vitalist theories attribute the missing factor to some very special undiscovered matter or energy.

This is all wrong. by ForceOfWill · 1999-09-11 17:21 · Score: 3

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.

--

--
Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.

Biological equivalent of Moon Shot by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:21 · Score: 0

Edward O. Wilson once said that synthesizing a bacteria would be the biological equivalent of the moon shot. Pretty much nobody is saying it's impossible. We pretty much know exactly how to do it. It's just a matter of putting the tremendous amount of time and resources into it. Though I'd be willing to be the amount of money it would take is going down every day.

is it by darklink · 1999-09-11 17:22 · Score: 1

i am just worred about the ethics involved when creating and testing "aLife" . the implications of such a thing can be unclear. i am not a bible beater but i am kinda a matrix thinking on this idea , AI might be our brain child and we will rejoys , but what if it comes back and trys to desrtoy us. making life is a great deal but what if some one "creates" a plage bactria resistant to every thing. we will need to develop a code of ethics among this , as keep testing it for a while.
i dont want them to stop reserch far from it i am how ever scared of the long run. reaserch is great its what we need to keep learning .

data storage? by miahrogers · 1999-09-11 17:23 · Score: 1

so how far are we off from using cells for data storage? As i understand it a strand of dna could hold several gigabytes of information.
and in another matter will we actually be able to create a dust puppy?
char *stupidsig = "this is my dumb sig";

Re:data storage? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:51 · Score: 0

DNA would not be very good for data storage. It has error correction, but it is not very effective. The media has to be replicated every few days or weeks, and the original copy is destroyed. This problem is (mostly) handled well by a cell because an average cell uses less than 2% of the code in the DNA (every cell contains the code for every other cell in the body. That's for mammalian cells, where the body can continue functioning for a few decades before the data degrades too badly and cancer sets in.
In the case of a bacterial cell, where the lifespan of the organism is much shorter, the consequences are even worse. Mutations happen on a daily basis, and your data would still be screwed.
Also, all this is in a living cell, so the information in your DNA would have to be such that it didn't interfere with the life processes of your organism.
It would make more sense (at least to me) to use a different polymer that is more permanent, but then it wouldn't self-replicate like DNA. (Unless someone designed one!)
But DNA is a very efficient system for what it does. It holds a code for building amino acids into proteins. And then it self-replicates so it can build proteins in another cell. I just have a hard time seeing it being used for data storage that doesn't require building proteins.
An example would be how scientists genetically engineer bacteria to produce human insulin. Very cool, using it to store and transmit information, but it is still protein-based information.

Reducing the reducing atmosphere to zero by leonbrooks · 1999-09-12 06:29 · Score: 0

1. What reducing atmosphere? There would be evidence in the rocks, and there ain't.

2. A volcano spuits out, among other things, lots of CO2 and CO. Given the scarcity of carbon in the universe, where did this all come from? And where does it all go? Are you trying to tell us that all of the oxygen remained bound, all of the time?

3. Even given an entire universe made out of amino acids you still won't get a protein in any reasonable time, so if life were a prerequisite for oxygen, where did all this O2 come from?

4. Finally, even presuming a reducing atmosphere, how do you select for desirable compounds as the experimenters did, and how do you keep them from disintegrating, as they are wont to do in minutes?

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Reducing the reducing atmosphere to zero by davet · 1999-09-12 20:31 · Score: 1

Isn't it amazing what you can prove, when you start out with false assuptions? The link given in #3 has some real howlers, if you look for them.

Hints:

Why are only 200 AA proteins useful, and not 199, or 198, or 197, etc? If you include proteins from 150 to 200 AA's long, and assume the various lengths have roughly the same number of "useful" combinations, the calculations would be off by a factor of 2x10e114. Quite an error. Just how short can a protein be and still display some catalytic ability? 100 AA's? 50?

How was the number of "useful" 200 AA proteins determined? Would you get another number, if you tried a differnet hat?

Why are 1000 "useful" proteins required for replication, and not 500, or 200, or 100?see above

Why do I get feeling Leon's only knowledge of biology and geology comes from reading creationist crap?
Re:Reducing the reducing atmosphere to zero by JetJaguar · 1999-09-12 22:56 · Score: 1

Read what I posted. I never stated that there would be no free oxygen, only that significant quantities of free oxygen cannot be maintained in the atmosphere without some other process acting to replenish it.
And in response to your points:
1. Are you sure? I am not familiar enough with the geology literature that you claim has proven that the early earth did not have a reducing atmosphere, references please.
2. Think about that for a second, CO2 and CO? Looks like the oxygen has been bound up to me. And as for the Carbon abundance in the universe, Carbon is one of the more abundant elements, and in fact is somewhat more abundant than oxygen, and by the way, the CO molecule has the largest binding energy of any molecule...once you get oxygen bound up in CO, it's rather difficult to break the bond....
3. I don't mean to flame you here, but clearly you seem to be missing some science in your background. Amino acids and proteins have been discovered in carbonacous chondrites (a certain kind of meteor), experiments have shown that bombarding the materials in chondrites with cosmic rays will often form amino acids, and if I'm not mistaken, even simple proteins. And you get the O2 from anaerobic bacteria.... The link you point to is almost completely meaningless, what are the "assumptions?" A single bad assumption will completely screw up your calculation (see also the Drake equation). There are too many numbers that we don't know well enough to even make a decent guess about the probability IMHO.
4. How do you select the desirable compounds? Geez, They were already there! What are the primary components of life? Take a look, it's H, C, N, and, O, among the most abundant elements in the universe! Add a little heat, and some electricity and/or UV radiation, and bingo! Granted, that's still a long way from a living cell, but producing lots of "desirable" compounds is easy!

--
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

Re:The rest will accept it by Hasdi+Hashim · 1999-09-12 06:33 · Score: 1

Lack of belief in xxx' does not equal 'belief in the lack of xxx'.

I am well aware of that. It's just that defensive behaviour shown by some non-theists in this forum suggests refusal to believe. It is because of past experience? Some interest at stake?

In a book on atheism that I recently read, the author points out that all children are atheists when born- not because of refusal to believe in one thing or another, but because they do not yet have the experiences on which to base theistic beliefs.

Fascinating. Islamic religion claims that every child is born innocent, a moslem.

It's the other way around. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:28 · Score: 1

I was a very skeptical child and never believed a thing my parents told me, and never beleived in Santa, the Tooth Fairy or God. But (strangely enough) I had a religious conversion on the day of my 1st communion in second grade. I realized that God, when you strip away every thing else is simply a force toward positive, good things. He is the ideal that we base our definition of "good" on. (I say He, because we have created a sort of graphic representation in our human minds because that is easier to grasp than something abstract like a "good force") Religion is simply humans trying their best (and admittedly failing often) do decipher what is truly good, and thus the nature and will of God.

Re:On Playing God by FleaPlus · 1999-09-12 06:35 · Score: 1

All of this talk of "the Believers" and "the Scientists" just reminded me I should be playing Alpha Centauri.

*cough* by Wah · 1999-09-12 06:35 · Score: 1

from the St. Augustine link above....
be careful with this one.

"I am somewhat pained, however, at being thus far less understood by your Holiness than I should like to be; forasmuch as you supposed that I should so receive your communication, as if you did me an injury, by making known to me what another had done. "

attention span, going, going, later. Sorry but Paraphrase fits into Auggies vocab right next to Worthwhile. Got a summary for me?

--
+&x

Oh for Christ's sake by joss · 1999-09-11 17:32 · Score: 1

Nothing new... Yes it is. Nobody has done this before. If you think it's easy, try it yourself. This is creating LIFE (if it works). Bacterium are living organisims. Making live organisms from dead ones is pretty impressive in my book.

--
http://rareformnewmedia.com/

bacterium vs bacteria by plinivs · 1999-09-12 18:47 · Score: 1

I would just like to point out
that bacterium is the singular form
and bacteria is the plural.
The original poster did not
seem to realize this, which is
nothing to be ashamed of however
it helps to use the language
correctly.
------

Re:Not sure this is a "good" thing. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 18:53 · Score: 0

Let me guess; you've never farmed. Have you even
gardened? If you've successfully maintained an
organic garden then I apologize.

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 19:01 · Score: 0

*cough* Crusades *cough*.. Might not have been 150+ million, but there was a lot of killing going on in the name of Christianity.

man "created life"?? NOT! by tweakr · 1999-09-12 19:04 · Score: 1

c'mon people! think!! I think everyone is missing a few large points here (and interestingly enough, I think it's a fair indication first of all that creation is true - which if it is, leads one towards the existence of God, which leads one to the presence of the human soul, which leads one to consider the condition of the human soul before God (but that's a different discussion)...[no, I'm not RC])

This guy has done something new and impressive, yes - BUT he hasn't really "created" anything...

"A BLUEPRINT for the creation of life is about to be unveiled by scientists."

Creation of life? Chalk up another one to the media for over-hyping something, or else to this guy for blowing his breakthrough a little out of proportion. Look at what he's really managed to do: He's supposedly "worked out the process to 'create' a synthetic bacterium". THAT'S IT! (the word create is used a little out of context)

Has he come up with a new DNA base pair? Has he built a lifeform without the use of DNA strands? Has he created some new type of lifeform that man has never seen before? Nope - all he's managed to do is figure out how the DNA of a bacterium is put together, and then managed to make a man-made COPY!

Oh sure, in the future he might be able to modify the DNA slightly, and perhaps make a bacteria that always moves to the left, or some such thing - but he's still working with an organism that is easily recognized as a bacterium.

This is analogous to impregnating a woman's ovum by going to a sperm bank. Have they managed to create a new human without a man? no - all they've managed to do is remove sex from the issue.

Suppose they "clone" a human ovum and sperm, and then put the two together, and come up with a viable embryo - even then, they haven't managed to create anything, 'cause all they'll have done is made a copy of something that already exists!

Impressive, perhaps, but definitely a world apart from actual creation......the main problem with this whole thing is that they've used the word "create[creation]" in a very poor context, and it's lead everyone to understand the wrong thing....interesting how many people believe that belief in God is anti-intelligence, anti-scientific, anti-progress....goes to show how little they actually know about what the world has labeled "religion" - interesting how big of a fit people throw when the articles call all "hackers" bad people, complaining about being stereotyped, but then turn around and say that all those who believe in God are idiots, or lamebrains or some such - people like Bishop John Jukes don't help much, true, but since when is he representative of even .001% of the population that believes in God?

"The realization I had was that each of our cells can do that better than the best supercomputers can," -Venter [hrm, evolution did this? I think not] (http://www.sciam.com/1998/0898 issue/0898profile.html - this is a better article on this guy and his work)

Nato.
-it's a nickname, not a statement of support for the organization - get over it.

--
Worrying works!! 99% of all the stuff I worry about never happens :)

Re:On Playing God by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 06:38 · Score: 0

The is the same old origin of evil question really, or at least it is amenable to the same answers. Theologians have a long list of these, but none of them are absolutely satisfying. However, my favourite one is that maybe God permits evil because there was a greater good in giving us choice. He could have made lots of cool things without choice, but none of them would have been like Him, in His own image...

Re:We are the gods. by Mithy · 1999-09-12 19:09 · Score: 1

WHY THE HELL did this persons opinion get moderated down???

And you thought the only religious zealots we had here were the my-OS-is-better-than-your-OS types. ;)

Ah well, there goes my karma... I'll be lucky to come back as a GPL virus.

--
This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along.

--

--
"This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along."

It's just a copy. What next? I need to GPL my DNA? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 06:44 · Score: 0

Yeah right, then similarly I can create Windows 95/98 too. All I have to do is just copy it. Woo hoo I created a copy.

Oh you want something new? I'll just move a few DLL's from one to another. Change the "Copyright 3,000,000BC God" to read "Copyright 1999 Blah Inc" and voila! Hah.

Does that mean we've created life? Yeah right. That's more like a Script Kiddie Copy.

What's more disgusting are the immoral people who will try to copyright/patent the DNA, which they NEVER created from scratch (e.g. the Jasmine+Basmati=Jasmati rice patent). Sure you did lots of work shuffling DNA around, but them software pirates do lots of work shuffling bits around too y'know.

Pirate = 2 minutes a copy vs Developer - 2 years per creation.

Biocompany Inc = 2 years for an "bundled" copy vs 4000 combined years of rice breeding by Indian and Thai farmers.

What next GPL bacteria? Who's gonna code in a URL to the GPL into a few bits of unused DNA? ;).

Maybe I should GPL my DNA- so if anyone clones me and makes modifications they cannot make it closed source.

But then if I GPL my DNA it means anyone can request access to the source. Erm, I think a different license is needed ;).

Cheerio,

Link.
p.s. I wish the posting default was Plain Old Text.

Re:There is no real diffrence betwen micro and mac by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 19:47 · Score: 0

All "classifications" are "artificial" in that they are created by humans.

"Humans Can't Create Life" is Absurd by Evan+Vetere · 1999-09-11 17:36 · 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.

Fire and Sword will fix it by leonbrooks · 1999-09-12 06:47 · Score: 1

These have been the traditional remedies of the Catholic Church (if you don't believe me, go and visit Jesuit HQ, and admire the set-piece sculpture proudly displayed in the foyer, of Jerome and Huss being murdered).

As for what God chooses to do about it, well, freedom of choice seems to be a big issue: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Quite a few times throughout history, mankind would have it no other way. All one can do in the end is stand back and flinch as the inevitable happens.

Note that the bloke hasn't actually made a working bacterium yet, he just trying to. Not only that, he's using second-hand parts instead of newies.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Test-tube Baby Blues by Joe+Groff · 1999-09-12 06:47 · Score: 1

Well, since we're making bacteria now, who knows when we'll start to build humans from scratch? If people still appreciate the blues X years from now, here's a little ditty to send to the 22nd century:

Test-tube Baby Blues by Joe Groff

They ripped an ovum from my mom,
My dad donated some sperm,
Mixed it in a glass tube 'bout twice the size of a worm,

Chorus:
Now I'm a test tube baby,
Oh yeah! That's what I be...
Now no one wants me around,
I'm in artificial misery.

When I was brought up in daycare,
The others reminisced of their wombs,
The jar I developed in, I say, it felt more like a tomb!

Chorus

I walked up to a pretty woman,
She asked me 'bout my mother,
I said "she's unit #653A or maybe someone other."

Chorus

Now I may be artificial,
But my feelings are really real,
Don't gimme no crap about ethics, boy, I already heard that shpeel.

Now I'm a test-tube baby,
Oh yeah! That's what I be...
No one wants me around,
I'm in articial misery.

Yeah, nobody wants to be around,
I'm in artificial misery!

Another million seller, don't you think? Well, as the French say, C'est la vie...

--

-Joe

not on my planet, you dont. by flatrbbt · 1999-09-11 17:38 · Score: 1

I would really like to see some hardening of the 4 level containment strategim for dangerous organisms prior to any attempt to do something of this nature. I might feel safe if it were in level 37 containment or something. No natural predators? ugly....

--
Ex Libris Veritas

Re:not on my planet, you dont. by Linus+H. · 1999-09-11 18:24 · Score: 1

Are you really serious?

--
It's called new wave but it's just the same.
Re:not on my planet, you dont. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:46 · Score: 0

What makes you think a synthetic bacterium would have no natural predators? The reverse would be more likely -- the bacterium would have no natural defenses.
The bacterium they proposed is extremely simplified. So much so that it can't survive outside a very specialized environment, which provides chemicals it doesn't know how to make.
From the POV of natural selection, the first synthetic life form will be pretty lame. The problem is getting it to reproduce in the first place; getting it to survive in the wild will take some doing.

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 20:24 · Score: 0

the soul is energy. energy cannot be created nor destroyed.that energy survives the body.

So a light bulb has a soul? That's cool, dude.

The next step by haro · 1999-09-11 17:38 · Score: 1

When this has been done, we only need to locate a suitable planet without life, seed it, and wait for a few billion years.

The Road to Serfdom by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 06:49 · Score: 0

Hmm, well, you could always look it up on Amazon. I did, and it appears to be a Libertarian screed against control-freak collectivists.

Re: Only humans have souls? by kelleher · 1999-09-12 20:32 · Score: 1

In the beginning Man created God;
and in the image of Man
created he him.
--Jethro Tull

I always loved this quote and it just seemed appropriate...

Shared DNA by ansible · 1999-09-12 06:53 · Score: 1

The amount of common DNA varies substantially depending on the species you are comparing.

For instance, a chimp and a human have from 95% to 99% of their DNA in common (I'm not sure of a more precise figure). Any two mammal species are supposed to share about 80%.

As you start getting away from vertebrates, the figure drops even lower. I've heard 40% between us and insects, but don't quote me on that one.

Then there's those funky bacteria that live near sulfur plumes at the bottom of the ocean. Their biological processes are so different from ours because of their environment. We probably share only a small percentage of DNA with them.

If God did create all the species of the Earth all at once (like the Creationists would have us believe) then he seems to have been in a lazy mood that week He created the Earth. Looks like He spent just barely enough time to tweak the DNA of similar designs to fit particular ecosystems, without bothering to come up with new and original designs for each ecological niche.

Flipped around this way, Creationism makes God look small, not like the all-powerful creator of the Universe. I don't think that they (the Creationists) have really thought through the implications of their ideology. It's foolish of them, but what can you expect from that bunch anyway. There are much better Christians out there.

Funny by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 18:19 · Score: 0

While humanity is busy to make sure more and more lifeforms are becoming extinct money is spent to create something in a lab.

Beam me up, Scotty. There is no intelligent life on earth ...

Remember virology class by heroine · 1999-09-11 17:42 · Score: 1

Remember back in virology when they told you about viruses being constructed from synthesized protein? If you think viruses are living then we've been creating life for a long time. What no-one can figure out is how to make a living off of it.

Doesn't this worry anyone else? by Accipiter · 1999-09-11 18:20 · Score: 1

The last quote from the article REALLY worried me. It seemed like a foreshadowing to doom, in my opinion. heh

The late 20th Century was about discovering genes and tinkering with them. The next century, he predicted, "is going to be about designing them".

God creates Dinosaurs.
God destroys Dinosaurs.
God creates Man.
Man creates Man.
Man destroys God.
....
Jurassic Park wasn't about creating life from scratch, but it holds the same premise:

Scientists could learn how to produce customised genes that could help build organisms for eating radioactive waste or cleaning up after oil spills, for example.

Or, More simply, Man creates life to do good, and then it backfires and causes chaos. This just asks for trouble.

(Not that this isn't a great discovery. Let's just make sure they keep it under control, and not do anything stupid.)

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Would it be cheating to... by Derek+Pomery · 1999-09-11 17:43 · Score: 1

Remove the existing DNA from a mycoplasma genitalium, then replace it with their 350 gene version?

Not only would the resulting descendants share no DNA with their parent, but it would also offer the opportunity to learn if indeed they had got those 350 genese "right."

With such a small set to work with, it would be easy to knock out, modify, and generally hack about the genome to learn what each sequence does, and in combination with what.

Granted, it's far from creating life from scratch, but we're still a little fuzzy on the details of that far back, and it looks like the only process we have to go with at the moment is a tortorously slow continuum from self-replicating proteins (prions and the like), to more complex cellular organisms, and virii.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.

Re:We are the gods. by Mike+A. · 1999-09-12 07:02 · Score: 1

This is a little confused. Saying that God is infinite certainly doesn't imply that all matter is "part" of God. On the other hand, the rest of your points are still sensible if you replace them with the correct omni- concepts: How does evil come to exist in a universe created by an omniscient and omnipotent god? And can an omnipotent god create a stone it can't lift, or having created such a thing, lift it?

Me, I'm playing with the concept that God exists, and is theoretically omnipotent and omniscient but has a finite attention span. The concept has a certain appeal - it "explains" an awful lot of the apparent inconsistencies that I see in Christian theology. It'd "explain" the Holocaust, for example - maybe he was distracted by preventing a huge meteor from crashing into the inhabited planet Xordax, or something.

--

--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?

FORGED: Show me the natural selection mechanism! by leonbrooks · 1999-09-12 07:06 · Score: 1

some experimenters demonstrated 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

Bollocks. Millions/billions of years ago, they didn't have closed retorts with carefully controlled arcs, and didn't deliberately filter out (rescue) the molecules that they didn't know that they were looking for.

Oh, and there is no evidence that Earth ever had a reducing atmosphere, beyond "but it must have because we are here." Circular Reasoning: see entry Circular Reasoning.

A major premise of evolution is that it is not directed, something that Dr Hawkings seems to overlook constantly.

Have you ever wondered why it's okay for Mars to have universal floods (yet there is negligible water there) but not Earth (3/4 buried in the stuff)? Or why it's okay for the surface of Venus to be completely renewed, but Earth's must have been laid down gradually (and never mind the massive rock-layer inversions hundreds of km across with negligible interface disruption)?

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Life created? by cout · 1999-09-11 17:45 · Score: 2

I've never really thought it would be that hard to do - articially create a bacteria, but it does make for an interesting debate of whether life was made/created or not.

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.

Evolution "banned" in Kansas? (FT.com article) by boltonm · 1999-09-11 18:22 · Score: 1

Related to this I saw this piece in this Saturday's Financial Times about the "banning" of evolution from the school curriculum in Kansas.

I don't know how much truth there is in this, but if there is any, I hope the trend does not cross the Atlantic. Let students make up their own minds on issues such as this and we can have debates like happen here at /. and work out what we really think.

Re:Evolution "banned" in Kansas? (FT.com article) by dangermouse · 1999-09-11 18:46 · Score: 1

I don't know how much truth there is in this, but if there is any, I hope the trend does not cross the Atlantic.

What trend? This is just Kansas.
Re:Evolution "banned" in Kansas? (FT.com article) by webslacker · 1999-09-11 18:47 · Score: 1

Actually, IIRC they voted that Evolution would no longer be taught as fact in the schools, but as a theory, the same as most of the scientific community does anyways.

Re:Insightful? LOL by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 18:24 · Score: 0

Well, it's funny. But it's also a very valid point, and this guy was the first to see it. So, that's why I gave it an "insightful".

In shock by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 18:31 · Score: 0

In shock I am by the balance of secular and religious opinions here... I thought the slashdot tradition was to categorically deny/ridicule/lamblast any non-secular worldview. I'm in awe... Or is it just because it's Sunday morning?

Re:In shock by dangermouse · 1999-09-11 18:52 · Score: 1

Or is it just because it's Sunday morning?

If that's the case, wouldn't it work in the secular party's favor? After all, most of the religious types ought to be in church on a Sunday morn, not reading Slashdot. :)

Re: Show me the natural selection mechanism! by davet · 1999-09-12 21:26 · Score: 1

Have you read anything on science, other that creationist tracts? The main mechanism of natural section, is called death. If an organism fails to reproduce before it dies, or fails to live long enough to reproduce, it's been selected out. The offspring of those that do sucessfully reproduce, go on to try and carry on the tradition.

The original experiment basically consisted of a closed retort to keep contaminates out and a condenser. That's it, no filters. If you don't want to look like a fool, don't lie about details.
There is no evidence that earth ever had a significant amount of free oxygen that was not being constantly replenished by living organisms. Contrary to what you've managed to glean from the creationists, there is geological evidence that earth's atmosphere did NOT contain free oxygen before the appearance of life. Care to name another planet in our solar system whose atmosphere contains a significant percentage of free oxygen? Any place in the observable universe?
Hawkings? Who's that? Hawking is a theoretical physicist. You must mean Dawkins, whose field is zoology. Where does Dawkins write that evolution is directed?
Universal floods on mars? Do you have a non-creationist reference for that? And last time I checked, the idea for the resurfacing of Venus is only a hypothesis to explain it's uniform lack of impact craters. As far as the massive rock-layer inversions they're called faults and folds. Standard stuff if geology texts, not that I expect you've ever read one.

Wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-12 21:39 · Score: 0

Many of the countries we consider third world, such as the middle east, were light years ahead of western europe in thier hayday. They were destroyed by religeous fundimentalists. I wouldn't consider China a 3rd world country either. They are a perfect example. They had stuff like gunpowder, looms, compases, and paper hundreds of years before christians and europeans, but they used thier technologys for religeous purposes, not to conquer the world.

Outside the universe? by Derek+Pomery · 1999-09-11 17:48 · Score: 1

And if he was "outside the universe", that allows him to have been always existant?

Sorry, I don't follow that at all.

Also, a pantheist would argue god could be inside the universe, and a part of it, and not require external creation. It would simply have always existed.

One good infinite series deserves another.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.

"short step" from bacteria to animals -- NOT by ToddScheetz · 1999-09-11 17:50 · Score: 3

He must have been talking about a short ethical step. The difference between assembling a bacteria such that the proper genes are added to previously "killed" cell and building a bacteria de novo is itself a huge technical challenge that we're not capable of (yet). We're a long way from understanding what the basic role of most genes are, even in such simple organisms as yeast. The problems in that understanding come both from the increasing number of genes and from their interactions. It always blows my mind when I see a pathway drawn where A->B->C->D, because that's ignoring so much of the detail it's laughable. Those genes are interacting with a couple other dozen pathways each! (As with anything in biology, there are no absolutes. Likely there are genes that only work in one pathway, but those are few and far between.)

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!

Provocation rather than science by cygnusXone · 1999-09-13 05:10 · Score: 1

This is one of those things that there's so little to go on that the only thing really achived by making the announcement is to start arguments. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily ... its just that I wish people would save up their press releases until they had something to say. I'd be more impressed with the announcement of the creation of a single, simple, totally novel protien than with this vague talk about recombining bits of bacterial DNA to create a "new" bacteria

--
"I went to see the pool of wisdom but it was empty. Someone has drained the pool of wisdom." - Todd Jones

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 17:51 · Score: 0

I thought the most ironic point in the whole movie was how the main characters own argument against god (Occum's Razor) was used against her at the end. It was a pretty good, mostly balanced approach. Of course with a little twist at the end to make it lean more towards no god, but still a good movie overall.

This was first done years ago by babbage · 1999-09-13 20:52 · Score: 1

I did this experiment myself about two years ago, and it has been known since at least the sixties. Dr. Sidney Fox, orginally of UCLA, later of the University of South Alabama, discovered over 40 years ago that a solution of amino acids can be made to organize into what he called "proteinoid microspheres", which for most purposes strongly resemble existing viral & bacterial life forms that have been found both today and in the fossil record from precambrian beds in Australia. Most interestingly, they also resemble the alleged fossils that Nasa revealed from the Martian meteorite a few years ago.

The reaction (or organization or call it what you will) will occur at room temperature if given enough time, but runs faster if done over a hot plate at around 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and faster still if performed over a bunsen burner.

The latter form is how I did the experiment, and any ten year old can do the same in his kitchen. Just mix a few grams of a couple amino acids into distilled water, cook it for a minute or two, and then go for lunch. An hour or so later you will find thousands of these sphere structures floating in the solution.

Are they alive? I don't know, it's a matter of debate. (What is "life" anyhow? You need a good definition before you can really say.) But these microspheres exhibit many of the properties of living things:

They metabolize materials from their environment
They reproduce asexually
They adapt to their environment
They grow, and they die

There is no DNA involved with these spheres, and they are nowhere near as complex as some of the known monocellular life forms. But they strongly resemble fossils that seem to be the ancestors of such life forms, and it seems at least plausible that such structures would have formed from the protean seas of four billion years ago.

Significantly, this reaction is much easier to initiate than the one Dr Stanley Miller famously prepared, since it doesn't require electrical input, and it seems to better reflect the chemical composition of the early oceans as they are now understood.

Dr Fox passed away a year or two ago, and his research never got the publicity that it deserved. I find it insulting that this group can now make these claims without citing those who came before. But then, this wouldn't be the first time the wrong person got the fame for someone else's work (hello Mr Gates). C'est la vie.

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

Start with a virus! by dej05093 · 1999-09-11 18:33 · Score: 2

Building an artifical virus might be a much more realistic project to test our understanding of life. You would be able to use a living cell as the machinary to produce the envelope proteins for
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!

Insightful? LOL by crayz · 1999-09-11 17:56 · Score: 1

Wouldn't "Funny" be a better reason for moderating this up? Unless, of course, the moderator believes in storks...

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by AndyL · 1999-09-11 18:34 · Score: 1

I still don't understand the ending of that movie. Why didn't anyone at the Congresional hearing ask "How much static was recorded?" that seems the obvious question to me. And why didn't they send a second person? They spent billions of dollars just so they could have a single inconclusive experiment? Our goverment is wastefull but not that wastefull.

Does the book make more sense at the end? Would it be worth reading?

Humans creating life in many mediums by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 18:35 · Score: 0

So, there is the potential to create bacterial life under the design of humans. Decades before, as another poster pointed out, amino acids were created. We could've created those and let them evolve, but instead we now can create bacteria directly (why wait for a design to emerge when we can copy from elsewhere). On the other hand, there have also been great strides in reproducing and evolving life in the digital medium. Tierra is one example of this (do a web search) and I recently read another article on Wired rlating to the evolution of digital life. In any case, these artificial organisms have the potential to evolve through mutastion, something we observed in our own environment. We also appear to be omnicient to the created life, able to manipulate their environment outside of their concious level. But we also have the smarts to accelerate the evolution and use our minds to do better-than-natura selection. A sort of meta-evolution. But in the big book of the universe, improvement of life has gone from asexual to sexual, from generational based on DNA to the transfer of information for adaptation through intelligence, and now from auto-to-meta evolution. Maybe one day, our created life forms will be smart enought o make their own life forms as well. This then raises the question, where on the latter of intelligent life creating intelligent life do we stand?

Re:The rest will accept it by AndyL · 1999-09-11 18:06 · Score: 1

"I think the non-theists will accept anything of this sort forever."

What does this mean? I accept lots of things forever. I read a news article about Jim Henson's death for example. I accepted it as the truth then, and I still do. But I'm not obsessed with Jim Henson.

and more by onjay · 1999-09-11 18:36 · Score: 1

The SA article is very good...MHO:

"His new venture will not patent the human genome sequence itself, Venter states."

No, not the whole enchilada...only the GENES he finds (which will be tiny non-contiguous subsets of the genome). This guy is NOT benign, and his "I'll do it for free and give it away, so why don't you cut the Genome Project's funding, Honorable Congressman?" routine is the biotech version of FUD. What we will get for free is a picked-through-and-genes-patented, incomplete, and error-filled genome that other researchers will have to debug before using. Debug and LICENSE, if they want to use any of the parts that looked genelike when Ventner's team sped through. It's a gold rush mentality on his side of the coin, and he has free machines and reagents to turbocharge his efforts.

FWIW, The Genome Project is very OSS-like: daily updates to the shared genome database; shared technology (software, robotics, modifications on the PE machines), and nothing held back for patenting sake (you want to comb through and find a gene? Be their guest!). They are making amazing progress, partially due to Ventner setting their clothes on fire.

I gotta root for them, it's in my blood.

Re:Environmental Affects of Bioengineered Bacteria by crush · 1999-09-11 18:39 · Score: 1

Could you cite a reference for the systematic removal of genes to create a 'minimalist bacterium' ? I am aware that there have been plenty of knock-out mutation studies done to isolate simple phenotype dependencies on genes, but I was not aware of systematic knock-outs on one species. Thanks.

Re: Only humans have souls? by pohl · 1999-09-11 18:40 · Score: 1

I think that the collection of memes that rides around in your head, and the models of you that ride around in the heads of those that you know, can live one long after your death, self-replicating from brain to brain as your loved ones eulogize. To me, this is the process that has been loosely labelled a "soul". It also accounts for why people would tend to think that only people have them. (We don't see many memes leaping from bacteria to bacteria, although I swear I can hear the soul of my departed neurotic dog Touser living on when the Cocateil mimics him -- but he mimics the washing machine going off-balance in the spin cycle too, and that doesn't mean the Kenmore has a soul.) Anyway, it's not really arrogance, so much as the recognition that humans do memes better than any other species.

--

The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

We knew we could do it. But imagine what's next ! by Thomas+Miconi · 1999-09-11 18:41 · Score: 2

[From the 'help-me-get-my-feet-back-on-the-ground-again' dept.]

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 ! :o)

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.

nitpick by crush · 1999-09-11 18:43 · Score: 1

To correct the misuse of many posters:

bacterium - singular
bacteria - plural

"A bacteria" is like "a horses".
Thanks.

The argument over Life was won a while ago by TummyX · 1999-09-11 18:07 · Score: 1

Most first year philosophy students will realise this. Life etc has been sufficiently explained - and not many people would be caught dead trying to show there is a non-physical aspect of living things (meaning we could create it ourselves).

The modern argument is over thought and the mind.

Re: Only humans have souls? by TummyX · 1999-09-11 18:11 · Score: 1

Firstly I don't believe in a "soul" (the same one religious people believe in).

But to think that only "humans" have "souls" is so utterly arrogant.

I'm appalled.

Not sure this is a "good" thing. by stevew · 1999-09-11 18:12 · Score: 2

Consider what happened recently with genetically
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.

--
Have you compiled your kernel today??

Re:Not sure this is a "good" thing. by znu · 1999-09-11 18:55 · Score: 2

What the people who go on about genetically altered corn seem to overlook is the damage conventional pesticides do to the environment. Genetically altered crops do away with most of the need for those.

--

--
This space unintentionally left unblank.

A humble Theory by Deimos_ · 1999-09-11 18:43 · Score: 1

Lets assume for a moment that life here on earth was 'created' instead of spontaneously appearing (to me which seems very unlikely, but not impossible). In my opinion, with conditions as they were at the time life first appeared here, it seems to me that this planet may have been seeded by something else. Aliens? God? Who knows? Am I crazy? It would answer a great deal of questions and produce a few more, the biggest of all, "Who Seeded Earth?" Perhaps it was a terraforming project that was forgotten about by some other extraterrestrial race. Perhaps they were just visiting here and decided to drop their garbage here which had bacteria in it.

I'm not a religious person, I'm agnostic, which means I have an open mind. Feel free to shoot holes in my theory.

Re:A humble Theory by Anjin-san · 1999-09-11 19:08 · Score: 1

Then you might ask from where the extraterrestrial race came from? Another group of ETs? Spontaneous creation on their planet? Given vast interstellar distances, physical limitations on high (near-light) speed travel, and the probablility of choosing this solar system out of so many others to dump garbage, it is much more likely that life just spontaneously began here. The chemicals that make up basic life forms such as bacteria are common; however, the combination of chemicals that create a bacterium are not. So I can understand if it took a billion years for bacteria to just form out of random chemical combinations let alone evolve into something else. Once the chemical infrastructure was established in bacteria, modifications to bacteria created new life and therefore evolution proceeded and that explains why all life shares similiar characteristics that can be traced back millions of years.
But that is just what I think.

Anjin-san

Re:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY?? by Max+von+H. · 1999-09-11 18:13 · Score: 4

I've watched the movie "Contact" about a month ago, and the religious zealots infuriated me (in the context, of course, but also as they do in general). The thing is, whatever the scientific challenge is, there's always some bible-buggers who will find something against it. See what happens, even now, with Evolution in Kansas!

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.

--
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.

Environmental Affects of Bioengineered Bacteria by slinted · 1999-09-11 18:15 · Score: 3

As a student of genomics, I think this research is a smidge beyond premature and more importantly, potentially dangerous. Much research has been done into the "minimalist bacteria" ie. what is the fewest number of genes needed to create a viable bacteria. This method includes removing genes and seeing if the bacteria is still viable, this has been done....but... The factor involved in this research that differs from this (and what truely bothers me about the research) is the mixing of many differant genes from many differant bacterial strains into a "new" organism. In many ways, one could say that it isn't going to be a "new" life, just a novel one, but the synergetic affect of mixing all these genes could have some tremendously bad affects on the environment (at least in my opinion). When one looks at the affects that foreign species (zebra muscles and gobi's in the great lakes ecosystem, rabbits in australia, etc.) one sees that things which don't belong, while doing *quite* well in these environments, often do so at the cost of other organisms survival. The human genome quite possible only consists of 100,000 genes...when you *really* think about this, that isn't that much at all. One wouldn't think that 100,000 specific enzymatic reactions would be enough to explain human complexity, and inteligence, but it does, which again lends evidence that the 100,000 genes aren't 100,000 independent reactions at all, but the combined affect of 100,000 actions/reactions at once. Being that Dr. Venter (who's been quite busy lately, finishing the Drosophilia genome, squaking about finishing the human genome project before everyone else, etc.) cannot possible know the *combined* affect of the genes he's planning on combining, I can't see how he can know its going to be safe were it to be released into the world at large... Ok, just my 2cents...

Well duh by TummyX · 1999-09-11 18:18 · Score: 1

Chemicals are funny in that they come together in all sorts of patterns and formations.
Obviously the most successful of these formations are the ones that happen to enable them to reproduce themselves (the replicator) - it's not magic.

It took millions of years - but eventually a molecule that could reproduce popped up in the right place at the right time and was successful in extending itself.
When you're given millions of years to throw matchsticks into the air and watching them drop - eventually they'll form the word "life"

Wait a minute here. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 18:47 · Score: 0

First, a lot of folks in the a-life community would say that we already have created life. But only in silico :).

But seriously, this article doesn't really give us any of the information we need to really think about this stuff critically. For example, the last time I checked, we can't just look at the nucleotide sequence for a gene (A,C,G,T) and figure out what it's going to do. It's an awful lot more painstaking an tedious than that. We don't really know exactly a protien will fold itself up until we try it, and then what exactly it will do.

Well, they're talking about just building up genes and making a bacteria. Okay, so are we designing the genes? After all, a lot of bacteria share common genes; they've already been designed for us. So how much are we actually creating, and how much are we just assembling?

Now granted, this is a scientific aritcle in the mainstream press, and has been thoroughly cleaned of any residual science. But from what it looks like, this isn't anything overly impressive.

I'd be much more impressed if the life they're talking about creating is fundamentally different to that which already exists on the Earth.

NOT evolution by crush · 1999-09-11 18:48 · Score: 2

This is NOT an experiment about evolution. It's just trying to mix and match from what is there already. Venter's team is just copying what they see out there which may have been create by God on Sunday 10:05 am 4000 B.C. or which has evolved starting with simple chemical reactions 3.5 billion years ago.

Re: Only humans have souls? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:45 · Score: 0

the soul is energy. energy cannot be created nor destroyed.that energy survives the body.

religious FUD by jilles · 1999-09-11 20:50 · Score: 1

Yes, not all of the Bible is independently verifiable

In fact none of the relevant stuff has been confirmed:
- guys walking over water
- virgin girls getting pregnant, yeah right (did anybody ever gave maria a thorough vaginal inspection)
- seas parting, this would be a major geological event, where are the traces.
- The entire planet got flouded, duh.

OK some of the facts have a place in history. This only proves that the guys who wrote the bible mixed reality with fiction.

Of course there are inconsistencies. That's what you get when you ix reality with fiction.

So indeed you cannot prove god existence with the bible. In fact I have yet to see a consistent god proof. I think some logicians actually proved (within their logical system) that this is impossible to prove/disprove. (sorry don't have a reference)

What you personally feel is of course irrelevant for this discussion. I hope you feel happy with whatever you are believing.

--

Jilles

Not much (but it's not as simple as it seems) by Christopher+Whitt · 1999-09-11 20:50 · Score: 2

I've watched the movie "Contact" about a month ago, and the religious zealots infuriated me

They infuriated me too... such flat characters who missed most of the subtantial issues involved.

...whatever the scientific challenge is, there's always some bible-buggers who will find something against it...

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.

...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

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?

...religions have that nasty tendency to only protect what may serve them best...

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:

This fascination for anti-religious dogma is so dangerous it blinds people from seeing what humankind is missing.

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

--
Mozilla

Reducing atmosphere? by crush · 1999-09-11 18:56 · Score: 1

Isn't it the case that at least a significant proportion of researchers identify through the presence of oxidized ferrous minerals a pre-oxygen environment? One of the more popular scenarios is that micro-organisms that don't need oxygen flourished in anaerobic conditions and then the release of oxygen as a waste by-product stimulated the development of organisms that were shielded from it by membranes etc. and were able to utilize this "waste" in their metabolic cycles. Also I am confused about your statement that the Miller experiment relied on a "reducing atmosphere" yet "as far back as we look we find oxidized material". Could you set me straight about reduced vs. oxidized ?
Thanks.

We are the gods. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 18:58 · Score: 1

Look at how primitive societies have reacted when confronted with technological marvels.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

We have already gained the power over life and death in a great many situations where death was once certain. Vaccines, surgery, drugs, environmental control (making livable environments in space, underwater, etc.) Will we ever know it all? Nope. And if your definition of God is the one who knows it all, then we will never get there (but only because your decree).

God isn't a person. It's knowledge. And the more we learn, the more god like we become.

Not banned, elective (Re:Evolution in Kansas?) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-11 20:52 · 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 by Crutcher · 1999-09-11 19:08 · Score: 2

So here we stand, at the threshold of creating life, and around us two camps grow. One proclaiming that we are wrong to play God by doing this thing (whom I shall call the Believers); and the other, that God doesn't care about this, or doesn't exist (whom I shall call the Scientists). This drama has played itself out many times before, and shall play itself out many times again; and though I know I cannot stop it, I offer my futile thoughts on the subject in an effort to do the imposible.

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

--

-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>

480 comments