Posted by
Hemos
on from the or-better-yet-should-we dept.
baglunch writes "There's a story at The Express that says a scientist has figured out how to create artifical bacterium. " 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.
Really not all that surprising
by
Masem
·
· 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:
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.
The Problem's In Defining What Life Is
by
madjack
·
· 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:amino acid production not (really) demonstrated
by
JetJaguar
·
· 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).
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:What does "religion" has to do with it ANYWAY??
by
Max+von+H.
·
· 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.
Slashdot Mirror
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:
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.
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.
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!
Scientific American article on the guy -
. html
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0898issue/0898profile
L.
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.
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.