even though it contains all of the genes required to live, this still does not mean that it will be better-suited or more efficient. the extra genes that organisms have add to their ability to adapt to new situations and environments, which make them more suited to live, and more efficient in certain environments.
i said that the simple bacteria created by these scientists would not decimate life on earth. they are taking the essential genes from a non-pathogenic bacteria. if the ability to decimate life on earth was an essential gene, do you think there would be life now?
well, i'm not an expert (yet), but it appears to me that the gene to "decimate all living creatures on the planet larger than a doormouse" is probably not one of the genes essential to life.
proof 1: if the gene already exists, all living creatures would be dead. proof 2: if the gene doesn't exist, it won't be one of the essential genes.
as for the nuclear warhead analogy, the warhead is made explicitly to blow up things. therefore you know positively in advance that it will blow up things, since that is what it is made to do. the genome they've created is made explicitly to live. you figure it out.
you obviously don't get my point. this is a major breakthrough, yes, but it doesn't help us engineer bacteria for x and y, when we already have bacteria to use for x and y. it does help us understand how genes react.
i'm pretty sure kerry mullis did get some money from this...plus he won the nobel prize in chemistry for this discovery. i believe this is the actual patent that they are discussing (he worked with this company when he discovered it).
well, i think this case was related to the first use of taq polymerase in PCR, performed by kerry mullis (sp?). since then, many advances have been made in this procedures, and the corresponding new polymerases probably have gone through the patent process as well. one of the advances is not man-made but another bacterial enzymes (like taq, not from normal bacteria, but from archaebacteria) that have the ability to check back over the code and look for mistakes. since these enzymes are also from bacteria, they probably cannot be patented either.
i see two kinds of posts on this article: one type is the religious flamewar we see quite often and the other is a the "wow, now we can engineer bacteria for !" don't get me wrong, this is a very exciting prospect, but we've been able to engineer bacteria for various purposes for a long time. the exciting part of this is that scientists have narrowed down the most important genes and how they work together.
geneticists have been modifying organisms directly (no, i'm not including artificial selection); this experiment isn't going to make it any easier to find cures or make evil organisms, only further our understanding of gene interactions and evolution.
So, from this, can we deduce that these genes will be common to all living things? Or is it simply that that's the simplest combination discovered (so far)?
it's the simplest combination of genes discovered so far. all living organisms have these genes or analogs to them.
Ignoring theological implications, for the moment, what other implications are there? For example, could this be used to produce an artificial biological weapon, with custom-made properties?
this could be done more easily with existing organisms. with this organism, you must start from scratch; however, with other organisms we already have a framework on which to build.
it's more important that scientists have identified these genes than it is that they're creating the organism. think about it...we've always been taught the essential characteristics of true life in high school biology courses. now, the scientists have actually identified these genes.
this is a classic experiment, known by all intro bio students.
"In 1953, Stanley Miller and Howard Urey performed a classic experiment in which they circulated methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen gas in a closed environment and passed electric sparks through it. After several days, they discovered that complex compounds of carbon had formed in the mixture. Their experiments indicated that in the primitive earth atmosphere, complex organic molecules could form, including amino acids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids. The theory they expressed is called the primordial soup theory."
notice that this describes the evolution of complex organic molecules, and has nothing at all to do with darwin. this story, on the other hand, describes the creation of new life containing only the genes required for life. these are two very different types of experiments.
it seems to me that the writer of this post was not just trying to make another stupid troll post. he was trying to make a couple points. first, he was complaining about all of the various beowulf cluster/grits in my pants/naked and petrified/linux rulez/micro$oft suxxors/opensource trolls that keep popping up. second, he was complaining about the karma sluts, who post only to gain more karma points, as if they were a commodity. third, he was complaining about the people who post without reading the article, or post very simple messages like "i need to get one of these" or "i agree with the article." i tried to make the same point in an earlier comment on the Guide to Slashdot story.
i'm sorry, i'm going to have to agree with the ac on this one. not only was this post on topic, but it was funny. you (mr. moderator) obviously have no sense of humor. we all knew that the beowulf cluster post was going to show up, but this guy beat everyone to it with a first post. if i had moderator points, i would have tried to help correct this by moderating him up, but, alas, i don't.
[rant] another huge problem (imho) is that some people feel they must reply to every story featured, no matter how little they know about the subject, how obvious, or redundant it is. there are so many posts that just say "haha, that was funny!" or "wow, that's interesting." i think that anyone who reads the feature and/or links can figure out for themselves whether something is funny or not. if the poster wishes to tell someone how funny or interesting the link or story is, he/she shold tell it to someone who hasn't already read it. [/rant]
one main reason it's seen as so bad is that the WTO believes in profit at all costs. this means that no matter who it hurts, they try to make way for profit. if this was an organization created to help third world workers, this wouldn't be much of a problem. the problem (imho) is that this organization is composed mostly of large multi-million and -billion dollar corporations. they're only acting in self-preservation.
oops, i meant to add that at $20 for 60 minutes, it's 33 cents per minute of anonymous cellular phone calls. (yes, i know the math is simple but i'm just pointing out the low price of anonymity.)
Slashdot Mirror
even though it contains all of the genes required to live, this still does not mean that it will be better-suited or more efficient. the extra genes that organisms have add to their ability to adapt to new situations and environments, which make them more suited to live, and more efficient in certain environments.
i said that the simple bacteria created by these scientists would not decimate life on earth. they are taking the essential genes from a non-pathogenic bacteria. if the ability to decimate life on earth was an essential gene, do you think there would be life now?
well, i'm not an expert (yet), but it appears to me that the gene to "decimate all living creatures on the planet larger than a doormouse" is probably not one of the genes essential to life.
proof 1: if the gene already exists, all living creatures would be dead.
proof 2: if the gene doesn't exist, it won't be one of the essential genes.
as for the nuclear warhead analogy, the warhead is made explicitly to blow up things. therefore you know positively in advance that it will blow up things, since that is what it is made to do.
the genome they've created is made explicitly to live.
you figure it out.
you obviously don't get my point. this is a major breakthrough, yes, but it doesn't help us engineer bacteria for x and y, when we already have bacteria to use for x and y. it does help us understand how genes react.
i'm pretty sure kerry mullis did get some money from this...plus he won the nobel prize in chemistry for this discovery. i believe this is the actual patent that they are discussing (he worked with this company when he discovered it).
well, i think this case was related to the first use of taq polymerase in PCR, performed by kerry mullis (sp?). since then, many advances have been made in this procedures, and the corresponding new polymerases probably have gone through the patent process as well. one of the advances is not man-made but another bacterial enzymes (like taq, not from normal bacteria, but from archaebacteria) that have the ability to check back over the code and look for mistakes. since these enzymes are also from bacteria, they probably cannot be patented either.
it's cnn's fault, they messed it up in the story.
i just noticed that the article was saying PRC as well. can't cnn get their information right?
just a technicality, but i'm sure you meant, PCR, polymerase chain reaction, and not PRC.
i see two kinds of posts on this article: one type is the religious flamewar we see quite often and the other is a the "wow, now we can engineer bacteria for !" don't get me wrong, this is a very exciting prospect, but we've been able to engineer bacteria for various purposes for a long time. the exciting part of this is that scientists have narrowed down the most important genes and how they work together.
geneticists have been modifying organisms directly (no, i'm not including artificial selection); this experiment isn't going to make it any easier to find cures or make evil organisms, only further our understanding of gene interactions and evolution.
also, all bacteria are genetic bacteria.
So, from this, can we deduce that these genes will be common to all living things? Or is it simply that that's the simplest combination discovered (so far)?
it's the simplest combination of genes discovered so far. all living organisms have these genes or analogs to them.
Ignoring theological implications, for the moment, what other implications are there? For example, could this be used to produce an artificial biological weapon, with custom-made properties?
this could be done more easily with existing organisms. with this organism, you must start from scratch; however, with other organisms we already have a framework on which to build.
it's more important that scientists have identified these genes than it is that they're creating the organism. think about it...we've always been taught the essential characteristics of true life in high school biology courses. now, the scientists have actually identified these genes.
you could also try any good biology text book.
this is a classic experiment, known by all intro bio students.
"In 1953, Stanley Miller and Howard Urey performed a classic experiment in which they circulated methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen gas in a closed environment and passed electric sparks through it. After several days, they discovered that complex compounds of carbon had formed in the mixture. Their experiments indicated that in the primitive earth atmosphere, complex organic molecules could form, including amino acids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids. The theory they expressed is called the primordial soup theory."
notice that this describes the evolution of complex organic molecules, and has nothing at all to do with darwin.
this story, on the other hand, describes the creation of new life containing only the genes required for life. these are two very different types of experiments.
it seems to me that the writer of this post was not just trying to make another stupid troll post. he was trying to make a couple points. first, he was complaining about all of the various beowulf cluster/grits in my pants/naked and petrified/linux rulez/micro$oft suxxors/opensource trolls that keep popping up. second, he was complaining about the karma sluts, who post only to gain more karma points, as if they were a commodity. third, he was complaining about the people who post without reading the article, or post very simple messages like "i need to get one of these" or "i agree with the article." i tried to make the same point in an earlier comment on the Guide to Slashdot story.
i'm sorry, i'm going to have to agree with the ac on this one. not only was this post on topic, but it was funny. you (mr. moderator) obviously have no sense of humor. we all knew that the beowulf cluster post was going to show up, but this guy beat everyone to it with a first post. if i had moderator points, i would have tried to help correct this by moderating him up, but, alas, i don't.
[rant] another huge problem (imho) is that some people feel they must reply to every story featured, no matter how little they know about the subject, how obvious, or redundant it is. there are so many posts that just say "haha, that was funny!" or "wow, that's interesting." i think that anyone who reads the feature and/or links can figure out for themselves whether something is funny or not. if the poster wishes to tell someone how funny or interesting the link or story is, he/she shold tell it to someone who hasn't already read it. [/rant]
one main reason it's seen as so bad is that the WTO believes in profit at all costs. this means that no matter who it hurts, they try to make way for profit. if this was an organization created to help third world workers, this wouldn't be much of a problem. the problem (imho) is that this organization is composed mostly of large multi-million and -billion dollar corporations. they're only acting in self-preservation.
fun for the whole family :)
so the price is about $20 for 60 minutes of cellular phone time.
would it include long distance, because a disposable cellular shouldn't be tied down to a certain area.
i guess that would be completely anonymous as well.
well of course the Dvorak isn't faster than the Dvorak. i've known that all along. :)
the discussion of catch-22 situations in this article is very interesting.
However... speed isn't everything. Massive parallellism is incredibly powerful.
now there's an interesting idea. how about getting brains to work together in parallel? I wonder how viable this idea is.