Globe & Mail: Creating first synthetic life

ETA: Y'know what, I am the king of all idiots. Could I get a mod to move this over to Science, please? --JN

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/



...and it's about bloody time, too.

The fundies... will.. go... beserk.

They need to assemble around 500,000 DNA chemicals as that is the size of the DNA currently in the cell membrane (roughly 35,000 has been the record so far).

They have no clue if the result will be viable - can simply synthesizing a chemical sequence be called starting life if you use parts greated as living before you start?

Does zapping open a cell host bacteria to fill it with new DNA mean the ability to start life is now a human power? What does breaking down the DNA of Haemophilus bacteria, a bug common to the upper respiratory tract, into 19 separate pieces and inserting it into the shell of an E. coli, commonly found in the human gut, really mean if the result is able to reproduce. Has life been "created" if you do not start from scratch?

Redesign of micro-organisms for specific tasks is neat - but is it making life?

We do not know how 300 or 400 genes work together to yield a simple living cell, so a tear down and rebuild is of course a start - on something. :-)

Indeed one fellow notes "Given the choice between eternal matter or an eternal mind, in light of the evidence for the beginning of the universe a finite time ago in the Big Bang and the fine tuning required to develop a life sustaining planet, the pendulum has swung dramatically towards the notion that Mind preceded Matter. Most people call that Mind God: the eternally existing uncaused cause of our universe (e.g. the I AM of the Bible).
The atheist must answer the question, "Who put the material in materialism?" before he addresses the great question of life: "Who Pasteurized the primordial soup?" The only missing ingredient is information, something that Craig Venter knows he has to add to Stanley Miller's flask."

If life is "made" in the lab we will have learned an enormously complex process the atheist will say happens by chance and the theist will say did not happen by chance - there will be no change in the debate.

You may now return to feeling smug and superior to all us dim-witted non-believers.

"God".

We all have blind spots in our thinking - except you and I of course - and I really do not like to say that someone is dim-witted if they do not see their blind spot. Rather I embrace the fact that we all have "faith" as part of our life - I do hope we all have "faith" is a "fact".

It is hard to remember the moving target of today's definitions of faith/belief/atheiest/agnostic in this forum. Or to follow the logic or lack thereof in those definitions.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Birthday to come or past, Happy Festivus, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Solstice, and a Happy New Year!

:-)

:toast:

:-)

The "argument from ignorance" is not a slam on you, it is the logical fallacy that you keep presenting whenever a discussion like this comes up.

Here, read and learn:

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_by_lack_of_imagination

In an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something clearly proven to be accurate is nonetheless false, implausible, or not obvious to him personally (or that something clearly not proven to be accurate is nonetheless true); or he attributes such a belief to the world generally; examples of the above are, "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that...". The speaker will sometimes continue by using this assertion, without any logical foundation or empirical evidence to support its validity, as a premise which then "evidences" and supports his conclusions, despite that it is merely an untested assertion which still needs its own evidence in order for any conclusions which are based upon it to be logically valid.

heck is that different from what I responded to - a personal attack that says I am correct ("clearly proven")and you are wrong and are using bad logic.

ONE MORE TIME - "I forgot you have faith in your being correct about no "God"

CAN WE SAY CLEARLY PROVEN IS YOUR WORD FOR THE FAITH I SEE YOU EXPRESSING IN YOUR BEING CORRECT?.

"We all have blind spots in our thinking - except you and I of course - and I really do not like to say that someone is dim-witted if they do not see their blind spot. Rather I embrace the fact that we all have "faith" as part of our life - I do hope we all have "faith" is a "fact"."

THE FACT ("CLEARLY PROVEN")THAT YOU HAVE A BLIND EYE TO YOUR FAITH IS IN EFFECT SAYING YOU ARE USING THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE DEBATE TECHNIQUE. I THOUGHT IT AMUSING TO SIMPLY USE YOUR OWN APPROACH TO THIS DEBATE - NAMELY TO SAY THE OTHER PERSON IS INTO ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

"It is hard to remember the moving target of today's definitions of faith/belief/atheiest/agnostic in this forum. Or to follow the logic or lack thereof in those definitions."

POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY THING OUR POSTS DO WHEN WE POST TO ONE ANOTHER! :-)

"Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Birthday to come or past, Happy Festivus, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Solstice, and a Happy New Year!"

AND I MEAN IT - I DO HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY! AND I CERTAINLY DO NOT EXPECT EITHER OF US TO THINK THE OTHER CORRECT AFTER THE HOLIDAY!

:toast:

:-)

You could not address your use of the argument from ignorance, so I can only assume you don't understand that you are using it.

:silly:

:-)

Are we just a collection of building blocks or are we something else?

I'm not talking about ID or anything like that, but "life" as we know it (Thanks Spock) may have a dimension beyond mere chemistry and physics.

It's just that our limited scientific vocabulary may not have imagined it.

And I'm not saying that religion provides the key (religion has been so wrong on so many aspects of science) but we need to expand our boundaries beyond what we're already thinking.

As many, many science fiction stories have said, we are but children on the shore of a huge ocean, trying to figure out what the boundaries really are.

is that this line of research might just end up answering it.

If the science-hating religionists don't squash it first, that is.

It can only be driven out of the US.

Like a lot of things.

it exists!

:argh:

after a success - if there is one.

They are not starting from scratch but are taking a living cell as a host and changing the DNA and then hope by zapping with a current they will get a response

Proving?

Perhaps only proving a living cell can take any DNA - even DNA mutated outside of the cell and in effect designed by people - and make something out of it.

More of an evolution experiment.

But very interesting.

Has any progress been made on getting a membrane to become a cell wall? Or of working out why throwing DNA into the cell causes the cell to reproduce - ie., to live?

Last I looked we can't get a cell wall. And are so far with no path - beyond let's zap a current - to getting a plan that will turn the cell wall turned on so that it does anything.

Why do they think the prior living cell wall is turned off as to "living" just because they give it the equivalent of an oil change?

Calling this making life is a bit of a stretch.