Creating first synthetic life form

"We have these genetic codes that we have been determining, so part of the proof is reproducing the chromosome and seeing if it produces the same result," he said.

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

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

Creating first synthetic life form

<snip>Work on the world's first human-made species is well under way at a research complex in Rockville, Md., and scientists in Canada have been quietly conducting experiments to help bring such a creature to life.

Robert Holt, head of sequencing for the Genome Science Centre at the University of British Columbia, is leading efforts at his Vancouver lab to play a key role in the production of the first synthetic life form -- a microbe made from scratch.

The project is being spearheaded by U.S. scientist Craig Venter, who gained fame in his former job as head of Celera Genomics, which completed a privately-owned map of the human genome in 2000.

Dr. Venter, 59, has since shifted his focus from determining the chemical sequences that encode life to trying to design and build it: "We're going from reading to writing the genetic code," he said in an interview.
<snip>

=================================================================
My comments (plagerized/copied and not at all original - but endorsed as "mine")

May take a while as 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 - plus - can simply synthesizing a chemical sequence be called starting life if you use parts created as living before you start?

Does zapping open a cell host bacteria - or opening in some other way - and pulling out old DNA so as 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.

But this is a great step in proving evolution.

expect and are certain it is the output you want was always taught as bad design in my day - and in this case could kill us all.

It's not just a rhetorical distinction. Living beings are not generally "created from scratch." They self-assemble from small seed grants provided by the previous generation-- a small collection of some complex macromolecules and biological polymers provided by a parent and some information in the form of genes- all life thus extends in an unbroken chain back to the earliest self replicating ancestor(s). Embryonic animals and plants assemble themselves using a tiny amount of biochemical machinery bequeathed to them by their parents and their own unique sets of genetic instructions-- some parental organisms provide varying degrees of support during the process, an event that we call "pregnancy"-- but each living thing nonetheless self assembles in all but the most miniscule beginning-- and that beginning is provided by its mother. Sort of like a lunch box and an erector set, packed into a single cell.

Providing a new genetic blueprint to an existing zygote's "factory"-- the bit usually provided by the mother-- is the de novo creation of a new living species, presuming it's viable. This is creation of life in the "making a baby" sense, at least from my biologist's perspective, with the added wrinkle that it creates not only a new individual, but also a new form.

It's not the same as "creating life from scratch" if by that you mean creating life from non-living precursors. Not only is that a whole different matter, it's one about which we have only rudimentary guesses regarding the rules and processes. We know quite a bit about the mechanics and biochemistry of creating life from life-- we're only able to push this particular envelope because we've learned so much in the last 75 years or so-- but we are still at a much earlier stage regarding the creation of life from dust.

to "Creating first synthetic life form" - which while it still does not capture "not creating life from scratch", I thought better than the original.

"And they called me maaaaaaaad at the Institute!"

...created life, Myself.
I mean, I've...ah..."cultured" some stuff in the rear of my Refrigerator for many months.
I can even hear it late at night.

AAGGGGK..WWWOOOO-OOO-OO!

Can we vote for it in 06?

:-)