Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form

Originally posted by rajaten
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

They cheated, they just removed the dna then replaced it with a synthetic version, still keeping the cells original structure and organelles. EPIC FAIL.

If they are going to create life they need to spawn it from entirely synthetic components. What they have done is just the same as removing someones lungs and giving them an artificial biolung then claiming "WE CREATED A NEW LIFEFORM"

Disappointing...

[edit on 21-5-2010 by rajaten]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by rajaten]

True.
I guess it would be more apt if it was classified as a "Cyborg". Since it's true claim to fame is that it has synthetic components.
The line seems to be blurring right before my eyes.

reply to post by rubyeyes


actually if you believe the anunnaki theory, then we are technically designed as a slave race with a lot of defects. they could care less what defects we have as long as we work hard.

This is an amazing accomplishment but one must remember that they did not create life from scratch. They started with an existing cell from nature and replaced it's DNA with manipulated DNA created from existing DNA components. This is similar to cloning which has been around for decades.

I would wager that getting specific cells to do specific functions, e.g. produce valuable proteins or drugs will be hard because one wrong gene could mean failure or cell death. Still as far as genetic engineering is concerned they are certainly "pushing the envelope".

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


Yes, they used an existing cell, but it was a dead cell.

Here's a link to the original paper as published in "Science":
Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

What an incredible achievement.
Typical that religious groups have condemned the work, but in my opinion they are very wrong. Firstly don't they claim that only God can create life? Then they also say that all of mans abilities are God given, and therefore I assume, approved by God. So man creates life with his God given abilities and is condemned for being truely "in the image of God".
The hypocracy of the church never fails to astound me.

..and people wonder how the gray aliens came to be!

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

So we have created living organisms that would never have existed before.

You know.. that's the same thing God said to an Angel when Humankind was first made.

Over and over Science proves the possibility of God and still refuses to admit it.

In another thread people talk about science teleporting information over ten miles distance. Some might call that prayer.

The more we can duplicate God like abilities, the more one must rationally say, Yes, there could be something to this God being.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

did you just compare altering the spin of a particle that is entwined with another and measuring the change over 10km with telepathically speaking to a nonexistant being? I think you just did. Please tell me you are joking.

Oh.. Is that what they did in that other thread.. I asked someone to explain it to me in plain english and no one did.. I couldn't understand from the post how they teleported information from point A to point B. perhaps if you understand this go to that thread and write me a nice explanation. ( also it's not been proven that God is a nonexistant being) The idea that teleporting info over 10 miles distance seemed akin to prayer to me without better understanding of exactly what was happening.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

Is this the steps that lead us down the Akira road.

Originally posted by grantbeed
Now religion is out of the picture, lets move on shall we??!!

what? so a man uses God given skills and talent, God given resources and elements, and God given opportunity to develop a new technology and suddenly we dont need God any more?

Religions are not just to know how we were made... in fact religion is pretty damned bad at explaining the "how" of anything.

Faith in trying to understand why - not how.... much to the chagrin of both fringes of the debate.

reply to post by Navieko


yeah my mind takes me off to a place also lol

I predict these synthetic life forms will eventually evolve to a point where they will cease to believe in, dare I say, Man.

This has been going on for a long time. All it means is that scientists have played around trying to "minimize" what's necessary for a bacterial genome.

Just so everyone knows, this is almost entirely biologists and biomedical engineers (like myself) MASTURBATING. There's practically no use for this. The only potential application is to reduce bacterial models to the simplest form such that spliced genes can be studied with the fewest possible variables.

In one sense, people have been able to mass-manufacture life for decades. A few years ago I worked at a vaccine plant, and we grew Pneumococcus bacteria by the bushel. The techniques described in the article would require growing bacteria as a prerequisite; they don't describe being able to produce ribosomes or phospholipids from scratch. (Ribosomes are required to turn genetic material into proteins and phospholipids make up the cell's membrane, or 'wall' so to speak.)

So what's new here is making genetic code "from scratch", not the organism itself. And while that's great, a bacterium is one thing. Eukaryotes, particularly advanced ones like plants and animals, are something else entirely. They have far more organelles, and orders of magnitude more genetic material. About 1,000x more, to be exact (prokaryotes: 1-10Mbp, eukaryotes: 1-10pg, one picogram is about 1000 megabasepairs).

Thus, 1) I wouldn't call these bacteria "synthetic" so much as "programmed". 2) This means nothing in regards to creating "designer babies" from scratch as opposed to checking individual genes and replacing them with the desired trait.

I probably won't check back, but it anyone wants more clarification or an expert opinion on something, U2U me.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Well it is not obsession. It's humans being humans.

Originally posted by TruthSeeker8300

For all that have or would bash god because of this, you need to grow up.

Grow up and accept, without question, that a magical man in the sky created the universe one day because he had nothing better to do. Sounds reasonable.

Originally posted by TruthSeeker8300

"Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally."

A god? So he believes in many gods? Also, no this is nothing close to the ability of the Father in heaven. God created all things just by speaking them into existence. This scientist is taking something that is already alive and using it to make something else. Speak something into existence being perfectly made and then I'll be impressed. For all that have or would bash god because of this, you need to grow up.


I'm a Christian and I'm all for science. I'm for genetic engineering, cloning, using adult stem cells, as long as it can help the human race. There is nothing to be afraid of or create a debate over, because GOD knows the future. He knows their plans, their thoughts. He knew us before we were born.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by TruthSeeker8300]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by TruthSeeker8300]

No free will then. We are all pre-programmed according to God's plan. That's nice.

Your assertion that the cells were already alive is a nice attempt to avoid the awkward truth : this research in itself disproves the existance God. Time for "you" to grow up and leave religion in the past where it belongs.

I suspect the "definition" of God will change to accommodate this rather then folks being honest enough to face their fears that cause them to believe in supernatural beings.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Is it nicknamed Morgellons by any chance?

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

So we have created living organisms that would never have existed before.

You know.. that's the same thing God said to an Angel when Humankind was first made.

Over and over Science proves the possibility of God and still refuses to admit it.

In another thread people talk about science teleporting information over ten miles distance. Some might call that prayer.

The more we can duplicate God like abilities, the more one must rationally say, Yes, there could be something to this God being.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

did you just compare altering the spin of a particle that is entwined with another and measuring the change over 10km with telepathically speaking to a nonexistant being? I think you just did. Please tell me you are joking.

Oh.. Is that what they did in that other thread.. I asked someone to explain it to me in plain english and no one did.. I couldn't understand from the post how they teleported information from point A to point B. perhaps if you understand this go to that thread and write me a nice explanation. ( also it's not been proven that God is a nonexistant being) The idea that teleporting info over 10 miles distance seemed akin to prayer to me without better understanding of exactly what was happening.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

JohnPhoenix,

As someone who has a good understanding of prayer AND quantum teleportation - I do indeed think you made an apt comparrison!

The only one being unscientific is JScytale who asserts that a priori that he has some hidden proof that God does Not exist.

The existanxe of Quantum Communication (FTL communication) and the evidence of a starting point of our Universe (The Big Bang) actually do lend support to possibility of an intervening exo-biological entity - who created a very fine tuned universe.

Absolute Proof? - of course not - and if there was absolute proof then they're wouldn't be free will/choice and there wouldn't be much point to man's creation anyways - now would there?

May I assume, JScytale, that you believe in the non-existing multiverse in an attempt to dismiss the implications of the Anthropic principle?

I thought as much!

scientists havent created shyt. when was the last time scientists created multiple elements that could be used in combination to form the basis of a cell. No, theyve borrowed and arranged...thats it....theyre forking posers...every last forking one of them.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


i read about this in the times newspaper today. it's one hell of an achievement in it's own right, but it's the implications and potential consequences that should be considered. it's probably way too late already, today's news is merely the basic info that TPTB will let joe bloggs know - be on the lookout for nano-mecha-cyber-goo!

N23

[edit on 21-5-2010 by twentythreedom]