View Full Version : I am creating life, says US scientist
Von Tonner
10-07-07, 02:23 AM
This could turn out to be the biggest break through in science since the discovery of bubble gum. Seriously though, I'm all for it but I expect their will be a lot of "navel inspection", hystiria, hand wringing, etc, from all groups of society, political as well as religious.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=321259&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
I wonder if this is a break through for chemistary or biology. :hmm:
Skybird
10-07-07, 05:06 AM
I wonder where man all of a sudden should get the sense of responsibility from that is needed to help preventing that such powerful tools shall not be abused for - carefully said - questionable goals and practices.
Blade Runner, Getacca, I hear you calling.
I simply think man in no way is ripe for such powers.
I already know how to create life. :smug: My parents knew also. :p
antikristuseke
10-07-07, 06:46 AM
Well its been known from experiements done since the 50's that amino acids that form the DNA double helix can form in what is belived to be the composition of acient Aarths atmosphere and oceans so it sint really all that surprsing that we have come far ennough along that some of our brightest minds can create chromosomes. Allso this is a nice blow to the creationist camp and their mindless babble, but im sure that bunch of lunatics won't leave things to unfold on their own without puting up a fight and im pretty sure politicians riding on their votes will allso try to **** things up. Guess we have to wait and see. Interesting article.
Edit: trying to type after just having waken up is bloody prone to typos.
The Avon Lady
10-07-07, 07:18 AM
Blade Runner, Getacca, I hear you calling.
You missed one.
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8097/youngfrankensteindocsmaec7.jpg
"Space above and Beyond" had a nice one too..
first create a race of machines to do the dirty work no one else wants to do..oops forgot to give them a mind of their own..oops they developed one..and told us to "sod off"... next make the same mistake again by creating a race of "tanks" ie manufactured human beings to fight the now independant AI manchine people....oops forgot that they might have their own thoughts regarding having been manufactured to fight our battles for us ...they tell us to "sod off" too....
strange thing about the religious angle on all this is that you can't play at being god (even with a small "G")..without running into the same problems with your creations..give 'em a mind of their own??? or not??? bit of a sticky wicket that..
maybe the bible and other religious works are not quite as barmy as we would like to think...personaly i am inclined to be less hasty to dismiss them as they do throw up the same questions we are finding our selves dealing with ...a "hand book for races that want to play god" ..lol
a parable if you like...taken as such they are becoming more relevant every day rather than less relevant...mind you this is not an argument for religion...religion is a weapon of mass destruction...just an argument for some sort of middle ground..
if were going to start desiging life to suit OUR needs...hadn't we better examine what we believe our needs to be ? first? better to know now rather than later...as it's a lot harder to undo than it it actualy is to do..what de ye reckon..unless we are going to just treat life itself as if it were just another commodity in our consumer "lifestyle"....or perhaps that is why they have been ramming that word down our throats for last 20 years...to prepare us for the concept that life IS just another commodity??
anyhuw i'm sure they (who ever the hell "they" are) know what theyre doing....well there's allways a first time isn't there :rotfl:
would you let an ape loose with a chemistry set??
It's likely that this kind of thing happens in nature on a regular basis anyway.
The earth was very different when the first semi-chemical semi-biological life forms where
produced, however it is likely that is is an event that has happened, and continues to happen
every now and again. It is likely that there are plenty of places where the right
chemicals and conditions exist.
Kapitan_Phillips
10-07-07, 08:59 AM
I know how to create life too. Its called sex. :88)
Skybird
10-07-07, 10:03 AM
It's likely that this kind of thing happens in nature on a regular basis anyway.
The earth was very different when the first semi-chemical semi-biological life forms where
produced, however it is likely that is is an event that has happened, and continues to happen
every now and again. It is likely that there are plenty of places where the right
chemicals and conditions exist.
Invalid comparison.
The danger with artificially influencing genes is that we breed humans and do not see them as humans, that we create groteque abberations simply becasue we can do it, and abuse the first and/or the latter for medical purposes and slave work, and to design our own private designer babies not different to the items we buy for our luxury needs. the danger is that we create a genetic monoculture, and we know for sure one thijng: less diversity in agriculture and misture of species in a given environemnt increases their vulnerability to for destuction due to a single infection or parasite which threatens the whole population insrtead of only parts of it. Translating this to the level of a species-specific geene-pool is a risk that evben cannot be fully overseen or overestimated. And blind and uncritical optimism that is so very typical for the industry wanting to push a new product is the last thing that we need.
waste gate
10-07-07, 10:04 AM
It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form.
This guy and his 20 scientists aren't creating life. They are destroying a life so that they can make outragous claims. Its this type of behavior which shows that mankind lacks the moral and ethical underpinnings to do anything more than procreate.
It's likely that this kind of thing happens in nature on a regular basis anyway.
The earth was very different when the first semi-chemical semi-biological life forms where
produced, however it is likely that is is an event that has happened, and continues to happen
every now and again. It is likely that there are plenty of places where the right
chemicals and conditions exist. Invalid comparison.
The danger with artificially influencing genes is that we breed humans and do not see them as humans, that we create groteque abberations simply because we can do it, and abuse the first and/or the latter for medical purposes and slave work, and to design our own private designer babies not different to the items we buy for our luxury needs. the danger is that we create a genetic monoculture, and we know for sure one thijng: less diversity in agriculture and misture of species in a given environemnt increases their vulnerability to for destuction due to a single infection or parasite which threatens the whole population insrtead of only parts of it. Translating this to the level of a species-specific geene-pool is a risk that evben cannot be fully overseen or overestimated. And blind and uncritical optimism that is so very typical for the industry wanting to push a new product is the last thing that we need.
How is the comparison "invalid"?
The danger with artificially influencing genes is that we breed humans and do not see them as humans
The danger with artificially splitting the atom is that we blow our selves to bits in a
nuclear apocalypse.
Just because we study and experiment with genetics, does not mean we are heading
towards Huxley's "Brave New World".
Like nuclear technology, this kind of genetic research could be used for both good
and bad. That does not mean we should avoid it.
If you think the research in it's self, and not just it's ends, is immoral, then I refer
you to my above comparison.
DeepIron
10-07-07, 10:55 AM
That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before.
We are too immature as a species to be playing with this stuff... :nope:
With enough $$$, hypothetical turns into realization... And those who control the $$$ will control its outcome. :nope:
this is a cracker:D i'd like to throw the "Matrix" into the mix aswell (tho in a sideways and technically inaccurate fashion)..
if we are designing LIFE to suit OUR needs...thus abandoning any right to claim LIFE as a special and unique element in the universe..and one which should be respected as such...and that does include us also
then...
Whose needs are WE designed to fullfill...?
adinfinitum
are we standing in an endless hall of mirrors?
whose rules are we playing by...? should we be telling "some-one" to "sod off"???
evoloution tells us that "the ends justify the means" and i'm not sure religion really says any different..
we ought to spend a couple of hundred years thinking about this before we play this "ball"
how likely is that to happen?? zero percent..
might be a clue there..matrix style..i say we find the miserable apeths who designed us to suit their needs.. and tell 'em to "sod off"...lol...madness of course...or is it...?? danger will robinson danger...
antikristuseke
10-07-07, 11:18 AM
What seems to imply that we fill any need or that we were designed?
What seems to imply that we fill any need or that we were designed?
nothing and everything...depending on your point of view i suppose...which in a hall of mirrors is going to be at best unreliable .we have an incomplete view of the universe (to say the least lol)..the question is does the universe have an incomplete view of us?...even the evoloutionary concept exhibits some sort of pattern...some sort of objective no matter how randomly and unitelligbly arrived at...where did that come from ? why evolve at all?? if not to fullfill some sort of plan? even if it is just "survival of the fittest"...and if that 'aint some sort of a plan then i don't know what else is?
it's a hell of a circular argument i know but it's an entertaining one...we don't know...that's probably half the fun of it..we don't think about this stuff enough..we just rush ahead assuming we are sure of ourselves...assuming we have it all under control...we 'aint got "diddly squat" under control...which is where the contemplation of universe as our home (which might be construed as religious thought) comes in...gawd we aint even "potty trained" as yet (were still ****ting on our home planet) lol bit early to be playing god...
i honestly don't know..which is a relief..but the questions are great !
Skybird
10-07-07, 12:04 PM
How is the comparison "invalid"?
Neither does evolution try to design accoridng to man's ideas, nor is man's ideas reflecting the way evolution has advanced in it's own ways. Instead, man tries to artifically make evolution more natural, or in other words: replace evolution with himself.
but man does not know the man interacting, interdepending complexities that web evolution has spun is made of. For just one example, see here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=121673
Us men create life every day when we break wind, right men. :lol:
DeepIron
10-07-07, 12:28 PM
What seems to imply that we fill any need or that we were designed?
My wife says I fill her needs.... works for me... :smug: and I don't worry about the 'design" stuff. I consider Human Beings to be a "Work in Progress"...
http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/images/Seamonkeys.jpg
How is the comparison "invalid"?
Neither does evolution try to design accoridng to man's ideas, nor is man's ideas reflecting the way evolution has advanced in it's own ways. Instead, man tries to artifically make evolution more natural, or in other words: replace evolution with himself.
So....your equaly against pigeon breeding?
Steel_Tomb
10-07-07, 12:58 PM
I wonder if this is a break through for chemistary or biology. :hmm:
I believe its called "biochemistry" :know:, having done A level Biology I think this (if confirmed) is the biggest breakthrough in science since we completed our discovery of the human genome...the fact that someone can create artificial chromosomes in a laboratory is quite frankly amazing. However, creating one chromosome is one thing. Creating a complete set which will interact with eachother and reproduce (thus creating functioning, living cells) is an entirely different ball game! :doh:
TteFAboB
10-07-07, 01:33 PM
Interesting that among the promised benefits, Global Warming and Energy Sources are selected, the hot topics of the moment. The benefits certainly aren't limited only to those relative to time.
But I would like to know if anybody can provide a link with proper scientific language, because in the Guardian one I cannot see where life is being created. From what I understand from the link provided, somebody took an already existing DNA chain and decided to build a copy of it from scratch, chromosome by chromosome, leaving out a bunch of stuff, probably to reduce the work-load and time consumed. Then they took a living bacterial cell and inserted the DNA inside it, "expecting" the new DNA to take over the old one. The Guardian uses this word, expecting. I suppose they succeeded? Or is there a probabiliy involved, it may or may not work each time?
If so, nothing has been created, but reproduced. Everything already existed. The combination of chromosomes and the matter used to build each chromosome. Then massive affectation ensues and everybody starts talking about their own ficticious imagination of what actually happened, but not realizing it, everybody also believes to be talking about the same thing.
Skybird
10-07-07, 01:50 PM
How is the comparison "invalid"?
Neither does evolution try to design accoridng to man's ideas, nor is man's ideas reflecting the way evolution has advanced in it's own ways. Instead, man tries to artifically make evolution more natural, or in other words: replace evolution with himself.
So....your equaly against pigeon breeding?
Feel free to think of yourself as nothing more than a pigeon, but me - I don't buy it. Even pigeon breeding envolves natural selection of genes - it does not enforce genetic combinations that nature - if left alone - would never put together. Also, pigeons do not try to manipulate their own genes. Pigeon breeding compares to humans of different races having sex and children in the natural way.
Quiztime. Is Plutonium a "natural" element"? It was not created by mother nature, but by man, in the lab. Naturally, to our knowledge it does not exist anywhere in the nature known to man.
And how do you adress the risks of messing up genes by designing them so that a certain function if fulfilled or a certaion disease does not show up - at the price of intirducing an even greater threat to the organism, as described in that old article I referred to i my last posting? It describes things that we just have started to get an image of that they are an issue - knowing we do not much, or better: close to nothing about these links and interdependancies. and if a scientist would create life and intentionally desiogn flaws and arrors into it, even disease, to make it immune to other diseases, he would also be at war with some ethics commission.
And yes, the ethics of this all - an abyss opening up before us...
We are not ready for these things. We do not know about the powers we start to mess around with. Maybe in the future, sometime, but that is not more than a "maybe".
antikristuseke
10-07-07, 02:02 PM
Quiztime. Is Plutonium a "natural" element"? It was not created by mother nature, but by man, in the lab. Naturally, to our knowledge it does not exist anywhere in the nature known to man.
Plutonium, like all radiological elements (if not all elements), has a half-life. The most common isotope is Plutonium-239, the one used for nuclear weapons, which has a half-life of 24,100 years and is'nt found in nature because it has allready decayed. A more stable isotope is Pu-244, with a half life of 80 milin years and is the nucleon-richest atom that naturally occurs in the Earth's crust, but in very small quantities.
Im fascinated by nuclear physics and since i quit smoking (allmost a month ago) have developed insomnia so i have way too much time to look into things like this.
Quiztime. Is Plutonium a "natural" element"? It was not created by mother nature, but by man, in the lab. Naturally, to our knowledge it does not exist anywhere in the nature known to man.
No time to address the rest atm I shall leave that for tomorrow,
however.....
Yes, plutonium is found in nature. It's not common because the conditions required to
produce it are not very common and it has a somewhat short half life.
However, there is still enough around on earth to be detectable if you look for it around
uranium deposits.
IIRC it is formed through neutron exchange (?) which occurs in nature quite a lot in stars
and also a little on earth.
The earth probably had a lot of it around a few billion years ago before it all decayed.
There are no purely man-made elements.
Skybird
10-07-07, 03:31 PM
Ah. I stand corrected. I learned at school and read in (old) books that plutonium is a fully artificially created element. wikipedia just told me that this is a widespread mistake in public.
The Avon Lady
10-07-07, 11:58 PM
I'm................getting.......................w eaker................ Can't...................post...................... ....much..................longer (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM. 20070425.wkryptonite25%2FBNStory%2FScience%2Fhome&ord=5177947&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true) :dead:
Avon....thing.........your...link....is..........b roken.
*edit* nope, a few f5s later and its up.
Ah. I stand corrected. I learned at school and read in (old) books that plutonium is a fully artificially created element. wikipedia just told me that this is a widespread mistake in public.
Your school may have been correct at the time. It was created by man before it was found
in nature.
Zayphod
10-08-07, 03:06 PM
Us men create life every day when we break wind, right men. :lol:
Depends on what I had for lunch. If it's an egg salid sandwich, better stand waaaaaay back. :doh:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.