PDA

View Full Version : MAJOR News 'Headline' Largely Ignored Today...



ytareh
01-25-2008, 01:28 PM
Heard this on the news on the way to work today.I cant believe people are largely unaware of this and its getting such little exposure.This is 'Dolly the cloned sheep' X1000!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm

Did any of you hear today that scientists in America can now 'CREATE LIFE' (about the long and short of it ...)I guess they are responsibly waiting for the political and ethical debate before they go ahead with actual organisms but they have the genes/chromosomes made.As one person said its like basically they have the cd rom with the operating system made and its just a question of sticking it into the pc to get it to boot up...(ie putting genome into cells and 'creating' bacteria)

OK so we dont have space colonies on the moon etc but sometimes we dont realise how fast that technology is moving forward....

Haigotron
01-25-2008, 01:34 PM
as a microbiologist, I can say: holy ****!!! really interesting find there

Pirschjaeger
01-25-2008, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:

Did any of you hear today that scientists in America can now 'CREATE LIFE'

Read the article again. It's only step 2 of 3 steps. They haven't created life yet, only the genome. The first step was completed years ago. Now comes the hard part.

Fritz

MEGILE
01-25-2008, 02:02 PM
Great work.

If they are Synthesizing the genome, I assume they can ensure it won't be pathogenic.

An interesting thing, will be watching the organism evolve. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MEGILE
01-25-2008, 02:05 PM
Other changes the team made to the synthetic genome included disrupting a gene to block infectivity

My powers of scanning failed me miserably http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

johnbn
01-25-2008, 02:05 PM
LOL


Did any of you hear today that scientists in America can now 'CREATE LIFE' (about the long and short of it ...)I guess they are responsibly waiting for the political and ethical debate before they go ahead

Unless these "scientists" are unfortunate enough to have something wrong with their reproductive systems then it would be safe to assume that they could create life without any major media exposure. Why they are "responsibly waiting for the political and ethical debate" is beyond me. Me thinks they are using this as a smokescreen for their commitment issues!

Viola, see how things can be taken out of context!


the team will attempt to create a living bacterial cell based entirely on the synthetically made genome.

Please everybody note that is a "CELL"

That makes up the insy bitsy teeniest weeniest bit of a living organism.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is not a giant step forward in the Genome race to produce an artificialy created indestructable warrior soldier but FFS lets get things into context!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
01-25-2008, 03:04 PM
Class, reach for your copies of Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN.

Here in the U.S. we have been testing genetically altered produce on the population before it was extensively tested in labs for years, and we haven't come near assimilating the data, and now we are ready to leap into the unknown with humans.

Definitely the most important story.

gdfo
01-25-2008, 03:17 PM
I got them beat. I can create life. Have already done it. I did it the old fashioned way. LOL more fun also

Pirschjaeger
01-25-2008, 03:46 PM
Leitmotiv,

Venter and his team have already mapped the human genome. Their work has been really interesting and worth looking into.

I remember, although vaguely, years ago they had mapped out two especially interesting organisms. One single celled creature could be obliterated with enough radiation to kill three grown men. Given a little time, this organism somehow managed to reassembly itself.

The other one was a bacteria that in theory could digest nuclear waste. The problem was the radiation would kill the bacteria.

So, there was an idea of manipulating the dna of both organisms with the intention of creating a hybrid that would digest nuclear waste and survive.

Real science makes sci-fi a bit boring. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fritz

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-25-2008, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Class, reach for your copies of Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN.

Here in the U.S. we have been testing genetically altered produce on the population before it was extensively tested in labs for years, and we haven't come near assimilating the data, and now we are ready to leap into the unknown with humans.

Definitely the most important story.

Leap into what with humans, they made a single cells genome, where do humans come into this? The goal of this sort of thing is to create bacteria that can eat waste, or produce fuels or medicines. This has nothing to do with human experimentation. Also show me the proof that genetically altered food was sold to people without lab research.

M_Gunz
01-25-2008, 04:07 PM
When you might be able to tailor cells to produce/recycle materials including medicines then
it is a very great step in human terms.

And of course there is the negative potential that be sure some nutcases will decide to develop
and some paranoid/power-mad state or group, or black-ops department will support. All that
political activist groups can do by shutting it down in the legal labs is to make sure that
when the evil mo-fo's do come out with something is that there will be no one able to counter
it! Just IMO that's what we've been seeing with the new flu's and diseases, secret lab work.

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-25-2008, 04:31 PM
Wow, genetic science really brings out the whack-jobs, lol.

Pirschjaeger
01-25-2008, 04:32 PM
By the way, creating a single celled organism is one thing, but what about getting it to live up to the standards of "life"? Will it reproduce by itself? Will it actually have life or will it be an organic machine (organic megananobots). There's a lot more to life than just chemical reactions.

I hope we get Friendly-Flyer's thought on this.

Something I've always wondered with GMO foods. They say there's not risk or no effects. Well, many GMO foods are designed to mature for harvesting and a much higher rate than natural foods. Is it possible this can have a long term effect?

Well, two points;

First, you are what you eat.

Second, when I went to school, before GMO foods, 10 year old girls didn't have breasts.

Incidentally, this worked in my favor since as a student my attention span was already rather short. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

leitmotiv
01-25-2008, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Class, reach for your copies of Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN.

Here in the U.S. we have been testing genetically altered produce on the population before it was extensively tested in labs for years, and we haven't come near assimilating the data, and now we are ready to leap into the unknown with humans.

Definitely the most important story.

Leap into what with humans, they made a single cells genome, where do humans come into this? The goal of this sort of thing is to create bacteria that can eat waste, or produce fuels or medicines. This has nothing to do with human experimentation. Also show me the proof that genetically altered food was sold to people without lab research. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the post: "without adequate testing". Do you really believe this science will be limited? That's like believing atomic physics in 1900 would have been limited. Brave new world.

Pirschjaeger
01-25-2008, 05:07 PM
On the upside, this would get us closer to bringing back recently extinct species, such as the Tazmanian wolf. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fritz

heywooood
01-25-2008, 06:01 PM
build me an army...worthy of Mordor

Airmail109
01-25-2008, 06:03 PM
WERE ALL DOOOMED DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOMED

Von_Rat
01-25-2008, 06:16 PM
OH **** NOT AGAIN!!!!


thats like the 3rd time this month we've been dooooomed.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gifon these forums at least.

SeaFireLIV
01-25-2008, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Yes, Aimail.

Actually, my daughter and I saw it yesterday. She got very moralistic about it and serious. I was impressed considering she`s studying all that science stuff at the moment..

bah. We probably have Human experimental clones walking about already. Anyone noticed extremely tall women walking about lately?


We`re far from creating Humans, imho. Very far. But if we can, at least we have a new set of servants to make our tea and fight our wars for us! We`ll have to brand them of course so we can tell them apart and they get no weird ideas about equality.

Messaschnitzel
01-25-2008, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Yes, Aimail.

Actually, my daughter and I saw it yesterday. She got very moralistic about it and serious. I was impressed considering she`s studying all that science stuff at the moment..

bah. We probably have Human experimental clones walking about already. Anyone noticed extremely tall women walking about lately?


We`re far from creating Humans, imho. Very far. But if we can, at least we have a new set of servants to make our tea and fight our wars for us! We`ll have to brand them of course so we can tell them apart and they get no weird ideas about equality.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that, Leon? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Airmail109
01-25-2008, 06:41 PM
I was semi joking/semi serious.

Seriously there are so many things that could wipe us out, I generally think humanities boned so I laugh at all of them. Everytime a new story like this comes out no matter how serious or grave it is they become more amusing for me.

I'm positive in a twisted way.

Von_Rat
01-25-2008, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Yes, Aimail.

Actually, my daughter and I saw it yesterday. She got very moralistic about it and serious. I was impressed considering she`s studying all that science stuff at the moment..

bah. We probably have Human experimental clones walking about already. Anyone noticed extremely tall women walking about lately?


We`re far from creating Humans, imho. Very far. But if we can, at least we have a new set of servants to make our tea and fight our wars for us! We`ll have to brand them of course so we can tell them apart and they get no weird ideas about equality.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no problemo just hire some bladerunners.


dam someone beat me to it.

roybaty
01-25-2008, 07:01 PM
Well seeing as a gamma ray burst could fry the planet without notice... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by Aimail101:
I was semi joking/semi serious.

Seriously there are so many things that could wipe us out, I generally think humanities boned so I laugh at all of them. Everytime a new story like this comes out no matter how serious or grave it is they become more amusing for me.

I'm positive in a twisted way.

Airmail109
01-25-2008, 07:05 PM
Only a nearby Supernova would instantly wipe us out.

In the event of a Gamma Ray we could always pump tonnes of Ozone into the atmosphere after.

buzzsaw1939
01-25-2008, 08:28 PM
Ahh.. Who would do the pumping?... I can relate to your twisted side Aimail, I think thats what I like about you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
01-25-2008, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Only a nearby Supernova would instantly wipe us out.

Are there any nearby stars big enough? But then a regular Nova close by would ruin the day too.

Niven's Known Space series has the Galactic core going chain reaction -- only 20,000 years to
wipeout!

M_Gunz
01-25-2008, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
OH **** NOT AGAIN!!!!


thats like the 3rd time this month we've been dooooomed.


Takes you back to the 80's, doesn't it? Crisis of the week? Sometimes Crisis Du Jour ala Mode!

Feathered_IV
01-26-2008, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Great work.

If they are Synthesizing the genome, I assume they can ensure it won't be pathogenic.

An interesting thing, will be watching the organism evolve. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

How long until it is strapped to the head of a frickin shark?

Airmail109
01-26-2008, 05:25 AM
In 20 years we'll have organic brains embedded in computer chips, be sure.

They've already put one in an F-16.

MEGILE
01-26-2008, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:

How long until it is strapped to the head of a frickin shark?

Come again?

(not you dux)

Sergio_101
01-26-2008, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Wow, genetic science really brings out the whack-jobs, lol.

===Obviously===

Skoshi Tiger
01-26-2008, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
On the upside, this would get us closer to bringing back recently extinct species, such as the Tazmanian wolf. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fritz

If there was one thing that mankind did that should be undone it would be the extinction of the thylacine. It was the first time that Humans had actually planned to make another species extinct and carried it out successfully. (All the other extinctions caused by an were non-intentional)

The Tasmainan govenment at the time put a bounty that was the same as 2 weeks average pay for each 'Tiger' scalp. They did't protect the tiger until 30 years after the last one was seen in the wild and all in captivity had died.

I'm very dubious about the ethics of creating new life, but on my wish list bring back the thylacine is fairly high.

Outlaw---
01-29-2008, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that, Leon? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What's a tortoise?


--Leon.


<click>

Friendly_flyer
01-29-2008, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
By the way, creating a single celled organism is one thing, but what about getting it to live up to the standards of "life"? Will it reproduce by itself? Will it actually have life or will it be an organic machine (organic megananobots). There's a lot more to life than just chemical reactions.


The bacterium whose genome they have recreated is among the simplest living things on Earth. The DNA is typically in the micrometre range (milionth of a metre), while the human genome is around 4 metres in comparison. This puts the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium in the virus genome size range.

Vira aren't really alive. In order to be classed as living, an organism have to fulfil 5 points:

- It must be able to grow
- It must be able to use something
- It must be able to excrete something
- It must be able to reproduce
- It must be able to evolve

Point 2 and 3 is really the same point, and could just be summed up as "it must have an internal chemical process going".

Now, fire actually fulfils all points but the last. Fire today isn't any different from fire a thousand, a million or a billion years ago. Thus fire is lifelike, but does not live. Virus doesn't have any internal chemical process, thus it isn't alive either, despite being quite lifelike too. This is why you can't cure a virus infection with antibiotica. Since vira aren't alive in the first place, they can't die.

Other "organisms" with a questionable life status are nanobes. They are small bacteria- or fungi-like like "things" forming on rock, but they are below the size of even vira. They are simply to small to hold any DNA or other cellular machinery like ribosomes. If they are alive, it's not life as we know it. Yet they grow and behave very lifelike. When you get down to micrometre scale, chemistry, geology and biology are hard to tell apart. Physical processes we think of as life processes goes on all around. In living organisms matter is organized so that these microscopic processes are linked together and reproduced on a macroscopic level, but the processes themselves are not "life processes" per se.

So, will an organism produced by this artificial DNA be alive or just fancy chemistry? The question is unanswerable, as life and fancy chemistry is indistinguable on such a scale. The litmus test of "lifehod" will be to see it will grow and reproduce. If it does, it's a matter of seeing if evolves. Being a DNA organism, I would be surprised if it didn't (if they can make it grow and reproduce in the first place). If so, it will be alive by any any standards we know.

Pirschjaeger
01-29-2008, 01:35 PM
Thanks for the explanation Petter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I've studied all this in the past but although I understand it, I don't have the language to discuss it in detail.

It's good to have a resident biologist on hand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
01-29-2008, 03:26 PM
*Blush*

The interesting question is whether it's actually possible to make a growing, reproducing bacterium. You need at least 6 things:

- A DNA we know will work (they seem to have that one down)
- A cell wall
- A cell membrane (makes themselves given the proper solution).
- Bacterial ribosomes (should be fairly easy to make as they are just bits of RNA rolled up on proteins).
- A functional transfer RNA system (may be a bit tricky)
- A suitable plasma

Then it's just hoping that a mesosome area of folded membrane will evolve and metabolism get going. All this sounds fairly straight forward, until one consider the all this has to be constructed on nanometre scale, and that we haven't yet quite found out how all this biochemistry works. The problem here is linking reactions, making the breaking down of food force ADP into ATP and so on. I'm not saying it won't work, just trying to quantify the implication of Fritz' "there's a lot more to life than just chemical reaction".

Pirschjaeger
01-29-2008, 04:06 PM
To be honest, although I have a good imagination, there is no way I can imagine man creating life from the lifeless.

If we used what we know of life, then there's a point where somehow something lifeless become alive. That is, in my opinion, the most important missing link that will never be found.

I think that life is something that is way beyond our capabilities and probably always will be. The essence of life will be what will always seperate our organic machines from natural life.

Like the universe, life is just something that has always been; no end and no beginning. Life is part of the universe will will continue to be, with or without us.

I can't explain why, but I really don't think life can create life (reproduction doesn't count as creating life). Maybe there is only one life and we are all just a miniscule part of it, like a super-string is to a galaxy.

Life is energy and like energy, we can manipulate it, but we cannot create it.

I know this is new territory, but it's a hunch. We'll only know when we finally have the one theory that explains everything.

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
01-30-2008, 02:47 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if we could. Life isn't driven by some mysterious, unknown substances, it's everyday stuff doing everyday things. Making cell membranes has been possible since the 50'ies, now we can make DNA and ribosomes will probably follow shortly. Most of what life does lifeless matter does on its own, given the right circumstances. The trick is to link these processes together so that they pull in the same direction.

We managed to send men to the Moon in the 60'ies. We managed to clone mammals in the 90'ies. We can already make simple vira. Who know what we'll be able to do in the coming decades? The process of making something living will not be to make super organisms, it will be to learn more about how life works. It's a bit like cloning. We can make what is basically an identical twin to an animal with a very costly, uncertain and complicated process, but it has limited use as we can just let the critters breed instead. The same goes for making bacteria: Why make one when there's billions of billions of them around us. Perhaps building a living bacterium will help teach us how life got started in the first place.

Pirschjaeger
01-30-2008, 03:03 AM
If I were to compare a bactria cell to a car as an example, I can draw some interesting parallels to support a question. I'll explain.

It can be argued that a bacteria cell more complex than a car. No bacteria, no car; IE- evolution of cells to organisms to oil for rubber. But complexity has nothing to do with my question.

Imagine you have all the parts to build a car. Before starting assembly, it is not a car and won't be recognized as a car, but instead, car parts. At what point, during the assembly, does they become an it? When does the collection of parts become a car? If you take a fully assembled car and remove the engine, it doesn't work, but we will still call it a car.

This is the same question I have with creating simple life, such as a single celled being. We can build the various parts, but at what point will it become a live cell, equating life?

Also, are qwe truly creating? Or are we borrowing parts of life? If we are borrowing parts of life, does this then mean we are only manipulating life?

Who would have ever though a single cell could be so confusing? Just rhetorical. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
01-30-2008, 03:37 AM
That's actually the easy part to answer. It is "living" by the scientific definition when it performs the 6 actions detailed abow on it's own.

Pirschjaeger
01-30-2008, 04:01 AM
Ha ha ha, ok Petter. You are right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm having a hard time expressing myself. Ok, let's try it a different way. Apply those 6 factors to yourself, or even a cat. On those 6 factors alone, is that, in your opinion, all that's needed to be "life"?

I feel that life is far more complex than the complexity of those 6 factors. Maybe I can call it "the essence of life".

When I look at the eyes of another species, let's say a dog or a gorilla, there is an undescribable feeling that tells me that being is a being. There is some sort of connection. But, if I look at a photograph, that feeling is gone. Know what I mean?

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
01-30-2008, 06:16 AM
The name of the game in science is reductionism. Would you still be alive if you couldn't speak? If you couldn't walk? The answer is obviously yes. What about if you couldn't think? Well, spongs and jellyfish are alive and well without thinking, so thinking is not a necessary part of being alive. And so on and so on.

The definition of life I offered is made to include all forms of life, from you or me to cabbage and mould and bacteria. Life with just those 6 factors isn't much, but than again neither is the life of Mycoplasma genitalium. It just sits there in its hosts cells, eat what comes in it's way and occasionally divides.

To return to your car analogy, what does a thing need to be a "car"? For the sake of the argument, let's say it needs:

- An engine that can be started and stopped
- Wheels that will be moved by said engine.
- Perhaps we should ad that it need to carry all its parts.

Not let's return to your heap of parts. What do we need to put together to make it fulfil those criteria? I guess mounting the frame, fasten the engine in any odd place (there should be enough nuts and bolts to go around in that heap) and find a way to connect it to the wheels. Just strap the rest on the frame. Then it's patrol and a battery and we are ready to go.

Does it look like a car? No.
Does it perform the required functions? Yes.
By our own definition it is a car.

Let's say we constructed a cell along this line of reasoning. At first it would be a "Franken-cell", mere parts doing a cell-like job. It would probably only be able to live under very controlled condition (just like the car that can only run at one speed and has no form of steering). However, unlike the car, the cell will be alive, and being an DNA-organism, it will start to produce variants. Soon, evolution will get going (evolution acts very fast on life forms with short generations) and more efficient forms of the bacterium will appear. It may take tens or perhaps or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, but evolution will eventually transform your Franken-bacteria into efficient living organisms.

Pirschjaeger
01-30-2008, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
[i]Mycoplasma genitalium[/i

Plasma and genitals!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Say it ain't so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sorry Petter, I couldn't let that one pass.

Ok, let me ask another question, almost the same. Do you personally feel that life, and I'm not talking about the 6 factors, can be synthetically created by man?

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
01-30-2008, 06:32 AM
Ah, I see what this is about. This is a matter of sematics, isn't it? By "life" you mean the same as in "he lived a good life", or "ah, this is life". The answer is naturally no. The life you talk about is not a physical entity, it is a philosophical one. As such, it's outside the realms of natural science.

About genitals, I'm afraid the little bugger lives in the ciliated cells of our urogenital tract. It doesn't hurt us much though.

Pirschjaeger
01-30-2008, 07:27 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

From now on, I'm only drinking cold water. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We tend to see all life in relavance to our own but I can forgive us for that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I've often wondered how wrong we might be. When I consider our limited knowledge of the complexity of the universe and that what we know is a grain of sand in a vast desert, I wonder how it is that we can feel so sure that we can identify all life. I can compound our ignorance just by adding the fact that we are still very much Earth bound.

To take parts of life and put them together, yes I believe we can assemble life. But, by creating those parts and then assembling them, I just feel something will be missing something.

I just can't imagine we will ever truly create life. I link the universe has a certain amount of everything, and that includes life.

I don't know if you understand. I find my thoughts are very hard to express.

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
01-30-2008, 07:53 AM
You're usually not lost for words, Fritz.

It's funny you bring up the concept of Earth-bound. The current definition of life came about partly as a result of trying to make "life detectors" for the Viking Mars missions. Early tests included looking for certain molecules, like methane, proteins or DNA. In the end NASA realized they where asking the wrong questions. Could life exist without DNA? Does life need to be based on carbon? Current "life detectors" just want life to grow. It's a step forward.

All this begs the question: Is there actually life on this planet that we don't recognise as life because of our protein/DNA/carbon bias? What about the nanobes that seem to grow out of rock, yet don't seem to have DNA? Could they be "life before life", doing all the right lifelike things, yet not evolve because they lack a mutateable governing system, so that they "live" now as they did 4 billion years ago?

And what are your criteria for "making life"?

Let's assume we can make a bacterium work. If it escapes from the laboratory and start to make itself a living in the wild. Will it then be alive?

Let's assume we could make Eukaryote life (e.g. an amoeba), with all it's complex systems of bacteria-like mitochondria and a functioning Golgi apparatus. Let's say it lived and divided and made short work of the intestine of an unfortunate scientist that happened to swallow some. Would it be alive?

What if we made a multicellular being, like a flatworm, creeping about eating itty bitty pieces of raw liver and othervise doing flatwormy things? Would it be alive?

What about a fish that actually swam and spawned and ate what you gave it? Or a frog? Bird? Shrew? Baboon? A human that after a decade of teaching would be able to walk and talk? Where do you draw the line for "making life"?

Pirschjaeger
01-30-2008, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
You're usually not lost for words, Fritz.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

So true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Current "life detectors" just want life to grow. It's a step forward.

That makes more sense to me than the 6 factors previously mentioned.


Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
All this begs the question: Is there actually life on this planet that we don't recognise as life because of our protein/DNA/carbon bias? What about the nanobes that seem to grow out of rock, yet don't seem to have DNA? Could they be "life before life", doing all the right lifelike things, yet not evolve because they lack a mutateable governing system, so that they "live" now as they did 4 billion years ago?

And what are your criteria for "making life"?

That's what I'm trying to figure out but with each idea I am placing a limitation on my own imagination, not to mention the unknown possibilities.


Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Let's assume we can make a bacterium work. If it escapes from the laboratory and start to make itself a living in the wild. Will it then be alive?

Let's assume we could make Eukaryote life (e.g. an amoeba), with all it's complex systems of bacteria-like mitochondria and a functioning Golgi apparatus. Let's say it lived and divided and made short work of the intestine of an unfortunate scientist that happened to swallow some. Would it be alive?

What if we made a multicellular being, like a flatworm, creeping about eating itty bitty pieces of raw liver and othervise doing flatwormy things? Would it be alive?

What about a fish that actually swam and spawned and ate what you gave it? Or a frog? Bird? Shrew? Baboon? A human that after a decade of teaching would be able to walk and talk? Where do you draw the line for "making life"?

This brings me back to the "missing link", not the popular idea, but the link between something that is non-living to where it becomes living. Before we could figure out that link, we first have to decide what it means to be "alive".

I don't have a clear criteria for "life". To be honest, I think it would be silly and even arrogant for the brightest scientist to create a criteria. Maybe it's a case of "We'll know it when we see it."

Maybe it's time categories for life were created rather than putting all life into one package. The only problem is that we might not know enough to create these categories.

I submit "Terrestrial/Carbon/DNA".

Sub category "Terrestrial/Carbon"

No doubt someone has already done something similar. Have you heard of this Petter? Maybe the most important criteria would be "evolution". Anything that evolves must be alive.

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
01-30-2008, 09:31 AM
Well, there's vira. They evolve as fast as anything, yet they are not alive. The simplest are just a nude string of DNA or RNA, something that can quite easily be thrown together in a laboratory. Computer vira evolve too, and though they are bad news to a computer, they aren't alive. Evolution alone don't life make!

As for just growing as sign of life, minerals grow by absorbing the right kind of molecules. Thus they "eat" and "grow", splinters can even trigger new crystal formation, making for "reproduce", but they don't evolve. Perhaps the nanobes fall into this category.

Fire "eat", it "defecates" (ash, CO2), it propagates (sparks), but doesn't evolve. Fire is just a chemical reaction. Actually, it's the same reaction that drives you and me. In a way itęs part of what makes a living being, but it's not life per se.

Trust me, the whitecoats have put a lot of thought into this.

BSS_AIJO
01-30-2008, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
By the way, creating a single celled organism is one thing, but what about getting it to live up to the standards of "life"? Will it reproduce by itself? Will it actually have life or will it be an organic machine (organic megananobots). There's a lot more to life than just chemical reactions.

I hope we get Friendly-Flyer's thought on this.

Something I've always wondered with GMO foods. They say there's not risk or no effects. Well, many GMO foods are designed to mature for harvesting and a much higher rate than natural foods. Is it possible this can have a long term effect?

Well, two points;

First, you are what you eat.

Second, when I went to school, before GMO foods, 10 year old girls didn't have breasts.

Incidentally, this worked in my favor since as a student my attention span was already rather short. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz


Hey,


There is a Penn & Teller BS episode about GMO foods, and supposed frankenfoods. Thing is they are not nearly as prevalent as the end of the world crowd would like folks to believe.
As for breasts on 10 year old girls, the meat and dairy industry can easily be blamed on this one. The way that the dairy industry is loaded with hormones to keep the nasty side effects of hellish feed lots and factory farming is a freaking joke.

BSS_AIJO

Friendly_flyer
01-30-2008, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by BSS_AIJO:
The way that the dairy industry is loaded with hormones to keep the nasty side effects of hellish feed lots and factory farming is a freaking joke.

BSS_AIJO

Amen to that!

Von_Rat
01-30-2008, 12:14 PM
As for breasts on 10 year old girls, the meat and dairy industry can easily be blamed on this one. The way that the dairy industry is loaded with hormones to keep the nasty side effects of hellish feed lots and factory farming is a freaking joke.

im no expert on this. but ive been given to understand that good nutrition is responsable for children maturing earlier.

Friendly_flyer
01-30-2008, 12:22 PM
That seem to be the case. In bushmen, that go hungry for periods and live from things we wouldn't think contained enough nutrient to even be worth chewing, sexual maturity takes place quite late, around 15 years.

GreyFox5
01-30-2008, 12:30 PM
Were all going to die sometimes. Live life now or you may not get to all the things you want to do...

Messaschnitzel
01-30-2008, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Plasma and genitals!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Say it ain't so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif
Fritz

Plasma and genitals = phased-plasma rifle in the forty watt range. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

na85
01-30-2008, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by johnbn:
LOL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did any of you hear today that scientists in America can now 'CREATE LIFE' (about the long and short of it ...)I guess they are responsibly waiting for the political and ethical debate before they go ahead

Unless these "scientists" are unfortunate enough to have something wrong with their reproductive systems then it would be safe to assume that they could create life without any major media exposure. Why they are "responsibly waiting for the political and ethical debate" is beyond me. Me thinks they are using this as a smokescreen for their commitment issues!

Viola, see how things can be taken out of context!


the team will attempt to create a living bacterial cell based entirely on the synthetically made genome.

Please everybody note that is a "CELL"

That makes up the insy bitsy teeniest weeniest bit of a living organism.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is not a giant step forward in the Genome race to produce an artificialy created indestructable warrior soldier but FFS lets get things into context!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unicellular organisms abound in nature.

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-30-2008, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
You're usually not lost for words, Fritz.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

So true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Current "life detectors" just want life to grow. It's a step forward.

That makes more sense to me than the 6 factors previously mentioned.


Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
All this begs the question: Is there actually life on this planet that we don't recognise as life because of our protein/DNA/carbon bias? What about the nanobes that seem to grow out of rock, yet don't seem to have DNA? Could they be "life before life", doing all the right lifelike things, yet not evolve because they lack a mutateable governing system, so that they "live" now as they did 4 billion years ago?

And what are your criteria for "making life"?

That's what I'm trying to figure out but with each idea I am placing a limitation on my own imagination, not to mention the unknown possibilities.


Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Let's assume we can make a bacterium work. If it escapes from the laboratory and start to make itself a living in the wild. Will it then be alive?

Let's assume we could make Eukaryote life (e.g. an amoeba), with all it's complex systems of bacteria-like mitochondria and a functioning Golgi apparatus. Let's say it lived and divided and made short work of the intestine of an unfortunate scientist that happened to swallow some. Would it be alive?

What if we made a multicellular being, like a flatworm, creeping about eating itty bitty pieces of raw liver and othervise doing flatwormy things? Would it be alive?

What about a fish that actually swam and spawned and ate what you gave it? Or a frog? Bird? Shrew? Baboon? A human that after a decade of teaching would be able to walk and talk? Where do you draw the line for "making life"?

This brings me back to the "missing link", not the popular idea, but the link between something that is non-living to where it becomes living. Before we could figure out that link, we first have to decide what it means to be "alive".

I don't have a clear criteria for "life". To be honest, I think it would be silly and even arrogant for the brightest scientist to create a criteria. Maybe it's a case of "We'll know it when we see it."

Maybe it's time categories for life were created rather than putting all life into one package. The only problem is that we might not know enough to create these categories.

I submit "Terrestrial/Carbon/DNA".

Sub category "Terrestrial/Carbon"

No doubt someone has already done something similar. Have you heard of this Petter? Maybe the most important criteria would be "evolution". Anything that evolves must be alive.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically the confusion lies between a purely "scientific" definition of life and a more philosophical/spiritual definition. As a Pagan I have avoided the whole delima as I beleive that all things, animate and inanimate carry a spark of the divine, in all things the created carries the essence of the creator. Hence the phrase "as above, so below". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Friendly_flyer
01-31-2008, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Basically the confusion lies between a purely "scientific" definition of life and a more philosophical/spiritual definition. As a Pagan I have avoided the whole delima as I beleive that all things, animate and inanimate carry a spark of the divine

You are right about the sematics of the thing. With "life", most people think of multicellular or even animal existence. For a biologist like me, that is extreme multicellularism. 9 out of 10 weight units of life on Earth is unicellular, perhaps more.

The problem with the "spark of the divine" thing is that there is no way to point to it. It solves the problem of creating life philosophically, but that doesn't help the scientists. The actual creation of a living organism is a practical problem, not a philosophical one. The philosophical question is whether we actually should. The scientists thet worked with the Mycoplasma genitalium DNA, being nice and responsible people, have acknowledged that they are biologists, not philosophers hand has left that debate to others.

From your (and Fritz) point of view, it can be argued that life is an inherited part of all matter, hence creating life is merely bringing forth the life that is already there. My point of view, that life is just organized chemistry, is in a way very similar: The linked chemical reactions we call life is an inherited property of carbon chemistry.

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-31-2008, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Basically the confusion lies between a purely "scientific" definition of life and a more philosophical/spiritual definition. As a Pagan I have avoided the whole delima as I beleive that all things, animate and inanimate carry a spark of the divine

You are right about the sematics of the thing. With "life", most people think of multicellular or even animal existence. For a biologist like me, that is extreme multicellularism. 9 out of 10 weight units of life on Earth is unicellular, perhaps more.

The problem with the "spark of the divine" thing is that there is no way to point to it. It solves the problem of creating life philosophically, but that doesn't help the scientists. The actual creation of a living organism is a practical problem, not a philosophical one. The philosophical question is whether we actually should. The scientists thet worked with the Mycoplasma genitalium DNA, being nice and responsible people, have acknowledged that they are biologists, not philosophers hand has left that debate to others.

From your (and Fritz) point of view, it can be argued that life is an inherited part of all matter, hence creating life is merely bringing forth the life that is already there. My point of view, that life is just organized chemistry, is in a way very similar: The linked chemical reactions we call life is an inherited property of carbon chemistry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did a much better job of explaining what I was trying to get at as well, that the two views are very similar in their way. Is it not the ultimate imitation of divine creation (however you believe that creation happened) to take that spark that is in all things (chemistry included) and create life? Some debate on whether we should, is it moral to create life, I don't have that problem, those chemicals already held that spark, whether e put it together is such a way as it meets those six criteria posted earlier is simply not a spiritual issue, it's a purely scientific one (unless you want to consider the ability to "animate" the divine spark as a sign of our "spiritual evolution", although spiritual evolution and moral evolution tend to go hand in hand and thats obviously not the case these days, lol)..

Pirschjaeger
02-01-2008, 01:32 PM
Petter and Urufu,

yep, that pretty much explains it. Like Ufuru, I believe the pieces of life are everywhere, even if not assembled, they are still there.

I wonder if it is possible to put those pieces together, get the 6 factors, yet still be missing a vital piece.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with man either doing or trying this. If we can, then it's meant to be. It's what we've evolved to do.

Fritz

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-01-2008, 01:56 PM
I wonder if it is possible to put those pieces together, get the 6 factors, yet still be missing a vital piece.

If I follow you correctly that "vital peice" you speak of is most likely soul or spirit. But if all things have an inate spark of life as we agree then would not those assembled peices with the 6 requirements already have that "vital peice"? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-01-2008, 04:00 PM
Nope, you didn't quite get me.

I don't mean a soul or a spirit. I mean something that we possibly haven't yet identified.

But then I guess we won't know if we're missing something until there's a failure. I just have a feeling they are going to be missing something and I don't mean a soul, spirit or pixie sparkles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-01-2008, 04:11 PM
lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Copperhead311th
02-01-2008, 06:07 PM
Personally i can't wait for this technogy to hurry up and advance. i'll sepnd my entire lifes savings on a adult size Jessica Alba clone in a heartbeat. and not regret it for a second. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://www.jessicaalbafan.net/gallery/jalba19.jpg

http://www.jessicaalbafan.net/gallery/jalba21.jpg

http://www.jessicaalbafan.net/gallery/jalba13.jpg

http://www.jessicaalbafan.net/gallery/jalba7.jpg


Then i'll clone myself. then i'll live forever!
the part ot the whole male midlife crisis where your wondering about your legacy and what you'll leave behind will be taken care of, becuase in affect you'll still be here. geneticallly speaking that is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Messaschnitzel
02-01-2008, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Personally i can't wait for this technogy to hurry up and advance. i'll sepnd my entire lifes savings on a adult size Jessica Alba clone in a heartbeat. and not regret it for a second. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Careful what you wish for. I present to you the Jessica Alba clone models MK I and II. As you can see, the science department is still ironing the bugs out of the design. When the guys come back from lunch, they'll get right on it and start working on the MK III clone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.maya-rose.org/images/rosie.jpeg

Friendly_flyer
02-02-2008, 05:01 AM
Again you'll have to point to what is lacking in order to answer the question, Fritz. Saying that such an organism "lacks something" won't help us, as long as we can't put the finger on it.

My question is: Do a "natural" bacterium (lets say an E. coli) "lack something" to be fully alive in the first place?

Friendly_flyer
02-02-2008, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
i'll sepnd my entire lifes savings on a adult size Jessica Alba clone in a heartbeat. and not regret it for a second.


The problem with a Jessica Alba clone is that it will look like this:

http://baby.lovetoknow.com/wiki/images/Baby/thumb/1/1a/Newborn_sleep.jpg/300px-Newborn_sleep.jpg

leitmotiv
02-02-2008, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Personally i can't wait for this technogy to hurry up and advance. i'll sepnd my entire lifes savings on a adult size Jessica Alba clone in a heartbeat. and not regret it for a second. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Careful what you wish for. I present to you the Jessica Alba clone models MK I and II. As you can see, the science department is still ironing the bugs out of the design. When the guys come back from lunch, they'll get right on it and start working on the MK III clone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.maya-rose.org/images/rosie.jpeg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I regret to report that Messaschnitzel was premature in demonstrating the Alba clone debacle---this is what the female on the left looked like two weeks later...


http://www.flyingdiamondlonghorns.com/images/2005%20heifers%20in%20lot%20015.jpg

Pirschjaeger
02-02-2008, 05:09 AM
Jessica Alba's real name is Maggie Campbell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
02-02-2008, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I regret to report that Messaschnitzel was premature in demonstrating the Alba clone debacle---this is what the female on the left looked like two weeks later...


http://www.flyingdiamondlonghorns.com/images/2005%20heifers%20in%20lot%20015.jpg

That's scary, particularly since that is a bull

Pirschjaeger
02-02-2008, 05:24 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

leitmotiv
02-02-2008, 05:27 AM
I though that would raise some eyebrows!

Messaschnitzel
02-02-2008, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I though that would raise some eyebrows!

You should hear the leaked transcription of the dialog between the doctor and the clone patient when things went awry:

Doctor: "I'm surprised you didn't come here sooner."

Clone: "It's not an easy thing to meet your maker."

Doctor: "What could he do for you?"

Clone: "Can the maker repair what he makes? I want the equipment that I used to have returned to me."

Doctor: "The facts of life... to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established."

Clone: "Why not? I started out being a girl. a really fugly girl, but a girl nonetheless.""

Doctor: "Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship, then the ship sinks."

Clone: "What about EMS recombination? I really miss my,..my you-know-what."

Doctor: "We've already tried it, ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkalating agent and potent mutagen, it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table."

Clone: "Then a repressor protein, that would block the operating cells. This was not my idea. I wanted to have an innie, not an outie."

Doctor: " Wouldn't obstruct replication but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation and you've got a virus again... but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you."

Clone: "But not to last. Look, I didn't sign on to play up to a perverted scientist's chicas con pingas fantasy, you schlemiel!"

Doctor: "The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long and you have burned so very, very brightly Roy. Look at you, you're the prodigal son, you're quite a prize."

Clone: "I've done questionable things, and I'm about to do another...you schmuck!"

Doctor: "Also extraodinary things, revel in your time."

Clone: "Nothing the God of goofed up bio-mechanics wouldn't put you in heaven for!"

The rest of the transcription sounds as if someone was getting the stuffing stomped out of them. Very nasty indeed.

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 10:38 PM
If I knew ahead that I was going to need a heart and some arteries and having such grown from
one of my own skin cells with zero or near zero chance of rejection... or a kidney, whatever.

Does anyone have a problem with that? I mean, besides that it's me who would stay alive?

It wouldn't keep you going forever, even using seeded skin/stem cells to repair where surgery
cannot replace. How many diseases and tragedies could be recovered from? It boggles the mind.

What they have now is like a bead abacus compared to what may be in 50 years or so.
If you're under 50 and things work out then you may be in luck when you'll need it the most.

OTOH you can also block any chance of that over what someone might do.

Without advances like that at the start of this post and barring another dark ages, some day
it may come to be like the sci-fi stories where there's "part banks" kept full from prisons
and "chop shop" kidnap jobs. "But at least there couldn't be Clones!"

Badsight-
02-04-2008, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
- It must be able to grow
- It must be able to use something
- It must be able to excrete something
- It must be able to reproduce
- It must be able to evolve

ok , i get the reasoning behind those 5 . but what about Mules

the hybrid of donkeys & horses

unable to reproduce - is their a way of reconciling them into the 'alive' list ?

M_Gunz
02-04-2008, 08:04 PM
Life examined by Erwin Shrodinger (http://dieoff.org/page150.htm)

If you don't know who he was, it may be worth finding out. A mind of a level with Einstein.

PaulV2007
02-05-2008, 10:29 AM
Any room for alternate views here on the origin of life and whether we can or should create it?

Expelled (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf)

Aaron_GT
02-05-2008, 11:57 AM
If they are Synthesizing the genome, I assume they can ensure it won't be pathogenic.

It's the minimum parts of E.Coli that can synthesise enough proteins to not die, provided you bathe it in a soup of sufficient nutrients, so not likely to be pathogenic.

Aaron_GT
02-05-2008, 11:58 AM
Venter and his team have already mapped the human genome.

Arguably it was done by the Sanger Centre. Debate rages to what extent each discovered it.

Aaron_GT
02-05-2008, 12:00 PM
When you might be able to tailor cells to produce/recycle materials including medicines then
it is a very great step in human terms.

Venter suggests applications such as sequestering carbon or producing biofuels.

Pirschjaeger
02-05-2008, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by PaulV2007:
Any room for alternate views here on the origin of life and whether we can or should create it?

Expelled (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf)

I'd think all views are welcome here. At least by me.

Fritz