Fascinating and thoughts provoking research.
I'm against patenting genetic finds but this breaktrough is worth protecting for a few years until scientific community and states agree on how to deal with the possibility to create new species.
AFAIK all deities are artificial, read we still have to see the slightest shred of a proof of their existence. If Venter were to be a god, he would be the first/only real one.
quote:Bacteria could be created, he speculates, that could help mop up excessive carbon dioxide,
That sounds like a terrible idea (y'know unless the world is about to succumb, or something, I s'pose).
quote:I'm against patenting genetic finds
I'm against patenting anything. If you want to protect something, don't show it to people - better yet don't advertise its existence and the enormous possibilities.
Will have to think more about what I think of creating organisms in general... probably won't be a fan. I thought making goats that produced spider silk was irresponsible (and for what? Profit.).
Ooh! A palpable step. IMO, a step well overdue. I'm excited.
Tyberius Prime
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 10-07-2007 16:56
well... there's a lot more to a living cell than just a complete dna... there's a reason these things multiply by
division, not by 'assembling a smaller copy'.
So even if Craig can assemble a complete chromosome, which by the way is a looooong step
from 'synthesized a complete chromosome de-novo', more like a patchwork of existing elements,
he'll still need a host to plant it in...
Anyhow, if we weren't meant to tinker with this stuff, genomes would be encrypted better.
We have manipulated our complete surroundings since we've been around, breeding animals
is not much different from most 'genetic manipulation' (with the added bonus that genetic
methods can combine spiders and goats .
"creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth." No it is not.
Wake me up when they have created their equivalents of ribosome, vesicle, golgi apparatus, mitochondria, vacuole, cytoplasm, lysosome, centrioles etc. There's more than just DNA/RNA to a cell. How can they call it creation of artifical life if they change only a tiny part of an existing life form.
"creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth." No it is not.Wake me up when they have created their equivalents of ribosome, vesicle, golgi apparatus, mitochondria, vacuole, cytoplasm, lysosome, centrioles etc. There's more than just DNA/RNA to a cell. How can they call it creation of artifical life if they change only a tiny part of an existing life form.
Define life. Not all cells have all the organelles you specify. Red blood cells are alive yet they do not even have a nucleus nor mitochondria. Bacteria do not have mitochondria either. And viruses? Phages? Some are nothing more than glorified strings of DNA.
So again, the real question is what is life? Did Venter create life? I don't think so. Only God can create life - but then again is there a God, is there such a thing as creation? or is it all about evolution?
On the other side of the coin, let's see what will come out of this technology - let's hope for the best.
Define life. Not all cells have all the organelles you specify. Red blood cells are alive yet they do not even have a nucleus nor mitochondria. Bacteria do not have mitochondria either. And viruses? Phages? Some are nothing more than glorified strings of DNA.
To me red blood cells may be alive but they aren't a separate life form. I would be satisfied if they could create something that eats, replicates and is able to evolve. This is pretty much how I define life. But for it to be artificial it would have to be made from scratch.
quote:To me red blood cells may be alive but they aren't a separate life form. I would be satisfied if they could create something that eats, replicates and is able to evolve. This is pretty much how I define life. But for it to be artificial it would have to be made from scratch.(Edited by Arthurio on 10-08-2007 09:26)
Yeah, I see your point. I doubt we'll see what you are expecting in our lifetimes.
Tyberius Prime
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 10-08-2007 18:14
Red blood cells can't reproduce (they even loose their dna when differentiating from stem cells into red blood cells).
Regular biological definition of life is 'has a metabolism and reproduces' - which excludes viri, red blood cells, and some other phenomena.
A phage is nothing but a virus that attacks a bacterial host.
Progress in biology is fast these days - dna sequencing becomes cheaper every day, and there are a lot of interesting
techniques just at the horizon - I wouldn't be suprised to see that we master a more complete 'cell assembly' during my life time.
And after all, it doesn't matter if you need to have other cells that produce the necessary surroundings. It only counts
that it does what you want it to do
There is no such thing as a "regular biological definition of life"....that is so carbon based life form of you.
If you're saying that red blood cells are not alive, trust me you will be challenged by every biologist on the planet. They are very much alive. The ability to reproduce should not be a factor - many insects can't reproduce - only the queen.
As for metabolism? Not only do red blood cells have metabolism during their short life span but they also produce substances. Just because they don't have mitochrondia doesn't mean they don't need energy - they do, like all living tissue - but they get there energy from anaerobic pathways. It's ALIVE!
Ok now for red blood cells not having any DNA? Well that's true, they don't have a nucleus either, but it's only true for mammals (which are not the most prolific creatures on earth) - that's right, other vertebrates do have DNA in their red blood cells.
posted 10-07-2007 00:53
AFAIK all deities are artificial, read we still have to see the slightest shred of a proof of their existence. If Venter were to be a god, he would be the first/only real one.
.
