May 202010
Neato!
Created at a cost of $40 million, this experimental one-cell organism, which can reproduce, opens the way to the manipulation of life on a previously unattainable scale, several researchers and ethics experts said. Scientists have been altering DNA piecemeal for a generation, producing a menagerie of genetically engineered plants and animals. But the ability to craft an entire organism offers a new power over life, they said.
Note that this lifeform was created without the assistance of magic superpowers, thus demonstrating that pureley materialistic forces are up to the task of biogenesis. No deities required.
22 Responses to “Scientists Create Synthetic Organism”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In that song “In the year 2525” they talk about there will be no need
for a husband or wife to have a son or daughter or even possibly what he or she may look like, but in the song they talk about it being far in the
future but I think we might already be there.
Is not a modification of an existing DNA; is a brand new one.
While on one side is really a breakthrough and an opportunity, I fear that we are going a step beyond what nature intended to have.
There are so many variables and factors to consider, that I wonder how we can manage them.
Saying “we might already be there” is like saying “we’re building Saturn Vs” when you’ve just invented the wheel. We’re a LONG ways from “being there”.
“No deities required”
Not from the organisms point-of-view.
“Not from the organisms point-of-view.”
*laughs*
A deity who snapped his fingers about 6000 years ago and made everything appear doesn’t impress me. A deity who set the fundamental constants of the universe 15 billion years ago and still managed to get a small blue-green planet orbiting a distant star to develop life that can praise him, now THAT impresses me.
Creationists disrespect the deity, setting it all in motion and have it come out right despite quantum mechanics is the *hard* kind of creation.
“No deities required.
I dunno. My experience with biology and chemistry PhDs led me to accept that they *think* they are gods.
I wonder how many of the audience of the movie Flash Gordon figured out that it was Ming The Merciless, not Yahweh, that was dropping the hot hail out of the sky and causing unexpected eclipses back in Biblical Egypt also:
“Every thousand years l test
each life system in the universe.
l visit it with mysteries,
earthquakes, unpredicted eclipses.
Strange craters in the wilderness.
lf these are taken as natural, l judge
that system ignorant and harmless.
l spare it. But if the hand of Ming
is recognized in these events, –
– l judge that system dangerous.
l call upon the great god Dyzan.
And for his greater glory,
and our mutual pleasure …
l destroy it utterly.”
Without a conscious designer, this artificial life form would never have come into being.
OH WAIT
> would never
Would never? Never ever? Given that life came into existence on Earth without a conscious designer at *least* once, and quite possibly several times, and given the truly vast size of the universe and the incredible age (around 12 to 15 billion years so far, with perhaps trillions of good years left), it seems remarkable to suggest that a simple life form that was created via straightforward physical processes in a lab by a species that has really only been workign this whole “science” thing for a few scant centuries would somehow never, ever possibly come into being somewhere, somewhen, via other perfectly natural processes.
“life came into existence on Earth without a conscious designer at *least* once”
Faith-based claim; not based upon observation or falsifiable evidence
> not based upon observation or falsifiable evidence
What, really? Where have you been for the last two hundred years?
I remain astonished that there are people who actually, honestly believe that science is rubbish, to be ignored when it tells them something different than what they read in a book written by lunatics and charlatans and priests (but I repeat myself) millenia ago.
Geology, paleontology, chemistry all speak quite clearly of the genesis of life on Earth more than a billion years ago through increasingly well-undertstood and entirely natural processes. To ignore or deny such evidence… well, if there is a deity, to deny the natural world that this deity is supposed to have created, is to deny the deity itself, and is thus a greater blasphemy by far than any scientific effort to understand how the world actually is.
Sorry, but I just gotta question either the intelligence or the sanity (or perhaps the honesty) of anyone who rejects the natural world in favor of the verifiably silly. Creationism, and it’s bastard lying offspring known as “Intelligent Design,” is today as inappropriate a belief to hold as the rejection of medicine in favor of prayer.
I don’t deny the physical evidence of early life on Earth. What I do deny is:
1. materialism, the unproven (and unprovable) assumption that space, time, matter, and energy are all that truly exist;
2. atheism, a belief system which is contrary to reason (I’ll assume you’ve read the relevant portions of Aristotle and Aquinas on this topic; if not, then I’ll be happy to refer you to the appropriate texts);
3. abiogenesis, the spontaneous and stochastic generation of living matter from nonliving matter, which has never been observed and is therefore not a scientific idea; and
4. bigotry, an unreasoning and sanctimonious refusal to honestly consider any differing creed, belief, or opinion different from one’s own.
In other words, I do not reject the evidence of the past discovered by the scientific method. I do reject the materialist assumption behind the ideas of Darwin and Huxley, and I reject many of the currently popular conclusions based upon this assumption.
As for myself, I find the evidence of macroevolution to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Life has existed on Earth for a long time, and anyone who denies that is not being intellectually honest. However, the idea that the universe, with its fundamental order and finite dimension, just somehow came about by accident is absurd. It’s like astronauts finding a functional Pentium chip on some distant planet and concluding that its circuitry was the result of the random action of wind and other natural forces acting upon raw silicon. The universe is obviously an artifact. The same goes for life: the idea of something as complex as a living cell being formed by random chance is ridiculous, on par with the idea of a bar of lead spontaneously turning into Veuve Clicquot. I mean, come on.
I don’t wish to dispute this at any length; with respect, you aren’t going to change your mind no matter what arguments I might present.
And that’s okay. I’m not selling anything here. (In fact, I buy stuff from you all the time, and will continue to do so.) If it suits you to believe that the universe is a meaningless accident, and that life came about by, um, er (handwaving), that’s okay with me, too. I believed that sort of thing at one time myself.
Keep up the good work on the websites.
I liked the description on the BBC from another genetic scientist, who said it was like purging the memory of a PC and rebooting it with new operating software. Venter didn’t build the PC just reprogrammed it, given how much chemical infrastructure is in a cell (much of which is poorly understood).
Still a marvelous result, though I wish the guy wasn’t given to so much flashiness.
> materialism, the unproven (and unprovable) assumption that space, time, matter, and energy are all that truly exist;
“Materialism” is currently the only explanation that has any evidence for it.
> atheism, a belief system which is contrary to reason (I’ll assume you’ve read the relevant portions of Aristotle and Aquinas
Sorry,wrong. While I’m not an atheist, it is nevertheless a perfectly rational position to hold. There is neither evidence for a deity, nor any *need* for a deity. Thus, the rejection of a deity is no mor unreasonable than the rejection of the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible fire-breathign pink dragon supposedly lurking in one’s garage.
> which has never been observed and is therefore not a scientific idea
WRONG. Black holes were not observed. The bending of light rays by massive gravitation was not observed. Planets around other stars were not observed. And yet they were “scientific ideas” prior to their observation.
> an unreasoning and sanctimonious refusal to honestly consider any differing creed, belief, or opinion different from one’s own.
Such as “X hasn’t been observed, therefore it’s *not* science.”
> I do reject the materialist assumption behind the ideas of Darwin and Huxley
And yet history and sciecne have proven them generally correct. You reject history in favor of… what?
> It’s like astronauts finding a functional Pentium chip on some distant planet and concluding that its circuitry was the result of the random action of wind and other natural forces acting upon raw silicon.
You haven’t adequately described the environment of this other planet. On this other planet, is this Pentium chip one of billions or trillions inhabiting the surface? Are the chips capable of self-replication from local materials? Is there abundant evidence of speciation, competition and evolution among the chips?
That’s one of the major failings in that “arguement” Those who use it, use it dishonestly. We are not talking about someone finding a Pentium chip (or, more commonly, a complex mechanical pocketwatch) in complete isolation; we are talking about finding *life.* The difference here is that life is perfectly capable of reproducing *itself,* using local non-living materials to do so. Bacteria, for example, regularly take basic chemical feedstock, non-living stuff, and turn it into living stuff. Water, methane, carbon dioxide, sulfur, etc. all get converted into more bacteria. Life can start out being *exceedingly* simple, simpler by far than the most hum-drum bacteia. And there’s no clear dividing line between “this is non-life” and “this is life.” SImple self-reprodcuing chains of proteins are probably not life, but they have many of the required attributes, are on the road to life, and can be formed via purely materialistic means.
> the idea of something as complex as a living cell being formed by random chance is ridiculous
Only to someone who chooses to ignore reality, or who assumes that biogenesis would somehow require the conversion of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and the rest *directly* into a full-fledged, modern single-celled organism (a common enough belief, promoted by the likes of Hollywood) rather than through many, many small stages… ever step of which can be explained, most demonstrated.
> you aren’t going to change your mind no matter what arguments I might present.
Really? Hmmm. One of the glories of science is that when evidence comes along that contradicts long-held theories, the theories need to adjust. One of the dark evils of religion is that when evidence comes along that contradicts long-held doctrine, the evidence is either ignored or destroyed. The current crop of Liars For Christ and Liars For Allah, who deny the evidence that’s put before them, or who twist the meaning of “science” and “theory” to fit their goals, are good examples.
Here at The American Museum Of Unnatural History we are all still working to find scientific proof for the theory of Ignorant Design… that is, that any deity that would create something as screwed-up as a platypus or pathetic as a drone bee has either a sick sense of humor or is a complete dimwit.
Or latest research concerns why earthworms still drown in rain puddles, even though they have had hundreds of millions of years to learn how to swim.
As I said, sir, there’s no need to bang on and on about it. If it pleases you to live by the maxim “If I Cain’t Poke It With a Stick, It Ain’t Real”, by all means do so.
> “If I Cain’t Poke It With a Stick, It Ain’t Real”
This is one of the biggest of the many reasons why creationists annoy the hell out of me: constant dishonesty when it comes to describing their “opponants” point of view. Here’s a hint: the “maxim” you put forward has nothign to do with science. Since you have almost certainly been told that before, and had the scientific method and its findings explained to you many times by increasingly exasperated people, I can only assume that you *choose* to be intentionally dishonest about science.
You are, of course, not alone in that. There are a very great many theists of many religions who are really quite shaky in their faith; while those who are comfortable in their faith can accept science and knowledge of the natural world, it’s been my experience that those who are uncertain – yet desperate to believe – are the ones who grasp at any straw in order to despise those who believe different.
I always thought the Platypus was supposed to be “proof” of divine creation because it showed there were “parts-left-over”??
🙂 Randy
You pays your money and you takes your chances. Platypus, maybe not totally lucky, despite the kewl poisoned spurs.
Yeah, the venomous spurs are really odd (only the males have them, and people have died from getting stuck by them), and it would be interesting to know if other prehistoric monotremes had them as well, and how exactly they evolved poison glands in their feet. A modified form of some sort of territorial marking gland?
And now, for more genetics gone amuck…Britain’s ugliest cat, a creature that definitely looks like it shouldn’t be messed with:
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/827646-ugly-bertie-the-ugliest-cat-in-britain-looking-for-a-home
However, even that looks normal compared to the dog “Sam” on that page, which could have starred in a live action “Ren and Stimpy” movie.
I have my own pet theory about vortex generation. Biology takes you only so far back–chemistry only so far forward.
The Xenia, Ohio F-5 tornado had two suction vortices captured in one frame as having a double helix structure. Since a tornado is a type of updraft, one might expect something similar near smokers, which have been venting longer than a certain oil leak. A pelican–I’ll raise you a wooly mammoth at la brea.
We see evidence of strong vortices on the lee side of hummocks, as from the channeled scablands. Xenia later had one of its vortices have a twin of its own, and some tornadoes even have horizontal spin ups that seem to stick up from the sides due to high rising speeds.
I wonder if RNA and DNA react similarly, and if vortex behavior can happen at such small scales…