Scientists have created the world’s first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that paves the way for designer organisms that are built rather than evolved.
The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m, was described by one researcher as “a defining moment in biology”.
Craig Venter, the pioneering US geneticist behind the experiment, said the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines.
However critics, including some religious groups, condemned the work, with one organisation warning that artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or be turned into biological weapons. Others said Venter was playing God.
People wouldn’t have to “play God” if God existed. God could play God himself. Until he decides to start existing, humanity will take up the slack.
This is terrifying and awesome and way cool. :)
I came across this comment about the breakthrough that I found interesting.
That’s a good comment, Pete Schulz’s work seems to be much more advanced than Venter’s but Venter is looking towards the practical and commercial side of the technology, at least what is practical in the near future.
Pete Schulz is a scientist looking to advance knowledge.
Craig Venter is a technologist looking to apply science.
(although there is always an overlap between the two)
“However critics, including some religious groups, condemned the work, with one organisation warning that artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or be turned into biological weapons. Others said Venter was playing God.”
Why can’t we play god if we can play doctor?
But……but………
Doctors hand’s are being guided by God…………..right???
Of course, just like God made the atheist Thomas Edison create light bulbs. That’s why, after a skilled professional saves your life, you never have to thank them, just praise God!
Fundies no like playing doctor, either, so it’s OK.
“But……but………
Doctors hand’s are being guided by God…………..right???”
You ask the wrong person.
‘God could play God himself. Until he decides to start existing, humanity will take up the slack’.
That’s where he ‘shows up’, ie in humanity, that’s his dwelling place. Can’t you ‘see’ the difference between us, surely you can, surely you have. Why we’re as different as night and day.
One of these things is not like the other…
Christ in you, the mystery of the ages. Col 1:27
Quoting the Bible to atheists is like quoting the Qur’an to Christians. They see that it’s a load of bullshit and disregard it. In short, GTFO godbotter.
Actually, I’m a Poe.
That would really be something, wouldn’t it?
I’m in the Guinness book of world records under the category ‘longest running Poe’.
Now, back to my Poe’troll…
Okay, I’ve been on here for a few months now and I keep hearing the word ‘Poe’.
It’s a Bible troll right? Someone who just pretends to be religious to get a reaction right?
Where the hell does that word come from?
There is a nice explanation about Poe’s Law in the rationalwiki:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
“ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.
Then, by extension, a Poe is someone parodying a fundamentalist without being too obvious.
An interesting corollary to the law:
“Any new member of the CP [Conservapaedia] project who’s not as Conservative as them is liable to be chucked out. However, any new member who is as Conservative as them is in serious danger of being called a parodist, and chucked out. Is this the first living example of a Poe Paradox?”[3]
Two flavours (although 2 may be known as a corollary of 1):
1) If a fundie tells you he believes something really crazy, then you can’t tell whether he’s joking.
2) If you make up something really crazy, some fundie or another will believe in it.
I’ve always had a problem with people accusing biomedical researchers of “playing God”. I feel that if they were trying to be like God, then they would be devising ways to give people (or their children/other loved ones) diseases in order to “teach them a lesson” or “test their faith”. Or to intentionally cause a birth defect for similar reasons. I believe that research aimed at eradicating disease, pain, and suffering is very much the exact opposite of “playing God”.
If we were playing God we’d be killing firstborns in Egypt.
Cool.
I find the idea of creating “watermarks” written on the DNA so that their descendants can be identified, very interesting and it makes me optimistic about this technology.
I’m not god but I play one on TV? I’m not god but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night?
Next stop: CYLONS!
Resistance is futile?
They have a plan…
“The controversial feat… has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m”
Aha! So what they’re saying is (20 scientists) + ($40×10^6) = 1 God.
Then (obvious)
(20 scientists) + ($40×10^6) + 1$ > God
(21 scientists) + ($40×10^6) > God.
If X=1 scientist, Y=$1 and Z = God, solve (21X)+((40*10^6)Y) = Z to give the exact fraction of one standard God represented by:
a) One scientist, and
b) One US dollar.
These twenty scientists did in ten years what it took God half a billion years to do.
Therefore, 200 scientist-years = 500,000,000 God-years.
Therefore, 1 scientist-year = 2,500,000 God-years.
Conclusion: God is a slacker.
An almighty slacker, you might say.
I’m not sure what the fuss is about. They talk as though he took a lab full of reagent chemicals and made a bacterium. Instead he used the functioning (non-nuclear) parts of a cell and copied another nuclei and inserted it. We’ve been copying DNA for decades. Yes, copying the whole DNA info of a cell is interesting and the fact that it worked is fascinating, but it’s a million miles from making a new organism from scratch. If this is playing at God, then it’s a pretty unambitious god!
The point is, they designed the DNA -the complete DNA- in a machine. We have been copying existing DNA or modifying little bits of it, but Venter’s project was much more ambitious.
What really is disturbing godbots is that, well, it is another proof against anything non-material in life.
He did not copy a DNA, he did sequence a new DNA strand just like a programmer would. The machine just put the chemicals in the right order. It means from now on we can actually program a DNA by typing in the letters without need of the original DNA to copy from.
Where does it say that he programmed the DNA? My versions said he copied the DNA of another organism. Obviously he wrote a few bits of watermark into the 90% junk that makes up the DNA but where does it say that he sat down and designed this?
The quote from Science where this info came from is
“The synthetic genome created by Venter’s team is almost identical to that of a natural bacterium. It was achieved at great expense, an estimated $40 million, and effort, 20 people working for more than a decade. Despite this success, creating heavily customized genomes, such as ones that make fuels or pharmaceuticals, and getting them to “boot” up the same way in a cell is not yet a reality”
Not quite the new life that the media is buzzing about.
He copied the program of the bacterium and created the DNA from scratch using DNA strands that you can buy.
He did not suck the DNA from another cell then replicate it 1000 times and then inject.
He did look at the original DNA sequences bought the DNA strands needed and assembled them in sequence. And then Injected it. It is a proof of concept.
Next step will probably try to create the DNA yourself without need of buying the strands.
It is not life -> modify -> Life
But Life -> DNA smash-up in thousands of pieces and lifeless -> Combine lifeless DNA -> Life.
Note with dead DNA I mean DNA that cannot reproduce because it fell in thousand peces.
Olaf, my point exactly. He didn’t much change or design the DNA. He read it, replicated it off the shelf and inserted it. Amazing, but far from designing an organism.
Oh, good – life forms that repair our disasters – now we can destroy the earth all we want.
I’m thrilled that this kind of thing is happening, but do not see it improving our lot to any significant degree as long as we keep churning out more people that we cannot care for. And as long as we have religion, there will be no significant questioning of peoples’ right to overrun the earth with their most important possessions – their children.
How about creating a gene that limits the number of children one can have? We could issue a modification to anyone who wins the Nobel Prize. Actually, I think we should start with something that will consume and fix carbon dioxide.
Sure we will inject you first.
And made a fortune selling it to china.
wait $40m? Am I the only one who thinks that this is a bargain.
Nope.
I have a question to those of you posting to this article. How come everyone here seems so excited about an “intelligent designer” (in this case 20 of them) creating a synthetic organism; yet you totally dismiss the idea of an “intelligent designer” creating the things that we see today (i.e., life, the universe, etc.)? At the very least it seems like this break-through should be evidence that it apparently takes an “intelligent designer” to create something and it just doesn’t happen from chance.
In short, the comments I’m reading here don’t seem to match the comments I’ve seen in other places on this site.
The experiment is interesting in itself because it will have several practical applications. As for the theological aspect, I fail to see how the involvement of scientists is evidence for the necessity of some divine intelligent designer. Scientists created this semi-synthetic life by using the building blocks and mechanisms (ie. physics/chemistry) nature allows. That they were successfull in their attempts doesn’t in any way mean nature couldn’t create life on its own through similar physical/chemical processes.
What they’ve done is a step towards demonstrating that life can arise purely from natural processes. What they’ve not demonstrated are the actual events that originally led to life arising. This is where you go wrong.
Anyway, how would you expect scientist to study the preliminary steps to creating life? Using a controlled environment, in the form of a laboratory where experiments can be tested, measured, and repeated consistently, is the only realistic option available.
My comment was not in reference to “the actual events that originally led to life arising”. Instead my focus was on exactly what you confirmed–”Scientists created…”. Isn’t this “intelligent design”? Your statement about “demonstrating that life can arise purely from natural processes” is wrong. This didn’t naturally happened. This was initiated by those scientists. I don’t understand how you can classify it as anything else.
Again, I’m not knocking the accomplishment they achieved nor am I questioning the means in which they did it. My only focus is on the fact that “they” did it.
In 10 years some farmer will type in some keys and will ask for weed, brown and grow in 10 days. The computer kicks in, looks in the database for the needed DNA sequences and start building the DNA strand just like your inject printer. This DNA strand gets copied a million times and creates your seed.
No intelligence required, just a set of recipes how to build the DNA strand fragment and compiles it into a living cell.
You keep equating observation and process.
Demonstrating the existence of some phenomenon is not the same as saying it can only occur under the circumstances by which you produced it – which is what you’re saying in this case.
If someone demonstrates in a lab that they can combine simple molecules into, say, amino acids, it is not evidence that amino acids can not be produced by natural processes (they can).
Likewise for Venter’s experiment: demonstrating that it’s possible to bring life to a dead cell by inserting an artificially assembled chromosome is an illustration that life is a chemical process. Of course they created this life under artificial circumstances – the process would have been impossible to control in a natural environment – but the principles of what they discovered applies universally. Specifically, the principle that life is really just chemistry – which means natural processes by themselves may be responsible for creating life. No magic life-essence from a god is required.
@olaf & trj, but what both of you seem to gloss over is that initial decision–that initial action to get the process going. I’m not suggesting that things happen by magic. I totally understand chemistry. In fact, it is a vital part of the order of the physical world. But my point was the “initial decision”. In olaf’s example, someone/something had to ask for “weed, brown, and grow in 10 days”. In this article’s example, the 20 scientists rewrote a DNA strand and used it as a starting point. In both cases, a process then took over and did the rest.
In fact, I really do like olaf’s example because computers are a prime example of what I’m talking about. Computers can do virtually anything. They are amazing machines and their output is usually consistent. The only thing is that beneath all that processing power, they are really dumb. They can only do what they are programmed to do. In short, they need input from some outside source–they need to be told what to do. Once they get the input they need, they can process as normal until that input changes. But the key point is until that input was provided, the process could not proceed. This is the same thing we are discussing here. I’m initial comment focused on the input, your responses are focused on the process. I would really like to hear your thoughts on the “input”.
My point is simply this: The specific starting conditions are seldom what is important when you construct an experiment that illustrates naturally occurring processes (chemistry, physics, biology), and I’ll venture this is also true in this case. Whereas you seem to think the starting conditions are an argument against life having a natural beginning. Indeed, you say it’s evidence against it.
However, I find this conclusion to be completely unsubstantiated. It’s a non sequitur.
Compare it to artificial selection where individuals of a species are arbitrarily selected for breeding. Artificial selection does not, as the name implies, occur in nature. However, it is none the less a good illustration of how natural selection works because the principles are exactly the same. The specific results differ (nature would not have produced all the exotic dog species on its own), but the general mechanism is exactly the same whether we’re talking artificial or natural selection.
As for comparing living organisms and computers I find the comparison flawed. A computer can’t propagate, nor can it change it’s own hardware or rewrite its basic software in order to adapt. Furthermore it is a deterministic construct designed for a predefined, specific purpose, all completely unlike a living organism. In short, it is nothing like an organism. A better comparison would be A-life, which is artificial “life” emulated in software. However, A-life models evolution, not abiogenesis (origin of life), so it’s not really applicable in this discussion (although it does demonstrate quite effectively how simple evolutionary processes can produce complexity and change without any intelligent intervention).
I see no reason why input from an intelligent designer is required in order to start life. You have no basis for claiming the necessity of a designer (let’s face it, we’re talking about God here) other than “irreducible complexity” which has been refuted whenever it has been used in concrete examples. And we don’t observe an intelligent designer in any other natural processes. So the “input” you’re asking for would be naturally occurring chemical processes. Maybe some catalyst in a crystaline substrate that used UV-radiation from the sun to create a precursor RNA with the ability to transcribe itself accurately in one of every few million cases. Here is another – quite technical – partial suggestion.
I’m really interested by your comment:
“That they were successfull in their attempts doesn’t in any way mean nature couldn’t create life on its own through similar physical/chemical processes.”
You use the word “nature” as if it were a person/being/thing. Nature cannot be seen. Oh sure, I can see a tree, an animal, a planet, or even a micro-organism. But that’s not nature. Nature is a concept–an ideal. It can’t be seen or touched. Yet you (and several others on this site) use it as if it was an entity with intelligence.
What is interesting to me is that it is this same concept that this site uses to condemn the idea of God. I’ve seen many people (Christians, I’m assuming) stating that God exists and can be seen everywhere. Then I read several arguments against that (from Atheists, I’m assuming) stating that since I can’t see or touch God, then he must not exist. Yet, you are doing the same thing that the Christians are doing when you use the term “nature”. You are using an unseen, untouchable concept to define what you cannot physically prove. (The only difference is the word you use.)
If you study this further, what’s interesting is both parties use their “concept/ideal” to explain the “why”. I guess that’s understandable since science has basically stated that they only deal with the “how” and not the “why”. However, whether you’re Christian or whether you’re Atheist, it seems both sides do recognize that the “why” exists. I just wonder whether both sides realize just how similiar their concepts of “why” are. Based on what I’ve read on this site so far, it looks like it is just a matter of the words being used. (Yet, I doubt either side would truly admit that.)
when we say “nature”, we’re using it as shorthand for the action of blind physical laws, as well as larger emergent processes and filters such as natural selection. Nothing intelligent involved.
No, there’s no “why”. Nature has no purpose or intent. When you ask “why” you’re in reality projecting your own preconceived ideas about the answer you expect.
It first show that the so called intelligent designer is not really required to be “that” intelligent as people believed.
Second, scientists uses universal chemical processes to create it. They did not have a soul laying around to breed life into the cell, they just assembled it and it started living. Its shows that there is no soul needed for life.
Can you please explain how this experiment proves the non-existence of a soul? You have defined the results of this experiment as “life”. Others have defined things like humans as “life”. To me, the two are very different. So how did you make the connection that either a soul would exist in both or it wouldn’t exist in both?
(I have noticed from several different articles on this site that the word “life” is used in such a watered-down way that anyone can use the term to justify any belief they have. The end result just confuses more people and makes it even harder to figure out what is truth and what is not. This comment is a prime example of that.)
We dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer in the sense of a deity because there is no compelling evidence for one. We can explain nearly every thing we see without invoking an intelligent architect behind it all, and this experiment shows that our ideas about chemistry and physics is in fact correct, at least correct enough for explaining the phenomenon of life. But you are correct, in the strictest denotation of the phrase, those 20 scientists would be “intelligent designers.”
Wow! The success of this project certainly gives credibility to the concept of intelligent design.
LOL! Are you serious? Nothing gives credibility to ID.
Oh come on Custador — everything gives credibility to ID! Why do you think little kids draw things on paper? Because they are imitating their creator, just like he drew our world into existence! Why do you think engineers build bridges? To show the glory and majesty of the world God made! Why do women wear perfume? So they smell like Jesus, who designed the Grand Canyon with the global flood!
You atheists are just too blind to see the CLEAR evidence all around you! You should listen to Ray Comfort sometime, he is like God’s right hand man!
Only if God’s right hand has a banana in it…
That’s superb. Gotta quote you on that.
Agreed. I’m stealing that (with credit of course).
Hopefully, the Discovery Institute won’t find out. Otherwise, the bacterium flagellum might loose it’s job.
(and actually, I’m not really thrilled by this synthetic cell. Once there is an industrial application for it, some unforeseen event will allow it to escape in the environment. Happy hunting then).
industrial bacteria will be designed for industrial environments, not the wild. They’ll die without us. It’s the Jurassic Park approach.
http://xkcd.com/531/
On 23rd May a news appeared in various news papers that Craig Venter had created artificial life. He was working over project this since very long along with his team mates. You may also have heard that Johnjoe McFadden has given a Electromagnetic Field Theory of Consciousness/Mind. We all know that Physics describes four fundamental forces in the universe. They are Gravitational Force, Electromagnetic Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Strong Nuclear Force. They are responsible for the creation of particles, subatomic structures, atomic structures, molecules,elements etc. For natural things (life etc.)to be created, natural forces (God Forces) act in natural ways. When man operates and manipulates these forces and creates some new things or old one it is said ‘artificial’. For me everything is natural. Since man is the part of nature so everything created by him, in-vivo or in-vitro, using Forces of Nature is also natural and not artificial.
I have given a theory of consciousness and mind as below:
“Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator”, I presented this paper at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
“The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.”
Well, at least you don’t use the word “quantum”, but other than that it’s a bunch of woo. If you want to “remove misunderstanding between science and religion” the first step would be to get the science part right.
“It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’.”
Maybe you are the evidence of god’s existence. Tell me who God is, Him who created the creator, demi gods?
The misunderstanding about God can be resolved by the following definition of God given by His Holiness Sir Sahabji Maharaj (1881-1937), the fifth Spiritual Leader of Radhasoami Faith : “God is no ghost or hobgoblin. The Fountain-head or Reservoir of the Essesnc, of which your own Spirit is one unit, is known as God. You are a drop of Spirituality and God is the Ocean of Spirituality. You are a ray of Spirituality and God is the Sun of Spirituality. Every little thing that exists has its whole or reservoir in the creation. Your True Essence also has its Whole or its Reservoir, and That is GOD.”
My Most Revered Guru, His Holiness Dr. M.B. Lal Sahab (1907-2002), renowned Parasitologist, Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University and 7th Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith had once said in 1968: “Sir Alister Hardy, who was a renowned Professor of Zoology at Oxford University has written in one of his recent books that if vigorous research is conducted on spiritual matters it may be possible to establish God is both a scientific and philosophical reality.”