Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.htm
January 24, 2008
Scientists Take New Step Toward Man-Made Life
By ANDREW POLLACK
Taking a significant step toward the creation of man-made forms of life, researchers reported Thursday that they had manufactured the entire genome of a bacterium by painstakingly stitching together its chemical components.
While scientists had previously synthesized the complete DNA of viruses, this is the first time it has been done for bacteria, which are much more complex. The genome is more than 10 times as long as the longest piece of DNA ever previously synthesized.
...
Moreover, Dr. Venter’s team, led by a Nobel laureate, Hamilton Smith, has so far failed to accomplish the next —and biggest — step. That would be to insert the synthetic chromosome into a living microbe and have it “boot up” and take control of the organism’s functioning.
If that happened, it would be considered by some to be the creation of the first synthetic organism. The failure to achieve that so far has tempered the reception of some outside scientists.
“No matter how they praise the quality of the synthetic DNA, they have no idea whether it is biologically active,” said Eckard Wimmer, a professor at Stony Brook University who created live polio virus in 2002 using synthetic DNA and the publicly available genome sequence.
Originally posted by Nemesio Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.htm
January 24, 2008
Scientists Take New Step Toward Man-Made Life
By ANDREW POLLACK
Taking a significant step toward the creation of man-made forms of life, researchers reported Thursday that they had manufactured the entire genome of a bacterium by painstakingly stitching togeth ...[text shortened]... created live polio virus in 2002 using synthetic DNA and the publicly available genome sequence.
This seems like a significant achievement for the Intelligent Design movement in science.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn How so? Human beings creating life doesn't prove anything at all about it somehow requiring some kind of design.
Of course, to most creationists a rock simply being there is proof of "intelligent design".
try recreating the big bang and see how many times you have to do it before you get a) an environment to support life in the first place and b) life. BUT in no way would it disprove the big bang if it was unsuccessful, since the solar system is so large, it is likely that only one planet of all the ones we observe would have life
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom try recreating the big bang and see how many times you have to do it before you get a) an environment to support life in the first place and b) life. BUT in no way would it disprove the big bang if it was unsuccessful, since the solar system is so large, it is likely that only one planet of all the ones we observe would have life
What is your point? I think it is really a good question about life on other planets and given the evidence about the size of the universe I think there probably is a planet out there that has some form of life.
Suggesting that I somehow recreate the big bang is just meaningless. I am just wondering what your point is.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn What is your point? I think it is really a good question about life on other planets and given the evidence about the size of the universe I think there probably is a planet out there that has some form of life.
Suggesting that I somehow recreate the big bang is just meaningless. I am just wondering what your point is.
im saying that trying it over and over and getting successful life would prove that life doesnt need intelligent design.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom im saying that trying it over and over and getting successful life would prove that life doesnt need intelligent design.
I don't see how intelligent design is somehow the default that needs to be disproven when there isn't any significant evidence for it.
The post of the subject of the topic does not provide evidence of any requirement of an intelligent designer.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn I don't see how intelligent design is somehow the default that needs to be disproven when there isn't any significant evidence for it.
The post of the subject of the topic does not provide evidence of any requirement of an intelligent designer.
i did not say that intelligent design needs to be disproven; i was just replying to jaywill's post although i should have had his quote in it.
Originally posted by jaywill I think we intelligently derive knowledge from many systems because intelligence was put into them in the first place.
We are reading OUT [b]intelligently what was PUT IN intelligently.[/b]
So, I mix two chemicals in a lab, and they react in a certain way. You are claiming that their reaction is dependent on the 'intelligence' that I put into it.
So how do you explain the obvious fact that the same two chemicals react in the exact same way in nature and even on a distant planet? Or are you claiming that lab science is essentially useless as it can never be used to determine the out come of anything outside the lab which is not receiving 'intelligence' as an essential ingredient?
Or are you claiming that God is quietly adding a little intelligence to every Chemical reaction on the planet? If so then there is nothing special about lab experiments and your whole post is meaningless.
Originally posted by Nemesio Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.htm
January 24, 2008
Scientists Take New Step Toward Man-Made Life
By ANDREW POLLACK
Taking a significant step toward the creation of man-made forms of life, researchers reported Thursday that they had manufactured the entire genome of a bacterium by painstakingly stitching togeth ...[text shortened]... created live polio virus in 2002 using synthetic DNA and the publicly available genome sequence.
I thought they already did this somewhere. Deja vu...
Scientists Lurk Closer to Creating Life
25 Jan '08 01:53
Back to Top