backtop


Print 183 comment(s) - last by RichardNevin.. on Nov 14 at 2:11 AM


J. Craig Venter, a leading biochemistry and microbiology research has become the first to create artificial life. E  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The DNA for the new organism was cloned in yeast. The membrane was produced by a similar cell. The result is a viable, artificially created organism.  (Source: Science)
Man can indeed create life, vitalism arguments laid to rest

Throughout the centuries vitalism remained the dominant philosophy.  Many reasoned that there was something inherently unique to life, impossible to recreate.  Modern science, however, has shown that the makeup of a living organism is nothing more than a complex mix of biochemicals.

Now a major scientific breakthrough has been made that may have profound impact on scientific research, and even how we view life itself.  John Craig Venter, founder of the The Institute for Genomic Research and the J. Craig Venter Institute, has, at last, achieved what he has been trying to do for over a decade -- create artificial life.

The most basic definition of being alive, when it comes to bacteria is being able to sustain the biological process to survive and reproduce.  Neither is possible without DNA, the genetic material of living organisms.

Professor Venter began by trying to clone DNA from a bacterial species, with the hopes of eventually transplanting it into a receptive bacterial membrane and creating a viable cell.  He started with trying to use E. Coli bacteria to clone incorporated DNA from Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies capri, a tiny bacteria.  The E. Coli proved to not have the perfect cloning machinery, only able to replicate stretches of DNA up to a quarter of M. mycoides' total genome.

So Professor Venter turned to the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae -- interestingly, a eukaryote (M. mycoides is a eubacteria) -- to carry out the cloning.  Using the yeast, complete 1.1-Megabase M. mycoides genomes were cloned and harvested.

The next challenge was implanting the harvested genome into a receptive bacterial membrane.  As bacteria lack organelles, in a traditional sense, this membrane primarily served as protection and to provide the appropriate biochemical environment.  It also offered specialized membrane environments needed for certain reactions, like respiration.

Preparing receptor organelles -- from M. mycoides and a similar species, Mycoplasma
capricolum
subspecies capricolum -- a new roadblock was encountered.  Enzymes preexisting in the membrane would destroy the unmethylated DNA, cloned in the yeast.  Fortunately, the solution to this problem was relatively simple, albeit intensive -- Venter's team used methylating enzymes from M. mycoides to protect the clone DNA harvested from the yeast.

Using this technique, or other methylation techniques, Craig Venter's team succeeded in creating viable organisms.  In the case of the M. capricolum implant, the results were exceptionally notable, as it demonstrates that an artificially created organism can be generated using the shell (membrane bound cell) of an appropriate similar organism.

The groundbreaking success was reported in the September edition of the journal Science, with Carole Lartigue, S. Vashee, and M. Algire listed as the first three authors (J. Venter was later listed).  Surprisingly, this potentially Nobel-worthy achievement has drawn relatively little press in the last month.

Thus, at long last, man has succeeded in a long standing dream -- the creation of artificial life.  It has been done using the efficient molecular tools that nature has evolved (enzymes).  Using these tools in vivo to create target vesicles and cloned DNA, a new era of bioengineered artificial organisms is launched. 

Not content to rest on his laurels, Professor Venter continues to work on developing methods of in vivo and in vitro DNA replication and assembly.  His team also continues to explore creating more artificial organisms and modified artificial organisms.  Venter's organization holds, or has filed for, patents on many of the techniques he has used to create the artificial life.

With these tools incredible achievements may one day be possible.  We may be able to take individual genes and tailor-make bacteria as a starting point for induced evolution to produce the perfect fermenter for biofuels, or the perfect cleaner to break down or isolate oil or other toxins from the environment.  In short, it's a brave new world now that the ability to biochemically create new life is in the hands of man.

Update: Monday Oct. 26, 2009 2:40 p.m.: 
There has been some question over what exactly comprises "artificial life".  In this case the researchers have created an organism with new genes inserted, and are claiming the organism to be a new artificial species (which notably they are trying to patent).  The grounds for calling the organism synthetic or artificial is that it was produced from non-living material, in this case a cloned genome which was non-living when removed from the yeast cell that produced it (i.e. it would be nonviable if not carefully prepped and implanted by the researchers).  This genome was created in vivo with enzymes that could, in theory, also be used in vitro.  Some, however, define synthetic/artificial life as being artificial intelligence, non-carbon based life, or life resulting from non-enzymatic production reactions.  This discovery does not meet these criteria.  Thus while the discovery can be billed as "artificial or "synthetic" life, it is important not to take it out of context.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh Noes!
By donjuancarlos on 10/26/2009 9:59:37 AM , Rating: 3
Guess I'm not going to church anymore...




RE: Oh Noes!
By wgbutler on 10/26/2009 10:24:32 AM , Rating: 4
Every single time there is a biology article people have to start taking pot shots at religion. This gets old.

The scientist had to use existing life to create new life. So the title of this article is a little misleading. It's not like he mixed up some chemicals in a test tube and created life out of non-living matter.

Furthermore, even if that were the case all this would show was that an intelligent agent had to interact with lab equipment to create life.

The "not going to church anymore" argument would only carry weight if someone mixed up some non-living goo in a test tube, shot electrical sparks through it and some kind of life emerged from the test tube.

And even that wouldn't explain the origin or the fine-tuning of the universe.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Xavier434 on 10/26/2009 10:31:34 AM , Rating: 3
Yes...we get it...until man manages to snap their fingers and create something out of completely nothing then there will always be people who cling to creationism. Even if man managed to be able to do exactly that my guess is that there will still be some people who make creationism arguments.

But whatever...I really shouldn't take the bait like this. The amount of progress that man has made when it comes to this science just in the last 50 years alone is beyond incredible. Just imagine where we will be in another 50 years...100 years...200. It isn't a question of what man can and cannot do. It is simply a question of time.


RE: Oh Noes!
By docmilo on 10/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Noes!
By Xavier434 on 10/26/2009 11:10:28 AM , Rating: 1
Hehe yeah I considered that as well. New sciences like these can get a little freaky when one considers how they are practiced combined with a lack of regression testing. I'm confident that man will still be around though. We'll just have new problems to contend with then just like we have new problems now that we did not have 200 years ago.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Donovan on 10/26/2009 3:41:29 PM , Rating: 5
Mankind has been semi-randomly injecting genetic material into womankind for a lot longer than that and we're still here to talk about it.


RE: Oh Noes!
By 67STANG on 10/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh Noes!
By CollegeTechGuy on 10/27/2009 10:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
Do you enjoy, dislike, or have comments about the articles written by Jason Mick?

If you have a comment, feel free to write to the Editor here...

http://www.dailytech.com/ContactStaff.aspx?id=18


RE: Oh Noes!
By dark matter on 10/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Noes!
By TSS on 10/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Noes!
By postalbob on 10/26/2009 3:22:39 PM , Rating: 5
Uh...

You're quoting an argument made by creationist extremes.

There is no section of the bible that states the bible is 6,000 years old. There are no implications in the bible as to the age of the world and or universe. I was raised Catholic, and knew many kids that went to Catholic schools.

Any religion with any common sense does not teach anything about 6,000 years. They teach that God somehow made the world. Maybe it evovled, maybe it was all evolved, maybe God planned it all to go the way it did. Creationism is not meant to be an extreme either or when it comes to science. It's meant to blend. In fact, you'll find that Catholics started structured science research, and it was a catholic scientist who discovered the big bang theory. Look it up. Religion is not meant to be separated from good science.

True creationism has absolutely nothing to do with that 6,000 theory and absolutely does not conflict with science, it works with science. That 6000 crud and other religion attacks were just left propoganda started to get people riled up like 50 years ago now.


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/26/2009 4:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
It seems unlikely that you've ever honestly read Genesis.


RE: Oh Noes!
By postalbob on 10/26/2009 4:56:08 PM , Rating: 5
Trust me. The bible states nothing about the age of the earth.

They speak of "periods" which some people who are idiotic translate into "time periods". From that people have tried to extrapolate an age.

For example: The earth being created in "7 days". It's a period of 7, which to God could be any amount of time.

The 6,000 comes from an idiot who tried to translate the terms to apply it to a naive form of religion, but not a widespread one. The bible never states "And God created ye earth in the year 4,000 B.C." or "Ye earth was ye 4,000 years old as of this date of writing this biblical scripture.". I'm sorry, it just doesn't.


RE: Oh Noes!
By SPOOFE on 10/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh Noes!
RE: Oh Noes!
By rlandess on 10/27/2009 9:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
So what, You're saying God rounds numbers with the precision of a biologist?


RE: Oh Noes!
By MrPoletski on 10/30/2009 9:39:31 AM , Rating: 1
No, we are saying that God has the P54C divide bug, therefore all matter exists.


RE: Oh Noes!
By borismkv on 10/27/2009 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Because decimal points existed in 3000BC. Did you know the Hebrews of Moses's time didn't even have a concept of the number 0? The 0 wasn't used until around 1500BC. I think being less than 5% off on an estimate using a measurement system based off the length from ones elbow to their pinky finger is pretty damned accurate, don't you?


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/26/2009 5:31:42 PM , Rating: 3
To suggest that the idea of a literal 6, 24 hour days is alien to the creation account in Genesis is simply dishonest.

It's true that the Hebrew word yom that is translated as day can mean several things including a 24 hour day or an unspecified period of time; however, there is no contextual reason to force or even suggest your interpretation.

Everywhere in the Bible yom is used with a number (as in Genesis - the first day the second day etc.) it always means a literal 24 hour day. Genesis repeatedly says there was evening and morning, the xth day. This is always interpreted as a literal day.

There is no ambiguity as you suggest: "They teach that God somehow made the world. Maybe it evovled, maybe it was all evolved, maybe God planned it all to go the way it did."

Genesis says God spoke creation into being in 6, 24 hour days and then rested on the 7th - a pattern Israel was commanded to follow. Take it or leave it but how much plainer can it be?

As to the age of the earth - no one is saying the Bible says in a specific verse that the earth is x years old. The 6,000 number is extrapolated from the genealogies in scripture. I'm not laying down my life on somebodies math but it's clear from scripture the earth isn't millions of years old and life didn't evolve from non life. The Bible teaches death entered the world through Adam's sin. If there was no death before man sinned then where does evolution fit. It doesn't. Play honestly...


RE: Oh Noes!
By postalbob on 10/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/26/2009 6:46:08 PM , Rating: 3
My only suggestion is that you must come to the text with a preconceived idea and mash it into the text to come away saying that Genesis doesn't say that God spoke creation into being in 6, 24 hour days. If you read it desiring to understand what it actually says (ie honestly) I don't think you can come away with your understanding.

You are the one committing the logical fallacy by calling this unspecified person a moron in order to dismiss his view of the world being 6,000 years old instead of creating an actual argument. Modern Bible translations consult ancient original language manuscripts so I don't know what "interpretations of interpretations of translations." means.

And yeah I didn't bring in scriptures. Did you want me to do that to prove 6,000 years? I'm not going to quote ever genealogical verse to prove something irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

We were talking about the creation account of Genesis. I'm dealing with the contextual evidence of the passage and you are doing what exactly? Claiming that your view is more credible because you're Catholic? You don't even know that I'm not Catholic (which I'm not).

I challenge you to deal with the actual text and prove contextually why yom should be interpreted as an unspecified time period instead of a literal day.

Lets go to Genesis 1:
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, [6] and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Contextually, why would I not interpret day here as a literal day? What forces the interpretation as an unspecified period of millions of years? Especially when all of the other time periods being represented here only make sense if understood literally.

Or turn your Bible to Romans 5:12. Paul argues that death came into the world through Adam's sin. How can Darwinian evolution be true if there was no death before Adam sinned? Where did Adam come from? I'll give you a hint. The answer is in Genesis and it's pretty well clear.

And BTW - "theologist" are you for real?


RE: Oh Noes!
By themaster08 on 10/27/2009 3:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What forces the interpretation as an unspecified period of millions of years?

Perhaps non-contexual sources? The primary one I can think of is these...

http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/2000/images/d...

Where in the timeline do these fit if not millions of years ago? Or did they just never exist?

I don't claim to know a lot about the Bible, therefore I won't contend with that, but proof that Earth has existed for more than 6000 years is entirely found.


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/27/2009 12:25:45 PM , Rating: 1
Well the discussion at hand was what Genesis taught and not modern science's reconstruction of the past. So forcing extra contextual evidence onto Genesis is not helpful in understanding the ideas Genesis is actually trying to communicate.

But anyway, while I'm not going to get into a big defense of this issue, people who maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis believe the geological record is better understood by a massive worldwide flood catastrophe than by millions and millions of years.

If your actually interested you can check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/.

But to simply answer your question, Dinosaurs lived alongside man thousands of years ago. Which the Old Testament testifies to many times.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Xietsu on 10/27/2009 6:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Genesis 1:
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

-----
lol. drew00149, Sorry to jest, but, it seems odd to me that your quotation of Genesis follows IMMEDIATELY AFTER the portion disproving that a day, to the Lord God, equates to 24 hours (or any approximation therein). A day, to Hashem (the name), is only of EVENING and MORNING. Genesis 1:5 clearly communicates this. The earth was NOT, until the beginning of the 3rd day.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Xietsu on 10/27/2009 7:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
To further elaborate in case the point isn't clear, without the earth, there are no revolutions in respect to the sun, thus, no distinct, temporal attachments of twenty-four hours, to the nouns we call "morning" and "evening".

To Adonai, what appears to be most plainly apparent is that light and darkness are the only things that constitute "morning" and "evening", these, together, are a day (instead of the what we regard as the light and darkness spawning from revolutions of a planet, relative to the celestial body it orbits).


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/27/2009 8:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
So God is unfamiliar with the time period he would establish by the rotation of the earth (not revolution) before he did it? Seriously? Are we dealing with the Christian God?

Again the word yom is always understood as a literal 24hour day when given a number. The idea of a literal day is carried all throughout the creation account. Even, morning - day. And then x happened the next day...

Explain death before the sin of Adam. Please...


RE: Oh Noes!
By Xietsu on 10/27/2009 9:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
Scripture is clear. A day is evening and morning. The amount of hours in a day, or the first seven, is not clear. Whether that period was twenty-four hours or not you cannot say, and neither can I. But to place faith in a proud assertion, saying, simply because you arrogantly assume a day consisting of evening and morning was always of the 24 hours man has known upon the earth, it's naive and it casts self righteous doubt upon the empirically examinable realities of optics in radiometry, astronomy, genetics, and beyond.

Those who thought they were of the law in refraining from "work" on the Sabbath were, in fact, against such, as the law is love and the liberty known therein, shown to us in Christ's care to communicate how the man wasn't made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. You ought refer to John 9:41, where Christ notes that those who claim they see have sin that remains. Likewise might it be (seemingly unconventional to ideologues), that creation is a testament to God's patience, despite whichever conventions of symbolic reverence are preferred.

Death is a part of teaching love and the eventual exaltation of it. It slept in the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as in such was sedition against the Word, consumption of such being a work of pride -- vain, self trust over that of love -- found in Satan, as the father of such. Not only did he claim that "Ye shall not surely die", but he denied faith in the Holy Spirit in looking to establish his own worldly works and his fleeting, shallow form of rule therein.

John 8:
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Galatians 5:
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

James 1:
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Matthew 13:
19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

We all fulfill our purpose, and whether we are of those whose hearts are closed to the ways of the world and opened to the ways of God, it is by His grace alone, to be destroyed in the Second Death, or to live and shine in the presence of the Father of Abraham, El Shaddai - He who says enough.


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/27/2009 9:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
I must concede I have almost no idea what you are trying to communicate in this posting.

I've said all I can say about this issue.

But I agree we all fulfill our purpose and whether we are saved is by His grace alone.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Xietsu on 10/27/2009 9:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I don't quote John 8:44 to accuse you, but to note that death is, was, and will always be a work of the sin sown in the heart of the adversary, the devil. The weakness of such a wretched one was foreknown, but all this must come to pass, that the authority of the Lord Our Righteousness may be justifiably revered and worshipped.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Xietsu on 10/27/2009 9:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

^- The above is a good link for an etymological evaluation of words used, and their general potency in meaning, for time as considered in creation and Genesis.

Aside from that, what I was trying to communicate ought be clear. You asked me to explain death before Adam, and so I did, but I wanted to ensure that other readers might comprehend the justification and significance of the consciousness that is eternal love - the one true Father, Adonai.


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/27/2009 9:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to see how you comments answer how there could be death before Adam sinned when scripture says repeatedly that death enetered the world through Adam's sin and death spread to all men because all sinned in Adam. Those verses speak of the problem of sin but none address the origin of sin in the world.

"but I wanted to ensure that other readers might comprehend the justification and significance of the consciousness that is eternal love - the one true Father, Adonai. "

All words I know individually, strung together to form a thought I can't comprehend. We are clearly coming from two entirely different places.

And I could post similar links regarding my position but I'll spare you since it's obvious this is going nowhere.

Good-day to you.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Xietsu on 10/28/2009 12:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
To say death slept is to remark on its eventual coming, and to consider the justification and significance of eternal love is to study the purpose of scripture being as it is, to ultimately and absolutely underscore the fact that righteousness -- faith in love, the Lord God and His Ways -- exalts above all else, that everything, without that, is vanity.


RE: Oh Noes!
By siuol11 on 10/28/2009 3:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've been reading Daily Tech for a couple of years now and I just signed up to their user system to let you know I'm very impressed by your clear expose. It isn't often you come across such well-worded responses to common mischaracterizations of church teachings- very impressive.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Hawkido on 10/27/2009 2:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
I worked 6 days last year...

January 23rd

April 11th

June 30th

August 7th

September 21st

November 14th

Then I rested on December 31st

On the First day I made popcorn for my boss
On the second day I copied papers...

So on and so on...

The days are consecutive only when viewed in the context, how many days have you been employed? Consecutively? Or did you leave out holidays, weekends, sick days, Vacations?...

I have been working on my creek in the back yard for the past 18 months, however I have actually only "Worked" on the creek about 2 weeks worth of time"

It isn't that hard to understand, and it simply makes sense. Occam's razor and all that. If it ain't broke stop fixing it until it is!

Only those who do not wish to know or understand will not know or understand.

Many read Genesis and think Adam was the first human, but the bible only states he was the the first man created in God's image.

So that extra description is unneeded, unless there were already other humans on the planet.

Just as this story qualifies the "life" created by this scientist as "artificial". Why label it as artificial if there were no other life on the planet? You wouldn't...
You would say life were created... But since life already existed, you have to distinguish the life just created as "artificial" from the life that was already present.

I always like the comic strip where some scientists approach God and state that they can now create life from soil and therefore they are just as great as God. God replies, "show me".
One of the scientist reaches down and grabs a handful of dirt, and God stops him saying, "no, you get your own dirt, that's my dirt."


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/27/2009 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
The gap theory still doesn't make sense contextually. There is no contextual evidence to understand the first day as "the first day of work". As if there had been millions of days before it and millions of days after it before the "second day of work."

But lets leave Genesis since no one wants to deal with the actual text. Turn to Exodus 20 where the Israelites are commanded to rest on the 7th day according to the pattern God set in creation. So they are all to work for 6 days and then rest on the 7th.

This was obviously understood as consecutive days since everyone knows a week is composed of 7 consecutive days and Jewish people rest on 1 particular Sabbath day.

But consider what you're saying. If the days in the creation are days of work then we can't call the rest day a day can we? Because nothing happened. What made it different from all the other resting days? And was Israel supposed to understand they needed to work for 1 day, rest for a billion and then work for a 2nd day? That doesn't make sense.

And why don't you tell us how Darwinian evolution can be true if there was no death before Adam sinned as Paul so clearly argues in Romans and 1 Corinthians, as I've already stated.

And this silly Adam argument is incomprehensible. So there are humans not created in God's image? Again contextually - why?

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

The extra description is necessary to inform us than mankind is different from animalkind because mankind was created in God's image. It's not there to draw this distinction you are suggesting between two types of men.

Lets go to Genesis 2 starting at verse 5 which retells in more detail the story of the creation of man. I won't quote the whole thing check it out online if you don't have a Bible. But it says there was no man to work the ground so he made a man and then placed him in the garden of Eden - who is it? Adam! Just read the account.

Why in the world wasn't there anyone to work the ground before Adam if there were men before Adam. Maybe this "man" who wasn't made in the image of God is the progenitor of all the lazy people today. Maybe that's why God made Adam - a second try at a man willing to work. This is all completely foreign to the Christian idea that all men are created in God's image and yet you must necessarily believe this.

Of course, the New Testament calls Adam the first man - not the first man created in God's image - in accordance with the distinction you're trying to make.

Read 1 Corinthians 15 which tells us how through the first man Adam sin entered the world.

You are performing eisegesis on the text by which I mean you are bringing preconceived notions and forcing them on the Bible instead of exegeting or deriving the meaning from the text itself.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Hawkido on 10/27/2009 5:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
There are many people with functioning eyes and ears, yet they do not see nor do they hear.

As to the seven days, there is significance to the number 7, 3, and also 40. You will see those nmbers repeated alot in the bible, and other semetic writings. Hebrew is a number significant language.

Without someone on the planet Earth to look up at the sun and count the number of times the sun crossed the sky, days are kinda ambigious. So yes I can see why God wouldn't feel a need to follow the sun that wasn't even ther when he began, and for a man confined to a phsical realm, then sun would be a mighty good time keeper, so I could see how that would be awful handy. You aren't seeking the truth are you? It feels like you are just sliding through the bible looking for snippets to justify what you already know you want to present.

As to no other men on the planet, what was the curse placed upon Cain? What was the curse placed upon any who slew Cain?

GEN 4:11-16
"So now you are cursed with alienation from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood you have shed. If you work the land, it will never again give you its yield. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
But Cain answered the Lord, "My punishment is too great to bear! Since You are banishing me today from the soil, and I must hide myself from Your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, whoever finds me will kill me."
Then the Lord replied to him, "In that case, whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over." And he placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him. Then Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden."

Who was going to kill Cain if there were only 2 other people on the planet? It was quite some time Before Adam and Eve had another Child.

Did you miss the part about the Nephilim in Genesis, or did you not understand it and therefore skip over it entirely because it didn't fit your objective?

GEN 6:1-4
"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Sons of God (descendants of Adam in whom the Neshamah {spirit of God, his likeness} and Nephesh {life} was breathed)
Daughters of men (Descendants of not Adam, mortal man who only had the Nephesh {life} breathed into it, as did all other living things)

And no the Mortal men did not till the soil, nor did any other animals...

The Nephilim were not "Giants", but they were "Giant" in the semetic sense of the word. Just as you may have a "Big" brother, a "Grand" father, and a "Great Great Grand" father. They were so old as to use a word such as "Giant" to describe their age. The Nephilim were the descendants of Adam who Began thinking they were Greek Gods (to use the phrase out of time), because they didn't age like the other mortal men. If every man is a superman then no men are supermen. Why remark about their age and renown if they was nothing spectacular about their age or notoriety?

I await your response... The bible is not only literal, and it is not only figurative, it is both literal and figurative. Remember the bible was written in anchient Hewbrew. No one on the planet properly speaks it nor can they properly translate it. Most of the semetic languages cannot be effectively translated into english. I know I studied Arabic, some things can be said in Arabic that just don't translate into english. Such sentiments are foriegn to both thought and tongue. You must understand the original language and thought behind it. You must also Identify where the Pharases corrupted the Torah, to establish their political party, and their attempt to maintain power. And if you think you found an inconsistancy go back to the original Hebrew.


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/27/2009 7:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
I feel like I'm the only one actually answering questions.

I know there is significance to numbers. I don't see how this constitutes an argument...

God spoke through man and man wrote down words. Words have meanings - at least I think they do... Contextually you have not even attempted to show why I should be understanding a non literal day or a gap theory. Not only is there no contextual evidence but the whole idea of a literal creation week is carried all throughout scripture.

Why doesn't anyone touch these ideas? Why don't you tell me how there could be death before Adam if the Bible repeatedly teaches that death came through Adam's sin.

As to Cain, it's a simple answer. Lets turn to Gen 5 which tells of the generations between Adam and Noah.

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man [1] when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

First thing to note is it says when "God created man, he mad him in the likeness of God." That seems to defeat your idea of a pre-Adamic race that wasn't made in the image of God. Gone is your imaginary distinction between regular man and image bearing man - but back to Cain.

The only Adamic son named is Seth because he is in the line of Noah but it says he had other sons and daughters not named - obviously. We are told of Cain and Abel but certainly there were others we weren't told of because it said "sons and daughters" but we're not specifically given an exhaustive list of children of Adam. The purpose of the story of Cain and Abel is to tell of the first murder - to show how wicked men were.

So anyway we know that Adam bore Seth at 130 and that Seth came after Cain killed Abel. Therefore, Adam is some bit less than 130 when Cain kills Abel. So we have Adam having lived for many adult decades with a wife before Cain killed Abel. And I'm specifically told that Adam had many sons and daughters not listed in Genesis. How many kids do you think they could have had in 130 years? How many kids do you think their kids had? The kids of the kids of the kids? It's not even hard to imagine where the people came from that Cain was afraid of.

Again regarding the men to till the earth I won't let you get away with "And no the Mortal men did not till the soil, nor did any other animals..." It specifically says "and there was no man to work the ground". Not there was no willing man - there was no man at all. Not until God created Adam.

Regarding Gen 6 there is a great deal of mystery regarding what these Nephilim were. I haven't read anything so convincing I'm going to lay down my life on it. It seems apparent what daughters of men are but how exactly should I understand sons of God. I don't know. I've heard many interpretations... There is clearly something special about them. But I don't know that it's right to understand "giant" as old and unaging when every single commentary by well educated men in these original languages that I've read, while offering different interpretations never offer yours.

In fact if we go to Numbers 13:33
33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

You're interpretation doesn't seem to make sense but understanding it as regular old giant certainly does.

Just because you studied modern Arabic doesn't mean that you understand as the original Hebrew recipients would have. That's a grand assumption.

The fact is every man listed until after the flood and after Noah lived hundreds and hundreds of years. We're are never introduced to an pre-Adamic race.

But anyway you're treating the idea that they should be understood as extremely old as a given and then arguing from that. I don't take that as a given because I see no Biblical evidence to believe in this pre-Adamic race the Bible is silent about. So your conclusion that Nephilim are an unaging race or else why draw the distinction is in fact smoke and mirrors. For, obviously, if it is simply talking about giant people than the distinction is still valid because no other human is described as being giant in stature even though they did live for hundreds of years.

I know the Bible has different literary genres. However, you interpret a passage based on the rules of its genre. History is history, wisdom is wisdom, poems are poems... So if the genre of Genesis is history why should I not read it as literal history?

I also don't take the corruption of the Torah by the Pharisees to be a given. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure why I should go back to the original Hebrew text if you are telling me its corrupted. Fact remains that Jesus had no problem quoting from the Septuagint as if actually was the true authoritative Word of God. All those thousands of years later and in the common language...


RE: Oh Noes!
By callmeroy on 10/30/2009 9:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
A thousand years in the eyes of man is but a day in the eyes of God....

God's version of a day is NOT the same as our version of a day.

And btw, I do not take the bible at face value because its written by modern man -- especially now after all these years... Did you ever do that little game in elementary school you whisper something in someone's ear and they pass it down the line to the next kid, then the next and the next....finally after a few kids have passed the message it comes out completely different what the first kid really said.

That's kind of how I look at the bible -- how can it possibly be what was ORIGINALLY stated/interpreted/written thousands of years back?


RE: Oh Noes!
By postalbob on 10/26/2009 5:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and by the way...

In the Catholic religion, we read the whole bible. It would be the only religion that is taught the entire bible, not just sections. In fact, in the readings they read 3 sections which they tie together. In training they do the same with tying the old testament with the new. That would be why we are the only Christian religion that did not get rid of 7 sections of the bible.

Trying to interpret the bible and twisting the meaning in comparison to science, or doing the same with science in comparison to religion is exactly the problem. Science and religion just are. If a science fact is a science fact, it's a science fact. If the bible says we were created by God, and mentions "periods" with no specific time (which I guarantee you it does not mention a specific time) then it mentions a period with no specific time, and you can't just try to pull a time out of a hat assuming the bible is trying to "speak to you" and tell you when the world was created.

That's just overboard. And that's exactly what the left wants you to believe creationism is about. They create one extreme to scare you and make you believe nut cases are widespread due to religion. The real fact is: Everyone seeks knowledge and everyone is fairly biased and/or intelligent. Religion causes that no more than science.


RE: Oh Noes!
By 67STANG on 10/27/2009 3:44:40 AM , Rating: 1
Before you get on a high-horse about Catholicism, lest we remind you of the high tally of molestation accusations against Catholic Priests. ~11,000 to be exact. 81% of the accusers were male and 78% were 11-17 years old.

While a non-denominational Christian myself, I find more and more I'm disheartened seeing Churches spending money like they are a bunch of lib-tards. My Church regularly makes a point of preaching guilt just moments before the collection tray is passed around. I find it comical, yet insulting.

I actually cut the amount my family gives to the Church in half. We now give much more to local and international charity efforts. At least that way, the money is going towards helping people, not buying a fifth $30,000 projector for the worship hall...


RE: Oh Noes!
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/27/2009 7:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
Catholics aren't supposed to read the bible (I was raised catholic, too). The compilation that is "the Bible" is a selection of texts that were put together by the early Catholics to cement their authority only. Read the other texts - that were compiled by a catholic friar.


RE: Oh Noes!
By callmeroy on 10/30/2009 9:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
And since it appears you don't think of CONTEXT when you read things you just take everything literally and at face value....I'll leave you with this to read and follow w/o thinking about it....

"And Drew00149 opened a paypal account before asking fellow dailytech reader callmeroy for his email address in his next post, in preparation of transfering to him $1000"

:)


RE: Oh Noes!
By William Gaatjes on 10/26/2009 5:28:24 PM , Rating: 3
All i can say , i am amazed is that Isaac Newton was not burned by the catholics during his life time. I guess because he understood that he should keep his private beliefs private. But the catholic church burned and murdered more then an estimated 1.5 million people. People refused to believe the bible or refused to confess to acts they where not guilty off.

Jesus did not preach celibacy for example. That was later introduced by the apostle Paul. Now why Paul did not want a woman, we will never know. But this celibacy was excepted on. Later on under the reign of the roman emperor Constantine and the roman parlement the new and the old testament where assembled.

Then on the other hand, many scientist where religious at those days. But only because they had this burning desire to find the truth about life they let not their religion interfere with the scientific research they where doing. A good example is Micheal Faraday. He kept science and religion strictly separated.



RE: Oh Noes!
By JediJeb on 10/26/2009 6:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Also Sir Isaac Newton did most of his work in Mathematics and Physics to try to prove God's existence. Belief in God is not the same as following what the leaders of an orginization like the catholic church teach. When men become leaders of any orginization either spiritual or governmental there is the possibility of corruption. If you look at the teachings of the reformers you will see they advocate the belief system centers around the individual believer not the organization. This is more in line with what the Bible actually teaches in that the most important thing is a believers personal relationship to God. The church is to exist to help individual believers to help each other, not to rule over them. The men like Newton, Faraday and Gallileo understood this and is why they were sometimes working outside what the church advocated.

Many great men of science have also been men of great belief in God. The two subjects do not have to be contradictory to each other, but can also be complimentary. I happen to be both also, a man of science and a man of belief in God. Overall the study of both to me reinforce each other. If all science is wrong then how do we now have such great things as electricity, computers, and space exploration? If all science is right they why have our societies not evolved into a utopia by now?

The Bible and science both agree that life began in the oceans, continued with the reptiles, followed by the avians, then mammals and finally humans. The verses of the Earth was void and without form then around the same time it began to come together and the sun was ignited and finally the moon formed. Scientifically this could be explained with the initial protoplanatary disk and the sun at the center. Noone knows if a star ignites before planest begin to form in the accretion disk or not so this can be correct scientifically also. We would have to be able to observe a stellar nursery in detail to know for sure. As far as the days are concerned the Bible also says that to God a million years is as a day and a day is as a million years, which is symbolic to say that God does not see time as we do.

Another fallacy is that the Bible teaches the Earth is flat. It actually teaches the Earth is a sphere and rotates on an axis with poles. When something is explained as being moved to and infinite distance it is said to be moved as far as East is from West. Anyone who believes in a spherical Earth knows that you can travel as far to the East as you want and you will always be traveling East, but if you travel North you will eventually begin to travel South. That is why it was not said as far as North is from South because that is a finite distance. A flat Earth was something that people believed because they did not want to admit there were things they could not explain and came from lack of faith or failure to study what they claimed to believe in. Newton knew what the Bible said and I believe it helped fuel his study of gravity to help explain to him why he could believe what he believed. He believed the Earth was a sphere but wondered why people didn't fall off the bottom.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, weither in pure science, pure religion or a mixture of both. Neither can be 100% explained, which is why we have scientific theories not all scientific laws. It takes faith to believe in either. You believe what science says because you have faith in science, you believe the Bible because you have faith in God. Either way it takes faith, it just depends on what you faith is placed in.


RE: Oh Noes!
By William Gaatjes on 10/26/2009 8:38:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If all science is wrong then how do we now have such great things as electricity, computers, and space exploration? If all science is right they why have our societies not evolved into a utopia by now?


You will never here me say that science is wrong. But why there is no utopia ?
Humanity at it's worst : The dark ages. The greed. The corruption. Forcing people to stay dumb by (ab)use of religion.

You see, some people are born without the desire to understand everything that there is to understand.

Those who are born with this desire, if they are born in a religious environment or a atheist environment does not matter. Only the desire matters. And unusually often, this desire is combined with a pacifism and an altruism. It is the acceptance that trying to chance the world gets you killed is what is depressing. Getting killed by religious idiots that is.

quote:
The Bible and science both agree that life began in the oceans, continued with the reptiles, followed by the avians, then mammals and finally humans. The verses of the Earth was void and without form then around the same time it began to come together and the sun was ignited and finally the moon formed. Scientifically this could be explained with the initial protoplanatary disk and the sun at the center. Noone knows if a star ignites before planest begin to form in the accretion disk or not so this can be correct scientifically also. We would have to be able to observe a stellar nursery in detail to know for sure. As far as the days are concerned the Bible also says that to God a million years is as a day and a day is as a million years, which is symbolic to say that God does not see time as we do.


That is funny, i never read that when reading genesis.
I think in this post some people made it obvious that
the bible is not a good foundation to use as a scientific book.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=16403

quote:
Yes 'Yom' like 'Day' can be used to mean one literal day of daylight with or without night- or an indefinate period. Just as in English, we know by the context, which meaning is intended... "And God began calling the light day, but the darkness he called night..." or should this then read "And God began calling the light an indefinately long period of time?!" Like I said, could the author really be any more specific? If I were God trying to get across a simple understanding, I wouldn't go so far out of my way to convey the wrong meaning.


quote:
Another fallacy is that the Bible teaches the Earth is flat. It actually teaches the Earth is a sphere and rotates on an axis with poles. When something is explained as being moved to and infinite distance it is said to be moved as far as East is from West. Anyone who believes in a spherical Earth knows that you can travel as far to the East as you want and you will always be traveling East, but if you travel North you will eventually begin to travel South. That is why it was not said as far as North is from South because that is a finite distance. A flat Earth was something that people believed because they did not want to admit there were things they could not explain and came from lack of faith or failure to study what they claimed to believe in.


I find it amazing then that while this is so clearly written in the bible that : Galileo_Galilei was sentenced by the church for claiming what you claim. There is only one reason too, in the bible these text cannot be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Another example is Giordano Bruno.
He was burned and tortured for claiming what you say is written in the bible : That there are countless stars and planets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

I am sure when i dig deeper i can find countless of other examples.

quote:
Newton knew what the Bible said and I believe it helped fuel his study of gravity to help explain to him why he could believe what he believed. He believed the Earth was a sphere but wondered why people didn't fall off the bottom.


Very possible but Newton was also an alchemist. He was sure somewhere in the bible it was hidden how to make gold from lead. By the way, did you know that Newton prophesized then end of the world at 2060 ? It was new for me too. I never new Newton was fanatic as he was. But he was a loner too and was made after his death more of a social man then he really was. But anyhow, if Newton was not born in England at the time but in Rome or Spain or Portugal he would not have come as far as he did. He would have been burned at the stake.

I found this text, you can search for it yourself.

quote:
Newton was first intended for the Church. He set out with the study of divinity, and retained a tincture of it to his dying day. He very seriously adopted the cause of Arius against Athanasius, and even went farther than he, as all the Socinians actually do. There are at present a great many of the learned of this opinion; I shall not venture to criticize this communion, as they make no distinct body. They are, moreover, divided among themselves; and several of them have brought their system to pure Deism, to which they have adapted the morality of Jesus Christ. Newton was by no means of the number of these latter, and differed from the English Church only on the point of consubstantiation, being orthodox in all the rest. A proof of the sincerity of his faith is his writing a commentary on "Revelation." Here he finds it clear, to a demonstration, that the pope is Antichrist, and explains the rest of the book exactly as the other commentators have done.


RE: Oh Noes!
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/27/2009 7:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
It's so funny to see Christians get all bent out of shape by the old testament. If you want an old testament interpretation, ask the jews, who own the book. Genesis is meant only to assert that God created the universe, and was never meant to be a science lesson. End of story.


RE: Oh Noes!
By William Gaatjes on 10/27/2009 7:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
If i would want the truth i even have to go beyond the tanakh. Besides i do not believe anything that is written that preaches separation. That makes a group of people better then other people. We all have different interests, that is not a problem, we still have to be as one.
If i would have the time to learn and read and interprete old aramaic ,koptic, egypt, ancient greek, sanskriet, the old chinse languages, and the many text of south america at 5000 bc i know i would find a lot of borrowed stories and myths. Because i am sure at time treading was happening as wel.


RE: Oh Noes!
By JediJeb on 10/27/2009 10:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it amazing then that while this is so clearly written in the bible that : Galileo_Galilei was sentenced by the church for claiming what you claim. There is only one reason too, in the bible these text cannot be found.


Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.

The understanding of such verses is limited by many human emotions and understanding. Even when it was proven the Earth was a sphere many refused to believe simply because it would mean they had been wrong.


RE: Oh Noes!
By William Gaatjes on 10/27/2009 2:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.


What this text is talking about is that god took our sins from us the best he could. And since on a round planet, west is east i guess it explains it does it...

He did nothing.

I guess a lot of people feel fooled.

Now on a flat planet, There where east really is the most distant from the west as is the north the most distant from the south this text would make sense.
God took our sins away form us, our transgressions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgression


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/27/2009 3:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
How is the west east? This makes no sense.

East and West are infinitely far away. The are completely opposite cardinal directions. The idea clearly being communicated is that of infinity as is taught elsewhere in scripture.


RE: Oh Noes!
By redbone75 on 10/26/2009 11:51:03 AM , Rating: 3
Imagine where we would be now if not for such wonderful historic events like the Dark Ages.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Ryanman on 10/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Noes!
By AntiV6 on 10/26/2009 10:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
You can't just make proteins in a test tube...

You need to have a viable cell that carries bound/free ribosomes and pre-existing DNA with active replisomes to create mRNA which makes proteins(When combined with Amino Acids, tRNA, etc.)


RE: Oh Noes!
By thecutterofcloth on 10/26/2009 12:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
Unless he's referring to some more recent experiment I think he meant to say that we have created amino acids with some pretty basic molecules and electricity as first done by Miller and Urey. Cool experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimen...


RE: Oh Noes!
By AntiV6 on 10/26/2009 12:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
If only he said they made building blocks to proteins. :P

The Miller-Urey experiment is very cool, it definitely provides some information about how life could have started in during an early Earth.


RE: Oh Noes!
By wgbutler on 10/26/2009 9:21:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

The Miller-Urey experiment is very cool, it definitely provides some information about how life could have started in during an early Earth.


Actually it turns out the Miller-Urey experiment had nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life on Earth. Today it is universally agreed upon that the early Earth atmosphere used in Miller-Urey was not accurate.

And when they use what most scientists now agree WAS the early atmosphere, guess what...no amino acids form...


RE: Oh Noes!
By OccamsAftershave on 10/27/2009 12:48:30 PM , Rating: 3
Guess what? Amino acids form in a non-reducing atmosphere, especially when oxidation inhibitors like iron and even salts are present.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/84453m14673gn3...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p753367k810567...

Stop with the wellspring of creationist BS.


RE: Oh Noes!
By psonice on 10/26/2009 10:42:28 AM , Rating: 3
This whole "intelligent agent" idea, I just don't get it. Where did the intelligent agent come from? That's right, it must have been another intelligent agent. And so on, for infinity.. thus proving that there is no god. At best, there's an infinitely long chain of them.

Is that what you're suggesting here? An infinite number of gods?


RE: Oh Noes!
By HotFoot on 10/26/2009 11:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
To me, the origin of God question is really similar to the origin of the Universe question. Where did the Universe come from? Was it born from the ashes of a previous universe that went through a 'big crunch'?

Maybe, for us religious types, the question becomes one and the same.

But maybe 'us' is too broad a stroke. This is my particular flavour of belief and I don't want to speak for anyone else.

I do know I'm not alone in having no problem with a religious faith and science. Science is about what we know about the world. I can hardly see a growing knowledge of the world ever being in conflict with what any potential creator wanted, unless that creator really doesn't like us at all and wants us to remain ignorant and in the dark.

For me, faith is about the meaning behind it all.


RE: Oh Noes!
By psonice on 10/26/2009 11:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I've no problem with religion or faith. When all is said and done, nobody can say for sure whether the universe was created by a god, or if it just appeared, or if its always been there, or even if it's there at all. Scientists reveal the history of the universe, and it reaches further and further back, but there's always more questions beyond the answers. Based on the evidence, you can't really come to any decision, so you either believe something based on faith, shrug and admit you don't know, or you're wrong :)

What I do hate is these half-assed attempts to prove that there's a god (or that there isn't even) based on flawed logic like we see above.


RE: Oh Noes!
By MrPoletski on 10/30/2009 9:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
The universe exists because it can.

The net sum of all energy/mass of the universe is zero.

Everywhere we see something added to existance, i.e. matter, the stuff we are made from, something else somewhere has been subtracted.

An important thing to understand if you are understand the universe is that there is no such thing as nothing. You can't define a given volume and say that nothing is in it. Even if you suck all the particles out of a container in deep space, seal it, you still do not have 'nothing' inside there.

Instead you have a sea of virtual particles, some scientists like to say 'popping in and out of existance' but I don't like that description, they exist because they can, quantum mechanics allows it and much of QM is proven, certainly the area that begins to describe this, the uncertainty principle and zero point energy. Anyway, these particles have energy like any other, even though they have no tangiable existance as far as we can observe (yet).

You may have heard of this 'nothing stuff', some people call it dark matter (and dark energy).

Most of the energy/mass of this universe exists as this 'nothing stuff', like a bazillion drillion beer-glass-fillion times more of it that resides in tangiable matter.


RE: Oh Noes!
By acer905 on 10/26/2009 11:33:44 AM , Rating: 2
It's turtles all the way down...


RE: Oh Noes!
By donjuancarlos on 10/26/2009 4:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, psonice, for an "intelligent agent" to exist, then there cannot be any time when there was no God. However that is accomplished, either by infinite gods or us being limited to trying to wrap our minds around beings that exist in more that 3 dimensions, I think my ability to comprehend that will not be reached in this life.

btw all, I am religious and meant my first comment completely sarcastically. :)


RE: Oh Noes!
By Motoman on 10/26/2009 10:41:23 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
And even that wouldn't explain the origin or the fine-tuning of the universe.


Congratulations on putting the cart before the horse - for the billionth time, and ignoring the fact that such nonsense has been absolutely shown to be nonsense since the first time such things were uttered.

For those of you who just now fell off the turnip wagon, the universe isn't "fine tuned" to suit humans. Or other life. Life is fine tuned to exist in this universe. For the same reason that you don't see fish trying to struggle along with life on dry land, humans are prefectly suited for their environment because this is the environment that the universe provides. Universe happens first, then life happens much later, if at all possible, within the confines of what is available in that universe.


RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Noes!
By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 3:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that it requires a galaxy with a hundred billion stars to create at least one with a planet that provides the factors necessary to create life, then this is a very, very, very poor example of "fine-tuning".

I don't take much comfort in the suggestion that God is a sloppy coder.


RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/2009 4:55:16 PM , Rating: 1
Small words, coming from someone who knows nothing.

Why don't you at least educate yourself by reading Rare Earth?


RE: Oh Noes!
By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 5:02:35 PM , Rating: 3
Appeal to Authority fallacy. Please explain why reading that particular book is the only avenue to education.


RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/2009 5:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Here's one for you Mr. Fallacy: Strawman argument - never said that book was the only source for education.

One scientist put it best: "Why don't you then try to engineer a universe from scratch? Perhaps then you will find the answer."


RE: Oh Noes!
By iDarwin on 10/26/2009 9:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Small words, coming from someone who knows nothing.


Great comment. Is there anything useful you'd like to add to the conversation?


RE: Oh Noes!
By Iketh on 10/27/2009 4:04:55 AM , Rating: 1
LOL @ HYPOCRISY


RE: Oh Noes!
By William Gaatjes on 10/26/2009 5:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
Have you been there ?

As long there is a subtle energy difference possible by use of elements and chemicals and with chance life can have time to settle, there will be life. The moon is too hostile to support life on it's crust. But since we have not been on the moon or mars for decades to do research we will never know. We do know that here on earth life can exist in enviroments that would kill us humans instantly. Bacteria are life to you know...

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/La-Mi/Life-in-Ext...

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/06/spac...


RE: Oh Noes!
By William Gaatjes on 10/26/2009 6:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
But since we have not been on the moon or mars for decades to do research we will never know.

I meant to say that since we have not done research while living on mars or the moon for decades we cannot possibly know for sure.


RE: Oh Noes!
By wgbutler on 10/26/2009 9:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

the universe isn't "fine tuned" to suit humans. Or other life. Life is fine tuned to exist in this universe.


That's actually not true.

1) The Universe is fine-tuned to simply exist. This isn't a case of a different Universe with different laws supporting different types of life. When you look at things like the matter to anti-matter ratio, the initial rate of expansion, etc, the Universe came very very close to not existing at all. If these and other parameters had not been fined there would be no Universe whatsoever for any type of life to develop.

2) Many other constants are fine-tuned to support advanced life, such as the gravitational constant, which if slightly different would make any type of life other than simple microbes impossible.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Motoman on 10/27/2009 10:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
You continue to fail.

So the universe almost wasn't here. Fine. What difference does that make? There are an infinite number of "possible universes" that never happened. The fact that it exists at all rather than not existing is a moot point...if it wasn't here, we wouldn't be here either...and it would be unremarkable either way.

As for your bits about the gravitational constant, so on and so forth, you're re-hashing the same non-argument. Yes, if the gravitational constant was even slightly different, life in this universe would be radically different - and in all likelihood, humans would not exist. So? What exactly is the point you think you're making, other than continuously showing your ignorance of how anthropizing the universe is laughably hopeless?


RE: Oh Noes!
By Byte on 10/26/2009 10:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
Have you not seen Terminator? We are already creating life out of "non-living" matter.


RE: Oh Noes!
By Amedean on 10/26/2009 12:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree!


RE: Oh Noes!
By TeXWiller on 10/26/2009 12:43:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Every single time there is a biology article people have to start taking pot shots at religion.
Well, they should, shouldn't they? Finally, the currently dominant religious practices of "the West" will advance beyond the creation story of a single nomadic culture. People may actually start to find value form the ideas of their religion instead of leaning on the superstition. Religions are made of people, people.


RE: Oh Noes!
By sebmel on 10/26/2009 12:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
You are right wgb, that isn't an argument against religion.
This is:

I’m happy to take up the “Islamic ideology is rotten to the core” challenge. The route I take is applicable to all religions and superstitions. If I may though, I’d like to make an alteration to the inflammatory language of the proposition.

I’d prefer simply to say that:
Islam is a superstition and is the product of a combination of tribalism, mental ill health, opportunism, theft, justification of violence (and sexual abuse), heresay, ignorance, confidence tricks, politics, cultural necessity, accident, errors of reporting and irrational confidence in sensory artefact. Thus, it is unfit to be a foundation for the establishment of a civil society. (The same goes for any other religion/superstition.)

The root of the problem is in the method of perception, and interpretation of, reality of those who contributed to the belief system, and those who practise it. If one considers religions/superstitions collectively one notices that though there are a myriad differences between religions, past and present, they all share one fundamental attribute: a fallacious method for the interpretation of reality.

Consider the scientific method:
That involves millions of the best minds available to humanity passing trillions of hours in careful observation, measurement and analysis of every facet of reality perceptible to man or machine over a period, conservatively, of 3 millennia. That work is then peer reviewed and published for all other scientists to inspect. It isn’t accepted until it is cross referenced and can proven replicable and, even then, each successive generation of students is encouraged both to learn it and, during the most fertile period of human intellectual capability (15 to 24 years), to try to make a name for themselves by picking a hole in it. Only once it has survived two or three generation of that level of rigorous investigation is it considered fact.

Yet, even then, it never rises to the status of unquestionable. It is simple defined as successively more improbable that it is wrong as corroborative evidence builds up. Now why is that?

There’s a simple answer: confidence.

That perpetual invitation to question the body of work we call science is based on confidence in it’s quality. Research has travelled though time, though minds, through cultures and through politics and no matter where, or when, it was done it has proved consistent. Babylonian mathematicians were respected by Greek mathematicians, who in turn are respected by Indian, and Russian and American and Chinese mathematicians.

A good method: one consistent result.

Consider the religious method:
The founders of various religions have invariably looked around them and used their eyes to perceive their environment and commented on that. Yet there isn’t a single religion that looked at the eye itself to consider what it was capable of perceiving and, thus, what it wasn’t. Flowers are often cited in religious texts, in the contexts of gardens and ‘god’ created beauty, yet no religion ever took the time to seriously consider the work it claimed as that of its ‘god’.

Many insects perceive the ultraviolet spectrum of light, while humans cannot. Until science made sensors to perceive ultra-violet light no one knew of the markings that evolved on the petals of flowers that act like runway lights, guiding insects over the pollen laden sigma, thus using those insects to produce more viable seed. Religion had adopted a lazy, fairy tale explanation… pretty decorations… god gave you a pretty world.

Not only is this lack of intellectual rigour repeated endlessly by the various religions it demonstrates a stunning lack of curiosity for the work of their supposed creator. It’s akin to someone claiming to be a sophisticated expert on the music of Mozart yet disinclined to learn to read music or understand music theory.

The religious method has often involved sensory deprivation: fasting, wandering in a desert, sitting in a hole, not talking, crawling into caves, taking drugs and starvation. Naturally one only has to look at the plethora of fantastic creation myths to understand the utter incompetence of that method. Try it out: hold your breath for a while until oxygen deprivation sets in… you’ll see stars. No not real ones… god isn’t spinning stars around your head… your brain is malfunctioning.

Religions get around the problem of convincing people of their lazy and fanciful interpretations of reality in a number of ways: they indoctrinate the young (consider the famous, and unnerving, Jesuit maxim: “Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”) ; they try to take control of education and censor it in part or full (madrasahs and the blowing up of girls schools in Pakistan are examples); they use violence, threats of violence and the inculcation of fear (Catholic death cult; Islamic prohibition of apostasy); they make false virtues out of not questioning (Doubting Thomas) but get themselves in a logical twist when having to advise caution with regard to ‘false prophets’ and ‘devils’… so the advise becomes: question everything but never me; they take on political power and policing, often indulging in public summary ‘justice’ to rule by terror (the Taliban: beheadings; Spanish Inquisition: Ducking stool/Waterboarding) ).

Now compare that authoritarian denial of the right to question, the extreme anxiety over education, the prohibition of other lines of thought and the enormous variability of religions, with the confidence and consistency of science.

Islam is unfit for purpose (as are all religions/superstitions) because it is the result of a method which is unfit for purpose. Islam is more violent currently than other religions because it currently has more political power. All religions become violent when they achieve political power. Buddhism, which is a marginal religion because of its high philosophical content, is an exception… though in Japan in its Shinto form showed itself more than capable.

Any false explanation of reality is going to get itself in a mess. Errors become compounded. Mistakes have to be justified. Indignation has then to be suppressed. A status quo develops. Poverty, ignorance and opportunism become the natural allies of false realities. Intelligence, independence, creativity and bravery has to be repressed.

Oscar Wilde put the relationship between science and religion thus:
Science is the record of dead religions.

I put it as follows:
A empiricist is someone who in the presence of doubt does some research.
A religious believer is someone who in the presence of doubt eats an albino.


RE: Oh Noes!
By HercDriver on 10/26/2009 1:44:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A religious believer is someone who in the presence of doubt eats an albino.


Mmmmmmmm...Albino


RE: Oh Noes!
By CircularLogic on 10/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Noes!
By JediJeb on 10/26/2009 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many insects perceive the ultraviolet spectrum of light, while humans cannot. Until science made sensors to perceive ultra-violet light no one knew of the markings that evolved on the petals of flowers that act like runway lights, guiding insects over the pollen laden sigma, thus using those insects to produce more viable seed. Religion had adopted a lazy, fairy tale explanation… pretty decorations… god gave you a pretty world.


How do flowers perceive insects and over time change their petals to have ultraviolet marking to guide the insects to the pollen?


RE: Oh Noes!
By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 3:58:54 PM , Rating: 5
Perceive? No perception necessary. Flowers that were better at attracting insects were more likely to reproduce than flowers that didn't, and as such dominated their non-attracting buddies. Over time, those non-attracting species either randomly mutated to develop genes that attracted insects, genes that allowed them to reproduce in a different way, or they went extinct.


RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/2009 5:02:58 PM , Rating: 1
There's your problem - "more likely" doesn't mean that flowers that couldn't attract insects would then die out.

quote:
Over time, those non-attracting species either randomly mutated to develop genes that attracted insects, genes that allowed them to reproduce in a different way, or they went extinct.


Good. Explain to me then why we still have ugly people? Even Richard Dawkins has no answer for that.


RE: Oh Noes!
By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 5:10:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There's your problem - "more likely" doesn't mean that flowers that couldn't attract insects would then die out.

It's true; the probabilistic nature of evolution means that poorly-adapted species can perpetuate. Look at the Dodo, up until its unfortunate encounter with man.

The probability of a species dying off approaches 1 (ie - guaranteed) over time. Give a species that is less likely to survive a million years and it's extremely likely to no longer be around.

quote:
Explain to me then why we still have ugly people? Even Richard Dawkins has no answer for that.

Physical attraction is just one advantage to perpetuate the species. There are many others.


RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Noes!
By jbartabas on 10/26/2009 5:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good. Explain to me then why we still have ugly people? Even Richard Dawkins has no answer for that.


Beer. (and the complexity of putting on a condom, especially when beer is involved ... )


RE: Oh Noes!
By RivuxGamma on 10/26/2009 5:33:45 PM , Rating: 3
We still have ugly people because the desire to reproduce is stronger than the desire for attractive offspring.


RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/2009 5:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
So if you had a choice btw the PS3 or Wii, which would you bang?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PhJp3ciRQ

It has nothing to do with offspring, but with attraction to what humans characterize as "beauty".

But the more important point being made is this: Everytime these arguments come up, it is always the same; for all the variety and fine tuning found in nature, "random mutation + natural selection" did it, and every time it's pointed out how that is obviously false in that it is NOT responsible for ALL we see, but only SOME, you all then concede that it was never true in the first place.

"The theory that tries to explain everything explains nothing."


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/26/2009 5:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe humanity doesn't follow (most of us anyway) a consistent Darwinian worldview. We don't allow our disabled to just die off for example. We have compassion and we care for them because we believe they have intrinsic worth.

The whole eugenics movement hasn't caught on - yet...


RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/2009 6:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
If we are products of selfish Darwinian evolution, then why do we not follow it like you said?

Oh sure, there are a lot of selfish people in this world. But we are the only ones who care about the dead, the sick or help the weak. Why?


RE: Oh Noes!
By drew00149 on 10/26/2009 10:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
I never said we were products of Darwinian evolution because that's silly.

Why? Because we are created beings made in the image of God.

I was just trying to point out the inconsistency - don't you agree?


RE: Oh Noes!
By William Gaatjes on 10/26/2009 5:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good. Explain to me then why we still have ugly people? Even Richard Dawkins has no answer for that.


Because beauty is subjective.


RE: Oh Noes!
By sprockkets on 10/26/2009 6:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Subjective means hard to define, or "analog". One's person's beauty is another's ugly, but that doesn't mean it isn't definable.

Scientists have proven what constitutes beauty, and it has to to with the "golden triangle", so much so that even babies react accordingly to it, in that those who do not have the right dimensions on their face make babies scared and cry.


RE: Oh Noes!
By William Gaatjes on 10/26/2009 7:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that we humans are programmed with a predefined liking with respect to distance between the eyes and distance of eyes,nose and mouth. Or better to say we fall in love with the correct ratio's. It's true that ratio has the golden number 1.168 in it. That number is found everywhere in the universe. I am betting it is hidden in the fractal like geometry of atoms that endlessly repeats it self through our universe.

http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/mathOfBeauty.php

The website shows a good example : Jessica Simpson.
Although she is beautiful, she would bore educated men to death. Most educated men would choose a lesser beauty but with more brains. Jessica Simpson with brains , that is only possible when society accepts that women can develop their brains too.

But beauty is still subjective because we can decide that someone with perfect ratio's might not be a good partner based on their mind.

Another example is some tribes in Africa where the men like big women and the women like big men because being big means you have a lot of wealth. They might still have the ratios but may not be found attractive by people who prefer slimmer partners.


RE: Oh Noes!
By themaster08 on 10/27/2009 4:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good. Explain to me then why we still have ugly people?

Because of this.....

http://www.dicts.info/img/ud/alcohol.jpg


RE: Oh Noes!
By dark matter on 10/27/2009 7:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good. Explain to me then why we still have ugly people? Even Richard Dawkins has no answer for that.


Because someone got drunk enough to sleep with your mum? You never know, this trick may also work in your favor too!


RE: Oh Noes!
By callmeroy on 10/30/2009 8:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
If that's evidence of your faith -- seems to me it wasn't that strong to begin with so why did you even start to go to Church then?

That's the whole point of faith --- and I mean faith in WHATEVER you may happen to believe -- any religion or no religion.

Its not "faith" if you are so easily talked out of believing in --- whatever -- because some folks think its silly or ridiculous.....anymore than breakthroughs in science going "see we don't need your god to do this!"....


It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By tviceman on 10/26/2009 10:56:59 AM , Rating: 5
Did he really "create" life? He took DNA from one organism and implanted it in the shell of another organism. He neither created the DNA or the membrane for which the DNA was injected into. It may be a new and exciting thing in scientific procedures, but until someone can build a DNA strand from chaotic/unorganized mass, I think the headline is extremely misleading.




By JasonMick (blog) on 10/26/2009 11:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
I've spoken to several Ph.D biochemists, including one with close to 20 years in his department, and they all agreed that the discovery was essentially the creation of artificial life, so I feel the title is apt. It seems that commenters are questioning this breakthrough as it somehow threatens their beliefs.

quote:
until someone can build a DNA strand from chaotic/unorganized mass, I think the headline is extremely misleading


They have. DNA is not chaotic or organized, rather it is quite the opposite -- tightly controlled organization. DNA is essentially a collection of useful genes, along with some filler in eukaryotes. Scientists have for some time now been injection certain genes into other genomes. Complete genomes have been sequenced and understood. And now this demonstrates a complete genome can be replicated and pieced together.

As to the validity of using other cells to manufacture components for artificial organisms and whether this somehow jeopardizes the resulting organism's status of "artificial", that seems ridiculous. No matter how advanced we get, we'll likely use enzymes to control steps of our self assembly. They're an ideal tool to perform biochemical reactions, evolved over billions of years.

It's true eventually we'll likely not need a full factory organism, but we'll still need DNA to produce proteins and protein enzymes to produce components like the cloned DNA, membrane phospholipids, etc. We'll likely just cut out the unneeded components.

But this *is* the first time life has been artificially created.


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By TheBaker on 10/26/2009 11:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. Saying someone "created life" in a lab and linking what this guy did as proof that vitalism is fallacious is laughable. I don't subscribe to any of this crap, but that argument is just way off. This guy took living matter, inserted it into other living matter, and came out with more living matter. The vitalism argument involves creating living matter from nonliving matter, and you know it. People aren't criticizing you because you're challenging their beliefs. They're criticizing you because your headline is just stupidly wrong.

This guy perfected an advanced cloning technique. He didn't "create life" any more than a woman getting pregnant is "creating life." It all depends on your definition, and Vitalism uses a very specific definition that is decidedly NOT the same as the one used in this article or by these scientists.

Stop letting your hatred for religion get in the way of your journalism.


By JasonMick (blog) on 10/26/2009 12:08:31 PM , Rating: 5
On the contrary, you're misinformed about what vitalism is. Vitalism is the belief that living tissue possesses some supernatural force, and that it cannot perform in the same manner without that force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

I mean "artificial" in the context that it was not naturally created by asexual or sexual reproduction (or even via cell fusion), but rather synthetically created in a controlled way by man via use of a non-living, non-viable extract of an entire genome being implanted into a membrane to create a viable organism.

Past cloning or artificial insemination efforts have generally relied on genetic material inside living cells which are fused with a target cell.

This study goes beyond past efforts, substantially, in that it uses advanced DNA cloning and extraction (as opposed to cell fusion) to get a nonliving extract and then use this nonliving extract and a plasma-membrane encapsulated container to create a viable organism, capable of living and reproducing.

There have been similar studies working along this line of research, but this is the first, to my knowledge, that has produced viable organisms.

I have nothing against religion at all. People who think this study or others make it impossible to believe in religion are closed minded.

Again, I don't mean to be mean, but you can gripe and whine all you want, but I trust the opinion of Ph.D biochemistry researchers, familiar with this study and Venter's other work, who have used the exact phrase "artificial life" to describe it, more than an armchair expert who is offended by perceived religious fears concerning this work.


By therealnickdanger on 10/26/2009 12:17:34 PM , Rating: 4
So what your headline should read is that "Scientist Artificially Creates Hybrid Life Form", not "Creates Artificial Life". Semantics, yes, but more intellectually honest IMO.


By odessit740 on 10/26/2009 12:23:31 PM , Rating: 1
It isn't hybrid, it is artifical. Just because scientist didn't design the Genome himself does not mean it isn't artifical.

Genes jump from genome to genome, incorporating themselves into other species over time, 'Selfish Gene' approach. By your definition everything is a hybrid. Which defeats the purpose of the word. So no, artificial sounds good.


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By TheBaker on 10/26/2009 2:00:26 PM , Rating: 5
Would you consider a cloned sheep artificial life? After all, it couldn't exist at all without human intervention.

STOP ARGUING SEMANTICS. THIS IS NOT CREATING LIFE.

Is it artificial? Of course. So is every hybrid, every clone, every graft, every ARTIFICIAL insemination.

The phrase "artificial life" has a very distinct meaning for 99% of the world. It means you start with nothing living, and you end up with something living. Everyone scoffs and says "What do you expect, starting with chemicals and a test tube?" YES. That's exactly what I expect. Why? Because that's how it happened the first time on Earth. Aliens didn't put life here. It formed spontaneously from non-living complex organics. THAT is creating life, and that is what we haven't been able to replicate.

Saying "well, these guys I've talked to that are really smart say it's creating life" is silly. That's great that you believe them. Argue semantics all you want. The rest of us that prefer common sense know that this is not creating life any more than cloning is.


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By mcnabney on 10/26/2009 3:16:47 PM , Rating: 5
A membrane is not living.
A strand of DNA is not living.

They put these non-living things together and made something that was alive. Just like Frankenstein's monster.

All of the component parts have been created on their own in the laboratory from fundamental components. This lab just proved that those components could also be used to construct and create viable life. If they wanted to waste money they could have done it from the ground up, but the point they made was clear to the scientific community.


By CollegeTechGuy on 10/27/2009 10:00:47 AM , Rating: 2
Do you enjoy, dislike, or have comments about the articles written by Jason Mick?

If you have a comment, feel free to write to the Editor here...

http://www.dailytech.com/ContactStaff.aspx?id=18


By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 3:22:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"What do you expect, starting with chemicals and a test tube?" YES. That's exactly what I expect. Why? Because that's how it happened the first time on Earth.

I'd cry if I weren't too busy laughing.

Anyway, if you don't see how this is significantly different than cloning, there's no hope for you.


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 4:53:15 PM , Rating: 1
Ad hominem fallacy: He could have written a billion completely dishonest and inaccurate articles and that wouldn't say a thing about the veracity (or lack thereof) of this one.


By Clienthes on 10/26/2009 6:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
He wasn't saying the article isn't honest because other articles haven't been, he's saying he doesn't think Mic cares about honesty because his other articles have demonstrated that.

No fallacy.


By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 6:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
You know, you're right. I retract, concede the point, and apologize. Sorry.


By artemicion on 10/26/2009 12:24:43 PM , Rating: 5
I think the layman's view of "creating artificial life" is either creating a robot like Data from Star Trek, or using completely non-living matter to make living matter.

Your reliance on what the PhD community defines as creating artificial life is irrelevant. You don't write for a research journal. You write for an audience, which judging by the votes your comments are getting, have a view that is different than the scientific community. And based on what their definition of creating artificial life is, your headline was misleading. Speaking for myself, I too was expecting an article about some scientist creating a Terminator, Frankenstein, or one of the dolls from '9'.

Oh, and you jumped the gun a little by speculating that our outrage stems from our religious views. Defensive much?


By odessit740 on 10/26/2009 12:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Using completely non-living matter to make living matter? Like what, let us not use Carbon to for living matter? Wtf are you talking about. On this planet, DNA is molecule for hereditary and Proteins for the expressed phenotypes.

Hate to break it to you, but the PhD community is what defines Science. Umm let us just take all knowledge which is found by research and varified by peer reviewed journals and call it bogus. Yeah, let us do that. And whatever your personal views are, hell, let us call that fact. Genius, I know.

It's like saying the world is round. Well... since it isn't a perfect sphere you cannot call it round. It is like an imperfect oval. So you must not call it round, it is circular, but not perfect. Yeah that would be a perfect title, the spherical but not really or quite a sphere world.

The world is round (heh pun, round up or down), get over it.


By dark matter on 10/26/2009 12:50:05 PM , Rating: 1
Ooh, the PhD community. As though that makes a difference.
Utter intellectual snobbery.

This isn't artificial life any more than my chess game is artificial intelligence. If you cannot see that then you need to be stripped of your PhD.


By artemicion on 10/26/2009 1:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
Presumably, before the big bang (if you prescribe to that theory), there was no DNA. At some point, DNA appeared. A scientist that simulated that process and started with no DNA and ended up with-DNA would have created artificial life. That's what I mean by non-living matter to living matter.

And I hate to break it to YOU, but the scientific community does NOT define semantics. I am not arguing that this article involves "artificial life" as defined within the insular scientific community. I am saying that outside the scientific community, where we are not familiar with your usage of certain terms, creating "artificial life" has a different meaning. Thus, an article, presented to the non-scientific community (or a scientific community outside of biological realm), that headlines the creation of artificial life is misleading to us.

You can call us "wrong" for our usage of semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that we have different definitions of the same terms. And I subscribe to the journalistic philosophy that one should write for their audience, instead of demanding how the audience should interpret your headline. Call it friendly advice for the present "journalist".


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 3:28:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am saying that outside the scientific community, where we are not familiar with your usage of certain terms, creating "artificial life" has a different meaning.

That's so cute; outside the scientific community, an invisible cloud pixie is believed to have created the universe. We ignore those people, too.


By dark matter on 10/27/2009 7:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
I am not a religious man myself, preferring to be agnostic. However you are quite incorrect with your assumption that an invisible cloud pixie created the universe.

There I advise you to step outside the lab for a while, maybe even get laid. Who knows on the point of your very first orgasm with a real woman you may even have an Epiphany.


By redbone75 on 10/26/2009 1:45:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You write for an audience, which judging by the votes your comments are getting, have a view that is different than the scientific community.

So, judging from that logic, would you entrust your health to views held by a particular audience or to specific, proven methods performed by the scientific community? The audience can think what it wants, but if that audience isn't well-versed in a particular field then it should learn a little more before spouting offenses. We, as the audience, try to hold DailyTech bloggers to a higher standard. This is an instance where we should apply that same standard to ourselves.
quote:
your headline was misleading. Speaking for myself, I too was expecting an article about some scientist creating a Terminator, Frankenstein, or one of the dolls from '9'.

I'm sorry, and I really don't mean to be offensive, but that comment really seems to have an entirely science fiction tilt, whereas the article itself is grounded more in pure science. I, for one, do not feel mislead at all. Consider this: we've been looking for proof of life on other solar bodies for some time now, right? What is it that scientists have been looking for traces of to offer as proof that life exists on other planets? Bacteria and other micro-organisms. Do any of you, from an honest, intellectual point of view, expect such a massive leap in science as to create complex, multi-cellular organisms before creating simple organisms?


By jbartabas on 10/26/2009 12:40:01 PM , Rating: 5
Can you cite the name of the phD's who support your point of view (it's not the Watergate as far as I know, you shouldn't have a problem citing your sources here ...). Do you have a link to another news mentioning this study in similar terms? I must say I am rather puzzled by the characterization you made, but as rather ignorant in that particular domain, I would be glad to accept the endorsement of experts. I found a rather different wording here (http://www.genomeweb.com/venter-institute-team-dem... ) who does not go as far as you did (and in addition, they properly attribute the research to its main contributors):

quote:
Venter Institute Team Demonstrates Successful Cross-Species Genome Transfer

A research team at the J. Craig Venter Institute recently completed work that promises to seriously ramp up synthetic genomics and bring the concept of a synthetic cell that much closer to reality.


By JasonMick (blog) on 10/26/2009 1:32:23 PM , Rating: 1
Hi Jbartabas,

One of contacts is Professor Ashok Bhagwat, a professor at Wayne State University. WSU has one of Michigan's top medical school programs and is the center of a lot of chemistry and biochemistry research.

Dr. Bhagwat has taught since 1982 (27 years) and did his postdoc at Penn State. He stated that Venter "created artificial life", repeating "Yes biochemists have created life." I've had several graduate courses with him and I consider him an excellent expert when it comes to biochemistry and very informed.

http://chem.wayne.edu/faculty/bhagwat/

Granted Genome Web's wording is a bit different, but this is largely because of the ambiguity of exactly what a "synthetic" cell is. Is it enough to create a unique organism, made by man (as this study does)? Do you have do use non-enzymatic reactions? Do you have to not use carbon?

I've heard a number of criteria in this thread alone. At the end of the day, I admit its hard to define, but this work comes close to "artificial life" if not achieves it.


By jbartabas on 10/26/2009 1:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the reference.

You'd probably want to clarify the scientific meaning of artificial life in your article, or at least the definition you are going to adopt for the article. It's always a good idea to start with the basics. Like many, I have assumed that DNA and a whole living cell was created from chemical elements and reactions. I actually remember similar debates when the discussion is about finding extra-terrestrial life ... the first tricky step being to define what would be accepted as "life" ... (As stated in another of my posts, you may also want to attribute the study to Vashee or Lartigue and correct your link to Science that goes through a library web site requiring login and password).


By Clienthes on 10/26/2009 6:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Or it could be that we, being expert speakers of the English language, took the words to mean something other than what was intended and have a perfectly valid point of view.

The biologists don't have a corner on the English language, and while they get to describe their accomplishment any way they want, if the public largely expects the words they use to mean something else it's a communication fail, and not by the public.

Yes, it's "artificial," and yes, in some sense of the word it was "created," but seriously, do you expect us to believe that those scientist really expect people to get what they actually did from those words? "Created life" is a culturally loaded expression, and those scientists know it. Using a phrase they *know* will be misunderstood to describe their work is not intellectually honest, and defending those words isn't either.

He proved the vital principle invalid. That's terrific. Then he described his major accomplishment in overly grandiose terms. Boo.

I'm not an "armchair expert." I'm a linguist by trade, but it seems language is largely what's being discussed in this thread.


By CollegeTechGuy on 10/27/2009 9:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
Mick, you are CONSTANTLY creating titles of articles that are grossly misleading. It has gotten to the point where I can spot one of your articles off the main page, simply because the title will be something so un-heard of. I'm all for new findings and breakthroughs, but you need to learn to title your articles appropriately.

In addition to that, you also need to keep your personal feelings out of your journalism. And by this I mean your constant slant towards religion and global warming. It is obvious from all of your readers who respond that we can see your position any article.

A good journalist will not mislead his/her readers, or slant and article to suit their own biast.


By odessit740 on 10/26/2009 12:19:55 PM , Rating: 1
Do you know who Craig Venter is? Jesus Christ man, you are so wrong on all of the issues that you have stated it is a joke. Artificial life is by the text book definition, an organism that obtains resources and replicates. End of story, no matter how you look at it. Biologically you are just a collection of instructions (DNA) and their visible results (Proteins), with misc. RNA to convert from instructions to machinery. That is the biological view and the biological definition, you need to go and learn this or stfu.

Secondly you must not know who Craig Venter is, let me explain, he is the man who tried to patent the human genome. Hell he tried to patent DNA in general, he is 'more evil' than Bill Gates and Steve Jobs combined, if you believe in that shit anyways. Craig Venter is a true entrepenuer and a man with a scary vision, he doens't see things like the rest of society. I didn't even know he had a PhD, as far as I know he was just well versed in biology and wanted to own all life.

So, this is artificial life and god created you in a test tube, get over it.


By dark matter on 10/26/2009 12:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Erm dude, calm down a second and actually think about what you are writing, let alone proof reading it.

Artificial life is by the text book definition, an organism that obtains resources and replicates. End of story

So, I am artificial life am I? My cat that has given birth to kittens recently is artificial life is it? Get a grip dear, your knitting is unravelling.


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By mcnabney on 10/26/2009 12:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
As to the patents, if you haven't being paying attention, the patent office will pretty much allow anything to be patented. Researchers in every other field gain the monetary benefit of their efforts through the patent structure, he thought along similar lines. He is one of the world's leading genetic researchers.

And also, this is artificial life. He combined two things that were not alive into a new and unique liviing organism. the question of if should is still open to debate.


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By JediJeb on 10/26/2009 1:51:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And also, this is artificial life. He combined two things that were not alive into a new and unique liviing organism. the question of if should is still open to debate.


Not sure about that, he used DNA for a bacteria which was living, then inserted some DNA from a yeast which was living then place it into a cell membrane after taking out the host DNA which was also living. Seems he used living matter to create other living matter.

I agree with others here, artificial would mean he took the adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine and built a custom DNA strand then somehow chemically built a cell membrane and all the things needed inside the cell to make it viable. If I take a piece of maple wood and glue it to a piece of oak wood I haven't made artificial wood, I have made a laminate of natural wood, which is more like what this experiment is doing.


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By mcnabney on 10/26/2009 3:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
The research here is proof of concept. He was just assembling parts and creating a unique organism. The parts he used have all been manufatured from basic components by himself and others in previous research. Kind of like making a car with off-the-shelf parts.

What you are talking about with wood is aleady done and it is called grafting. However, the wood being grafted is still alive and would be more analogous to an organ transplant. The material in the new cell was all dead/non-functional before and living afteward. Impressive. And scary.


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By JediJeb on 10/26/2009 5:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
Actually grafting is different from the laminate process I mentioned but maybe a better example.

What siginfies dead or alive with bacteria or parts of bacteria though. Frozen cells have no metabolism yet when they are unfrozen and their metabolism returns they are again alive. This is more like Frankenstein though in that he took parts made my nature and just rearranged them. Like making the car with off the shelf parts, the question is who made the parts?


By mcnabney on 10/26/2009 11:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
The Frankenstein's monster analogy works well with this research since parts of existing organisms were used.

However, this research was only trying to get the technology down. They could have just as easily used a completely human-designed strand of DNA instead of a natural version. I think they wanted the concept done with the best chance of success. Science has already modified DNA in a number of organisms used in agriculture in ways impossible in nature. Like putting bacterial luminescent protein codes in food crops. The DNA in this case could just as easily been man-made.


By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 3:33:59 PM , Rating: 1
It's artificial life in the same sense that Ununoctium is an artificial element: It's not found in nature.


By Breathless on 10/26/2009 12:52:12 PM , Rating: 1
This doesn't threaten my beliefs, and I am an unashamed creationist. Don't you see the irony that it still needed to be "created" by something or someone? Whatever genius thing that this guy just achieved was done because HE DID IT. It would have never happened on its own with no outside intervention, no matter how much time or random chance was given.... How does this threaten my religious beliefs?


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By JediJeb on 10/26/2009 2:01:02 PM , Rating: 3
Reminds me of the old joke of when some scientist come to God and tell Him they have learned to create life and they are now as smart as God. He says " Ok show me". The scientist gets out his test tubes and starts out " Ok first you take a little soil.."
God stops him there and says" Make your own soil"


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By freeagle on 10/26/2009 4:19:05 PM , Rating: 4
And the scientist grabed some energy, transformed those into elemental particles, they cooled down and created H and He. Then he put those under pressure in a few other cycles and came with C, Si, O and the rest... and when he had enough, he continued: "so, we have a little soil... "


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By JediJeb on 10/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By freeagle on 10/26/2009 7:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
I dont have to, it is here since the big bang. How it got here is irrelevant for this discussion, because no one, for now, have anything to base his theory on. Saying it was some god has same value as saying it was a residue from The great A'tuin's sneeze


By freeagle on 10/26/2009 7:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just to add... and because energy has no real structure, you dont need an intelligent creator


By freeagle on 10/26/2009 4:24:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It would have never happened on its own with no outside intervention, no matter how much time or random chance was given


No one knows for sure, not even you, what exactly happened ~4.3 billion years ago... it's perfectly possible it did so without any outside intervention, and you know it. You call yourself a believer for a reason


RE: It may be a groundbreaking new procedure, but...
By drycrust on 10/26/2009 1:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. To me, artificial life is where someone gets a bunch of common chemicals, boils them up, lets them stew, and voila, artificial life. It's like me taking out the old ram of this computer and putting in 1GB, then saying I built a computer.

But something that seems to have been missed is surely if "this" is accepted as "artificial life", then surely it raises doubt as to the validity of the theory of evolution. One of the most basic fundamentals of the theory of evolution is that a group of commonly available basic chemicals (water, salt, nitrogen, sand, etc), in the normal earth environment, without the influence of other living things, got together and "made life". Here, the guy started out with a functioning living organism (and one that needs other life to survive) and not with the basic bits found in nature. In other words, if this is the minimum needed to achieve "artificial life" it says that the minimum life could have started at is with "other life", and that discredits one of the most basic and important premises' of the theory, which was life started with normal commonly available earth chemicals.


By OpenGLJourneyman on 10/26/2009 2:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
"But something that seems to have been missed is surely if "this" is accepted as "artificial life", then surely it raises doubt as to the validity of the theory of evolution. "

Incorrect, Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."

Notice the statements, "could have" and "theory" guys. No one has proof of any of this stuff :) Don't get so worked up. Go have a glass of wine and read a book. :)


By sprockkets on 10/26/2009 5:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
It is good that you make that distiction, because there is empirical evidence for evolution, and NONE for abigenesis.


By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 3:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the most basic fundamentals of the theory of evolution is that a group of commonly available basic chemicals (water, salt, nitrogen, sand, etc), in the normal earth environment, without the influence of other living things, got together and "made life".

... Over the course of a billion years. I question your understanding of evolution if the variable of "time" never entered your consideration on this subject.


By Lightnix on 10/26/2009 10:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree with you. To me, artificial life is where someone gets a bunch of common chemicals, boils them up, lets them stew, and voila, artificial life. It's like me taking out the old ram of this computer and putting in 1GB, then saying I built a computer.


I'd argue that saying you should 'make life' through 'boiling some chemicals in a test tube' is akin to saying to build a computer yourself, you must have designed, fabricated, soldered, etc. all of the components yourself. Extremely detached examples like that go both ways.

quote:
One of the most basic fundamentals of the theory of evolution is that a group of commonly available basic chemicals (water, salt, nitrogen, sand , etc) in the normal earth environment, without the influence of other living things, got together and "made life"


You heard it here first, sand is a basic chemical element.

Also, no, that is not 'one of the most basic fundamentals of evolution', it's one of the most basic fundamentals of abiogenesis! They're different fields!

Also, what would you define 'normal earth environment'? Would you find it hard to believe normal, simpler chemical reactions could happen without intervention in a 'normal earth environment'? A 'normal earth environment' has changed a lot over the past few billion years, after all.

quote:
In other words, if this is the minimum needed to achieve "artificial life" it says that the minimum life could have started at is with "other life", and that discredits one of the most basic and important premises' of the theory, which was life started with normal commonly available earth chemicals.


That's a huge if and a gross oversimplification of the topic at hand.


By atlmann10 on 10/26/2009 11:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have stuck My DNA in something 3 times, and no one ever wrote any articles about me. I got 3 daughters from it I was happy her mom was happy and grandma was happy of course. I just wanna know when I am gonna get nominated for a nobel prize by figuring out how to combine my DNA with another cell and get a living organism from it. Heck one of my daughters just turned 16 so it was long before this scientist (wow if I had even know thats what I was doing)ever even tried it (wow if I did it 16 years ago, and you look at this guy, you would think he would have tried to insert his test tube into some emrbyo somewhere long ago)?

"This joke has been provided by the democratic department of liberation causing republic an some people."


/facepalm
By Hieyeck on 10/26/2009 11:46:42 AM , Rating: 3
Why do I cling to the hope that maybe once, that right after he writes a decent article, he doesn't take two steps back towards sensationalism?

Far from creating life, this is about engineered life that didn't collapse into a pile of protoplasmic goo. All it shows is that we CAN fiddle with life. I think we're a long ways from creating it.




RE: /facepalm
By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 3:48:51 PM , Rating: 1
What, creating it out of nothing? Not the authors fault you have unrealistic expectations.

Again: This is a viable organism that does not exist in nature. It is "artificial" in at least one significant sense, and thus it is accurate to call it "artificial life".


RE: /facepalm
By amanojaku on 10/26/2009 4:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What, creating it out of nothing?
Yes, because that's what it means to create artificial life: to create life from something that has no life. There are three accepted methods of creating artificial life:

1) Soft, meaning AI. We're afraid of learning AI that's malicious, e.g. Skynet.
2) Hard, meaning robots and such. We're afraid of super-strong robots that we can't control, e.g. the Replicators or enraged Lucy Liu-bots.

1 + 2) Is usually what we're most familiar with, as AI is kind of useless without some way to interract with the world, and robots that aren't software upgradeable (i.e. capable of learning) are usually easy to defeat.

3) Wet, meaning biological life. The person who figures this out will be rich as everyone will have genetically engineered sex slaves who can cook, clean, and don't talk during our favorite TV shows.

The guy in the article seems to have done nothing more than genetic engineering, which is nothing new (seedless fruit,) but I can't read the source article because it requires a proxy login or something.


RE: /facepalm
By SPOOFE on 10/26/2009 4:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, because that's what it means to create artificial life

Who died and put you in charge?

[quote]There are three accepted methods of creating artificial life:[/quote]
Accepted by whom, and under what authority?

[quote]The guy in the article seems to have done nothing more than genetic engineering, which is nothing new[/quote]
Except we now have a species that didn't exist in nature before. It's as artificial as Ununoctium, an element that was created (and described as an "artificial element" by just about anyone that matters) much the same way: By using basic, readily-available materials and reconfiguring them in a different way.

There is no reason to NOT call this "artificial life".


RE: /facepalm
By jbartabas on 10/26/2009 5:06:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Except we now have a species that didn't exist in nature before.


Is there no difference between the concepts of artificial species and artificial life? Aren't many agriculture species artificial, resulting from man-made hybridization? Would that constitute artificial life then?


RE: /facepalm
By Hieyeck on 10/28/2009 8:46:18 AM , Rating: 2
I had this long winded argument regarding the flaws in your logic (or rather, lack thereof) and how you're nitpicking without reading and taking the article as a whole, but I think this says it all...

quote:
There is no reason to NOT call this "artificial life".
Who died and put you in charge?


Yawn...
By amanojaku on 10/26/2009 10:02:12 AM , Rating: 5
Hollywood and plastic surgeons have been creating artificial life for years! j/k




All this has happened before...
By MrBungle123 on 10/26/2009 10:52:49 AM , Rating: 3
and will happen again...




RE: All this has happened before...
By Motoman on 10/26/2009 12:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
I for one welcome our new Cylon masters.


lol
By realist on 10/26/2009 11:29:21 AM , Rating: 5
In Soviet Russia artificial life creates you.




Source
By jbartabas on 10/26/2009 12:26:56 PM , Rating: 3
Can we get an accurate and reliable reference for this study, better than:

quote:
The groundbreaking success was reported in the September edition of the journal Science.


There are four issues of Science in September, and browsing them quickly I could find only that:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325...

I am assuming it is not the study you are referring to, as Venter is only the 17th author and not the corresponding author.

Oh wait, I have edited the link you provide to avoid the password request and it seems to be the same paper. Is that right ??




RE: Source
By drmo on 10/27/2009 9:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
That is the article, but the order of authors is not necessarily that important. Different fields and journals have their own standards for determining authorship, and since Science publishes in many fields, they may let the authors decide the order. Often, in biology, the last author is the PI and the first author is the writer of the first manuscript. In this case, it should be noted that the work was done at "The J. Craig Venter Institute" so it seems that using his name in Dailytech's article was valid.


South African?
By Sunbird on 10/26/2009 10:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
That's a very South African sounding name and surname... I wonder... Can someone google it? me is le tired...




RE: South African?
By Proteusza on 10/26/2009 10:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
Thats also what I thought. But I've never heard of a South African calling himself by his initial and then middlename. The few South Africans I know that want to be known by their middle names and not first names, just drop the first national.

If he were Craig Venter and not J Craig Venter, then yeah he could South African. But given that the name Venter obviously has European roots, he could well be of Dutch descent, but an American or something.


Journalism
By Drag0nFire on 10/26/2009 11:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Surprisingly, this almost certainly Nobel-worthy achievement has drawn relatively little press in the last month.


Given that Nobel awards are given based on the impact that they have on the scientific community, only time will tell if this work is Nobel-worthy. It would be shoddy journalism to claim otherwise.




RE: Journalism
By JediJeb on 10/26/2009 2:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
All the press was taken away by that other Nobel Prize winner.


By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 10/26/2009 12:19:28 PM , Rating: 3
apparently to "create" artificial life you must first have actual life that already exists.




By sr88 on 10/26/2009 1:24:25 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/chemical...

I don't understand why Mick didn't cite anything that Venter's team actually wrote and instead cited wikipedia and then went on a rant about vitalism instead of talking about what this research is actually about, cloning and implanting DNA.




Using Life to Create Life?
By ImSpartacus on 10/26/2009 9:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
Cheater!

Still interesting. This will shake things up a bit.




And more...
By jimhsu on 10/26/2009 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
Now we just need a similar experiment where the genome is synthesized completely artificially (i.e. manual addition to the 3' end without a DNA template) and have that put into a vector and synthesized. That will be the dawn of truly customizable life.




Darth Plagueis
By kontorotsui on 10/26/2009 10:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
From now on you will be called Darth... Plagueis.




such bad writing.
By alyarb on 10/26/2009 10:46:51 AM , Rating: 1
are we in 5th grade? where is your poster board with Men's Health magazine cutouts?

"Modern science, however, has shown that the makeup of a living organism is nothing more than a complex mix of biochemicals."

hahahaha ooooooh the esoteric mysteries solved by modern science! If you're going to just rehash an article from another site, stop trying to write it as if you're some local news anchor who just got interrupted by a breaking story. it reads so, so poorly. Also the phrase, "a complex mix of biochemicals" is syntactically abhorrent and it doesn't make any sense. "biochemical" is not a noun. organisms are made up of chemicals, not biochemicals. "biochemical" is a redundant adjective used by laypeople to describe some chemical reactions that occur in living things. Needlessly fluffing up your key words with fancy prefixes that don't even make sense is nothing but a huge billboard to your readers that you have no clue at all what you're writing about. Why don't you start with plagiarism, and then work your way up?

quote:
Now a major scientific breakthrough has been made that may have profound impact on scientific research, and even how we view life itself.


You see how this is garbage, right? Do you see how this is terrible writing? Do you see how you have shamelessly indulged your bias in an attempt to evoke the reader's awe while simultaneously torpedoing it with incredibly poor word choice and cliche? How has this breakthrough made profound impact on "scientific research?" Is everyone going to drop what they're doing and reevaluate their work based on this guy's results? No, it's not going to change anything. It has no impact on anything. His technique isn't even new, at all, he just transposed almost a complete genome, however small. It is not "creating artificial life" any more than regular cloning or gene transplants are "playing God" as so many piss poor sensationalist stories like this one like to call it.

In a few years maybe we will have bacteria or some other self-replicating microbe that can self assemble in a solution according to a genome written by humans. THAT would be creating life. Transplanting or altering a genome that was ironed out over billions of generations in the natural world is not creating life, and it happens every day in thousands of labs around the world. That's why this "almost certainly Nobel-worthy achievement" (you're killing me) isn't making huge press. It's not that big of a deal. All you're showing us is that your mind has been boggled by techniques that have been understood for a long time, techniques that are have matured out of research and are well established in industrial processes.

I get that it's a blog post, and that you have elbow room in which you can freely post pathetic and worthless ideas, but providing links to dailytech in a dailytech post is stupid, and providing links to wikipedia is even worse. Reading this post is like looking up at the stars with a girl listening to her confess to me all the hokey nonsense she believes.

anyway, good luck with the site.




RE: such bad writing.
By bill3 on 10/28/2009 1:36:17 PM , Rating: 1
Mick is a sensationalist, annoying moron. He constantly tries to create controversy and his blogs revolve around a few subjects:

Pro-piracy/stealing
Anti MS
Pro Apple
Overhyped science bullshit (breathless articles about quantum computing and invisibility cloaks, neither of which actually do or probably will EVER exist in any reasonable form are two of his faves)
Pro Evolution bullshit
Global warming mythology bullshit.

Honestly, he probably needs to be fired from Dailytech.

Unfortunatly, he seems to write at least 4X as many blogs as anybody else on the site too.


God, Christianity, Atheists, and friends..
By StraightCashHomey on 10/26/09, Rating: 0
By tygrus on 11/2/2009 7:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
an I put a rat in the blender and see what crawls out .. lots of bacteria and food for the bacteria.

DNA is like the old punch card computers: the program cards (instructions) were mixed in with the data cards.

The closer we look at living things the more complex we find they really are.

If it is survival of the fittest and we are just mutant animals (evolution from bacteria) then why not let me run around with weapons to kill everyone else. Actually has occurred in recent history with the dictators, despots and countries with no proper law & order.

Widespread wealth and prosperity can only be achieved and sustained with the Christian ideals that civilised society was built on. I'm not talking about religious dictatorships, selfishness or heavy enforcement of past/present organised religion.


Its all fun and games...
By ZachDontScare on 10/26/2009 3:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
Its all fun and games until this creation escapes the lab and starts animating the dead.

Then it becomes just plain fun.




By Shining Arcanine on 10/26/2009 10:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Craig Ventor might have created an artificial life, but it is not a new species anymore than Frankenstein would be considered a new species.

This is the equivalent of taking one person's brain and another person's body, putting them together and bringing someone to life from the two pieces you stitched together. While it is groundbreaking and it might pave the way to the creation of new species, I do not consider it to be as remarkable as having actually made a new species.

Vitalism is still alive and well. I do not think it can die without someone molding a truly unique species out of basic source materials. I recall hearing about a new form of life Ventor was supposed to be working on that used fatty acids as genetic material. If he actually were to succeed in doing that, then you could consider Vitalism to be dead.




Why oh why
By atlmann10 on 10/26/2009 11:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
Does the Eu have to try to get involved in everything?

"So Professor Venter turned to the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae -- interestingly, a eukaryote (M. mycoides is a eubacteria) -- to carry out the cloning. Using the yeast, complete 1.1-Megabase M. mycoides genomes were cloned and harvested."

Oh and on the I believe you believe issue it is getting old. Therefore; it is beginning to sound like a never ending argument over toys, by a bunch of children. If I believe something it affects me directly. Therefore; it has absolutely nothing to do with you or what you believe, or your right to do so, nor does it effect how you practice your belief.

By the way my brother is a minister so don't even start trying to preach to me please. He is also way more developed in religion, what it means, what life is, what god is etc. Than most of you will ever be, we discuss issues on a regular basis.




misleading!
By rodrigu3 on 10/27/2009 1:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
Just about everything written in this article is misleading... ignorance (even when faked) makes my head hurt.




So...what?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/27/2009 7:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
He injects life with life and creates life? He has done nothing more than an engine swap. He didn't create the engine or the car. Piffle. And for that he puts his middle initial on the name of his institute? I'm surprised you got his whole head in that picture.




Please Change Title
By bhougha10 on 10/27/2009 12:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Please change the title, this is very misleading.
I understand you get a lot more readers by misleading, but this is irresponsible.




mislabel
By thinkandbelieve on 10/27/2009 11:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
This article is an another example of this particular writer “Jason Mick” repeated false claims at evolution that shows nothing but his lack of knowledge or honesty or both, and further trying to mislead people. By claiming that what he presented have been creating life is totally out of text since it still used DNA which is alive to clone through an intermediary host.
If you read some of his other articles you will see delusions in the same line like this one. Go to “Life in the fast lane: Human evolution accelerating”
http://www.dailytech.com/Life+in+the+Fastlane+Huma...

He describes variations as evolution?

Or go to “Evolution in E Coli Bacterium observed in Lab”
http://www.dailytech.com/Evolution+in+Escherichia+...

where he describe a mutation that has been reported before and similar to several mutations as evolution and the good answer is in the responses in the same article. I think he just find anything he can stick to evolution and then make a big misleading title. He can live his delusions anyway he want but not in pages of a good site, which eventually may affect the credibility of the site itself
This man is simply abusing the site for his own religion “evolution” is this case. I am a very big believer in science myself and this does not serve science either




no creationism??
By tava84 on 10/31/2009 8:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
how can anyone not believe in creationism? i can understand one not believing in religion, but creationism? the way i see it is that something built the universe. maybe not specific piece by piece, but something input these general laws into the universe that everything must, and does, conform to (gravity, physics, etc). u really cant have laws of anything unless something set it into place. we have no clue of how old the universe really is and no clue on how it was formed. the big bang theory doesnt even explain it. nothing does cuz we arent meant to know/comprehend it.
hell, we can all be one big ass version of the "sims" and not even know it




this is not artificial life...
By sparkyar on 11/2/2009 7:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
this is not artificial life... just old people playing with genes...
Religion sucks but God still kick arss!!!




Venter
By RichardNevin on 11/13/2009 10:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
You all seem to have missed something key to this thread. There is a lot of argument about whether transferring cloned DNA is creating life because it is not the same as synthesizing DNA from scratch. But in fact, Craig Venter's team synthesized a complete genome from base chemicals in a previous experiment. In other words he has already made synthetic DNA.

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/chemical...

The experiment to transfer cloned DNA into an empty cell was a variation on the theme because attempts to transfer the truly synthetic DNA into an empty cell failed. The knowledge gained from this transfer of cloned DNA into an empty cell should enable them to succeed however.

I think it's a case of watch this space.

This experiment was a variation on the theme.




Venter
By RichardNevin on 11/14/2009 2:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
I posted a description of Venter's earlier success in making synthetic DNA here:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&...

The post includes a poll that you can use after reading the text, to vote on whether you agree that he did actually make truly synthetic DNA.




"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki