Religions > Atheism > ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"¥ UltraMan ¥" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2007 02:16:11 AM |
| Object: |
~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
· Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
· Breakthrough could combat global warming
a.. Ed Pilkington in New York
b.. The Guardian
c.. Saturday October 6 2007
Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher
the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory
chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial
life form on Earth.
The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as
Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego,
California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer
genomes. It is certain to provoke heated debate about the ethics of creating new
species and could unlock the door to new energy sources and techniques to combat
global warming.
Mr Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be "a very important
philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our
genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability
to do things never contemplated before".
The Guardian can reveal that a team of 20 top scientists assembled by Mr Venter,
led by the Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, has already constructed a synthetic
chromosome, a feat of virtuoso bio-engineering never previously achieved. Using
lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome that
is 381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic code.
The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team
pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of
its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which
the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks
for easy recognition.
It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of
the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a
new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the
genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing
the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique
would work for the artificially created chromosome.
The new life form will depend for its ability to replicate itself and metabolise
on the molecular machinery of the cell into which it has been injected, and in
that sense it will not be a wholly synthetic life form. However, its DNA will be
artificial, and it is the DNA that controls the cell and is credited with being
the building block of life.
Mr Venter said he had carried out an ethical review before completing the
experiment. "We feel that this is good science," he said. He has further
heightened the controversy surrounding his potential breakthrough by applying
for a patent for the synthetic bacterium.
Pat Mooney, director of a Canadian bioethics organisation, ETC group, said the
move was an enormous challenge to society to debate the risks involved.
"Governments, and society in general, is way behind the ball. This is a wake-up
call - what does it mean to create new life forms in a test-tube?"
He said Mr Venter was creating a "chassis on which you could build almost
anything. It could be a contribution to humanity such as new drugs or a huge
threat to humanity such as bio-weapons".
Mr Venter believes designer genomes have enormous positive potential if properly
regulated. In the long-term, he hopes they could lead to alternative energy
sources previously unthinkable. Bacteria could be created, he speculates, that
could help mop up excessive carbon dioxide, thus contributing to the solution to
global warming, or produce fuels such as butane or propane made entirely from
sugar.
"We are not afraid to take on things that are important just because they
stimulate thinking," he said. "We are dealing in big ideas. We are trying to
create a new value system for life. When dealing at this scale, you can't expect
everybody to be happy."
.
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
09 Oct 2007 12:25:30 PM |
|
|
On Oct 10, 12:42 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter alphabet.
You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day with an
alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides. Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me. So presumably nucleic acids _could_
be synthized from component elements and this would then disprove the
claim that "only god can create life" as RNA, at least, can reproduce
all by itself.
Okay, I went back and re-read the original post and I see that this is
exactly what Craig Venter claims to have done namely build "a
synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals". So, yeah, this is
abiogenesis then. My apologies.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
09 Oct 2007 12:45:44 PM |
|
|
In article <1191950730.984321.8020@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> writes:
On Oct 10, 12:42 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter alphabet.
You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day with an
alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides. Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me. So presumably nucleic acids _could_
be synthized from component elements and this would then disprove the
claim that "only god can create life" as RNA, at least, can reproduce
all by itself.
Okay, I went back and re-read the original post and I see that this is
exactly what Craig Venter claims to have done namely build "a
synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals". So, yeah, this is
abiogenesis then. My apologies.
But I think the larger argument, at least for those who feel
that God must have been involved, is whether the
first time around the abiogenesis took place simply
by the approprite molecules banging together long enough,
or whether supernatural involvement was necessary.
In other words to me at least, whether or not you
can gather up jars of the required chemicals and go
and construct an organism is the small question.
How it happened the first time is the big question,
whether you are a religious layman or an
atheistic biochemist.
Venter's accomplishment? A dazzling bit of
biochemical virtuosity, given the present state
of the art -- but not fundamentally revolutionary,
whatever your beliefs regarding the larger question.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
13 Oct 2007 03:26:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:42:50 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
· Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter alphabet.
You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day with an
alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides.
You are right about them being nucleotides rather than amino acids,
but they are certainly no harder to synthesize and there are only four
of them instead of 26 or so.
Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me.
Well, since it has been in the last ten editions of the Merck Index,
it isn't news. Hence my comment about you being ignorant of
Chemistry.
Here is a little hint. If you post ***** on science topics to
alt.atheism, you are going to be embarrassed.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
13 Oct 2007 06:43:47 PM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 4:26 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:42:50 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter alphabet.
You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day with an
alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides.
You are right about them being nucleotides rather than amino acids,
but they are certainly no harder to synthesize and there are only four
of them instead of 26 or so.
Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me.
Well, since it has been in the last ten editions of the Merck Index,
it isn't news. Hence my comment about you being ignorant of
Chemistry.
I took Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry twenty
years ago in university. I'm sure I know more than most non
specialists.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ UltraMan ¥" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
14 Oct 2007 04:54:39 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:26 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:42:50 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com>
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
· Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter
alphabet. You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day
with an alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides.
You are right about them being nucleotides rather than amino acids,
but they are certainly no harder to synthesize and there are only
four of them instead of 26 or so.
Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me.
Well, since it has been in the last ten editions of the Merck Index,
it isn't news. Hence my comment about you being ignorant of
Chemistry.
I took Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry twenty
years ago in university. I'm sure I know more than most non
specialists.
Simple question then --
tell us the difference between "chemistry", "organic chemistry" and "inorganic
chemistry".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
14 Oct 2007 08:24:23 PM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 5:54 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:26 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:42:50 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com>
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter
alphabet. You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day
with an alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides.
You are right about them being nucleotides rather than amino acids,
but they are certainly no harder to synthesize and there are only
four of them instead of 26 or so.
Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me.
Well, since it has been in the last ten editions of the Merck Index,
it isn't news. Hence my comment about you being ignorant of
Chemistry.
I took Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry twenty
years ago in university. I'm sure I know more than most non
specialists.
Simple question then --
tell us the difference between "chemistry", "organic chemistry" and "inor=
ganic
chemistry".
What is this? A test?
Organic chemistry deals with compounds containing carbon. Inorganic
chemistry deals with compounds which don't contain carbon. Chemistry
in general deals with both.
What was this supposed to prove?
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
14 Oct 2007 09:48:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:43:47 -0700, Martin Phipps
<martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:26 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:42:50 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
· Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter alphabet.
You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day with an
alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides.
You are right about them being nucleotides rather than amino acids,
but they are certainly no harder to synthesize and there are only four
of them instead of 26 or so.
Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me.
Well, since it has been in the last ten editions of the Merck Index,
it isn't news. Hence my comment about you being ignorant of
Chemistry.
I took Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry twenty
years ago in university. I'm sure I know more than most non
specialists.
Perhaps, but the other non-specialists (let's call them non-chemists)
didn't post on things they didn't know anything about. Nobody is a
specialist in everything and even though I am a chemist, I didn't
specifically know about the synthesis of nucleotides. However, I knew
enough to realize that these simple molecules must have been
synthesized long ago.
What exactly was your point in errantly posting that synthesis of
nucleotides and DNA was a significant barrier to the creation of
artificial life forms?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
14 Oct 2007 08:32:46 PM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 10:48 pm, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:43:47 -0700, Martin Phipps
<martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:26 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:42:50 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wro=
te:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA =
is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter alphab=
et.
You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day with an
alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides.
You are right about them being nucleotides rather than amino acids,
but they are certainly no harder to synthesize and there are only four
of them instead of 26 or so.
Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me.
Well, since it has been in the last ten editions of the Merck Index,
it isn't news. Hence my comment about you being ignorant of
Chemistry.
I took Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry twenty
years ago in university. I'm sure I know more than most non
specialists.
Perhaps, but the other non-specialists (let's call them non-chemists)
didn't post on things they didn't know anything about.
*****. Your claim was that I was "ignorant of Chemistry" and
that's not true in any way shape or form. I have frequently done web
searches vis-a-vis abiogenesis and have found no mention of the fact
that DNA could be synthesized from non-living chemicals. It is not
being ignorant to seek the relevent information and not be able to
find it.
Nobody is a
specialist in everything and even though I am a chemist, I didn't
specifically know about the synthesis of nucleotides. However, I knew
enough to realize that these simple molecules must have been
synthesized long ago.
It's not a given. You shouldn't assume such things.
What exactly was your point in errantly posting that synthesis of
nucleotides and DNA was a significant barrier to the creation of
artificial life forms?
It would be. That Venter's DNA was produced from non-living chemicals
was implied in the article but not explicitly stated. It would have
been a valid objection against the claim that he had produced
"artificial life" if he had started with DNA from living organisms.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
17 Oct 2007 11:11:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:32:46 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 10:48 pm, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:43:47 -0700, Martin Phipps
<martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:26 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:42:50 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
· Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter alphabet.
You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day with an
alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymine,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Uracil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthesize
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides.
You are right about them being nucleotides rather than amino acids,
but they are certainly no harder to synthesize and there are only four
of them instead of 26 or so.
Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me.
Well, since it has been in the last ten editions of the Merck Index,
it isn't news. Hence my comment about you being ignorant of
Chemistry.
I took Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry twenty
years ago in university. I'm sure I know more than most non
specialists.
Perhaps, but the other non-specialists (let's call them non-chemists)
didn't post on things they didn't know anything about.
*****. Your claim was that I was "ignorant of Chemistry" and
that's not true in any way shape or form. I have frequently done web
searches vis-a-vis abiogenesis and have found no mention of the fact
that DNA could be synthesized from non-living chemicals. It is not
being ignorant to seek the relevent information and not be able to
find it.
Nobody is a
specialist in everything and even though I am a chemist, I didn't
specifically know about the synthesis of nucleotides. However, I knew
enough to realize that these simple molecules must have been
synthesized long ago.
It's not a given. You shouldn't assume such things.
What exactly was your point in errantly posting that synthesis of
nucleotides and DNA was a significant barrier to the creation of
artificial life forms?
It would be. That Venter's DNA was produced from non-living chemicals
was implied in the article but not explicitly stated. It would have
been a valid objection against the claim that he had produced
"artificial life" if he had started with DNA from living organisms.
Let me splain it to you this way. You are doing the equivalent of
claiming that you are not ignorant of mechanical engineering but you
had never read that engineers can make a toy robot out of tin. The
nucleotides are very simple chemicals. They are the chemical
equivalents of toy robots. Anyone not ignorant of modern chemistry
would realize that they must have been synthesized long ago.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
18 Oct 2007 04:31:16 AM |
|
|
On Oct 18, 12:11 pm, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:32:46 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 10:48 pm, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:43:47 -0700, Martin Phipps
<martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:26 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:42:50 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:05 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:19 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wr=
ote:
On Oct 7, 3:30 am, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> =
wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as D=
NA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Why not? It's just a chemical like millions of others that
we've synthesized. DNA can be compared to a four letter alp=
habet.
You effortlessly compose meaningful text every day with an
alphabet of 26 letters.
Of the top of my head, the problem would be synthesizing thymi=
ne,
adenine, cytosine and guanine, ie the letters themselves. Ura=
cil
would work as a substitute for thymine if you wanted to synthe=
size
RNA.
You got to be kidding. You obviously haven't a clue what organic
chemists can sythesize these days. Amino acids are simple stuff.
*Rolls eyes.*
No, thymine, adenine, cytosine and guanine are NOT amino acids but
nucleotides.
You are right about them being nucleotides rather than amino acids,
but they are certainly no harder to synthesize and there are only f=
our
of them instead of 26 or so.
Now, Cary tells me that these have already been
synthesized so that's news to me.
Well, since it has been in the last ten editions of the Merck Index,
it isn't news. Hence my comment about you being ignorant of
Chemistry.
I took Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry twenty
years ago in university. I'm sure I know more than most non
specialists.
Perhaps, but the other non-specialists (let's call them non-chemists)
didn't post on things they didn't know anything about.
*****. Your claim was that I was "ignorant of Chemistry" and
that's not true in any way shape or form. I have frequently done web
searches vis-a-vis abiogenesis and have found no mention of the fact
that DNA could be synthesized from non-living chemicals. It is not
being ignorant to seek the relevent information and not be able to
find it.
Nobody is a
specialist in everything and even though I am a chemist, I didn't
specifically know about the synthesis of nucleotides. However, I knew
enough to realize that these simple molecules must have been
synthesized long ago.
It's not a given. You shouldn't assume such things.
What exactly was your point in errantly posting that synthesis of
nucleotides and DNA was a significant barrier to the creation of
artificial life forms?
It would be. That Venter's DNA was produced from non-living chemicals
was implied in the article but not explicitly stated. It would have
been a valid objection against the claim that he had produced
"artificial life" if he had started with DNA from living organisms.
Let me splain it to you this way.
Are you demonstrating your ignorance of how to spell "explain" here?
You are doing the equivalent of
claiming that you are not ignorant of mechanical engineering but you
had never read that engineers can make a toy robot out of tin.
*Rolls eyes*
You yourself admitted that you "didn't specifically know about the
synthesis of nucleotides" so you were no less "ignorant" than me. You
just "assumed" more than I would be willing to. Do you know what you
do when you ASSume?
The
nucleotides are very simple chemicals. They are the chemical
equivalents of toy robots. Anyone not ignorant of modern chemistry
would realize that they must have been synthesized long ago.
*****.
Should I quiz you on what YOU know? Promise me you won't look these
things up but answer based on what you actually know. Can I trust
you?
1) What is the difference between an electron and a muon?
2) How does polarized light differ from unpolarized light?
3) If quarks have fractional charges then why do we never observe
fractional charges?
4) What happens to quantum numbers at the vertex of a Feynman diagram?
As a chemist, you surely would have taken a few physics courses just
as I took a few chemistry courses. So how much do you know? Do you
consider yourself knowledgable in physics or ignorant of physics?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
18 Oct 2007 07:02:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:31:16 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Should I quiz you on what YOU know? Promise me you won't look these
things up but answer based on what you actually know. Can I trust
you?
1) What is the difference between an electron and a muon?
The muon is heavier. Probably caused by a diet of starches and sugar.
2) How does polarized light differ from unpolarized light?
It is coherant. The other tends to slur its words.
3) If quarks have fractional charges then why do we never observe
fractional charges?
They hang out in groups.
4) What happens to quantum numbers at the vertex of a Feynman diagram?
Nothing silly. It's a diagram of virtual interactions. Nothing
really "happens".
I love quizzes.
Liz #658 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
18 Oct 2007 09:27:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:31:16 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nobody is a
specialist in everything and even though I am a chemist, I didn't
specifically know about the synthesis of nucleotides. However, I knew
enough to realize that these simple molecules must have been
synthesized long ago.
It's not a given. You shouldn't assume such things.
What exactly was your point in errantly posting that synthesis of
nucleotides and DNA was a significant barrier to the creation of
artificial life forms?
It would be. That Venter's DNA was produced from non-living chemicals
was implied in the article but not explicitly stated. It would have
been a valid objection against the claim that he had produced
"artificial life" if he had started with DNA from living organisms.
Let me splain it to you this way.
Are you demonstrating your ignorance of how to spell "explain" here?
You are doing the equivalent of
claiming that you are not ignorant of mechanical engineering but you
had never read that engineers can make a toy robot out of tin.
*Rolls eyes*
You yourself admitted that you "didn't specifically know about the
synthesis of nucleotides" so you were no less "ignorant" than me. You
just "assumed" more than I would be willing to. Do you know what you
do when you ASSume?
I don't specifically know about the process of making toy robots
either, but I would have no doubt it is well within the capabilities
of modern mechanical engineering.
The fact that you can't recognize that synthesis of these simple
molecules is trivial indicates you know very little about organic
chemistry.
The
nucleotides are very simple chemicals. They are the chemical
equivalents of toy robots. Anyone not ignorant of modern chemistry
would realize that they must have been synthesized long ago.
*****.
Should I quiz you on what YOU know? Promise me you won't look these
things up but answer based on what you actually know. Can I trust
you?
1) What is the difference between an electron and a muon?
I don't claim to be an expert on subatomic and particle physics. I am
quite familiar with electrons of course. Muons, I think, are quarks
or other particles created by collisions.
2) How does polarized light differ from unpolarized light?
Polarized light is oriented with the waves in the same plane.
3) If quarks have fractional charges then why do we never observe
fractional charges?
Just guessing but quarks may always exist in combinations which
produce a full charge.
4) What happens to quantum numbers at the vertex of a Feynman diagram?
Not a clue.
As a chemist, you surely would have taken a few physics courses just
as I took a few chemistry courses.
Sure.
So how much do you know? Do you
consider yourself knowledgable in physics or ignorant of physics?
I don't make wild assertions about areas of physics of which I am
ignorant.
I certainly can handle simple Newtonian physics which is roughly
comparable to synthesis of nucleotides in organic chemistry. Keep in
mind that I don't even claim to know how to synthesize the nucleotides
off hand. I am merely confident that such synthesis is well within
the capabilities of modern chemistry and that it must have been done
long ago. And it was. Figuring out the structure of DNA was far more
complicated than synthesizing nucleotides and that was accomplished 50
years ago - by physicists no less.
Since you like physics let me make a statement comparable to your
original assertion. Physicists don't really understand motion because
they can't calculate the distance a pumpkin can be fired from a
cannon. While you may not be aware that physicists have actually done
this, you would certainly know that it is a trivial problem well
within the capabilities of physicists and you would probably think
anyone who made such an assertion was pretty ignorant of the
capabilities of modern physics.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
19 Oct 2007 12:50:35 AM |
|
|
On Oct 19, 10:27 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:31:16 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The
nucleotides are very simple chemicals. They are the chemical
equivalents of toy robots. Anyone not ignorant of modern chemistry
would realize that they must have been synthesized long ago.
*****.
Should I quiz you on what YOU know? Promise me you won't look these
things up but answer based on what you actually know. Can I trust
you?
1) What is the difference between an electron and a muon?
I don't claim to be an expert on subatomic and particle physics. I am
quite familiar with electrons of course. Muons, I think, are quarks
or other particles created by collisions.
Muons and electrons are both leptons but muons are about 200 times
heavier. The tau particle is heavier still.
2) How does polarized light differ from unpolarized light?
Polarized light is oriented with the waves in the same plane.
Okay. Or equivalently the photons have spin pointed in the same
direction.
3) If quarks have fractional charges then why do we never observe
fractional charges?
Just guessing but quarks may always exist in combinations which
produce a full charge.
It's because the strong nucler force between quarks is many orders of
magnitude stronger than the electric force and hence quarks are bound
to form particles that have integral charge.
4) What happens to quantum numbers at the vertex of a Feynman diagram?
Not a clue.
The quantum numbers are conserved.
As a chemist, you surely would have taken a few physics courses just
as I took a few chemistry courses.
Sure.
So how much do you know? Do you
consider yourself knowledgable in physics or ignorant of physics?
I don't make wild assertions about areas of physics of which I am
ignorant.
I see. So you do consider yourself ignorant of physics. Well, at
least you are being consistent.
I do not make wild assertions about chemistry. In particular, I do
not make wild assumption about what chemists can and cannot do.
I certainly can handle simple Newtonian physics which is roughly
comparable to synthesis of nucleotides in organic chemistry.
I see. So you couldn't describe things like orbitals in an atom.
That's a pretty important aspect of chemistry.
I remember in grade 11, I asked my chemistry teacher why elements in
the periodic table had non-integral atomic weights. He said "God made
them that way." So I looked it up myself. He apparently didn't
realize that elements have different isotopes and that the atomic
weights listed were weighted averages. Nor did he know about nuclear
mass due to binding energy.
In grade 12, I had a different chemistry teacher. The chemistry
teacher was proud of this new book that we were using for the first
time that year. He was then telling us about how the electron
"shields" the electric charge of the nucleus resulting in a lower
electric charge being felt by electrons in higher energy levels. He
said that this happened when the electron "came between" the nucleus
and the outer electron. I raised my hand and said that this was not
quite true as the electron in the atom isn't really a point particle
with a fixed position but instead occupies orbitals, as explained in
the very same textbook. Shielding occurs because the electrons in the
lower energy levels occupy orbitals that surround the nucleus and the
outer electrons "see" only a cloud of charge whose charge is the
combined charge of the respective nucleus and inner electrons. He
didn't even understand what I was talking about but there were other
students in the class who were able to confirm that, yes, that was
what it said in the textbook.
The point is that it is very arrogant for a chemist to claim that I,
with a background in physics, am "ignorant of chemistry" when chemists
themselves routinely fail to answer questions about their own field
that physicists were able to answer when they were back in high
school.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
19 Oct 2007 06:01:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:50:35 -0700, Martin Phipps
<martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
So how much do you know? Do you
consider yourself knowledgable in physics or ignorant of physics?
I don't make wild assertions about areas of physics of which I am
ignorant.
I see. So you do consider yourself ignorant of physics. Well, at
least you are being consistent.
I am certainly ignorant (to a significant degree) of certain areas of
physics. OTOH, I am quite comfortable with Newtonian physics. It is
important to have a good idea of what you know and what you don't
know.
I do not make wild assertions about chemistry. In particular, I do
not make wild assumption about what chemists can and cannot do.
You wildly assumed that they could not synthesize a few simple organic
molecules.
I certainly can handle simple Newtonian physics which is roughly
comparable to synthesis of nucleotides in organic chemistry.
I see. So you couldn't describe things like orbitals in an atom.
That's a pretty important aspect of chemistry.
I am certainly ignorant of many areas of chemistry. As for orbitals
being important, it depends a lot on what you are doing. In
analytical chemistry it doesn't come up much. Even basic applied
organic chemistry doesn't require much knowledge of orbitals.
Personally, this was something I was reasonably knowledgeable about at
one time, but I haven't studied it much in the last 30 years.
What is your point? I did not make any wild assertions about what
chemistry knows about orbitals.
I remember in grade 11, I asked my chemistry teacher why elements in
the periodic table had non-integral atomic weights. He said "God made
them that way." So I looked it up myself. He apparently didn't
realize that elements have different isotopes and that the atomic
weights listed were weighted averages. Nor did he know about nuclear
mass due to binding energy.
Well, your chemistry teacher was relatively ignorant of chemistry
then. Are you offering this up as an excuse?
In grade 12, I had a different chemistry teacher. The chemistry
teacher was proud of this new book that we were using for the first
time that year. He was then telling us about how the electron
"shields" the electric charge of the nucleus resulting in a lower
electric charge being felt by electrons in higher energy levels. He
said that this happened when the electron "came between" the nucleus
and the outer electron. I raised my hand and said that this was not
quite true as the electron in the atom isn't really a point particle
with a fixed position but instead occupies orbitals, as explained in
the very same textbook. Shielding occurs because the electrons in the
lower energy levels occupy orbitals that surround the nucleus and the
outer electrons "see" only a cloud of charge whose charge is the
combined charge of the respective nucleus and inner electrons. He
didn't even understand what I was talking about but there were other
students in the class who were able to confirm that, yes, that was
what it said in the textbook.
It is a fairly subtle distinction for a high school chemistry class,
but he certainly should have understood what you meant.
The point is that it is very arrogant for a chemist to claim that I,
with a background in physics, am "ignorant of chemistry" when chemists
themselves routinely fail to answer questions about their own field
that physicists were able to answer when they were back in high
school.
So your point is that all chemists are ignorant of chemistry?
What convinced me of your ignorance about (basic organic) chemistry
was the fact(s) that you did not recognize that a. nucleotides are
simple albeit important organic molecules, b. chemists have been
synthesizing much more complex and less important organic molecules
for many decades and therefore c. chemists must have synthesized the
five nucleotides long ago.
While I don't recall ever seeing a synthesis of the nucleotides, I do
recall studying Gate's 1952 synthesis of morphine from naphthalene.
According to this reference:
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/denmark/presentations/2006/gm-2006-01n31.pdf
there are now 18 synthetic routes to morphine. Keep in mind that
these are all academic exercises, as no sane person would go through
any of these processes just to produce something that can be extracted
in high yields from a poppy. Compare the structure of morphine in the
above reference to those of the nucleotides:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/nucleotide2.html
and you will see why I assumed that nucleotide synthesis was old hat.
An assumption which was, of course, correct.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
20 Oct 2007 02:45:01 AM |
|
|
On Oct 20, 7:01 am, satyr <RsEaMtOy...@infidels.org> wrote:
You wildly assumed that they could not synthesize a few simple organic
molecules.
I didn't wildly assume anything, you complete moron! You are the one
who made a wild assumption and it makes no difference whether or not
teh assumption was correct. Even a boken watch is correct twice a
day.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
07 Oct 2007 07:38:54 AM |
|
|
On Oct 7, 8:30 pm, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
Martin
First of all, DNA itself is not alive. DNA can form part of a system
which is alive. Second, it is routinely synthesizsed. There are even
text books on the subject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
07 Oct 2007 11:14:22 PM |
|
|
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:30 pm, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
First of all, DNA itself is not alive. DNA can form part of a system
which is alive.
Um, no. DNA and RNA are unique in that they are chemicals that
reproduce themselves. How do you define "life".
Second, it is routinely synthesizsed. There are even
text books on the subject.
DNA is "synthesized" from DNA.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
08 Oct 2007 07:20:45 PM |
|
|
In article <1191816862.636612.51770@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes:
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:30 pm, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
First of all, DNA itself is not alive. DNA can form part of a system
which is alive.
Um, no. DNA and RNA are unique in that they are chemicals that
reproduce themselves. How do you define "life".
Um, no. Google on "autocatalytic cycles". A particular
example would be the formose reaction, whereby certain
sugars autocatalyze the formation of further sugars
from formaldehyde molecules.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
09 Oct 2007 12:13:22 PM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 8:20 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1191816862.636612.51...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:30 pm, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
First of all, DNA itself is not alive. DNA can form part of a system
which is alive.
Um, no. DNA and RNA are unique in that they are chemicals that
reproduce themselves. How do you define "life"?
Um, no. Google on "autocatalytic cycles". A particular
example would be the formose reaction, whereby certain
sugars autocatalyze the formation of further sugars
from formaldehyde molecules.
Okay so if a strict definition of "alive" is that one is able to
reproduce oneself then tricarboxylic acid is alive. I checked Merriam-
Webster's Medical Dictionary online to see how they defined "alive"
and they said "not dead" which doesn't really help. The argument
against viruses being alive is that they can't reproduce outside of a
host.
Of course, I asked for the definition of "life" above so I'll go back
to check the word "life" instead of the word "alive". Apparently
then, something is alive if it displays "metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment
originating from within the organism" ( American Heritage Stedman's
Medical Dictionary ).
Well, okay, not even RNA serves all those functions by itself. The
question is then whether or not an artificial chromosome made from DNA
then qualifies as alive.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
09 Oct 2007 12:39:07 PM |
|
|
In article <1191950002.121091.262940@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> writes:
On Oct 9, 8:20 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1191816862.636612.51...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:30 pm, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
First of all, DNA itself is not alive. DNA can form part of a system
which is alive.
Um, no. DNA and RNA are unique in that they are chemicals that
reproduce themselves. How do you define "life"?
Um, no. Google on "autocatalytic cycles". A particular
example would be the formose reaction, whereby certain
sugars autocatalyze the formation of further sugars
from formaldehyde molecules.
Okay so if a strict definition of "alive" is that one is able to
reproduce oneself then tricarboxylic acid is alive. I checked Merriam-
Webster's Medical Dictionary online to see how they defined "alive"
and they said "not dead" which doesn't really help. The argument
against viruses being alive is that they can't reproduce outside of a
host.
Of course, I asked for the definition of "life" above so I'll go back
to check the word "life" instead of the word "alive". Apparently
then, something is alive if it displays "metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment
originating from within the organism" ( American Heritage Stedman's
Medical Dictionary ).
Well, okay, not even RNA serves all those functions by itself. The
question is then whether or not an artificial chromosome made from DNA
then qualifies as alive.
I don't think you'll ever find a definition which is entirely
satisfactory. It's just one of those things where the
extremes are obvious -- worm alive, rock not alive -- but
the middle is murky and the definitions are almost a matter
of personal taste.
One could arrgue that even crystals "reproduce" -- they ceratinly
do self-assemble more of "themselves" out of materials in
their environment, and even propagate whatever "mutations" --
dislocations -- have occurred in their past.
I myself wouldn't fret too much over definitions. And I
strongly suspect that within a decade, probably less,
the biochemists will be turning out organisms which are
beyond all doubt "alive".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
10 Oct 2007 12:27:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:13:22 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Okay so if a strict definition of "alive" is that one is able to
reproduce oneself then tricarboxylic acid is alive. I checked Merriam-
Webster's Medical Dictionary online to see how they defined "alive"
and they said "not dead" which doesn't really help.
More proof that dictionaries don't define words. Water is certainly
not dead, but that doesn't make water "alive".
The argument
against viruses being alive is that they can't reproduce outside of a
host.
Neither can we - the host in this case being an oxygen environment in
a certain narrow temperature range.
Of course, I asked for the definition of "life" above so I'll go back
to check the word "life" instead of the word "alive". Apparently
then, something is alive if it displays "metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment
originating from within the organism" ( American Heritage Stedman's
Medical Dictionary ).
And "metabolism", from the same dictionary, is ...
"The complex of physical and chemical processes occurring within a
living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of
life. In metabolism some substances are broken down to yield energy
for vital processes while other substances, necessary for life, are
synthesized."
So "life" is "something that is living".
Well, okay, not even RNA serves all those functions by itself. The
question is then whether or not an artificial chromosome made from DNA
then qualifies as alive.
Sure, as long as it's living. :)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
10 Oct 2007 08:02:20 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 1:27 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:13:22 -0700, Martin Phipps
Well, okay, not even RNA serves all those functions by itself. The
question is then whether or not an artificial chromosome made from DNA
then qualifies as alive.
Sure, as long as it's living. :)
It's alive if it is living. Works for me. :)
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
10 Oct 2007 10:17:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:02:20 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:27 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:13:22 -0700, Martin Phipps
Well, okay, not even RNA serves all those functions by itself. The
question is then whether or not an artificial chromosome made from DNA
then qualifies as alive.
Sure, as long as it's living. :)
It's alive if it is living. Works for me. :)
So, I am creating life when I'm making a living?? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
10 Oct 2007 11:01:16 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 11:17 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:02:20 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:27 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:13:22 -0700, Martin Phipps
Well, okay, not even RNA serves all those functions by itself. The
question is then whether or not an artificial chromosome made from DNA
then qualifies as alive.
Sure, as long as it's living. :)
It's alive if it is living. Works for me. :)
So, I am creating life when I'm making a living?? ;)
You are if you're being paid to synthesize DNA. Of course it needs a
suitable envirnonment in which to actually live. Only then is it
"alive". Works for me.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
08 Oct 2007 10:01:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:20:45 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1191816862.636612.51770@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes:
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:30 pm, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
First of all, DNA itself is not alive. DNA can form part of a system
which is alive.
Um, no. DNA and RNA are unique in that they are chemicals that
reproduce themselves. How do you define "life".
Um, no. Google on "autocatalytic cycles". A particular
example would be the formose reaction, whereby certain
sugars autocatalyze the formation of further sugars
from formaldehyde molecules.
And DNA, by itself, can't reproduce itself.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
08 Oct 2007 06:20:19 AM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 5:14 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:30 pm, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
=B7 Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
I'll be the first to say it.
Creating a chromosome from DNA is not "creating life" as DNA is
already alive. The real trick would be to synthesize DNA.
First of all, DNA itself is not alive. DNA can form part of a system
which is alive.
Um, no. DNA and RNA are unique in that they are chemicals that
reproduce themselves. How do you define "life".
Um Yes. DNA can only reproduce itself when part of a suitable system.
Try putting DNA in a glass of water as see what reproduction you get.
RNA is a different issue.
Second, it is routinely synthesizsed. There are even
text books on the subject.
DNA is "synthesized" from DNA.
Only when the appropriate helicase, primase and DNApolymerase are
available, under natural conditions this requires the full
transcription and protein building machinery of a cell to generate
these in the first place.. Why do you think OoL researchers look such
things as RNA world and PAH world. DNA is useless by itself.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
08 Oct 2007 09:17:01 AM |
|
|
Gee. A one chromosome life form is seriously approaching the level of the
the average liberal Democrat voter, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: ~~ Scientist creates first Artificial Life Form ! <= god IS dead ! ~~ |
07 Oct 2007 08:50:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:30:48 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:16 pm, "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
· Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
| |
