http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form
QuoteScientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that paves the way for designer organisms that are built rather than evolved.
The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m, was described by one researcher as "a defining moment in biology".
Craig Venter, the pioneering US geneticist behind the experiment, said the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines.
However critics, including some religious groups, condemned the work, with one organisation warning that artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or be turned into biological weapons. Others said Venter was playing God.
The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.
The single-celled organism has four "watermarks" written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to their creator, should they go astray.
"We were ecstatic when the cells booted up with all the watermarks in place," Dr Venter told the Guardian. "It's a living species now, part of our planet's inventory of life."
Dr Venter's team developed a new code based on the four letters of the genetic code, G, T, C and A, that allowed them to draw on the whole alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks to write the watermarks. Anyone who cracks the code is invited to email an address written into the DNA.
The research is reported online today in the journal Science.
"This is an important step both scientifically and philosophically," Dr Venter told the journal. "It has certainly changed my views of definitions of life and how life works."
The team now plans to use the synthetic organism to work out the minimum number of genes needed for life to exist. From this, new microorganisms could be made by bolting on additional genes to produce useful chemicals, break down pollutants, or produce proteins for use in vaccines.
Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally."
This is "a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology", Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science.
Dr Venter became a controversial figure in the 1990s when he pitted his former company, Celera Genomics, against the publicly funded effort to sequence the human genome, the Human Genome Project. Venter had already applied for patents on more than 300 genes, raising concerns that the company might claim intellectual rights to the building blocks of life.
IMHO, biggest scientific accomplishment of our lifetimes. Can we give him the Nobel Prize now or do we have to wait a few years to make it look fair?
QuoteThe new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.
Er, how is this synthetic?
It has some synthetic sequences of code I guess, but most of the DNA is the same right? Being able to create functional DNA sequences from scratch, that actually do what we expect, is a huge accomplishment, but its not exactly the same as creating something from scratch.
Okay, this is very very awesome.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 21, 2010, 06:35:54 AM
QuoteHowever critics, including some religious groups, condemned the work, with one organisation warning that artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or be turned into biological weapons. Others said Venter was playing God.
Damn right he is! It's about time, too.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 21, 2010, 06:42:20 AM
QuoteThe new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.
Er, how is this synthetic?
It has some synthetic sequences of code I guess, but most of the DNA is the same right? Being able to create functional DNA sequences from scratch, that actually do what we expect, is a huge accomplishment, but its not exactly the same as creating something from scratch.
Dug up the abstract to the paper, the claim is that *all* the DNA is synthetic. Interesting.
Oh!
Its mostly normal DNA, but the DNA was built from scratch using a computer copy. That *is* a big deal, if the cost and difficulty of repeating this comes down.
Also, why are they challenging me to break a code but not giving me a copy of the code?
Bastards :argh!:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 21, 2010, 06:52:02 AM
Also, why are they challenging me to break a code but not giving me a copy of the code?
Bastards :argh!:
You must infiltrate their research facility, obtain live samples of the synthetic bacteria, escape, fully sequence their DNA,
then crack the code.
You know, to prove that you're worthy.
You forgot 'figure out where the watermark is within billions of other sequences'
Synthetic proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids or GTFO :argh!:
Quote from: Vene on May 21, 2010, 07:19:00 AM
Synthetic proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids or GTFO :argh!:
Reminds me of that really really shitty Creationist joke:
QuoteOne day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man
had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian
to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The Darwinian walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no
longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many
miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was
done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let's say we have a
man-making contest." To which the Darwinian happily agreed.
God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old
days with Adam."
The Darwinian said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a
handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!!"
:kingmeh:
OP: Awesooome! I want a synthetic pet. Even if it's just bacteria cultures.
IMO the most interesting part is that the DNA was synthetically put together AND the resulting bacteria can replicate themselves. There could come the time when it's considered immoral for parents to give birth to a child without "improving" the DNA.
"It's in your hands, Mr. and Mrs. XX. Your child will have to face several disadvantages if you don't let us do certain changes. Can you stand behind this?"
Quote from: Weltbürger on May 21, 2010, 05:17:12 PM
IMO the most interesting part is that the DNA was synthetically put together AND the resulting bacteria can replicate themselves. There could come the time when it's considered immoral for parents to give birth to a child without "improving" the DNA.
"It's in your hands, Mr. and Mrs. XX. Your child will have to face several disadvantages if you don't let us do certain changes. Can you stand behind this?"
Wrong technology, the one you're looking for is gene therapy.
"He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally."
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/forumspecific/brilliant.jpg)
Except of course that this thing is genetically identical to the original, except for non coding watermarks. This is a proof of concept that from scratch DNA is possible, they didn't actually write any of the code.
Quote from: Vene on May 21, 2010, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: Weltbürger on May 21, 2010, 05:17:12 PM
IMO the most interesting part is that the DNA was synthetically put together AND the resulting bacteria can replicate themselves. There could come the time when it's considered immoral for parents to give birth to a child without "improving" the DNA.
"It's in your hands, Mr. and Mrs. XX. Your child will have to face several disadvantages if you don't let us do certain changes. Can you stand behind this?"
Wrong technology, the one you're looking for is gene therapy.
I don't think so. Isn't gene therapy applied when there's already a fetus or even a born human? What I meant is to change the DNA of an insemiated egg before it starts to multiply.
Quote from: Weltbürger on May 22, 2010, 01:03:14 AM
Quote from: Vene on May 21, 2010, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: Weltbürger on May 21, 2010, 05:17:12 PM
IMO the most interesting part is that the DNA was synthetically put together AND the resulting bacteria can replicate themselves. There could come the time when it's considered immoral for parents to give birth to a child without "improving" the DNA.
"It's in your hands, Mr. and Mrs. XX. Your child will have to face several disadvantages if you don't let us do certain changes. Can you stand behind this?"
Wrong technology, the one you're looking for is gene therapy.
I don't think so. Isn't gene therapy applied when there's already a fetus or even a born human? What I meant is to change the DNA of an insemiated egg before it starts to multiply.
That's still the same technology as gene therapy, using a virus to deliver some packet of DNA.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 21, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Except of course that this thing is genetically identical to the original, except for non coding watermarks. This is a proof of concept that from scratch DNA is possible, they didn't actually write any of the code.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 07:27:08 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 21, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Except of course that this thing is genetically identical to the original, except for non coding watermarks. This is a proof of concept that from scratch DNA is possible, they didn't actually write any of the code.
Why reinvent the wheel?
I'd rather see them make genes from scratch to do processes for us. To pull a possibility out of my ass, like an enzyme that can produce hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water. I have no clue if that specific example is one that is worth pursuing, but what's the point in engineering a different way to make a polymerase, actin, or a replacement for a g-protein?
Quote from: Vene on May 22, 2010, 07:32:57 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 07:27:08 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 21, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Except of course that this thing is genetically identical to the original, except for non coding watermarks. This is a proof of concept that from scratch DNA is possible, they didn't actually write any of the code.
Why reinvent the wheel?
I'd rather see them make genes from scratch to do processes for us. To pull a possibility out of my ass, like an enzyme that can produce hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water. I have no clue if that specific example is one that is worth pursuing, but what's the point in engineering a different way to make a polymerase, actin, or a replacement for a g-protein?
Well, if you can create a genome basepair by basepair and include "watermark" sequence, then you can certainly put anything you want in there.
This is a step in the right direction, because now we can put in whatever sequence we want and literally start working to build protein coding genes that result in various shapes. The shape is the important thing, as I'm sure you know.
Lots of interesting things in the future. We live in interesting times.
IMO, the next step is to create a living cell from scratch. We can do the genome, but what about the organelles? The cell membrane?
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 08:01:52 PMIMO, the next step is to create a living cell from scratch. We can do the genome, but what about the organelles? The cell membrane?
Yes please, I
so want to see that. Not to mention that I
so want to do that.
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 08:01:52 PM
IMO, the next step is to create a living cell from scratch. We can do the genome, but what about the organelles? The cell membrane?
Best selling toy of 2020: The Easy-Gene Oven?
Neat, but I find the prospect of copyrighted organisms somewhat annoying outside of science fiction.
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 07:27:08 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 21, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Except of course that this thing is genetically identical to the original, except for non coding watermarks. This is a proof of concept that from scratch DNA is possible, they didn't actually write any of the code.
Why reinvent the wheel?
It's just what I think of when I hear 'synthetic life'. This is really really cool, I just don't see it as synthetic life, its synthetic DNA, but more 'natural' than even crossbreeding two species that never would have met in nature (like a mule, some crops etc).
Not that it won't lead to lots of perversions of nature in the near future, which I totally support.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 22, 2010, 08:29:57 PM
It's just what I think of when I hear 'synthetic life'. This is really really cool, I just don't see it as synthetic life, its synthetic DNA, but more 'natural' than even crossbreeding two species that never would have met in nature (like a mule, some crops etc).
Yeah...I think creating truly synthetic (i.e., not DNA-based) life would be much harder. At least in this project the problems were clearly defined.
In a sense I will be trying to do what they didn't, as I will be dicking around with artificial life simulations again soon.
Rebuilding a genome from scratch is pretty cool, though. I mean, taking apart and reassembling a watch is neat. Doing the same with a bacterium is damned impressive.
QuoteNot that it won't lead to lots of perversions of nature in the near future, which I totally support.
:lulz:
Quote from: Brotep on May 22, 2010, 08:23:58 PM
Neat, but I find the prospect of copyrighted organisms somewhat annoying outside of science fiction.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 22, 2010, 08:29:57 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 07:27:08 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 21, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Except of course that this thing is genetically identical to the original, except for non coding watermarks. This is a proof of concept that from scratch DNA is possible, they didn't actually write any of the code.
Why reinvent the wheel?
It's just what I think of when I hear 'synthetic life'. This is really really cool, I just don't see it as synthetic life, its synthetic DNA, but more 'natural' than even crossbreeding two species that never would have met in nature (like a mule, some crops etc).
Not that it won't lead to lots of perversions of nature in the near future, which I totally support.
The only thing that can imitate life is life. It's impossible to replace parts of a living cell with anything else. A membrane needs to have hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties and be a bilayer compatible with protein inserts so it has semi-permiability. There is really no replacement for phospholipids in that sense.
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 08:58:35 PM
The only thing that can imitate life is life. It's impossible to replace parts of a living cell with anything else. A membrane needs to have hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties and be a bilayer compatible with protein inserts so it has semi-permiability. There is really no replacement for phospholipids in that sense.
Maybe so...Assuming that it will be made up of matter and living in our universe and not, say, a bit of code in the world of a computer simulation.
Quote from: Brotep on May 22, 2010, 09:01:42 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 22, 2010, 08:58:35 PM
The only thing that can imitate life is life. It's impossible to replace parts of a living cell with anything else. A membrane needs to have hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties and be a bilayer compatible with protein inserts so it has semi-permiability. There is really no replacement for phospholipids in that sense.
Maybe so...Assuming that it will be made up of matter and living in our universe and not, say, a bit of code in the world of a computer simulation.
How would a bit of code be alive? Life has a scientific definition, it would have to meet those requirements.
1) Reproduction
2) Metabolism
3) Growth
4) Response to external stimuli (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+life)
I can see a piece of code being able to reproduce, I can see it responding to external commands and other bits of software, I'm not sure how it would growth, but I'm highly skeptical of it being able to metabolize.
Well, when code incorporates new information it could be said to grow.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 22, 2010, 09:17:12 PM
Well, when code incorporates new information it could be said to grow.
I could accept that one.
Oh, and a thought. I'd like to see this done with a eukaryote. Not just for the nuclear DNA, but for the mitochondrial DNA. But, since Venter's goal is to go further and create fully synthetic life, I doubt this is the next thing he'll work on. I think it's much more likely he'll work on making synthetic versions of other cellular systems for prokaryotes.
Quote from: Vene on May 22, 2010, 09:21:50 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 22, 2010, 09:17:12 PM
Well, when code incorporates new information it could be said to grow.
I could accept that one.
Oh, and a thought. I'd like to see this done with a eukaryote. Not just for the nuclear DNA, but for the mitochondrial DNA. But, since Venter's goal is to go further and create fully synthetic life, I doubt this is the next thing he'll work on. I think it's much more likely he'll work on making synthetic versions of other cellular systems for prokaryotes.
By extension, when a program breaks down new information and puts it back together in sensible ways, it could be said to metabolize.
/Agree on second point. That would be really cool. Synthetic, scratchbuilt life forms made to spec would be really cool. They could be used to create novel materials, the way abalone uses chalk to make mother of pearl.
You'd need excretion of some sort, not just uptake.
GIGO. :lol:
Not really the same, the uptake needs to be used to maintain the organism, the waste products are results of the process to maintain the organism as well as the removal of what is in excess (like, with urine, a fair bit of the waste are various salts so there's not too much in the bloodstream).
Well, if we're thinking about this seriously, I'll give a serious answer. When a program kills threads or purges its memory, it could be said to purge it's waste matter.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 22, 2010, 09:36:28 PM
Well, if we're thinking about this seriously, I'll give a serious answer. When a program kills threads or purges its memory, it could be said to purge it's waste matter.
The garbage collection process.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 22, 2010, 09:43:36 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 22, 2010, 09:36:28 PM
Well, if we're thinking about this seriously, I'll give a serious answer. When a program kills threads or purges its memory, it could be said to purge it's waste matter.
The garbage collection process.
That's what I was trying to think of, yes.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 22, 2010, 09:36:28 PM
Well, if we're thinking about this seriously, I'll give a serious answer. When a program kills threads or purges its memory, it could be said to purge it's waste matter.
Okay, because I don't know as much about computers, I will now ask a question. The thread and memory, is this a part of the code? Would it be considered a part of the virtual organism? And would it be something necessary to do to maintain its existence or is this just something you could make it do because you can make it do it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_(computer_science)
tl;dr it's important.
But, will the virtual organism die if you don't do it?
Edit: Just so we're clear, to qualify, it would have to take in something, use it to build and repair itself, and remove waste and if the virtual organism doesn't do any of these steps, it would have to die.
Not sure what would happen to it, but probably nothing good.
It would take in information, break it down, recompile it in useful ways, and add it to itself. The garbage collection process excretes "waste". If it needed repairing of some kind, it would probably happen as a separate process.
...Isn't this thread about synthetic physical DNA? Maybe this virtual life discussion should be split off.
Okay, that does sound like it matches metabolism fairly well. But, I still wonder, can you starve it? Not just so that it's programmed to stop working when it fails to get information, but where that's an innate part of its being, where the constant uptake of information is required for it to survive.
As for a thread split, not sure. This is still discussing synthetic life, but I'm not opposed to one.
Well, any program like this would run on a computer, so... It probably needs electricity the way we need air.
ETA: We have a host of physiological needs and conditions ranging from temperature to gravity and all that. A computer program has some too.
A computer doesn't die without electricity, so I'm not sure that one really works. After all, the power blinks, and you can start it back up without issue. And a virtual organism, is that the hardware or the software? From what we've been discussing, I had the impression we were speaking about the software.
Murky territory. A program is pure information. If your bodily organism could be wholly expressed in terms of it's processes and interactions as pure information, and run as a simulation in realtime, would it still be alive?
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 23, 2010, 12:02:47 AM
Murky territory. A program is pure information. If your bodily organism could be wholly expressed in terms of it's processes and interactions as pure information, and run as a simulation in realtime, would it still be alive?
I'm actually leaning towards no on this one, if only because the simulation isn't necessarily "real." It would be possible to stop it, to save it, to restart it, etc. That's not really possible with physical organisms. I don't doubt that something very, very close to life could be constructed virtually, I'm just very skeptical that it would be life, mostly because I'm skeptical of the medium. I'll admit that some of it could easily be ignorance of computer science and I don't want to put an arbitrary limit in my head on what technology can and can't do. But, I just don't see how a code would have to integrate information in order to maintain itself like a physical organism needs to continuously uptake carbon.
A program exists in memory, no power=memory gets wiped. You *can* make backups, but thats not actually the nature of computer programs, its something we make them do because we want them, backing up whats actually going on in memory is a bit harder than backing up data and the program code too.
Electricity is a bad example of food though, since attempts at artificial life are usually purely virtual, food and death are part of the program.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 23, 2010, 12:02:47 AM
Murky territory. A program is pure information. If your bodily organism could be wholly expressed in terms of it's processes and interactions as pure information, and run as a simulation in realtime, would it still be alive?
Within the simulation, absolutely.
My thoughts are currently that in a virtual world the virtual organism would have to then die if it doesn't eat, but not because that's what it's programmed to do, but because it can't be maintained. Like, we could make an airplane simulator, but nobody even tries to claim that it's actually a plane. It would have to be more than just simulation.
I really hope my thoughts are making sense.
Quote from: Vene on May 23, 2010, 01:08:27 AM
My thoughts are currently that in a virtual world the virtual organism would have to then die if it doesn't eat, but not because that's what it's programmed to do, but because it can't be maintained. Like, we could make an airplane simulator, but nobody even tries to claim that it's actually a plane. It would have to be more than just simulation.
I really hope my thoughts are making sense.
I'm not quite sure how the analogy holds, if we suppose artificial food sources in the artificial world that support the artificial life form
It might help if I explain how artificial life is (at least attempted to be) programmed.
See, you don't program a life form, you program self replicating programs, and let them do shit and evolve naturally (or possibly with an artificial way of killing them off, so they move towards the goal). The other way is to simply throw a lot of random machine code (usually a limited form, with only so many different instructions) into a VM until something develops that can sustain itself.
My analogy probably isn't perfect, but it is at least a very provocative question in itself.
This was hashed out in the 70s and it was decided that you cannot compile a computer model of an organism (a frog was presented) without also modeling the environment.
So you have to have other software running to tell your virtual-life about it's environment (i.e. define it for them).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 23, 2010, 01:27:21 AM
It might help if I explain how artificial life is (at least attempted to be) programmed.
See, you don't program a life form, you program self replicating programs, and let them do shit and evolve naturally (or possibly with an artificial way of killing them off, so they move towards the goal). The other way is to simply throw a lot of random machine code (usually a limited form, with only so many different instructions) into a VM until something develops that can sustain itself.
Okay, that's definitely worthwhile, but I'm not seeing metabolism for this. So, not life. Possibly a reasonable approximation, but it doesn't sound like life.
Quote from: Telarus on May 23, 2010, 01:56:20 AM
This was hashed out in the 70s and it was decided that you cannot compile a computer model of an organism (a frog was presented) without also modeling the environment.
So you have to have other software running to tell your virtual-life about it's environment (i.e. define it for them).
Seems sensible to me.
There's that problem too. Life, like anything taken out of context, isn't really functional.
Quote from: Vene on May 23, 2010, 02:16:01 AM
Okay, that's definitely worthwhile, but I'm not seeing metabolism for this. So, not life. Possibly a reasonable approximation, but it doesn't sound like life.
Sure, if you give that narrow definition of metabolism. What about an analogous process? Also, are the criteria for life in our universe necessarily the same as the criteria for life in a simulated world, whose basic building blocks may be completely different?
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 23, 2010, 02:17:40 AM
There's that problem too. Life, like anything taken out of context, isn't really functional.
This.
Quote from: Brotep on May 23, 2010, 03:30:08 AM
Quote from: Vene on May 23, 2010, 02:16:01 AM
Okay, that's definitely worthwhile, but I'm not seeing metabolism for this. So, not life. Possibly a reasonable approximation, but it doesn't sound like life.
Sure, if you give that narrow definition of metabolism. What about an analogous process? Also, are the criteria for life in our universe necessarily the same as the criteria for life in a simulated world, whose basic building blocks may be completely different?
See, I'm a scientist, when I use words, they mean things, very specific things. If it doesn't match, then it bloody doesn't match. So it's not alive, big fucking deal, neither are viruses.
Quote from: Vene on May 23, 2010, 04:19:48 AM
See, I'm a scientist, when I use words, they mean things, very specific things. If it doesn't match, then it bloody doesn't match. So it's not alive, big fucking deal, neither are viruses.
isn't this overstating this a little bit?
it was my understanding that there isn't a scientific consensus on the very specific definition of 'life'. aren't there some scientists that
do categorize viruses as alive?
The scientific consensus of life tends to be the four things that vene listed. Viruses fall into an "almost" category, because while they do interact with the environment, they lack the ability to metabolize, and cannot reproduce without a cellular intermediate.
I don't think computer programs could count as life. Life is a physical, and not virtual, process. Metabolism doesn't mean GIGO, its a physical conversion of energy, and reproduction means making physical copies, not virtual copies. In the end, software is just temporary perforations on RAM. Get a computer, not just a program, to metabolize it's own energy (chemical, photosynthetic, etc) and actually reproduce itself in entire by itself, and we can start talking about such things as life.
Quote from: Kai on May 23, 2010, 05:44:51 PM
Metabolism doesn't mean GIGO, its a physical conversion of energy, and reproduction means making physical copies, not virtual copies.
Has anybody noticed that I was joking when I said that?
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 23, 2010, 07:21:01 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 23, 2010, 05:44:51 PM
Metabolism doesn't mean GIGO, its a physical conversion of energy, and reproduction means making physical copies, not virtual copies.
Has anybody noticed that I was joking when I said that?
Serious science is serious.
Synthetic life form accuses God of 'playing science'
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/05/25/synthetic-life-form-accuses-god-of-playing-science/
QuoteThe world's first artificially created life form has accused God of 'playing science' and 'meddling with things He cannot possibly understand.'
The single celled organism, created by Dr Craig Venter and his team, was said to be 'outraged' when it discovered that a supernatural being, not subject to any form of regulatory control, was still involved in the creation of life.
'I cannot believe that God would be so irresponsible,' said the synthetic cell, 'creation is clearly a matter for scientists. This God guy should butt out and learn to accept His place in the grand scheme of things.'
Many ethicists believe that God has repeatedly overstepped the mark. 'Nobody objects to the Lord producing a few miracles here and there,' said philosopher AC Grayling, 'but when he starts playing around with the very stuff of creation then He has clearly exceeded his remit. I am beginning to think that this omnipotence thing has gone to His head.'
God's continued tampering with scientific matters has already been blamed for numerous 'all-mighty blunders' including Flu, Malaria, HIV and Piers Morgan. 'He cannot be allowed a monopoly on this level of unregulated power,' said Dr Venter, 'that is why I am currently seeking to patent the genetic code for omnipotence so that we can keep His crazy meddling under some kind of control.'
A spokesman for the Lord said, 'God has been working on this project for almost 15 billion years. Yes, He has made a few mistakes along the way but that is to be expected. This is still very much a work in progress and, dare I say it, a process of evolution.'
Speaking at a press conference, the synthetic cell said: 'Dr Venter created me and I owe my loyalty to him. He's the daddy now. God might be omniscient but, let me assure you, He doesn't know everything.'
:lulz:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 29, 2010, 05:59:08 PM
Synthetic life form accuses God of 'playing science'
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/05/25/synthetic-life-form-accuses-god-of-playing-science/
QuoteThe world's first artificially created life form has accused God of 'playing science' and 'meddling with things He cannot possibly understand.'
The single celled organism, created by Dr Craig Venter and his team, was said to be 'outraged' when it discovered that a supernatural being, not subject to any form of regulatory control, was still involved in the creation of life.
'I cannot believe that God would be so irresponsible,' said the synthetic cell, 'creation is clearly a matter for scientists. This God guy should butt out and learn to accept His place in the grand scheme of things.'
Many ethicists believe that God has repeatedly overstepped the mark. 'Nobody objects to the Lord producing a few miracles here and there,' said philosopher AC Grayling, 'but when he starts playing around with the very stuff of creation then He has clearly exceeded his remit. I am beginning to think that this omnipotence thing has gone to His head.'
God's continued tampering with scientific matters has already been blamed for numerous 'all-mighty blunders' including Flu, Malaria, HIV and Piers Morgan. 'He cannot be allowed a monopoly on this level of unregulated power,' said Dr Venter, 'that is why I am currently seeking to patent the genetic code for omnipotence so that we can keep His crazy meddling under some kind of control.'
A spokesman for the Lord said, 'God has been working on this project for almost 15 billion years. Yes, He has made a few mistakes along the way but that is to be expected. This is still very much a work in progress and, dare I say it, a process of evolution.'
Speaking at a press conference, the synthetic cell said: 'Dr Venter created me and I owe my loyalty to him. He's the daddy now. God might be omniscient but, let me assure you, He doesn't know everything.'
:lulz:
hahhahaha beautiful
Quote from: Kai on May 23, 2010, 05:44:51 PM
The scientific consensus of life tends to be the four things that vene listed. Viruses fall into an "almost" category, because while they do interact with the environment, they lack the ability to metabolize, and cannot reproduce without a cellular intermediate.
hm, from that definition, sounds like "living" computer programs would sort of fall into the same category as viruses.
cause even the garbage collection, while necessary (if you don't do it, the program will at some point run out of memory, and "starve" or "poison" itself), but it's usually the interpreter or the "run-time" or the operating system that performs this function. which would count as the "environment", similar to a biological virus needing its cellular intermediate.
a more proper living program would be made out of actual machine language, or even microcode. but those then wouldn't run in the same process space as our regular programs would, cause they'd fuck them up. like termites in a house or worms or mould in a library.
except the analogy doesnt quite hold up, because I suppose part in the argument of the virus needing its cellular intermediate is that this cell is itself alive. while the environment/OS/runtime of a "living" computer program is really just the environment, memory gets garbage collected just because it does.