Scientists get closer to creating artificial life: study

They are cutting and pasting pieces of genomes created by evolution, the problem with artificial life is that its hard to define what does it really stand for.

Is a GMO an artificial life? I don't think so, what Venter and co are doing is taking GMO a step further, but will it make an artificial life? More like a hybrid life.

Creating completely artificial life, as in designing all genes from scratch, is totally beyond the limits of modern science.

well only one generation of humans would need to be created in the lab, getting rid of a bunch of crappy genomic sequences, like myopia, or cancer genes. from there on birthing can be natural again, lol.

@superhuman

Definitions and the use of language is always a problem with these topics, but whether you call it hybrid, artificial or nothing special at all..

Synthetic biology is a very interesting field in scientific research. I hope we will use this in great positive ways possible.

Both "artificial" and "man-made" are antiquated and should be removed from common use. The more we identify ourselves (humans) as *part* of nature, and not *apart* from nature the more likely we'll survive as a species.

If humans are natural, then "man made" is natural. Anything a human does is "natural."

Once we remove ourselves from the human-centric viewpoint that humans are somehow are special, we'll behave better as members of the natural community we all share.

Both "artificial" and "man-made" are antiquated and should be removed from common use. The more we identify ourselves (humans) as *part* of nature, and not *apart* from nature the more likely we'll survive as a species.

If humans are natural, then "man made" is natural. Anything a human does is "natural."

Once we remove ourselves from the human-centric viewpoint that humans are somehow are special, we'll behave better as members of the natural community we all share.

I agree with you in principal, but the truth is there is a meaningful difference. "Natural" in this context is shorthand for "the product of the conjunction of physical laws and random chance", whereas "artificial" really means "the product of minds, which are the product of the conjunction of physical laws and random chance."

In other words, you are right that both are ultimately natural, but minds are capable of instituting change much faster than the otherwise long-term processes of nature.

In fact, I think of the evolution of evolution as pointing towards increasingly faster methods of adapatation. Natural evolution = slow adaptation. So natural evolution resulted in Minds = faster adapatation. Now minds are working on 'artificial' minds, which will result in even faster adaptation. In that sense, the Singularity will just be another in a series of singularities.

Simple! Just mix some sperm and ovum in a warm place and presto! Nurture and individual identy
takes another thousand years. At last you have a
student who denies you ever existed!

well only one generation of humans would need to be created in the lab, getting rid of a bunch of crappy genomic sequences, like myopia, or cancer genes. from there on birthing can be natural again, lol.

haha funny.

Muhahahhaha.

Designing an organism "from scratch" with genes made "from scratch" is far beyond the capabilities of modern science.

However, i find it humorous that the evolutionists continue to believe all of this happened "by chance" when even our best super computers and brightest minds cannot fully comprehend even the simplest life forms.

====

Another thing I find humorous is the scientists are making an artificual STD....brilliant! As if "Nature's God" hadn't already cursed sexual promiscuity enough, you fools go and make your own brand!

"And now ladies and gentlemen,for our next trick, we will create a new desease to plague our private parts."

At the least they should concentrate on micro-organisms that do something...you know...constructive. Probably the reason why that bacteria's genome is so simple is because it doesn't need to be complex: destroying things is very easy compared to healing and repairing.

Hmm, my message disappeared, lets try this again.

well only one generation of humans would need to be created in the lab, getting rid of a bunch of crappy genomic sequences, like myopia, or cancer genes. from there on birthing can be natural again, lol.

If you're going to go that far you might as well change the way mRNA is translated into amino acids by scrambling the meaning of each triplet of nucleotides(codon) and adjusting the DNA for that change; that way any existing virus would be unable to survive and reproduce. Its genome would code simply for random junk proteins because when the virus uses tRNA from the organism it gets the wrong amino acids attached.

However, i find it humorous that the evolutionists continue to believe all of this happened "by chance" when even our best super computers and brightest minds cannot fully comprehend even the simplest life forms.

So humorous! Here's another humorous story:

The other day I asked my dog how a TV works, and poof! The TV vanished. I guess he didn't know.

I guess it's not that funny after all...

I agree with you in principal, but the truth is there is a meaningful difference. "Natural" in this context is shorthand for "the product of the conjunction of physical laws and random chance", whereas "artificial" really means "the product of minds, which are the product of the conjunction of physical laws and random chance."

I argue that the boundary we identify as our minds is arbitrary, not meaningful.

I understand that humans have a very strong desire to identify, so we create boundaries to enable this desire. A beaver is a beaver and a human is a human. But both are part of the same ecosystem--and this is the important point that has been lost on many. By admitting that humans are natural, and that anything "man-made" is also natural we will begin to pay closer attention to our place in our environment--perhaps with the end result of extending the lifetime of our species.

I argue that the boundary we identify as our minds is arbitrary, not meaningful.

Arbitrary perhaps, but certainly meaningful. Minds are capable of finding solutions MUCH more quickly than the blind algorithm of evolution.

Evolution can be described as operating like a machine, using a single, though effective, algorithm (i.e. trial-and-error); a mind by contrast is sort of a meta-machine, capable of reconfiguring itself to use different algorithms to achieve one or more solutions to a given problem. This is a qualitative difference.

My point is that when people say "natural" they mean coming from the world of the single algorithm. You could say that the mind is a product of this algorithm and you would technically be correct, but the difference is still real and meaningful and useful as a concept. It would be like saying a calculator and the Blue Gene computer are both just computers, both part of the electronic world. True, but not very useful.

I don't like the word "organic" as used to describe foods that haven't been produced using pesticides, herbicides, etc. It suggests that other foods are non-organic, which is silly. BUT I realize that the term, when used in that context, is shorthand for "no poisons involved" and therefore useful. So I don't complain, even though it bothers me. In the same way, "man-made" and "natural" are arbitrary but useful distinctions.

thales, you generally put forth well-reasoned and respectful comments. I applaud that.

I'm trying to make a very subtle point here that acknowledging that the human mind is a sub set of "natural" we will acknowledge that we are not "special" (in the divine way) but are simply "just another cog" in the machine of nature so to speak. This identification could change the me-first attitude of humanity.

I agree with you that the human mind (wherever the arbitrary line is drawn that encompasses the human mind) is apparently more efficient at redistributing energy than "evolution." However, that's the point of evolution and all other natural processes--to accelerate entropy.

So I think we're both right here. The human mind is more efficient than "evolution" but the "human mind" is an arbitrary boundary that is meaningless to nature.