| Author | Message | ||
     Superdavetfft |
This is in it's infancy but it's quite astonishing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6iZdaQO5MQ&feature =feedu | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ummm...help me understand. How exactly did he "create new life"? He took strands of DNA and spliced them together. He then transplanted the new spliced strain into an existing cell. This group didn't create the DNA strands from scratch. They didn't create the mechanical components of the cell. Reprogramming the ECU and sticking it in a different motorcycle isn't "creating a new form of machine". How is this any different than gene splicing that has been going on for decades? | ||
| Court |
That's about the same as buying to batteries and claiming to have discovered electricity. I'm missing something . . . | ||
| Hughlysses |
That's how it always starts, then next thing you've got cheesy looking turtle monsters going around eating peoples bones!    (Message edited by Hughlysses on October 24, 2011) | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Eh, it's an important part; creation of new life, but it's not creation of life from scratch. At this point RNA has been created from primordial soup in a lab but I don't believe anyone has been able to get RNA to form DNA in a lab. I could be wrong, but I think that would be big news. That would be one of the last steps before life could be created from scratch. I think it's very likely that it could happen soon enough that some of us will be around to see it. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
But creating a strand of DNA, even from scratch, isn't creating life. | ||
| Rex |
Nothing new. He took existing materials and just arranged them differently. Put him at a table with nothing, and then say, create me something, without using anything already around you, or already created. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Didn't say it was Ft, just that it would be one of the last steps to creating life. To form the most basic of life you'd need DNA and a cell/membrane to contain it. If you can create those things from basic elements and put them together, you'd still need for them to survive and replicate. Then you would have created life. I believe the idea of "creating life" in the OP is that the scientists took two things that are not living; dna and an empty cell, and put them together to form a living thing. It's like a microscopic Frankenstein monster. (Message edited by notpurples2 on October 24, 2011) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Not trying to be combative NP2. I'm intrigued by this process. I think the opportunities could be quite beneficial. My point, though, is that DNA would seem to be one of the simpler items to construct. Now getting the coding genome correct is the hardest part, but the components are able to be built easy enough. What about the other components that make up a cell? I believe that creating artificial lysosomes, ribosomes, mitochondria, etc. are going to prove MUCH more difficult. DNA is worthless without the living cell. Right now, they can't create ANY of the other components necessary to build even one single cell organism. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
It's a first step with a very long way to go. They did get living cells though, the cells replicated and sustained life. I can't claim enough to know that much about the details of the science behind it or the validity of the statement. I haven't seen any peer reviewed articles yet. It's a very interesting breakthrough if it's legitimate though. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Didn't take it that way. Just restating that there's a lot of steps needed. Ribosomes have also been created in a lab. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/09030 9104434.htm | ||
| Xl1200r |
I think we should just take this at face value. This guy made a custom mix of DNA, plopped it into a shell of a cell and it now lives and reproduces as the new mix. I think that's a big deal, and in my opinion is in fact a new, man-made form of life. Not from scratch, but new none the less. Think of it like a Shelby Cobra... You have a guy who took an existing chassis and an existing engine and put one with the other and viola - a new car. It surely wasn't the slow British sports car which donated the chassis nor was it the Ford Galaxie which the (basic) engine came from - it was something new. For the record, you can't create something from nothing, period. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
XL1200r; I'd have to agree, 'create', would seem to infer from scratch. They created a portion and assembled it with other pieces thus creating the cell. I can see it both ways but it's kind of splitting hairs (but of course creating life might be a claim where some hair splitting is called for). For the record, we don't know HOW to create something from nothing... yet  | ||
| Hughlysses |
I guess none of you ever saw the movie I referred to above. Cheesy British scifi/horror movie released in 1966; I remember watching it on TV. British scientists create artificial silicone-based (as opposed to carbon-based) life forms, which for some reason only eat people's bones. I don't remember much besides the other guy chopping Peter Cushing's arm off after one of the beasties latched on to it. It's y our typical "beware of the dangers of science" movie from the 1960's. I just hope somebody's keeping an eye on this guy... | ||
| Barker |
"For the record, we don't know HOW to create something from nothing... yet " We still don't know how to create life from non-living material. Creation of life would refer to a new combination of non-living(or material that was not sourced from living creatures) items into living form. At what point did he "create" life from non-living forms? It is simply a clone.  | ||
| Blake |
There's a LOT more to getting a living cell than just a cell membrane and some DNA! The complexity of the cell is mind-bending. Even ardent atheist micro-biologists are recognizing that it may well be impossible to explain how a living cell first came to be. It appears entirely infeasible through purely naturalistic means. Splicing DNA and putting it into a cell denuded of its own genetic code is nothing new. I recollect that's been going on for well over a decade, possibly more. | ||
| Court |
I have, as a young child, dropped a Fizzie in a glass of water and got root beer from nothing but a glass of plain water and an effervescent tablet. That was my first brush with creationism. I still enjoy root beer. | ||
| Drkside79 |
You all are a pain in the ass. *laughing while typing If this hadn't of come from SuperDave there wouldn't have been this strong a reaction. What he did was cool. Not every little part of science needs is meant as a challenge against creationism. | ||
| Sarodude |
When Erik Buell took an existing Harley motor and stuffed it into a frame made using metal he bought from someplace, wheels he bought from someplace, etc, did he create a motorcycle? This guy built a cute little, eh, thing. Trying to determine if he in fact "created life" would probably require defining "create" and "life". So, did Erik Buell create a motorcycle when he built the RR1000? -Saro | ||
| Kyrocket |
Heck, my wife and I have created life. Three times already. We're done now though.  | ||
| Drkside79 |
>>>>Heck, my wife and I have created life. Three times already. Not by some standers you didn't you just merged two existing cells. Stop patting yourself on the back. I'm joking by the way |
