On the verge of man-made life?

[kinboshi]

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html

Not published or verified yet, but some interesting ideas that might shed light on how life on earth might have started - and also shows how life could develop on other planets.

A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life.

It's not as Frankensteinian as it sounds. Instead, a lab led by Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School, is building simple cell models that can almost be called life.

Szostak's protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication. Combined with a process that harnesses external energy from the sun or chemical reactions, they could form a self-replicating, evolving system that satisfies the conditions of life, but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe. 

[PocketLady]

Oooh, exciting stuff.  Poses a big ethical question though.  Should we be allowed to create life from something not living?  Sounds a bit God-like to me.  For the purposes of understanding how life on Earth started, or indeed on other planets, it would be a valueable tool, but not sure I'd like us creating sentient life (not that we are anywhere near that yet) willynilly all over the place.     

[The-Crow]

It's Life Jim, but not as we know it

[dik9]

  Should we be allowed to create life from something not living?  Sounds a bit God-like to me.  

Sea Monkeys FTW!!

[rex008]

Oooh, exciting stuff.  Poses a big ethical question though.  Should we be allowed to create life from something not living?  Sounds a bit God-like to me.  For the purposes of understanding how life on Earth started, or indeed on other planets, it would be a valueable tool, but not sure I'd like us creating sentient life (not that we are anywhere near that yet) willynilly all over the place.     

I don't think there is an ethical problem here at all. This is more like a chemistry experiment than a biological one. There is certainly no possibilty of getting within 2 billion years of anything self-aware in these experiments. Where the first self-replicating molecules came from is a question with many possible answers at the moment, and possibly one that will never be convincingly answered. What happened from there to where we are now is most definitely answered (unless you're one of those strange people who thinks the universe is 6000 years old, obv.). Actually trying to explain where these first molecules came from is something that is definitely worth investigating and testing.
It's quite difficult to even define "living" when you have such basic stuff as this. Just saying something replicates doesn't even cover it - I can grow a sugar crystal in a sugar solution and it's effectively replicating itself, but I doubt you'd call the sugar crystals you put in your tea living. Ditto for viruses even - the line between living and non living is sometimes drawn beyond them, and most viruses are more complex than the stuff they're playing about with here.
It's interesting stuff for sure.

[ShatnerPants]

Oooh, exciting stuff.  Poses a big ethical question though.  Should we be allowed to create life from something not living?  Sounds a bit God-like to me.  For the purposes of understanding how life on Earth started, or indeed on other planets, it would be a valueable tool, but not sure I'd like us creating sentient life (not that we are anywhere near that yet) willynilly all over the place.     

Just for the sake of discussion,

what's wrong with us ( mankind ) acting god-like ?

We rule over the planet as the omnipotent race, destroying life any time we feel it's politically a good thing.  If we can act like god, the question that springs to my mind is, did some huge incomprehendable being out there create our universe in a cosmic petri dish all those years ago ?

Does the advancement of science destroy the idea of God the creator, or does it enhance it ?

[kinboshi]

Just because something can be designed, it doesn't then mean that the universe was designed.  If it was who created the creator?  Inserting a god doesn't answer the question, it merely shifts the goal posts.

[kinboshi]

Oh and acting god-like, we do that when we go to war and try to wipe out other nations/cultures/tribes.


(Source: The bible.)

[Geo the Sarge]

Oh and acting god-like, we do that when we go to war and try to wipe out other nations/cultures/tribes.


(Source: The bible.)

Surely this would be acting anti-God like.

Believers have always said that God created man, not killed him. So God-like would be creating man no?

Unusual to hear you say "when we" go to war and try to wipe out other nations etc. Who is this "we?"

I've been to war and I can assure you my intention was not to wipe out other nations etc and I don't believe it was my country's intentions either.

As usual, I may have missed something here.

Geo

[ShatnerPants]

Just because something can be designed, it doesn't then mean that the universe was designed.  If it was who created the creator?  Inserting a god doesn't answer the question, it merely shifts the goal posts.

I've had people who believe in science tell me that science has proved that god doesn't exist.  I don't know one way or the other.  But I find it strange that people who have seen how science has improved our knowledge over such a short time, can be so emphatic about it. 

If there wasn't a creator how did the very first titchy doobreewhatsit appear ? Answer - because it's always been there.  To me that's every bit as inconclusive as there being a deity around putting it there in the first place.

Something has had to be around at the beginning of it all.  I like to think it's 50/50 whether it was god or dust.

( I try not to take this toooo seriously, because I've found that some people get quite offensive about their beliefs ( scientific or religious ), but I like to keep the idea open that doubt is about the only thing we should be absolutely definate about )

[kinboshi]

Just because something can be designed, it doesn't then mean that the universe was designed.  If it was who created the creator?  Inserting a god doesn't answer the question, it merely shifts the goal posts.

I've had people who believe in science tell me that science has proved that god doesn't exist.  I don't know one way or the other.  But I find it strange that people who have seen how science has improved our knowledge over such a short time, can be so emphatic about it. 

If there wasn't a creator how did the very first titchy doobreewhatsit appear ? Answer - because it's always been there.  To me that's every bit as inconclusive as there being a deity around putting it there in the first place.

Something has had to be around at the beginning of it all.  I like to think it's 50/50 whether it was god or dust.

( I try not to take this toooo seriously, because I've found that some people get quite offensive about their beliefs ( scientific or religious ), but I like to keep the idea open that doubt is about the only thing we should be absolutely definate about )

So if something is complex (the universe) then it must be 'created' or designed? 

Therefore you've inserted god. 

God is complex, then it/he/she must be created or designed?

Rinse and repeat.


I don't have the answer (no one does).  But god doesn't answer the question.

[kinboshi]

Oh and acting god-like, we do that when we go to war and try to wipe out other nations/cultures/tribes.


(Source: The bible.)

Surely this would be acting anti-God like.

Believers have always said that God created man, not killed him. So God-like would be creating man no?

Unusual to hear you say "when we" go to war and try to wipe out other nations etc. Who is this "we?"

I've been to war and I can assure you my intention was not to wipe out other nations etc and I don't believe it was my country's intentions either.

As usual, I may have missed something here.

Geo

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

There's a story of god killing people.

[ShatnerPants]

Oh and acting god-like, we do that when we go to war and try to wipe out other nations/cultures/tribes.


(Source: The bible.)

Surely this would be acting anti-God like.

Believers have always said that God created man, not killed him. So God-like would be creating man no?

Unusual to hear you say "when we" go to war and try to wipe out other nations etc. Who is this "we?"

I've been to war and I can assure you my intention was not to wipe out other nations etc and I don't believe it was my country's intentions either.

As usual, I may have missed something here.

Geo

 

Something I couldn't argue one way or the other.  There's no way I'm man enough to potentially fight to the death about my beliefs.

[kinboshi]

Geo - I wasn't talking about soldiers in my post about 'wiping out other nations'.  I'm talking about the politicians and rulers who want riches, land, power - and are happy to wipe out whole populations for their needs.  I was talking about the genocide we've seen in Rwanda, Germany, Bosnia, Cambodia, etc. 

I wasn't about the hard-working, heroic soldiers who risk their lives carrying out duties that I could never do.  I only have respect for what you do.
 

[ShatnerPants]

I don't have the answer (no one does).  But god doesn't answer the question.

Like I say, I'm not trying to offend or convert anyone.  I'm not saying there is a god. 

But what I have never understood is how some people that believe in science can say categorically that there isn't .

I'd have thought that with increased knowledge there must be more openmindedness ( ? ) about any ridiculous answer as being potentially the right one.