Guardian
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
This Technology really worries me. To me, creating life forms could have disastrous repercussions on the Human Race, as we know it.
I can accept Cloning and Growing Body Parts,however I think this Technology is going too far.IMHO.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct...s.climatechange

Moderator Edit: Moved topic to the more appropriate forum. ~ Animal

Yeah, I can see where a "created" lifeform would have to be controlled.

Wait, you mean, this lifeform didn't just suddenly randomly appear out of nothing while the scientists sat and waited?

He had to create it, using elements already in existence?

An interesting concept, the ability to use this as a tool to reduce carbon dioxide and convert sugars to fuels such as propane and butane. I think it's a little early to start thinking about scenarios like the Island of Dr. Moreau. On the other hand Pat Mooney points out that this could also be used to produce bio-weapons, now our government wouldn't try anything like that...would they?

They couldn't think of a way to kill three billion years. So they did it themselves.

Time shouldn't be a factor Matt. You know better than that.

Time doesn't dictate a beginning.

Can't say I'm too elated to hear about this after the let down of the cloning thing.
Really thought there would be 2 or more of me to share the load by now.

I know this isn't quite the same thing but it would be incredible if 'real' arms and legs or spinal cords could be 'grown' and transplanted onto those who need them.

Interesting article. I find it interesting that no one is pointing out that the chromosome that was created required an intelligent being to put it together instead of letting it appear by random chance. Score one fore the I.D. crowd and creationist crowd. Notice that the scientist is trying to imitate an already existing organism instead of designing a new one from scratch. Because of this and the fact that the scientist is still using the chemical elements that God created instead of making his own (that would be a truly amazing accomplishment) keeps this from being called truly artificial in my book.

Nice try, but the scientist is also going to have to put the chromosome into a bacterial cell that is already alive to mutate the existing bacteria into a different one based on the created chromosome. science may have progressed to the point of making the building blocks of life or manipulating the ones that are already there, but they still cannot make there creation live without using something that is already alive as a host. they still cannot create that vital spark that is true life. So in essence, all that is being created are parasites because they still have to take over the life of the host organism in order to live. I say that this alone is proof of the power and knowledge and glory of God who created all things. Weather that creation chooses to admit it or not.


Seafox14

The argument that because we aren't technologically able to do something that nature has already done doesn't mean that there is a God. It just means we have more to learn about nature. At various points throughout history humanity has been unable to create the following:
fire
thermonuclear fusion
Nuclear fission
light (artificially)
all of which exist naturally (mostly in stars for the above examples).

And don't forget beer. We couldn't make that for a while (but somehow it was one of the earliest inventions in history...)

Anyone believing in I.D. needs to explain the platypus.

As for the "philosophical" idea behind creating a life form by humans;

What if we accidentally create something smarter than us? What if it has the capabilities to out power, and out smart us?

While this is just a primitive life form we should prepare for the future
Please note this is wayyyyyyyyyy down the road:

should these life forms be granted citizenship?
should they have the same rights as us?
what about a possibility of hybridization?
any weaknesses to specific coumpounds/elements?
Are there any genetic problems?
How will it think?
Research capabilities?
Why create artificial life? if we can't take care of ourselvs and our habitat (earth) how can we say we are responsible enough to create a new type of lifeform, that we won't know much about?

We spend money all the time waging wars over dumb reasons such as religions/land disputes, meanwhile our sun and earth rot away slowly each year, and the world can't agree on basic things such as human rights, animal protection/rescue, ocean preservation.yet we the very cancer of this planet, believe we can create life?

I agree! Science is definitely going too far, when mother nature gets angry because we disturb her balance, we will be punished!

It reminds me of George Carlin's view on the "Save the Planet" movement:

"The planet's just fine! The people are ****ed"

Omg... this is not right man... creating life and such... playing God... i cant take the pressure anymore...

Science is great.....But, I think they might be going to far with this. We could get overpowered. I'm not trying to be funny here, but in an episode of Futurama Fry was dating a robot. Then his friends played a video of why you shouldn't date a robot. When you decided to get married with a robot you can't reproduce. Meaning, the population will get less and less and maybe humans will get wiped out. I'm not saying this is going ot happen, but, this is a possibility is science keeps going as it is.

Forget the significance of them creating life..does no one realized the created an new STD

Fascinating, though it's not really "life" now is it? It's a good step in the right direction though. I have few doubts that eventually scientists will piece together all of the stages of the evolution of life in a laboratory.

The problem with the technology is that it will never have limits. No matter how many laws there are, crazy things will still happen. I really don't see how the possibly of creating an artificial life form that scary. I think the idea of nuclear weapons are scary, and it could kill everyone in the world in a matter of seconds. Technology will always breed scarier and crazier things that will have the human race hang in the balance.

Just food for thought...

Have you ever wondered if all the advances of modern science are worth the long-term impact to our singular non-renewable resource (the Earth)? While I'm all for finding cures for currently incurable diseases, preventing the unnecessary suffering of mankind, and all the positive things that science has to offer, a scientific revelation of this magnitude has tremendous negative ramifications.

Science has increasingly focused on curing disease, regenerating dying cells, and other momentuous discoveries - and with great success over-all. Given the increased live expectancies of the beneficiaries of such discoveries and the improvement in the live birthrates globally, how long can we realistically expect the earth to support our increasing population? I would love to see scientists focusing their "creation" skills on how to make more land, make a fiber bag for $.02 cents each with less than $4,000 per pound in energy consumption for manufacturing, and generally preserving the precious resources that will not renew themselves over time. Sure, it could be thousands of years before the earth totally gives out, but if we thought more about this type of life expansion before acting on it, perhaps it could be hundreds of thousands of years.

If we expect our population to practice responsible reproduction activities (and it happens, whether we want to admit it or not), then shouldn't we also expect our scientists to practice their creations just as responsibly?

Just a random thought...

I think that this step in creation is an excellent thing.

The human race has nearly stopped naturally evolving. We have nothing to control out population, and life expectancy is much higher. Not only that but many people are allowed to reproduce who have very little to contribute in their gene pools. Now I'm not saying that we should kill them all off... but if we're not naturally evolving and our intelligence as a species is not increasing, then we need to take matters into our own hands.

This is just the first of many steps, but it is a step, and that is something to be glad for.


Many people have voiced concerns that we might create something smarter than us.
Isn't that the focus of the lives of most people? Probably the same people who are so worried about this.
When you have children, are you afraid that you're bringing something smarter than you into the world? No. That's exactly what you want, in fact.
This is very similar. Whether it's in a laboratory or in a womb, if we're creating something, then it is our child. (By the way, you might notice that more and more of our HUMAN children are "created" in a lab, these days.)

The concern here is that eventually the human race will die out.
This doesn't need to be the concern if one adopts the attitude that our creations are an extension of us.
Why do people want to be famous? Why do people want to be rich and powerful?
They want to be remembered. They want to have a lasting effect on the universe.
If something we create has a lasting effect instead, that is just as good - it is a part of us. (Here I'm referring to non-alternate-species creations. Like a revolutionary invention. A new understanding of the world. Think Einstein, here; everyone knows his name.)

So if we create an alternate species, we've had our lasting effect. They are created as a part of us.
Maybe we die out eventually, because we all married robots. But if the robots continue to build robots, and continue to adapt, change, evolve, and learn, then we will be remembered.

When the subject of artificial life comes up, people seem to automatically equate it with artificial intelligence. And the two are far from being equal. An artificial biological form that is complex enough to have what we define as intelligence would be centuries away, if the human race had any chance of lasting that long.

Tailor-made bacteria are another matter, though. If science can create organisms designed to do a specific job, such as clean up industrial waste, or separate metals from ores, or create electricity; if organisms could be designed that would cure diseases, or even prevent them, then I would say that we would be taking care of ourselves and our habitat. We know, of course, that the first and foremost use of such technology would be military, however.