Posted on 03/04/2009 12:43:07 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Feb. 27, 2009 -- When NASA began thinking about missions to look for life beyond Earth, it realized it had a problem: how to recognize life if it were found.
Scientists came up with a definition for life -- a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution -- but remained understandably fuzzy on the details.
It is still not known how life on Earth took hold, what happened to a bunch of chemicals that made them capable of supporting a metabolism, replicating and evolution. But a new field of science, called synthetic biology, is aiming to find out.
One of the most promising developments lies in a beaker of water inside a Florida laboratory. It's an experiment called AEGIS -- an acronym for Artificially Expanded Genetic Information System. Its creator, Steve Benner, says it is the first synthetic genetic system capable of Darwinian evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at dsc.discovery.com ...
Seems to me that they’re stretching the bounderies of what can be called life.
I believe this states the relevant.
So is a fetus alive?
A baby is not self-sustaining for quite awhile even after being "born". You have to feed a baby, it won't seek out food on it's own initially.
Seems to me that they’re stretching the bounderies of what can be called life....”
Unless it is a human fetus. It is considered a ‘issue mass’ then, nothing of value or potential.
Sounds like “The Blob” to me...
Soo...it took a bunch of scientists to concote just the perfect blend of chemicals in a lab...for it all to “randomly” come together.
Random.
I’ve seen the evolution of the Corvette. Are you now trying to tell me they are not alive?
The nice thing about this definition is that it excludes viruses. Yet it is troublesome since it includes the Earth(and Venus).
Well, let's not be too hasty. They got the test tube to pop the cork off. They haven't got it to reload itself and fire again.
That doesn’t seem to be a form of life at all! That’s why I don’t buy Discovery mag any more. Too much hype and not enough science.
What? It's only life if it fits into some dead guy's dubious theory?
THERE it is.....y'all have proven intelligent design.... /sarc
“Scientists came up with a definition for life — a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution — but remained understandably fuzzy on the details.”
I produced a living dinosaur from kitchen ingredients, but I’m a little fuzzy on the details, understandably so.
I think Nasa has discovered jello.
Oh, the irony......
There is more than one irony, I think. NASA, for its own purposes, has defined life: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.
Somebody (several somebodys) has raised the issue of a fetus – is it alive by NASA definition – and the political and ethical issues the question arouses. Let me simply observe that no life (of which we know) is sustainable in an environment that is not suitable for that life’s existence. So, a human fetus is no more in an environment suitable for its sustenance than any other life-form. And, in many instances anyway, I’m not sure what “Darwinian evolution” (micro? macro? natural selection?) has to do with a definition of life.
The creators and designers of life. Heh heh heh.
I don't understand the "/sarc" part of your comment -- it's quite clearly an example of intelligent design. And not the only one available, the biotech industry being another notable example.
I think it probably has to do with the successful communication of genetic information from one generation to the next, that is also capable of adapting to environmental changes. By that standard, I suppose one could write a computer virus that is also "alive."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.