A new generation of scientific mavericks is not content to merely tinker with life's genetic code.

Newsweek International ^ | June 4, 2007 issue | Lee Silver

[ASA Vet]

June 4, 2007 issue - It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago. a tiny living cell emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns down through billions of generations. Today every living organism—every person, plant, animal and microbe—can trace its heritage back to that first cell.

[ahayes]

This joins the list of things I would like to work on, but will never get the chance to!

[Southack]

"Today every living organism—every person, plant, animal and microbe—can trace its heritage back to that first cell."

Not really: It seems that Fish are missing genes that modern humans and ancient coral share...

[ASA Vet]

This joins the list of things I would like to work on

It's not to late. Get the education needed, and go for it.

[Captain Rhino]

No matter how many advanced degrees in biology, etc. they have, this is Beavis and Butthead loose, alone, and without adult supervision in the genetics lab.

Just look at the concluding sentence in the article if you have any doubts.

[ASA Vet]

Went there, and then on to the article. Didn't find a reference to fish.

[elephantlips]

The only thing that crawls out of the mud and duplicates itself is a liberal.

[Cacique]

btt

[MEGoody]

It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago. a tiny living cell emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns down through billions of generations.

The frog turned into a prince and they lived happily ever after.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

No matter how many advanced degrees in biology, etc. they have, this is Beavis and Butthead loose, alone, and without adult supervision in the genetics lab.

There is no adult supervision to be had, following your analogy. The only alternative is blind chance and random mutation. Research like this has the potential to make our lives and the lives of our descendants vastly better. It also has the potential to do harm, as all technology has always had - but this has never been a good reason to give up technology and scientific progress.

[G Larry]

“Proof will come when the first discrete, self-maintaining, self-replicating, stable organic creature—Life 2.0—is created from scratch in the lab.”

This is like the straight line in an old joke.

The scientist says, ‘1st you take some dirt.....’.
God interupts...’Make your own dirt!’.

So they don’t want you to notice that they’re not serious when they say “from scratch”.

[Captain Rhino]

Suggest you read the article again.

The scientists are not talking about finding the root cause of genetic diseases and eliminating them. The scientists are not talking about curing nearsightedness. They are contemplating the wholescale manipulation of the genome and its infusion with desireable features (at least in their eyes) from other species.

It is possible to disagree. Perhaps you feel that humans with attributes custom made for tasks assigned to them even before they were conceived (a la “Brave New World”) is a good thing. I don’t.

[ahayes]

Suggest you read the article again. They are talking about engineering single-celled organisms to do certain things, such as churning out artemisinin, the current anti-malarial miracle drug.

I have no idea where you got the notion engineering humans was involved.

[ahayes]

Nah, I think I will be happier with a life of obscurity. Unless I manage to hit it big publishing a book, of course!

[Physicist]

So they don’t want you to notice that they’re not serious when they say “from scratch”.

By the same token, all of the religious objections are ill-founded. The scientists--using "God's dirt" as you say--are no more going against "God's will" than any other kind of farmer.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Suggest you read the article again.

I've done so, and I urge you to do so. You're mistaken in your view below. The scientists are talking about purpose-built micro-organisms designed for various beneficial purposes, from generating needed medicinal substances to patrolling the human circulatory system to guard against cancer. These are very worthwhile goals.

The scientists are not talking about finding the root cause of genetic diseases and eliminating them. The scientists are not talking about curing nearsightedness. They are contemplating the wholescale manipulation of the genome and its infusion with desireable features (at least in their eyes) from other species.

Quite honestly, this is not a prospect I find frightening, though it is not related to the article, or to the work being done.

[Southack]

The fish information was pointed out in the posts under the article.

[ASA Vet]

I had noticed one post, #4, iirc, which said "something was fishy." I didn't read further into the thread as it appeared to be a typical attack thread.
At your recommendation I'll read as much of it as I can handle.

[ASA Vet]

I was not surprised that when I finally got to post 79, where a "tree of life" jpg with a fish was posted, to discover you were the poster.

I also wasn't surprised to find the jpg was from thinkquest.org.

Here's a more correct and specific Family Circle from the University of Texas. It's a .pdf format expandable circle.

[js1138]

Not really: It seems that Fish are missing genes that modern humans and ancient coral share...

You keep bringing this up as if we are descended from modern fish. The last time I looked at schematic tree of life, current fish were listed as cousins, not ancestors.