US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

US scientists have taken a major step toward creating the first ever artificial life form by synthetically reproducing the DNA of a bacteria, according to a study published Thursday.

The move, which comes after five years of research, is seen as the penultimate stage in the endeavour to create an artificial life form based entirely on a man-made DNA genome -- something which has tantalised scientists and sci-fi writers for years.

"Through dedicated teamwork we have shown that building large genomes is now feasible and scalable so that important applications such as biofuels can be developed," said Hamilton Smith, from the J. Craig Venter Institute, in the study published in Science.

The research has been carried out at the laboratories of the controversial celebrity US scientist Craig Venter, who has hailed artificial life forms as a potential remedy to illness and global warming.

However, the prospect of engineering artificial life forms is highly controversial and is likely to arouse heated debate over the ethics and potential ramifications of such an advance.

It is one of the Holy Grails of science, but also one that stirs deep fears as forseen in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel "Brave New World" in which natural human reproduction is eschewed in favor of babies grown artificially in laboratories.

Venter said in a statement: "This extraordinary accomplishment is a technological marvel that was only made possible because of the unique and accomplished ... team."

His researchers had "dedicated the last several years to designing and perfecting new methods and techniques that we believe will become widely used to advance the field of synthetic genomics," he added.

Lead author Dan Gibson said the team had completed the second step in a three-step process to create a synthetic organism.

Again, the “truth” is ‘factual information’, not beliefs. Beliefs can be based on facts, but facts can not be based on belief.

I did say pre-history in one sentence. In another sentence I said “medieval” I was specifically talking about medieval people, those living before, during and after the darkages.

I do see your point exactly. I don’t agree with it, and I think you might be seeing mine as well. However, you’re assuming that scientists make these assumptions about creation stories as well. Some perhaps do, many do not. However, every theory must start with a hypothesis - and educated guess - a statement that is boiled down to it’s most basic format and then it must be proven, or disproven. And this is where people typically get confused about “all encompassing science”. Science is simply NOT an encompassing doctrine.

Instead, science is built up on little pieces of real knowledge, and then upon a foundation of KNOWN information, things that can been seen, felt, tasted, manipulated in some manner — and once as many facts that are possible are know, then a hypothesis can come into existence from the mind (brain that God gave us) of thinking people.

Then and only then can science use the rest of the process to gain MORE information.

Evolution is not an “all encompassing theory”, nor is Darwinism (which is basically modified from the original theory to what we’re referring to as “Evolutionism” now).

I’ll say this again, I was brought up believing in Creationism in Sunday School. In public/private schools I learned sciences... and there is a difference in the presentation. They are not, however, in my mind mutually exclusive like so many people chose to believe.

The fact is many scientists are Socialists in their thinking, and they are (I know, I work with them day in and day out) severely “security inhibited”. They hate security procedures, they hate security, they think all information should be open to anyone and all.

I guess my point is that “presumptions” are often where science starts, and sometimes those presumptions are wrong - but, because of the scientific process, they do not remain incorrect presumptions and thus a hypothesis is either proven as correct or it is proven incorrect. It is this little tiny thing that I’d ask all people who place science in the “believe it or not” spectrum to take a closer look at a subject before poohpooh it right off as wrong (or based upon misconceptions).

Sopater, if you notice, I write a LOT. You can see plenty of my writing and dissertation on other sites that are more along the lines of what we’ve discussed today. Sometimes, I can indeed fly off the handle at people because they are purely being stupid and ignorant (or simply ARE ignorant). This site is much different and 98% of the folks here will have a conversation without name calling, but I think if you look you will find that ALL of us, 100% of us sometimes misread, misunderstand or take a different meaning from something another has said once in awhile. That generally starts a fight and that’s not good.

Thanks for the discussion and see you around :)

Again, the “truth” is ‘factual information’, not beliefs. Beliefs can be based on facts, but facts can not be based on belief.

Agreed. However, the "interpretation" of the facts is not necessarily the truth. The "facts" will always support the truth, but they can also be interpreted to support many different beliefs. I think you would agree. My point is that the real truth is probably not knowable since ancient history cannot be scientifically observed or measured.

I don't necessarily think that all information should be open to anyone and all, however without all of the information, the wider the spectrum of speculation for various theories and hypothesis can be. Every bit of related information helps science to refine and narrow the scope of any particularly theory.

I was brought up believing in Creationism in Sunday School. In public/private schools I learned sciences... and there is a difference in the presentation. They are not, however, in my mind mutually exclusive like so many people chose to believe.

I was brought up in public/private schools and was left feeling quite disappointed with the scientific evidence for evolution. I was immensely disappointed with the lack of any evidence for the origin of life although I was presented with a theory that had no basis besides the presumption that it must be purely natural. I had never even heard of "creationism", I simply thought that science had a long way to go to support it's claims. I saw vast opportunities for a biological scientist to make a name for himself by finding the process in which life could have formed by itself and evolved into human beings. It wasn't until college biology that I came to the conclusion that there must be a God. I didn't know who He was or how He did it, but I realized that He must exist. I realize that you feel the same way, based on another post that you had written regarding your amateur astronomy hobby. I'm not trying to preach, only to explain my background. I don't believe that using God to fill in the gaps is any better or worse than presuming that God cannot be used to fill in the gaps. Either is a philosophical interjection into the scientific model. The only real benefit of using a purely naturalistic model for the basis of scientific testing is that it is necessary for understanding purely natural processes. Therefore, the scientific method is really only effective on processes that are indeed purely natural.

You are right about this. The problem is that some presumptions, such as the idea that the origin of all lifeforms must be explained by purely natural processes, is held to with such tenacity that there is no room for any other presumption by most scientists. In other words, the broad general premise stands regardless of the evidence that may be against it, and is either modified to fit the new evidence despite other conflicting evidence, or the evidence is dismissed as insignificant or even misinterpreted.

Sometimes, I can indeed fly off the handle at people because they are purely being stupid and ignorant (or simply ARE ignorant).

I hope you don't feel that way about me, but if you do, I understand.

...98% of the folks here will have a conversation without name calling, but I think if you look you will find that ALL of us, 100% of us sometimes misread, misunderstand or take a different meaning from something another has said once in awhile. That generally starts a fight and that’s not good.

Agreed.

Thanks for the discussion and see you around :)

Much obliged, and I do hope to see you around, too.

Doug, I wasn’t trying to be a smart ass. It’s just that people seem to always want to jump on something quickly, without reading, and without doing just a few moments of research.

I do it too sometimes, and I sure show MY ignorance by doing so. I wasn’t trying to be insulting to you.

I was a college teacher for several years and one thing I detest is the population going by only what they read quickly from people who supposedly are “experts” and then ere-quoting things back.

Psrt of the issue I had with this thread is a lot of people only use information they have received through churches or pastors and do not actually READ UP on a scientific subject because of personal biases against the subject.

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.