Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
"Artificial life" created as scientist makes sythetic chromosome
engadget.com — The new "life form" is reliant on the host cell for replication and metabolism so it's not exactly entirely synthetic, but as the DNA is different, it is effectively an artificial form of life. Sounds like the human race's really doomed now: ultimately, all we're doing is setting the robots up with a tag team.
ColibriEnergy- 726 diggs
- digg it
- sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3make em extremely hot and infertile
- Swift2, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2God has no genitals.
- Goodbyeworld, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Is that supposed to make sense?
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It does if we're made in his image. Why would god need a penis?
- init100, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So that he could rape Mary.
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It does if we're made in his image. Why would god need a penis?
- pjsk8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What if he has just as much of one sex as the other? Genitals....I'm sure God would certainly be able to.....
.....*thinking of what kind of genitals God would create for.....itself....*
It's too late. Thank God for days off...and genitals.
- Goodbyeworld, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Is that supposed to make sense?
- Valhalla, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12I know there have been things called BAC or "Bacterial artificial chromosome" in science labs for quite some time now and I wonder what makes to one discussed in this article so unique. As it is a bacterial chromosome it is circular, I wonder how functional it is, does it include introns and exons or origins of replication? As it is reliant on its host cell for replication as well as transcription and translation, what does the chromosome encode for? Does in encode for known genes from other organisms or does it simply encode for a protein made up of random amino acids to see what it may accomplish.
- mushoo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2A lot of questions there bud. You might wanna go and help do the research or go back to school. Good either way.
- Xirto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12OK, let me try to answer some of your questions.
- What makes to one discussed in this article so unique?
This one have been designed entirely by the team by stitching oligonucleotides together while traditional BAC come from successive digestions of material from another living cell.
- Does it include introns and exons or origins of replication?
As the final construction have been stitched from a lot of synthetically synthesized oligonucleotides, I'm pretty sure they didn't waste their time and only created exons.
- What does the chromosome encode for?
This is the interesting part. The experiment created an artificial chromosome but also helped to define what would be a minimal genome for the survival of a living cell. They surely started by studying a simple genome and then removed genes not necessary for the development/survival.
- Does in encode for known genes from other organisms?
For sure. No scientist could design randomly some genes and hope for them to encode functional proteins. They might have sequenced a simple genome and then designed a succession of oligonucleotides to create an artificial chromosome. I'll have to dig deeper in the article to find from which organisms they took the sequences from but it's surely a simple genome.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/gene ...
Link to the source. - NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14This isn't exactly artificial life. It's basically a new form of life created by humans but not done by creating life from scratch or simulating early earth to promote the creation of life. A little misleading but a scientific advancement none the less.
- Goodbyeworld, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14When they elect a leader, I will be afraid.
Until then, it is just junk in a petri dish. - Birdoftruth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Here I was expecting the answer to abiogenesis and I left disappointed.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -21/+4I would like to say that this is an awesome breakthrough in intelligent science, but I'll be more impressed when lightning strikes some goo somewhere and does the same. I still believe in an intelligent creator named Christ, and to me, this shows us how extremely complex life and our universe really is.
"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."- christianjb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Fortunately, we don't have to wait for religious approval of modern day science- so it really doesn't matter whether you're impressed or not.
- raid517, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1The funniest thing is I will bet my bottom dollar that he has no real conception at all of what it is he isn't impressed with.
- christianjb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Fortunately, we don't have to wait for religious approval of modern day science- so it really doesn't matter whether you're impressed or not.
- SideShowMel0329, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2looks like Flubber.
- Thundercracker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"alien chromosome" ...............everyone get your pulse rifles ready!
- Maddjonesy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Remember...short, controlled bursts :P
- DisposableRob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7One step closer to Replicant Pleasure Units.
- Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Did it die in like 3 seconds? That's always annoyed me when they say they've created new things like chemical elements and by create they mean they made it but it exploded after 2 seconds. That's just a pet peeve of mine.
- IAMKOREA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why? They created something that hadn't previously been known to exist. Sounds good enough to me.
- Orkahm52, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Never heard of humans then?
- daEvan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Really? Because I personally love to blow ***** up.
- Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's not as fun when it's at an atomic level.
- benchwarmer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2*thoughts of the atomic bomb crosses mind* sometimes little things can grow very, very large.
- Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's not as fun when it's at an atomic level.
- IAMKOREA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why? They created something that hadn't previously been known to exist. Sounds good enough to me.
- mostreliable, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8and thus skynet went active in 2007
- feshmania, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7i wonder if every dude named John Conner is feeling a little worried right now.
- NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Artificial life, not Artificial intelligence...
- IndicaDreams, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I got $20 on the Red Rocker! Who's throwing down on the Blue Bomber?
- christianjb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Let's explain things for the creationists amongst us.
When we couldn't create life- you said "Aha, only God is smart enough to create life"
Now we can create life- you say "Aha, it takes an intelligent designer to create life"
So basically - this event won't convince you of anything.
However, you may ask- how come scientists haven't created life using the same methods as we claim occurred in this universe?
Well- that's simply because we can't wait that long. It takes millions of years for the first chemical replicators to get going- and it also requires the right environment (life doesn't happen on every planet). You'd have to stare at a chemical soup for a billion years to see any macroscopic life form.
"Aha" you say, "that means that the mechanism of the creation of life is unprovable!"
Well maybe it is- I don't know. What we do know is that it happened at least once in this universe- and that once that lucky accident occurred- the rest is explained by natural selection. We also know that saying "God did it" is not going to explain anything and it's not going to help cure any inherited diseases through genetic research.- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1When you say "we", who are you referring to? yourself? Did you create life? Amazing that 4000 years ago, people were still more intelligent than the majority of "we".
I, for one, never said that only God could create "life". Did Bush say it or something because he is obviously a good example of a true believer. Like I said, I will be impressed when it doesn't take an intelligent being to create life. I would be more impressed to see the atomic structure created from NOTHING. That is why it's called faith. But, have faith in science, see how far it gets "we".
- christianjb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I used "we" to refer to humanity in general- although I am a scientist and maybe I was partly thinking of other scientists.
My post wasn't referring to you specifically- since I have no idea who you are!
And yes- it really doesn't matter whether you're impressed or not, except that I hope you don't vote or ever try to raise children. - nitsuj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you really suggesting that bronze age people were more intelligent than people today? Based on what evidence?
- RobotBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Given observation of cultures that depend on prayer, and those that depend on science, I think I know which I'm putting my trust into.
- raid517, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1So you want an unintelligent being to create life? You mean like a slug creating a chimpanzee? How exacty would that work?
In any case, your argument fals rather flat. If in 50 years we have mastered the creation of life from start to finish, presumably it may be possible to have vending machines that would allow fairly unintelligent people like you to create your own designer life forms.
Or you could have an unthinking machine that randomly created new life forms on its own.
What argument would you use in favour of God then? You simply make an already weak argument even weaker.
- christianjb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I used "we" to refer to humanity in general- although I am a scientist and maybe I was partly thinking of other scientists.
- DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4but you forgot, cretinists have proof in the form of a jar of peanut butter and a bannana
- clothmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Please don't google that for proof, people, NSFW...
- RichStradler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is no life without a creator. Call me after you've really succeeded in creating life... by the way your only allowable ingredients in this game are hydrogen gas and oodles of time. (not to mention of course that you don't exist yet)
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1When you say "we", who are you referring to? yourself? Did you create life? Amazing that 4000 years ago, people were still more intelligent than the majority of "we".
- sirjimbob, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Rearranging things on genetic and molecular level to serve our own purpose is going to either be the death or savior of humanity. The potential is unimaginable.
- sanman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It'll be interesting to see how we harness these things for our own benefit. Using them to chemically transform our world (eg. make fuel, etc) would be nice. But on the other hand, you don't want this to become the next runaway Grey Goo thing that can gobble up the entire biosphere.
- im3ngs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2This is the beginning of all those science fiction stories coming true: we're going to invent the bacteria that destroys human life as we know it.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2One step closer to someone cooking up a pandemic in his kitchen.
- clothmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even the best kitchen in the world is unlikely to provide the necessary tools and environment for this. Buried for fearmongering.
- crazybugger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'll be back!
- ZakKebron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I, for one, welcome our new squigly petri dish overlords.
- HollowMarkeD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A great advance, one with as much potential for ruin or wonder as splitting the atom.
- flufner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0A lot of people seem to be mislead by the article.
Can you tell me something that is not alive but yet can reproduce and feed (sustain) itself?
If they put the stitched chromosome into a "living" frame, how could one conclude life has been created?
Not ..
(just pointing out) - FaraFiro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, HELLO CHEWBACCA
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is