life created in lab?

I love these types of criticisms. It's like:

"Let's make a box, except let's not use any materials that are currently being used to make boxes, because that would be cheating."

For these types of early experiments, we have to use something that we know works. We use what we know to see if it can come about. I am sure later they will tweak the experiments to see if other types of "organic" compounds can produce self replicating cells.

Here's a question: if the beginning of life can be figured out, how come the cause of cancer can't be?

What a silly analogy. I am questioning the accuracy of the statement not the facts. If they had said we have invented a box, would you say that was a silly statement?

I think the medical industry doesn't really want to try and solve cancer without some kind of medical treatment. There is no money in cures, only treatments. So they would rather treat you because it's more profitable.

That's just a wee bit cynical, isn't it?

Because the solution probably is contained within what determines when a cell will divide. Most cancers are basically cells that get stuck on dividing. If we understood what determines when a cell should divide we could probably solve many cancers. We just don't understand what triggers this response.

Most cancer treatments actually treat the mass of cells. Since cells require nutrient source, what most medications or treatments do are either sever the food supply, hoping they will starve and die. Or the treatment aims to destroy the "problem" cells directly through some evasive procedure, ie. cut out the cancerous tissue, or radiate it.

In some ways I think the medical industry doesn't really want to try and solve cancer without some kind of medical treatment. There is no money in cures, only treatments. So they would rather treat you because it's more profitable.I don't agree with this tactic but what can you expect from government induced problems? More problems.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 03:08 AM ----------



No but the point is, you are expecting them to use something outside the understood aspects of what makes up a living cell. Similar to asking someone to construct a box, except you expect them to use a material that is never used in creating a box.

They start with the materials that we know and understand, which make up living cells. This is because we know that these ingredients do work. The test is to see if you take these non-organic ingredients, will they come together to form organic compounds which will then result in a self replicating cell?

If the research labs had this instruction, to find treatments rather than a cure, dont you think we would have heard? My wife was cured of cancer by treatment, was that treatment or a cure?

Creating life is not using life to create new life. If you had basic compounds and created the correct circumstances for life to appear then that would be creating life. With your view life has always existed it never evolved or had a start. Your box is just silly.

My main point was that we could probably cure cancer from ever happening, but as it appears the medical industry doesn't want to go that route. They would rather use treatment methods to cure you instead. Because a preventive solution is not as profitable as a treatment regiment

Xris, as usual you only focus on the aspect of the argument you want to and ignore the whole argument. My main point was that we could probably cure cancer from ever happening, but as it appears the medical industry doesn't want to go that route. They would rather use treatment methods to cure you instead. Because a preventive solution is not as profitable as a treatment regiment



They aren't using life to create life. They have already used inorganic compounds to produce the basic building blocks for RNA successfully in the lab. Not only that but what we believe were the conditions of the young earth, the process is easy to replicate. Through a process of mixing and evaporating steps you can produce the simple amino acids which make up the building blocks for RNA.

So that is taking non-living material and building the first steps to what make up self replicating cells.

No but the point is, you are expecting them to use something outside the understood aspects of what makes up a living cell.

Similar to asking someone to construct a box, except you expect them to use a material that is never used in creating a box.

They start with the materials that we know and understand, which make up living cells. This is because we know that these ingredients do work. The test is to see if you take these non-organic ingredients, will they come together to form organic compounds which will then result in a self replicating cell?

Here's a question: if the beginning of life can be figured out, how come the cause of cancer can't be? Because they are really very similar in some ways. I knew a medical researcher once who characterised cancer as 'new growth'. One important difference is, however, we can actually inspect and analyze cancers as they occur, whereas whatever happened in the 'warm little pond' is separated from us by 4 billion years, or so.

(I actually get the feeling that the idea that, once it commences, biological evolution is kind of like a spontaneous reaction that culminates in complex beings, is far from the truth.)

After all, they modeled it off of already existing life.

Why would that make a difference? If someone found a way to create a new universe but modeled it on the already existing universe, would you say the same? Maybe retroinventing is the best or only way to recreate life. So what? It is still the creation of life.

But they didn't just model on something living, they just took an already living cell, and gave it a DNA transplant, and it was able to replicate so apparently that means they created life. At no point did something that wasn't living become something that was living, hence they didn't create life.

I humbly submit that either folks ought to actually read the referenced link before debating it, or that we ought to read more carefully. We're not talking about creating life.

The article itself said, "...a team that has for the first time created a synthetic cell" (emphasis mine)

Cheers

Why would that make a difference? If someone found a way to create a new universe but modeled it on the already existing universe, would you say the same? Maybe retroinventing is the best or only way to recreate life. So what? It is still the creation of life.