First artificial life 'within months'

rosborne979 wrote:

stuh505 wrote:

The extra junk only matters if you want it to be capable of evolving

So this organism would start off at a disadvantage, not having any junk to work with. But junk would eventually accumulate...

I'm not getting your point...first of all they are not attempting to make a "fit" organism at this point, the article says that are just trying to do a proof of concept.

Secondly, for the purposes described in the article, it would be counter productive to have an organism capable of evolving. We want to be in control, we don't want to create new competitive species that could cause an imbalance in an ecosystem.

Thirdly, no I don't believe you are accurate in saying that extra junk would accumulate -- if I am right in assuming that by extra junk you are referring to non-coding regions of DNA. From what I have read an organism without junk regions would be ephemeral because it means there is no variation in the species so whenever the slightest selective pressure comes that would kill one of them, it kills off the entire species. Therefore, it would be literally impossible for evolution to occur in such a species -- and it would never be able to develop such junk regions.

I know, that's why I asked, what are they going to make?

Otherwise he will turn the discussion to himself and another potentially interesting thread will be polluted beyond repair.

rosborne979, well I agree that the level of junk in the DNA can be moderated by evolution. Natural organisms would have started with a large proportion of junk DNA...I believe modern organisms have an optimum level, which has been thinned by evolution. It could also be expanded by evolution if it was below that level. But they can only evolve to change the ratio of junk DNA if they are already capable of evolving, and without some junk to begin with, it would be virtually impossible for evolution to get started.

If the life is self replicating, as I assume it would be, wouldn't the imperfect processof the replication slowly introduce junk? That would take a long time to be noticeable, perhaps. Maybe I am too naive to understand what happens here.

You seem to be forgetting about mutation.

rosborne979 wrote:

You seem to be forgetting about mutation.

No, I am talking about mutation. Without junk DNA, every mutation destroys the organism. You need to be able to build up mutations that still code for functioning organisms.

For a normal organism that's incorrect. Most mutations are relatively benign, and they accumulate over time.

However, in an artificial organism with ONLY functional genes, and nothing else, it might be very difficult for anything to change, even slightly without killing it. I'm not sure though, becasue most genes are multi-functional.

rosborne979 wrote:

For a normal organism that's incorrect. Most mutations are relatively benign, and they accumulate over time.

However, in an artificial organism with ONLY functional genes, and nothing else, it might be very difficult for anything to change, even slightly without killing it. I'm not sure though, becasue most genes are multi-functional.

Uh...don't go taking credit for everything I just said and then attributing what you have said to me and calling it incorrect!

Secondly, for the purposes described in the article, it would be counter productive to have an organism capable of evolving. We want to be in control, we don't want to create new competitive species that could cause an imbalance in an ecosystem.

Definitions
There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists.To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists[5][6].

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal
4. organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
5. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
6. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
7. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

A custard pie fight with bullshit instead of custard.

Am I sensing a hint of insecurity?