First artificial life 'within months'

Spendius

1) Read the first paragraph of your own quote
2) Any definition of life that excludes a mule or eunuch from being alive is clearly wrong

"Junk" DNA isn't junk. In the last decade or so it's become apparentt that much of it, very likely all of it, regulates the expression of genes; sequences in the so-called "junk" turn genes on and off. Many sequences have been conserved all the way from mice to man, which doesn't happen unless it does something important in the organism. That seems to be what it does. If you'd like something of a literature search , wit among other things articles from peer-reviewed journals and science journalism stuff as well, from about 1994 on, try googling "junk DNA regulates genes". There are also regulatory genes, as well as the non-coding sequences in the "junk". Mutations arise all thru the DNA, in the so called junk, and in genes as well. And they can cause big changes, at least one of which throws into a cocked hat real life's argument that you never see a whole organ evolving, it's just too complex (standard ID stuff from ol' rl). Just one minor mutation in a regulatory gene in bat ancestors seems to be responsible for extended growth in the "fingers" of their forepaws. If the "fingers" growth isn't turned off, they overgrow, and what they overgrow into is winglike, the ancestor of bat flight, and it
s a small change in the genome, and a whole new species arises.

spendius, what exactly do you find ghoulish in the idea of an organism whose metabolic product would be a biofuel? You really are just ranting here. There are already naturally-ccurring organisms that can eat petroleum and conceivably could be used to clean up toxic spills. This is similar, tho in reverse. Why does that frighten you, or why do you think it would frigten the "aunties"? You're just blowing smoke. And saying it's hubris for them to think they can do it is sort of dumb to say when it looks like they will. I wouldn't bet against Craig Venter if I were you. His track record is considerably better than yhours.

Username is totally up to date. We now call junk DNA "regulator codons" that often have effects that havent been "decoded" yet.

The very first genome will be a tabula rossa, wherein adaptational; events will cause modifications. The labs wont be able to adjust for all envoronmental conditions and some mutation will occur in response to chemical signals or cosmic radiation or whatrever. To see a simple genome accumulate "junk" will be an Important goal also. A replicating body that demonstrates all the definitions of life will begin to provide us with a more calibrated "genetic clock" of how quickly mutations do accumulate. That alone has me fascinated.
In the concern side of the ledger (in order to give some credibility to spendis ranting) Im more concerned that VEnter's group has, in the past, always opted for shortcuts and, in our Mandelbrottian world of chaos interactions, I see another possible Michael Crichton book about "controlled" genetics gone amok, just because they didnt follow all protocols as established by the Federation of Planets.

My comments relate to the first post on this thread. I think that Mr Highfield's article is bullshit.

It's purpose is to fill up the white space on the backs of adverts and to justify Mr Highfield's position and salary as Science Editor. He is required to write something except when he is on holiday,which is often, and the editor will be pleased if it is dramatic, easy to follow at the breakfast table in the sort of homes where The Telegraph is consumed and controversial. One might say it causes temporary artificial life for the reader,or at least until the toaster flips up the charred remains of a slice of organic bread whilst going "beep-beep- your toast is ready" in a metallic croak.

Its oversimplifications are absurd and designed for no other reason than to get the chattering classes chattering at their dinner parties about a subject they have been sweetly flattered into thinking they have a grasp of which they haven't.

I also do not understand the expression "artificial life".

An artifice is a ruse,a cunning trick, a subterfuge, a stratagem. I suppose getting funding for this project could come under those headings but then the artificial life would be the one the researchers are leading.

Artificial means "made by art", it is in opposition to natural and life is nothing if not natural. Other words associated with artificial are- manufactured, synthetic, insincere and affectation.

Artificial silk, say, is not silk but something resembling silk. How can life ever be something not life but only resembling it.

I stand by my BULLSHIT placard and you lot may tread in it all you wish. It's a free country.

Spendius
Spendius, are you one of those who believe that only a God can create life?

Will you have to call any scientist who is successful in creating life "God"?

BBB

BBB wrote-



1-No. But I am aware that there is a psychological need in most of the human race, which I don't personally feel, like Diogenes, and that this need can only be satisfied by such a belief.

2- I don't think there is the slightest possibility of scientists creating life although I am aware that there is a psychological need in some people, often those who like to make a lot of noise out of all proportion to their actual significance in the world, to believe that they might or even, in extreme cases, will.

An antidote for those who want one, which I doubt they do, because people get attached to nutty foibles, is Dr Aidley's book The Physiology of Excitable Cells and the bibliography he provides. I think, after perusing those, as I have, they will see that creating life in a scientific experiment is roughly as possible as making a rope out of the sands of the earth. On balance less possible.

Can you pinpoint what part of creating life that is impossible.

And don't push that "irreducible complexity" theory...

Coolwhip: Can you pinpoint what part of creating life that is impossible.

And don't push that "irreducible complexity" theory...


I was thinking the same thing! LOL

Can you pinpoint how to cook potatoes.

And don't push that "turning the heat on" theory for goodness sakes.

It looks from here that ordinary English sense is an irreducible complexity to you.

They say that great minds think alike c.i.

Spendius


Who are "They"?

BBB

If you two can pinpoint what part of creating life is possible you both have understood the thing about the birds and the bees. I hope, as you are of one mind, that it is the same part for both of you as otherwise you would be of different sexes, in which case you didn't ought to be thinking alike. But California is a place where anything goes I gather so I suppose we'll have to make an exception for c.i.

We were talking about artificial life I think. Can't you even read now?

BBB wrote



The same ones as say that every man needs affection or that there's gold in them thar 'ills.

Well, you are free to talk about what part of creating artificial life that is impossible anytime you like. Unless you'd rather take a pick at my grammar?

spendi prefers ad hominems over substance.

Spendius
Spendius, I found two sources for who "they" were who said Great Minds Think Alike:

Often quoted in jest today, this sayingoriginated in the seventeenth century as the comic-sounding 'Great wits jump.' Daubridgecourt Belchier first recorded the saying in 'Hans Beer-Pot' (1618) as 'Good wits doe iumpe (agree).'...The expression 'Great minds jump' appeared in the late 1800s..." From "Wise Words and Wives' Tales: The Origins, Meanings and Time-Honored Wisdom of Proverbs and Folk Sayings Olde and New" by Stuart Flexner and Doris Flexner (Avon Books, New York, 1993).

and

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ or great minds may think alike, but the best think for themselves. The phrase origin, "great minds think alike" isn�t known but is attributed to 17 th century England as a proverb. There are earlier versions of it in Arabic - same meaning but long before the 17th century.

Once you missed "artificial" out I was in danger of being set up. If you missed it out accidentally it shows poor attention and if you missed it out on purpose it shows devious cunning.

It had nothing to do with your grammar. Don't criticise me for your mistakes matey.

Spendius reminds me of the black knight from Monty Python.



He just doesn't quit...

c.i.

There is no substance.

The idea of artificial life, as I have explained, is like the idea of a five sided triangle. It is ipso facto impossible.

Thanks BBB. We could do with a few proper posts on here.