Researchers One Step Closer To Creating Life 292
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute are potentially one step closer to creating life. In an experiment they recently created enzymes that can replicate and evolve. 'It kind of blew me away,' said team member Tracey Lincoln of the Scripps Research Institute, who is working on her Ph.D. 'What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting.'"
wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting
I bet robots would fascinate these people.
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Interesting)
Biotech research, and particularly creating artificial, but organic life like systems, is a parallel, and often directly contributory line of research in relation to robotics and AI. The two fields have a steady exchange of ideas.
Researchers One Step Closer To Creating Life!! (Score:3, Funny)
You mean some scientist out there almost got laid!? This IS one for the headlines! I just hope we'll be able to replicate the results with ease. God knows how many infeasible experiments big organizations have dangled in front of my low budget lab.
Please, noone is even remotely close of creating (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Robots the size of molecules would fascinate me.
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Interesting)
How many self-replicating-self-assembling robots have you seen. .. 0? The DIY stereo lithograph is close, but that self-assembling bit kills it.
-ellie
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
I see them everywhere. On the street, at the mall, at work. They don't even know they're self-replicating-self-assembling robots.
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory XKCD comic:
http://xkcd.com/387/ [xkcd.com]
Well they would but that's not the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> The primary reason this sort of research is interesting is because it might give
> insight as to how abiogenesis occured
Yeah right. This is just more grant money going to political cronies and left-wing, atheist Washington fat-cats. There has already been enough research on this topic [wikipedia.org] to consider the matter closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
WTF? Is that the best you can do? Your Slashdot license please...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that she spends most of her day with low-life scums. Maybe - one day she can have her very own genetically engineered, low-life scum.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think your average person is content to admit that they don't understand the universe and everything in it. Religious or not.
Atheism is something of a loaded term since people seem to want to equate it with not only not believing in a god, but loudly denying the possibility of one.
What you replied to was a clear troll (or maybe Richard Dawkins), and since you mention "keeping score", please don't add that troll to the atheist side.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fair play to anybody who stands up and says "Fuck off, God doesn't exist, what are you fighting about !". So much energy and life wasted on something whose whole purpose was to promote peace (allegedly).
As a side note, it's vaguely interesting that the spellchecker in firefox complains about not using capital first letter
Re: (Score:2)
Just having some fun. I think he's a man who makes up for his lack of tact with strong convictions, or maybe the other way around. :)
FWIW, I think Sagan did a better job educating people about science's role in truth than Dawkins has. Not that Dawkins himself with disagree; they're big shoes to fill.
But really I just didn't like The Selfish Gene :P
Re: (Score:2)
* "would disagree"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO nothing can either prove or disprove the existence of God, at least nothing in the physical world. If god created everything, then he must by definition not be part of it because creation is an action and in order for an action to occur there must be two things A) the thing doing the action and B) the thing being acted on.
here is something to ponder for those of you who only believe the the physical world: Close your eyes, and twiddle your thumbs, now think what told your tumbs to twiddle? your brain
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
here is something to ponder for those of you who only believe the the physical world: Close your eyes, and twiddle your thumbs, now think what told your tumbs to twiddle? your brain right? yes, but what told your brain to tell your thumbs to twiddle? this is what i would call god. i am god.
I take it then that you subscribe to the notion that "you" exist as separate to your body?
If so, why does your behaviour / personality change when you have a stroke / brain damage?
In answer to your question - why does something else need to tell your brain to twiddle your thumbs? Why cannot the buck stop with the brain?
Re:And where...and where...and where... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you have experienced dickheads so lets take a look at a famous Atheist. Dawkins points out ALL religious people are also Atheists, they just went one god too far. ie: They don't belive in Thor, the FSM, etc, but they do belive in an alpha male in the sky using only blind faith as evidence.
"If life were replicated in a test tube would that disprove the existence of God? Please explain how, as I don't see any logical path of reasoning that leads to that conclusion."
No but it certainly pins the tail on the creationists donkeys. Dawkins entire point is that religion promotes "unthinking as a virtue" and that this permeates into politics and the rest of society. He does not claim he can prove god doesn't exist he claims that there is no evidence and therefore the RATIONAL course of action is to assume he doesn't.
Dawkins has the same fears as Sagan [wikipedia.org] did, and yeah, he's more agressive about it. I suggest you read Dawkins and Sagan's books and think about what they are saying, after all "doubting Thomas" was Jesus' favorite deciple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Emmm no, they can't entertain assertions that there is no evidence for, and yes that is a kind of "dogma" if you want to be a pedant.
"A belief in the existence of a higher power, whether it is the alpha male, or a mathematical equation or whatever, does not automatically imply religion."
It automatically implies faith, not BLIND faith. All faith is not equal, the single "leap of faith" that science requires of it's practioners is
Re:And where...and where...and where... (Score:5, Insightful)
That bit of twisted logic is known as the "god of the gaps". Not knowing the answer to everything is not evidence that there exists "a higher power" that does.
"Why is the belief in a higher power any more or less "religious" than the belief in a big bang?"
Science does not prove anything, it provides the best explaination for observations. The observable expansion of the visable universe is EVIDENCE to support the big bang. Science does not claim that god didn't light the fuse, it claims there is no EVIDENCE of a fuse. There are lots of things you can believe in without evidence, such unicorns and fairies, why is a belief in fairies any more or less rational than a belief in "a higher power"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, scientists have a theory, based on evidence, that there was a big bang. One tiny shred of (verifiable) contradictory evidence, and the big bang would be disproven.
Where did the infinitely massive object come from? Does your faith in science tell you that it was just always there?
No, the o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet you missed the point, science does not prove anything nor does it claim certainty.
"you cannot *prove* that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it doesn't make a sound"
There is evidence that a tree falling over makes a sound, ie: it can be observed. The only leap of faith required to belive a falling tree makes a sound when nobody is listening is that the real world continues to exist when nobody is watching it.
Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
Male Character: "God creates dinosaurs. God kills dinosaurs. Man kills God. Man creates dinosaurs."
Female Character: "Dinosaurs eat man... woman inherits the earth."
Hah!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer the sci-fi version (won't spoil the source since it's an awesome story.)
1. God creates Universe.
2. Universe evolves Man.
3. Man creates computer.
4. Universe dies.
5. Computer becomes God.
Goto 1.
Re: (Score:2)
You can even ask it the question...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People are going to jump for the creatures that don't exist anymore: wooly mammoths, sabretooth tigers, dinosaurs, etc.
Man: "Look honey, I made a dragonfly today!"
Wife: "Greaaaaat. I just squashed like 5 of them out back..."
Re: (Score:2)
When playing Sim life, did you create woolly mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers and dinosaurs?
Thought not. No, it's flying nectar eating rhinos all the way for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
>I'll finally be one step closer to creating my race of manbearpigs.
A whole race of "man bears" [maximumawesome.com] Wow, you must have incredible stamina and tolerance for couch hair.
Funny Headline (Score:2, Funny)
Apparently there are no fertile researchers at the Scripps Research Institute?
Bots... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
One of these lives has a future
We were so close... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
.... I do feel that I'm one step closer to creating life....
It is the year 2109. Some scientists have figured out how to come before God and how to make life. They tell him: "Move over, we don't need you anymore because we can make life now also." God smiles and replies: "That is quite an achievement. Would you please give me a demonstration?" The scientists tell him: "Sure watch this!" They proceed to scrape together some dirt and put it into their quietly humming life creation machine. At this point God
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea is to find out how it's all put together. God has no place in that process other than to remain elusive. And still we get ever closer. I don't believe we'll ever know it all anyway, but the quest is what drives us.
Humour conceals a lot of things, mostly truth.
P.S. In case you missed it, I think God is a concept, not a being.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
....In case you missed it, I think God is a concept, not a being...
Well, either your opinion is valid or Moses who talked to God. He asked God what his name was that he should tell the people. God replied: I am, tell them that "I AM" sent you. That expression is related to the word to be and that therefore makes God a being, not merely a concept.
Jesus claimed to be God come to earth. Jesus was very much a living person, just as you are. He proved his claim to deity by rising from the dead after being execut
But, but, (Score:5, Insightful)
Proof of ID (Score:2)
the enzymes are being intelligently designed . . .
That's correct. Now the next step, once we are sure that these things are capable of evolving into life, is to invent a time machine and send them back in time to become the seeds for life on this planet. As documented here [angryflower.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now now, pull yourself together, man! Time paradoxes are just a part of life in today's intelligently designed world, and nothing a well-adjusted member of society shouldn't be able to deal with. Why, it was just this past Christmas visiting family that I was looking at my family tree and discovered that I will have been my own great-grandfather. Instead of freaking out about how impossible it is, we all had a good laugh and then served desert.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't celebrate Christmas anymore, since I went back in time and killed Mary.
Re: (Score:2)
"What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you knew they'd never believe you?"
Re: (Score:2)
that would be true if we had in fact designed them, as it turns out they were evolved in a process called test tube evolution [creative name..]
Ah.. (Score:2)
Unintelligent design (Score:5, Informative)
Not entirely. According to the paper, they were in part designed by in vitro evolution, an "unintelligent" design method that makes use of random mutation and selection to derive better enzymes. The power of "unintelligent" design mechanisms (of which evolution is one) is that they do not require that the specific solution to a design problem be known in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could be smarter than most people and still not be intelligent enough to figure out what specific sequence will produce the most efficient catalysis.
But the wonder of unintelligent design is that you don't have to be smart enough to know the answer--just smart enough to set up a system that exploits the power of random mutation and selection to discover novel information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the mutation procedure used for in vitro evolution is unintelligent and nonspecific and produces both "better" and "worse" enzymes. It is selection that picks out the "better" mutations and discards the worse ones. No intelligence as to what changes will make the enzyme better is required.
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
Aren't you be glad that you'd finally be able to create life without the services of a woman?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
Aren't you be glad that you'd finally be able to create life without the services of a woman?
GP appears to be a woman.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is slashdot, and you don't WANT to let 2 women be able to reproduce?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2 girls 1 dish
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you be glad that you'd finally be able to create life without the services of a woman?
So you're asking if he'd like to not have sex, and yet be saddled with the responsibility of raising a child anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
This is truly an impressive development! Since when have there been so many humans capable of asexual reproduction?
Here's an NPR story (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bit nicer than the print article: Here [npr.org]
They are very clear in saying that what they have created is "NOT ALIVE."
This is very interesting work.
Re: (Score:2)
Would make a weird title for the next Tecmo fighting game: Dead or Not Alive.
Re:Here's an NPR story (Score:4, Informative)
More conception jokes please! (Score:2, Insightful)
This story has been up 8 minutes and I only see 5 posts of the same obvious joke, out of 13 posts. Come on /. get you asses in gear.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More conception jokes please! (Score:5, Funny)
Great they cloned Keanu Reeves...
Re: (Score:2)
This story has been up 8 minutes and I only see 5 posts of the same obvious joke, out of 13 posts. Come on /. get you asses in gear.
Well, your primary problem is that to get the conception process going is getting out asses out of gear. For conception purposes, gear does not get put in asses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution (Score:2)
I wonder what she'd think about this evolution [slashdot.org].
I just saw play about Mary Wollastonecraft Shelly (Score:2)
Andrew Crosse (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, that Wikipedia image of Andrew Crosse sure does look like the young Eric Idle of Monty Python fame...
It's alive...It's ALIVE!!! (Score:2)
The really sad part about this story is somehow, somewhere, someone is going to throw a billion dollars at this research if they promise to focus on the penis first.
At least that's what my spam horoscope told me....
Nothing succeeds like success (Score:2)
Not life...not even close (Score:2, Informative)
TFA is just more 'create life' hype to get research funding dollars.
From the article: "Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA
enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins
or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
"Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited
conditions of a laboratory. More significantly, the scientists
then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some
of the raw material they were working with, and le
Re:Not life...not even close (Score:4, Informative)
You quoted the article, but you didn't read it. This is a huge breakthrough. As in Nobel Prize level. An RNA molecule that is able to directly self-replicate has never been seen before. Your first link is to a structure of an RNA enzyme, not an RNA that is able to make more copies of itself. You're equating a machine that makes lampshades to a lampshade making lampshades. The other link, just because I don't know exactly how the Sun came to be means that it doesn't shine? What exactly is the point of this?
one word Dilbert quote... (Score:2)
"skunkopotamus"
Tag this "thousandmoretogo" (Score:2)
Come on, the best chance of us coming up with artificial life is self-replicating robots. Artificial plants, essentially. Don't know why we'd want those around unless we plan to harvest them or their husks for some use like we do with wheat and hemp and so forth, but it'd surely be staggeringly interesting.
And we could get there without magical molecular biology tricks: just engineer the parts required of an universal constructor, then re-engineer those so that they can be built by one. Boosh! Well-defined
Yeah, right (Score:2)
Some science major gets a passing grade in this class [slashdot.org]and figures he's going to get lucky with an actual woman.
They need to teach the difference between theoretical science and practical engineering.
A nit to pick... (Score:2)
TFA article states: "DNA is the software of life..." which
is total crap. If they insist on using a computer analogy, they
could say 'DNA is the information storage of life' and the 'gene
expression mechanism is the software.' Recent advances in epigenetics [wikipedia.org]
have shown that gene expression is much more complex than previously
thought. To use the computer analogy, there's 'memory' chips and there's 'logic' chips
and they are not the same thing.
Steps to creating life often missed by nerds (Score:3, Funny)
1. Get woman
2. Sleep with woman
3. ????
4. Create life
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right! I see there's no
5. .....
6. Profit!!!
so that's probably why the nerds aren't into this one.
A small, but crucial difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Strictly speaking they are not creating anything, but contructing it. Creation means "bringing into existence" from nothing; not something withing the boundaries of science, where preservation of energy, mass and what have you are the reality. Constructing a living entity, or one that is nearly living is still an impressive feat and an important step closer to discovering what life is.
Because that is one other thing we don't actually know; we know a lot of living organisms, and a lot of dead things, and they seem to be fundamentally different in some way, but we don't quite know where the boundary goes.
Re:Will never work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is consciousness a prerequisite for life?
Re:Will never work... (Score:5, Insightful)
..consciousness precedes matter. Just throwing matter together won't magically instill consciousness.
..understanding how the world actually works precedes posting a comment on /. Just throwing comments up on /. won't magically instill understanding of how the world actually works.
Re:Will never work... (Score:5, Insightful)
...assuming a person with whom you disagree is automatically wrong does not magically make he/she wrong, or anymore detached from reality than you are.
Unless you can point to any evidence, or even a credible sounding theory, which would back up the claim, I can pretty confidently dismiss it. I'm not assuming anything, other than that an unqualified assertion, of such a controversial nature, should be backed up by something.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Dave Barry quote (Score:3, Funny)
"Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it."
Obligatory Douglas Adamsian response (Score:2)
"Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it."
I once killed my glasses.
Easy? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You would have a proof that life can create life through observation and replication, but nothing more. You're still faced with the question of where the life that created life came from.
Replacing God (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, this does not serve as a proof that a deity is unnecessary, since the research is based on observations of life. In other words, even if this is successful, already existing life was a prerequisite.
Regardless, unless there's an angle I'm missing here, man creating true life from scratch... real, living creatures from nothing... wouldn't that disprove the existence of God according to scriptures? Because according to the ones I read, only the God of the Bible can create life. If some scientist actually managed to create real life, then it seems to me that would prove that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob doesn't exist.
Which is why I don't believe it'll ever happen. Any other Biblical scholars/philo
Re: (Score:2)
The ultimate proof of not needing a deity or special substance for life (or mind too) would be able to construct it out of raw ingredients. I 99% believe this possible.
If we assume
then I don't think anyone denies that life could arise without God. Even a (very unlikely) event of chance would do; there's no need for evolution, even. The real question isn't in which ways life can come about, but which way it actually happened.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:4, Funny)
If there's a chance it can evolve into Natalie Portman we're on the right track at least...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of this kind of research is to see if life could have been created from the primordial soup and how that may have happened. This may give us insights as to the minimal requirements for life here and on other worlds.
In addition, one of the arguments religion uses is that life is too complex to have been created except by God (by accident so to speak). Putt