Researchers Create the World's First Fully Synthetic, Self-Replicating Living Cell

“This cell, its lineage is a computer."

im sorry, but the computer is not a biological being, so it couldnt have passed down its dna to the cells, it was merely an incubator for the cells to be manufactured in.

... and so it begins.

Queue Resident Evil. Heavy stuff is goin down..

Brilliant. One step closer to developing an organism that start can munching away all the nasty CO2, make renewable fuels, save the world then take control of all the humans and establish itself as Earths dominant lifeform...
Maybe this isn't such a good idea after all.

thats nice and all but is the final genome one they were aiming for or a random result?

What The FRAK

Extreme, you clearly know nothing about the synthetic creation of genomes, and probably didn't even read the article, or else you would know that the computer did create the genomes. The yeast cell acted as an incubator for the genomes as they were assembled into large strands, as described in the article, and the bacteria cell was later the home for it, but the molecules of the DNA were assembled into small strands by a computed before being put into the yeast.

Hmph, just wait, all sorts of Religious groups are gonna come out screaming, " how dare they immitate god's work" or some other nonsense like that. They're just getting mad that technology and science are making god(s) more obsolete every day.

But I digress, this is quite interesting, especially the use of the yeast to assemble the strands of DNA for these new cells.

Good job, Keep at it guys!

I guess to me the issue of 'is it real or is it synthetic' can be answered with the asking of a simple question. Did the naturally occurring yeast change the DNA in any way other than placement? If it did, then the end result is not wholly synthetic, but a mutation of natural and synthetic processes and materials. Still, the implications are huge; custom antibodies, antivirals, organ regeneration, biologically grown supercomputers...and don't forget the man-made DNA strands they put in Superbowl footballs, they allow instant authentication. Could be used for security cards, in money...and who knows? Maybe even radiation resistance, or immunity from stuff like sarin or ricin. I wonder what kinds of amino acids and complexes they are using for their proteins? I'd imagine a functioning ribosome would be a primary benchmark.

Logical Atheist, please explain how science makes God obsolete? A majority of high energy physics actually believe in a God, Russell Stannard being a good example. Google the anthropic principle. Anyway I don't think anyone can prove or disprove the existence of a higher power stuck in the 3rd dimension, when one cant even imagine a tesseract (a cube in the 4th dimension) let alone the 10th dimension of space and time. The more discoveries we make in the field of science the more we realize how much we don't know.

This synthetic cell is a wonderful achievement, and I see it being very beneficial to human life in many ways.

I wonder if it will ever be possible to sequence genomes in a synthetic cell with more than four nuclear base pairs.

Wow! Just imagine all the possibilities of such a discovery!

amazing, wonderful this is a step into the future for mankind, as long as we don't let the so-called "ethical" naysayers get in the way

can't wait till they inevitably go multicellular...

the fact that they made a synthetic cell doesn't scare me, it's the fact that people make mistakes or sometimes push the limits of their unknowns (ie. tinker) with things. That's when you create a "grey goo" that consumes every organic organism in the earth and replicates exponentially.

I am so glad I have a zombie plan... Although "gray goo" doesn't sound as fun to run away from.

So, in the eyes of the new synthetic life, would Craig Venter be considered God to them?

God is dead, long live the Gods!

to answer cydonia1's question:

my reasoning behind my statement..."technology and science are making god(s) more obsolete every day." is this... religion and gods were created back when science as we knew it didn't exist. people were stupid, and used gods to explain the unknown. now that science and technology are explaining things with EVIDENCE rather than STORIES and MYTHS, religion in general is losing purpose and becoming obsolete.

does that answer your question cydonia1?

Congress must immediately pass an anti-descrimination law protecting artifical life forms!

@extremechiton

Actually the Ammino Acids were constructed synthetically and then strung together by the computer, in essence the computer was passing/putting down the DNA that it "had".

@Cydonia1

Actually the Tenth Dimension is all the Dimensions and all the Time-frames of those dimensions put together. Also, I would like to add that the reason time isn't a dimension is that it only is a direction, it can only go forwards and backwards, and for those of you who know more, it includes all the branching parts of the first 3 dimensions, and time travel is possible if, one day, we can sum up enough power and technology to cause a "folding of a dimension", and then have a noble researcher transverse to the other side, probably never to return.

@ logical atheist: I dont understand how science is making god obsolete. Perhaps our understanding of god is evolving and becoming a little different but as my organic chemistry professor says, the great architect of the universe must be a chemist! In all my study of science i have yet to run across a professor that does not believe in god. ironically enough it is much more common for those who have very little or no science backround to say science dismisses god.

@blanca:

for one thing i study science a lot. i'm far from your average Joe when it comes to scientific knowledge.
the way i see it, science is evolving our "understanding of god" by showing how unnecessary one is to build a world like ours.

secondly, i understand that many scientists believe in god as well. i fail to understand why. mainly because 999,999 times out of a million, all religions on this planet fly in the face of all modern scientific knowledge.

Example, the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ.

it is absolutely 100% impossible based on modern medical knowledge to be fatally wounded, then 3 days later wake up like nothing happened. not to mention that he just "happen" to have the physical strength to move the giant boulder sealing his grave. Therefore, based on current knowledge, we must conclude that the resurrection as stated in the bible is impossible and didn't happen.

now here's a logical explanation of the "resurrection"...

it is entirely possible that rather than dying on the cross, he simply slipped into a coma-like state.(people 2000 years ago probably couldn't tell the difference with their almost nonexistent medical knowledge so everyone assumed he was dead.) then 3 days later, he came out of the coma(also with his lack of modern medical knowledge) thought he died and came back to life. he then went around telling everyone that god brought him back to life because AT THE TIME there was no other way of explaining such an event. so naturally, all the people back then thought Jesus received some "divine intervention" and treated him like the amazing guy people have been thinking he was for the last 2000+ years.

hopefully this is a reasonable explanation of my reasoning.

(did i really just type a comment that long? XD )

I love how something that was announced last year is worthy of the broader media community now only because the Vatican just heard about it.

This one is a scientific advance of a lot of importance for the humanity, though the implications are enormous. (Since it it was the development of the atomic power, for example).
There can be created forms of life that originate some type of energetic alternative source, as it is said in this article, but also they can be used as chemical or biological weapon, the panorama is diverse.
With regard to saying that " His father was a computer " I think that it is disheveled, " the man does to the machine ", it is more acceptable, like that that it does the machine becomes by the man.
The topic of the religion and the science is something complicated of defining, I ask: Which is the religion? This way of simple, there are many religions in the world, which is the real one?, the original one? If it is possible to say this way, or if actually the religions are alone lies... Perhaps can science help us to clarify this doubt?

BEHOLD!!! I SAY!!! The beer you could make from these synthetic beauties would be wicked...we'll call it "Bitwise Beer"

I praise the mind who developed it. But the lesson for atheists is "Look for the chain of creator, which has allowed his creation to make their creation too, but only with his will". Praise to that mind who developed or created that so called synthetic Genome, but all praises to that ONLY creator who created us.

THUMBS UP!!

@ atheist: Modern medicine doesnt know a lot of things. That's why scientists still have jobs. It seems you have only speculation to support your idea. I believe the scientific theory was developed to separate scientists from the limited, illogical train of thought of religious nuts and atheists alike. Scientists are so much more rational and logical. Id forgotten how infernally illogical all god-obsessed individuals are. Its unfortunate that science gets mixed up with those groups.

@blanca: i'm aware that modern medicine still doesn't know alot. i simply described a situation using information that modern medicine DOES know.

but anyway, i don't wish to continue this argument and i doubt you do either. let's just leave it at this...

you're entitled to your opinion as i am to mine. whether we agree or not is a totally different story.

but thanks for providing an interesting discussion, debating is fun isn't it? :)

@logical_atheist:
1. why is it that every atheist has to have that they are atheist in their usernames and always say that everyone who believes in religion is stupid?
2. You obviously don't know much about the process of crucifixion. You don't survive crucifixion. You don't go into a coma and awaken 3 days later. You die when you are crucified. you have to push up with your feet as you try to prevent your lungs from filling up with blood until they finally do. and the Romans made sure you were dead.
3. you completely contradict yourself. you say that its impossible for him to be crucified then move a giant boulder to get out of his tomb. but then you say the logical explanation is that he was in a coma then awoke, but you forget the whole "moving the boulder" part. just b/c he was in a coma and not dead does not mean he can move a giant boulder. in fact, i'd like to see you be crucified then trying to move a boulder, much less do anything at all.
4. you obviously know nothing about christianity b/c if you did, you would know that it does not say that he moved the boulder.
5. your "completely logical explanation" for Jesus' resurrection is completely contradictory and flawed. you say that "it is absolutely 100% impossible based on modern medical knowledge to be fatally wounded, then 3 days later wake up like nothing happened" but then you say that he could have been crucified then went into a coma then woke up 3 days later and walked around and everyone was baffled. so you are saying that it is in compliance with "modern medical knowledge" that one can be crucified then walk around later. in case you didn't know, crucifixion breaks your bones and causes you to internally bleed to death. last time I checked, it is impossible to simply "wake up" and walk around after that.

I don't care if you're atheist. be atheist. it doesnt matter to me. if thats wat you believe then believe it. but don't go around spitting on believers of christianity or any other religion. because obviously you are illinformed. and it just makes you sound like an idiot when you contradict yourself when telling other people they are idiots

Subtract One from zero...you get zero.
extract or derive One from zero...you cant.
One always was...so one always will be.
Sounding familiar? Most arguments for there not being a God usually end up with the person making claims that they could be a better God than God obviously had done...Order and design to the degree we see in our universe leave us with a designer...Doesnt mean you have to go to church.

Ok wait dont subtract one lol

Religion is a set of standards people live by.
Belief in origins of life is not religion.

Science has a belief in evolution as our origins.
A Creator is a belief in origins from one who created.

Science will not believe in a creator.
Those beliving in creator wont accept evolution.

Its simply a belief in origins.
Science has the greatest of observations and experimentations its just the explanations that are debatable to our orgins.

To the original point though...it doesnt matter what any group says is ethical or not...put Pandora's Box in front of us and we are going to open it.

all I have to say is that both of groups Athiests and Religon believers are wrong cause there is only one god and I am his Prophet....

Has ANYONE stopped to think about how this will affect our ability to TERRAFORM OTHER PLANETS?!?!?

If we have a microbe that can convert and cool Venus' atmo, we have another freaking EARTH to migrate to!!!

The same goes for Mars! If we convert the atmo on mars from Co2 to an oxygen blend like we have here, we could plant forests of conifers!

HOLY FREAKING FREAK!

Okay the thought of a god sickens me, If you knew half the truth you would know that chaos is the ruler of creation. Here let me explain, when (as science calls it) the big bang happened chaos was a dominant factor the power of pure creation, as the universe formed chaos also ruled it ebbing and flowing among the vast expanse of nothingness to create a new age. As our planet and its galaxy formed chaos also ruled it, but sadly once man developed and could understand chaos became a topic of contention. I believe in chaos because it has pulled me from the proverbial flames many times. The thought of synthetic life just reinforces my belief that chaos is key. now before you try to argue think! could i be speaking sense?,Look up the word chaos and think of how life actually is.Then respond to my comment.

Also Usaf_Mike Your a moron, to think you are the prophet maybe the prophet of stupidity but thats about it!

Omnis cellula ex cellula... NOT!

I never cease to be stunned by the number of theist whack-jobs that read PopSci. I just wish I were equally stunned that they never actually learn anything from it.

wow when can I buy one! consumer version can only be a matter of time.

There will be backlash. It is inevitable of course. As with any technology there will be good and bad applications. Splitting the atom was a prime example that went from a bomb to electric power and medicine. The bomb is still with us.

What about "synthetic life"? The medical potabilities seem limitless. Artificial organs the body won't reject? Medications engineered to target ONLY diseased cells? Bacteria that can eat ONLY spilled oil laying on salt water?

The bad. Synthetic bio weapons of course comes to mind.

Progress, like freedom, always comes with a price. We accept the cost to reap the rewards.

============================
Web Design and Hosting
http://www.StuffDone.com
============================

I feel like if don't believe in god why would you be a good person, life is short and then you die.. If i did not believe in god I would just steal shit all day, do drugs like constantly and enjoy my life. I would probably sleep with thousands of women, ugly ones, fat ones, any good looking ones I could just to spread my seed so my genetics carry on. i would do stuff only to benefit myself, Don't you find it weird that humans have an inner-built morality, even bad people know when they are bad... Its sad to be that atheists even use the internet, is life was so short and there is no eternal life why would you waste 5 minutes to learn about something online, go have sex, drink alcohol, and kill some cows for steak.

Atheism is over rated even if you could still somehow disprove god (which you can't) I would not want to know because i love my life, I would love being ignorant hoping that I go to heaven and that I get to see my mom again some day, and I guarantee you i know much about science as you, make more money then you, and will have a happier life then you. +1 for God

okay, so i cant just let this one go. Im not one to go around saying god is great and down with atheists. i believe that there is indeed some higher power, im not sure what, it may be the laws of physics or a god or some giant spagetti monster. it doesn't really matter. I find this break through to be both awesome and exhilarating while at the same time to be some what frightening. Whose to say when we should stop making synthetic beings?? and as for the medical uses and saving lives, are we not already over populated?? i think the major flaw in humanity is to seek everlasting life. Death is a part of life and creating more tools to keep you here longer actually is bad. not to be all science movie geek or anything but in the second star wars movie Yoda tells Anikin he must let go of life and embrace death. i believe this is true. whether the is a god or heaven or nothing at all we need to realize that we wont be here forever and we need to stop trying to be.

@seanc2386:
I am not a huge believer in god as i said above, i dont go to church and i really dont give a ton of thought to it. however i am a good person. i find joy in helping people out and making their time here on earth happier. i think that your reasoning may be true for you in that you may find that religion gives you purpose. as for me i find that striving for more knowledge gives me purpose. I was raised to have morals by my parents and by Scouting (yes, im an eagle scout) i find that this is not something that is hard wired into our brains but something that must be learned. there are many people out there the go to church every sunday (or whenever they go) and still do plenty of bad things. so to relate religion to morals and being a good person is something that cant be done.

Sorry my post it so long

sorry new sn (this is seanc2386) my view of religion is not really the mainstream Christianity (or any other), I just believe in a high power, so we are more alike then you would think. I just believe religion is basically the evolution of man trying to understand his morality. Is it not weird that many religions share very similar thoughts / ideology / beliefs. Is it not weird that many government strive towards the same thing. Man inherently wants to do good. What kind of species will take care of a mentally ill person, or someone that is sick while animals very rarely make that commitment to one another. Not only are we intelligent but we want to do good. There are plenty of athesiests that also volunteer so saying that christians do bad things even tho they go to church is fine. I just think attacking religion is stupid, unwarranted, and it just hurts yourself. To bad life is not easy and everyone agrees on everything ;)

@atheist
Question: If you don't believe in God, are you an evolutionist? How do you believe life came to be? You do realize that evolutionism is a THEORY, right? That there are all sorts of discrepancies and mysterious dilemmas that arise if you just begin to scratch the surface of evolutionary biology?
Evolutionism sure sounds like a religion to me, seeing as it's founded on unsure ground and is unexplainable 80% of the time. Please enlighten me as to what your eloquent opinion is regarding a subject that you seem to forsake and welcome at the same time.

This message is to logical-athiest. I feel sorry for you, and a little sick to my stomach also, that there's still ppl like you who refuse to just look outside and "see" that there IS a Creator. I'm not with any religious organization, never will be. As you think that science is proving more and more daily that there is no God, then obviously you don't even bother to look for answers. You just have no interest in finding out weather there is or isn't a God. Well, I'm here to tell you that, in fact, science is actually prooving more and more each day that there IS an ultimate Creator. You just have to know where to look, and of course, have to bother to have an interest. Go to http.divinecosmos.com. There is where you will find, finally the REAL truth!!

I just want to get in here real fast and remind everyone that you can believe in a "God" and not believe in organized religion. It seems most of the above arguments against "God" are actually arguments against religion, this is silly considering religions are made by man, not a superior life form (or entity)

I am a semi-religious person (Christian) but to a certain extent believe in natural selection and evolution (I know that they are contradictory but I think there is some sort of middle way that combines these two beliefs). Anyways, I really don't think that this is good. I mean sure it opens up new possibilities in the field of genetic science, but it will start nothing but arguments and general dismantlement of society as shown in the above comments. There are just some things that shouldn't be manipulated or changed and I think this is one of those things.

Please, I want your opinion on my view.

I have to say to logical_atheist that you say Jesus could have just been in a coma but how do you explain blood and water rushing from his side when he was checked if he was still alive? "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." John 19:34 NIV. Most people and scientist will agree that this proves Jesus is dead. You cannot be stabbed with a spear in the side and easily survive. I also have to say that the scientist did not create life! They simply modified it by changing the DNA instructions. No scientist is yet to brag that they have created something living from absolutely nothing. They copy off of God's creation. Proving the need of an all powerful intelligent designer. You will never be able to shut God out of the equation. Evolutionists and atheists are trying to remove God from the equation by saying there is scientists that can do that. But no scientist could ever have the originality to create all that is of this Universe. random chance falls short too when you look at the little details that scientist ignore or refuse to accept. Please check out The book A Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. He has many reputable scientists and research backing what he writes and it would interest both the Atheist and Theist

lol, leave it to either a crazy Christian zealot or a crazy Atheist zealot to PURPOSELY bring up religion, when not at all relevant to the topic. In this case, an atheist. Congrats! Hope you're proud of yourself in creating conflict and an unrelated debate. How very "logical."

Doesn't matter how smart you think you are "illogical atheist." Fact is, you're still so un-evolved to cause things like this instead of being an example to lead humanity to a promising future with a peaceful, logical, reasonable, cooperative society. If that future is possible...you sure don't show yourself as a good candidate to get us there.

You can't even control holding back divisive, unrelated, digressing comments, or be able to think 4 dimensionally (skills humans SHOULD be good at compared to other animals) and see what you'll cause instead of letting this discussion be about the actual topic, which I personally thought was EXTREMELY interesting and important...and not something to distract from. But your logic didn't seem to think so; your logic seemed to be, I'll say something dumb and plant a seed! Let me act like a stereotypical internet-argument-instigator, and pretend I'll "just wait" when I'm actually the one starting it!

I won't go through all 5-dimensional probabilities, but you'll either understand my point and realize your mistake (if you're advanced, intelligent, and evolved enough), or you'll succumb to your animal instincts, respond emotionally, probably angry or at the very least from an innate reactive / defense response. or some random person will respond, but I don't care; you've all killed this article's comments already anyway. The lowest instincts and animal behavior at its worst....veiled as "debate" or "discussion," mentally framed to ignore its irrelevance and futility.

to Sp3ctre18: the correlation between religion and this article is that God made "all" the living things on Earth and these scientists supposedly made a new organism.

i wasnt being serious @Serious Light

I just think that both groups are wrong we shouldnt fight about whos right or wrong believe what you want to believe... I actually believe in a creator because alot of lifes creations, just think we share DNA with a virus? coinsidence? I think not, we plague the planet we live on.

And sorry in my opinion the bible is complete crap it was written by humans, humans are flawed by thier opinions thier perception of things, books are missing from the bible because it didnt suit some priest and some where added to insight fear. dont think so? then why did it take so long to add the book of revelations and that it was barley added with a very very close vote. Also the bible is supposed to be gods word yet it is riddled with MANs word not the LORDs.

@ teamcoltra haha I read your comment after I wrote this. I agree with you almost all religon is crap not just christianity because its all fabricated by man

@ Superdupster wow how blind can you be yes evolution is wacked out yes I agree, but you fail to point out JUST how flawed religon(christianity) is I mean how can you not see that 99% of the bible has been CHANGED by man over the last almost 2 millenia. To fit mans NEEDs and HOW they thought the bible should go.

@ any athiest reading this i actually agree with some of the higher power believers there are to many unexplained things in science, in life, and even in us, to dismiss a higher power. Like what running fish said maybe its physics, god, aliens, or a spagetti monster something had to help create this, this mess.

yes I know this is wrong and probably has spelling errors but oh well and these are MY OPINIONS doesnt mean you have to be rude in your responses have a nice day

@logical_atheist

You said that "religion in general is losing purpose and becoming obsolete." I disagree.

If you had half a brain you'd realize the facts: 2 BILLION people worldwide today practice Christianity. That's one third of all living humans. And that's only ONE religion. Also, all science has ever done to debunk religion is proving that the rain gods don't piss on us during monsoon season. Plus, religion provides moral support and gives a meaning to life to many, many people. So, saying that religion is obsolete is basically saying hope is obsolete to people who believe in religion.

And I'll have you know, I'm an agnostic.

@any atheist OR theist who went totally crazy to disprove the other side on this thread

YOU'RE BOTH WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Listen, I believe in evolution.

I also believe that a creator is possible. Note: POSSIBLE.

Not existent, but not nonexistent either.

And I believe that if there is a creator, he/she/it triggered the big bang and just watched how it went.

And plus, what we know from science is a heckuva lot weirder than any religion came up with.

Also theists, I believe that any divine entity ruling the universe would be WAY too busy to bother enlightening anybody on some backwater planet. (i.e. Earth)

And BTW, Jesus was Jewish.

Perhaps some good can come from this. . .

Take it down to New Orleans and flip a sample into the Gulf.

Maybe it eats oil.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

Time to bring on the grey goo ;-)

It's an amazing breakthrough, and I hope it has many unforseen positive effects. However, scientists need to be careful until they understand it to a reasonable level, so as not create a "monster" of sorts. Nano technology is a great thing too, but it has a dark side where we need to tread carefully. Cautious optimism.

Atheists wouldn't argue so fevently unless they felt threatened by something they couldn't understand or control. ALL humans beings in the 21st century still have so much to learn. How many times have you heard scientists say, "We think that...", instead of "We know that...". Even they concede vast unknowns, but many of them are open-minded enough to not dismiss the possibility of a creator.

This technology can be used to help humanity. But, it can also destroy it. While we seem to start out with good intentions, inevitably someone (usually our government) will make it into a weapon. Therefore, this discovery raises concern among many peace loving people.

Why do athiests think believing in a creator means religion?
Then make statements and insults based on non facts?
Kind of reads like teenage banter here.

The human body contains about 30 trillion cells of over 200 varieties . Twelve billion of these cells are found in the brain,which contains about 120 trillion connections. All of this was supposedly generated through millions of mistakes, beginning with a single cell. Using all the assumptions employed by evolutionists, including natural selection, it can be shown that such a process would have required longer than the assumed 5 billion years of earth's history.
The probability of getting the first cell is even less, however. using information theory, the biologist H.P. Yockey calculated that the longest piece of DNA that could be expected with 95 percent confidence to form naturally would code for only 49 amino acids (most genes code for proteins that consist of 100 to 300 amino acids).

This is, as he said, much too short to provide even a start toward life . It is light-years short, in fact. Furthermore, even if the subunits composing the DNA could be lined up in the right order, these calculations do not take into account the improbability of their linking spontaneously. H.J. Morowitz calculated the probability of matter arranging itself as a bacterium to be 10-10 11 (this is may not display correctly in the web page).
That is one chance out one followed by 100 billion zeros!

Simple bacteria created today, terrifying pandemic manifested tomorrow.

So this means even a synthetic basic cell needed an intelligent creator such as a computer (or a guy in a lab coat)? I get it.

@all to add to what logical_atheist is saying:
Here are the excerpts from the site "science".com website:

Link: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/05/synthetic-biology-answers.html

Q: Does the discovery challenge religious notions about the creation of life and the concept of a spirit?

M.B.: The creation of life from nonlife (fully synthetic cells) might well impact some religious and cultural world views, and the achievement of a partly synthetic cell already opens the door to these implications. The achievement of Venter’s team vividly demonstrates that the genome of simple life forms is nothing more than a complex molecule constructed out of nothing more than certain chemicals. (Most molecular biologists have already believed this for many generations, of course.) This result strongly implies that fully synthetic cells would likewise be merely very complex chemical devices, created out of nothing more than chemical ingredients that are organized in the appropriate way. There is no need for a concept of “spirit” or nonchemical “vital spark” to explain simple bacterial life. This, in turn, in my opinion, implies (but does not prove) that more complex forms of life, including humans, are essentially nothing more than exceedingly complex chemical devices, and so there is no need for a concept of “spirit” or “vital spark” to explain what make humans alive.

@Ugotitguy: Out of everyone's post, I find that yours is the most logical, unbiased, and well "spoken" arguments. Oh yeah, and "Why can't we all just get along?"...because we're all way too diverse and opinionated, each believing that they are right, and no one else can possibly be correct. I say that this discovery should be treated warily. If ANYTHING went wrong with a further pursuit of this project, if they tried to create a large organism and screwed up somewhere, we could witness an incident out of nearly every scifi horror flick involving genetic engineering.

Why the **** can't we just stay on topic and not offend other people's religious beliefs?

This is not that far different from genetically modified foods we've already seen tagged "Frankenfoods." In this case it is a synthetic bacteria which apparently serves no purpose other than opening the door to more complex arrangements like super algae biofuels. I like the Bitwise Beer comment made earlier too by the way. I have also read certain bacteria from harvest crops accumulate in the atmosphere to increase chances of rain or even snow at higher temperatures. Maybe we'll hear something about the oil eating version being tested in the Gulf.

hmmm....
What part of this article "doesn't" have "Bad Idea" written all over it....????

The part where the geniuses attempt to establish plausible deniability at the start by blaming a computer for the accomplishment,
Or,
The explicit confession that they have no clue as to what they are doing.

Then {based on a rare and random success} committing to an effort to diddle ever more complex and potentially unmanageable life forms….

This is a situation where the chimpanzees have been supplied with a crate of loaded, automatic weapons which have no safeties and rounds already in the breach. Details may be pending, - but, rest assured “sumthun is gunna die.” And, conveniently, it will all be the computer’s fault…

This could be a road map for BP…. Fuhgituhboutit… That was not human error in the Gulf… Duh computer made us do it.

One can but wonder how proud they are going to be when their signature watermark code shows up somewhere where it's not supposed to be - like a strain of necrotizing fasciitis.

One must adopt a corporate view of such things. As long as it works, as long as it stays put, as long as the research results in a viable revenue stream, = then all is well.
When it all goes to crap, you don't have to worry about criminal liability - cuz, all those profit scarfing litagents lined up at the complaint window will be dead.
All up side - no "surviving" down side.

Plus, after a few more billion years or so - of evolution, the next sentient beings will fix that pesky computer glitche in the next version of WinWoes.

Remember those geniuses at BP.
Their first line of defense in case of a deep ocean oil hemorage - was - "it's not gunna happen."
Next, the unsinkable oil platform proceeds to... er.. sink.
Then, the fail safe Blow Out Preventer (which can be invoked thru no less than 3 processes - employing a double reduntant system design) kinda... you know.. fails - in a less than totally safe manner...
Next, according the the finest minds available to BP, THERE IS NO LEAK....
Then, since those media choppers have inquired as to why there is this huge oil slick on the surface, - well, there may be a leak - not in excess of 1000 gallons a day...
No, make that 1000 barrels a day.
Ooops, make that 5000 barrels.
What idiot put the live camera feed on the web?
Oh yeah, - now, we corroborate the governments experts estimates of 20,000 barrels a day...

There is nothing more dangerous than lots of smart people gathered together in large groups....
Things tend to go all to hell when the most brilliant dominant alpha male mutters sumthun stupid like "What could possibly go wrong." Reality with cosmic irony usually responds.

Synthetic...
Yeast and DNA.
Which of these two is man made to begin with?
The bacterium or the DNA?
I fail to see how discovering that a perticular bacterium such as Yeast mixed with DNA;causeing the DNA to expand or grow is the result of a synthetic. or a man made substance.
Granted It was a very smart choice of mixture but I for one do not think this is any kind of new creation.
It is the result of a mixture.
It's just chemistry.
I also wonder what other things would grow well in yeast..

I sometimes wonder how many people thought they we're playing "god" when they were working as alchemists? Manipulating DNA is not much different from alchemy, in my opinion. It's all a crap shoot. Grey Goo is scary, but I don't think it's going to happen before sentience takes root in nanotech. Neither of which has been achieved yet. I do see where this kind of research can be applied in cleaning up man made disasters in the undetermined future. A few billion enzymes let loose on the floating plastic island in the Pacific would be a nice goal.

@ V3RTIGO-You said "Actually the Tenth Dimension is all the Dimensions and all the Time-frames of those dimensions put together." Sounds cool. Where did you get that info? Seriously.

Too many comments to read them all in the time I have, will have to come back.
I say it sounds great, yet has the potential for "the mad scientist" and and any "mad scientist governments" to really do some harm with it. Also sounds kinda hard to regulate etc. We'll see, I guess. Don't think we're going to hear about most of the developements, cause we won't!

PS- the scientists didn't create the LIFE of the cell, just the DNA. They got the life spark from either the yeast or the bacteria. So I don't think they are exactly playing "God" yet.
* Note that the 1st remark about "God" in these comments was from someone who says he's an atheist. (rolls eyes)

First let me thank you for teaching me a new word today.
Alchemy = the chemistry of the middle ages, the chief aim of which was to change the baser elements into gold.
That would be like mixing hydrogen and oxygen to make water?
Or is that not base enough? Perhaps squishing atoms or taking them apart? No they are not elements at this point. I'm not so sure Gnomes qualify as an element.
Actually I think there work is a lot more like cloning with a reproduction aid. I wonder if they used this process to clone a human?; if it would turn out to be the Pilsbury doe boy?

Fully synthetic chromosome means a totaly new life form. They just used yeast as a recomining tool.

When people use blast furnaces to make steel from iron, they didnt say that the steel was nothing new. True that the carbon and the iron were there in the first place, but steel has a diffrent structure and diffrent characteristics, so it is a new molecule, just as this is a new lifeform.

OK new form, old elements.
But until you create something from nothing I'll not be impressed.

"But until you create something from nothing"

Not possible.

"But until you create something from nothing"

Not possible.

If it's not possible, then how is it that we are here?
How is it that anything is here?

Fools listen!!, The reason why an Atheist does not believe in god is They Need proof of existence, And i will point out i am not an atheist, i believe in a "force"
Not necessarily a humanized God being just, a base primal force that rules our lives and ultimately decides our fate. this pathetic show of finger pointing just reinforces my cause a second time, Chaos rules us because if chaos wasnt real then would you argue.? if you wish for me to explain further please ask,
I will be more then happy to elaborate!

Usaf@mike you need to understand that i take this religion hooplaa very seriously, because i have endured things in my childhood that would have made a grown man cringe, so if your going to joke then at least show some sort of sarcasm in the text.

so your 10^10^11th to 1 chance, calculated against the number of planets says that the chance of spontaneous life is far greater than 100% in favor of evolution.

crap, that didn't link, oh well.

Logical_Atheist, STOP JUST STOP IT ALREADY, PLEASE!
You guys get mad at us for cramming our religion down your throats. Well maybe you should stop cramming your non-religion down OUR throats, did you ever think of that?!? You turn every topic you read into a religious discussion!!! And where are those people saying "how dare you imitate God's work?" I don't see them, do you?!? Maybe you should stop talking about people you don't know a thing about!

Anyways, on this topic, I think the ability to create a self-replicating synthetic life form could be very useful.

WooWoo678, Ha i like what your getting at but, when you have nothing else better to do you do what logical_atheist would do, you try to spread dissension and logical strife, for some strange reason we live to piss other people off. so as a friendly suggestion you might wanna get used to it.

Hey what do ya know another example of chaos, Huh I think i see a pattern here hmph.

ROGUEAGENT123

IT'S ABOUT TIME SOMEONE STOOD UP AND SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE IDIOTS THAT TALK DOWN ON CHRISTIANITY. THANK TOU FOR SPEAKING UP, MYSELF BEING CHRISTIAN IT ALMOST BRINGS TEARS HEARING SOMEONE WHO CARES

,THANK YOU
RANDY

Yes well,
I didn't say this concoction wouldn't be useful.
I'm quite certain that it will be one day.
Perhaps in the health and wellness area.
If not the replicating cells, then at least the
idea of using yeast as an aid for healing or something.
For growing new teeth,cloning? Who knows?

Anyway, I wonder..
If DNA mapping decides what a cell will be when it grows up.
(Well OK that covers living things but..)
How does a molecule decide what it will be when it
grows up? (a non-living thing?)

No this is not a knock knock joke...
But is sure sounds like it could be one.

@logical_atheist,Cydonia1,blanca, if science cant disprove or prove that god (or some god like being) exists cant it be possible that god started the universe since its seems like an impossibility that it just popped out of a singularity that they dont know even exists and so called GOD got tired and took a nap while "science" which is proven took over And until someone proves me wrong thats what i think

Saying that religion is true because there are scientists who believe in religion is not a very good argument. My favorite saying is "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it." I don't need god to tell me how to be a good person. I don't need god to give me a reason to be a good person. The positive outcomes of being good to others is reward enough. When you are a baby and learn to do something, you are rewarded by your parents. That is enough to make you want to do it again. You don't need a god to tell you to get up and walk.

Humans have an evolved response to believe what our parents tell us. If we didn't, we wouldn't believe them when they tell us not to walk out into the street and probably die. Unfortunately, at the same age, our parents are teaching us about god and religion and we are too young to have the critical thinking abilities to question those teachings. That is why religion is such a pervasive concept throughout our cultures. It has nothing to do with any kind of truth or evidence or reasoned understanding of the world.

The thing is, most people don't blindly follow; anything.
Perhaps growing up there were introductions to the religious ideas and teachings, but for the most part people believe in God each for their own reasons. Each with their own convictions of truth about God. What teenager does not rebel against it's upbringing? I mean, if it were mearly following teachings from there parents it would have been lost long already. A passing fad. Most children do not set out to be like there parents in any way shape or form.
No this is more then following parental teachings.
They witness God's presence for themselves.
They see Him in their lives.
They come in contact with something greater then themselves.
After having gotten there attention, they follow this presence trying to get a glimpse of it's truth. Over time they develop a relationship with it. They come to know it quite personally.
Now there are millions or billions of people who have witnessed this phonominon, yet science fails to acknowledge it.
You can't see it, but you see change in your life.
You can't touch it, but you see the results of it's hand.
You hear it's voice in others; even those who do not believe.
People hunger for it's touch. For it's presence in there lives. But it don't exist? Now come on..
Who's fooling who?
No I'm quite certain it's a lot more then parental teachings.

logical_atheist

Your "logic" is seriously flawed. If you were a true scientist, you wouldn't misuse the word "logic". Give me a binary proof that God does not exist.

Also, stating that resurrection is impossible scientifically fails immensely if you take into consideration that believing in God is also believing in a higher power. On the assumption that the God created the Universe, why woudln't He be able to bent the rules? Also, belief in miraculous resurrection does not stop two billions of Christians from going to a doctor.

Metaphysics is a term broader than physics. If A includes B, then expansion of B automatically expands A. Hence, metaphysics have been evolving along with science.

Last but not least, science is about how things work, why some things happen. Religion is about applying terms of one's fate or destiny, place in this world, ethics as well as organizing a society. Quantum physics or psychology won't give me these answers, ever, as my priest won't ever give me the ultimate knowledge on the Big Bang.

You are of course welcome to be an atheist, but utter belief in simple mechanics as the only incentive of all things, as well as the human race, is basically baseless. Lack of proof is not the proof of lack. And some people experience miracles, at least so they claim.

You cannot disprove EXPERIENCES. You might not believe (in)them, but you cannot still disprove with science a system that is essentially (typologically) greater than science itself on the same basis that you cannot understand your braing without having a brain bigger than yours, which would create a vicious circle.

So, as long as you cannot prove to others that Christ has no hyper-technological or supernatural powers, I suggest you restrain from saying what is "logical" when logic - improveable assumptions - does not support you.

Let's just all be happy that there is a scientific advancement after all.

mhanning

But it doesn't mean that others need that. Neither additional incentives do any harm, imho. Also, your definition of being a good person might be different that to sm1 else, or God, for that part.

But that is very arbitrary. What is less arbitrary is that people make religions, too (if not only them, as you probably believe), and products - such as theology - have significantly contributed to contemporary ethics. I do not believe that your ethical system is spontaneous, so... Even saying you do not agree with something that the Church says is a contribution on its part.

yeast 0.o this is going to make some wicked bread

-Your Friend Zunigadragon

I see that this has degenerated into a useless religion vs. science thread. Aren't there any rules against religion vs. science nonsense?

Now, on the making of the synthetic genome: In my opinion, it is good work overall, and will be rather useful in future research, and it is promising. Although it may be hindered by all the ethical issues. (Probably not)

I would have to partially agree with the "not-so-excited" people. It would be far more amazing if they did this from scratch. But, as the nice article above reads, they at least did make up their own genome in the lab. 10^6 base pairs as well. Hopefully we'll hit a genome of 10^7 base pairs soon!

HELP!
The whole world is sick!
Is there anybody here who isn`t a doctor?

spirit of Nikopolo

@Alkurto: Spamming. not nice at all.

It is not that we are "trying to play God" as Religious folk would say; it is that we are becoming God. Think about it... homeo sapiens have only been on Earth for 200,000 years (roughly). If humans figure out a way move from Earth to another planet and continue living for millions of years (like some intelligent life forms) we would achieve the ability to perform God-like duties. So i state once again, it is not that we are trying to "play God", we are simply one step closer to becoming God.

One does not become a God. One is born a God.
One can not become lined up with the universe by choice.
It is a birth right.

Your all fags.