Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

achtungbarry

"US scientists, led by controversial biologist Craig Venter, have succeeded in generating an "artificial life" form in the laboratory for the first time. "

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0521/science.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

Interesting Q and A article on BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10134341.stm

Obviously this raises all kinds of other ethical questions but is this another nail in the coffin of religion and the idea that only a supernatural being could have created life.

A Primal Nut

I would say Creationists are going to say say it actually provides more proof that God exists, as it proves life requires a 'designer' and can't happen by chance (afterall, it took this guy 17 years). There are two ways of interpreting everything.

I don't think it changes anything for the majority of religious people who believe in evolution.

Dades

Since when did evidence count for anything in matters of religion? :pac:

seamus

A Primal Nut wrote: »

(afterall, it took this guy 17 years)

Considering that it took "God" 700 million years to create the first organisms, I'd say that's pretty good going.

robindch

achtungbarry wrote: »

and the idea that only a supernatural being could have created life.

Not quite true -- the baboons leading the ID movement say that life can only be created by intelligent beings. On the contrary, Venter's advances actually prove ID. At least to IDiots anyway.

achtungbarry wrote: »

is this another nail in the coffin of religion

What Dades said.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Since when did evidence count for anything in matters of religion? :pac:

Quoted for truth.

I would be interested to see if any religious person could actually come up with a potential future biological discovery that would actually kill religion for them if it was discovered

History seems to suggest that any scientific discover is simply absorbed into the dogma and doctrine, God moves a little further away, becomes a little less direct in what he does, and things go on as normal.

I'm pretty sure that if we found a natural explanation for everything and worked it back to some sort of self contained set of rules that explain everything including themselves, plenty of people would still be religions and say "Oh well God did something, I know it!"

MackDeToaster

Cool. So in a few more years I'll be able to make some miniature intelligent creatures, drown most, turn some into salt, do a bit of biological warfare testing, shag a few of their virgins, condemn any who might start worshipping other humans, brainwash and psychologically torture the rest into loving me on pain of endless torture.

If I forget to feed them for a few days and some die the rest will just say it was my will. I might throw in a few hot coals now and then to keep them on their toes and in the churches. Oh yes, I'll be a kind and loving father to them all - I am a good man, and they'd better believe it.

Dr. Loon

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

liamw

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

Gremlins... sweet

sink

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

Not so. The particular bacteria they synthesised requires extremely rich growth medium and couldn't survive under natural conditions, they did this specifically to prevent an outbreak. They're currently researching ways to build in a kill switch so they can immediately stop an outbreak, e.g. including a gene that will kill the organism if it comes into contact with a specific substance such as silica. So we could release synthetic bacteria into the wild to say clean up an oil spill, and once they've done they're job we can eracdicate them all by introducing silica, which would kill the on contact but otherwise be completely inert to the surrounding environment.

monosharp

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

Too much sci-fi mate ?

What makes you think these synthetic guys have the potential to do anything worse then their natural cousins ?

krudler

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

Awesome, hopefully hey'll get their own theme park where they run amok.

20goto10

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0520/breaking66.html

To prove the recipient bacteria contained the synthetic genome, the scientists effectively signed their names in DNA. Four of the DNA sequences included coded “watermarks” - strings of “letters” corresponding to the names of people involved in the project, an email address, and some famous quotations.

now if thats not playing god then I don't know what is. Brilliant!

Dr. Loon

sink wrote: »

Not so. The particular bacteria they synthesised requires extremely rich growth medium and couldn't survive under natural conditions, they did this specifically to prevent an outbreak. They're currently researching ways to build in a kill switch so they can immediately stop an outbreak, e.g. including a gene that will kill the organism if it comes into contact with a specific substance such as silica. So we could release synthetic bacteria into the wild to say clean up an oil spill, and once they've done they're job we can eracdicate them all by introducing silica, which would kill the on contact but otherwise be completely inert to the surrounding environment.

Ah, sorted so. My imagination got the better of me!

ColmDawson

And when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Galvasean

monosharp wrote: »

Too much sci-fi mate ?

First thing that popped into my head when reading that post was Michael Crichton's book Prey.

eblistic

achtungbarry wrote: »

is this another nail in the coffin of religion and the idea that only a supernatural being could have created life.

Sadly history would suggest not. They'll just move the goalposts, reinterpret their sacred revealed texts a little, and somehow claim that this is actually evidence of an intelligent creator (e.g. "there's still an intelligent life-form involved in the synthesis procedure." or some such nonsense).

iUseVi

eblistic wrote: »

Sadly history would suggest not. They'll just move the goalposts, reinterpret their sacred revealed texts a little, and somehow claim that this is actually evidence of an intelligent creator (e.g. "there's still an intelligent life-form involved in the synthesis procedure." or some such nonsense).

True.

"Ah ha! Yes, they created novel DNA, but what about amino acids, eh? EH?!"

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

First thing that popped into my head when reading that post was Michael Crichton's book Prey.

Jeez don't remind me. The worst of his books - of which I am huge fan of generally. It's no Congo!

Ciaran500

Why hasn't this been banned yet? Its completely new so surely there's enough of a minority terrified by it to have this research crippled.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Jeez don't remind me. The worst of his books - of which I am huge fan of generally. It's no Congo!

I thought Congo was awful.

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

I thought Congo was awful.

There you go ragging on monkeys again. :pac:

krudler

all I want to know is, when can I grow my own Raptor? I'd settle for a Triceratops

Burgo

krudler wrote: »

all I want to know is, when can I grow my own Raptor? I'd settle for a Triceratops

Did someone say dino riders

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

There you go ragging on monkeys again. :pac:

APES!!!!! :mad:

PS: WTF is that statue all about???? :pac:

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

WTF is that statue all about???? :pac:

Trippy Norwegian art, I suspect.

strobe

sink wrote: »

Not so. The particular bacteria they synthesised requires extremely rich growth medium and couldn't survive under natural conditions, they did this specifically to prevent an outbreak. They're currently researching ways to build in a kill switch so they can immediately stop an outbreak, e.g. including a gene that will kill the organism if it comes into contact with a specific substance such as silica. So we could release synthetic bacteria into the wild to say clean up an oil spill, and once they've done they're job we can eracdicate them all by introducing silica, which would kill the on contact but otherwise be completely inert to the surrounding environment.

Fukk.....That sounds horrific. Create life for a purpose and then extinguish it when it has served it's purpose. I know I kill millions of bacteria everytime I wipe my work top down with Detol (99.9% I am told{tm}), but it still sets me uneasy when I see something like that written down. Psychedelically induced psuedo morality probably. But still, if you think about it in sci-fi tinted slippery slope terms it does pose troublesome questions.

strobe

Burgo wrote: »

Did someone say dino riders

Damn! I am still infinately baffled as to why Spielberg and Mann and Tarintino haven't co-written the script for a DinoRiders movie, directed by Jackson and soundtrack by Muse, Mumford and Sons, Moby and the original Guns n Roses line up, yet. Wonders will never cease......

sink

strobe wrote: »

Fukk.....That sounds horrific. Create life for a purpose and then extinguish it when it has served it's purpose. I know I kill millions of bacteria everytime I wipe my work top down with Detol (99.9% I am told{tm}), but it still sets me uneasy when I see something like that written down. Psychedelically induced psuedo morality probably. But still, if you think about it in sci-fi tinted slippery slope terms it does pose troublesome questions.

We've effectively done the same thing with much higher order life through different methods, I don't see of this is any different. Domesticated livestock are engineered through selective breeding processes to serve a specific purpose and are killed once their purpose is served. Indeed their entire purpose is often to be killed for our consumption. It's really no different.

amacachi

Is this actually synthetic life or just messing with the DNA of an existing cell/organism? I thought they'd perfected the creation of DNA strands from scratch a few years ago?

strobe

sink wrote: »

We've effectively done the same thing with much higher order life through different methods, I don't see of this is any different. Domesticated livestock are engineered through selective breeding processes to serve a specific purpose and are killed once their purpose is served. Indeed their entire purpose is often to be killed for our consumption. It's really no different.

I totally agree that it is no different. Sometimes when I see a clinical wording of how we domesticated cows I feel the exact same way... Something just doesn't sit quite right with me about either example. If pigs and chickens weren't so delicious I would be a vegitarian. The belatted name of the plane that dropped the second atom bomb on Japan I guess.....