PDA

View Full Version : Scientist claiming to create artificial life



Hashim_507
08-20-2007, 07:56 AM
WASHINGTON - Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch and they're getting closer.

Experts expect an announcement within three to 10 years from someone in the now little-known field of "wet artificial life."

"It's going to be a big deal and everybody's going to know about it," said Mark Bedau, chief operating officer of ProtoLife of Venice, Italy, one of those in the race. "We're talking about a technology that could change our world in pretty fundamental ways — in fact, in ways that are impossible to predict."

That first cell of synthetic life — made from the basic chemicals in DNA — may not seem like much to non-scientists. For one thing, you'll have to look in a microscope to see it.

"Creating protocells has the potential to shed new light on our place in the universe," Bedau said. "This will remove one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role."

And several scientists believe man-made life forms will one day offer the potential for solving a variety of problems, from fighting diseases to locking up greenhouse gases to eating toxic waste.

Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:

• A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.

• A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.

• A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.

One of the leaders in the field, Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical School, predicts that within the next six months, scientists will report evidence that the first step — creating a cell membrane — is "not a big problem." Scientists are using fatty acids in that effort.

Szostak is also optimistic about the next step — getting nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, to form a working genetic system.

His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over.

"We aren't smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak said.

In Gainesville, Fla., Steve Benner, a biological chemist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution is attacking that problem by going outside of natural genetics. Normal DNA consists of four bases — adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine (known as A,C,G,T) — molecules that spell out the genetic code in pairs. Benner is trying to add eight new bases to the genetic alphabet.

Bedau said there are legitimate worries about creating life that could "run amok," but there are ways of addressing it, and it will be a very long time before that is a problem.

"When these things are created, they're going to be so weak, it'll be a huge achievement if you can keep them alive for an hour in the lab," he said. "But them getting out and taking over, never in our imagination could this happen."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allah almighty is the creater; those scientist will never succeed. May Allah swt guide them to Islam.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Isambard
08-20-2007, 08:22 PM
I dunno, scientists were able to create nucleotides in the lab, and much easier than expected. This of course done 50yrs ago.

With every layer peeled back, it would seem creating life is alot easier than previously expected :D
Reply

chaste
08-21-2007, 11:50 PM
scientists may try to create things but InshaAllah they will not succeed as Allah is the Creator and we are his creation
Reply

جوري
08-22-2007, 12:03 AM
I really don't think you have anything to be alarmed about.. you can't 'create' something de novo especially without relying on resources or other raw materials already available on this earth, thus no one can firstly claim creation. for the amino acid you start with is already raw material that had to come out of somewhere.. further there is much more to creation than just sequencing a random number of aa together.. the composition of form itself is one of life's guarded secrets.. you may find that the stem and the leaf have the same exact sequence yet don't know what enables that portion to stop being a stalk and diffrentiate into a leaf... if you read the article slowely you'll realize what hinderences lie in their future.. frankly I rather think it a waste of resources to introduce extra nucleotides, rather than work on vectors in the form of retro viruses to work on existing genetic diseases, not so much the rare but the every day, like a cure for type one DM or other auto-immune disease like lupus or Sjögren's syndrome or acid maltase deficiency or or or or I mean the list is endless.. optimism is fantastic, but what a sad waste of govt and tax payers funds to use raw material to plaster together goo than spend it looking for a cure for humanity's most pressing and current plagues...

:w:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Woodrow
08-22-2007, 12:21 AM
:w:

As sister PA already said, There is no worry. It is fair different to making something and creating something. A baker can make a loaf of bread but so far no man has ever created a loaf of bread.

Except for the connotations of the words making an artificial life form is as far from creating life as it would be for a baker to create a loaf of bread. Making artificial life, even if it can be done, is not creation.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-22-2007, 01:19 AM
It seems the reported hyped the story. And it seems the scientists resort to wishful thinking.

Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:

• A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.
...
One of the leaders in the field, Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical School, predicts that within the next six months, scientists will report evidence that the first step — creating a cell membrane — is "not a big problem." Scientists are using fatty acids in that effort.
I would say that being able to make a membrane, and being able to make the cell able to reproduce itself are two separate challenges. They say they almost got the membrane covered and then go ahead tick that step as if the reproduction in then somehow magically solved to.

Furthermore saying that making a membrane is a huge step forward makes just as much sense as saying that making a computer case is a huge step in creating AI.

Szostak is also optimistic about the next step — getting nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, to form a working genetic system.
To follow up on the previous analogy. Throwing some copper wires and some random integrated circuits and transistors into our computer case still doesn't give us a computer, let alone that it gives us AI
Reply

Science101
08-22-2007, 05:25 AM
Here is what Jack Szostak (mentioned in the article) is doing.

http://www.---------------/quran/man-clay.html

What do you think of clay being found to be special for the origin of life?

I have been following the origin-of-life science and have an experiment you can try that makes cell membranes like in us. The materials to make them are also found in meteorites and experiments have shown these amphiphiles can bubble up from the bottom of the ocean from hydrothermal vents. I use an egg and cooking oil because they are easy to find.

http://members.aol.com/fromscience/e...lmembrane.html

One of the rules of origin of life science is that everything used to make the cells have to be chemicals that would have been here without there being living things to make it. In a religious sense, it is the search for more details of how Allah created life.
Reply

Malaikah
08-22-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally Posted by Hashim_507
In Gainesville, Fla., Steve Benner, a biological chemist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution is attacking that problem by going outside of natural genetics. Normal DNA consists of four bases — adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine (known as A,C,G,T) — molecules that spell out the genetic code in pairs. Benner is trying to add eight new bases to the genetic alphabet.
:sl:

Wow! WHY? Why would anyone want to make new bases?! :uuh:
Reply

mujahideenryder
08-22-2007, 01:29 PM
Allah is THE creator
Reply

Hashim_507
08-22-2007, 05:49 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
:sl:

Wow! WHY? Why would anyone want to make new bases?! :uuh:
Most scientist are trying to challenge the religious people such as muslims,jews and christian or anybody who believes Allah is the creater.
Reply

wilberhum
08-22-2007, 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by Hashim_507
Most scientist are trying to challenge the religious people such as muslims,jews and christian or anybody who believes Allah is the creater.
OMG anoher atheist scientists theory. :hmm:

You might be a bit suppriesed that the vast majority of peopel (At least in the West) could care less what you belive.
You might be a bit supprised to find that most scientists are theists.

But then I bet a lot of things would supprise you. :hiding:

And several scientists believe man-made life forms will one day offer the potential for solving a variety of problems, from fighting diseases to locking up greenhouse gases to eating toxic waste.
Sounds like a good reason to me.
Reply

Pk_#2
08-22-2007, 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by mujahideenryder
Allah is THE creator
Inayy mate

Nice reply PA :shade:

Peace. :rolleyes:
Reply

- Qatada -
08-22-2007, 06:10 PM
:salamext:


This is what amazes me the most (i don't want this to turn into a debate on the big bang) but i just find it surprising that it's taking these scientists ages to create a 'living' cell, yet they believe that a 'living' cell came into existence by chance without the control of someone else (i.e. God.) Yet with all the research they've done, they've not been able to do it when they've got all the tools infront of them.


Anyway, what does Allaah say in the Qur'an? (translation of the meaning):

O mankind! A similitude has been coined, so listen to it (carefully): Verily! Those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatched away a thing from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought.

They have not estimated Allah His Rightful Estimate; Verily, Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty.


[Qur'an Al Hajj 22: 73-4]
Reply

Isambard
08-22-2007, 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
:salamext:


This is what amazes me the most (i don't want this to turn into a debate on the big bang) but i just find it surprising that it's taking these scientists ages to create a 'living' cell, yet they believe that a 'living' cell came into existence by chance without the control of someone else (i.e. God.) Yet with all the research they've done, they've not been able to do it when they've got all the tools infront of them.


Anyway, what does Allaah say in the Qur'an? (translation of the meaning):

O mankind! A similitude has been coined, so listen to it (carefully): Verily! Those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatched away a thing from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought.

They have not estimated Allah His Rightful Estimate; Verily, Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty.


[Qur'an Al Hajj 22: 73-4]
Their 'tools' are simply the same conditions/materials found on Earth several billion yrs ago.

As for taking 'so long', id say its impressive as God tool billions of yrs to do what these scientists have done in a few decades.
Reply

- Qatada -
08-22-2007, 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by Isambard
Their 'tools' are simply the same conditions/materials found on Earth several billion yrs ago.

As for taking 'so long', id say its impressive as God tool billions of yrs to do what these scientists have done in a few decades.


That isn't the issue, i'm saying that since the idea of God is rejected. Then the idea of a cell being created by chance means that it shouldn't be too difficult for these people to create one. Especially since they have the equipment all 'organised' and infront of them.
Reply

wilberhum
08-22-2007, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
That isn't the issue, i'm saying that since the idea of God is rejected. Then the idea of a cell being created by chance means that it shouldn't be too difficult for these people to create one. Especially since they have the equipment all 'organised' and infront of them.
Where did they "Reject the idea of god"?
Or is that just a personal conclusion about there beliefs?
If we can create life, does that prove god does not exist?

If we can create life, it means one and only one thing.

We can create life.
Reply

Isambard
08-22-2007, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
That isn't the issue, i'm saying that since the idea of God is rejected. Then the idea of a cell being created by chance means that it shouldn't be too difficult for these people to create one. Especially since they have the equipment all 'organised' and infront of them.
Not necessarily. In a environment free of restrictions, the odds for life forming is low. Now factor in the millions of things that can end it. Considering how long it took for the first life to form, it is safe to assume "first life" has been created and destroyed countless times before one got lucky and manged to reproduce.

The scientists have merely eliminated alot of the external factors to better the odds (as im sure waiting the necessary billions of yrs to let chance work itself out isnt exactly an option). The odds are still low, this is why its taking awhile, but the results so far are very promising and if they manage to get life, then it would mean God did not have a direct role in the creation of life.
Reply

- Qatada -
08-22-2007, 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Where did they "Reject the idea of god"?
Or is that just a personal conclusion about there beliefs?
If we can create life, does that prove god does not exist?

I'm talking in the general sense, and referring to those who reject God. This is why i'm discussing that issue. And this is why i'm referring to those who do reject a Creator.
Reply

wilberhum
08-22-2007, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by Isambard
Not necessarily. In a environment free of restrictions, the odds for life forming is low. Now factor in the millions of things that can end it. Considering how long it took for the first life to form, it is safe to assume "first life" has been created and destroyed countless times before one got lucky and manged to reproduce.

The scientists have merely eliminated alot of the external factors to better the odds (as im sure waiting the necessary billions of yrs to let chance work itself out isnt exactly an option). The odds are still low, this is why its taking awhile, but the results so far are very promising and if they manage to get life, then it would mean God did not have a direct role in the creation of life.
No, it would mean God was not required to have a direct role in the creation of life.
In that it is not necessary does not mean he wasn't.

If we can create life, it means one and only one thing.

We can create life.
Reply

جوري
08-22-2007, 06:51 PM
I don't have much time for blah today.. but what have the scientists done in a few decade, that God accomplished in billions of years? perhaps an elabortation is in order...
do we still live with the following list of inborn errors of metabolism?
Alpha Mannosidosis
Beta Mannosidosis
Aspartyglucosaminuria
Fucosidosis
Galactosialidosis
Mucolipidosis II
Mucolipidosis III
Schindler Disease
Sialidosis
Muscle phosphofructokinase deficiency
Tarui disease
Glycogen storage disease type 7
GSD VII
congenital sucrose isomaltose malabsorption
fucosidosis
galactosemia
glycogen storage disease
hereditary fructose intolerance
hereditary hyperglycemic obesity
mannosidosis
primary hyperoxaluria

Just a few from a list rather extensive that could potentially be treated with genetic engineering...
perhaps you should engage in a topic with some solidity and scientific reason rather than quasi intellect.. this does not even begin to create a dent in solving the wonders of creation, what it does however is establish a decrease from budgets that should be aimed to more pressing and deserving disorders which don't even have to be as orphaned as those mentioned above, and that could possibly be easily remedied sharing that same technology instead of favoring ailing of projects..

:w:

firstly I am not a fellow!
2nd.. I don't have much regard for atheists as to allow myself to be bullied by one, as frankly I see more usage for a mal-functioning Chondrocytes than I do for an atheist...
3rdly I don't see how any lysosomal or glycogen storage disease or any other for that matter can be anything but a testament to a creator? if you knew the method, engineering behind those biochemical pathways by which problems such as this are avoided faithfully and around the clock, you'd have no choice but to agree, that this is only the contrast that enables you to see what goes right all the time that you neglect to be thankful for, only when something goes wrong is when one of you taken notice, if you actually dedicate any sort of time to learning-- all is taken for granted by people who have lesser appreciation than that of animals!
4th-- this is the contrast by which one measures life.. you couldn't appreciate day if you didn't have night.. you couldn't appreciate health if you didn't have sickeness.. such is the human condition.. would love to sit here all day and go over mechanisms which I guarantee are beyond your scope but I am not too keen on wasting my time with folk who draw satsfaction out of simplistic conclusions and love to precuss extra hard on their rib cage while micturating on a public forum in show of prowess.. I believe some of you mistake that ailing prolonged state of Priapism for virility
5th-- It so appears in fact that you are the one who hasn't read the article.. I already can spot two or three things that are wrong with it.. we'll have to watch and see it unravel though--
6th and last.. I honestly have better plans for my afternoon than sit here all day and waste it on a schizotypal merry andrew who wishes to impress upon us just how cultivated he is by peddling recycled refuse with every post...
if you had a point any point at all one might appreciate and show some interest, you don't have an understanding of science, you don't have an understanding of politics, you don't have an understanding of religion, moral, psycho-social or geopolitical text or conditions.. what you do have is a key board and a remarkable ability to take up unnecessary web space.. so enjoy
as I have lost all interest in engaging this further than this point!
Reply

Isambard
08-22-2007, 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I don't have much time for blah today.. but what have the scientists done in a few decade, that God accomplished in billions of years? perhaps an elabortation is in order...
do we still live with the following list of inborn errors of metabolism?
Alpha Mannosidosis
Beta Mannosidosis
Aspartyglucosaminuria
Fucosidosis
Galactosialidosis
Mucolipidosis II
Mucolipidosis III
Schindler Disease
Sialidosis
Muscle phosphofructokinase deficiency
Tarui disease
Glycogen storage disease type 7
GSD VII
congenital sucrose isomaltose malabsorption
fucosidosis
galactosemia
glycogen storage disease
hereditary fructose intolerance
hereditary hyperglycemic obesity
mannosidosis
primary hyperoxaluria

*Some Rambling*

:w:

From your list of genetic disorders, Id say thats reason enough to discard the idea of God created life because as you ahve shown, its inherently imperfect.

As per your second point, perhaps if you read the article you would see the benifits. of course there's the other issue of knowledge itself being a good thing. if they manage to create life, then it would be a huge step for scientists as from there they could answer alot of questions regarding the first life-forms.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-30-2010, 09:55 PM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 05:22 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-15-2009, 08:11 AM
  4. Replies: 230
    Last Post: 03-28-2008, 06:02 PM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-10-2005, 04:41 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!