US Scientists Close to Creating Artificial Life

And again I will state that this is a hype. The sequence is derived from an actual organism Mycoplasma and DNA synthesis is not really a novel technology. Deleting and restructuring DNA of living cells has been done for ages, as well as whole chromosome exchanges (Dolly, anyone?). For me the first synthetic organism would require that the actual cell (and that is the tricky part, DNA is relatively cheap in comparison) has to be reconstituted artificially.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For "Ages"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Charon,

I tend to agree, but then the topic is about BEING CLOSE to creating artificial life. CLOSER perhaps, but I think we are still a long way from CLOSE.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AZBlogger,
yes, I meant ages. Stitching together an existing genome has not been done (there was no practical application to do so), usually you take an existing one and cure it from whatever you do not need. This has been done extensively since the 70s. Introducing a genome into a cell that has been cured of its own genome is also not new. To my knowledge the first experiments in that regards were conducted in frogs (Rana pipiens I think, or maybe a Xenopus species...) by King and Brigss in the 50s. In a eukaryote, no less.
Now they have the money to do it bottom up. Still, the result is hardly changed from what has already been done.

In other words, I do not see any significant progress in that area. It essentially only means that in order to create a mutant you can stitch together a genome, provided you got the money, instead of manipulating an existing one (though results are the same).
It would have been more fascinating, if they really had made a patchwork genome, from different bacteria. But I think that it would not have worked that easily.

 

I don't think using existing DNA would be purley creating life.

Creating life in a Vaccum with nothing but pure energy acted on in such a way to form it into what is termed as material (enduring states of intertwined energy) and to somehow know how to animate this material once formed into DNA is what I would term is creating life.

Whatever the cause of the pressure waves that cause DNA to be constructed from atomic structures is the key to knowing the how to push life through the DNA.

The DNA to me is simply a set of "Logic Gates" that pure life energy waves pass through causing warps in perceived space and time.

Daniel C. Barker
(Cyborghesi)
NNRR.FM

 

Just wait till they create a lifeform that can evolve and adapt on its own. One day a scientist will give it an order and it'll ask "Why?" thats when we'll know its got free will.

 

So, it's not enough to create life, scientists have to create matter too? I think that's an unnecessarily high bar. By the way, the idea that there must be a "life energy" died out in the early 1800's.

 

Just another hype and soon will be a disappointment.

When one doesn't know his limitations, one goes on about hallucinating himself into believing that anything is possible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Human beings have been serious troublemakers on this planet for long. And I don't think we have ever invented something that works towards natures advantage.

 

Sometimes ideas that fall out of fashion can be re-visited.

There are some simple truths...

1. There is life
2. Life is constructed using DNA.
3. DNA is a code that is now understood.

There must be an intelligent energy force driving these reactions that allow these repeated chemical processes to somehow be capable of building patterns of "ordered energy" into what one could term is material expression of intelligence.

 

You serious??? sounds like yet another wishful thinking.

There is life.
Scientists will never find out how to create life nor intelligence which matches a human or an animal.

 

Hmmm...

Maybe it won't be a scientist who figures this one out...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wow.

 

I say kill those scientists before they can finish, and obliterate all their work.

A.I. will do us no good.

 

Youngsters might think this sounds like the Terminator movies. Before that there was Collossus the Forbin Project and in between it was the Demon Seed. All stories of AI gone sour.

AI is good. AI could be used to make safer cars and air travel. AI could run our houses better to save money on utilities. AI could be a doouble check on our medical practices to do a 'second opinion'. Lots of ideas. Lots of possibilities.

Are we close? I recall the effort back in the late 80s to create a program that was supposed to become in some sense aware. I recall Minsky's predictions. I think it is a problem that is so complex that we are probably not close.

 

Ai

What does the Term AI mean anyways...

Who are we to say Intelligence is Artificial (not real) - What is REAL Intelligence anyways... Until one understands what pure intelligence is or what the word Intelligence actually relates to in a space-time existence we sure cannot say that a code to relate to an event in space time is Artificial...

Here's a strange idea... Forget 8/16/32/64/128 etc bit binary code.. but
9 bit binary code in a 3 dimensional lattice carrying 8 other bits (4 states, 4 anti states)

How about 3 dimensional self oscillating Quarternery Code.. Would that count is intelligence squared? A self propelled oscillating Binary waveform not requiring "input" to react and cause change.