First Ever Artificial Life Created

[MrAl]

Hi,

You can read about it here but there are probably other places too on the web:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/living-organism-artificial-dna_n_5283095.html

 

[ronv]

I couldn't get the link to run. Maybe too busy. It's not a blonde joke is it?

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

You can read about it here but there are probably other places too on the web:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/living-organism-artificial-dna_n_5283095.html

No, they did not create life. They modified it in a way that has never been done before. That is different than creation.

Ratch

 

[jpanhalt]

Yes, calling it artificial life is a bit of an overstatement, as Ratchit observed:

Nevertheless, being able to, in theory, substitute "designer" amino acids into a polypeptide produced by an organism is quite a jump.

As for synthetic "life" many scientists give that honor to the creation of synthetic viruses or bactreriophages (viruses that infect bacteria). Here are just a few of many links to those accomplishments:
https://www.pnas.org/content/100/26/15440.long
https://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0027062
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm

No one has yet created a free-living organism synthetically.

John

 

[Ratchit]

Yes, calling it artificial life is a bit of an overstatement, as Ratchit observed:
View attachment 86034

Nevertheless, being able to, in theory, substitute "designer" amino acids into a polypeptide produced by an organism is quite a jump.
John

A virus cannot reproduce itself without another life form, so it does not fit the definition of life. I remember LBJ got sucked into the euphoria of the moment many years ago and made a public announcement about it.

Ratch

 

[jpanhalt]

Ratchit,

A virus cannot reproduce itself without another life form, so it does not fit the definition of life.

That is your definition, which is far from universally held. There are, of course, relationships that that require another entirely different organism for reproduction. The list is very lengthy, but as just one example, do you not consider obligate, metazoan parasites, such as malaria as life forms? What about obligate, intracellular bacterial parasites?

Nevertheless, the new claims also to not meet that or any other common definition of a life form.

John

 

[4pyros]

Vary interesting but a bit like opening pandora's box.

 

[Ratchit]

Ratchit,]



That is your definition, which is far from universally held.

Where do you pick up such notions? The ability of an organism to reproduce on its own is considered one of the criteria of life. https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-definiton-of-life.htm#didyouknowout

There are, of course, relationships that that require another entirely different organism for reproduction.

Yes, they are called viruses.

The list is very lengthy, but as just one example, do you not consider obligate, metazoan parasites, such as malaria as life forms?

Malaria is a unicellular microorganism that is able to reproduce on its own without manipulating the DNA of another cell.

What about obligate, intracellular bacterial parasites?

Yes, what about them? That sounds like a contradiction. Can you provide a link with that phrase?

Nevertheless, the new claims also to not meet that or any other common definition of a life form.

Isn't that what I said?

Ratch

 

[jpanhalt]

Oops, my comment about malaria being a metazoan was a brain fart. It is of course a protozoan.

As for your definition of a life form,

A virus cannot reproduce itself without another life form, so it does not fit the definition of life.

It is still flawed. You have completely ducked how it applies to obligate parasites that cannot reproduce in cell-free culture. Based on your response to my comment,
"There are, of course, relationships that that require another entirely different organism for reproduction."

Yes, they are called viruses.

You seem to think they are all viruses. That is simply wrong. Treponema pallidum is a bacterium, not virus, that has yet to be cultured in a cell-free medium.

John

 

[Ratchit]

Oops, my comment about malaria being a metazoan was a brain fart. It is of course a protozoan.

As for your definition of a life form,


It is still flawed. You have completely ducked how it applies to obligate parasites that cannot reproduce in cell-free culture. Based on your response to my comment,
"There are, of course, relationships that that require another entirely different organism for reproduction."


You seem to think they are all viruses. That is simply wrong. Treponema pallidum is a bacterium, not virus, that has yet to be cultured in a cell-free medium.

John

It is not my definition of life, and life as we know it has other characteristics as well. I should have been more clear and stated that viruses require interaction with other life at the cellular level, whereas other obvious life forms require hosts to nurture their offspring. We must not confuse reproduction with nurturing the offspring to maturity.

Ratch