CNN Gets 'Synthetic Life' Right in the Headlines

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

headline: 'We Did Not Create Life From Scratch'
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/ven...index.html

I was trying to explain the importance of making the emphasis that they did not create life 'from scratch' especially for atheists to theists on Tiberius's thread 'Scientists Create Synthetic Life'.

J. Craig Venter: "We built it from four bottles of chemicals.. that's over a million base pairs [of chromosomes]. We assembled that and transplanted it into a recipient cell and that new chromosome started being read by the machinery in the cell, producing new proteins, and totally transformed that cell into a new species coded by the synthetic chromosome. So it's the first living self-replicating cell that we have on the planet whose DNA was made chemically and designed in the computer."

emphasis by me since I suggested earlier that 'synthetic life' was still too ambiguous and even an exaggeration; synthetic species may be more accurate.

[Minimalist]

Whatever he calls it, it annoys the shit out of bible-thumpers. Therefore, it is all good.

[Tiberius]

I never stated they made life from scratch, nor did any article. They did create synthetic life though. Just as two parents can create natural life (not from scratch), these scientists created synthetic life (also not from scratch).

Creation of anything from scratch violates the conservation of energy...that is, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's a pretty simple thing to understand; you just failed to do that.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

that you wouldn't be charitable towards me enough to assume I know the meaning of the conservation of energy and did not mean 'they didn't create the matter that makes up the chromosomes' is causing me to retract everything nice I thought about you. If you were only more charitable, giving me the benefit of the doubt, you would realize i meant that they didn't create the cell's membrane.

'by scratch' in this case means 'without the use of a living organism'. They did not create 'life from scratch' because they used the cell membrane of an existing organism. It's a pretty simple thing to understand; you just failed to do that. Stop being so arrogant.

[Tiberius]

Then by your own definition, nobody can ever create life from scratch, since everyone is a living organism, ergo your entire point is meaningless.

Perhaps a bit more thought should go into your posts next time. When they eventually do create a cell from scratch, I bet you'll be there complaining loudly that they used already-made chemicals and matter to do it. Just be a man and admit you simply made a semantic mistake.

The thing that separates life from non-life is genetic code; DNA, self-replication, etc. This is the part they created. Just because they used a natural cell doesn't mean that their work creating the actual "life" in that cell is any less valid.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

Then by your own definition, nobody can ever create life from scratch, since everyone is a living organism, ergo your entire point is meaningless.

Perhaps a bit more thought should go into your posts next time. When they eventually do create a cell from scratch, I bet you'll be there complaining loudly that they used already-made chemicals and matter to do it. Just be a man and admit you simply made a semantic mistake.

The thing that separates life from non-life is genetic code; DNA, self-replication, etc. This is the part they created. Just because they used a natural cell doesn't mean that their work creating the actual "life" in that cell is any less valid.

I will not " you'll be there complaining loudly that they used already-made chemicals and matter to do it. " and my definition doesn't include the humans that are making the cell membrane and genome for the new life. Again, you are not being charitable, instead you're finding out ways to rule out my definition rather than seeing the obvious exception to my definition. so much for some guy that got accepted to cambridge. lol

[littlegrimlin1]

I thought making it from scratch meant making every part of the organism without using any premade pieces.

Not that the matter was brought out of nowhere. What? lol

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

You're the one that started this conservation by treating me as if I was stupid, so don't you dare emphasize my snide remark towards the end as if I'm the one being rude and ugly.

Twice now have you accused me of 'stupidity' already
1. accused me of not knowing the meaning of conservation of energy
2. almost accused me of being a creationist while accusing me of arguing that the validity of creating life is reducible if the matter that makes up the life isn't created from scratch, which again is accusing me of not understanding the law of conservation of energy

---

I thought making it from scratch meant making every part of the organism without using any premade pieces.

Not that the matter was brought out of nowhere. What? lol

that's exactly what I was saying.

[Violet]

I never stated they made life from scratch, nor did any article. They did create synthetic life though. Just as two parents can create natural life (not from scratch), these scientists created synthetic life (also not from scratch).

Creation of anything from scratch violates the conservation of energy...that is, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's a pretty simple thing to understand; you just failed to do that.

"Scratch" isn't nothing... or else those blueberry pancakes from scratch wouldn't a: exist, or b: be so tasty.

---

Then by your own definition, nobody can ever create life from scratch, since everyone is a living organism, ergo your entire point is meaningless.

The phrase, "From scratch" means: from the very beginning, esp. without utilizing or relying on any previous work for assistance. Remember... this phrase ("from scratch") is colloquial. I'm with you to an extent otherwise (i only really deter when the insulting starts)

So basically: I disagree, Adrian... think of it like forming a language from 'scratch'. While it would be much easier to use characters that already exist... and to copy sounds/words of other languages: it remains possible to build the language completely separate of all others. Forming life from 'scratch' is not dissimilar... while it would be much easier to use protein chains that already exist (ie: 'chunks' of DNA)... and to copy functions/designs of other life: it remains (at least theoretically) possible to build life completely separate of all others.

Perhaps a bit more thought should go into your posts next time. When they eventually do create a cell from scratch, I bet you'll be there complaining loudly that they used already-made chemicals and matter to do it. Just be a man and admit you simply made a semantic mistake.

If they used already made chemicals... then they by definition did not do it 'from scratch' Don't defy the tautology! They won't let you!

The thing that separates life from non-life is genetic code; DNA, self-replication, etc. This is the part they created. Just because they used a natural cell doesn't mean that their work creating the actual "life" in that cell is any less valid.

Dead DNA-based life still has DNA... but it would hardly be accused of being alive Instead... life is a title one should use on the status of a thing being alive... and it is this status that defines life... not the components what build it. Minor issue perhaps... but it just won't do for when synthetic intelligences begin to ask 'am I alive'.

---

so much for some guy that got accepted to cambridge. lol

Rather, he is thinking deeper than the dictionary. I agree with him that to make something "from scratch" (as the dictionary defines it) is utterly impossible... and I also tend to get verbally attacked every time I question definitions or where they apply/do not apply. However, it is a colloquial phrase... and as such is not designed for philosophers and intelligent individuals. We may redefine it as 'building the chair by making the parts, then putting them together (as apposed to having the parts prepped for assembly)'... but he is ultimately correct. My above disagreement, however, is from the colloquial intentions of the phrase

[Tiberius]

Again, you are not being charitable, instead you're finding out ways to rule out my definition rather than seeing the obvious exception to my definition. so much for some guy that got accepted to cambridge. lol

Wow. Nice ad hominem. *claps*

You're the one that started this conservation by treating me as if I was stupid, so don't you dare emphasize my snide remark towards the end as if I'm the one being rude and ugly.

I haven't treated you as stupid; I've treated you as being wrong and using bad definitions of "life". I don't see how beauty and ugliness comes into it.

Twice now have you accused me of 'stupidity' already
1. accused me of not knowing the meaning of conservation of energy
2. almost accused me of being a creationist while accusing me of arguing that the validity of creating life is reducible if the matter that makes up the life isn't created from scratch, which again is accusing me of not understanding the law of conservation of energy

1) No, I said you failed to understand the conservation of energy when saying that creating stuff "from scratch" involved not using any pre-made parts.

2) I never accused you of being a creationist.

You do know that this is a discussion forum right? All posts are stored forever. To validate your claims (or in this case invalidate) all you have to do is look back over the thread. I haven't edited my posts since I posted them, and anyone who wants to check what I said can do just that.

And finally:

@Saerules:

1) Your language example still requires a brain and an understanding (at least on a basic level) of how languages work. All languages will be similar in some way, since they are all based off the same understanding of how they work (and how we communicate).

2) They did use already-made chemicals, and yes, I understand there are two ways of looking at the definition. In my original post on the subject, I said they'd created synthetic life "from scratch", and indeed they had (the meaning being "written the entire life code themselves"). TSF complained, and showed the scientists denying they had created life "from scratch" (his meaning being "creating something from nothing"). With this I agree with him; they did not create something from nothing. I also, however, pointed out that such creation is impossible, and so complaining about the wording is ridiculous in this situation.

To put it in perspective, if I say a statement "I can fly" that has two or more meanings, one of them impossible (i.e. "I can fly unassisted" vs "I can fly...in an airplane"), then it is quite obvious that I meant the possible meaning rather than the impossible. If someone tells you they can fly, you don't automatically think they can do so on their own; you think "Haha, he means with a plane and he's trying to be funny."

3) Dead-DNA based life doesn't have self-replication. Hence, it is clearly not life.