Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Artifical life
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 4 of 71 (561490)
05-20-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Flyer75
05-20-2010 8:57 PM


What Venter and company did was sequence a bacterial genome, duplicate the genome in a sequencer, inserted the sequencer-made genome into a cell replacing its natural genome then watched it continue to live and reproduce.
No great surprise, here. An Adenine molecule in position 2754 on chromosome 8 is chemically identical in form and function to any other Adenine molecule whether it was placed there by the cells natural mechanisms or by a sequencer unit.
What is significant about this experiment is that this is the first time in genetic engineering an entire genome has been sequencer produced without any of the naturally produced genome used in the resultant cell. This is significant in that it evidences that no spooky supernatural power, element or breath of god is necessary (since the sequencer unit is incapable of producing such things) in the genome for the processes of life to occur. Though it does not disprove a designer, rather than evidencing a designer this experiment shows that the operation of the genome is purely, and only, chemistry.
Second, though it is still cheaper and more effective to leave the natural genome in place, changing only those parts we want artificially to produce whatever application we are trying to achieve, as our knowledge of the intricacies of the genome and the resultant proteomics progresses, it may become more feasible to sequence an entirely unique genome to insert in a cell and we now know we can do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Flyer75, posted 05-20-2010 8:57 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 05-20-2010 10:35 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 05-21-2010 10:42 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 71 (561496)
05-20-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
05-20-2010 10:35 PM


The potential of this process for biogenic drugs is ... inspiring.
Indeed. The potential benefits are staggering.
Unfortunately so are the potential dangers.
We'll both keep our fingers crossed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 05-20-2010 10:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 12 of 71 (561521)
05-21-2010 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Flyer75
05-21-2010 12:04 AM


You mentioned the drug benefits....how so? And then you mentioned the dangers.
As RAZD and Phage mentioned the benefit of having a bacteria spawn in great beer vats producing whatever drug of choice from insulin to biogenic amines will make such treatments more widely available and drop the costs to pennies per hundred doses instead of $$ per dose today.
Today most, if not all drugs, are proteins or molecules discovered and taken from natural substances. Designer molecules are difficult and expensive to make, even for testing purposes, and designer proteins are next to impossible except in the most simple short-chain varieties. Using designer genomes in bacterium will change this.
How about a designed bacterium that eats and cleans-up after an oil spill in some place like, oh I don't know, like maybe the Gulf of Mexico?
The dangers are legion. Besides the obvious human design errors that could inadvertently be placed into a bacterium with unintended consequences how about intentional designer plagues? The prospect of an Ebola-like hemorrhagic bacteria specifically targeted only to Blacks, Semites or Northern Europeans comes to mind.

Scary ... Boo!
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Flyer75, posted 05-21-2010 12:04 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Flyer75, posted 05-21-2010 7:52 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 65 of 71 (561779)
05-23-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Flyer75
05-23-2010 9:31 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
There are a few creationists and evolutionists out there who did not arrive to their conclusions without a presupposition or worldview being there FIRST.
In the case of most scientists, as well as most on this forum, this is not correct. Until this last generation most all children in western societies were brought up in a religious culture. Overcoming this acculturated world view through critical thinking and observation is difficult and a lot of people never make it. Those of us that do make it form our world view as a result of the preponderance of the evidence not before.
I understand this is a difficult concept for the religiously inclined person. They cannot seem to fathom a mind void of blind faith. It's as if the religious believe that there is blind faith and veneration in all minds just the object of such is different.
Trying to relay the reality that such is not the case is difficult at best and a fruitless exercise with most.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-23-2010 9:31 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024