Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

reply to post by alyosha1981


I agree too. The imagination of the human kind is just like the fact that Aliens might exist

~~I'm talking about Aliens because im using Celestia.~~

Try to download this program, you can see the Milky Way in 3D, Every planets, I even saw a Giant sun (235 000 time bigger than our sun)

This is all true....I myself rant about how we are little "baby-gods" in a way. We eat,sleep,and you know what, creating. Anything throughout your house was man made somewhere and for the most part everything in our lives of physical manifestation has been altered,manipulated,or created by man's hands. I think what I meant to put out there was that inevitability of greed becoming a factor...If any greater understanding about how our world works could be used to further some ambition to seek power by private or military research companies/organizations, we could find ourselves in a hell of a pickle....

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx

I agree, but is it really dangerous to know how our world have been created?

I dont think so.. It's would just be nice to Know how our Planet works, how it have been created.. But i still agree

I think that if it leads only to enlightenment of our origins there is nothing at all wrong with delving in deeply to the research opportunities. It was more or less the comments about making our own little earth that was a bit unsavory to me, seemed more like the writers were thinking of this as a means to study a pet or a anthill instead of our planet....y'know?

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


Your right! but thats where the problem lies, we all know that the second a military contractor gets their hands on any kind of "life creating" tech that they will automaticly start thinking " super soldier" and compartmentalize the heck out of the project and we would only see the "scraps" then the law makers would pass bills limiting the use of this "secret tech: to research status only. It is a shame but one can only hop that doesn't happen here And the only reason I mentioned the"little earth" was actually a mention to us I just used a comical approach to deliver a thought provoking message

[edit on 12-1-2009 by alyosha1981]

A brilliant scientist discovers how to take dirt and create life from it. Flushed with pride he now shouts to all who will listen how he has become a god.

He cries out to the very Creator himself, ‘I am your equal!”.

A bit nonplussed, God allows the scientist to prove his claim.

“Ok”, says the scientist, “first I take this dirt here…”

“Hold it”, says God, “Get your own dirt.”

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

Not to throw too much cold water on things, but I would love to see the details on how this RNA was ‘created’. I’m thinking that it’s probably just really smart kids playing with really cool building blocks.

Still,

Science rocks!

reply to post by resistor


that was pretty good I didn't think of it like that but maybe he could "lease" some of that dirt? I don't know how they created the RNA, below is my favorite part

When these mutations occurred, "the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture," the scientists report.The "creatures" - wait, we can't call them that! - evolved, with some "species" winning out.


"It kind of blew me away," said team member Tracey Lincoln of the Scripps Research Institute, who is working on her Ph.D. "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."

Indeed.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by alyosha1981]

I found it interesting at first.. but as I read on in regards to how they "evolved" I started to wonder just how "dangerous" this was. Life in general has it's check and balances.. sometimes things go amok and we come face to face with bio hazards created by nature. As to why they appear during certain time spams could be due to natures plan or "luck".

These experiments are in a controlled environment.. but only controlled in regards to "our" understanding of what may happen or cause us concerns.

Mixing the soup of life and stepping back in awe to what transpires just sends chills up my spine in regards to what they could create which nature may keep at bay naturally in order to keep life in balance.

Yay for our ingenuity and wow in how dangerous we are to ourselves and our surroundings....



For emphasis....

We are, to put it bluntly, locked in permanent evolutionary war with the earth's bacteria and viruses. Sometimes we mount an effective Big Push, making inroads against a particular illness. (Total victories, such as the eradication of smallpox, are rare.) On other occasions, the enemy breaks through our battle lines with catastrophic effects, and an epidemic - such as the flu outbreak that devastated postwar populations in 1918 - ensues. On our side, we have an arsenal of antibiotics, antiviral drugs, vaccines, pesticides and antiseptics to protect us. On their side, there is the simple, mind-bogglingly multitudinous nature of germs combined with their perpetual, random attempts to mutate past our defences.

Nature, the most deadly bio-terrorist of all

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Willbert]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Its quite possible for us to create life. Even the religious would have to admit that if we were "created in the image of the Creator", we have creator-talents as well.

God did give us the ability to create things and destroy things, we do both. Creating or destroying in themselves aren't 'good' or 'bad'. We can create a bridge or we can create a bomb. We can destroy a library or we can destroy narcotics. To some degree, we have a part in creating a life a (baby) and sometimes the decision is to then kill him/her. Using that example of a baby, I'm concerned with how society as a whole has showed blatant irresponsibility with this form of 'life creation', genocide, slavery, and classism even within the past two hundred years. So...now people want to make a whole new class of 'underlings'? As a biochemist, I'm curious as to the purpose of this experiment/study. As an ATS'er, I'm wondering if we're not making more out of this article than is there (after all, it says on the snippet this is not life creation). As a Christian, I'm worried what humanity would do with any life they'd given the charge of creating. Finally, when a creation of intelligence learns of death, surely it would be looking towards us wanting to know why we would create it merely to die or ask us what happens afterwards. What do we say then?

[edit on 12-1-2009 by saint4God]

Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:
...perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets

Sounds like they have it really pinned down to an exact science .

"He buddy, how do I get to the Department of Motor Vehicles from here?"

"Turn left, or maybe just go straight for 2 miles, or possibly just drive to another town, or it might just be in between your house and your neighbor's."

Originally posted by dbates

Sounds like they have it really pinned down to an exact science .

"He buddy, how do I get to the Department of Motor Vehicles from here?"

"Turn left, or maybe just go straight for 2 miles, or possibly just drive to another town, or it might just be in between your house and your neighbor's."

You're right on, but I have to admit I get a bit excited by possibilities sometimes myself. If you keep it a secret, often times others will try to get first dibs on the claim. As Thomas Edison could testify...

"For example, in 1874 - with the money he received from the sale of an electrical engineering firm that held several of his patents - he opened his first complete testing and development laboratory in Newark, New Jersey.

At age 29, he commenced work on the carbon transmitter, which ultimately made Alexander Graham Bell's amazing new "articulating" telephone (which by today's standards sounded more like someone trying to talk through a kazoo than a telephone) audible enough for practical use. Interestingly, at one point during this intense period, Edison was as close to inventing the telephone as Bell was to inventing the phonograph. Nevertheless, shortly after Edison moved his laboratory to Menlo Park, N.J. in 1876, he invented - in 1877 - the first phonograph.

In 1879, extremely disappointed by the fact that Bell had beaten him in the race to patent the first authentic transmission of the human voice..."

www.thomasedison.com...

[edit on 12-1-2009 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God


Im enthusiastic about our ability to create and concerned about our tendency to be irresponsible about it. Hopefully we'll find some kind of balance.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Balance is ideal, but what do you think would happen, in the extreme event that this discovery evolves into "mass creation" of any type, when the big corps get their hands on it?

reply to post by alyosha1981


Star and flag for exactly what ATS needs; more real science and thouhgtful speculation based on it, rather than pure spec without any factual basis!

Don't want to drift off-topic, but if you think about organic processors/computing, nanotechnology, and the self-replication described in your article, we could be on the verge of some mind-boggling developments (before 2012? ).

Great point, SkyFloating. Of course, no one can prove there is no God, and that has never been the point. With the big creationist push lately, it's more about being able to keep evolution and science in schools instead of lopping off 100 years of progress and teaching creationism again.

All this does is serve the purpose of showing how life can begin on its own without a creator.

reply to post by 44drake44


and why stop with a "little earth"? At that point they could create other types of environments, similar to those on other planets(i.e. methane atmosphere, extreme heat, extreme cold, etc..) to observe if life is possible in these conditions and how evolution would occur. This sort of study and experiment could lead to understandings about required conditions for life and how you may not "need" earth-like conditions for life to exist.

This is just plain cool, imagine if the scientists continued this in a large scale environment, would it be possible to create a "little Earth"? or something resembeling it?

Doesn't this show that the Panspermia view of life on Earth is correct. I don't want to get into a Darwin vs Creationist vs Panspermia debate but surely if we can create life then couldn't someone else more advanced than we also have done the same thing at some point in time and seeded this planet with life?



Redman

Wow Those scientists must have lots of time on their hands. Did they cure cancer already? Or maybe they have extra time on their hands because they did away with all illnesses. In my opinion all scientists should work on cures for diseases, then when they find the answer to that,then and only then should they be allowed to waste resources on their pet projects!

Originally posted by ohioriver
Wow Those scientists must have lots of time on their hands. Did they cure cancer already? Or maybe they have extra time on their hands because they did away with all illnesses. In my opinion all scientists should work on cures for diseases, then when they find the answer to that,then and only then should they be allowed to waste resources on their pet projects!

Totally agree. We need to focus our efforts on cures for diseases first, then perhaps there'll be time to play around with life creation. It doesn't do any good to create a life only for it to live in misery.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by saint4God]

As interesting as all of this is, I cannot help but remember the "Law of Unintended Consequences". I hope these researchers are taking precautions considering the nature of their work. Exotic Lifeforms might just equal exotic plague.