Scientists Create Revolutionary Synthetic Life Form by 1kiki

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Scientists Create Revolutionary Synthetic Life Form

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Friday, July 8, 2016 22:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1690
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:07 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://www.rdmag.com/articles/2016/03/scientists-create-revolutionary-
synthetic-life-form

Scientists Create Revolutionary Synthetic Life Form
Mon, 03/28/2016 - 2:43pm
Ryan Bushey, Digital Editor

A team of geneticists made a biological breakthrough last week.

Researchers led by the renowned Craig Venter, Ph.D. created a synthetic organism named syn3.0. It is a microbe capable of surviving and replicating with only 473 genes, reported The Guardian, establishing that this genetic number is the minimum needed for life whereas humans have a rough estimate of 20,000 genes.

Qanta explained Venter and his team made this discovery after analyzing the genome of a cattle-based bacterium called Mycoplasma mycoides through a process that took years.
Which innovative new product has been a game-changer this year? Tell us & win! Learn More

The scientists took an alternative approach to building this organism by sketching out the genome structure on a computer, which followed synthesizing the DNA in test tubes.

Next, the researchers were able create the first self-replicating synthetic organism in 2010 dubbed syn 1.0, but it took a long trial-and-error process to identify genes that were essential for survival before they were able to produce syn3.0.

This innovation could lay the groundwork for designing synthetic organisms that can contribute to a new class of fuels and antibiotics.

However, Venter and his team are unsure of what an estimated 149 genes do in syn3.0. Qanta adds that the geneticists were able to classify 70 genes based on their structure, but Venter and his associates don’t know what their precise role is while the other half are a total mystery.

More research needs to be done in order to determine what the purpose of these genetic components in syn3.0. One strategy could consist of engineering cell variants that can be turned off and on in genes to see what action takes place, according to Qanta.

The study was published in the journal, Science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:33 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

This also has the potential to go very, very wrong.

Speaking of wealthy capitalist funding showering us with it golden delights -

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426101616.htm
How can regulators know which of the 80,000 manufactured chemicals pose risks?

Ponder that. There are 80,000 to 90,000 chemicals in the environment that have never, ever, been tested for risk. They're manufactured, some of them in bulk, sold, used, disposed of, and most importantly, profited from by a small number of people who'll be making all the money - and the people and environment who WILL pay the ultimate costs, whatever they are - have not received one iota of protection.

I tossed the article, didn't save it, because I know of a major exception to their scheme to estimate the hazards visited on us by those wealthy capitalists. That scheme, which is supposed to avoid actual testing, works by checking chemical near neighbors. And the exception is hexane, 6 carbons. You look at methane 1 carbon, ethane 2 carbons, propane 3 carbons, butane 4 carbons, pentane 5 carbons, heptane 7 carbons, octane 8 carbons, nonane 9 carbons, decane 10 carbons, and even undecane 11 carbons and dodecane 12 carbons -- and they're not exceptionally toxic. By every measure hexane 6 carbons, in the middle of the pack, should be ok. But it's not. It's off the charts toxic.

No amount of modeling or interpolation could have predicted that. It's a risk we know about from unfortunate experience, and we STILL can't predict it with all our science. Even when we know what the answer is.

But what the hell. Artificial life. Bring it. After all, it's not like anything has ever gone wrong with our technologies, and dumped unforeseen consequences on us.

Right?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 20, 2016 12:54 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Do everyone a favor and don't put this all on the money people though - there are plenty to blame."

Such as?

Cites?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:52 PM

OONJERAH

Pandora's Box: It is not advised to open all the doors at once.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

I've given up looking for the meaning of life. Now all I want is a cookie.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 4, 2016 5:42 PM

OONJERAH

"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking

"life
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/life
"the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

I disagree with Hawking; computer viruses are no life form.
I know he's waay smarter than me, but I let myself have different
opinions anyways.

Now human science has created an organic life form tho not
near as complex as Dr. Frankenstein's creature. ...
Should I be worried about this?

Absolutely!!

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

I've given up looking for the meaning of life. Now all I want is a cookie.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 8, 2016 10:53 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I appreciate your reply, OONJERAH. You have a unique perspective that I find interesting.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE