Towards synthesis of a minimal cell
- Thread starter ThaG
- Start date
(1) It would have several molecular biological applications, enabling scientists to reduce the variation in their experiments (often bought about by the use of various eukaryotic and prokaryotic systems to generate proteins/antibiotics etc). Whoever patented the system could make quite a lot of money 
(2) It could be considered the first true man-made life form. If this crude cell can replicate and build itself with simple building blocks, then there is a strong chance that it can evolve, mutating so as to make it better able to withstand suboptimal conditions. We could inadvertently create a superbug from scratch, however I'm confident that several checks would be put in place to prevent this from happening.
(3) I wasn't sure if your question was loaded or not - if it was, then yes, it would provide very strong evidence in favour of evolution over intelligent design/creationism. Wouldn't that be nice?
(2) It could be considered the first true man-made life form. If this crude cell can replicate and build itself with simple building blocks, then there is a strong chance that it can evolve, mutating so as to make it better able to withstand suboptimal conditions. We could inadvertently create a superbug from scratch, however I'm confident that several checks would be put in place to prevent this from happening.
(3) I wasn't sure if your question was loaded or not - if it was, then yes, it would provide very strong evidence in favour of evolution over intelligent design/creationism. Wouldn't that be nice?
What do you mean? What's being taught in your schools right now? Evolution, so how could you say this?
The science associations aren't even debating with ID (obviously because it doesn't qualify as science), so how could ID be stronger? LOL, there is no question to who the stronger side is, in fact there is no other side.
Subjectivity. I highly doubt this but if it is indeed true then you people are fucked.
The science associations aren't even debating with ID (obviously because it doesn't qualify as science), so how could ID be stronger? LOL, there is no question to who the stronger side is, in fact there is no other side.
Subjectivity. I highly doubt this but if it is indeed true then you people are fucked.
45% of americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old and these are just those who believe in Young Earth creationism, the total number of creationist/ID supporters is much greater
of course, the law forbids teaching creationism (that's why ID was invented) but if a child is constantly being told by his parents that what they teach him in school is not true, he will never understand evolution and will never accpet it
of course, the law forbids teaching creationism (that's why ID was invented) but if a child is constantly being told by his parents that what they teach him in school is not true, he will never understand evolution and will never accpet it
yes, it does
first, it will provide very strong evidence that there is nothing "divine" in life and that life is based entirely on chemical processes (which is still doubted by some)
second, it will prove that no God is needed to create life, thus it will definitely reject creationism
you're right, it wil not reject ID, but it will greatly narrow the possibilities - ID proponents will have to start claiming life on the Earth was created by some aliens, which almost nobody will believe (because there's no God involved )
BTW life has been chemically synthesized - they synthesized a whole virus from scratch a few years ago, it's just that it's still debated whether viruses are alive or not
the ultimate experiment that will totally reject God and will prove we're entirely made of chemical reactions will be to synthesize chemically a zygote which is able to develop into a completely normal human
it will mean that:
1. God was not necessary for our "creation"
2. We're not different at all form other organisms
3. there is no "soul", "spirit" or whatever you call it and our mind is entirely material
we know all that even now (if you still doubt about the third one, check theses links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patau_Syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome
and many others....), but it will be the ultimate proof of evolution, rejection of religion and the biggest triumph of science
of course, this is still a sci-fi, because we can only dream of making a eukaryotic cell - we don't know how to assemble the membranes in the cell properly, actually we don't even know the biological mechanisms regulating membrane assembly and shape in vivo
the other major obstacle is that we can synthesize the genome, but we don't know how to turn it on, becasue the default state of eukaryiotic genes is off; thus we need to define which transcription factors and how much of each are needed for that cell to start functioning
the biggest problem in this scheme is how to make the cell develop - it turns out that chromatin modifications and DNA methylation play a major role in development and differentiation and we still have very limited knowledge of what the various modifications are doing and how they're regulated, and we do not know which parts of the genome are methylated at H3K9, H3K4, H3K27, H4K20, phosphorylated, ubiquitinated, arginine methylated and whatever else weird modification you can think of
to make a well functioning zygote you have to know this and you have to also find a way to assemble the genome with the histone molecules in a way that preserves these yet unknown patterns of histone and DNA modification
I am sure though that with the advance of our understanding of cellular processes and after the epigenome project is completed, maybe 50 years from now, we'll be able to do it
I am very curious what will creationism/ID have to say about it when we do it
first, it will provide very strong evidence that there is nothing "divine" in life and that life is based entirely on chemical processes (which is still doubted by some)
second, it will prove that no God is needed to create life, thus it will definitely reject creationism
you're right, it wil not reject ID, but it will greatly narrow the possibilities - ID proponents will have to start claiming life on the Earth was created by some aliens, which almost nobody will believe (because there's no God involved
)BTW life has been chemically synthesized - they synthesized a whole virus from scratch a few years ago, it's just that it's still debated whether viruses are alive or not
the ultimate experiment that will totally reject God and will prove we're entirely made of chemical reactions will be to synthesize chemically a zygote which is able to develop into a completely normal human
it will mean that:
1. God was not necessary for our "creation"
2. We're not different at all form other organisms
3. there is no "soul", "spirit" or whatever you call it and our mind is entirely material
we know all that even now (if you still doubt about the third one, check theses links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patau_Syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome
and many others....), but it will be the ultimate proof of evolution, rejection of religion and the biggest triumph of science
of course, this is still a sci-fi, because we can only dream of making a eukaryotic cell - we don't know how to assemble the membranes in the cell properly, actually we don't even know the biological mechanisms regulating membrane assembly and shape in vivo
the other major obstacle is that we can synthesize the genome, but we don't know how to turn it on, becasue the default state of eukaryiotic genes is off; thus we need to define which transcription factors and how much of each are needed for that cell to start functioning
the biggest problem in this scheme is how to make the cell develop - it turns out that chromatin modifications and DNA methylation play a major role in development and differentiation and we still have very limited knowledge of what the various modifications are doing and how they're regulated, and we do not know which parts of the genome are methylated at H3K9, H3K4, H3K27, H4K20, phosphorylated, ubiquitinated, arginine methylated and whatever else weird modification you can think of
to make a well functioning zygote you have to know this and you have to also find a way to assemble the genome with the histone molecules in a way that preserves these yet unknown patterns of histone and DNA modification
I am sure though that with the advance of our understanding of cellular processes and after the epigenome project is completed, maybe 50 years from now, we'll be able to do it
I am very curious what will creationism/ID have to say about it when we do it
Not really.
How does this provide anymore evidence of life being based on chemical processes than natural reproduction? If there exists a transcendental soul, then it can be explained that just as we create offspring and the soul takes shelter in that newly formed body, a soul may take shelter of this newly formed cell body.
Yet people have been copulating and "creating" life for quite a while now. So nothing has stopped you from asserting an eternal regression of fucking.
Aliens? Like extra-terrestrials? You're in luck! God is an extra-terrestrial (i.e. not from earth).
cool.
How will producing a cell prove evolution?
How does this provide anymore evidence of life being based on chemical processes than natural reproduction? If there exists a transcendental soul, then it can be explained that just as we create offspring and the soul takes shelter in that newly formed body, a soul may take shelter of this newly formed cell body.
Yet people have been copulating and "creating" life for quite a while now. So nothing has stopped you from asserting an eternal regression of fucking.
you're right, it wil not reject ID, but it will greatly narrow the possibilities - ID proponents will have to start claiming life on the Earth was created by some aliens, which almost nobody will believe (because there's no God involved )
)
cool.
How will producing a cell prove evolution?
one of the fundamental principles of biology is that modern cells are formed from prexisting cells, not from nothing; thus your "reproduction" is not "creating life" but continuing it
another case of total misunderstanding of science...
see above
BTW if there is "transcedental soul", where was it during the first 4.5 billions years of evolution and how did it suddenly appear with humans????
To claim there is anything like soul is equivalent to claiming that either all organims have it (including bacteria, archaea, mycoplasma and others or that the Earth is 6000 years old)
both claims are ridiculous
yes, but he presumably didn't evolve from preexisting simple forms while aliens did, just as we did
That will not be just a cell, but a cell capable of reproducing a human being there is a slight difference, and you can "prove" things only in mathematics and pure logic, in natural sciences you can only present an owerwhelming amount of evidence in favour of your theory but you can never prove things 100%
Another case of you making a meaningless distinction. Either a living cell produces other living cells, or a living human produces a living cell. Both require a living entity. The difference is superficial.
Who said it suddenly appeared with humans?
How does the age of the earth have any bearing on whether or not souls exist??
Also, there is nothing ridiculous about the idea that all living entities are souls.
Assuming for a moment that we did evolve from pre-existing simple forms, how does God's not doing such make Him exempt from being creator? You have yet to show the logic that states only evolving beings can create.
So what you are telling me is that this cell, created in a lab, will at some point produce a human embryo on it's own and with no further aid from humans? Is this expected to happen soon after the cell's development, or will it take billions of years?
Who said it suddenly appeared with humans?
How does the age of the earth have any bearing on whether or not souls exist??
Also, there is nothing ridiculous about the idea that all living entities are souls.
Assuming for a moment that we did evolve from pre-existing simple forms, how does God's not doing such make Him exempt from being creator? You have yet to show the logic that states only evolving beings can create.
So what you are telling me is that this cell, created in a lab, will at some point produce a human embryo on it's own and with no further aid from humans? Is this expected to happen soon after the cell's development, or will it take billions of years?
another case of somebody trying to be expert on things he doesn't understand
OK, what's your vision about the "soul" (something that nobody has ever observed or proven to be real) and how it relates to material evolution (which is a fact)
there is no need to "assume for a moment we evolved from simple forms" because we did - a proven fact. The whole point behind inventing God and religion was to distinguish between man as a god-like creature and the rest of the nature. Modern science has unambiguously demonstrated that man is not any different from the other animals and we have evolved from bacteria-like life forms that existed 4 billion years ago. To save their God a lot of people unable to wrestle with the evidence, started claiming that God directed evolution and he created the first living cells- the so called theistic evolution theory. I hope you see how inconsistent all this is.
First, I think you can't distinguish between a bacteria, a normal eukaryotic and a zygote. What they're plannig to do in the coming years (I think it won't happen at least until 2012-2015) is to synthesize a minimal cell, a minimal bacteria to be exact, simpler even than a micoplasm. Synthesizing a human zygote will be the final experiment of that kind and it probably will not be done in the next 50 or 100 years because of the enormous complexity of the task. That human zygote will be implanted in a volunteer and will develop into a normal baby which will be born. It will be much like cloning except for the fact that the cell will be de novo synthesized, not a product of nuclear transfer and reprogramming.
OK, what's your vision about the "soul" (something that nobody has ever observed or proven to be real) and how it relates to material evolution (which is a fact)
there is no need to "assume for a moment we evolved from simple forms" because we did - a proven fact. The whole point behind inventing God and religion was to distinguish between man as a god-like creature and the rest of the nature. Modern science has unambiguously demonstrated that man is not any different from the other animals and we have evolved from bacteria-like life forms that existed 4 billion years ago. To save their God a lot of people unable to wrestle with the evidence, started claiming that God directed evolution and he created the first living cells- the so called theistic evolution theory. I hope you see how inconsistent all this is.
First, I think you can't distinguish between a bacteria, a normal eukaryotic and a zygote. What they're plannig to do in the coming years (I think it won't happen at least until 2012-2015) is to synthesize a minimal cell, a minimal bacteria to be exact, simpler even than a micoplasm. Synthesizing a human zygote will be the final experiment of that kind and it probably will not be done in the next 50 or 100 years because of the enormous complexity of the task. That human zygote will be implanted in a volunteer and will develop into a normal baby which will be born. It will be much like cloning except for the fact that the cell will be de novo synthesized, not a product of nuclear transfer and reprogramming.
So since you did not respond to my point, I will take it to mean that you agree this distinction you make is superficial.
The concept of the soul is that it is the actual living entity, which is of a subtle nature. This subtle soul may inhabit one of various types of bodies. It is not human specific. Soul = living entity.
Material evolution is not a fact.
No. Not a proven fact.
A certain potential may be met in the human capacity that is closer to divinity, but that does not make other living entities exempt from a constitutionally divine position.
It has not been demonstrated that we evolved from bacteria-like life forms. This is simply one interpretation of select evidence gathered. And it happens to currently be a popular one.
People who assert that God directed evolution are not necessarily doing so because they feel they are required to "wrestle with the evidence". Some people just think that if evolution is true, it does not necessarily contradict the conception that the universe was initially created by a supreme being.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain how this supports evolution theory.
The concept of the soul is that it is the actual living entity, which is of a subtle nature. This subtle soul may inhabit one of various types of bodies. It is not human specific. Soul = living entity.
Material evolution is not a fact.
No. Not a proven fact.
A certain potential may be met in the human capacity that is closer to divinity, but that does not make other living entities exempt from a constitutionally divine position.
It has not been demonstrated that we evolved from bacteria-like life forms. This is simply one interpretation of select evidence gathered. And it happens to currently be a popular one.
People who assert that God directed evolution are not necessarily doing so because they feel they are required to "wrestle with the evidence". Some people just think that if evolution is true, it does not necessarily contradict the conception that the universe was initially created by a supreme being.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain how this supports evolution theory.
What makes you think there is "soul" and what evidence do you have supporitng your hypothesis?
Why do you think it's not a fact and what explanation FITTING THE OBSERVATIONS can you offer?
What exactly is that "potential"?
Here you're almost right because when a said bacteria-like I really meant archaea-like, but I don't think you know what archaea are so I tried to make it easier for you
If you want evidence for evolution, I can give you tons of it, I am not sure though that wasting my time doing will help so I'll give you only two words: comparative genomics
you just said evolution is not real, now you say it is...
I think I did it already
Why do you think it's not a fact and what explanation FITTING THE OBSERVATIONS can you offer?
What exactly is that "potential"?
Here you're almost right because when a said bacteria-like I really meant archaea-like, but I don't think you know what archaea are so I tried to make it easier for you
If you want evidence for evolution, I can give you tons of it, I am not sure though that wasting my time doing will help so I'll give you only two words: comparative genomics
you just said evolution is not real, now you say it is...
I think I did it already
