There’s a new contest you can enter: Build a Lifeform. A real one.
Yes, it can be done now…or at least, we can insert new capabilities into existing organisms. Before you get too excited, though, most of this work involves directed tweaking of phage or E. coli, which is powerful stuff, but far removed from the dream of building Kelly LeBrock in my garage.
We’re going to need another decade or so before we can do that.
Emphasis on the “or so”.
I guess it’s too soon for the enhancement of octopod neurons via the addition of molecular quantum logic gates as well, right? :-(
The iGEM competition has been doing this for a few years now. Some pretty neat bugs have been designed, and made, in pursuit of it.
Perhaps Schlafly and his army of home-schoolers would like to enter?
Building a life form! Yes it can be done! Oh, not really, same old injecting of genes from one bacteria to the next.
If evolution or worse, the likes of pathetic lab anti-socials, could “create life” it would be popping up all over the place all of the time.
When are you going to get a clue that the best you can do is watch nature and move it around a bit. You don’t have the appropriate awe. Instead you’re like some jealous, low self-esteem, step-child in the face of God saying, “I don’t care what you can do.”
I don’t care what you say, PZ, the Kelly LeBrock technology exists today. Just DON’T FORGET TO HOOK UP THE DOLL!
@#5 Edward Gordon:
No, we can’t create life *yet*, but we’re getting closer. I wouldn’t be surprised if an artificial life-form (of bacterial level) is produced by 2025.
And, it’s a rather interesting metaphor you used about the stepchild. Christians say that we’re “children of God” and “created in God’s image”, no? So, doesn’t it make sense for us to try to follow in our “father”‘s footsteps? Would you mock a child for imitating his father, and wanting to be like him when he grows up?
Edward Gordon is a deluded halfwit who thinks atheism causes obesity, despite the USA being the fattest large country in the world, and the most Christian – and the same correlation holding up within the USA. Check out that thread on his blog – it’s a scream!
Re: Nick @ 8: Edward Gordon is a deluded halfwit
and that’s not all — he thinks he can intercede for petitioners to have miracles done on order!
From his site:
I think Edward needs to spend some time out of his basement.
PaperHand @7: re: creating life…
I think someone should tell Edward that ‘creating life’ is something we do when we have sex and make babies. He won’t know that for himself, since it involves congress with icky girls.
As for creating life in the lab — coming real soon.
sorry for the bad pun :(
Yes: Watch Craig Venter’s Space for Announcements Soon.
Technically speaking, we already have the technology to create Kelly LeBrock, albeit not in a garage and not in adult form.
Poor choice of words. Life popped up all over the strawberries I was going to have with my lunch today. They are now in the trash.
If abiogenesis were to occur today how would you, Edward Gordon, even be able to differentiate between it and already existing life forms? Your monumental ignorance would be quite an extraordinary impedement.
Edward Gordon – Appropriate awe? Fuck you. Scientists spend as much of our lives as we possibly can up to our eyes in awe, investigating and learning about the things we find awe-inspiring. It’s what we do the job for and why we endure the hours and pay and low job security. If I lost my sense of awe in a freak accident this evening, I’d start retraining as a tax accountant tomorrow at 9am.
Of all the slurs and slanders creationists chuck about, this one – denying the love and excitement scientists feel about their science – pisses me off most of all.
Ok, I went and asked for a miracle:
Let’s see how long it lasts…
Project much, Edward?
Gone already.
kelly lebrock, hmmm? make sure to calibrate the temporality mechanism on the machine correctly, or instead of kelly lebrock circa 1985 you might accidentally recreate the entire “kellie’s bellies” team from celebrity fit club 2006 (and once you feed jeff conway, you’ll never get rid of him)
“… far removed from the dream of building Kelly LeBrock in my garage.”
I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of creating Kelly LeBrock, as seen in the 1985 movie Weird Science.
We choose to build Kelly LeBrock in our garage not because it is easy but because we are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.
(It goes without saying that Kennedy would have approved of this blatant plagiarism of his words)
Build life?
Not so far away as you might think.
This just in –
http://www.livescience.com/technology/080705-artificial-dna.html
Masahiko Inouye and colleagues at the University of Toyama have constructed artificial DNA.
I smell Nobel!
It’s hard, anyone got an idiots guide to synthetic life coding bricks?
Can you model the measurements bits via cybernetics, cos that’s the only retrocool word I know?
My brain already hurts and I doubt UK citizens can enter either.
For Edward @ 5
From a skinny atheist.
Careful how the equipment is set up or we’re going to need another Timmy
We may some day be able to create new life in a lab.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect intelligence to ever be found within Edward’s cranium.
Cheers.
Here’s a nice talk of Drew Andy about this (the topic, not the io9 competition):
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2329.en.html
from the description:
“Biological engineering does not have to be confined to the laboratories of high-end industry laboratories. Rather, it is desirable to foster a more open culture of biological technology. This talk is an effort to do so; it aims to equip you with basic practical knowledge of biological engineering”
I’m all for building Kelly LeBrock but I refuse to wear a bra on my head!
Hmmmmmm, I’m trying to decide if Edward Gordon is self-deluded or a charlatan.
I’m picturing him as a James van Praagh type, so I’m voting charlatan. Perhaps we should take a poll…
Pfft, Kelly Le Brock, Pfft. Science Pfft, Magic is what we need.
What you need is a competition to work out the right Egyptian magic ritual to re-animate Kim Cattrall’s mannequin.
Bah! Even if scientist did create life that would mean NOTHING! Because that life would be FALSE life, made under the inspiration Satan to mock God. It would just be like apes, finches and fossils. All misinformation people of TRUE FAITH™ know better than to believe.
PZ when you are looking into the eyes of your beloved “intelligent” octopus you are looking into the very neither orifices of Satan HIMSELF!
REPENT!
B.J.,
Um, that’s “nether” orifices…
J @ “B.J.,
Um, that’s “nether” orifices…”
You know deep down I am right J.
GLORY!
Damn, I can’t tell the difference between the Mockers and the True Believers…based on the replies to “Edward Gordon”, I’d have to say T.B., but before I read them I wasn’t sure. And then BJ Tabor, I’ve got to call him out as a satirist. Right? Please tell me that the True Believers don’t use ‘TM’ on the True Faith designation ;-)
Yeah, vintage creations of Kelly LeBrock, Linda Carter, Jaquelin Smith, Julie Newmar and Laura Parker (Angelique on “Dark Shadows”) would be awesome even if it dates us as being children of the ’60’s and teens of the 70’s. These women were smokin’ hot by any generational standard. The shame is I’ll be too damn old to appreciate it by the time “Weird Science” technology is finally available…
B.J.,
You know deep down I am right J.
GLORY!”
Perhaps you were intending, deep down, for it to be “either” orifice of Satan and “GLORY HOLE!”
Can I get a “Hallelujah”?
Kelly LeBrock would be great but I don’t want to wait 10 years and I think my girlfriend may object.
How about a yeast that produces THC instead of or in conjunction with alcohol? No need to smoke, just sit back and enjoy a cold one… I am no biologist it doesn’t seem like it should be too tough, they are creating bugs that produce just about everything else.
I agree it won’t be long before someone builds life in a lab. And it probably won’t be long before we build robotic life in a manufacturing plant and electronic life on some computer network.
And I’m almost certain that the moment we succeed in doing so, said lifeforms will begin to evolve on their own.
And I’m almost certain that the moment we succeed in doing so, said lifeforms will begin to evolve on their own. – amphiox
Which might suggest the need for some caution?
Nah, just mix an exploding Octavo with a Worblehat, add Rincewind to taste, and hey presto, The Librarian! Do not, however, start with a monk–oh shit! (Runs away and hides to avoid his head being screwed off by the newly-made ape. Really, ape. I meant ape!)
Nick Gotts #37:
Agreed.
Eddie boy doesn’t like icky girls. ;)
Whats its going to be that
artificial life ? I mean, its would be
just a new species, but besides as natural
as any of us.
And then laboratory modified organisms
sure evolves on their own, just change
their live conditions and voila.
I have to check the link… im kinda unsure
on what means to create a Lifeform…
If i were to make one, its would a Chocobo,
not sure if SquareEnix would give the right
to use that name…
“Instead you’re like some jealous, low self-esteem, step-child in the face of God saying, “I don’t care what you can do.”
What god?
Nick Gotts #37:
Which might suggest the need for some caution?
Why? Evolution is a very slow process. Even if we were able to create macroscopic multicellular organisms – and manage to create them in such a way that they could feasibly compete with naturally-evolved organisms, no easy task there! – it would still take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years for any noticeable evolution to take place.
Kelly LeBrock!?? Were you in Jr. High when “Weird Science” came out? I guess she made an impression.
Jr High? I was a newly minted Ph.D. when “Weird Science” came out!
And I knew at last why I was studying biology.
Re: #37, #43
More caution perhaps with machine life or digital life because they will arise in an empty “biosphere” without anything else to compete with, perhaps?
Organic artificial life would very likely end up as dinner for the local bacteria if it ever found itself outside of the cushy environment of the lab. On the other hand, such lifeforms might be more likely to compete more directly with us!
I’m not a biologist, but I have an idea. Take some Bdelloid Rotifers, feed them a mix of whatever genes you want (apples, shitake mushrooms, the blood of Gates McFadden) and maybe they’ll incorporate some of the genes into their gametes through HGT.
I’d be doing this myself, but my mad scientist grant fell through at the college.
Hmm… PZ and his Evil Clone Army ?
Would they Try to Take Over The World (/The Brain) ?
Or just hang out in Morris, partying all the time and slowly taking over the blogosphere ?
(Acts confused, like mathematicians often do.)
Life? Creating life in the lab? Wait, how is that new?
I mean, where do these graduate student creatures come from, then?
And why this emphasis on “or so”, when by the Plan in exactly ten years the armies of universitynecroectobots are compl — wait, is this one of those things we’re not supposed to talk about?
Sorry. I’ll go back to path-integrating the doom circuits now.
</clown>
Even if we were able to create macroscopic multicellular organisms… – Paper Hand
It’s not those I’m worried about, but the artificial bacteria, which might evolve very fast. They might also (amphiox@46) be engineered to be inedible to existing life-forms, e.g. using novel amino acids, but themselves able to produce the ones they need.
Not directly related, but there was a news story in 2001http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E0DA103CF930A15752C0A9679C8B63
about Australian scientists accidentally creating a deadly mouse pathogen by bioengineering mousepox, a virus related to that of smallpox. Creating or modifying anything that self-replicates needs to be done responsibly.
DUDE! Thank you for publicising this — I *totally* have an entry to put in!!!
As a precocious boy scientist many moons ago, I created a robot that looked exactly like Julie Newmar, and I called her Helen, but she was very depressed and drank acid.
Re: Nick Gotts #50
The artificial organisms would have to out-compete naturally evolved bacteria for basic resources before they’d ever be able to proliferate to worrisome population levels outside a lab. If we humans were smart enough to design something like that, but dumb enough to go ahead and do it, then I think we deserve to go extinct and our intellect would have to go down as the most stupendously maladaptive trait ever to have evolved on planet earth.
If the artificial life forms are designed to not compete with bacteria for basic resources (by using different resources) then I think there is less to worry about because they would also by extension not compete with us.
The most worrisome thing to me would be bacteria and viruses designed with deliberate malevolent intent going on to evolve enhancements to that malevolence, or escape mechanisms from intended control mechanisms.
But there’s no way that human beings could be such evil pricks, right? Right?
If we humans were smart enough to design something like that, but dumb enough to go ahead and do it, then I think we deserve to go extinct – amphiox
Just because some of us might be capable of it, I don’t see why the rest of us deserve to die – which is why I favour democratic control (by some combination of public debate and elected bodies of experts) over some aspects of science – like what is just too dangerous an experiment. To give a specific example, the virus responsible for the 1918 influenza pandemic has recently been reconstructed. I tend to think that the risks of doing so were indeed justified by the potential advances in knowledge in this case – but I don’t think it should have been done without worldwide consultation in advance.
The most worrisome thing to me would be bacteria and viruses designed with deliberate malevolent intent going on to evolve enhancements to that malevolence, or escape mechanisms from intended control mechanisms. – amphiox
I agree this is probably (I’m no expert here) the most likely scenario, but I don’t see it as impossible that lifeforms could be designed to use the same resources as existing life, but themselves be (at least initially) unuseable as resources, for example by using novel amino acids – or indeed that dangerous pathogens could be produced either accidentally, as in the mousepox case (fortunately dangerous only to mice AFAIK), or deliberately but with good reason, as in the 1918 flu virus case.