This is awesome. Literally, awe inspiring. We now have a compiler for the code which is DNA. Now we just need a "Hello, world!" app :)
'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
51–60 of 97 posts
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luddite. In all seriousness, the dangers brought up in the article can only come from a person lacking significant knowledge of bacteria. Unimaginable numbers of bacteria permeate every part of the world, including miles within the earth, deep sea volcanic vents, radioactive waste, the rain drops falling on our heads, and us, up our noses, in our skin pores, our guts, etc. Those simple bacteria evolve at staggering r…
> And unless you believe in magic it is unlikely to out-compete in a pre-existing niche. Cars are faster than land animals. Planes are faster than birds. Not being constrained by needing to have come from slow gradual iteration might open some possibilities, some terrifying. Biology doesn't produce the wheel. To consider this as a possibility is not to believe in magic.
Cars are faster than land animals. Planes are faster than birds.
Fuel, jet fuel.
Biology doesn't produce the wheel.
Tumble weeds? Insects which curl up into a wheel to quickly roll away from danger? Can a car drive up stairs?
Indeed if we genetically engineered a large animal to run on gasoline AND provided it with an ample supply of gasoline, it would move faster than anything else... as long as it had gasoline.
If we engineered a bacterium to eat oil and/or gasoline and dispersed in the gulf.... already there, eating oil, consuming the oxygen in the water in the process.
If we added it to an oil well... already there, lots of bacteria deep within the earth, eating everything from metal to methane. Probably not consuming the world's oil reserve only for lack of oxygen or any other oxidizer.
...some possibilities, some terrifying.
Ebola, HIV, the flu de jour all quite terrifying, all 100% natural.
And unlike you, they don't care. They will keep evolving and trying to kill you as fast and as hard as they can, every minute of every day.
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#53Nature article http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100520/full/news.2010.253.ht...
Nature asks and eight experts comment on significance http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100520/full/news.2010.255.ht...
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cars are faster than land animals. Planes are faster than birds. There's no comparison. I'm sitting here looking out the window at my car, and there are caterpillars out there that are moving faster than it. Not only that, but that caterpillar can refuel itself. And it'll turn itself into new ones next year. In the meantime, my car will sit and rust. Really, it's the height of hubris to think that we can engineer s…
"Really, it's the height of hubris to think that we can engineer something that works as well as what untold generations has evolved." Why? Technological progress through logical deduction is patently more efficient than evolution through natural selection. Modern technology has already far surpassed the capabilities of natural organisms in a number of areas, all within a geologically minute timespan. Just because a…
Modern technology has already far surpassed the capabilities of natural organisms in a number of areas, all within a geologically minute timespan.
They key words here are: "in a number of areas"
In a number of areas indeed. Can a plane fly without oil drillers, oil refiners, fuel trucks, and jet fuel?
Or in a more generalized form: For some X, thing Y is better at X.
Having said that, I in no way belong to those people who think that nature is magical and humans can never do better.
We can quite easily make incremental improvements some of the time.
Note that I consider it an improvement if it still does everything else equally well and some new things better.
If on the other hand, it can't do some things, then it is only useful in a number of areas.
So a plane is not an improvement on a bird, but a bird immune to some pesticide would be an improvement IF that immunity didn't have a huge cost.
Or we can say it's better only when lots of that pesticide is in its environment and worse otherwise.
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#55This is awesome. Literally, awe inspiring. We now have a compiler for the code which is DNA. Now we just need a "Hello, world!" app :)
We'll see if it is awesome, if the compiler is buggy it might turn out to create a 'killall' app instead.
This is great news, but with this new power comes also a very large responsibility.
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#56This is a huge deal, and I'm not surprised to see that Craig Venter had something to do with it. Kudos!
This is a nice step for technology and a really huge deal for human culture and religion. A certain Someone said once "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." That certain Someone later said: "Behold, man has become like one of us..."
"Whoa, hold on there. Get your own dirt." - God
/card-carrying atheist, but always liked that joke
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Really, it's the height of hubris to think that we can engineer something that works as well as what untold generations has evolved." Why? Technological progress through logical deduction is patently more efficient than evolution through natural selection. Modern technology has already far surpassed the capabilities of natural organisms in a number of areas, all within a geologically minute timespan. Just because a…
Modern technology has already far surpassed the capabilities of natural organisms in a number of areas, all within a geologically minute timespan. They key words here are: "in a number of areas" In a number of areas indeed. Can a plane fly without oil drillers, oil refiners, fuel trucks, and jet fuel? Or in a more generalized form: For some X, thing Y is better at X. Having said that, I in no way belong to those peop…
I think quoting oil drillers is not really opportune at the moment if you want to give an example of how the damage from technology is going to be 'limited'.
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And unless you believe in magic it is unlikely to out-compete in a pre-existing niche. Cars are faster than land animals. Planes are faster than birds. Not being constrained by needing to have come from slow gradual iteration might open some possibilities, some terrifying. Biology doesn't produce the wheel. To consider this as a possibility is not to believe in magic.
> Cars are faster than land animals. Planes are faster than birds. There's no comparison. I'm sitting here looking out the window at my car, and there are caterpillars out there that are moving faster than it. Not only that, but that caterpillar can refuel itself. And it'll turn itself into new ones next year. In the meantime, my car will sit and rust. Really, it's the height of hubris to think that we can engineer s…
> Really, it's the height of hubris to think that we can engineer something that works as well as what untold generations has evolved.
At best photosynthesis have an efficiency of about 8% At best solar panels have an efficiency of 40%
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#59DNA: Now jailbroken.
Re: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't only bother me practically. Yes I did consider the fact that they'd have to compete, though I didn't consider the fact that they evolve all the time anyway, that's a good point. BUT, especially if they're talking about something as drastic as eating up a significant amount of carbon in the air, it will change the ecosystem. It'll pose the same danger as moving animals across continents. But really it bothe…
Your dog is genetically engineered. Your tomato. Your children. And I don't mean in the lab, but the usual way, by using your intelligence to choose suitable stock and then breeding until you get what you want. The shortcut in the lab is just faster and cheaper, not different in any basic or ethical way.
But that old-time genetic engineering still plays by the rules of nature, so to speak. Grafting branches between trees is pushing it a little. Splicing genes, not to mention synthesizing them from scratch, I think is pretty clearly of a different nature.