What is latest on the “synthetic cell"?

[paarsurrey]

Of course it is made by imitation to some natural product, nevertheless it is not created. Is it?
syn·thet·ic
sinˈTHedik/
adjective
1.(of a substance) made by chemical synthesis, especially to imitate a natural product.
"synthetic rubber"
2.LOGIC
(of a proposition) having truth or falsity determinable by recourse to experience.
noun
1.a synthetic material or chemical, especially a textile fiber.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=synthetic
syn·the·sis
ˈsinTHəsəs/
noun
1. combination or composition, in particular.

• the combination of ideas to form a theory or system.

noun:synthesis; plural noun:syntheses
"the synthesis of intellect and emotion in his work"
synonyms:combination,union,amalgam,blend,mixture,compound,fusion,composite,alloy;More

• the production of chemical compounds by reaction from simpler materials.

noun:synthesis
"the synthesis of methanol from carbon monoxide and hydrogen"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=synt...rome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

At the most it is an imitation of what already exists in nature in abundance created by G-d from annihilation.
Or in terms of our "resident historian", it is plagiarization of nature,Post 400, and not original.
One should look at the modesty/humbleness of science and arrogance of the pseudo-scientists in the garb of atheists/agnostics./skeptics .

Regards

P.S. I am not against the real scientists rather I laud their efforts to discover/invent things useful for the humanity.

 

[dust1n]

Almost there. Synthetic organs have been used in actual cells, actual cells have used synthetic membranes, and synthetic DNA has been used to operate a cell in which the DNA was removed. Making all the functions synthetic and getting them to work without using at least something that already biologically exists, is hard, as it turns out.

 

[paarsurrey]

So, It was not really a creation? Was it in real sense?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It was in 2010 that this was pronounced by a scientist and his team, yet there is no update on it.
Was it just a fun-fare?
I would like it to be a serious feat though.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

One may like to see following update from Wall Street Journal, in the comments section by Cordell Clay Davidson dated Feb 24, 2013.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984
Regards

 

[dust1n]

One may like to see following update from Wall Street Journal, in the comments section by Cordell Clay Davidson dated Feb 24, 2013.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984
Regards

The problem here is that the cell isn't entirely synthetic. There have been lots of claims to the "first synthetic cell," but what is synthetic about this cell is DNA sequence, which is entirely man-made. The problem is, they can't been able to produce a cell from completely constituent parts. The DNA is man-made, not the cell:

"To make the synthetic cell, a team of 25 researchers at labs in Rockville, Md., and San Diego, led by bioengineer Daniel Gibson and Mr. Venter, essentially turned computer code into a new life form. They started with a species of bacteria called Mycoplasma capricolum and, by replacing its genome with one they wrote themselves, turned it into a customized variant of a second existing species, called Mycoplasma mycoides, they reported.

To begin, they wrote out the creature's entire genetic code as a digital computer file, documenting more than one million base pairs of DNA in a biochemical alphabet of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. They edited that file, adding new code, and then sent that electronic data to a DNA sequencing company called Blue Heron Bio in Bothell, Wash., where it was transformed into hundreds of small pieces of chemical DNA, they reported."

See what I mean. It will impressive when it's done from no previous living material. That's not to say it still isn't impressive.

"To set this novel bacterium—and all its descendants—apart from any natural creation, Dr. Venter and his colleagues wrote their names into its chemical DNA code, along with three apt quotations from James Joyce and others. These genetic watermarks will, eventually, allow the researchers to assert ownership of the cells. "You have to have a way of tracking it," said Stanford ethicist Mildred Cho, who has studied the issues posed by the creation of such organisms.'

Writing the trademark directly into the DNA.... creepy...

 

[dust1n]

It was in 2010 that this was pronounced by a scientist and his team, yet there is no update on it.
Was it just a fun-fare?
I would like it to be a serious feat though.
Regards

You can bet that there are many people working on trying to achieve this. Basically a guaranteed Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[paarsurrey]

You can bet that there are many people working on trying to achieve this. Basically a guaranteed Nobel Peace Prize.

You know it is not a case of creation, however. Is it?
Regards

 

[dust1n]

You know it is not a case of creation, however. Is it?
Regards

I'm not sure what you mean by "creation" or what would call into it being a case of that. But no one has created a living cell entirely from non-living parts, which would be creating life. Does synthetic mean from non-organic materials? If so, then plastic cells have been made, but are limited... there is no DNA made of plastic. This is more recent.

"This is the first ever eukaryotic cell—that just means it contains a nucleus and other sub-units known as organelles within its membrane—to be made from plastic. Eukaryotic cells are the fundamental building blocks of all complex life, making up plants and animals, and their organelles allow them to perform specialist functions which vary from cell to cell.

Using a water droplet as a base structure, researchers at Radboud University Nijmegen in The Netherlands inserted tiny polystyrene spheres filled with enzymes to fill the role of organelles and nucleus, then encapsulated the whole things in a coating of a polymer called polybutadiene-b-poly polymersom, in place of a cell wall."

 

[Parsimony]

Of course it is made by imitation to some natural product, nevertheless it is not created. Is it?

Depends on what you mean by create. If you want to get technical, humans never create anything. We only rearrange pre-existing matter and energy into new forms.

One should look at the modesty/humbleness of science and arrogance of the pseudo-scientists

What does arrogance have to do with this?

in the garb of atheists/agnostics./skeptics .

Are you suggesting that it's bad to be a skeptic? You know what the definition of skepticism is, right? Hint: it's not "I don't believe in God and never will".

P.S. I am not against the real scientists rather I laud their efforts to discover/invent things useful for the humanity.

Are you suggesting that a "real" scientist would never create a synthetic cell?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Of course it is made by imitation to some natural product, nevertheless it is not created. Is it?

Depends on what you mean by create. If you want to get technical, humans never create anything. We only rearrange pre-existing matter and energy into new forms.

Creation strictly is from annihilation as did G-d create and He has among many an attribute of Creator.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
P.S. I am not against the real scientists rather I laud their efforts to discover/invent things useful for the humanity.

Are you suggesting that a "real" scientist would never create a synthetic cell?

As I explained in Post #11 above, creation is strictly from annihilation and must of used for G-d only who has created everything that exist without any material already existing and without any imitation to the things existing.
Humans can discover and make things by imitation to the existing things in nature, all created by G-d, and from the material created by G-d but then they should be humble and thankful to G-d.
Regards

 

[Parsimony]

paarsurrey said: ↑
P.S. I am not against the real scientists rather I laud their efforts to discover/invent things useful for the humanity.

As I explained in Post #11 above, creation is strictly from annihilation and must of used for G-d only who has created everything that exist without any material already existing and without any imitation to the things existing.
Humans can discover and make things by imitation to the existing things in nature, all created by G-d, and from the material created by G-d but then they should be humble and thankful to G-d.
Regards

So what does this have to do with synthetic cells in particular?

 

[Milton Platt]

So, It was not really a creation? Was it in real sense?
Regards

So in order for it to have been created, scientists would have to recreate the universe first? Why? To create life as we know it, you use materials that compose life as we know it....what's the problem?

 

[paarsurrey]

So in order for it to have been created, scientists would have to recreate the universe first? Why? To create life as we know it, you use materials that compose life as we know it....what's the problem?

Not only that but they shall have to create themselves and their brains again.
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Not only that but they shall have to create themselves and their brains again.
Regards

You do not need to create inanimate material in order to create life from inanimate material. What would be the point? The idea is to approximate abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not about creating matter, it is about creating life from matter, that is all. Even your supposed god created life in the same way...from existing matter.

 

[paarsurrey]

You do not need to create inanimate material in order to create life from inanimate material. What would be the point? The idea is to approximate abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not about creating matter, it is about creating life from matter, that is all. Even your supposed god created life in the same way...from existing matter.

Being believer in ONE (G-d) I am sceptical of the Skeptic. Sorry, you are simply wrong. ONE creator created everything from annihilation.
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Being believer in ONE (G-d) I am sceptical of the Skeptic. Sorry, you are simply wrong. ONE creator created everything from annihilation.
Regards

Your evidence of the god is what??? Your evidence of the "annihilation" (and of what, exactly?) is to be found where? I am skeptical of unsupportable claims. Sorry.

 

[paarsurrey]

Your evidence of the god is what??? Your evidence of the "annihilation" (and of what, exactly?) is to be found where? I am skeptical of unsupportable claims. Sorry.

Does one have evidence for the things that exist in nature?
Regards