Scientist Craig Venter Has Created Artificial Life

[Techne]

In response to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter):

Genetic engineering IS creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally.

I mean does Professor Julian Savulescu think viral vectors carrying artificially created Insulin analogue encoding genes that cannot self replicate could have existed naturally?

/facepalm

This is wrong. There isn't anything about Craig and his team's work that suggest what they did could never have existed.

 

[porchrat]

You're saying they don't use computers to come up with the genomes for viral vectors used in gene therapy? What you think... they put on silly hats and trust it all to luck?

You can whistle all you want but the truth of the matter is that the media blew this thing WAAAAAAAY out of proportion.

This is wrong. There isn't anything about Craig and his team's work that suggest what they did could never have existed.

That too yes. Well said.

However you can be damn sure that viral vectors that carry genes for human Insulin analogues and can't replicate could not exist in nature or if they ever did did so for a few seconds before they became extinct.

 

[Techne]

That too yes. Well said.

However you can be damn sure that viral vectors that carry genes for human Insulin analogues and can't replicate could not exist in nature or if they ever did did so for a few seconds before they became extinct.

Viruses that accidentally splice the insulin gene into their own genome while hijacking the cells replication machinery? Mutation?

There are a number of ways it can happen and endure.

 

[porchrat]

Viruses that accidentally splice the insulin gene into their own genome while hijacking the cells replication machinery? Mutation?

There are a number of ways it can happen and endure.

So you're saying that something that can't replicate can survive in nature? Holy schit someone alert the guys that hand out Nobel prizes!



Read man. Read.

 

[Techne]

So you're saying that something that can't replicate can survive in nature? Holy schit someone alert the guys that hand out Nobel prizes!



Read man. Read.

Your a bright chap, I am sure you'll be able to figure out how a genetic insulin vector can be incorporated into a viral genome that allows for horizontal gene transfer AND how it can be possible without human interference.

 

[porchrat]

Your a bright chap, I am sure you'll be able to figure out how a genetic insulin vector can be incorporated into a viral genome that allows for horizontal gene transfer AND how it can be possible without human interference.

You can perform horizontal gene transfer until you are blue in the face. If you can't replicate you're fscked.

 

[Techne]

Figure it out chap. (hint, a vector can be part of viral genome and the full viral genome can be replicated)

 

[porchrat]

Figure it out chap.

Nothing to figure out. If something can't replicate it is finished. No replication = extinction.

(hint, a vector can be part of viral genome and the full viral genome can be replicated)

I'm not talking about a full virus I'm talking about the vector. Stop shifting goalposts. THAT is what is created and if it can't replicate it is screwed.

 

[Techne]

I am not shifting goal posts. You said you "think viral vectors carrying artificially created Insulin analogue encoding genes that cannot self replicate could have existed naturally". You also said you "can be damn sure that viral vectors that carry genes for human Insulin analogues and can't replicate could not exist in nature or if they ever did did so for a few seconds before they became extinct." Now in the second sentence, I agree, if something can't replicate, it goes extinct, this is trivially true. However, you said in the first sentence "self-replicate". Which is wrong and why I disagree. Viruses (well most anyway) can't self-replicate, they need the self-replication machinery of other cells to replicate. This is basic stuff.

I am pretty sure you can have a vector, carrying a gene for human insulin analogues, that cannot self-replicate, to be part of a viral genome (which itself cannot self-replicate) that can hijack the self-replication machinery of other cells to make more copies of such a viral genome and the virus capsid as well as insulin protein. That way you can have something that can't self-replicate to still replicate copies of itself (such a an insulin viral vector).

 

[porchrat]

I am not shifting goal posts. You said you "think viral vectors carrying artificially created Insulin analogue encoding genes that cannot self replicate could have existed naturally". You also said you "can be damn sure that viral vectors that carry genes for human Insulin analogues and can't replicate could not exist in nature or if they ever did did so for a few seconds before they became extinct." Now in the second sentence, I agree, if something can't replicate, it goes extinct, this is trivially true. However, you said in the first sentence "self-replicate". Which is wrong and why I disagree. Viruses (well most anyway) can't self-replicate, they need the self-replication machinery of other cells to replicate. This is basic stuff.

Yea frankly I thought that all went without saying mate. Don't get pedantic now. What an utter waste of time but then this is you, why am I surprised.

I am pretty sure you can have a vector, carrying a gene for human insulin analogues, that cannot self-replicate, to be part of a viral genome (which itself cannot self-replicate) that can hijack the self-replication machinery of other cells to make more copies of such a viral genome and the virus capsid as well as insulin protein. That way you can have something that can't self-replicate to still replicate copies of itself (such a an insulin viral vector).

No the insulin viral vector can't actually make copies of itself. It is inserted into the host and uses the host machinery to make copies of Insulin analogues, not the entire viral genome. Again I thought this would be intrinsically understood through my use of the term "gene therapy". These sorts of properties are usually intrinsic in your choice of a vector. You don't pick a vector that can replicate out of your control.

 

[Techne]

Yea frankly I thought that all went without saying mate. Don't get pedantic now. What an utter waste of time but then this is you, why am I surprised.

Ah, now the veiled insult/ad hominem :erm:. Not being pedantic, just pointing out the mistake.

No the insulin viral vector can't actually make copies of itself. It is inserted into the host and uses the host machinery to make copies of Insulin analogues, not the entire viral genome. Again I thought this would be intrinsically understood through my use of the term "gene therapy". These sorts of properties are usually intrinsic in your choice of a vector. You don't pick a vector that can replicate out of your control.

Again, the point being that viral vectors carrying insulin analogue encoding genes that cannot self replicate can exist naturally without human interference. We both agree.

 

[porchrat]

What's a "vector"?

It is a mechanism used to deliver something.

Like a virus in nature goes into a cell and incorporates it's genetic code into the host cell's genome and then forces the cell's own replication machinery to produce copies of the virus. What researchers do is they manipulate the viral genome to remove all the nasty stuff the virus would normally do to you (all the bits of the viral genome that cause disease or discomfort or facilitate rapid replication etc.) and instead insert a gene for something nice they want (like for example a gene for producing insulin in diabetics (who can't produce their own insulin or produce dysfunctional insulin)).

So they inject this new artificial virus containing insulin genes and the virus goes into your body, inserts the modified genome into your cell's DNA. Only now instead of making copies of the virus it makes usable insulin for you. Eureka you have used the virus as a vector to deliver the correct insulin gene into a human body.

Obviously it doesn't have to be a human or insulin, you can use whatever genes and whatever host you want depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

 

[h0ll0w]

You use it to determine which is the most recent USN when your AD replication is broken.

Also, way to go porchrat ( <--- !!!ATTENTION : THAT WAS SARCASM!!! )

 

[porchrat]

Ah, now the veiled insult :erm:. Not being pedantic, just pointing out the mistake.

Knowing my background you knew full well it was an honest mistake and you could have pointed it out in 1 line instead of fscking around for post upon post. Like I said what an utter waste of time. No insult, this is what happened. It is also something you do often. I'm not here to dance around words like a magical pixie. You may find it fun, I find it ridiculous.

Again, the point being that viral vectors carrying insulin analogue encoding genes that cannot self replicate can exist naturally without human interference. We both agree.

Of course. As I said that was a simple mistake. Next time just point it out straight away instead of making it into something it really doesn't have to be.

 

[porchrat]

You use it to determine which is the most recent USN when your AD replication is broken.

Also, way to go porchrat ( <--- !!!ATTENTION : THAT WAS SARCASM!!! )

Seriously man if you have nothing positive to add rather just go away this constant attacking is getting old.

 

[Techne]

Knowing my background you knew full well it was an honest mistake and you could have pointed it out in 1 line instead of fscking around for post upon post. Like I said what an utter waste of time. No insult, this is what happened. It is also something you do often. I'm not here to dance around words like a magical pixie. You may find it fun, I find it ridiculous.



Of course. As I said that was a simple mistake. Next time just point it out straight away instead of making it into something it really doesn't have to be.

Phew, touchy . I actually didn't know if you knew it was a mistake.

 

[porchrat]

Phew, touchy . I actually didn't know if you knew it was a mistake.

Fair enough. You should still have said directly exactly what was wrong with what I had said instead of dancing around the issue. After all you assumed I knew what horizontal gene transfer was. Seems weird that you would assume that I would understand the concept of horizontal gene transfer and not the basic lifecycle of a virus.

I have taken enough biochemistry and virology courses to have a pretty good grasp on the standard viral lifecycle you'd find in a textbook. I'm far from an expert but that stuff is hardly the knowledge of experts. Heck I think they even covered it in high school if I'm not mistaken.

I'm a little rusty so I would probably have to look up some of the minor enzymes and such. The major ones like reverse transcriptase you never forget though.

 

[wily me]

Nothing to figure out. If something can't replicate it is finished. No replication = extinction.
.

But, But.

"This is the first self-replicating cell we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer," team leader Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Md., told USA TODAY's Dan Vergano. V

Why so defensive and upset? I am sure in your mind the Varsity's and science community also blew it out of proportion.

What about listing your credentials (CV) and achievements (Your MyBB tantrums excluded) to pit against those of Dr Venter for our consideration.

We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08-mega-base pair Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including "watermark" sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/publication...trolled-by-a-chemically-synthesized-genome-1/

 

[Techne]

snip

With all due respect, this is not the first time you have made such elementary mistakes (we are only human after all). I was just trying to help you and correct your faulty view, you don't need to tell me what to do or how to do it .

 

[porchrat]

But, But.

Yes and that is a great achievement. It doesn't change the validity of my comment on the previous quote... you know... the one I was actually talking about.

Why so defensive and upset? I am sure in your mind the Varsity's and science community also blew it out of proportion.

I get upset about it because I don't like seeing legitimate and interesting science blown up into something it isn't.

What was achieved was amazing in and of itself but making it out to be something it isn't is counter productive.

What about listing your credentials (CV) and achievements (Your MyBB tantrums excluded) to pit against those of Dr Venter for our consideration.

I'm hardly an expert. I just know enough to find scientific journalism at time sensationalist.