Scientists create a virus that reproduces

[sorgoth]

Well, it's as impressive as the fact that science can also re-arrange genomes such that flies grow extra legs where the eyes had been, previously, "designed".

That's...strange. Link?

 

[hammegk]

Gives you the idea:

http://www.the-elso-gazette.org/magazines/issue5/mreviews/mreviews2.asp

Flies with legs sprouting from their heads sounds like something from a 1960s science fiction horror film. But these and other mutant flies have taught us a great deal about the genetics behind the segmental body plan in invertebrates. We are only just starting to understand how the protein products of some of these genes work.

Homeotic mutations have always fascinated developmental biologists. In these mutations, one part of an animal is replaced by another part that is normally located in a different position. A classic example is the mutation Antennapedia (Antp) in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster; in Antp mutants the antennae are replaced by legs, producing flies with the normal six legs plus two additional leg structures on the head1. This bizarre phenotype is part of a complex syndrome that includes transformation of the dorsal head into thorax. It is caused by the expression of Antp in an abnormal place (the head) instead of in its normal position (the thorax).

One result of this syndrome is that characteristic head structures such as the eyes disappear. This indicates that somehow Antp interferes with the normal function of genes specifying eye development.

Despite over fifty years of work on Antp, the mechanisms underlying these transformations have remained largely unknown. But now, in a paper published in the EMBO Journal2, Walter Gehring’s group in Basel (Switzerland) in collaboration with David Cribbs’ team in Toulouse (France) have described how the product of the Antp gene interacts with an eye-specific protein to inactivate some of the genes required for eye formation.

 

[BillHoyt]

Gives you the idea:

http://www.the-elso-gazette.org/magazines/issue5/mreviews/mreviews2.asp

So, that would be antenna imaginal discs being transformed into legs, wouldn't it? Not eyes?

 

[hammegk]

So, that would be antenna imaginal discs being transformed into legs, wouldn't it? Not eyes?

Yeah. Thanks for clarifying (my bad ). Several links I just found were more into eyes in places not usually "seen".

Don't know if my recollection is bad or not. We all got to struggle forward the best we can, huh?



Now, would you like to add something of value?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos,

That is often given as a definition, but it fails on close examination. Is a sterile animal not alive? I think they might beg to differ. At the other end of the scale, we now have several examples of artificially created, self-replicating molecules. Are they alive simply because they can reproduce themselves? Most observers would beg to differ here as well.

A sterile animal is part of a group that does normally breed though, and all of its cells are alive, or it wouldn't be.

I'd say they were alive if they can replicate, but I never heard of just molecules replicating before. So I's a little cofuseded.

 

[Phaycops]

...but I never heard of just molecules replicating before. So I's a little cofuseded.

"Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules needn't be all that complex [Lee et al, 1996], and protein-building systems can also be simple [Ball, 2001; Tamura & Schimmel, 2001]. "

"The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12]."
--This link gives the references for the self-replicating molecule papers. I think they're mostly from Nature, though one or two might be from other journals.

 

[hammegk]

And scientists can speculate forever and a day, and will never know if life is an emergent property of non-life, or not.

 

[BillHoyt]

And scientists can speculate forever and a day, and will never know if life is an emergent property of non-life, or not.

There are several aspects of the "big picture" that you are missing with such drive-by assertions, hammy. First, of course, is that scientists don't speculate so much as they hypothesize. Then they test the hypotheses to see if reality agrees. Secondly, and more importantly, steps such as Ventner's and the work that preceded it demonstrate quite clearly that life-like attributes emerge from chemicals.There is no magical fairy dust that needs to be sprinkled in by anybody. Simply organize the chemicals together in a particular fashion and the virus pops out and does its thing.

Yep, life-like properties emerge from non-life. Imaginal that.

 

[Deimos]

Just because something replicates doesn't mean that it is living, I can't find it again but I remember recently reading on TalkOrigins a great definition with regards to genetic material providing instructions, and it excludes fire which you could say replicates and consumes fuel etc... I'd link if I could find it.
Anyways, I think it's amazing that scientists have managed to create a virus, it's a stepping stone to a more complex understanding of genetic coding. It's like an old huge computer that takes up tons of space, you can't see much use for one in regards to video editing but it's a precursor to something that can eventually process video. Great metaphor huh?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I believe that there are several levels that this question touches upon. The Chemical /bio engineering part, the Practical applications part and the philosophical part.

I think most in the forum are intelligent to enough recognize the science ( at least partially) and the applications parts ( use your imagination , truth can be stranger the fiction ), So I will address a few points of the more tenuous of the three.

Most people object to this kind of research - recombinate DNA, Cloaning, Creation of viruses in the laboratory for one reason, religion. Every time one of these enterprise's are successful, it lessens the validity of the Devine pipe dream. I t elevates man to godlike proportiones.and that by itself negates the basis of the majority of religions , especially Christinanity. What more frightening impact could one imagine more terrible then having your world view snatched from you and your main coping mechanism prove to be a ghost?

I do see a danger, every time I read something like the press release above I recall the charector Malcome the mathematician in Jurassic Park..."Ya,Ya you figured out how to do it , but you never once asked yourselves Should you do it". I am not a luddite , far from it but the frailty of human judgement especially when combined with the tools of war is a insindary combination. Frankenstein wasn't an anti-technology diatribe but a cautionary tail of unforeseen consequences or gaining knowledge without the critical aspect of control. That this technology will be weaponized is a given , and when the process becomes easier , like say crude nuclear devices are now, how will we control them? Oppenheimer may have thought he was Sheva for a moment, but 50+ yrs/ of a nuclear truce has existed. Why? because for the most part the leaders and thier subordinates acted with caution , knowing the kind of devastation that an exchange of weapons would mean. Now in this day less stable people and regimes have nukes, with more to follow, we don't even know how to combat what that represents, can you imagine a few oz. of an artificially created killer virus that was designed by an off the shelf kit by some fanatic with a grudge against whoever? The nukes are that just with the exception of the U235.. off the shelf.

If we don't do it someone will..I realize that , like Malcom , I wonder if we should.

 

[hammegk]

There are several aspects of the "big picture" that you are missing with such drive-by assertions, hammy.

Willy, I think by now you may realize how wrong you are in that assertion. Some people are missing the big picture, but it looks more & more like a lot of them believe they are materialists/atheists/skeptics.

I find it sad that you chose to throw stones and pick at nits much more often than you attempt to "big picture" enlighten. At least you talk as though you are at or still near cutting edge technology and knowledge and could offer much more than you provide. I mention again that in my own case I'm not looking for accolytes I can swing to my worldview; I try to answer specific and factual questions as best I can, and that's it.