Craig Venter unveils “synthetic life”


We’re here today to announce the first synthetic cell, a cell made by starting with the digital code in the computer, building the chromosome from four bottles of chemicals, assembling that chromosome in yeast, transplanting it into a recipient bacterial cell and transforming that cell into a new bacterial species. So this is the first self-replicating species that we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer. It also is the first species to have its own website encoded in its genetic code. But we’ll talk more about the watermarks in a minute. This is a project that had its inception 15 years ago when our team then — we called the institute TIGR — was involved in sequencing the first two genomes in history. We did Haemophilus influenzae and then the smallest genome of a self-replicating organism, that of Mycoplasma genitalium. And as soon as we had these two sequences we thought, if this is supposed to be the smallest genome of a self-replicating species, could there be even a smaller genome? Could we understand the basis of cellular life at the genetic level? It’s been a 15-year quest just to get to the starting point now to be able to answer those questions, because it’s very difficult to eliminate multiple genes from a cell. You can only do them one at a time. We decided early on that we had to take a synthetic route, even though nobody had been there before, to see if we could synthesize a bacterial chromosome so we could actually vary the gene content to understand the essential genes for life. That started our 15-year quest to get here. But before we did the first experiments, we actually asked Art Caplan’s team at the University of Pennsylvania to undertake a review of what the risks, the challenges, the ethics around creating new species in the laboratory were because it hadn’t been done before. They spent about two years reviewing that independently and published their results in Science in 1999. Ham and I took two years off as a side project to sequence the human genome, but as soon as that was done we got back to the task at hand. In 2002, we started a new institute, the Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives, where we set out two goals: One, to understand the impact of our technology on the environment, and how to understand the environment better, and two, to start down this process of making synthetic life to understand basic life. In 2003, we published our first success. So Ham Smith and Clyde Hutchison developed some new methods for making error-free DNA at a small level. Our first task was a 5,000-letter code bacteriophage, a virus that attacks only E. coli. So that was the phage phi X 174, which was chosen for historical reasons. It was the first DNA phage, DNA virus, DNA genome that was actually sequenced. So once we realized that we could make 5,000-base pair viral-sized pieces, we thought, we at least have the means then to try and make serially lots of these pieces to be able to eventually assemble them together to make this mega base chromosome. So, substantially larger than we even thought we would go initially. There were several steps to this. There were two sides: We had to solve the chemistry for making large DNA molecules, and we had to solve the biological side of how, if we had this new chemical entity, how would we boot it up, activate it in a recipient cell. We had two teams working in parallel: one team on the chemistry, and the other on trying to be able to transplant entire chromosomes to get new cells. When we started this out, we thought the synthesis would be the biggest problem, which is why we chose the smallest genome. And some of you have noticed that we switched from the smallest genome to a much larger one. And we can walk through the reasons for that, but basically the small cell took on the order of one to two months to get results from, whereas the larger, faster-growing cell takes only two days. So there’s only so many cycles we could go through in a year at six weeks per cycle. And you should know that basically 99, probably 99 percent plus of our experiments failed. So this was a debugging, problem-solving scenario from the beginning because there was no recipe of how to get there. So, one of the most important publications we had was in 2007. Carole Lartigue led the effort to actually transplant a bacterial chromosome from one bacteria to another. I think philosophically, that was one of the most important papers that we’ve ever done because it showed how dynamic life was. And we knew, once that worked, that we actually had a chance if we could make the synthetic chromosomes to do the same with those. We didn’t know that it was going to take us several years more to get there. In 2008, we reported the complete synthesis of the Mycoplasma genitalium genome, a little over 500,000 letters of genetic code, but we have not yet succeeded in booting up that chromosome. We think in part, because of its slow growth and, in part, cells have all kinds of unique defense mechanisms to keep these events from happening. It turned out the cell that we were trying to transplant into had a nuclease, an enzyme that chews up DNA on its surface, and was happy to eat the synthetic DNA that we gave it and never got transplantations. But at the time, that was the largest molecule of a defined structure that had been made. And so both sides were progressing, but part of the synthesis had to be accomplished or was able to be accomplished using yeast, putting the fragments in yeast and yeast would assemble these for us. It’s an amazing step forward, but we had a problem because now we had the bacterial chromosomes growing in yeast. So in addition to doing the transplant, we had to find out how to get a bacterial chromosome out of the eukaryotic yeast into a form where we could transplant it into a recipient cell. So our team developed new techniques for actually growing, cloning entire bacterial chromosomes in yeast. So we took the same mycoides genome that Carole had initially transplanted, and we grew that in yeast as an artificial chromosome. And we thought this would be a great test bed for learning how to get chromosomes out of yeast and transplant them. When we did these experiments, though, we could get the chromosome out of yeast but it wouldn’t transplant and boot up a cell. That little issue took the team two years to solve. It turns out, the DNA in the bacterial cell was actually methylated, and the methylation protects it from the restriction enzyme, from digesting the DNA. So what we found is if we took the chromosome out of yeast and methylated it, we could then transplant it. Further advances came when the team removed the restriction enzyme genes from the recipient capricolum cell. And once we had done that, now we can take naked DNA out of yeast and transplant it. So last fall when we published the results of that work in Science, we all became overconfident and were sure we were only a few weeks away from being able to now boot up a chromosome out of yeast. Because of the problems with Mycoplasma genitalium and its slow growth about a year and a half ago, we decided to synthesize the much larger chromosome, the mycoides chromosome, knowing that we had the biology worked out on that for transplantation. And Dan led the team for the synthesis of this over one-million-base pair chromosome. But it turned out it wasn’t going to be as simple in the end, and it set us back three months because we had one error out of over a million base pairs in that sequence. So the team developed new debugging software, where we could test each synthetic fragment to see if it would grow in a background of wild type DNA. And we found that 10 out of the 11 100,000-base pair pieces we synthesized were completely accurate and compatible with a life-forming sequence. We narrowed it down to one fragment; we sequenced it and found just one base pair had been deleted in an essential gene. So accuracy is essential. There’s parts of the genome where it cannot tolerate even a single error, and then there’s parts of the genome where we can put in large blocks of DNA, as we did with the watermarks, and it can tolerate all kinds of errors. So it took about three months to find that error and repair it. And then early one morning, at 6 a.m. we got a text from Dan saying that, now, the first blue colonies existed. So, it’s been a long route to get here: 15 years from the beginning. We felt one of the tenets of this field was to make absolutely certain we could distinguish synthetic DNA from natural DNA. Early on, when you’re working in a new area of science, you have to think about all the pitfalls and things that could lead you to believe that you had done something when you hadn’t, and, even worse, leading others to believe it. So, we thought the worst problem would be a single molecule contamination of the native chromosome, leading us to believe that we actually had created a synthetic cell, when it would have been just a contaminant. So early on, we developed the notion of putting in watermarks in the DNA to absolutely make clear that the DNA was synthetic. And the first chromosome we built in 2008 — the 500,000-base pair one — we simply assigned the names of the authors of the chromosome into the genetic code, but it was using just amino acid single letter translations, which leaves out certain letters of the alphabet. So the team actually developed a new code within the code within the code. So it’s a new code for interpreting and writing messages in DNA. Now, mathematicians have been hiding and writing messages in the genetic code for a long time, but it’s clear they were mathematicians and not biologists because, if you write long messages with the code that the mathematicians developed, it would more than likely lead to new proteins being synthesized with unknown functions. So the code that Mike Montague and the team developed actually puts frequent stop codons, so it’s a different alphabet but allows us to use the entire English alphabet with punctuation and numbers. So, there are four major watermarks all over 1,000 base pairs of genetic code. The first one actually contains within it this code for interpreting the rest of the genetic code. So in the remaining information, in the watermarks, contain the names of, I think it’s 46 different authors and key contributors to getting the project to this stage. And we also built in a website address so that if somebody decodes the code within the code within the code, they can send an email to that address. So it’s clearly distinguishable from any other species, having 46 names in it, its own web address. And we added three quotations, because with the first genome we were criticized for not trying to say something more profound than just signing the work. So we won’t give the rest of the code, but we will give the three quotations. The first is, “To live, to err, to fall, to triumph and to recreate life out of life.” It’s a James Joyce quote. The second quotation is, “See things not as they are, but as they might be.” It’s a quote from the “American Prometheus” book on Robert Oppenheimer. And the last one is a Richard Feynman quote: “What I cannot build, I cannot understand.” So, because this is as much a philosophical advance as a technical advance in science, we tried to deal with both the philosophical and the technical side. The last thing I want to say before turning it over to questions is that the extensive work that we’ve done — asking for ethical review, pushing the envelope on that side as well as the technical side — this has been broadly discussed in the scientific community, in the policy community and at the highest levels of the federal government. Even with this announcement, as we did in 2003 — that work was funded by the Department of Energy, so the work was reviewed at the level of the White House, trying to decide whether to classify the work or publish it. And they came down on the side of open publication, which is the right approach — we’ve briefed the White House, we’ve briefed members of Congress, we’ve tried to take and push the policy issues in parallel with the scientific advances. So with that, I would like to open it first to the floor for questions. Yes, in the back. Reporter: Could you explain, in layman’s terms, how significant a breakthrough this is please? Craig Venter: Can we explain how significant this is? I’m not sure we’re the ones that should be explaining how significant it is. It’s significant to us. Perhaps it’s a giant philosophical change in how we view life. We actually view it as a baby step in terms of, it’s taken us 15 years to be able to do the experiment we wanted to do 15 years ago on understanding life at its basic level. But we actually believe this is going to be a very powerful set of tools and we’re already starting in numerous avenues to use this tool. We have, at the Institute, ongoing funding now from NIH in a program with Novartis to try and use these new synthetic DNA tools to perhaps make the flu vaccine that you might get next year. Because instead of taking weeks to months to make these, Dan’s team can now make these in less than 24 hours. So when you see how long it took to get an H1N1 vaccine out, we think we can shorten that process quite substantially. In the vaccine area, Synthetic Genomics and the Institute are forming a new vaccine company because we think these tools can affect vaccines to diseases that haven’t been possible to date, things where the viruses rapidly evolve, such with rhinovirus. Wouldn’t it be nice to have something that actually blocked common colds? Or, more importantly, HIV, where the virus evolves so quickly the vaccines that are made today can’t keep up with those evolutionary changes. Also, at Synthetic Genomics, we’ve been working on major environmental issues. I think this latest oil spill in the Gulf is a reminder. We can’t see CO2 — we depend on scientific measurements for it and we see the beginning results of having too much of it — but we can see pre-CO2 now floating on the waters and contaminating the beaches in the Gulf. We need some alternatives for oil. We have a program with Exxon Mobile to try and develop new strains of algae that can efficiently capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or from concentrated sources, make new hydrocarbons that can go into their refineries to make normal gasoline and diesel fuel out of CO2. Those are just a couple of the approaches and directions that we’re taking. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Craig Venter unveils “synthetic life”

  1. And I'm guessing you think that because they succeeded in mutating existing life then that's the same as creating it from scratch without design and all your naturalistic dreams have come true.

  2. I agree. To me, the fact that scientists are saying they just created something is kind of funny. Its a misuse of the term. They merely copied & made changes to a design with already existing matter.

  3. copying adn and put it in a ecolie a living cell is not creating life but the media is suporting any thing against god i hate media

  4. So would your typing text messages on youtube be part of evolution.

    because if it is then maybe we do need to support it to see were it can lead us.

  5. No they have not corrupted life.

    They sequenced the DNA on computational systems and then used biologically derived scaffolding and then delivered the DNA to that scaffold.

    What is sick about this it may lead to all manner of medical treatments and whole new class of medical tools.

    I suppose you are against vaccines as well.

  6. If you want to believe in god that is your decision but in no way can you stop this type of research as it is a natural development of human intelligence.

    This is called progress. By the way Craig Venter is religious and believes in god him self.

  7. This is not 'synthetic life'. This is the insertion of artificial genomic coding (coding that is almost solely based on existing sequence that is known to have worked in EXISTING organisms) into a different (but already existing) cell. It is a remarkable step forward but the content does not match the claims. He does it well, but Craig Venter is a huge sensationalist.

    And no, I am not a creationist, just a humble genetics student.

  8. Key parts to your statement there, That lower part of brain, you can't not have a brain but still have a lower part of your brain.

  9. Thank you Dr. Venter and all your team … We are starting to create life, on the process of ELOHIMIZATION, i.e. following the footsteps of the Elohim, our advanced scientifc creators coming from another planet who have created all life on Earth several thousand years ago .. The full explanation at rael.org

  10. You people are insane! Bio Engineering and Nanotechnology will be the downfall of humanity and all other life on earth. You want a disease free planet? Then stop fucking over the Earth with your forced rape campaigns against her. Like Your carbon based economy and GMO foods. Your trans humanist agenda is the work of the Devil! Just like your mentality that has been manifest trying to play God. You want to know the Creator? Then you should pass away and you will know. Stop fucking with Gods Work!

  11. You are a fool! Just like these quack bio rapists and their taunts toward the Creator! Intelligence does not necessarily reflect necessity. Nor does it capsulize a cure all for the disease factor. Diseases like Viruses and Bacteria are also a Creation of God to maintain a balance on the Earth, as bad as that sounds. Only the strong survive! And weather I like it or not it is not for you or anyone else to do Gods work. What if Viruses and Bacteria are what keeps the real invaders at bay?

  12. Only the strong survive you say.

    Well then that must mean these scientists are the strong as they are finding ways to defeat disease.

    Can you provide proof of the creator.

    As I am pretty sure you cannot.

  13. So that is you basis for a belief in a fairy tale god that allows you to try and limit science and technology.

    Luddites existed thousand of years ago thank goodness they were not able to hold things up then and will not be able to hold things up now.

    Technology will keep advancing and there is nothing you can do.

  14. Now pardon me for asking.. but are you retarded ? I asked a simple question at which I didn't actually expected an answer. I was just pointing out another way of looking at this problem you guys seem to have about God or not.
    I'm curios how did you come up with any of those things you said previously, when I didn't say a thing about my belief system or anything related to it.
    What I would like to see and hope I can't do shit about it, is you getting smarter and think before you wirite anything.

  15. An amazing man who reminds me of the persistence of Thomas Edison in not giving up, while trying to discover something that could benefit mankind.

  16. I agree with you but I think it encourages younger people to push it harder like yourself. I would rather a sensationalist scientist who gives hope to young scientists than a sensationalist creationist … don't you think? 🙂

  17. You're right, it would be more appropriate to call it genetical engineering.
    Synthetic life implies that it was created from scratch, from a bunch of monomeres. But I think in time we'll get there.

  18. You're an idiot. Go fuck yourself and your delusional, glorified idealism of what it means to be "human." If anyone here is a degenerate, it is you and others who entertain such ludicrously detrimental views on life.

    I'm not sure you have the intellectual capacity, but please try to educate yourself. It's worth a shot, however long that shot may be…

  19. How do you define "being human"? You do realize that your body has about 10 trillion "human" cells, but over 100 trillion bacterial cells, right? We "humans" are actually mostly bacteria, and we would instantly die without them.

    Are you against the stride for curing cancer? Influenza? Malaria? Protist and fungi parasites? Do you believe that its beautiful for elderly to develop senility and a plethora of neurodegenerative diseases?

    If you're so against machines, why are you using one?

  20. Craig Venter is able to boot up his "artificial life software",
    …but, "Who" wrote the very " "BIOS"-software " for the actual life of a cell ? !!!

    {p/s} …without BIOS – software, no any software is able to "boot up" !

  21. However, this does not solve the mystery of where the optical activity in living organisms came from in the first place. A recent world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists.4 The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2–N. For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2–100 = 10–30. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide.

  22. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be compounded. Chance is thus not an option.

  23. yup exactly right.in side the cell so far, has the evolution hypothesis of natural processes an chemicles alone cannot produce life ! Synthetic life is like going to an auto parts store to get all parts for a car but where is the ASSEMBLER..

  24. As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals.

  25. So in theory can man create an animal in a lab, that they can code to there preference, modifying the animal at will?

  26. Would not we be better to understand the greater variety of micro organism that already exist on earth that have form presently- and finding which of those help one another & other life and us when contacted by toxic one's- for example which organisms could be used to overcome poisons formed by another organism. As very few micro organism are toxic- so we need to know all about the others and how to use them best – and hence attain the power to stay health via the use of micro organisms.

  27. can' we just learn how to make lots of cheap clean water and electricity before we make a fake person? oh, maybe that's not what our masters want?

  28. you know, seeing all these great advances in science on youtube is nice, and i'm glad they're being developed but I wonder whats going to be left for me at this rate. jeez.

  29. "Most of today's technologies were invented as a part of a larger project, and then later took off on their own for other uses." you are wrong on the "larger project", right on the "other uses" then you say "the price and availability of water and electricity are dictated by the price and availability of energy." …i thought electricity is energy? and fresh water is not being channeled from melting glaciers because we spend 1,000,000,000,000 a year on killing each other for our owners(banks)

  30. i'm a poet. words are my part, here is even more words,.: operation northwoods, operation paperclip… how you like those words partner?

  31. Try harder "meeester scientist" or engineer.. or whatever the piece of paper you studied for says you are.
    Just because the price and availability of oil is better does not make it the good option.
    You sound like you're meant to be a clever enough person, instead of supporting the oil trade [a.k.a the psychopathic genocide of countless innocent people like yourself] here's an idea: Invent something!
    U know what a Lord Kelvin Water Dropper is? Start there.

  32. Craig Venter states chromesones were implanted into a bacterial cell. The cell is the miracle of life. He hasn't created anything alive. All he's done is create a Frankenstien cell, which Monsanto does every day of the week.

  33. it's not a synthetic cell ! Did he manufacture it from basic chemical compounds ? no ! They just altered the DNA programming and created a mutant . This is absolute lying and fools listening to him as if something new ! 

  34. Well, surely a great achievement. But I agree with some posters here, it is not truely new life (what is implied), all they do is piggyback on existing cells. Interesting enough, we still really can't create new life, we can only manipulate existing one, since we don't know what life really means and how it all works. Very intereresting nevertheless and a lot for work. So I'm curious what practical applications this might have.

  35. quote:
    Unfortunately, nothing comes close to oil in terms of price and availability. 
    ….
    Nope, we are just entering a new wonderful world. Lets remember that oil is not so brilliant, but just simple and old. People know it and monopolies exist that further it and human beings are usually not so fast and flexible to pick up new things unfortnately. The future is in Electricity, which can be produces from all kinds of sources. Windpower and photovoltaic is amazing and will dominate the world in the future: Lets face it, the whole planet runs on it (plants etc.)
    And Tesla Motors is just bringing a revolution that the big car manufacturers are still fighting tooth and nail, but it will help a lot, because Oil is very very expensive, thanks to opec and plane travel has not gotten a bit cheaper in 40 years, absolutely no progress there. Sources for oil are limited to a few, while electricity can come from everywhere.

  36. Ironically enough, if the Luddites were successful in their rebellion of the industrial revolution, we probably wouldn't be experiencing climate change like we are.

  37. Thanks for the chemtrails and morgellon's disease.. go transhumanism!  Let's reduce the global population by 2020, down to 500,000!

  38. Craig Venter is able to "boot up" his "artificial life software",
    …but,  Who  wrote the very 'BIOS software of life'   for a cell ? !!!

    {p/s} …without those 'BIOS software', no any software is able to "boot up"  !!!

  39. Venter's team (INTELLIGENT AGENTS) used all pre-existing parts from donor cells! He rearranged information that already existed!!! He did not show abiogenesis, Life emerging from a non living source….He never came close!!

  40. People will pay a price when their immune system does not know how to deal with artificial organisms. People need to learn just because you can, does not mean you should. Not long before we have a deadly virus on our hands, as old saying goes curiosity killed the cat. Zombie apocalypse on the horizon.

  41. Most of you people don't have the slightest idea what he is talking about. Anyone who thinks his research team is creating artificial organisms that may harm us is just an idiot. He isn't using a pathogenic bacteria, and his team placed many stop  codons around the watermarks he incorporated into the DNA  so the organism can't accidentally produce something harmful, like a toxin, for example. But most of you don't have the slightest idea about gene expression, so you wouldn't understand that either. Arguing with YouTube warriors will forever be a lost cause.

  42. Be sure to keep in mind he has stated in multiple lines that the synthetic cell is not made from scratch. It is existing cell material being mixed together in a unique way. So no, they have not created life. They have merely altered it. In light of what they have done, I give them kudos. But as for creating life, they are only doing the same thing that scientists have been doing for years: altering already living material.

  43. vaccines are poison and we don't need fuel/oil.  Free energy already exists.  Dept of Energy funded this 15yrs with tax $$.  I'll be happy when $$ is gone.

  44. I don't know about God, but pretty much every horror story we tell starts with self replicating biologically engineered cells.

    Seems a bit arrogant, and delusional, to tinker with something that could end your species, but I'm sure the Atheists will love it right up until some rampaging, self replicating, flesh eating fucking nightmare eats them alive.

    Serves them right IMHO!

  45. 0:14 #digital #biology ? (Craig Venter, 2010)
    0:43 "… So, this is the first self-replicating species, that we've had on the planet, whose parent is a computer."

  46. This man is brilliant as are his team I am sure, truly exploring areas in biology that are fascinating and immeasurably practical for our future

  47. Ethics? You have none. People like you have all the funding in the world because eventually it will be a weapon. Flu Vaccines? HAHAHA… DISGUSING…

  48. He needs to be arrested for crimes against all forms of life/ humanity, and injected with his own creation so he knows what he did. Bathing in contaminated waters too.

  49. Будь ты и твои потомки прокляты в это мире и в мире другом ты и подобные тебе ботаники профессоры и остальные научные твари.

  50. You can bet he Never has any problem getting funded when he wants to start a new project.
    He's the man with the golden petri dish.

  51. It's very, very, very obvious that Venter's work supports Intelligent Design.

    Venter's team does NOT use evolution in their labs. They don't apply random changes to the DNA to see how they work. Instead, they make effective use of highly trained and intelligent scientists supported by an array of computers which were also designed by highly trained and intelligent specialists.

  52. Congratulations! (100% Sarcasm) This team has single handed handed THE key to Satan! The Complete destruction of LIFE! Gods Human Life, Gods Animal Life, Gods Creation! Everything as we know it today… GONE! Ever wonder what happened to past civilizations that poof just disappeared? Now add Modern Tech and Tools to that equation and you will have your answer! I always knew THE INTERNET was the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE and eating its fruits would have its price… But now I know how Satan's Poison will take over… Satan now has its own Web Address!!! Wow "you people" think you are sooooo smart!

  53. If that isnt a list of special interests to divert and distract…but cannot justify. Truly hope ppl wake up & ppl realize this has been going on for a long time. And yeah no…not to help us…

  54. they did not create anything…..they just copied or fill up a scaffold of whats already there naturally…..the true or genuine creation would be in a sense if they have made something totally an alternate to what exist in nature and can truly sustain itself but through another alternative way…that would be called an original creation…..but that could never be achieved because human mind cannot comprehend beyond what it really is made up of…..we have not known any other form of life beside what we have already discovered….and the reason is that such an original creation can only be an act of GOD …….and we can never create something alternate to it that could be better than the first form itself.

  55. 'They've 'CREATED REPRODUCING SYNTHETIC CELLS' -They've created life?
    Not even close -the first 'synthetic' cell was a bacterium generated by Boyer and Cohen in 1973.
    Evolutionist Venter is just doing advanced G.E, *no abiogenesis here*.
    Reminiscent of: "We've created life from electric zaps and primordial soup."
    Reminiscent of: "wheat, a dirty shirt, leave in a shed and voila: mice created!"

  56. Abiogenesis is an embarrassment all experiments end in stalemate or racemic mixtures!

    Venter copied pre-existing genetic information he did not create life from non-life!

  57. mad scientists making synthetic life when there's already too much life forms competing for dominance on earth (think Jews) Stoopid Geniuses LOL

  58. so they basically took the motor out of a car, made an exact copy of that motor, and then put that motor into another car and then said that they made a brand new car…
    yeah real logical reasoning

  59. I made an artificial life long before the did. I went to a dentist and had my tooth replaced my a man made one.

    You may say, taking a living being and replacing part of it and successfully not killing it is NOT making a life. I agree. Thus the idea that they made life is BS. They only altered a living cell.

  60. Exaggeration of the century. His team printed a duplicate of the DNA already there and placed it into an 'empty' cell (DNA removed); later they edited the DNA to reduce the amount of DNA. Biologists cannot actually make the empty cell, it must be made by existing life. This is because synthetic organic chemists are not yet able to make all of the required components that biologists would need and biologists don't know how to put them together. They also don't fully understand the DNA they are copying and sometimes modifying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *