General > Biology

The first wet alife?

(1/5) > >>

jknilinux:
Hi everyone,

Here's something I found interesting. The first truly artificial life might just have been created... Depending on your definition of life. Just wondered what you all thought. Is it really alive yet? If not, when will it be? Either way, it's still pretty cool.

ikke:
To me it's life, but I couldn't tell you why. I do not consider zerobots evolved to reproduce life (nor any other digital replicator). I'm not sure if there is really a difference. In both cases we an artificial environment, replication within that environment and one could even argue a physical presence (chemical for the enzymes, and electromagnetic for the bots). Somehow it feels different. I guess I have more affinity for enzymes than for electromagnetic pulses and photons.

Numsgil:
Wet alife has really taken off in the last few years.  It's all pretty primitive, but we're not that far off from artificial bacteria.  A decade or less I'd say.

jknilinux:
The JCVI institute is actually very close to making the first artificial bacterium already, based on M. Genitalium.
So I agree that definitely within the decade, and quite possibly within the next year or two, we might have the first artificial bacterium as well.

Here's a problem though: Will researchers need "dry" alife, like DB, once we can just make custom bacteria and ribozymes?

And ikke: Then would you think a clanking replicator is alive? If it is, then is a "symbiotic" RepRap alive? If a clanking replicator isn't alive, then what is the difference between a really small clanking replicator and a ribozyme replicator? Defining life is definitely a tough problem!

Numsgil:
The benefit of in silico artificial life, like Darwinbots, is that you can run some very tightly controlled, highly accelerated experiments.  Real life has lots of factors that are hard to control, not to mention even with bacteria it can take years to get enough generations.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page