Actually, that "artificial life" isn't artificial at all
Scientists claim to have created "artificial life."
They are wrong. To have used artificially-constructed genetic material to hijack and "control" a pre-existent cell is at best to create a kind of biological cyborg. When they do it without the cell, then they will have created life, rather than merely modified it.
I am not going to hold my breath. And I think the glib mischaracterization of the accomplishment both by those responsible for it and by the media says a great deal about the prospects of what they falsely claim to have achieved actually being accomplished any time soon.
HT: Drudge
They are wrong. To have used artificially-constructed genetic material to hijack and "control" a pre-existent cell is at best to create a kind of biological cyborg. When they do it without the cell, then they will have created life, rather than merely modified it.
I am not going to hold my breath. And I think the glib mischaracterization of the accomplishment both by those responsible for it and by the media says a great deal about the prospects of what they falsely claim to have achieved actually being accomplished any time soon.
HT: Drudge
Comments
On the Yahoo home page, a headline reads "Discovery could explain why we exist".
The actual article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100518/sc_space/whyweexistmatterwinsbattleoverantimatter)
shows merely that they have discovered that the universe contains slightly more matter than antimatter. The headline (purposefully, I wager) sounds theological, while the article is much more prosaic.