![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Synthetic life was copied or moved into Synthetic biology with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Synthetic biology Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Synthetic biology Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
What does the photo has to do with the article? Amanitas and frogs aren't synthetic lifeforms. Why not rather choose some picture of the recent advances in this science? -- 187.54.102.48 ( talk) 16:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a distinction between life that is entirely synthetic versus life that has come into existence by use of biological materials and synthetic means? It seems to me that the UK group has made the later. The cellular machinery and membrane belonged to a naturally occurring organism. Only its chromosome and thereby DNA is synthetic. While this DNA will change the cell into a new organism, making it the first synthetic species, I think it is misleading to call this synthetic life. It is my understanding that there is a project to develop the first fully synthetic cell by producing the proteins, lipid belayed, and organelles as well as genetic material from "scratch" by means of advanced organic chemistry. But I may have just been confused with the UK group's work. I make this distinction not out of an argument for the "natural vitality" theory but rather to demonstrate the practical differences. If we achieve truly synthetic life, we will have much more creative freedom and fewer functional limitations on engineering custom life forms than with synthetically created life that requires the parts of other organisms for their genesis. So maybe that distinction should be made in this article. Goodleh 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss.
I do not see justification for a seperate article. The most pressing form of synthetic life is wet alife.
Nanobots, Self replicating machines and Artificial intelligence are distinct concepts. Wet alife appears to be synthetic life without any other context.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This is my original thought on reading the article, so I'm not putting it in, but it seems so obvious that I have to point it out somewhere.
Generally speaking, AI researchers aren't looking to build an AI out of metaphysical constructs. They're looking to build it out of silicon and metal and plastic. They probably even plan to hook it up to some physical I/O devices, so that it can, y'know, interact in some way with the outside. In what way does this not constitute a body? -- Ian Maxwell
Surely the recent life created by Ventner and his US team should get a rather significant mention here - at least it seems to me that it would be an important addition...
UKBikerman ( talk) 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
so what about the idea of a biological machine multi celled organism? if you built a cell and put a computer DNA in it, would it become conscious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GarretCarey024 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"These efforts are largely independent from the computational simulation of artificial life which is related to the discipline of robotics." vs the article that led me to this article, Artificial life: "There are three main kinds of alife,[3] named for their approaches: soft,[4] from software; hard,[5] from hardware; and wet, from biochemistry." The bolded "wet" is a Wikilink leading to thise page. -- 126.109.230.149 ( talk) 04:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This Wiki is OUTDATED.
Life has in fact been created in-vitro.
Top Inventions of 2010 - TIME Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobso4 ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I am in the process to perform a selective paste merger ( WP:SMERGE) of this article into Synthetic biology, as proposed in June 2010 in that article. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Synthetic life was copied or moved into Synthetic biology with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Synthetic biology Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Synthetic biology Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
What does the photo has to do with the article? Amanitas and frogs aren't synthetic lifeforms. Why not rather choose some picture of the recent advances in this science? -- 187.54.102.48 ( talk) 16:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a distinction between life that is entirely synthetic versus life that has come into existence by use of biological materials and synthetic means? It seems to me that the UK group has made the later. The cellular machinery and membrane belonged to a naturally occurring organism. Only its chromosome and thereby DNA is synthetic. While this DNA will change the cell into a new organism, making it the first synthetic species, I think it is misleading to call this synthetic life. It is my understanding that there is a project to develop the first fully synthetic cell by producing the proteins, lipid belayed, and organelles as well as genetic material from "scratch" by means of advanced organic chemistry. But I may have just been confused with the UK group's work. I make this distinction not out of an argument for the "natural vitality" theory but rather to demonstrate the practical differences. If we achieve truly synthetic life, we will have much more creative freedom and fewer functional limitations on engineering custom life forms than with synthetically created life that requires the parts of other organisms for their genesis. So maybe that distinction should be made in this article. Goodleh 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss.
I do not see justification for a seperate article. The most pressing form of synthetic life is wet alife.
Nanobots, Self replicating machines and Artificial intelligence are distinct concepts. Wet alife appears to be synthetic life without any other context.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This is my original thought on reading the article, so I'm not putting it in, but it seems so obvious that I have to point it out somewhere.
Generally speaking, AI researchers aren't looking to build an AI out of metaphysical constructs. They're looking to build it out of silicon and metal and plastic. They probably even plan to hook it up to some physical I/O devices, so that it can, y'know, interact in some way with the outside. In what way does this not constitute a body? -- Ian Maxwell
Surely the recent life created by Ventner and his US team should get a rather significant mention here - at least it seems to me that it would be an important addition...
UKBikerman ( talk) 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
so what about the idea of a biological machine multi celled organism? if you built a cell and put a computer DNA in it, would it become conscious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GarretCarey024 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"These efforts are largely independent from the computational simulation of artificial life which is related to the discipline of robotics." vs the article that led me to this article, Artificial life: "There are three main kinds of alife,[3] named for their approaches: soft,[4] from software; hard,[5] from hardware; and wet, from biochemistry." The bolded "wet" is a Wikilink leading to thise page. -- 126.109.230.149 ( talk) 04:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This Wiki is OUTDATED.
Life has in fact been created in-vitro.
Top Inventions of 2010 - TIME Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobso4 ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I am in the process to perform a selective paste merger ( WP:SMERGE) of this article into Synthetic biology, as proposed in June 2010 in that article. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)