My Blog List

Saturday, March 26, 2011

the creation of life, the end of vitalism and Dr Venter’s Frankenstein cell

Last year, biologist Craig Venter created the first artificial cell.  Or did he?  Apparently he was able to manufacture a genome and stick it in a bacterial cell which had its DNA neutralized or removed.  Many news outlets claimed that he created the first synthetic life form. 
The creation of a living cell from scratch would be no small feat considering the billions of atoms and thousands of proteins, and hundreds of lipids and carbohydrates that would have to be put in the correct place.  If we used a cooking analogy, it would be like constructing a single cookie one speck of flour and one speck of sugar at a time….that would be some cookie and it would take a long time to get every single speck of flour, sugar, baking soda, salt all in the right place.
However, that is not what Venter did.  So did he really create the first synthetic life form?
One of the nations leading bioethicists, Arthur Kaplan has inferred that this is the end of the idea that life has a spiritual dimension or a “vitalism"; an idea that has persisted in philosophical biology for hundreds if not thousands of years.
1 How did Venter make his genome and insert it into the bacterium?    How did he remove the original DNA?
2 Did he create a living cell?  Share your view.
3 Is this the end of vitalism?


  1. Question 1: Venter obtained oligonucleotides, which is a short nucleic acid polymer, from Integrated DNA Technologies which sells DNA strands, and standardized each oligonucleotide to 100 nanometers. They purified the strands through a process of dehydration, dissolving the strands in water, heating them, electrophoresis, frozen an reheated. The recovered oligonucleotides were ethanol-precipitated and dissolved in 50 nanoliters of water. They then phosphorylated the nucleotides and redissolved them. He then ligated the nucleotides which is covalently bonding two ends of the nucleotides. PCA was carried out in reaction mixtures (50 μl) containing 5 nanolites of 10× Advantage 2 buffer, 5 nanoliters of 10× dNTP mixture, 1 nanoliters of 50× HF polymerase mixture, and 0.2, 0.5, or 1 nanoliter of the Taq ligation product. He then did a polymerase chain reaction with the synthetic DNA molecules he had prepared which essentially copied the DNA sequence he created. He then converted the linear DNA molecules into circular molecules which is the infectious form. In order to insert the new DNA into the yeast cells he used, he treated the DNA with exonuclease and passed through an anion-exchange column.

    Question 2/3: I don't believe that he actually created a living cell, basically it seems that he took a blank life form and gave it the information which, it doesn't really even seem that he created but more like altered. I wouldn't say that this is the end of vitalism since there is still the factor of consciousness that must be considered.

  2. 2. Steen Rasmussan, a proffessor of physics also says, “Implementing a synthetic genome in a modern cell is a significant milestone in understanding life today. But the radical ‘top-down’ genetic engineering that Venter’s team has done does not quite constitute a “synthetic cell” by my definition. Both the top-down and bottom-up camps focus on the essence of life. The top-down community seeks to rewrite the genetics program running on the ‘hardware’ of the modern cell, as Venterand his colleagues have done. Bottom-upresearchers, such as myself, aim to assemble life —including the hardware and the program — as simply as possible, even if the result is different from what we think of as life.” It seems that although Venter’s breakthrough was a huge step closer to supposedly creating life, he had only put parts together; not really “creating life from non-life.” Therefore, I do not believe that he created a living cell.

    3. Like I said above, I think that Venter is taking one step closer toward the end of vitalism. But this is not the end of it. It seems that all he did was insert a genome that he made into an empty, already half-alive cell.

  3. Jeremiah's explanation of how Venter created his genome and inserted it into the bacterium seems very thorough!

    As for 2 and 3:
    I do not think that Venter created a living cell because many of the components necessary to cellular life were already present. The only thing Venter "created" was the synthetic genome. In order to have life, one must have a whole lot more than just DNA. Venter did not create all the other components (like the cell wall and the various internal structures) of the bacterium that he inserted the genome into.

    Venter may have gotten closer to eliminating the idea of vitalism, but he has certainly not ended it. Like you said Dr. Francis, it would be extremely tedious and difficult to make a cell from scratch. Even if one were able to correctly assemble every single part, the whole thing might not "work" (in other words--be living). I think in order to claim creation of the first synthetic life form, one would have to make an entire cell from scratch and not use something that was already created.

  4. 1.) According to Venter's website, they worte out a bacterial genome on a computer, removed some gene sequences, added some overlapping genes that it shares with yeast, then made the whole thing from "four bottles of substances that make DNA." He then inserted it into yeast cells which recognized some of the overlap genes and began using the new DNA. Genes in the synthesized DNA coded for proteins that destroyed the original yeast DNA until only "synthetic" DNA remained in the cell.

    2.) No he did not create a living cell. He took the "essence", one could say, of one cell and made it work in another. Going along with the cookie comparison, this is like someone putting handmande chocolate chips, made one spec of chocolate at a time, into a peanut butter cookie recipie. Yes you technically "made" chocolate chips, but you made it from existing bits of chocolate, and yes it is technically a different cookie. But it is still a peanut butter cookie- that happens to have some chocolate in it.
    The fact that the yeast genome and the bacteria genome had enough in common for the sequnces to not be completely rejected shows that they already had a lot in common to begin with anyway.

    3.) Vitalism will not be dead until Venter can take the unsequenced original nucleic acids, lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins and turn them into a lifeform without using anything that is currently alive.

  5. 1. "The genome pioneer J. Craig Venter has taken another step in his quest to create synthetic life, by synthesizing an entire bacterial genome and using it to take over a cell. Dr. Venter copied the DNA from one species of bacteria and inserted it into another. The second bacteria made all the proteins and organelles in the so-called “synthetic cell,” by following the specifications implicit in the structure of the inserted DNA. The genome Dr. Venter synthesized is copied from a natural bacterium that infects goats." He removed the original DNA by copying it then using ordered pieces of DNA and assembling them into a complete genome. "The synthetic DNA took over a bacterial cell just as the natural DNA did, making the cell generate the proteins specified by the new DNA’s genetic information in preference to those of its own genome. The team ordered pieces of DNA 1,000 units in length from Blue Heron, a company that specializes in synthesizing DNA, and developed a technique for assembling the shorter lengths into a complete genome." (
    2. I do not think he created a living cell because when someone creates something and are creating it not copying it. It must be something that did not copy from anything else and is something remarkable. "Some other scientists said that aside from assembling a large piece of DNA, Dr. Venter has not broken new ground." Venter copied a genome from another bacteria and put it into another bacterial cell and the DNA created all the parts that were needed for a functional cell. Venter did not create that DNA from scratch so in my opinion he only copied another bacteria's DNA and put it in another cell. This does not sound like Venter created life here. He copied it, so it is not remarkable and definitely not anything like God who actually created all this.
    3. No, it is not the end of vitalism. Unless he could literally create a living organism that completely worked from scratch with no road map for DNA or any other part of the cell and have it be alive, then vitalism could be at the end. Yet, since that is obviously not possible, vitalism will never be dead. God made all that is alive and it will always be that way.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Like other I don't think that Dr. Venter has created a new life form. He only transfered a new genome to another exist living organism instead of creating a whole new living and functional organism. This experiment can only show the successful of transfering or replacing a genome of a bacteria. This is not the end of vitalism unless he uses non-living materials to create a real living and functional cell.

  8. 1 How did Venter make his genome and insert it into the bacterium? Dr. Venter has been attemoting to create his artificial cell however let us take into consideration that to make something as human being we then have to borrow materials that are already made we cannot singled handed create iron for example with thin air we have to have something to put together which when completed makes a a whole. thus my point is that Dr. Venter simply took something that was already created to try to create something else. How did he remove the original DNA? he overlapped the genes to create a new DNA thus once again it is not his original work, he is borrowing genes that he had written on a computer to then make his cell's DNA.
    2 Did he create a living cell? In some ways it can be said that he did however looking more closely at the data and results it may and could be said that it is completely artificial, there is no telling if it could in anyway be actual legit. Share your view I personally think that he didn't create a new life form its appears to me that all he did was transfer things and swap genes around to create another living cell.
    3 Is this the end of vitalism? No there is much in this science and experimentation that could go a long way.

  9. 1) In a nutshell, the “The JCVI team employed a three stage process... to build the genome using the 1,078 cassettes. The first stage involved taking 10 cassettes of DNA at a time to build 110, 10,000 bp segments. In the second stage, these 10,000 bp segments are taken 10 at a time to produce eleven, 100,000 bp segments. In the final step, all 11, 100 kb segments were assembled into the complete synthetic genome in yeast cells and grown as a yeast artificial chromosome.” From the J. Craig Venter Institute website. Before he could insert the genome he had to disable the new host cell’s anti-foreign-DNA immune system. He did this by either removing the immune system entirely or adding a methyl group on the genome to protect it.

    I do not know how the DNA was removed from the host cell. Hopefully more on that soon. However, to add the new genome I speculate that de-fanged viruses or liposomes could have been used.

  10. 2) No. Venter did not create a living cell. He modified a living cell. Major scientists agree with this: (All quotes from a NY Times Science article)

    “Dr. Venter’s assertion that he has created a “synthetic cell” has alarmed people who think that means he has created a new life form or an artificial cell. 'Of course that’s not right — its ancestor is a biological life form,' said Dr. Joyce of Scripps."

    “‘He has not created life, only mimicked it,’ Dr. Baltimore said.”

    “‘My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form,’ said Jim Collins, a bioengineer at Boston University. ‘What they have created is an organism with a synthesized natural genome. But it doesn’t represent the creation of life from scratch or the creation of a new life form,’ he said.”

    3) No. Vitalism is “the theory that the origin and phenomena of life are dependent on a force or principle distinct from purely chemical or physical forces.” New Oxford American Dictionary. Since Venter didn’t create life, he just modified it, the existence and origin of life is still and forever will be outside of the control of scientists; it comes from God (Genesis 2:7).

  11. 2 Did he create a living cell? Share your view.
    I don't believe Craig Venter creats life, because by inserting the genome into an bacteria is the same as bacteria invade the human body and causes sickness. It does not mean a life is created, since the bacteria is not created in the experiment.
    3 Is this the end of vitalism?
    This is not the end of viatlism because according to vitalism, there must be some additional "vital force" present in living organisms that distinguishes the living state from the non-living.

  12. for 2 and 3,
    I have hard time calling it real "alive." It could replicate itself, sure, but, life is more complex than a bacteria just replicating itself from artificial genome. Cleverly planned and devised, but I do not think he would be able to pull it off to the level of making some sort of chimera or something that is big enough for people to see it with their bare eyes.

    I do not think it is the end of vitalism because 'soul' or 'spirit' is still the missing part. Even if it reaches to the level of making artificial human, without 'soul' or 'spirit', it would be no different from robot.

  13. 3) According to your definition of vitalism, Venter's life form is an example of vitalism rather than an argument against it. We see God as the vital force behind all that is. Other people believe in other gods or life forces outside of the material world. In this case, Venter was the vital force behind this cell's "creation." Even had he constructed it from scratch, his intellect would have been behind it's construction. It goes to follow that no person can ever do or create anything that can put an end to vitalism.

  14. 1. Dr. Venter employed a three step process to produce synthetic DNA. This synthetic DNA would produce proteins that destroy the original DNA. In order to insert the DNA into the cell, the cell's immune system would need to be destroyed or inhibited. Inhibiting the immune system would be far more simple than removing it entirely. Adding a non-polar carbon chain to the synthetic DNA would help prevent the immune system from destroying the DNA itself.

  15. 1. In an interview with CNN, Venter said "We built it from four bottles of chemicals.. that's over a million base pairs [of chromosomes]. We assembled that and transplanted it into a recipient cell and that new chromosome started being read by the machinery in the cell, producing new proteins, and totally transformed that cell into a new species coded by the synthetic chromosome." I'm not sure exactly how they extracted the original DNA, but Jeremiah's description sounds good.

    He also described what happened after they changed the DNA, "As soon as the genome goes into the cell, it starts making new proteins encoded in its DNA and converts it into a new synthetic species. It's a completely synthetic cell now, it has replicated over a billion times. The only DNA it has now is the synthetic one that we made"

    2. No, I do not think that taking an already created cell and putting new DNA in it is considered creating new life. He basically just tampered with what was already there. I'm also curious as to how long the cell lived... a few minutes, or months?

    3. No, I do not think this is the end of vitalism, especially since I do not consider this to be a new living creature.

  16. 2. 3. It is clear that Dr. Venter didn't create life. Instead, he modified a living cell. Dr. Venter replicated the function of viruses by influencing a cell's DNA. Unlike viruses, Dr. Venter's influence had no significant purposes. Viruses influence cells to infect other cells or produce many copies of themselves. Dr. Venter's cell was unable to influence any of these functions. It is clear that vitalism is still applicable. Our cells are irreducibly complex. Humans are capable of modifying life. Yet we will always be incapable of synthesizing life. Only a word from His mouth or, for humans, a breath from His lungs will ever produce life.

  17. 1: Venter used DNA from five different individuals to generate the sequence of the human genome. One of the individuals was himself. This gives him many base pairs for him to work with so that he can make DNA sequences. He then begins to pair up the chromosomes with their respective match and continue to build from there. There are many gaps in the sequence but it entirely sequenced. He inserted it into the bacterium by emptying a bacterial cell and then it converted the cell to a different species.
    2: If the cell is functioning completely by itself with no help than yes it is a living cell.
    3: I think that this is the beginning of many great cures to diseases and disorders that we can only find by making discoveries such as this one. With the increase of technology, we are able to create new things and cures. In a way this is an end of vitalism, but at the same time it creates more life and allows it to last longer to those who have a countdown on life because of an illness. Our days are numbered, by while we’re here, I think there’s nothing wrong with creating experiments, making new discoveries, and using the brain that God gave us.

  18. 1.Dr. Venter created a synthetic cell by taking the DNA of a bacterium which infects goats and inserting it into another cell. Dr. Venter equipped the genome with new genes which would allow the cell to create useful chemicals. The DNA he and his team synthesized was 1,080,000 bases long. To create the DNA, they wrote the entire genome with modifications on a computer and had it synthesized by a company. The DNA was then inserted in an empty cell.
    2.I do not believe he created a living cell. All he has done is taken different parts of different cells and pieced them together. While this is a great scientific accomplishment, he has not created a living cell, as he made it from live material already. While he may have made a new cell, he definitely did not create one.
    3.Until a living form is created from scratch, vitalism is not dead. The life he used was created for a purpose, and he just altered it, meaning it still had its original purpose.

  19. 1) The researchers used yeast to stich together four long strands of DNA into the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium. They transplanted the artificially assembled genome into the cell that had been emptied of its own genome. Once the DNA "booted up," the bacteria began to function as is should. When the artificial genome was placed in the cell, the cellular "machines" that run transcrpition recognized the DNA and began the normal process.

    2) I don't think he created a living cell. He simply modified it. He tooke the DNA and just reassembled it to put in another cell. In order to truly create a living cell, you would have to create it on its own, not with the guidance of a resemblant cell.

    3) This is not the end of vitalism. He did not create a truly living cell from scratch so there still has to have that "spiritual dimension."
    God is the ultimate maker and creator. No one can copy his ways.

  20. The synthetic genomes were produced by assembly of chemically synthesized oligonucleotides.
    From what I understand, he just took elements of a living cell and modified it. The DNA wasn't entirely created, it was just extracted, broken to pieces and put together with differences and additions. Although I find it amazing scientist have the technology and expertise to do these things, it is still "copy and pasting" life, with modifications, not creation. Vitality still exists, I don't think this experiment actually changed anything. Scientist have already been cloning, extracting and replacing DNA pior to this.

  21. 1. Venter created his genome using chemicals in a laboratory. They started with a digital code in the computer then constructed the chromosome using four bottles in the chemistry lab. Each bottle coincided with a nucleotide in the DNA sequence. They chemically synthesized pieces of the M. Mycoides DNA. They then assembled this chromosome in yeast which they then transplanted into a recipient bacterial cell. In this genome are four watermarks that identify it as a synthetic organism, this would help them trace it back to the creator. The genome contains 1.08 million base pairs.
    This is the simple version of the process. The complex process begins with the team designing cassettes of DNA each 1080 base pairs long. They also overlapped 80 base pairs at the end in order to make longer strands of DNA. They used 1078 of these cassettes to build the genome. In the first stage they took 10 cassettes and built 10,000 base pairs long segments. In the second step they took these segments 10 at a time to create eleven 100,000 base pairs long segments. These were then assembled into the complete synthetic genome as an extra chromosome in a yeast cell. This code was then transplanted into M. Capricolum. This was done by removing the gene for a restriction enzyme. The synthetic genome then reproduces so that the only DNA present is that of the synthetic genome. In order to do this gene transplantation they had to add a marker gene which would allow for the selection of living cells that contained the transplanted chromosome. After several rounds of cell division the M.capricolum chromosome just disappeared as they were being replaced.
    2/3. No, he did not create a living cell. In reality he simply combined two life forms, he did not create anything. God gave him the materials he needed. In order for him to have actually created a living cell he would have had to take the materials out of thin air, which he clearly did not. He used a M.mycoides and synthesized pieces of that. He really did not synthesize a genome, in my opinion. This is a big scientific break through, but I do not believe he created anything. And this also is not the end of vitalism. There is still a spiritual dimension because who provided the building blocks that Venter used? God did. Without that spiritual dimension Venter would have never been able to do what he did.

  22. 1 Venter used four bottles of chemicals and a computer to create the new genetic code. Over the years they created new ways to substitute nucleotides to form their new genetic code. He placed watermarks on the new genetic code to ensure that the original chromosome is removed. He then removed the original DNA and inserted this new modified DNA. I’m not sure how exactly he removed and inserted the new DNA but since there is no nucleus he probably just created a hole in the bacterium wall and grabbed out all the DNA and inserted in the new strand.

    2 I don’t believe he created a new cell because he simply removed the DNA and inserted a modified DNA. To create a new cell from scratch is far more difficult than doing this process.

    3 I don’t believe this is the end of vitalism because, as in the first question, he didn’t create a new living cell, he simply modified it.

  23. 1) Venter did in a sense synthesize a genome, but he also didn't create a whole new one. He copied the genetic code from another bacteria. This is still a great feat, but it's not like he invented his own genetic code. I looked all over google for how they extracted the DNA, but i can't find anything. I won't imitate Venter in copying what's already been written down on this blog. :)
    2) He didn't really create anything. He copied the genome and he used a preexisting cell. There was no invention of something new. what he did was amazing, and it might have some really great applications,but he is not God.
    3) it certainly has taken the mystery or excitement out of the idea of life itself. But it hasn't even put a dent in biblical truth. God created life, Craig Venter hasn't. and he can't. There is a distinction between God and man,and there always will be. But maybe this will depress the scientific population enough that they will turn to the truth. They have glorified life by saying that it is able to create itself, and now they are left with the emptiness that this implies. To them, humans might as well be bacteria. they have no explanation for life outside of a bunch of chemicals reacting. that is why they think that Venter has created life, even though he hasn't really.

  24. Well, technically He didn't really create a new engineered life form, but as Dr Venter states in his own review that all he did was genetically modify a previous cell by adding cells so they are just modified a few genes at a the same time. He also admitts that he doesn't have complete control over the genome so techinal he still has to genetical change the genome that way it follows not new path not the one that God created it to do. this is what he seems to be working on but can it be done, rewriting a sinless being programs is going to take a whole lot of brain power. 1) first by synthesizing its DNA in a laboratory and then by designing a new cell. but his work is a major breakthrough in just getting this far in the making of the DNA chain is immensely intriguing to me

  25. 1. "The scientists "decoded" the chromosome of an existing bacterial cell - using a computer to read each of the letters of genetic code. They copied this code and chemically constructed a new synthetic chromosome, piecing together blocks of DNA. The team inserted this chromosome into a bacterial cell which replicated itself."

    2. let me quote from the horse's mouth..."No we do not consider this to be “creating life from scratch” but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA to reprogram the cells to form new cells that are specified by the synthetic DNA." So basically...all he did was take a life and make it look like something else by replacing it's DNA. So no...he didn't creat a living cell.

    3. The end of "vitalism"...AMEN to what S.J. said!! God's biblical truth is absolute...the problem is that with an experiment like this, it will be harder to combat arguments with non-believers because it's more "scientifically proven"...but we can't change people's beliefs, that's God's work and grace. If it weren't for His grace, I would probably be one of those atheist scientists too!! XD

    -Sarah Gonzales

  26. He made his genome with the help of a computer to create the new sequence. He the inserted it into yeast cells whose original genome had been removed and then that cell began replicating the new DNA. He initially removed the DNA by allowing the new inserted DNA to replicate and take over the cell. I do not believe he created a new life for. All he did was alter the creation that God made. This is most certainly not the end of vitalism. God made all that is alive and until Venter can create something from absolutely nothing, vitalism will remain.

  27. Wow...that's all I really have to say. You guys got it down to a tee. It's definitely not creating a living cell...honestly, if he wants to created life, then he would be playing God and obviously we know there is only one true God and that is Jesus Christ. No computer and no chemicals will ever change that. I think as human beings, we naturally strive to be God and to be in control of everything..we try to know all things, but honestly it's only God who will ever know everything. I'm so thankful for that fact too! :)

  28. Nobel winning British biologist Paul Nurse says, "Venter's work is a major advance. But it's not a creation of synthetic life...Creation of synthetic life would be to make an entire bacterial cell through chemicals." i have to totally agree with him. i wouldnt say he "created life".
    just like he didnt entirely create a synthetic cell he didnt end vitalism. he might have gotten a step closer but thats about it.

  29. Venter made his genome by learning to identify the mRNAs that are present in a cell. He took something that was already created to try and make something that is not created. He did this by overlapping genes on a computer to then try and make his cell’s DNA. He used sequencing to try and give him a base for his chromosomes. He had to remove the new host cells before he could insert the genome.
    2. I do not believe that Venter had created a new living cell because life itself is complex. He already took something that was created and experimented with that already living cell.
    3. I do not believe that it is the end of vitalism. Vitalism is still going on especially with the discoveries of new medicine with the help of living things. Since Venter’s theory was originally based off of a already living cell, than vitalism is still going on.

  30. Dr. Venter began this process by taking the natural DNA from one bacterial cell and inserting it into another’s. The natural DNA from the first bacteria overtakes the cell of the second and assumes its functions. He then ordered DNA strands by the 1,000 from a company that specializes in DNA synthesis and strung them together to form an artificial genome that’s about a million genes. Similarly to the first experiment with the natural DNA, he replaced a bacterial cell’s DNA with the artificial genome and let it take over the host cell. He calls this “synthetic life”.

    I don’t believe this is synthetic life at all. A cell cannot survive on mere genetic information. Even the “simple” bacterial cell has many other functions and mechanisms required for copying DNA and dividing the cell. Everything else about the cell is natural: its cytoplasm, cell wall, etc. He did not synthesize life, he synthesized genetic code.

    With that said, I don’t think this is the end of vitalism because Dr. Venter did not synthesize life. A series of DNA cannot “survive” on its own without the host cell functioning the way it normally does, and he did not synthesize the host cell, the host cell was alive on its own before Dr. Venter replaced its natural DNA with the artificial DNA.

  31. 1 Supposedly Venter used a technique called expressed sequence tags to make his genomes. I am not completely sure about how he inserted the genome but I would assume that he somehow created or found a machine that was precise and able to function at that microscopic level to insert the genome.
    2 He created the living cell by gathering a team and gathering a lot of genomic data. They performed many test and used a clone by clone method. The title was called human genome project. I believe that he created a fake cell that is can’t even be classified as a cell but it is kind of living in terms of movement. It doesn’t have the parts of a cell and it doesn’t react as a cell.
    3 No, it doesn’t prove anything. I say this because it is such a weak thing, I won’t even call it a cell. Also it can’t really be used for anything. In my opinion this whole thing was just a waste of a lot of money.

  32. From what I read in his article in the wall street journal he summarized that he and his researches had to decipher this bacterium's set of instructions, synthesize them, and then express them in a recipient cell. I guess technically it is a living cell because it functioned properly and even reproduced, but he did not make life in anyway, “simply” he mimicked it. Jim Collins, a bioengineer at Boston University said “What they have created is an organism with a synthesized natural genome. But it doesn’t represent the creation of life from scratch or the creation of a new life form”. I couldn’t have said it any better. I don’t think it’s the end to vitalism because vitalism is still occurring. He just altered a cells life to be what he wanted it to be, which is a large step, but the creation of a whole new cell did not happen.

  33. 1. Venter used a computer to design the bacterial DNA sequence, and the sequence he created was roughly 1 million base pairs long. Once inserted into the bacterium, it was used successfully by the bacterium to create proteins.
    2. I don’t believe he created a living cell, because he took preexisting components and simply inserted them.
    3. Even if it were possible to create a new type of life form (which, doesn’t seem like it is) you can’t ignore the fact that all life was present before humanity made another type of bacterium in a lab somewhere. Vitalism is still alive and well despite evolutionists efforts to prove otherwise. I heard a joke once about this, a scientists says to God “I can make life too” and he bends over and picks up a handful of dirt. God stops him and says “No no, get your own dirt.”

  34. 1)Dr. Vetner copied the genome from a naturally occurring bacteria found in goats. This was done by splicing sections of DNA and pasting them together to form this aprroximately 1,080,000 base long genome. This copied synthetic DNA from the Mycoplasma mycoides was inserted into a close relative Mycoplasma capricolum. The capricolum's genomes had been silenced or destroyed through a complex process involving the methylation and unmethylation of certain genes to overcome the restriction system that protected the cell's DNA.
    2)Thankfully many specialists did not agree that Vetner's experiment created a living cell. “He has not created life, only mimicked it,” says Dr. Baltimore, a leading geneticist as Caltech. He didn't make a new living thing, he only copied the exact same genome as a known organisms' genome and inserted it into the nucleus of a closely related species. This is very interesting, but not a new creation.
    3)Vitalism is the belief that there is something else besides the chemical and physical building blocks that make organisms different from innanimate objects. Because he didn't actually create a new organism, just rewrote it's genetic code, the organism was still a living organism, not an inanimate object. This "thing" or consciousness, or survival instinct was already in the organism, he just replaced its DNA, thus vitalism is still valid

  35. 2. For number two, I personally don't think that he did, he simply, in a sense, took a piece or part of one cell and somehow managed to make it "work" for another cell. Yes, I do believe that it was and is very impressive that he managed to do so, but again, he only took a portion of one thing and integrated it into another. Therefore, no, he did not make a living cell.

    3. No, I do not believe that this is the end of vitalism--not until someone can created a living cell by their own means and their own materials, because technically, the very things that Venter used were still God's.

  36. 2 Did he create a living cell?  Share your view.
    he did not create life from something artificial. He copied another cell. creation mean originality, or at least from scratch. that did not happen in this case.
    3 Is this the end of vitalism?
    no this is not. life is still life and cannont be explained in purely mechanical terms. Life was not created. There was an origin from something else that already had life. they would have to come out with something so much bigger than that to actually cause that to happen, then again, God might smite them first… but seriously, this scientist did not destroy any possibility of God, because his product came from something God had already created.

  37. I don't believe that Dr Venter was really able to achieve what was stated in the question. No matter how much live and active things you change or place in a dead organism, I don't think it would start to be active or what not. Suppose, miraculously it is the first synthetic cell, he still had to get his resources from something that once lived etc. Is this the end to vitalism? Personally i do not know, there are still a number of factors that would hinder its demise.

  38. Did he create a living cell? In some ways it can be said that he did however looking more closely at the data and results it may and could be said that it is completely artificial, there is no telling if it could in anyway be actual legit. Share your view I personally think that he didn't create a new life form its appears to me that all he did was transfer things and swap genes around to create another living cell.