>>17017342
>is X alive?
always is

>>17017342
>from scratch
>80000 genes taken from other living things
its just a barebones bacteria, i would hardly call it creating life from scratch.
In fact it supports the opposite, that randomly combining the parts of cells and different genes, generally doesn't work and you need intelligence to put the right ones into a cell and have it come to life.

>>17017342
They're intelligently designed in a non natural lab. And they are fed intelligently designed pre-existing organic material also designed in a non natural lab

File: Screenshot_20260715-175334.png (424 KB, 1080x2007)

424 KB PNG

*yawn

>>17017391
it is unfortunate the news cycle took it up under the living guise argument. Putting your experiment in a lipid bubble doesn't make it alive. Using a similar lipid delivery system doesn't either.
It is tragic because their approach is going to lead directly to nanobots and they are going to get a nobel prize. But the media is so insecure about science being hard checked by skeptics that they have to fat bitch cock block the innovation.

>>17017342
no, spudcell has no cytoskeleton genes, and no cytoskeleton. The cytoskeleton is where the microtubules in neurons are found, believe to be the most fundamental unit of information processing. So if it can't process information, it can hardly be considered to be actively or volitionally engaging with its environment, its just reacting chemically to stimuli

also with no cytoskeleton when it tries to divide the dna can't organize and it just fails. this is not alive this guy is right >>17017412

If you have to ask, the answer is no.