I think I stated plainly that Venter has not yet succeeded, but he seems to be getting close.
And I think I stated plainly that Ã¢â‚¬Å“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s possible, but he hasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t brought anything to life yet has he?Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Which means that this is neither horse shoes, nor is it hand grenades. But still; Ã¢â‚¬Å“where did he get the parts so that he could arrange them in a certain design?Ã¢â‚¬Â
As to whether something has to breathe in order to be alive, that might be a question creationists will raise as soon as Venter produces a synthetic bacterium.
I think it is nothing but an attempt to duck the issue.
The real tests for life seem to be metabolism and reproduction, and bacteria do both.
No, I was asking what criterion you were positing. If you notice, I asked you four questions to get your take on it.
Any successful bacteria will be self-propagating and similar to 'natural' bacteria in most respects. Are bacteria 'just a mechanism', Do you know of any bacteria which needs to be adjusted to get to a target? Influenza seems to do a good job without our help.
According to the model of evolution, all bacterium are adjusting to reach targets. You seem to think all of this came from nowhere (and yet use the Ã¢â‚¬Å“EÃ¢â‚¬Â word with reverence and awe, as if it was sentient and could be a driving force without actually being anything). I believe it was designed into it.
The only 'drive' needed is reproduction. Natural selection and mutation does the rest.
Really, and where did this drive come from? Who is this Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â that it can make decisions that decide the outcome of all these different things? HmmmmmmmmÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.