PDA

View Full Version : First artificial life 'within months'



Celtkin
06-29-2007, 06:58 AM
Scientists could create the first new form of artificial life within months after a landmark breakthrough in which they turned one bacterium into another.

Craig Venter likened the process to 'changing a Macintosh computer into a PC by inserting a new piece of software'

In a development that has triggered unease and excitement in equal measure, scientists in the US took the whole genetic makeup - or genome - of a bacterial cell and transplanted it into a closely related species.
This then began to grow and multiply in the lab, turning into the first species in the process.

The team that carried out the first “species transplant” says it plans within months to do the same thing with a synthetic genome made from scratch in the laboratory.

If that experiment worked, it would mark the creation of a synthetic lifeform.

The scientists want to create new kinds of bacterium to make new types of bugs which can be used as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4SHVMBW02V3FNQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/28/nlife128.xml)

Sponge
06-30-2007, 10:57 AM
The whole "Can vs. Should" argument comes to mind when I read these things.

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 02:25 PM
The importance of this discovery shouldn't be underestimated though. Up till now, "bioengineering" really just took stuff that already existed and kind of reorganized it. True artificial life would mean we can design from the ground up the properties an organism will have. Of course, we're nowhere near that yet, but Venter and others competing with him will hopefully take us there.

On a side note, Venter's been really pushing for allowing patents to be granted for artificial life forms (you can't patent whole life forms yet). This could be a multi-billion dollar industry not too far in the future if they succeed.

PhinPhan1227
07-02-2007, 11:40 AM
I find the semantics interesting. Is it really artificial life? Scientists will be creating a new species possibly. But they didn't start with something which was not alive and "create" life.

I would say that the better term would be "custom", rather than "artificial".

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 03:59 PM
I find the semantics interesting. Is it really artificial life? Scientists will be creating a new species possibly. But they didn't start with something which was not alive and "create" life.

I would say that the better term would be "custom", rather than "artificial".

"Artificial" is defined as "made by humans" so the label is appropriate:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificial

"a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural."
------------------------

If you say anything made out of stuff that already exists in nature can't be considered "artificial", then nothing is artificial. Science uses the word "natural" thus in two different ways. Either everything that exists is nature (for a physicist usually) or just what isn't man-made. This is referring to the latter.

PhinPhan1227
07-03-2007, 03:24 PM
"Artificial" is defined as "made by humans" so the label is appropriate:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificial

"a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural."
------------------------

If you say anything made out of stuff that already exists in nature can't be considered "artificial", then nothing is artificial. Science uses the word "natural" thus in two different ways. Either everything that exists is nature (for a physicist usually) or just what isn't man-made. This is referring to the latter.

Ok, you can keep artificial by that definition, but then you have to use a different term than "life". Because the life itself was not created by humans. It was customized, but not created. No human has yet created a living thing from a non-living thing.

So if you want to keep "artificial", than you shoudl use "species", rather than "life", because that is what was created.

ckb2001
07-03-2007, 04:19 PM
Ok, you can keep artificial by that definition, but then you have to use a different term than "life". Because the life itself was not created by humans. It was customized, but not created. No human has yet created a living thing from a non-living thing.

So if you want to keep "artificial", than you shoudl use "species", rather than "life", because that is what was created.

"Artificial life" refers to a life-form made by humans that wasn't present in nature. And that's exactly what these guys are attempting to do. Right now, they haven't done it, but once they create a genome from scratch - a synthetic genome - it WILL be artificial life. So, the term is the correct one.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 02:58 PM
"Artificial life" refers to a life-form made by humans that wasn't present in nature. And that's exactly what these guys are attempting to do. Right now, they haven't done it, but once they create a genome from scratch - a synthetic genome - it WILL be artificial life. So, the term is the correct one.


"life", and "life form" are two different things. A life form is a distinct entity, or type of entity. Life however encompases a different idea.

Take for example a Liger. It doesn't exist in nature. It is a man-made cat. But would you refer to it as artificial life? It is an artificial life form, since that form doesn't exist in nature, but it is not artificial life. See the difference? Man has created different forms. This technology will create a totally different form. But it doesn't create the life itself.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 04:14 PM
"life", and "life form" are two different things. A life form is a distinct entity, or type of entity. Life however encompases a different idea.

Take for example a Liger. It doesn't exist in nature. It is a man-made cat. But would you refer to it as artificial life? It is an artificial life form, since that form doesn't exist in nature, but it is not artificial life. See the difference? Man has created different forms. This technology will create a totally different form. But it doesn't create the life itself.

One could argue as you do, but in practice it makes no sense to do so because that's not how we use the term artificial. We say a person as an "artificial limb" even though "limbs" are things that existed before man was on the Earth. We say "artificial intelligence" even though humans didn't invent "intelligence".

So, taking what you said, one would have to argue we should say "artificial form of intelligence" or "artificial limb form", but that's just not how we use our language.

So, in the end, this label is acceptable because that's just how we use terms like "artificial".

Oh, and to your last sentence, one can really argue it DOES create the life itself. IF they can synthesize a genome from scratch, the rest of the cell is arguably not life until they put that genome in. Either way, the label is appropriate.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 04:26 PM
One could argue as you do, but in practice it makes no sense to do so because that's not how we use the term artificial. We say a person as an "artificial limb" even though "limbs" are things that existed before man was on the Earth. We say "artificial intelligence" even though humans didn't invent "intelligence".

So, taking what you said, one would have to argue we should say "artificial form of intelligence" or "artificial limb form", but that's just not how we use our language.

So, in the end, this label is acceptable because that's just how we use terms like "artificial".

Oh, and to your last sentence, one can really argue it DOES create the life itself. IF they can synthesize a genome from scratch, the rest of the cell is arguably not life until they put that genome in. Either way, the label is appropriate.


Wrong. A limb, again, is a defined "thing". Further, the artificial limb is not organic, it was in fact created fully from "scratch", and nothing like it has ever existed in nature. Likewise we define artificial intelligence as intelligence which was created from non-organic parts, and nothing remotely like it has ever existed in nature. Artificial life would have to be life which doesn't exist in nature. A different kind of germ is still a germ. We didn't create the substance, we only rearranged it. The substance is perfectly natural, only the form is artificial. You were entirely correct that "artificial life form" is 100% correct. Artificial life however is not.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 04:36 PM
Wrong. A limb, again, is a defined "thing". Further, the artificial limb is not organic, it was in fact created fully from "scratch", and nothing like it has ever existed in nature. Likewise we define artificial intelligence as intelligence which was created from non-organic parts, and nothing remotely like it has ever existed in nature. Artificial life would have to be life which doesn't exist in nature. A different kind of germ is still a germ. We didn't create the substance, we only rearranged it. The substance is perfectly natural, only the form is artificial. You were entirely correct that "artificial life form" is 100% correct. Artificial life however is not.

Look, life has no single accepted definition, but all definitions of life science uses are based on whether something has a set of functions. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

"Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."
------------------


OK? Life is defined as something with a set of functions! So, creating something that consists of that set of functions that did NOT exist in nature IS artificial life. And that's exactly what a synthetic genome would do.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 04:51 PM
Look, life has no single accepted definition, but all definitions of life science uses are based on whether something has a set of functions. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

"Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."
------------------


OK? Life is defined as something with a set of functions! So, creating something that consists of that set of functions that did NOT exist in nature IS artificial life. And that's exactly what a synthetic genome would do.

But that's the point, you haven't created those functions artificially. Those FUNCTIONS exist because of natural processes. An artificial limb is artificial precisely BECAUSE it functions because of a different set of rules from a natural limb. This life follows those natural functions, therefore the LIFE is natural. The form it takes is artificial.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 05:05 PM
But that's the point, you haven't created those functions artificially. Those FUNCTIONS exist because of natural processes. An artificial limb is artificial precisely BECAUSE it functions because of a different set of rules from a natural limb. This life follows those natural functions, therefore the LIFE is natural. The form it takes is artificial.

If any one of the functions operates according to a mechanism that is different from any other life form, then it was created artificially. Specifically, the ones they'll most likely change are the response to stimuli or metabolism, etc... The goal here is to engineer new types of single-celled organisms to do things like clean up toxic waste or so. And how the cell does these things is determined by the genome.

Up till now, they've just "copy and pasted" parts of a genome. If they can actually create a synthetic genome where you can deduce the function a new gene will have, then that definitely is synthetic or artificial life.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 05:44 PM
If any one of the functions operates according to a mechanism that is different from any other life form, then it was created artificially. Specifically, the ones they'll most likely change are the response to stimuli or metabolism, etc... The goal here is to engineer new types of single-celled organisms to do things like clean up toxic waste or so. And how the cell does these things is determined by the genome.

Up till now, they've just "copy and pasted" parts of a genome. If they can actually create a synthetic genome where you can deduce the function a new gene will have, then that definitely is synthetic or artificial life.

Quoting you roughly from another thread, if a things is functionally identical to something else, than scientifically, there is no difference. If this organisms functions are identical to a "natural" organism, than the new organism is also natural. Again, an artificial limb FUNCTIONS differently from a natural limb. These organisms don't. Natural life, artificial life form.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 05:54 PM
Quoting you roughly from another thread, if a things is functionally identical to something else, than scientifically, there is no difference. If this organisms functions are identical to a "natural" organism, than the new organism is also natural. Again, an artificial limb FUNCTIONS differently from a natural limb. These organisms don't. Natural life, artificial life form.

Yeah, but a synthetic life form would never be called that if it truly was functionally identical to one that already existed. They're not trying to replicate an organism that already exists. They're trying to create one with a set of unique functions, hence artificial life.

Rafiki
07-05-2007, 11:21 PM
It's terrifying how quickly we are accumulating powers as a species. As the rate of discovery continues to accelerate, does anyone else get the feeling we are ripping the wrapping paper off Pandora's box? Each new discovery leads to terrible ramifications, if placed in the wrong hands.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 11:33 PM
It's terrifying how quickly we are accumulating powers as a species. As the rate of discovery continues to accelerate, does anyone else get the feeling we are ripping the wrapping paper off Pandora's box? Each new discovery leads to terrible ramifications, if placed in the wrong hands.

Actually, I love it :)

Anyway, you obviously raise a valid concern, but 1) it's not really possible in practice to stop, and 2) because of #1, we have to do all we can to beat the competition to such new technologies so we derive more power/benefits from those technologies than our competitors.

Oh, and if you think artificial life is something, just wait till brain science matures and develops technology to reengineer peoples' brains! I mean it's really an inevitable outcome if history is any good predictor. How society will change as a result of that, who knows, but I hope to see it and be part of the development of such technologies, even if it's just through basic research.

Rafiki
07-05-2007, 11:47 PM
It's the inevitability that's terrifying. I know full well we won't ever stop trying to break everything down into it's simplest form, and then use that knowledge to construct the universe to our specifications. If I had to guess why, I would say that the ambition of immortality has never left the top spot on mankind's list of priorities.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 11:58 PM
It's the inevitability that's terrifying. I know full well we won't ever stop trying to break everything down into it's simplest form, and then use that knowledge to construct the universe to our specifications. If I had to guess why, I would say that the ambition of immortality has never left the top spot on mankind's list of priorities.

I think there are various motivations, not one. Obviously, many discoveries in antiquity arose from necessity, and many do today too. Also, many discoveries arose from curiosity and just simply the love of acquiring knowledge.

But, once it got past the point where it became relatively easy for people to see how a particular methodology could solve problems and allow one to gain wealth, power, increase one's health or gain some sort of competitive edge, well those forces probably took over.

The immortality wish is likely responsible for almost none of what we've seen so far, since that's so far off in the future. Of course, as we get closer to actually lengthening our life spans well past what is "natural" for a human (so past say 120 years), that motivation will certainly kick into high gear.

Rafiki
07-06-2007, 12:16 AM
I would disagree. What's interesting is how inept our physical bodies are compared to even our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. However as luck would have it, we were blessed with great intelligence and to make up for the physical shortcoming our species adopted technologies. It gave us tools to master our surroundings. The more technologies we adopted the more inept we were to survive without them.

The desperation to survive coupled with the blessing of intelligence leads us to cure disease, to genetically modify grain, to develop weapons for protection or exploitation and finally technology that would enable the escape from our planet if need be. The lifespan of the average human being has almost tripled in 100,000 years, and I'd expect the lifespans of people to continue lengthening.

The real question is whether or not mankind's ability to understand and contain potential extinction-level mishaps will be able to keep up with the rate of technology learned.

ckb2001
07-06-2007, 12:42 AM
I would disagree. What's interesting is how inept our physical bodies are compared to even our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. However as luck would have it, we were blessed with great intelligence and to make up for the physical shortcoming our species adopted technologies. It gave us tools to master our surroundings. The more technologies we adopted the more inept we were to survive without them.

The desperation to survive coupled with the blessing of intelligence leads us to cure disease, to genetically modify grain, to develop weapons for protection or exploitation and finally technology that would enable the escape from our planet if need be. The lifespan of the average human being has almost tripled in 100,000 years, and I'd expect the lifespans of people to continue lengthening.

The real question is whether or not mankind's ability to understand and contain potential extinction-level mishaps will be able to keep up with the rate of technology learned.

The average lifespan has doubled just in the last 2 centuries! We used to live on average 35-40 years until the scientific and industrial revolutions were well under way in the 19th century (with some isolated exceptions).

However, the human body is genetically engineered to live probably at most around 120 years. That's a biological constraint and likely hasn't changed much over tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.

And what I said about the motivations for increases in technology were descriptions of what seemed to be the primary motivating factors in the last few centuries and millenia, where almost all our technologies were developed (really at least 99% of all technologies and all science we have today was done in the last few centuries - this means the last few centuries constitute the most relevant time frame towards answering your question about motivations that lead to technology). Those motivations really tend to be based on desires for greater wealth, power, health, etc..


As far as our intelligence is concerned, well keep in mind that for almost all our prehistory, we only really used stone tools. I don't think you'd be much impressed with the human of even 20,000 years ago, even though his stone tools were slightly more advanced that those of his predecessors 200,000 years earlier.

And we were certainly physically adapted to our surroundings. Even today, you see that when a person wishes to go into the wild without any modern technology and survive he has the physical capabilities to do so. The only thing lacking is proper training, which obviously would have been provided had you grown up in a tribe that lived there. What you're observing is simply the adaptation of the modern human to the world he happens to grow up in, which has cars and telephones instead of brute nature. But, that doesn't mean we've lost our physical adaptations to survive in the wild.

Brown42000
07-06-2007, 12:45 AM
Humans trying to create new species of insects or animals has disaster written all over it.

Rafiki
07-07-2007, 01:32 PM
And we were certainly physically adapted to our surroundings. Even today, you see that when a person wishes to go into the wild without any modern technology and survive he has the physical capabilities to do so. The only thing lacking is proper training, which obviously would have been provided had you grown up in a tribe that lived there. What you're observing is simply the adaptation of the modern human to the world he happens to grow up in, which has cars and telephones instead of brute nature. But, that doesn't mean we've lost our physical adaptations to survive in the wild.

Ckb, mankind has lost the ability to survive without technology. Just dump a naked man into the jungles of Africa and disallow any form of technology. I would be surprised to see him survive even a week.

ckb2001
07-07-2007, 02:13 PM
Ckb, mankind has lost the ability to survive without technology. Just dump a naked man into the jungles of Africa and disallow any form of technology. I would be surprised to see him survive even a week.

True, but that's not due to any physical limitations. As I said, it's a question of whether that individual learned to live in the jungle or not.

Try this: raise a chimp in your home from birth and then dump it in the jungle once it reaches adulthood. Guess what? It can't survive.

That's why whales, dolphins, orangutans, chimps, etc.. that were raised in captivity have to undergo extensive training before they can survive in the wild, and some are too old to learn.

adamprez2003
07-07-2007, 03:04 PM
I think there are various motivations, not one. Obviously, many discoveries in antiquity arose from necessity, and many do today too. Also, many discoveries arose from curiosity and just simply the love of acquiring knowledge.

But, once it got past the point where it became relatively easy for people to see how a particular methodology could solve problems and allow one to gain wealth, power, increase one's health or gain some sort of competitive edge, well those forces probably took over.

The immortality wish is likely responsible for almost none of what we've seen so far, since that's so far off in the future. Of course, as we get closer to actually lengthening our life spans well past what is "natural" for a human (so past say 120 years), that motivation will certainly kick into high gear.

The ramifications will be those of population growth. Do we want to double the popualtion overnight with the threatening water crisis that will take place towards the middle of this century. Probably this technology if/when they develop it will be kept in the west and U.S.. The price will be kept artificially high to prevent it spreading into the mass population

adamprez2003
07-07-2007, 03:10 PM
The average lifespan has doubled just in the last 2 centuries! We used to live on average 35-40 years until the scientific and industrial revolutions were well under way in the 19th century (with some isolated exceptions).

However, the human body is genetically engineered to live probably at most around 120 years. That's a biological constraint and likely hasn't changed much over tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.

And what I said about the motivations for increases in technology were descriptions of what seemed to be the primary motivating factors in the last few centuries and millenia, where almost all our technologies were developed (really at least 99% of all technologies and all science we have today was done in the last few centuries - this means the last few centuries constitute the most relevant time frame towards answering your question about motivations that lead to technology). Those motivations really tend to be based on desires for greater wealth, power, health, etc..


As far as our intelligence is concerned, well keep in mind that for almost all our prehistory, we only really used stone tools. I don't think you'd be much impressed with the human of even 20,000 years ago, even though his stone tools were slightly more advanced that those of his predecessors 200,000 years earlier.

And we were certainly physically adapted to our surroundings. Even today, you see that when a person wishes to go into the wild without any modern technology and survive he has the physical capabilities to do so. The only thing lacking is proper training, which obviously would have been provided had you grown up in a tribe that lived there. What you're observing is simply the adaptation of the modern human to the world he happens to grow up in, which has cars and telephones instead of brute nature. But, that doesn't mean we've lost our physical adaptations to survive in the wild.

You know there are people that believe that advanced ancient civilizations were around before Mesopotamia and were destroyed by a great flood.
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0206/43.html

So, from the foregoing it is very evident the prehistoric civilization that matured and developed in the present day Gulf of Cambay was the forerunner and model to the subsequent advanced Harrapan civilization known to history. This wonderful twin prehistoric metropolis of Cambay lasted from about 13000 BP to about 3000 BP making it the most ancient and largest city civilization not only in Asia but in the entire world. It is seen to be at least 7500 years older than the oldest Mesopotamian city civilization. However strong evidence supports the presence of humans from at least 31000 BP who were evolving and developing and formed a great hitherto unknown civilization that were submerged by the flood, giving credence to local and global flood myths.


Here's another interesting article speaking about a possible land bridge made over 1 million years ago

http://www.hinduism.co.za/oldest.htm#NASA%20Images%20Discover%20Ancient%20Bridge%20Between%20India%20&%20Sri%20Lanka


NASA Images Discover Ancient Bridge
Between India & Sri Lanka
Space images taken by NASA reveal a mysterious ancient bridge in the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka. The recently discovered bridge currently named as Adam's Bridge is made of chain of shoals, c.18 mi (30 km) long.
The bridge's unique curvature and composition by age reveals that it is man made. The legends as well as Archeological studies reveal that the first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to the a primitive age, about 1,750,000 years ago and the bridge's age is also almost equivalent.
This information is a crucial aspect for an insight into the ancient epic RAMAYANA, which was supposed to have taken place in treta yuga (more than 1,700,000 years ago)......

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/07/oldest3-1.jpg

ckb2001
07-07-2007, 03:17 PM
The ramifications will be those of population growth. Do we want to double the popualtion overnight with the threatening water crisis that will take place towards the middle of this century. Probably this technology if/when they develop it will be kept in the west and U.S.. The price will be kept artificially high to prevent it spreading into the mass population

Except that all modern countries are experiencing a population decline, at least in terms of birth rate. You have to look to the 3rd world for most of the population growth problems this world faces.

adamprez2003
07-07-2007, 03:18 PM
Except that all modern countries are experiencing a population decline, at least in terms of birth rate. You have to look to the 3rd world for most of the population growth problems this world faces.

Seems like a way for the west to compete with the birth rate disparity between the west and third world

ckb2001
07-07-2007, 03:20 PM
You know there are people that believe that advanced ancient civilizations were around before Mesopotamia and were destroyed by a great flood.
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0206/43.html

So, from the foregoing it is very evident the prehistoric civilization that matured and developed in the present day Gulf of Cambay was the forerunner and model to the subsequent advanced Harrapan civilization known to history. This wonderful twin prehistoric metropolis of Cambay lasted from about 13000 BP to about 3000 BP making it the most ancient and largest city civilization not only in Asia but in the entire world. It is seen to be at least 7500 years older than the oldest Mesopotamian city civilization. However strong evidence supports the presence of humans from at least 31000 BP who were evolving and developing and formed a great hitherto unknown civilization that were submerged by the flood, giving credence to local and global flood myths.


Here's another interesting article speaking about a possible land bridge made over 1 million years ago

http://www.hinduism.co.za/oldest.htm#NASA%20Images%20Discover%20Ancient%20Bridge%20Between%20India%20&%20Sri%20Lanka


NASA Images Discover Ancient Bridge
Between India & Sri Lanka
Space images taken by NASA reveal a mysterious ancient bridge in the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka. The recently discovered bridge currently named as Adam's Bridge is made of chain of shoals, c.18 mi (30 km) long.
The bridge's unique curvature and composition by age reveals that it is man made. The legends as well as Archeological studies reveal that the first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to the a primitive age, about 1,750,000 years ago and the bridge's age is also almost equivalent.
This information is a crucial aspect for an insight into the ancient epic RAMAYANA, which was supposed to have taken place in treta yuga (more than 1,700,000 years ago)......

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/07/oldest3-1.jpg



Not sure what you're getting at. "Advanced civilization" means advanced for that time in history!

Those people certainly didn't have cars, airplanes, computers, satellites, etc.. If they did, we'd easily find evidence of that since these kinds of things stay around for long periods of time.

Not sure if you're disputing anything I said either way.