All Venter’s work did was verify that the foundation of life is, indeed, a literal programming language. This is a fact that many are still in denial over due to the potentially paradigm-shifting implications.
As far as scientists justifying any claim that they’ve created life? If they’ve in any way “borrowed” any element from any preexisting biological form, I’d say that immediately nullifies the claim.
Create a form capable of replication and/or reproduction, with descent with modification, entirely from scratch (see above), and I’d consider it done.
Of course, if this is ever done, we’ll still have the question of how big a role the scientists’ intelligence played in directing the outcome.
How about you read post 30 (and some of the others) and think again.
If they use hydrogen and carbon they’ve “borrowed” existing elements. If they use water they’ve borrowed an existing non-elemental molecule. If they use an aromatic ring, they’ve borrowed existing more complex chemistry. If they use any repeating chain of molecules, even made of smaller units not found in Earth life, they’ve borrowed the idea of polymers. etc. …
Where does it end going either up or down the chain of complex building blocks upon complex building blocks? Which level is the one that defines them creating something new and not borrowing something old?
So far you’ve been real good at grand pronouncements of “fact”. Would you care to explain your work? Curious people want to learn more.