Could AI Create Life?
A Nature article claims AI-assisted
genome design has produced synthetic
genes, proteins, and even yeast chromosomes
Questioning ‘Generative Biology’
Can AI Replicate Functional, Complex Life?
by Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds
Artificial Biological Intelligence: The Promise and the Question
Artificial Intelligence has permeated nearly every sphere of human ingenuity and thought. Beyond conversational systems such as ChatGPT and other Large Language Models, the field of biology has also emerged as a key frontier in AI technologies.
‘Generative Biology’, sometimes described as ‘Artificial Biological Intelligence’, has attracted considerable attention through bold claims of breakthroughs in producing synthetic bacteria and viruses. Often aligned with the ideology of transhumanism, these developments are presented as evidence that AI represents a new frontier in evolution. This theme is explored in a recent book review in Nature.
AI tools can design genomes. Will they upend how life evolves? (Kate Adamala, Nature, 23 February 2026). This article previews Adrian Woolfson’s forthcoming book: On the Future of Species: Authoring Life by Means of Artificial Biological Intelligence, scheduled for publication in April 2026.
Amid such magnificent claims of AI’s creative power, an important question must be asked: Can AI truly create or even replicate functional, complex life?
Although the excitement surrounding “generative biology” (the use of computational tools to design genomes) suggests a scientific revolution, the reality is more nuanced. AI can rearrange genetic code and simulate protein structures, but the leap from computational design to viable organisms is fraught with significant challenges.
In this reflection, I critically examines such claims, highlighting their underlying assumptions and limitations, as well as their broader implications for both science and theology. The analysis shows that even ‘synthetic’ genes remain dependent on preexisting biological scaffolds and controlled laboratory conditions.
Synthetic Viruses, Proteins, and Yeast: Achievements and Caveats
Adamala (2026) sets the contextual background for the book review with the following bold description:
“Biology is undergoing a transformation. After centuries of studying life as it evolves naturally, researchers are now using a combination of computation and genome engineering to intervene, generating new proteins and even whole bacteria from scratch. The use of artificial-intelligence tools to design biological components, an approach known as generative biology, is set to turbocharge this area of research. Just last year, scientists used AI-assisted design to produce artificial genes that can be expressed in mammalian cells, and, for the first time, an AI program was used to create an entirely synthetic virus.”
Despite these bold claims, closer examination shows that AI’s alleged intervention in Darwinian evolution rests on numerous assumptions about the limits of biology. The processes AI employs in attempting to replicate biological systems themselves violate some of the fundamental principles of uniformitarian, unguided biological evolution and even of chemical evolution. Yet advocates of generative biology continue to proclaim: “It could transform how life on Earth develops”.
The Irony of Artificial Biology: A Closer Examination of the Claims
Adamala, in reviewing Woolfson’s book, notes that “scientists used AI-assisted design to produce artificial genes… and, for the first time, an AI program was used to create an entirely synthetic virus.” While such feats sound impressive, they do not equate to creating autonomous life for several reasons:
- Synthetic viruses are typically short-lived constructs that require precise conditions to survive.
- They depend on host cells for replication, and are engineered from known viral backbones, rather than being invented ex nihilo.
The Synthetic Yeast Genome Project (Sc2.0) further illustrates the limitations. In late 2025, after nearly two decades of work, researchers completed the world’s first synthetic eukaryotic genome in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, with insights published throughout the project in journals including Science and Nature. The project involved synthesizing all 16 chromosomes and constructing a novel tRNA neochromosome.
However, examination of the publications on this synthetic genome reveals crucial conditions on which the project depended: rather than creating life from scratch, the researchers modified an existing yeast species. As noted by Richardson et al. (2017) in Science:
“The starting point for the Sc2.0 genome sequence is the highly curated Saccharomyces cerevisiae sequence…” (Richardson et al, 2017, Science)
The need for careful supervision throughout the project was also emphasized, as the chromosome assembly proved labour-intensive. In the Nature publication reporting directly on Sc2.0, the authors (Erpf et al., 2025) observe:
“In 2025, the final synthetic chromosome was completed, marking the culmination of more than a decade of iterative design and international collaboration”
The nature of the project arose in part because the researchers and their AI tools were constrained by pre-existing conditions and the fundamental laws that govern how life behaves.
For example, inserting synthetic DNA into cells proved challenging because DNA naturally condenses during replication. This highlights that AI driven design relies on biological processes already in place, and its functionality requires intelligent human intervention.
Remarkably, in reporting the synthetic yeast results, Erpf and colleagues (2025) implicitly acknowledged the role of using ‘rationality’, ’engineering’ and ‘design’ principles in developing this genome. In the authors’ words:
“Sc2.0 emerged as a global collaborative effort to redesign and synthesize the entire Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome from scratch. It presented a unique set of opportunities and challenges that prompted the use of rational design principles to enhance genome stability, flexibility and engineering potential.”
Amid the labour-intensive processes and deliberate application of engineering principles, the outcome of the synthesis was reported to have “…design- and construction-related defects revealed during the construction of 16 synthetic chromosomes” which required iterative solutions (Erpf et al., 2025).
Given the reliance on pre-existing biological material, strict experimental conditions, and the persistence of multiple defects, can Adamala’s characterization of this as creating life “from scratch” truly be considered accurate? The evidence suggests that artificial genome design remains fundamentally an exercise in engineering existing biology, requiring intelligent intervention at every stage rather than representing an autonomous evolutionary process.
Artificial Biological Intelligence Relies on Natural Biological Intelligence
Adamala’s assertion in the introduction—that AI can engineer organisms “from scratch”—is further challenged by evidence she presents from Woolfson’s book later in her article. She even with genetic sequencies known from extinct organisms, the complexities of biology, including epigenetic regulation, remain too great for AI to reconstruct extinct species successfully. In her words, she states:
“Woolfson is at his most compelling when discussing the second central theme of the book, biodiversity. He frames ecosystems and species as vast archives of evolutionary knowledge: a giant library of possible forms, functions and solutions to the challenges of life. Every organism has developed its own strategies to optimize thermodynamics, metabolism, reproduction, and more.
Researchers could draw on this library when redesigning organisms. But no individual scientist or algorithm could fully reconstruct these unique and hugely complex adaptations if a species were to become extinct. Even if researchers had a complete genome sequence, a separate species, with a different gestational environment, would have to carry the pregnancy, and epigenetic information (molecular marks on DNA that modulate gene expression) would be lost.
Thus, Woolfson argues, biodiversity is not simply aesthetically valuable or ethically important. It is also the foundation on which predictive biology and genome construction ultimately depend.”
This demonstrates that, ultimately, AI still relies on the intentional and direct manipulation of pre-existing biological material to modify organisms–a far cry from the natural processes of chemical and biological evolution.
Does Genetic Editing Counteract the Direction of Darwinian Evolution?
Despite acknowledging the limits of generative biology, Adamala (2026) notes in her review of Woolfson’s work that “life’s patterns… are becoming increasingly predictable and manipulable.” Yet, even aside from epigenetic considerations, she recounts further limitations of generative biology, citing E-coli experiments from the 1980s. Adamala highlights how certain E-Coli mutations reduced organismal variability, sometimes locking populations into “irreversible trajectories”. Similarly, she warns, based on Woolfson’s work that “…small genome edits today could lock in irreversible biological futures.”
These examples directly challenge Darwin’s principle of natural selection and open-ended adaptation, suggesting that gene editing may result in devolution, constraining adaptability. Far from acting as an ally to evolution, generative biology raises questions about the sufficiency of Darwinian theory to account for these engineered outcomes.
Conclusion, Risks and Responsibilities
In closing, Adamala reflects on Woolfson’s sober warning:
“…we are acquiring tools powerful enough to remake life while lacking the theoretical understanding needed to control the consequences. Redesigned organisms might cause unintentional harm.”
While generative biology represents an intriguing area of experimentation and highlights challenges and limitations of evolutionary theory, several important questions and challenges remain, encompassing not only technical aspects but also ethical questions. Such questions extend beyond science into the realm of morality.
In both scientific and moral-ethical discourse, reflections on origins remain highly relevant. Examination of claims regarding generative biology’s “progress” reveals that these advances remain significantly/heavily dependent on pre-existing biological systems, are limited in capturing environmental complexity, and require intentionality, rationality and intelligence. Although both Adamala and Woolfson frame their analysis within Darwinian evolution, the term “artificial biological intelligence” (ABI) is deeply ironic: these systems are purposefully engineered, underscoring the limitations of a theory of blind Darwinian evolution to account for the functionality of any genome.
Scripture reminds us of the limits of human schemes. As Ecclesiastes 7:29 declares: “God made mankind upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” While artificial biological intelligence may be able to rearrange genomes, it cannot replicate the wisdom embedded/inherent in the complexity of creation. Ultimately, the question: “Can AI replicate functional complex life?” points us back to the Creator, whose wisdom far surpasses any human design or scheme.
Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds is a Christian, Jamaican, Environmental Science researcher, and journal associate editor. She holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography from the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona with high commendation, and a postgraduate specialization in Geomatics at the Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. The quality of her research activity in Environmental Science has been recognized by various awards including the 2024 Editor’s Award from the American Meteorological Society for her reviewing service in the Weather, Climate and Society Journal, the 2023 L’Oreal/UNESCO Women in Science Caribbean Award, the 2023 ICETEX International Experts Exchange Award for study in Colombia. and with her PhD research in drought management also being shortlisted in the top 10 globally for the 2023 Allianz Climate Risk Award by Munich Re Insurance, Germany. Motivated by her faith in God and zeal to positively influence society, Dr. Buckland-Reynolds is also the founder and Principal Director of Chosen to G.L.O.W. Ministries, a Jamaican charitable organization which seeks to amplify the Christian voice in the public sphere and equip more youths to know how to defend their faith.