How long will it be before humans can create life from scratch in the lab?

[SkyWriting]

(picture snipped)
That, as a prokaryote, is simpler. But, there is even simpler life than that. I never said it would be an easy job, I was asking when people thought it would be possible.Why would it not be possible or allowed to stitch together the DNA using automatic processes?

That involves intelligence. The process can't involve intelligent procedures.

And I don't expect you to provide any details about this "Simpler Life" you have in mind. We trust you.

Here is a fine question about the following:

"The first support for this idea of life arising out of the primordial soup came from the famous 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, in which they made amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—by applying sparks to a test tube of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water."

Why has this never been repeated? The only follow up I've found is that they retested the original results material. Is everyone afraid to admit they've not been able to reproduce the experiment? I've never seen anyone even suggest they try this themselves.

 

[pgp_protector]

That involves intelligence. The process can't involve intelligent procedures.

And I don't expect you to provide any details about this "Simpler Life" you have in mind. We trust you.

Here is a fine question about the following:

"The first support for this idea of life arising out of the primordial soup came from the famous 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, in which they made amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—by applying sparks to a test tube of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water."

Why has this never been repeated? The only follow up I've found is that they retested the original results material. Is everyone afraid to admit they've not been able to reproduce the experiment? I've never seen anyone even suggest they try this themselves.

"Why has this never been repeated" Are you sure, you google foo might be a bit off.
Took about 5 seconds to find out about Jeffrey Bada Repeating it.

 

[paul becke]

That looks like a Mile or so of DNA to stitch together by hand.
And you can't use any automated processes, by the way.

Cell wall

'It may also be possible to design something from scratch which lives,...'

A lot of things 'may be', AA, in terms of gratuitous conjecture.

 

[paul becke]

That looks like a Mile or so of DNA to stitch together by hand.
And you can't use any automated processes, by the way.

Cell wall

'When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical—until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA—one trillionth of a gram—an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data.'

... from http://news.sciencemag.org/math/2012/08/dna-ultimate-hard-drive

Interesting, eh?

 

[paul becke]

Then you are flat out wrong. We can synthesize DNA in the lab

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...hesizers-Let-Small-Labs-Make-Their-Own-Genes/

That reminds me of the joke:

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man
making contest."

To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bentdown and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
---------------------------------
And how about this?
'When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical—until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA—one trillionth of a gram—an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data.' ... from here: http://news.sciencemag.org/math/2012/08/dna-ultimate-hard-drive

 

[paul becke]

science is not atheist or theist in nature, it's agnostic.
there are some, dawkins for example, that would like for you to BELIEVE it's atheist though.

Science is a search for truth concerning the physical world (though atheist would like us to believe mind and life/spirit 'emerged from matter'? Magic, you see. They actually have a patent on Flying Spaghetti Monsters, believing in anything as long as it allow them to reject God as the Creator. God. Period.

 

[whois]

Science is a search for truth concerning the physical world (though atheist would like us to believe mind and life/spirit 'emerged from matter'? Magic, you see.

the thing is, science must be able to prove this stuff.
so far, this hasn't happened in the case of abiogenesis.
of course evolutionists now claim that abiogenesis isn't evolution.
the reality is, it must be, because it is subjected to the very same processes of evolution.

They actually have a patent on Flying Spaghetti Monsters, believing in anything as long as it allow them to reject God as the Creator. God. Period.

yes, science seems to have been highjacked by a certain bias, but the fact still remains, it must attempt to prove its theorems.

 

[SkyWriting]

'When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical—until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA—one trillionth of a gram—an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data.'

... from http://news.sciencemag.org/math/2012/08/dna-ultimate-hard-drive

Interesting, eh?

That's how I came to the conclusion that life cannot be created by humans without using someone else's dirt.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Why has this never been repeated" Are you sure, you google foo might be a bit off. Took about 5 seconds to find out about Jeffrey Bada Repeating it.

What I found was Bada testing the original results. And also that
the results were stunning at the time, but have little meaning today.

“Even if you can make amino acids (and nucleic acids) under soup
conditions, it has little if any bearing on the origin of life.”

I'm guessing that's why you didn't link to it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That involves intelligence. The process can't involve intelligent procedures.

But, this thread is all about humans creating life in a lab. Of course it involves intelligence, it would require all of our intelligence and accumulated

And I don't expect you to provide any details about this "Simpler Life" you have in mind. We trust you.

You don't need to trust me. I'm just a poster on a forum and anything I say should be verifiable.

The simplest reasonably free living organism I could find is Mycoplasma genitalium. That's a known species, you can google it and find out more about it. Although it's a parasite and the species name should give you warning that its lifestyle is a bit gruesome.

A simpler one is Carsonella ruddii, much simpler. However, it is arguable whether this is alive or not as it needs a host cell to live.

I have no evidence that it would be possible to design a simpler organanism than Mycoplasma genitalium, this is just conjecture on my part. Are there reasons to rule out my conjecture?

Here is a fine question about the following:

"The first support for this idea of life arising out of the primordial soup came from the famous 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, in which they made amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—by applying sparks to a test tube of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water."

Why has this never been repeated? The only follow up I've found is that they retested the original results material. Is everyone afraid to admit they've not been able to reproduce the experiment? I've never seen anyone even suggest they try this themselves.

Strange, because when I googled 'repeat Miller Urey', the very first link I found was a report in Scientific American saying that the Miller Urey experiment has been repeated. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/

 

[Loudmouth]

science is not atheist or theist in nature, it's agnostic.
there are some, dawkins for example, that would like for you to BELIEVE it's atheist though.

I have found that it is usually the creationists who try to portray science as atheistic.

 

[Loudmouth]

That involves intelligence. The process can't involve intelligent procedures.

Why can't humans use their intelligence to create an organism? After all, that is what the opening post was asking, if humans could apply their intelligence and create life from basic chemicals.

 

[SkyWriting]

But, this thread is all about humans creating life in a lab. Of course it involves intelligence, it would require all of our intelligence and accumulated

"Accumulated" wouldn't be from scratch.
Not always, but scratch can mean "from nothing."

 

[Loudmouth]

"Accumulated" wouldn't be from scratch.

Those are two completely unrelated terms. Accumulation refers to the knowledge that humans have accumulated. "From scratch" refers to the materials that you apply that intelligence to. When your mom bakes a cake from scratch she starts with the basic ingredients and the knowledge of how to make the cake.

Not always, but scratch can mean "from nothing."

It never means that.

 

[SkyWriting]

It never means that.

Until you look it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

Until you look it up.

Give me one example of "from scratch" where it starts with nothing.

 

[justlookinla]

I have found that it is usually the creationists who try to portray science as atheistic.

The pseudo-science of mankind being the product of a Godless process is inherently atheistic.

 

[Loudmouth]

The pseudo-science of mankind being the product of a Godless process is inherently atheistic.

Thank you for making my point.

 

[justlookinla]

Thank you for making my point.

No...thank you for the opportunity!!

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Why has this never been repeated? The only follow up I've found is that they retested the original results material. Is everyone afraid to admit they've not been able to reproduce the experiment? I've never seen anyone even suggest they try this themselves.

The Miller/Urey experiment is one of the most repeated experiments in history. In both the replication of the original experiment, but also many variations of gasses, energy sources, etc.

High School chemistry classes have replicated this result.