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

[Dr GS Hurd]

I have looked at this discussion a few times.

It makes no sense to me.

Synthetic life; new DNA sequences built with never before used DNA molecules coding never known to exist in Earth life amino acids has been done.

Does that count?

Replication of how life originated on Earth? Is that the target? Darwin called the idea, "mere rubbish." We do study abiogenesis today, and with growing interest. For a reasonably current review see:

Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press

If you want some frog to jump out of a test tube, then you are wasting time.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

That reminds me of the joke:

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

It is a fairly good joke, except we also know where "dirt" came from over the last 13.7 billion years. Search for technical journals on "Stellar nucleosynthesis."

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

But scientists admit they don't have the first clue as to the origin or nature of life, which is clearly immaterial, and hence falsifies the prevailing materialist paradigm in any case. Every conjecture has been falsified.

Wow. That is a very silly assertion.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

But let's start with the shell of the bacterium.

Neither bacteria, nor archea have a "shell."

If you mean the origin of phospholipids membranes, see;

Deamer, D. W.
1985. Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison carbonaceous chondrite. Nature 317:792-794.

Deamer, D. W., and Pashley, R. M.
1989. Amphiphilic components of carbonaceous meteorites. Orig. Life Evol. Biosphere 19:21-33.

W. R. HARGREAVES, S. J. MULVIHILL & D. W. DEAMER
1977 “Synthesis of phospholipids and membranes in prebiotic conditions” Nature 266, 78 - 80 (03 March)

D.E. Epps, E. Sherwood, J. Eichberg, and J. Oro
1978 “Cyanamide Mediated Syntheses Under Plausible Primitive Earth Conditions: V. The Synthesis of Phosphatidic Acids” J. Mol. Evol. 11,279—292.

Rushdi, Ahmed I., Bernd R. T. Simoneit
2006 “Abiotic Condensation Synthesis of Glyceride Lipids and Wax Esters Under Simulated Hydrothermal Conditions” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres Volume 36, Number 2: 93-108 / April,

Dworkin, Jason P., David W. Deamer, Scott A. Sandford, and Louis J. Allamandola
2001 “Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices” PNAS 98: 815-819

Pizzarello, Sandra, Yongsong Huang, Luann Becker, Robert J. Poreda, Ronald A. Nieman, George Cooper, Michael Williams
2001 “The Organic Content of the Tagish Lake Meteorite” Science, Vol. 293, Issue 5538, 2236-2239, September 21, 2001

Segre' D., Ben-Eli D. Deamer D. and Lancet D.
2001 “The Lipid World” Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 31, 119-145.

Bernd R.T. Simoneit, Ahmed I. Rushdi and David W. Deamer
2007 “Abiotic formation of acylglycerols under simulated hydrothermal conditions and self-assembly properties of such lipid products” Advances in Space Research
Volume 40, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1649-1656


This is a bit dated, but you can get the general idea. The molecules that make membranes are common in non-biological synthesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have looked at this discussion a few times.

It makes no sense to me.

Synthetic life; new DNA sequences built with never before used DNA molecules coding never known to exist in Earth life amino acids has been done.

Does that count?

Not according to the original challenge. You need to make the RNA, proteins, and lipid bilayer as well. Simply inserting the DNA isn't enough.

If you want some frog to jump out of a test tube, then you are wasting time.

It would be a waste of both time and money, but is it attainable? The tough one for complex eukaryotes is getting the right mix of proteins for a single celled zygote. However, they have tricked skin cells into becoming embryonic stem cells, so we may be getting close to having the right combo of proteins. Synthesizing the proteins would be the next step which would be time consuming and expensive, but doable.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

It would be a waste of both time and money.

I boiled down the issue from your comment.

To repeat Darwin's note to American botanist Joseph Hooker, "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter" (1863).

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I've only found one repeat, and only on the original results.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I've only found one repeat, and only on the original results.

Here is some remedial reading just from articles coauthored by Stanley Miller;

Borquez E, Cleaves HJ, Lazcano A, Miller SL
2005 "An investigation of prebiotic purine synthesis from the hydrolysis of HCN polymers" Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2005 Apr;35(2):79-90

G. Schlesinger and S.L. Miller,
1984 "PREBIOTIC SYNTHESIS IN ATMOSPHERES CONTAINING CH4, CO, AND CO2. I. AMINO ACIDS" J Mol Evol 1983 19:376.

Robertson MP, Miller SL.
1995 "An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil" Nature 375, 772 - 774

Bada, Jeffrey. L., Antonio Lazcano
2003 "Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment" Science Volume 300, Number 5620, pp. 745-746

Cleaves, H. James, John H. Chalmers, Antonio Lazcano, Stanley L. Miller, Jeffrey L. Bada
2008 “A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres” Orig Life Evol Biosph (2008) 38:105–115

Johnson, Adam P, H. James Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, Jeffrey L. Bada
2008 “The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment” SCIENCE VOL 322: 404

Levy, M and Miller, S.L.
1998 The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38,

Miller, Stanley L.
1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529

Miller, Stanley, Harold C. Urey
1959 “Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth” Science vol 139 Num 3370: 254-251

Stanley L. Miller & H. James Cleaves
2007 "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" Systems Biology, Volume I: Genomics Oxford University Press

Miyakawa, Shin, Hiroto Yamanashi, Kensei Kobayashi, H. James Cleaves, Stanley L. Miller
2002 "Prebiotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 23, 14628-14631, November 12,

Here is a result using modern methods to analyze Miller's 1953 product;

Parker, Eric T., Henderson J. Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Michael Callahan, Andrew Aubrey, Antonio Lazcano, and Jeffrey L. Bada,
2011 “Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment” PNAS

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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

You can't make anything physical from nothing. At the very least you need some type of raw materials.

Your 'Accumulated' wouldn't be from scratch is hard to interpret, and I'm not sure that it means anything. If by that you mean the accumulated knowledge and technology that we humans have, then it's a very odd statement.

As it appears that you are trying to move the goalposts for no good reason, I'll clarify.

When will humans using any technologies they want and all of our intelligence be able to create life from scratch i.e. from base non-living materials in the laboratory?

 

[SkyWriting]

You can't make anything physical from nothing. At the very least you need some type of raw materials.Your 'Accumulated' wouldn't be from scratch is hard to interpret, and I'm not sure that it means anything. If by that you mean the accumulated knowledge and technology that we humans have, then it's a very odd statement.As it appears that you are trying to move the goalposts for no good reason, I'll clarify.When will humans using any technologies they want and all of our intelligence be able to create life from scratch i.e. from base non-living materials in the laboratory?

That's a good question. My only intention was to point out that
the achievement wouldn't change the level of impossibility of
it happening naturally. The fact that we cannot achieve it given
the resources and intelligence that we now have has already
demonstrated that it wouldn't happen on it's own either.

But your question is still a good one.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That's a good question. My only intention was to point out that
the achievement wouldn't change the level of impossibility of
it happening naturally. The fact that we cannot achieve it given
the resources and intelligence that we now have has already
demonstrated that it wouldn't happen on it's own either.

But your question is still a good one.

The discussion in this thread is mostly about directly, in one step, creating cellular life from nothing. Nobody is suggesting that real life arose in that way. Hence information about making a cell in one go tells us little about the practical process of natural abiogenesis. These are two very different things.

What it would do is address the 'spark of life' arguments that claim that there is something magical about life over and above the chemicals that make up living things. This is an argument often put forward by creationists, though not accepted by science. So, in the context of a forum such as this one, it would be informative.

What is 'the level of impossibility' of life arising naturally, and what is your basis for any claim that you make?

 

[SkyWriting]

Here is some remedial reading just from articles coauthored by Stanley Miller;

Borquez E, Cleaves HJ, Lazcano A, Miller SL
2005 "An investigation of prebiotic purine synthesis from the hydrolysis of HCN polymers" Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2005 Apr;35(2):79-90

G. Schlesinger and S.L. Miller,
1984 "PREBIOTIC SYNTHESIS IN ATMOSPHERES CONTAINING CH4, CO, AND CO2. I. AMINO ACIDS" J Mol Evol 1983 19:376.

Robertson MP, Miller SL.
1995 "An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil" Nature 375, 772 - 774

Bada, Jeffrey. L., Antonio Lazcano
2003 "Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment" Science Volume 300, Number 5620, pp. 745-746

Cleaves, H. James, John H. Chalmers, Antonio Lazcano, Stanley L. Miller, Jeffrey L. Bada
2008 “A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres” Orig Life Evol Biosph (2008) 38:105–115

Johnson, Adam P, H. James Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, Jeffrey L. Bada
2008 “The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment” SCIENCE VOL 322: 404

Levy, M and Miller, S.L.
1998 The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38,

Miller, Stanley L.
1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529

Miller, Stanley, Harold C. Urey
1959 “Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth” Science vol 139 Num 3370: 254-251

Stanley L. Miller & H. James Cleaves
2007 "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" Systems Biology, Volume I: Genomics Oxford University Press

Miyakawa, Shin, Hiroto Yamanashi, Kensei Kobayashi, H. James Cleaves, Stanley L. Miller
2002 "Prebiotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 23, 14628-14631, November 12,

Here is a result using modern methods to analyze Miller's 1953 product;

Parker, Eric T., Henderson J. Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Michael Callahan, Andrew Aubrey, Antonio Lazcano, and Jeffrey L. Bada,
2011 “Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment” PNAS

OK. Every citation I followed was commentary on the original experiment.

How does this even suggest it being the most repeated experiment in history?
My original comment was that I could only find evidence that it had been repeated one time, by a student of Miller.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

OK. Every citation I followed was commentary on the original experiment.

How does this even suggest it being the most repeated experiment in history?
My original comment was that I could only find evidence that it had been repeated one time, by a student of Miller.

Your original post was claiming that it had never been repeated. If you are now simply claiming that it's not the most repeated experiment in history, does that mean that you accept that it has been repeated? Which is the important point in this conversation?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

OK. Every citation I followed was commentary on the original experiment.

Then you cannot read very well.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK. Every citation I followed was commentary on the original experiment.

"The polymerization of concentrated NH4CN solutions has been studied at various temperatures and ammonia concentrations. The products of the oligomerization of ammonium cyanide include adenine and guanine, as well as trace amounts of 2,6-diaminopurine. Our results indicate that the adenine yield is not strongly dependent on temperature. Guanine is produced in lower yield."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010991

Notice that it says, "Our results . . .". They ran the experiment themselves.

My original comment was that I could only find evidence that it had been repeated one time, by a student of Miller.

Given your current display of reading skills, I can see why you would say that.

 

[SkyWriting]

"The polymerization of concentrated NH4CN solutions has been studied at various temperatures and ammonia concentrations. The products of the oligomerization of ammonium cyanide include adenine and guanine, as well as trace amounts of 2,6-diaminopurine. Our results indicate that the adenine yield is not strongly dependent on temperature. Guanine is produced in lower yield."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010991

Notice that it says, "Our results . . .". They ran the experiment themselves.




Given your current display of reading skills, I can see why you would say that.

So how does this show that this is the most repeated experiment of all time?
Is that not "Miller SL"....the original chemist?

 

[whois]

So how does this show that this is the most repeated experiment of all time?
Is that not "Miller SL"....the original chemist?

the question is moot.
the experiment could be reproduced 50 billion times.
it still doesn't answer the hard questions.

 

[SkyWriting]

the question is moot.
the experiment could be reproduced 50 billion times.
it still doesn't answer the hard questions.

If it's the most repeated experiment of all time, then where is the evidence,
and as you say, what would be the purpose?

So far, the best support for the claim is that original chemist did it more than once.
But rather than being hard to replicate, it is claims to be easy with the end result
the spewing of raw materials for further chemical reactions.

It's like, "Look! My experiment produces water!" I've created life!

Nice work Mr Miller. Can I try it next?

 

[whois]

If it's the most repeated experiment of all time, then where is the evidence,
and as you say, what would be the purpose?

correct, it would be useless to reproduce the experiment.
simply because it doesn't advance the field of abiogenesis.

But rather than being hard to replicate, it is claims to be easy with the end result
the spewing of raw materials for further chemical reactions.

It's like, "Look! My experiment produces water!" I've created life!

yes, that was one claim about the miller-urey experiment, that within 10 years we would solve this mystery.
here it is, 60 years later, and we STILL don't know how it happened.
and it's the problem itself.
it isn't like we are trying to get to alpha centauri, we can do that, but it would take awhile.
it's more along the lines of a series of exceedingly unlikely steps has to happen,

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

So how does this show that this is the most repeated experiment of all time?
Is that not "Miller SL"....the original chemist?

If you could read the articles you might notice that they alter the experimental conditions slightly in each report in response to a critic, or just because they have a new idea. A "replication" does not need to be the exact condition- why would anybody care? There were people who did the exact repeated conditions more-or-less to confirm that their setup was done correctly, or to test a new analysis. The original study published by Stanley Miller in 1953 was only able to test the products by a method called "thin paper chromatography." This is not very sensitive. For an interesting reanalysis see;

Bada, Jeffrey. L., Antonio Lazcano
2003 "Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment" Science Volume 300, Number 5620, Issue of 2 May 2003, pp. 745-746

Today the amino acids generated in the Miller/Urey apparatus are called the "Miller amino acids."

See for example;

Carels, N., & de Leon, M. P.
2015 "An Interpretation of the Ancestral Codon from Miller’s Amino Acids and Nucleotide Correlations in Modern Coding Sequences" Bioinformatics and Biology insights, 9, 37.

Trifonov, Edward N.
2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1.

Another point to remember is that there are other probable locations where Earth's original C-H-O-N chemistry started.

Meteorites, and cosmic dust;

Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S.,
1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy,
1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, p. 838.

Marine hydrothermal vents;

Amend, J. P. , E. L. Shock 1998 “Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Hydrothermal Ecosystems” Science Volume 281, number 5383, Issue of 11 Sep , pp. 1659-1662.

Schoonen, Martin A. A., Yong Xu 2001 “Nitrogen Reduction Under Hydrothermal Vent Conditions: Implications for the Prebiotic Synthesis of C-H-O-N Compounds” Astrobiology 1:133-142

Freshwater ponds;

Weber AL.
1997 "Prebiotic amino acid thioester synthesis: thiol-dependent amino acid synthesis from formose substrates (formaldehyde and glycolaldehyde) and ammonia" Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 259-270.