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

[AnotherAtheist]

And by that I don't mean synthesising a replacement set of DNA and placing it in a cell and noting that it continues to live (which has been done). I mean create something living from base chemicals.

How far are we away from achieving this?

BTW: My personal intention is to post this question, and stand back for at least a bit and let others discuss.

 

[ChetSinger]

If I'm understanding you correctly, building a cell would be a gigantic task. One would have to build DNA, ribosomes, proteins, membranes, etc.

Big job. But I believe possible, eventually, if current advances continue.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

EDIT: I should have followed my own rule and just watched for a bit.

 

[ChetSinger]

I said I wasn't going to reply. But, can I just point out bacteria and archaea which are much simpler. Even a virus would count.

If you classify a virus as a living thing (I wouldn't), then the job is easier.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

If you classify a virus as a living thing (I wouldn't), then the job is easier.

I've thoroughly screwed up my intention to stay out of the convo. But, I'll just say that I think that anything that can reproduce and evolve is living.
Now I hope I'll sit back and watch!

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean create something living from base chemicals.

I believe what you're describing is called "abiogenesis."

And abiogenesis is a task that the Antichrist will demonstrate during the Tribulation to convince scientists to line up and take the Mark.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've thoroughly screwed up my intention to stay out of the convo.

Been there, done that -- many times!

 

[ChetSinger]

I've thoroughly screwed up my intention to stay out of the convo. But, I'll just say that I think that anything that can reproduce and evolve is living.
Now I hope I'll sit back and watch!

Heh, this reveals one of the issues this thread will have to settle on: it's a guarantee that people here won't even agree on the definition of life.

For example, my wife's biology textbooks say that cells are the smallest living things. And here's the Guinness World Record's take on it.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-living-organism-

The smallest entity universally recognised to be a living organism (not everyone considers the slightly smaller nanobes to be alive) is Nanoarchaeum equitans. This minuscule microbe was only discovered in 2002, in a hydrothermal vent on the seafloor off the coast of Iceland, and its cells are only 400 nanometres across. In addition, its genome is only 490,885 nucleotide bases long, which makes it the smallest non-viral genome ever sequenced.

So it helps that you've included something as small as viruses in your criteria. And regarding your initial post, I think building a virus brick by brick will be quite doable (if present trends continue), should we wish to.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It will never happen (you must 'git 'cher own dirt').

 

[AV1611VET]

It will never happen (you must 'git 'cher own dirt').

I thought of that joke.

It's a good one!

 

[whois]

the major problem with the RNA world hypothesis is nucleotide acquisition.
RNA simply cannot acquire the needed nucleotides before mutations destroy it.

this is only part of the problem.
even if the impossible does happen, we are still faced with the transition to DNA and its transcription system.
a series of exceedingly unlikely steps must happen in succession for life to appear on this planet.
see upload for more info.

 

[Loudmouth]

the major problem with the RNA world hypothesis is nucleotide acquisition.
RNA simply cannot acquire the needed nucleotides before mutations destroy it.

Examples of random nucleotides binding to one another and resulting in functional RNA ligases.

Science. 1993 Sep 10;261(5127):1411-8.

Isolation of new ribozymes from a large pool of random sequences [see comment].

Bartel DP1, Szostak JW.

Abstract

An iterative in vitro selection procedure was used to isolate a new class of catalytic RNAs (ribozymes) from a large pool of random-sequence RNA molecules. These ribozymes ligate two RNA molecules that are aligned on a template by catalyzing the attack of a 3'-hydroxyl on an adjacent 5'-triphosphate--a reaction similar to that employed by the familiar protein enzymes that synthesize RNA. The corresponding uncatalyzed reaction also yields a 3',5'-phosphodiester bond. In vitro evolution of the population of new ribozymes led to improvement of the average ligation activity and the emergence of ribozymes with reaction rates 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed reaction rate.​

 

[whois]

Science. 1993 Sep 10;261(5127):1411-8.
​

well, let's see what koonin had to say in 2011:
Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391​

 

[ChetSinger]

Guys, this thread wasn't begun as a debate about abiogenesis. The OP is asking if we will be able to create living things from scratch, and if so, when.

 

[Loudmouth]

well, let's see what koonin had to say in 2011:

Can't speak for yourself?

Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.

-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391​

Not one mention of what you claimed before.

"the major problem with the RNA world hypothesis is nucleotide acquisition.
RNA simply cannot acquire the needed nucleotides before mutations destroy it."--whois

Will the goal posts be stopping any time soon?

 

[Loudmouth]

Guys, this thread wasn't begun as a debate about abiogenesis. The OP is asking if we will be able to create living things from scratch, and if so, when.

We already did that with the polio virus, if you count that as life.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2539-scientists-build-polio-virus-from-scratch/

The only thing stopping us from taking the DNA out of a bacterium and replacing it with a genome built from scratch is the desire to do so. We could also build the proteins from scratch if we wanted too, it would just take a lot of effort and time. A lot easier to have other bacteria make the proteins for us.

 

[whois]

Can't speak for yourself?

i already did.
now it's your turn.
why do you think koonin says the RNA world hypothesis is a failure?

 

[brinny]

And by that I don't mean synthesising a replacement set of DNA and placing it in a cell and noting that it continues to live (which has been done). I mean create something living from base chemicals.

How far are we away from achieving this?

BTW: My personal intention is to post this question, and stand back for at least a bit and let others discuss.

In your opinion, is this possible?

Thank you.

 

[Loudmouth]

i already did.
now it's your turn.

I already did speak for myself. You claimed that the RNA world hypothesis would not work because "the major problem with the RNA world hypothesis is nucleotide acquisition. RNA simply cannot acquire the needed nucleotides before mutations destroy it."

I just gave you a peer reviewed paper that completely refutes your claim. Now it's your turn to rebut that article.

why do you think koonin says the RNA world hypothesis is a failure?

Because his criteria are malformed. "when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal,"

Progress is not failure, and there has been a ton of progress in the field of abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

In your opinion, is this possible?

Thank you.

It is entirely possible and doable with current technology. However, there's simply no reason to do it since we have easier ways of making proteins and genomes that we want.

We have been doing peptide synthesis for years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_synthesis

We have been doing RNA and DNA synthesis for a long time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_synthesis

You might be interested in the artificially created bacteria with a synthetic genome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium