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

[whois]

Venter's group strung that synthetic DNA together and made a synthetic organism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium
from the link:
On May 21, 2010, Science reported that the Venter group had successfully synthesized the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides from a computer record, and transplanted the synthesized genome into the existing cell of a Mycoplasma capricolum bacterium that had had its DNA removed.

which is exactly the opposite of what the OP requested.

We prove you wrong all of the time.

yes, i can see that.

back in your box loudmouth.

 

[SnowyMacie]

The problem is getting from the chemicals to life, and I don't think there's really even anything close to understand how that happened outside of several various hypotheses. Considering how that's still a big gap in scientific knowledge, we're a ways off unless it's just accidentally stumbled upon one day.

 

[crjmurray]

from the link:
On May 21, 2010, Science reported that the Venter group had successfully synthesized the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides from a computer record, and transplanted the synthesized genome into the existing cell of a Mycoplasma capricolum bacterium that had had its DNA removed.

which is exactly the opposite of what the OP requested.

yes, i can see that.

back in your box loudmouth.

To be fair, you are wrong quite a bit.

 

[whois]

The problem is getting from the chemicals to life, and I don't think there's really even anything close to understand how that happened outside of several various hypotheses. Considering how that's still a big gap in scientific knowledge, we're a ways off unless it's just accidentally stumbled upon one day.

well, that's what koonin says, although he goes a tad further and calls it a failure.
it's quite telling when he says life on earth "seems almost like a miracle".
i seriously doubt if koonin would use this choice of words if we had some kind of idea.
science simply doesn't know how it came about.

 

[ChetSinger]

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​

From one of his papers I've read, Dr. Koonin now appeals to the multiverse to solve this dilemma. In other words, among the infinite possible universes, life is guaranteed to arise somewhere because there's nothing that doesn't happen. While I admire his willingness to think outside of the box, that particular paper seemed to me the ultimate in goalpost-moving. Besides being philosophy, not science.

 

[whois]

From one of his papers I've read, Dr. Koonin now appeals to the multiverse to solve this dilemma. In other words, among the infinite possible universes, life is guaranteed to arise somewhere because there's nothing that doesn't happen. While I admire his willingness to think outside of the box, that particular paper seemed to me the ultimate in goalpost-moving. Besides being philosophy, not science.

correct.
personally i find this an act of desperation.
it also reflects on how we have utterly failed in this area of research.
in other words, we have exhausted every known hypothesis that has been put forth in this matter.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I'll let this run further, but will make one comment here.

At present the conversation (and some of the research) has concentrated on recreating existing organisms from scratch. E.g. to create an artificial polio virus, or an existing bacterium or other very simple existing organism.

While this would be creating life, it is also plausible that life could be created that is significantly new. E.g. life

It is arguable whether viruses are alive. I note that prions are not said to be alive. Personally I believe that anything is alive that satisfies the following definitions.

1] It's able to reproduce.
2] It will evolve under external pressures.

Those definitions do cause problems, e.g. someone could program a metal robot to reproduce itself and vary its offspring. I think people wouldn't accept that as being life, but something based on organisc molecules that did the same probably would be.

In short, artificial life could be life even if it is different from existing life, perhaps even very different with different chemistry etc. In my view in any case.

BTW: Has it already been done? http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/1...essage-global=remove&WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20131009

 

[whois]

I'll let this run further, but will make one comment here.

At present the conversation (and some of the research) has concentrated on recreating existing organisms from scratch. E.g. to create an artificial polio virus, or an existing bacterium or other very simple existing organism.

While this would be creating life, it is also plausible that life could be created that is significantly new. E.g. life

an interesting premise, but it does nothing for life as we know it.
life, as defined by biology, has DNA and genes.
the assumption is, RNA was the precursor to this.

. . . e.g. someone could program a metal robot to reproduce itself and vary its offspring. I think people wouldn't accept that as being life, but something based on organisc molecules that did the same probably would be.

even if it was life, you have now introduced intelligence into the mix.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

an interesting premise, but it does nothing for life as we know it.
life, as defined by biology, has DNA and genes.

Where is this definition that life has DNA and genes? Rather than an observation that all life that we've seen so far (only on Earth) has DNA and genes? I don't believe there is any widespread acceptance that life has to have DNA and genes to be life.

the assumption is, RNA was the precursor to this.

No, that's just one theory. Which is being developed and refined as we speak. http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/4/5/a003608.full.pdf posits that a RNA world could have been preceded by other reproducing molecules.

even if it was life, you have now introduced intelligence into the mix.

Since I'm talking about an artificially constructed (and possibly designed) by us, it's obvious from my first post that our intelligence will be involved in the creation. I'm not sure what your point is here, could you explain?

 

[whois]

Where is this definition that life has DNA and genes?

i assumed that is what you meant in the OP, life as we know it.

Rather than an observation that all life that we've seen so far (only on Earth) has DNA and genes? I don't believe there is any widespread acceptance that life has to have DNA and genes to be life.

correct, genes and DNA would not be a requirement.
fire for example, exhibits many traits that could qualify it as life.

Since I'm talking about an artificially constructed (and possibly designed) by us, it's obvious from my first post that our intelligence will be involved in the creation. I'm not sure what your point is here, could you explain?

will science produce life in the lab?
quite possibly, but it will be under circumstances that cannot be achieved naturally along a timeline.
for example, one reaction might require an extreme acidic solution, and the next an extreme alkaline one.
things like this would be very hard to achieve from a broth of chemicals, but be quit easy to do in separate flasks.
and this is just one problem amongst many.

i am also quit confident that science has already tried this route, so the question remains open.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

i assumed that is what you meant in the OP, life as we know it.

correct, genes and DNA would not be a requirement.
fire for example, exhibits many traits that could qualify it as life.

I mean any sort of life. IMHO it would be more interesting to produce a 'working' life organism that is totally different from life as we've seen it. E.g. the artificial DNA with X/Y bases as well as GCAT. (I've lost the reference for that). In those experiments, they just showed that it was possible to add new types of bases to DNA and that living bacterial could reproduce these DNA strands - it's not an example of creating life as in this this thread. But, it's interesting.

will science produce life in the lab?
quite possibly, but it will be under circumstances that cannot be achieved naturally along a timeline.
for example, one reaction might require an extreme acidic solution, and the next an extreme alkaline one.
things like this would be very hard to achieve from a broth of chemicals, but be quit easy to do in separate flasks.
and this is just one problem amongst many.

For the purpose of this thread, I place no requirement nor expectation that the creation of life would be in a way that could occur in the natural world. Reproducing a natural emergence of life might well be such a lengthy process that would make it impossible in even many human lifespans. Computer simulation may be different however.

BTW: Has the creation of life already happened? http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/1...essage-global=remove&WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20131009 I can't see the full text of this. I'll check at work. But without the full text, I'm not sure exactly what they have done.

 

[whois]

Computer simulation may be different however.

in my opinion, this would be one of the best benefits of recreating life naturally.
once we get a good grip on how genes do their thing, evolution will become completely laid open.

BTW: Has the creation of life already happened? http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/1...essage-global=remove&WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20131009 I can't see the full text of this. I'll check at work. But without the full text, I'm not sure exactly what they have done.

i wouldn't hold out any hope.
every link i've seen such as this admits, it's not really life, or, it wasn't entirely natural in origin.

still, even if we do manage an "unnatural" creation of life, it will put an end to the "spark of life" bit.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

in my opinion, this would be one of the best benefits of recreating life naturally.
once we get a good grip on how genes do their thing, evolution will become completely laid open.

I'm not sure how this follows on from the quote (of my post) 'Computer Simulation may be different however'. I just mentioned computer simulation because that allows time to be sped up depending on the complexity of the simulation.

i wouldn't hold out any hope.
every link i've seen such as this admits, it's not really life, or, it wasn't entirely natural in origin.

still, even if we do manage an "unnatural" creation of life, it will put an end to the "spark of life" bit.

But, this thread is entirely about life that wasn't natural in origin. And yes, it would answer the 'spark of life' bit. Not that the spark of life is a real question these days. We know what to do to create an artificial organism. (At least one that duplicates an existing organism. IMHO it's been done with the polio virus, but polio doesn't fit some definitions of life.) It's just too much work.

 

[Dave-W]

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!

They have done that already with the polio virus more than a decade ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2539-scientists-build-polio-virus-from-scratch/
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/12/u...nce-scientists-create-a-live-polio-virus.html

 

[AnotherAtheist]

They have done that already with the polio virus more than a decade ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2539-scientists-build-polio-virus-from-scratch/
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/12/u...nce-scientists-create-a-live-polio-virus.html

Yes, but a lot of people say that viruses aren't alive. E.g. the ycan't reproduce without the aid of a host cell. I'm not sure about that claim as some parasites might not be able to reproduce without a host, but still be living animals. This reference says that viruses are in a grey area between living and non-living. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/ Prions also meet some of the requirements for life, but given that they are effectively a misfolded protein that facilitates other proteins to mis-fold in the same way, I find arguments that they aren't alive fairly convincing. (Which is different from what I thought yesterday before I read up on them more.)

 

[Dave-W]

I consider them alive. While I get the arguments to the opposite,they possess too many life-like attributes to classify them as inert. (for me anyway)

 

[Armoured]

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!

Viruses can't reproduce without compatible cells to infect, though. They're arguably alive, at best

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Viruses can't reproduce without compatible cells to infect, though. They're arguably alive, at best

I'm sure if I look hard enough I'll be able to find a parasitic nemotode worm or something that can't reproduce without its host. Ah, here we go, Dracunculus or Guinea Worms cannot reproduce without a human host. I don't think anyone would say that a worm isn't alive. It is true that viruses are more dependent on the life processes of a host to reproduce, but there is an overlap here. Arguably alive covers it.

 

[Armoured]

I'm sure if I look hard enough I'll be able to find a parasitic nemotode worm or something that can't reproduce without its host. Ah, here we go, Dracunculus or Guinea Worms cannot reproduce without a human host. I don't think anyone would say that a worm isn't alive. It is true that viruses are more dependent on the life processes of a host to reproduce, but there is an overlap here. Arguably alive covers it.

There's also the small matter of the cell theory, but I've made my point. Anyway,if you're interested in synthetic life, google " Spiegelman's monster"

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There's also the small matter of the cell theory, but I've made my point. Anyway,if you're interested in synthetic life, google " Spiegelman's monster"

Yes, the cell theory will classify the worms as life but viruses as non-life.

I hadn't read up on Spiegalman's monster, though I've read some things about similar research, so I missed that (rather obvious) one. Interesting. You still need the RNA replication enzyme though.