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

[Papias]

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.

or the Toxo parasite, which has taken over the minds of millions of Americans, making them hoard cats. It's the "Crazy cat lady" parasite. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/magazine/09_10_catcoat.html?_r=0

 

[Papias]

...anything is alive that satisfies the following definitions.

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

Yes, this is the best scientific definition of life out there, used by NASA, etc. Note that something has to reproduce to be able to evolve, so 1) is redundant and not needed. That gives:

"Life: a self sustaining chemical system able to evolve."

Done.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Yes, this is the best scientific definition of life out there. Note that something has to reproduce to be able to evolve, so 1) is redundant and not needed. That gives:

"Life: a self sustaining chemical system able to evolve."

Done.

Would a very big chemical molecule to lose and gain bits be able to evolve, even though it couldn't reproduce? I could imagine a bit RNA module that folds up to protect a core. Bits on the outside woud be able to make and break bonds with the outside world, but as bits got added that folded over and protected what went underneath then it might be seen as evolving, even though there's only one of them.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

And if you read my previous posts I went beyond what Venter's group did. We can synthesize lipid bilayers, RNA, and proteins just like we can synthesize DNA. We have all of the necessary technology to build a cell from scratch. The only reason we don't is the cost and time it would take. It is far easier to use proteins made by bacteria and a synthetic genome to get the synthetic organism we want.

yes, i can see that.

back in your box loudmouth.

You tried to claim that we couldn't synthesize DNA or proteins. Obviously, you have been proven wrong.

 

[Papias]

Would a very big chemical molecule to lose and gain bits be able to evolve, even though it couldn't reproduce? I could imagine a bit RNA module that folds up to protect a core. Bits on the outside woud be able to make and break bonds with the outside world, but as bits got added that folded over and protected what went underneath then it might be seen as evolving, even though there's only one of them.

"Evolve" here is defined as Darwinian evolution, which is the iterative process of natural selection coupled with random mutation. So the answer is "no.", because you can't have the iterative process of natural selection without reproduction.

Good example, so perhaps a clearer re-stating of the definition is:

"Life: a self sustaining chemical system able to undergo Darwinian evolution."

Papias

 

[DogmaHunter]

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​

Do you also know any other scientists besides koonin?

Just checking.

 

[Free at Calvary]

"Life: a self sustaining chemical system able to undergo Darwinian evolution."

Simply being alive, simply existing is not my definition of life. That definition has more in common with trees than humanity. If all I needed to do was eat and breathe to have life, I would be content.

Science can define the framework that supports life but it knows squat about life. It may create an artificial womb, but it never has and never will contribute anything to a fruitful life.

If you think technology increases your life, you haven't lived long enough.

 

[Loudmouth]

Simply being alive, simply existing is not my definition of life. That definition has more in common with trees than humanity.

Trees are alive.

Science can define the framework that supports life but it knows squat about life. It may create an artificial womb, but it never has and never will contribute anything to a fruitful life.

Do you think it is just coincidence that the infant mortality and maternal mortality rates went down by 90% at the same time that modern science began to flourish?

If you think technology increases your life, you haven't lived long enough.

Antibiotics don't save lives? Really?

 

[Free at Calvary]

Antibiotics don't save lives? Really?

Point well taken, but it would be nice if a pill could prevent suicides - one of the many issues of life.

Possessing life and being alive is vastly different to me. Star Trek argued that the robot Data was sentient and therefore a life form. There were no chemical processes yet they claimed he was alive, while knowing none of the pleasures of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Possessing life and being alive is vastly different to me. Star Trek argued that the robot Data was sentient and therefore a life form. There were no chemical processes yet they claimed he was alive, while knowing none of the pleasures of life.

He even talked like a scientist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Point well taken, but it would be nice if a pill could prevent suicides - one of the many issues of life.

If you are looking for anti-depressants through the history of time, your best chance of finding one that works is right now, and that is due to modern medicine and modern science.

Possessing life and being alive is vastly different to me. Star Trek argued that the robot Data was sentient and therefore a life form. There were no chemical processes yet they claimed he was alive, while knowing none of the pleasures of life.

When you start using fictional tv series as the basis of your scientific argument, you have taken a wrong turn.

 

[whois]

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'm sorry for the confusion.
you mention "any kind of life" or something along those lines.
i specifically mentioned computers in connection with the turing machine.
according to turings theory, it becomes possible to "create life" from a series of simple logical steps.
in fact, anything that can be imagined can be simulated by this concept, in theory anyway.

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.

in order to have a meaningful discussion, we would need an agreed upon definition.
last i heard, life is the living biological cell.

aside:
i think it's telling that we can't even define what life actually is, even though on the outside it would seem to be a simple matter to do so.
the universe is basically in the same shape, it seems we should be able to define what the universe is, but that too is almost impossible.

BTW, this thread seems to moving into the direction of philosophy.

 

[Loudmouth]

in order to have a meaningful discussion, we would need an agreed upon definition.
last i heard, life is the living biological cell.

I think that would work for this thread.

If we take the DNA out of a cell and put in the genome from another species, what happens? The cell starts to replicate, and it starts to produce RNA and proteins from that new genome. It is alive.

What allows this to happen? When you take the DNA out of the cell, what do you leave behind? You leave all of the proteins and RNA from the surrogate species.

Could we also produce these proteins and RNA from scratch through synthetic processes in the lab? The answer is yes. It just happens to be way more expensive and labor intensive compared to DNA synthesis.

So do you think there is some "spark of life" that is not found in the DNA, RNA, protein, and lipid membrane?

 

[pat34lee]

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?

About as far away as becoming God. I doubt they will get past the point of creating enough proteins to make a cell, properly folded for use. Creating rNA or DNA from scratch is about as viable as a child creating a supercomputer with an erector set.

 

[pat34lee]

Antibiotics don't save lives? Really?

Do they make up for the damage caused by radiation, pesticides, heavy metals, and every other poison science has released on the people?

 

[pat34lee]

You tried to claim that we couldn't synthesize DNA or proteins. Obviously, you have been proven wrong.

Don't be too hasty. This was about building from scratch. Scientists have a funny definition of "from scratch."

"The scientists bought small pieces of DNA, then perfected painstaking methods to stitch them together inside bacteria and yeast cells in exactly the right order."
http://www.nysun.com/national/scientists-build-bacterial-dna-from-scratch/70211/

 

[Berean777]

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.

The DNA is the complex key. Like a door which has a key hole, the key unlocks the door. In this case the DNA key unlocks life. The key that you put into the key hole is not part of the door itself, rather the door accommodates for the key. The DNA key is external to the material universe. What science has discovered is try and map the key hole. Mapping the key hole is one thing, yet having the key is a totally different thing.

In conclusion the door of life cannot be unlocked because the key can never be accessed neither be used. This leaves the science community with the key hole in interpreting life and this is where it will stay within the domain of the created universe. The DNA key itself is immaterial and doesn't exist in our reality.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The DNA is the complex key. Like a door which has a key hole, the key unlocks the door. In this case the DNA key unlocks life. The key that you put into the key hole is not part of the door itself, rather the door accommodates for the key. The DNA key is external to the material universe. What science has discovered is try and map the key hole. Mapping the key hole is one thing, yet having the key is a totally different thing.

In conclusion the door of life cannot be unlocked because the key can never be accessed neither be used. This leaves the science community with the key hole in interpreting life and this is where it will stay within the domain of the created universe. The DNA key itself is immaterial and doesn't exist in our reality.

As posted in earlier threads, the DNA is easy to obtain. There are places where you can send a request to have DNA made, and they'll make it for you. https://sgidna.com/dna_clones.html?...mztSNxk4WTUu2cHofFUt5Vx_7MtIWzj08ABoC8Zfw_wcB People have already created artificial DNA and placed into a cell, whereupon the cell continued to live normally.

 

[Berean777]

As posted in earlier threads, the DNA is easy to obtain. There are places where you can send a request to have DNA made, and they'll make it for you. https://sgidna.com/dna_clones.html?...mztSNxk4WTUu2cHofFUt5Vx_7MtIWzj08ABoC8Zfw_wcB People have already created artificial DNA and placed into a cell, whereupon the cell continued to live normally.

They have interpreted DNA. They do not have the DNA key. They have cut and paste from their interpretation of the key hole. They have put together by cut and paste a key hole scenario. This doesn't mean they have the DNA key. DNA key is immaterial to the material universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I like your word choices.