The Spark of Life has been Recreated in the Laboratory

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites

Source

Mod Note: How to Quote– Please Review This Link.

[edit on Wed May 13 2009 by Jbird]

I found this interesting. After reading the article I think the universe is teeming with life. Sure it needs the right conditions but with the amount of planets discovered so far it is only a matter of time before we find evidence.

They seem to come out with scientific news in a timely matter these days. Its no accident they "discovered" this just now.

From what it sounds it's no more a discovery than they have already made.

"We are the stuff of stars."

I always thought that life should be open to interpretation.
For instance, why do people need to get so many permits to experiment on vertebrates but not invertebrates? Why are plants not treated the same as animals when they will grow to get the best light sources and soils?

Very interesting thread.

Can we all agree at least that the word "created" or "recreated" is the oprative word. It seems they may have created what was already created the first time only the did it again by recreating the created thing. Don't created things need a "Creator"..?

Would be interesting if in the next few years we got to the point where we could recreate intelligent life as if we were the great creator and have them live in an environment we created.

Kind of like mini humans that are a few inches high. Find a way to miniturize the dna of humans .

I believe we are closer to something like that then we think but would never be made known to the public.

reply to post by LucidDreamer85


Youre going down a scary train of thought there friend.

Just imagine what the military is going, or has done, with this.

Originally posted by Fromabove
It seems they may have created what was already created the first time only the did it again by recreating the created thing.

I think you read too much into the word 'recreated'. What the team did was reproduce the conditions of Hadean Earth and the result was a set of ribonucleotides.

Did you read the linked article? Nobody created anything. It came in to being of its own accord under the right conditions, just as it did the first time, four and a half billion years ago.

Don't created things need a "Creator"..?

I suppose so, but that doesn't apply here.

The supposed impossibility of abiogenesis is the last straw that remains for creationism to clutch at. Science won't snatch away that straw; far more cruelly, it will gently pry the thing away, a hairsbreadth at a time. That's what you see happening here.

Here's a link to the Nature News article on the subject for those who would like a little more detail on the story.

[edit on 15/5/09 by Astyanax]

Don't dwell on "recreated" It was a figure of speech but incorrect as replicated is the correct term.

I am now wrestling with the idea that of what the Emergence of life in this way means. The basic principle is that you get simple structures combining into RNA and then theoretically leading to the type of life we see all around us. To me that seems to me like all of life is merely a self replicating emergent accidental machine!!!



Now I think that life in all it forms is more amazing than anything else is the universe, even if we are the only life in it!! We are greater than the sum of our parts. To have thinking biological machines emerge from the historical environment is nothing short of a miracle. I mean if we could look at the earth before life emerged then I think our first impression would be "No Way" could you get a human from this.

But that is exactly what happened.

I think the wider the view we take the more interesting and wondrous the place we live in.

Originally posted by bharata
To me that seems to me like all of life is merely a self replicating emergent accidental machine!!!

Me too, except I'm not quite sure about the 'accidental'. I've argued often enough against the strong anthropic principle, but the weak version - that the universe is the way it is because if it were any other way we couldn't have arisen in it - is uncontroversial. The universe has evolved from its initial conditions into a hospitable abode for life. How do we know this? Because we live in it.

I mean if we could look at the earth before life emerged then I think our first impression would be "No Way" could you get a human from this. But that is exactly what happened.

This is the bit that makes people come over all religious.

I think the wider the view we take the more interesting and wondrous the place we live in.

However, a sacrifice first has to be made: we must throw on the fire all our comforting certainties, and be willing to accept what the universe presents us.

reply to post by Astyanax

However, a sacrifice first has to be made: we must throw on the fire all our comforting certainties, and be willing to accept what the universe presents us.

How true.

I know I like my comforts so I can understand people holding on to some of their Ideas but I can't blame them.

I will try and explain what I mean by accidental. Look at any lifeform. It is a complex series of systems that move that lifeform towards survival and reproduction. Now look again. That complex system is just existing for no reason, it just blunders around being triggered by internal and external factors but is no more alive than a complex machine or a watch. Just because we can think makes no difference.

Is this the truth? If so then what does that mean for the way we view the world? What do we use to fill that void.

I recall reading a science article about a scientist who incubated some kind of microscopic living organism from clean sand. Very similar to these experiment, but the I questioned the origin of the materials. Makes you wonder where the building blocks to lifeforms might be hiding, and under what condition they might thrive. Also, reminds me of a extremophile species that thrives in 800 degree water (seems almost impossible)