Creating life?

This is just for chat, so please don't overload me with websites and books to read. If you have any knowledge in your head and care to share it, then maybe I will find some morsel of interest and search for it myself, thanks.

If we take a large fish tank and place in it all the chemicals and ingredients believed to have existed when life formed on this planet, seal the tank and place it in a hot sunny region of earth, why won't mold grow or why won't chlorophyll cling to the underbelly of a rock? Wouldn't these items constitute the formation of life?

reply to post by jiggerj


Mold grows from spores, chlorophyll is a chemical produced by plants.
You have to go down further into molecules making up Amino Acids, that make proteins, that form the basis for life.

It is speculated that these amino acids first formed in shallow pools near volcanic areas. Where you have heat, methane, sulfur, phosphorus and all kinds of other stuff coming out of the earth.

Scientists are currently conducting experiments to see what combinations of elements and environments might cause these amino acids to form.

this is all just my opinion which is likely to be all imaginary but i they way i would expect it to be is that you can not create life; however if you create the appropriate atmosphere for life or consciousness will arise

It is interesting that no one has been able to create life from non-living elements to date. Why not? I believe there is a hole in the theory of how life began regarding amino acids otherwise it would have been replicated by now.

Any body familiar with Stanley Miller?

Worth the read. If this was taken a bit further, then who knows.

They sort of created life, although they used a cell to stick their artificial DNA into. So it's not entirely from scratch.

It is similar to an artificially made clone (in a sense).

Not bad...

Getting closer here...

It's probably just a matter of time.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
Any body familiar with Stanley Miller?

Worth the read. If this was taken a bit further, then who knows.

edit on 11/18/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

Having watched a little about him, he's the reason for this thread. He added hydrogen to his mix, but science then figured that hydrogen was too light to stay in the atmosphere and floated off into space. When Miller tried his experiment without hydrogen, no amino acids formed.

Originally posted by Carreau
It is interesting that no one has been able to create life from non-living elements to date. Why not? I believe there is a hole in the theory of how life began regarding amino acids otherwise it would have been replicated by now.

That's exactly what I've been thinking. There's a step or two in the process that we haven't figured out yet. And I hope we at least come up with a valid idea in my lifetime on how all that information in the DNA formed naturally. I just want to know.

reply to post by Carreau


Very flawed logic "because it hasnt been done yet, it cant be".

Theres sooo many variables to account for that could or could not have been necessary for those first self replicating molecules to arise.

and thats all it really takes, self replication with some inherent randomness.

reply to post by VonDoomen


There's also the issues of timescales. It could be that the process takes a few million years or just a few thousand, either way that's a timescale that would be hard to replicate in the short time they've been experimenting.

The event has often been imagined as taking a random event to spark the process... if the probability is very low, requires specific mix of materials to occur and possibly take thousands or millions of years... the chance to replicating it in the lab are quite slim.

Also there is some effort to do this, though it isn't like it is an enormously wide field... Oh yeah, and getting funding for it when you describe it as "We are going to get some random mix of materials and subject it to various tests to see if we can create life" makes a funding agency go "Research proposal... in the bin"

Also yes that logic is very flawed "if it hasn't been done by now it can never be done." What you are asking for scientists to perform a variable search to find exactly the mix we want, and then the stimulus or the time required to start the process... The number of variables probably span into the thousands if not millions. Like many statements made regarding science by people who probably don't have a background in it, or knowledge of how research works in the real world... it is somewhat ignorant to say "If its not been done by now, its impossible"

There is a lot of research now into the idea that Meteorites brought life to Earth. A review of NASA research shows that they have created amino acids in a deep space-like environments. Life forms, as long as the correct conditions exist. Today we can make synthetic DNA, insert that into a living cell (after removing the original DNA)and it will replicate. Though we are far from creating life, implied is that it is technologically possible given enough time.

Originally posted by Kashai
There is a lot of research now into the idea that Meteorites brought life to Earth. A review of NASA research shows that they have created amino acids in a deep space-like environments. Life forms, as long as the correct conditions exist. Today we can make synthetic DNA, insert that into a living cell (after removing the original DNA)and it will replicate. Though we are far from creating life, implied is that it is technologically possible given enough time.

That just passes the buck. The meteorites would have had to have picked up life somewhere else this process happened, so the same problems still apply.

It doesn't necessarily pass the buck, high energy interactions could be what is required to kick start the process. A meteorite that has gathered material, the building blocks if you will, might require a certain kick start, that random rare process to start the whole thing. Maybe a high energy particle interaction, maybe the heating and pressure shock of it coming through the atmosphere, maybe hitting the ground/water at high speed. There are as many possibilities of variables as there are coffee shops... ruling out one by simply saying "na that doesn't seem possible or likely" is not really a good way of going about it

Like I said previously, exactly what is required is unknown, and there are many unknowns.

Someone once said the following

There are
known knowns
known unknowns
unknown unknowns

The first two we can deal with and turn the known unknowns into known knowns, but it is the 3rd category that is the dangerous one for any theory or project

reply to post by jiggerj


Wow, this is a really difficult question to answer because your question is poorly asked (no offense).

First, mold is an actual living organism - and a quite complex organism at that. Molds are actually rapidly growing, asexually reproducing fungi (which are eukaryotic/nucleated organisms). It is the mold Penicillium chrysogenum that brought us penicillin. It may interest you to know that the earliest fungi actually evolved AFTER the earliest animals, which evolved in the water. Fungi, however, are land-based organisms and could not evolve until after the development of the ozone, which protected land-based organisms from the mutations caused by cosmic rays.

Second, chlorophyll are complex molecules created by biogenesis within various plants (and even some animals and fungi). This biogenesis occurs via complex protein-protein interactions of enzymes and amino acids and within complex organelles. Because of it's ability to mitigate oxygen radicals (the result of the splitting of water) and absorb excess energy from UV rays (AKA photodamage), chlorophyll likely evolved as a mechanism to protect from DNA damaging metabolic byproducts and cosmic rays. So again, chlorophyll actually represents a fairly advanced organism.

I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you mean to ask why have we not been able to reproduce life in the lab with mere atoms and molecules? And with that, I think, perhaps we would still not be speaking the same language.

As my intro college biology textbook (Biology. Campbell, 5th Edition) states: "Life resists a simple, one-sentence definition because it is associated with numerous emergent properties. Yet almost any child perceives that a dog or a bug or a tree is alive and a rock is not. We recognize life by what living things do." So, let us define "life" based upon that premise:

(1) Living things are highly organized and complex. This really means that living things tend to be comprised of cells, which are highly organized and complex. Some cells are more complex than others. Nucleated cells are more complex than non-nucleated cells, yet the latter can still be considered alive. Some organisms have multiple layers of cell walls, while some have simple lipid bilayers. Some have complex organelles to create energy, some have simple organelle-like structures. Some organisms are more complex than others: multi-cellular versus uni-cellular. Yet, again, both can be considered alive.

(2) Living things can grow and reproduce. And, while growth may be essential for the organism prior to reproduction, reproduction is not essential for the organism but it is essential for the species. And, perhaps more importantly, there heritable information that is passed on during reproduction. Of course, this reproduction can occur sexually or asexually - both types of organisms can still be considered living. This is important because enzymes (proteins) can reproduce a multitude of molecules that carry "information" depending on your definition of information. And believe me, biologists are always trying to push that beyond the dogmatic DNA and RNA in terms of what kinds of molecules can be considered information. So, even this is constantly being debated in hopes of determining early "life."

(3) Living things must be able to use energy and metabolize. When we speak of metabolism, we are actually describing something incredibly complex that requires multitudes of already evolved enzymes and organelles. However, simply speaking, we mean the taking in of a "nutrient" and the expelling of a by-product. Respiration (taking in of oxygen, the release of carbon dioxide and the in-between chemical reaction) is considered metabolism. This is actually the category that often leads to exclusion from the "living" category (like prions and viruses).

(4) Living things must be able to interact with their environment. Again, to quote Campbell, "Life does not exist in a vacuum. An organism is an example of what scientists call an open system, an entity that exchanges materials and energy with its surroundings." Included in this category is homeostasis - this means that if the environment changes, the organism has the ability to perceive that change and then re-correct itself. For example, when we get hot, a series of molecules and proteins communicate in our bodies to eventually cause us to sweat and thereby cool down.

So the dilemma is that you have asked for the impossible. There is no scientist that can take the atoms or even molecules that existed a couple billion years ago and recreate "life" as we have defined it because "life" only exists as living organisms, which took a couple billion years to evolve. Step by step, each category came to occur in different ways. There are theories describing those steps, if that interests you...

reply to post by jiggerj


Oh, and just to be facetious, if you were to "take a large fish tank and place in it all the chemicals and ingredients believed to have existed when life formed on this planet, seal the tank and place it in a hot sunny region of earth," I'm pretty sure mold would grow because that # is everywhere! I know we have to be really, really, really, careful in the lab not to allow our cells/samples to get contaminated with mold spores, which you are likely breathing and carrying on your clothes and hair at all times. Not to gross you out - that's what our immune systems are for!

reply to post by jiggerj


Some have raised the argument that LIFE cannot be created. This is not true. All one has to do is look at a VIRUS. A Virus has DNA but is NOT ALIVE! Thus we are seeing a bunch of Elements arranged in a Molecule which came from the Raw Materials of Earth that Behaves as a Life Form but is NOT a Life Form.

Since a Virus exists...it is a step below what Life is and it is not too big a leap to assume that Life was created the same way.

There are various experiments that have approximated conditions upon Earth Billions of Years ago and some have claimed that Life has been achieved in a Controlled Experiment in the Lab. Many of these are waiting for confirmation that they have indeed achieved GENESIS.

It is the opinion of many Biochemists that it is not a question IF Life can be created in a Lab but WHEN scientists will be able to achieve GENESIS spontaneously. Split Infinity

Originally posted by Phagette
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Wow, this is a really difficult question to answer because your question is poorly asked (no offense).

None taken. Though I am still interested in all things, I just don't have the energy to fully explore and clarify. Lately I have been so disappointed in my responses. I've had two long naps today, and I'm ready for another.

reply to post by jiggerj


I'm usually a napper, too! But today, clearly I had too much coffee.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Virus are insanely fascinating to me. I do think that they are some kind of AI. I did a short weird little thread on my dream experience with a virus, here. What is Life