Creating Life From Scratch

note: do NOT post unless you have seen the video. I will ***** at you if you do.

I just saw a really cool video on making life in labs.

here it is

it's 15 minutes long, but well worth the watch...please take the time to watch the whole thing. (the link takes you to a page where you choose what format to watch it in).

anyway, does this seem plausible to you guys? it's a common creationist argument that we haven't created life in labs before, but if we manage to make life, do you think that would shine more light on evolution and abiogenesis?

discuss.

edit: here is a link straight to the video, if the other one gives you trouble.

While i am indiffrent on this, i'm sure some people would suddenly jump up and say that we shouldn't do it because it would be like we were playing God.

It would be interesting though to see what life the scientist could come up with.

EDIT: I watched it and i must say, it looks interesting. Now, they may not be creating a human, for those who are wondering, they could be creating something as simple as a fly or a beetle, or they could be creating something that's much more out of this world like a...5-foot creature who stands on two feet and has long hair all over them*. In fact, i don't know if they know how long this new organism will live. Will it live for a few years, a few months, or a few days? We'll see.

*Yes, i was talking about the Wookies from Star Wars if you all were wondering.

I read the interviews and questions/answers on the same page. They add up to the excitement of the motion picture(which I thought was interesting)!
I'd just like to say that I particularly liked this part of the interview with Genome Project leader Collins:

"Krulwich: What do you think a living thing would require to be alive?

Collins: The word "living" has so many connotations that I'm almost reluctant to try to define it scientifically because it sounds as if I'm then downgrading all the other significances of that word. But if you wanted a short list of the properties of something that we would call living:

It would need to be self-replicating—that is, it could copy itself stably into many other copies. It would need to be stable over time. And it would need to be able to survive without the input of lots of other complicated proteins or other large molecules that aren't generally available, floating around in the atmosphere. Sure, it could have some sort of media that it lived in, some sugars and some salts, and things like that. But let's not require it to need cytochrome P450.

And maybe we ought to require it also to have the ability to evolve over time under the force of some selection process, although that may be an unnecessary added frill, and not everyone would agree that that is needed to define life."

Collins had stated earlier that "If we don't play God, who will?" regarding genetic engineering of embryos. Dispicable.

Mad Hatter, what is abiogenesis?

As exsiting as it would be to create life without the need of a man and a woman, doesn't any one of you stop to think "this isn't right, this is why we had world war 2"?

The Nazis wanted to do the same thing. The only true use for genetic engineering of human beings, is to create supermen, and there's no real use for supermen other then goverment supramacy. Therfore, if you want supermen, you are probably thinking like a fascist..

And sense I aint the dictator, I'm not for this abomonation..

In all seriousness, there is a reason clones are unstable, and test tube babies come out miscarrgies 98% of the time. The reason is, some things man was not meant to mess with, wether God made that law or not..

Originally Posted by Magister

In all seriousness, there is a reason clones are unstable, and test tube babies come out miscarrgies 98% of the time. The reason is, some things man was not meant to mess with, wether God made that law or not..

Or maybe because we have only just begun to use this technology, and life has had billions of years? Who's to say that the chances of life occuring aren't 1/99¹ºººººººº~ and we were just lucky?

Sorry, I'll post in regards to the video itself soon, having trouble with the video.

Originally Posted by Magister

As exsiting as it would be to create life without the need of a man and a woman, doesn't any one of you stop to think "this isn't right, this is why we had world war 2"?

As that had nothing to do with WWII, no, not really.

Now, I've just watched the video, and I have to say it isn't really anything special.

Now, before you all try to murder me for saying that, hear me out. I have a reason.

To begin with, according to that video, they're not actually trying to create life - they're trying to copy it. At least, that's how I read things here. The scientists are taking what they think the conditions were like when life turned up the first time round and seeing if they can replicate the process. It's just a more complex and less likely version of what they've already done.

Scientifically speaking, this whole venture is simple - simple enough that I could probably come up with a thing or two that would be relevant. Although I have no idea why they aren't bothering with the cell membrane, because that's probably the easiest thing to sort out.

Anyway. That's my thoughts on the matter. Good luck to the scientists, but it won't actually make much difference.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Mrs Ganondorf

Mad Hatter, what is abiogenesis?

I'm not Mad Hatter, but I can probably answer this. "Abio" means "not biological", or something along those lines, and "genesis" is a beginning. So it's probably to do with being an unnatural beginning of life.

Yes?

EDIT 2: Having looked at the context, my definition makes no sense. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Magister

As exsiting as it would be to create life without the need of a man and a woman, doesn't any one of you stop to think "this isn't right, this is why we had world war 2"?

The Nazis wanted to do the same thing. The only true use for genetic engineering of human beings, is to create supermen, and there's no real use for supermen other then goverment supramacy. Therfore, if you want supermen, you are probably thinking like a fascist..

And sense I aint the dictator, I'm not for this abomonation..

In all seriousness, there is a reason clones are unstable, and test tube babies come out miscarrgies 98% of the time. The reason is, some things man was not meant to mess with, wether God made that law or not..

whoa whoa. where in the video did they say they wanted to make humans?
I guess we're nazis now.

did you watch the video? answer that honestly. the video mentioned nothing you're talking about.

I'm not Mad Hatter, but I can probably answer this. "Abio" means "not biological", or something along those lines, and "genesis" is a beginning. So it's probably to do with being an unnatural beginning of life.

Yes?

EDIT 2: Having looked at the context, my definition makes no sense. Sorry.

heh, don't worry. the term is actually kinda misleading and ends up confusing a lot of people. biogenesis (not a typo) is the creation of life by god. so we put the "a" in front of it to represent the creation of life without god. so basically, abiogenesis is the origin of life from nature, forming on its own, without a creator. it usually refers to the very first organisms on the earth. yeah, they could have given it a better name, but oh well.

critics of abiogenesis often say that its impossible for life to form without being "born" in some way out of another organism. they also like to say that we have never been able to create life in a lab. so if we do manage to create life in a lab, it will strongly support the possibility of abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

heh, don't worry. the term is actually kinda misleading and ends up confusing a lot of people. biogenesis (not a typo) is the creation of life by god. so we put the "a" in front of it to represent the creation of life without god. so basically, abiogenesis is the origin of life from nature, forming on its own, without a creator. it usually refers to the very first organisms on the earth. yeah, they could have given it a better name, but oh well.

critics of abiogenesis often say that its impossible for life to form without being "born" in some way out of another organism. they also like to say that we have never been able to create life in a lab. so if we do manage to create life in a lab, it will strongly support the possibility of abiogenesis.

The way that word is constructed makes no logical sense to me at least.

I'm wonder WHY scientists want to create life. Does it have any value for us other than creating a theory that can explain how we were created?
Why not spend one's time on something more important like cancer research..

Originally Posted by Mrs Ganondorf

I'm wonder WHY scientists want to create life. Does it have any value for us other than creating a theory that can explain how we were created?
Why not spend one's time on something more important like cancer research..

I think creating life from scratch would be an immensely pivotal and amazing fete, with just as much, if not more, importance than curing a disease. Not only would it answer long-held questions, but think about it: Making life. That's as big a step to me as walking on a certain white moon circling our planet.

I can't say I've seen the movie yet (no time!), but I would truly be amazed if they pulled that off. Big scientific step, there.

there are tremendous benefits that could result from creating our own organisms. I'm no expert, and the technology is far from there yet, but this could help a lot in medical areas, especially if we can put organisms in a body that will reproduce and carry out a certain function. and even that's just a tiny fraction of the possibilities. now things like this shouldn't be expected in this decade, but biotechnology is developing very quickly. we're not just making life cause it's fun. the DNA 2.0 lab the video mentioned helps a lot on its own. synthesizing custom DNA has limitless possibilities.

but on the other hand, is there any practical use of astronomy? astrophysics? the space program in general? research like this helps us learn a lot of fascinating things. science doesn't have to be in the medical area. why devote time to making art or playing games?

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

note: do NOT post unless you have seen the video. I will ***** at you if you do.

I just saw a really cool video on making life in labs.

here it is

it's 15 minutes long, but well worth the watch...please take the time to watch the whole thing. (the link takes you to a page where you choose what format to watch it in).

anyway, does this seem plausible to you guys? it's a common creationist argument that we haven't created life in labs before, but if we manage to make life, do you think that would shine more light on evolution and abiogenesis?

discuss.

edit: here is a link straight to the video, if the other one gives you trouble.

Well, as they've said-- they haven't created life from scratch, not yet at least. They have created DNA. They're still a bit away from creating life. (They'll get there eventually, though.)

Does it shine more light on abiogensis? Undoubtedly. Something that can be done makes abiogenesis far more plausible. But realize the subtle turn this is going to make. You know those irritating "Intelligent Design," people? Well, this is an experiment with "intelligent design." (Not in the sense of that theory, though, thankfully.) We have human beings testing and assembling (if not literally directly assembling, then making it so it can assemble) the building blocks of life. All it shows is that life can be built by an intelligence-- and I suspect that is exactly where the argument would shift to.

The problem will always remain with showing that life spontaneously occured, forming itself from nature. Since we don't exactly have historical records, I can't see that being proven, even if it is 100% right (which, it may very well be).

As a side note, we all interpret God from our own cultural perspective. The idea that God reached his hand down from heaven and literally formed life (like we might take clay and shape it into an urn) is very much anthropomorphizing God. As far as I know, orthodox Christianity doesn't even hold that God has a body, so it's not as if God literally shaped life with physical hands. From the perspective of a Christian, it's hard not to imagine God creating as a human, but indeed, the main mode of God's creation is by his Word. Eventually, I think we just have to realize that if God wanted he could have made himself totally undetectable to human beings (although I don't hold that he did) and that he can create life in whatever way he wants. I think a lack of realization of this point is what makes some people knee-jerk anti-evolution.

But you have to make sure that these new organisms are adapted to a habitat on Earth. If we are supposed to breed our own new species, we must make room for them and our allready immense demand for space for our own fat asses is causing other species to die out.

It is a bit step, but a big step towards what?

And do we at all NEED to create new organisms? We can eat what is allready served to us by the Earth we live on. If we needed anything, it would be there allready.

What possibilities are there in synthetic life exactly? The synthetic life depends on the human mastermind and labour anyway. Do they want to create a whole new little planet, a theme park for children with these new organisms(if they ever create them!)?

What medical advantage synthetic life have? As long as it is not used to downgrade the INHERENT VALUE of the allready existing life... Imagine some maniac thinking that.. okay, I won't go there.

Bobslob, just out of curiosity, are you studying science?

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Well, as they've said-- they haven't created life from scratch, not yet at least. They have created DNA. They're still a bit away from creating life. (They'll get there eventually, though.)

Does it shine more light on abiogensis? Undoubtedly. Something that can be done makes abiogenesis far more plausible. But realize the subtle turn this is going to make. You know those irritating "Intelligent Design," people? Well, this is an experiment with "intelligent design." (Not in the sense of that theory, though, thankfully.) We have human beings testing and assembling (if not literally directly assembling, then making it so it can assemble) the building blocks of life. All it shows is that life can be built by an intelligence-- and I suspect that is exactly where the argument would shift to.

true, they may do that. but I don't any atheists deny that IF god exists, he is fully capable of creating life. we just don't believe there's a god to make it. but still, it would get rid of that really annoying argument of theirs.

The problem will always remain with showing that life spontaneously occured, forming itself from nature. Since we don't exactly have historical records, I can't see that being proven, even if it is 100% right (which, it may very well be).

it can never be proven, but it can be proven possible. if all the building blocks can form spontaneously (which they can) and can assemble spontaneously too, then there's no reason why it's not possible.

As a side note, we all interpret God from our own cultural perspective. The idea that God reached his hand down from heaven and literally formed life (like we might take clay and shape it into an urn) is very much anthropomorphizing God. As far as I know, orthodox Christianity doesn't even hold that God has a body, so it's not as if God literally shaped life with physical hands. From the perspective of a Christian, it's hard not to imagine God creating as a human, but indeed, the main mode of God's creation is by his Word. Eventually, I think we just have to realize that if God wanted he could have made himself totally undetectable to human beings (although I don't hold that he did) and that he can create life in whatever way he wants. I think a lack of realization of this point is what makes some people knee-jerk anti-evolution.

that's true. for the short period of time in which I believed in god, I believed god created the universe with the intention of life forming.

Mrs. G, I'll get to you soon, but I have to go.

ok, your turn Mrs. Ganondorf!

I am not suggesting that we will make organisms that run around in the woods and find a place in our ecosystem. most likely the organisms created by this would stay in a lab or at least contained in some way... it would be another big step just to give these organisms an ecological niche. this is no petting zoo.

like I said, there could be many medical advancements. one cure for AIDS scientists are trying to make is, itself, a virus. while viruses are only considered "half" alive, it's an example of related progress. the virus would send out its DNA and reprogram cells.

humans are a composition of a huge amount of organisms. many of the organisms aren't even human-related (I mean they contain no human DNA). for example, the bacteria on our hands are part of our immune system. they outcompete pathogenic bacteria and decrease our chances of getting infected (this is why we shouldn't wash our hands TOO often). the bacteria in our digestive tract are another example. so creating new organisms that function like some of the cells in our immune system could possibly boost our immune systems. but as I said, I'm no expert.

Kinda off-topic; sorry.

Eventually, I think we just have to realize that if God wanted he could have made himself totally undetectable to human beings (although I don't hold that he did) and that he can create life in whatever way he wants. I think a lack of realization of this point is what makes some people knee-jerk anti-evolution.

I think that those people realize that he could of done it that way, its just that he said that he did it the other way (or at least thats the interperation you get when approaching with the standard exegesis). Thats why they believe the other way, because he said he did it that way. When you read the words of Genesis (without prior influences) they appear to say 'in six literal days the Lord created'. So I don't really think that its those people limiting God to how he created; its God limiting himself.

Sorry for the off-topic-ness.

Originally Posted by Magister

As exsiting as it would be to create life without the need of a man