Can scientists 'create' life yet?

[Ceridwen018]

The statement was posed to me that, "After all this time, and with all this knowledge, scientists still cannot create life in a laboratory." This was followed with the usual, "Therefore, creationism is true."

Do scientists have the ability to create 'life' of any kind? Are they working on it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Scientist have created viruses, but they are not generally thought to be really alive. Craig Ventner's group is working on extracting the DNA from a bacterium and replacing it with artificial DNA, and thus producing a new bacterium. So far, that's the closest science has come to creating life.


It's just a claim of ignorance that if scientists can't yet duplicate the complicated chemistry of life that therefore life requires a divine act to generate it. If you study what is really known about that chemistry you come away with a repect for how intricate it is, and a clear understanding that it is, at bottom, just chemistry.

 

[Drayakir]

Not really, no. They can synthesize organic molecules, but they have yet to make them into something as simple as a bacterium.

 

[Janitor]

Scientist have created viruses...

How complex were the chemicals that they started with? I am curious. Did they literally synthesize nucleic acids 'from scratch,' for instance?

 

[aychamo]

After all this time scientists can't make a million dollar TV only cost $1. Therefore god exists.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I believe they synthesized short lengths of nucleic acids ("oligonucleides") and used enzymes to hook them together.

 

[Drayakir]

But they hadn't been able to make them work as they work in a cell. Besides, how would they be able to manipulate so many reactions simultaneously?

 

[Phobos]

The statement was posed to me that, "After all this time, and with all this knowledge, scientists still cannot create life in a laboratory." This was followed with the usual, "Therefore, creationism is true."

Sorry to get off topic, but I'll just point out the weak argument.

First, that is kind of a God of the Gaps argument. "We don't understand X, therefore God created X." Before science, this included just about everything...like why the sun rises in the morning (thanks Apollo, Ra, etc.) So each time science figures something out, that God of the Gaps gets smaller.

It's also a false dichotomy. "If X is false, then Y is true." No, there may be other options. You still need to prove Y.

 

[alpha_wolf]

I read somewhere that scientist succefully assembled an amoeba from parts taken from several other amoebas, and it (the new amoeba) worked just like the originals..

As for the argument that if we can't create life in the laboratory, then creationism is true - an elementary school student can't do calculus, but it doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[matthyaouw]

So they assume that if we can't replicate a few million/billion years worth of evolution in a matter of years, it can't be done... what odd logic.

 

[dekoi]

Science cannot create life. It can only produce. That is the nature of reality itself.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Science cannot create life. It can only produce. That is the nature of reality itself.

Your authority for that pretty wild claim?

 

[Nereid]

selfAdjoint: do you have some links about Ventner's work?

Janitor: it doesn't really matter what they chose to start with; all the chemicals they used (AFAIK) as inputs are known to be capable of being made, from scratch. It's a bit like many drug manufacturing processes ... they take extracts of living things as inputs, rather than make them, because it's cheaper and faster.

Drayakir: getting as far as artificial viruses is a pretty amazing result! Ventner's team is confident they can make a 'bacterium', which will, of course, be capable of 'living' independently of further manipulation. Just how this will be done, and when, ... let's read the links (or do our own Googling).

matthyaouw: note that what Ventner et al are doing isn't (directly) related to how life may have begun (abiogenesis) ... IMHO, that's a much more challenging topic for scientists (and maybe no one alive today will see it solved).

dekoi: if the Ventner team does make a successful bacterium, in what sense will they have not 'created' life?

 

[Drayakir]

Well, yeah, I wish I could create viruses. But would it be able to do all the functions that a living bacterium could?

 

[Janitor]

Well, yeah, I wish I could create viruses. But would it be able to do all the functions that a living bacterium could?

Given that even the most complex viruses in nature are simpler than a bacterium, I would say the answer to your question is "no."

 

[iansmith]

It is not Ventner, I think it is Venter. It is the same guy that founded TIGR and privatized the human genome project.

 

[selfAdjoint]

selfAdjoint: do you have some links about Ventner's work?

Here's one. Google on Craig Venter for others.
(Iansmith, thanks for the spelling correction).

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/venter.html

 

[ryokan]

Synthetic Biology in "Nature"

There is an interesting "news feature" from Nature on synthetic biology. It is: Starting from scratch by Phillip Ball. Nature 2004;431:624-6.

 

[honestrosewater]

Here's one. Google on Craig Venter for others.
(Iansmith, thanks for the spelling correction).

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/venter.html

This looks like the original paper. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14657399

 

[Atom-Go-Boom!]

Science cannot create life. Its can alter/change life, but cannot create it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Science cannot create life. Its can alter/change life, but cannot create it.

This is the same claim that dekoi posted a couple of days ago on this thread. I asked for a defense of that bald statement then, and I'm asking for it again. Have you any reason, other than personal conviction, to believe this is true?

 

[Astronuc]

One step closer to artifical life

Apparently scientsts are --

Researchers at Rockefeller University make small synthetic vesicles that resemble a crude kind of biological cell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4104483.stm

 

[arildno]

Science cannot create life. Its can alter/change life, but cannot create it.

As yet, scientists can't create Mount Everest either.
It doesn't follow that there is some mysterious, "uncreatable" substance hidden away in the heart of that chunk of rock, though.

 

[cronxeh]

We can't create or destroy matter. However we can manipulate it, put together quarks and make protons, neutrons and electrons. We can further arrange the structure of these things into elements, then react these elements together creating chains of molecules. Further reactions will yield nucleic acids. You can react it further and polymerize it. Few processes further you will get your DNA (or RNA if you wish). Where you go from there is up to your imagination.

the fine print: *such technology is 10-20 years away*

 

[jimmy1200]

ive read conspiracy theories that have said that the government has already succeded in creating life, but that's just whistle blow, and for the argument that we can create life, well here goes.
if a creator did give life to this planet and or life to the entire universe, then we wouldn't really be creating life, because we would already be using the tools to which were created by another source. from the metal we use to build the machines, to the actual chemical fundamentals that make "life", along with other things that we probably don't know how to manipulate, therefore we can't create life yet.
what are we saying when we say create life. are we saying create a body, or creating a mind, body and soul, because although the mind and soul have yet to be proven to be false or true, there is still the possibility that they exist outside the body but still interact with the body(this is what i believe) and if this is true, then we would have to know how to create all three of these. so when we say create life, what are we saying?
i mean we're still unraveling stuff about the human body all the time

we have to first define life, and that is far from being easy, but do we have to define life to be able to create it, maybe not and now I am thinking to hard

 

[Nereid]

Then 'making' a fire, or 'creating' a house is the same kind of activity as 'making' a custom bacterium that lives (swims, eats, reproduced, dies) just like other bacteria.

It seems to me that if you take this 'creator' idea, you won't be at all surprised or upset if one day Venter IV 'makes' an ant, a tree, a hamster in his lab.

 

[jimmy1200]

i wouldn't be shocked if life were created, but to say create is a strong word, since youre already using what was already here to create. its not like any of these scientist just sat there and created life from nothing, hell if a creator existed, its hard to believe it created something from nothing, hell i can't even comprehend nothing, because even darkness or pure light is something. so life can possibly be created in a sense, but no one is truly playing mr creator, because were already using the tools of the creator, whether it be mr big bang or mr white beard.
its like me giving a kid all the legos to build a ramp and then she builds it, can she really be called the creator if i was the one who actually provided her with the tools to create, in a sense yes, but technically, no, because if it weren't for me, then she would not even have built that ramp, nor had the tools to accomplish such a task.
plus when we say life, what are we considering? just human life or life in general, because there may be even more complex creatures out there then us(hard to believe), then what?

 

[selfAdjoint]

i wouldn't be shocked if life were created, but to say create is a strong word, since youre already using what was already here to create. its not like any of these scientist just sat there and created life from nothing, hell if a creator existed, its hard to believe it created something from nothing, hell i can't even comprehend nothing, because even darkness or pure light is something. so life can possibly be created in a sense, but no one is truly playing mr creator, because were already using the tools of the creator, whether it be mr big bang or mr white beard.
its like me giving a kid all the legos to build a ramp and then she builds it, can she really be called the creator if i was the one who actually provided her with the tools to create, in a sense yes, but technically, no, because if it weren't for me, then she would not even have built that ramp, nor had the tools to accomplish such a task.
plus when we say life, what are we considering? just human life or life in general, because there may be even more complex creatures out there then us(hard to believe), then what?

So creation of living beings from inert off the shelf chemicals doesn't satisfy you; we have to recreate the universe to get our attention? I am sure this will be the fallback position of the magic-minded folks when Venter or somebody else exhibits artificial bacteria, but at least the elan vital enthusiasts (some of whom post on these boards) will be confuted.

 

[jimmy1200]

well ill be statisfied if a conscious "normal "human being was created from off the shelf products. it doesn't bother me none, I am not going to go kill myself, but what does it prove?
i mean really, what does it prove? i don't understand your argument?

all I am saying is that you technically can't be a creator if the tools are already supplied for you. I am not getting religious, or mystical on you, it just appears to make logical sense to me. so in essence, yes you would have to recreate and entire universe and life from "nothing" to get anyones "real" attention.
i mean isn't that true creation, to make something out of literally nothing, but like i said, that is almost incomprehensible to make something out of nothing, but that is the only true way to say youre the ultimate creator, is it not. so until then we will not be true creators and will be working with the tools given to us by the "ULTIMATE GAMER".

there is no denying that there has to be a comprehension of everything to truly be a creator, but like my first post said, do we have to define life to create it, probably not, what does that prove, a little but not much.

i don't understand the argument of creating life with tools already provided for you.

plus when we say life, what are we considering? just human life or life in general, because there may be even more complex creatures out there then us(hard to believe), then what?

 

[selfAdjoint]

The point is not "to be a creator". The point is to show that life does not require something extra, besides pure chemistry. If they can create a reproducing, metabolizing microbe, a living thing by all bilogists' classification, out of off-the-shelf chemicals, then they will have shown this.

 

[Maritza]

to create means to bring into being; to form out of nothing; to cause to exist. That's all. Maybe another word (for instance produce) would be suitable. Besides, conversation is going off topic.