Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life
A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life.
It’s not as Frankensteinian as it sounds. Instead, a lab led by Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School, is building simple cell models that can almost be called life.
Szostak’s protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication. Combined with a process that harnesses external energy from the sun or chemical reactions, they could form a self-replicating, evolving system that satisfies the conditions of life, but isn’t anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe.
While his latest work remains unpublished, Szostak described preliminary new success in getting protocells with genetic information inside them to replicate at the XV International Conference on the Origin of Life in Florence, Italy, last week. The replication isn’t wholly autonomous, so it’s not quite artificial life yet, but it is as close as anyone has ever come to turning chemicals into biological organisms.
“We’ve made more progress on how the membrane of a protocell could grow and divide,” Szostak said in a phone interview. “What we can do now is copy a limited set of simple [genetic] sequences, but we need to be able to copy arbitrary sequences so that sequences could evolve that do something useful.”
These membranes, with the right mix of chemicals, can allow nucleic acids in under some conditions and keep them trapped inside in others.
That opens the possibility that one day, in the distant past, an RNA-like molecule wandered into a fatty acid and started replicating. That random event, through billions of evolutionary iterations, researchers believe, created life as we know it.
I’m not a religious expert, other than knowing its batshit crazy, but doesn’t “scientist god” go with Intelligent Design which is almost the opposite of “creationist?”
Again with my limited knowledge of all things religious other than it is batshit crazy, I don’t see why man made life from non-living substances would pose any challenge or even a footnote to any current religious thinking.
God breathed life into a lump of clay. Who cares what the lump of clay does later?
>>perhaps this is how a scientist God created us.
Perhaps. He DOES work in mysterious ways
#1 – Bobbo
>>its batshit crazy, its batshit crazy,its batshit
>>crazy, its batshit crazy, its batshit crazy
Booboo, you’re like a Chatty Cathy doll. You just keep babbling the same shit over and over and over again, rather than trying to broaden your horizons.
Probably the most enlightening thing you’ve said on this topic is “I’m not a religious expert…. with my limited knowledge of all things religious”
Perhaps you should try and actually LEARN something about religion, rather than relying on “meth and man ass” videos on YouTube and Larry Craig wide-stancing it in the MSP little boys’ room.
#2–Well Mustard, being ignorant in religion, I couldn’t agree with you more.
So, if its not batshit, what kind of crazy is religion.
Don’t be shy, delve into what you know best, your own orthodoxy. Anything strike you as strange or inconsistent or is everything kosher?
Anything in your religion except for god that can’t be found from non-religious sources.
Sorry, I know this is not an amen which is the normal depth of your analysis.
1-2-3===go for it!
But can they make a good pizza at their pizza place ?
#3 – Bobbo
If you choose not to have a spiritual life, that’s fine.
Why not just revel in the barren life, and leave the other majority alone?
You and your ilk define religious persecution. And if you had your way, we’d probably end up like the victims of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao.
>>So, if its not batshit, what kind of
>>crazy is religion.
Not crazy at all, except to those who are imbalanced themselves.
Try it. You might like it. Although you’re so doctrinaire, so enveloped in the orthodoxy of your own faith, that you’d consider it a sin in the Church of Atheism to consider other points of view.
You make no sense, bobbo. Intelligent design is the idea that God (whatever he/she/it is) created life. That is the creationist belief. Religion gives that a mystical coating, but at its core a scientist creating life in a laboratory is the same as a ‘God’ doing it. Science simply gives the detailed how while your ‘breathed life into a lump of clay’ explanation from religion is one from a time before science. Actually, it’s a pretty good one if God was a scientist who breathed His germ-laden breath onto clay with the right composition in the right atmospheric conditions like during the early days of Earth. Sort of like the fear of astronauts contaminating a pristine planet they’ve just landed on with our microbes.
Scientists, like the one in the article, however, simply go further by showing that there are physical processes that can cause life to arise by itself.
Uncle Dave: it is all definitional. On second thought, what I wrote takes your position into account and clearly states why it is wrong. Now, we can all redefine words as we wish and when enough of us do it, the definitions do change. They are man made afterall, not god given.
Its a small point and almost irrelevant other than the discipline that using the dictionary and other objective points of reference provides for our daily thinking and consideration.
I don’t like the on-line Merriam Webster because I find it often too limited, but here is what it says, which happens to be completely consistent with what I posted.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationists
Main Entry:
Function:
noun
Date:
1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b
It takes THIS much time, THIS much effort, THIS much equipment, THIS much research and THIS much INTELLIGENCE to NEARLY achieve something which I’m told happened in a puddle billions of years ago.
right…….
#5–Mustard, its too bad you refuse to come to grips with your own belief system. How is calling religion batshit crazy persecution?
And that is one of my main complaints about the religious frame of mind. Anyone who disagrees and wants to think differently is seen as persecuting you.
Rather batshit crazy don’t you think?
I think they’re making life out to be too…. chemical…
can’t they make machines that do the same thing now? and they don’t call them ‘alive’
Actually, life from non-life (abiogenesis) is one of the big issues that apologists and other wackos (most certainly not Mister Mustard) love to use as their argument that since we don’t know how that happened, it must be god.
It’s a huge part of the god-of-the-gaps logic used in apologetics.
The interesting points to me are 1) scientists are at least trying to figure it out and 2) I’ll be very curious to know when and how they finally do it and how much it can tell us about the natural way it actually happened.
With regard to the apologetics, I read a
really freakin’ stupidbook on the subject. They gave a range of probability of it happening that was between 10^20 and 10^400 to 1 against. Nevermind that this range is so enormous that it is probably something akin to saying that the universe was created somewhere between 1 second ago and many trillions of years ago. (I haven’t done the calculation for a range of values on the order of 10^380, but am probably understating it.)However, the important bit is that the Christian Scientists, being scientists of course, are likely standing over test tubes praying for life to be spontaneously created in them right now. And, by their own calculations, they must have at least a 10^20 – 1 in 10^20 chance of being able to do so. I anxiously await their report.
In other words, whatever the odds, at least the scientists are trying to figure it out.
we are tampering in God’s domain.
#9–lifer==Steven Colbert like to feign fear of BEARS, but another comic on a controversial website like to raise fears about ROBOTS. Love to post about them becoming autonomous, replicating, and meat eating. The “end of days” is near.
If robots ever do become a danger to hoomans, those three life emulating characteristics could certainly be part of the package.
#11 We always have, God created us that way. 😉
#9: Life is a chemical process. Drop some acid and you’ll see. And no. No autonomous, thinking, ‘alive’ robots yet.
#10–Scot==we will never know how it happened. We will be able to demonstrate several ways in which in could have happened and will happen elsewhere in the universe. God in the gaps will always be available to those mystically oriented.
When I was a kiddie, there was only one theory of life starting on earth==in the ocean, sunlight, maybe in tidal pools with evaporation concentrating the material into an organic soup.
Then came the lightning bolts thru the atmosphere of methane.
Then came seeding of amino acids from asteroids.
Then came oceanic rift vents.
How to decide when it could be all four at once and a few more we haven’t discovered?
Same with discovering intelligent god worshipping life on other planets. The bible doesn’t say earth is the only place. Thats only strongly implied. But good bible thumpers have no problem at all in explaining flat out contradictions in the bible, choosing their position and explaining the other away. Designed life is not even a quibble on the way to eternity.
An RNA-like molecule walks into a tidepool with a fatty acid and says “Do you serve creationists in here?”
The tidepooltender says “Yes, we do.”
The RNA-like molecule says “Great, I’ll have a scotch for myself and a creationist for my fatty acid.”
Don’t forget to tip your waitress!
Try The veal!
I’m here all week!
etc etc…
#17–good one. Punch line is difficult but fun to work on.
Reminded me of a cartoon with no words. A cowboy is walking into a saloon. At the bar sits a skeleton with a drink in his hand. On the floor, is a puddle of liquid.
Cracks me up.
#11–Scot==your wiki reference for abiogensis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
is a very nice read. ((Yes #8, I’m looking at you!))
Keep that good stuff coming.
When they actually use inorganic material to create life give me a call. Anyone would like to place bets on when this will happen. I’ll give good odds.
#20–Paddy==good one. I’ll have the barkeep come over and clean up that puddle underneath you.
You crack me up.
You know what the problem is with humans? Our brains are quite done evolving yet. We are still using the same brain that evolved to guide us through the African savanna. I am surprised we have made as much progress as we have.
#20 – Paddy-O,
When they actually use inorganic material to create life give me a call. Anyone would like to place bets on when this will happen. I’ll give good odds.
Sure. When/if they succeed, I’ll give you a call.
BTW, when you find the creationists praying over a test tube to cause abiogenesis, let me know too, will ya? Seems they’ve got some pretty good odds on their side. It’s a shame they know enough not to try … and yet still make their stoopid arguments.
Too bad natural selection doesn’t really seem to work on humans in a human time frame, there’d be no creationists left …
“It takes THIS much time, THIS much effort, THIS much equipment, THIS much research and THIS much INTELLIGENCE to NEARLY achieve something which I’m told happened in a puddle billions of years ago.”
Yes, this much effort. But whatever the effort it took a lot less time and a lot less puddles compared to the situation ‘billions of years’ ago.
#23 “BTW, when you find the creationists praying over a test tube to cause abiogenesis, let me know too, will ya?”
Sure, never heard anyone suggest this before. Have you?
I, for one, welcome our new undead overlords.
I’m waiting…:) ex-nihilo should be fun to watch!
#25 – Paddy-O,
#23 “BTW, when you find the creationists praying over a test tube to cause abiogenesis, let me know too, will ya?”
Sure, never heard anyone suggest this before. Have you?
Of course not! Actually, that was my point. Creation Science isn’t. Intelligent Design is not a theory. And, no one is treating either as if it were in any way scientific. And yet, people still want it taught in science classes.
<sarcasm>I’m still looking for that Christian Science Laboratory out behind the Christian Science Reading Room. I want to be an independent observer of their scientific method.</sarcasm>
#29 “I’m still looking for that Christian Science Laboratory out behind the Christian Science Reading Room.”
Now, that’s funny!
This whole story sounds like just another intelligent design myth. I bet the scientists are actually falsifying their lab notes and frittering away the grant money on lap dances at the local strip club.
Biologists have always been the “bad boys” of science 😉