The origin of life re-created?

**swivel** · 01-12-09, 01:58 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...hXFs3mcrIPLBIF

Scientists have created basic molecules that went on to copy themselves, often making small mistakes that led to new methods of harnessing resources, an eerie parallel to the basic workings of life. Are we just several more breakthroughs away from having a clear picture of how life could have started from simple chemical reactions, no deity required?

**Enmos** · 01-12-09, 02:52 PM

Very interesting piece. Thanks

**John Connellan** · 01-12-09, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by swivel

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...hXFs3mcrIPLBIF

Scientists have created basic molecules that went on to copy themselves, often making small mistakes that led to new methods of harnessing resources, an eerie parallel to the basic workings of life. Are we just several more breakthroughs away from having a clear picture of how life could have started from simple chemical reactions, no deity required?

I think we already have a fairly clear picture of how life started. Perhaps at this stage, we're just several breakthroughts away from creating life from simple organic molecules

**Hercules Rockefeller** · 01-12-09, 05:04 PM

Great news story! Thanks swivel.

Originally Posted by swivel

Are we just several more breakthroughs away from having a clear picture of how life could have started from simple chemical reactions,

As mentioned, we already have a pretty good idea. Experiments like these further refine the theories.

Originally Posted by swivel

no deity required?

Science and the scientific method already negate the need for a deity.

Here’s a good article from Carl Zimmer. It puts this new research from the Scripps Research Institute into perspective.

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/index...from=&ucat=11&

Originally Posted by John Connellan

Perhaps at this stage, we're just several breakthroughts away from creating life from simple organic molecules

I guess it depends on what you mean by “creating”. Craig Venter’s institute (and others) have recently made some amazing advances towards the creation of a synthetic life form (ie. a bacterial cell). 2008 saw the first synthetic bacterial genome. But a bacterial cell is somewhat down the evolutionary track to the first abiogenic proto-life that emerged – self-replicating molecules (probably RNA) encased in lipid micelles (or something along those lines).

I suspect that scientists will make a synthetic bacterium before they can recreate proto-life via some sort of modern-day Miller-Urey experiment. But that’s just my feeling on the matter – it’s not my area.

**John Connellan** · 01-12-09, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

I suspect that scientists will make a synthetic bacterium before they can recreate proto-life via some sort of modern-day Miller-Urey experiment. But that’s just my feeling on the matter – it’s not my area.

Well, obviously I meant in a synthetic way as we would be waiting a very long time for the random molecular events leading to the first bacterial cell to occur (even in accelerated conditions).

I think we will be able to engineer simple lifeforms as they speculate in the link you have provided in the not too far distant future

**Hercules Rockefeller** · 01-12-09, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by John Connellan

Well, obviously I meant in a synthetic way....

Oh, okay. It wasn't totally obvious to me.

Originally Posted by John Connellan

....we would be waiting a very long time for the random molecular events leading to the first bacterial cell to occur (even in accelerated conditions).

Yes, agreed. I mentioned it simply because this is used as a strawman argument by so many....

“Abiogenesis cannot have occurred because we cannot duplicate it in the lab” and so forth and so on.

**~~Bishadi~~** · 01-12-09, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by swivel

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...hXFs3mcrIPLBIF

Scientists have created basic molecules that went on to copy themselves, often making small mistakes that led to new methods of harnessing resources, an eerie parallel to the basic workings of life. Are we just several more breakthroughs away from having a clear picture of how life could have started from simple chemical reactions, no deity required?

the article is vague

the strawman answer is to think the current models are even close

because they are not!

**Hercules Rockefeller** · 01-12-09, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Bishadi

the article is vague

This isn’t a technical resource, it’s a generalist biology discussion forum. Besides, you wouldn't want the actual journal article - the technicality would be over your head.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

the strawman answer is to think the current models are even close

because they are not!

Bishadi, you are acting more like the archetypal internet crackpot with each new post. If you have something of value to share, then please do so. If you wish to discuss in a scientific manner why you think current models and theories of abiogenesis are deficient, then please do so.

But if you are going to act like an all-knowledgeable crackpot by spamming with unsupportable throw-away one-liners and buzzwords about how the world’s best scientists are wrong but your all-encompassing paradigm-shifting (yet strangely unappreciated) homebrew “theories” are right, then please don’t bother. Such grandstanding will simply be deleted from now on.

**~~Bishadi~~** · 01-12-09, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

This isn’t a technical resource, it’s a generalist biology discussion forum.

then quit making statements as if you know what you are talking about because you dont.

the thread is not about you or your 'strawman' attempts at being articulate

no bacteria is synthetic; they did not 'make' the cell walls, they altered an existing structure

as well, there is no math PERIOD to represent how mass and energy can progress in a reductionary (chemistry) environment

why not learn how to stick with a thread versus sending everything on a tangent within the 2 books you have read

if you are supposed to be someone special on this site, then provide something that adds versus suggest "we already have a pretty good idea."

then when .

....Posted by John Connellan
....we would be waiting a very long time for the random molecular events leading to the first bacterial cell to occur

you write "Yes, agreed. "

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-12-09, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by swivel

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...hXFs3mcrIPLBIF

Scientists have created basic molecules that went on to copy themselves, often making small mistakes that led to new methods of harnessing resources, an eerie parallel to the basic workings of life. Are we just several more breakthroughs away from having a clear picture of how life could have started from simple chemical reactions, no deity required?

Wow, great article swivel!

**leopold** · 01-13-09, 04:20 AM

there are two problems here.
first of all the researchers themselves have said that they haven't created life.
second is the fact that the starting material was RNA. i believe atoms are the starting material for naturally occurring life, not RNA.

**synthesizer-patel** · 01-13-09, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by leopold99

there are two problems here.
first of all the researchers themselves have said that they haven't created life.
second is the fact that the starting material was RNA. i believe atoms are the starting material for naturally occurring life, not RNA.

and what do you think RNA is made of?

**leopold** · 01-13-09, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by synthesizer-patel

and what do you think RNA is made of?

i know what RNA is made of.
i was merely pointing out the fact that they skipped a bunch of steps.

**synthesizer-patel** · 01-13-09, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by leopold99

i know what RNA is made of.
i was merely pointing out the fact that they skipped a bunch of steps.

how so?

RNA is a naturally occuring (i.e. abiotic) macromolecule

**leopold** · 01-13-09, 05:56 PM

RNA is composed of proteins.
the miller-urey experiment only produced amino acids. a racemic mixture i might add.

**synthesizer-patel** · 01-13-09, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by leopold99

RNA is composed of proteins.
.

no it isn't - its a nucleic acid - a nitrogenous base attached to a sugar/phosphate backbone - very similar to DNA

**leopold** · 01-13-09, 06:34 PM

okay.
my bad.
i was under the impression that RNA required protein for synthesis.

**John Connellan** · 01-14-09, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by leopold99

okay.
my bad.
i was under the impression that RNA required protein for synthesis.

No, it's the other way around. RNA is tranlated into proteins

**swivel** · 01-14-09, 08:23 AM

If you combine the Urey/Miller experiments (and the subsequent work which had suprising success using ice to power the chemical reactions) it seems as if the gaps which are left could possibly be bridged in our lifetime.

What would the effect be on the general population when it is announced that scientists have a complete understanding of how we went from an abiotic soup to cellular life? Outright rejection by most?

**fedr808** · 01-14-09, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by swivel

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...hXFs3mcrIPLBIF

Scientists have created basic molecules that went on to copy themselves, often making small mistakes that led to new methods of harnessing resources, an eerie parallel to the basic workings of life. Are we just several more breakthroughs away from having a clear picture of how life could have started from simple chemical reactions, no deity required?

Interesting yes. But im pretty sure they started doing this sort of stuff decades ago.