# Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

In reference to this post



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> Incidentally, some serious scientists are making up amino soup combinations and exposing them to various stimuli right now-they'll create life (that everyone can agree is life) sooner or later-doesn't make them god, and doesn't prove there isn't one-just will prove that god isn't necessarily necessary-and, misuse of Ockham's Razor notwithstanding, that doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.



Seen  here.:



> 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 While his latest work remains unpublished, Szostak described preliminary new success in getting protocells with genetic information inside them to replicate at the XV International Conference on the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.


 
Well, what's next? :lol: *bwahahaha!*


----------



## Big Don (Sep 9, 2008)

Sorry, but, they aren't creating anything. The most they are doing is rearranging.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Sorry, but, they aren't creating anything. The most they are doing is rearranging.


 

eh...what was your PhD. in again? :lol:

I mean, yeah, they're rearranging a lot of stuff <*BigDonvoicemode"on"*>THAT"S NOT ALIVE<*BigDonvoicemode"off"*> and arranging it to 
<*BigDonvoicemode"on"*>LIFE THAT"S NEVER EXISTED BEFORE IN NATURE<*BigDonvoicemode"off"*>........but they're not "creating anything." :lol:


----------



## theletch1 (Sep 9, 2008)

elder999 said:


> eh...what was your PhD. in again? :lol:


 So this conversation is open only to folks holding a PhD, then?  That leaves me out.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> So this conversation is open only to folks holding a PhD, then? That leaves me out.


 
Oh, hell no-you know what they say, "*P*iled *H*igher and *D*eeper?" :lol:

It's not even my field, but the ones whose field *it is* seem to agree....don't really know that Don's difference isn't any more than semantical-he certainly wouldn't make the same argument about a building, or a statue, or even a pot of soup.....:lol:


----------



## JBrainard (Sep 9, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> So this conversation is open only to folks holding a PhD, then? That leaves me out.


 
*Walking into a potential war zone* Elder is obviously pointing out that Big Don is _most likely_ (feel free to correct me BD) going to oppose any idea that even smacks of negating the theories behind creationism.
But I could be wrong. *ducking for cover*


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

JBrainard said:


> *Walking into a potential war zone* Elder is obviously pointing out that Big Don is _most likely_ (feel free to correct me BD) going to oppose any idea that even smacks of negating the theories behind creationism.
> But I could be wrong. *ducking for cover*


 

The problem I have with Don's post isn't the potential negation of creationism, or lack thereof-in fact, I'm a believer. The problem is, that like so many of his posts, it lacks elaboration-I'm not sure what he's trying to say (reference the rest of my response) and don't see how anyone else could be. If he has an opinion, what he's posted hardly expresses it-it's just a blanket pronouncement, and that implies absolute authority-hence the sarcastic question of credentials.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 9, 2008)

It does remind me of the old joke tho...

A scientist calls up to god, and says "God, I have created life in my lab.  Therefore we don't need you anymore."

God is intrigued so he appears to the Scientist and says "Really?  Show me how you do it!"

So the scientist looks at god and says "Ok well first I take some of this dirt..."

And God interrupts him and says "No, no no... use your OWN dirt"

Bdum Ching!


----------



## Big Don (Sep 9, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> It does remind me of the old joke tho...
> 
> A scientist calls up to god, and says "God, I have created life in my lab.  Therefore we don't need you anymore."
> 
> ...


That and, 





> to make an Apple pie from scratch, you have to create the universe.


----------



## theletch1 (Sep 9, 2008)

Ha!  Piled higher deeper.  I like that.  I might be able to elaborate on Don's first post (if I'm incorrect I'm sure you'll correct me, Don) with the help of Cryozombies' post.  What they are using as their base, they didn't create.  They are using a pre-existing acids/protiens/whatever and exposing it to different stimuli to see what happens, correct?  Would they not, at best, re-create something that would have been around billions of years ago as life began on the planet and not something new at all?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Would they not, at best, re-create something that would have been around billions of years ago as life began on the planet and not something new at all?



There's no telling-there's speculation that it may resemble "early life," or _it may have never existed_,but I don't see that there's any way of ever really knowing for sure.....unless it eventually evolves into an aardvark or something. :lol:


----------



## teekin (Sep 9, 2008)

elder999 said:


> The problem I have with Don's post isn't the potential negation of creationism, or lack thereof-in fact, I'm a believer. The problem is, that like so many of his posts, it lacks elaboration-I'm not sure what he's trying to say (reference the rest of my response) and don't see how anyone else could be. *If he has an opinion, what he's posted hardly expresses it-it's just a blanket pronouncement, and that implies absolute authority-hence the sarcastic question of credentials.*


*
* 
I'm going to stick up for Don here. I Like debating with Don, he can get his point across with intelligence and humor. He doesn't get into pissing matches about personalities. But then I don't have a PhD either. 
( my poodle outsmarts me quite often)
Lori


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

Grendel308 said:


> [/b]
> I'm going to stick up for Don here. I Like debating with Don, he can get his point across with intelligence and humor. He doesn't get into pissing matches about personalities. But then I don't have a PhD either.
> ( my poodle outsmarts me quite often)
> Lori


 

No pissing match- "Sorry, they're not creating anything, they're just rearranging" is hardly any kind of substantive rebuttal-it's just a blanket pronouncement. It's not worthy debate, and it's not worthy _of_ debate. That's not to say I'm not interested in his thoughts.......
.....if he has any.:lol:


----------



## theletch1 (Sep 9, 2008)

Since I'm involved in the thread I can't (by MT policy) moderate the thread.  So, as a regular member, I'm going to suggest that we cease all discussion of other members and get on with what could well shape up to be a good scientific debate.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 9, 2008)

Grendel308 said:


> [/b]
> I'm going to stick up for Don here. I Like debating with Don, he can get his point across with intelligence and humor. He doesn't get into pissing matches about personalities. But then I don't have a PhD either.
> ( my poodle outsmarts me quite often)
> Lori


I would like to say... *ahem* ... play nice folks... it's all theoretical anyway. Just guys in lab coats trying to be better than that which created them ... *whatever* they believed created them.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I would like to say... *ahem* ... play nice folks... it's all theoretical anyway. Just guys in lab coats trying to be better than that which created them ... *whatever* they believed created them.


 

Oddly enough, that's not really what they're trying to do, or why. Mostly, scientists do what they do because they get wrapped around "what would happen if...?" They're doing it because they _can_.

In any case:



> Protocellular work is even more radical than the other field trying to create artifical life: synthetic biology. Even J. Craig Venter's work to build an artificial bacterium with the smallest number of genes necessary to live takes current life forms as a template._* Protocell researchers are trying to design a completely novel form of life that humans have never seen and that may never have existed.*_
> 
> Over the summer, Szostak's team published major papers in the journals Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that go a long way towards showing that this isn't just an idea and that his lab will be the first to create artificial life -- and that it will happen soon.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 9, 2008)

So when I break wind in a crowded room I can blame it on God?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 9, 2008)

Random thoughts:

If these scientists do succeed in creating life, does that make them gods?  At least to the organisms they create?

It probably wouldn't be that fun anyway.  Who wants to be god to a weird brown smear in a lab slide?  You need to have a critter that is at least capable of sensing your presence and abasing itself accordingly.

Since this was a collaborative effort, the critters have a pantheon of deities.  What traits will they assign to each member?  Will some of them band together in the name of Dr. X and kill the followers of Dr. Y?  Will others proclaim lab head Dr. Sosztak the One True God, bringing forth a new age of Enlightenment and bad art?  Will they ultimately reject the doctors as "invisible friends" and make little critters of their own?


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 9, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Random thoughts:
> 
> If these scientists do succeed in creating life, does that make them gods?  At least to the organisms they create?



Thats an excellent question that could be applied to an AI as well, don't you think?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Thats an excellent question that could be applied to an AI as well, don't you think?


 

Really should only be applied to an A*I*, a term which could apply to this as yet unrealized life form, should it be realized and _should it evolve into something with intelligence._

I mean, you can't be a god to something that lacks awareness, whether you "created" it or not. 

But that's more like it.....


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 9, 2008)

Just had another thought: Maybe God isn't ignoring our prayers... maybe he just had his funding cut.   ?


----------



## theletch1 (Sep 9, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Really should only be applied to an A*I*, a term which could apply to this as yet unrealized life form, should it be realized and _should it evolve into something with intelligence._
> 
> I mean, you can't be a god to something that lacks awareness, whether you "created" it or not.
> 
> But that's more like it.....


If any life is formed at all there simply won't be enough time in the lives of any of us here to see any evolution at all... unless they've figured out how to speed that up as well.



CoryKS said:


> Just had another thought: Maybe God isn't ignoring our prayers... maybe he just had his funding cut. ?


 Maybe he's just saying no.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> If any life is formed at all there simply won't be enough time in the lives of any of us here to see any evolution at all... unless they've figured out how to speed that up as well.


 
I'm sure that they're already thinking in that direction-I mean, after you've provided the stimulus that sparks "life," what comes next?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 9, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I'm sure that they're already thinking in that direction-I mean, after you've provided the stimulus that sparks "life," what comes next?


 
If they don't come up with a way to speed up the process, then everything we've learned from Star Trek is wrong.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 9, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Maybe he's just saying no.


 
Why would he say no to a beer volcano?  The Pastafarians get one.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 9, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Oddly enough, that's not really what they're trying to do, or why. Mostly, scientists do what they do because they get wrapped around "what would happen if...?" They're doing it because they _can_.
> 
> :


 

And that's my only issue with scientists, is the ones what get so wrapped up in whether they "could" do something that they never stop to consider whether they "should" do it.

Frankenstein and Moreau were supposed to be cautionary tales, not prophecy.

But--unsurprising.  It's human nature to mess with what we shouldn't. We have no natural predators left save ourselves and that's not culling our numbers fast enough, so we have to create our own doom by SOME means after all *shrug*.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> And that's my only issue with scientists, is the ones what get so wrapped up in whether they "could" do something that they never stop to consider whether they "should" do it.


 
I have the same issue, given my field. A good look at the Manhattan Project reveals a variety of grave misgivings, but they all went ahead and did it anyway.



Andy Moynihan said:


> Frankenstein and Moreau were supposed to be cautionary tales, not prophecy..


 
Alas, all too often there is no difference......


----------



## theletch1 (Sep 9, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I have the same issue, given my field. A good look at the Manhattan Project reveals a variety of grave misgivings, but they all went ahead and did it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, all too often there is no difference......


 Wow, a highly edumacated "Hey, ya'll! Watch this!"


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Wow, a highly edumacated "Hey, ya'll! Watch this!"


 

...and *entirely* the product of,_ "What do you think would happen if......"_


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 9, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> You need to have a critter that is at least capable of sensing your presence and abasing itself accordingly.



Give it time, give it time...


----------



## astrobiologist (Sep 9, 2008)

Since I am an astrobiologist and my main field of research has been in molecular biology, I feel a compulsion to reply 

First off, MACaver, my speleologically inclinded fellow poster, you are assuming that all scientist must believe that something created them.  I don't believe in biblical creationism and I've worked in a few labs.  I never thought to myself, "I'd like to be better than the Christian god, so I'm going to play around in lab today trying to create life".  Also, remember, there are a lot of female scientists in the world (so we're not all just guys in lab coats).  

Next, the scientists who are doing much of the protocell research that I've heard of really aren't about "creating" anything.  It's not about trying to disprove religious dogma or belief; that all occurs outside of the lab.  When a scientist is at work, they generally mantain an objective and open minded approach to their work.  There are many theistic scientists (though they are a minority in my field) who also leave their views of religion outside of the lab.

What's going on with protocell research is that we are trying to determine what is necessary, in cellular and molecular respects, for life as we know it to function.  Also, this research may give us a better idea of what was happening to primordial cellular forms which became life as we know it.

As far as the idea of "rearranging" is concerned, the amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids, and other molecules that these scientists are working with can be found in nature without the presence of life as we know it.  The more complex forms of these molecules are specific to life, because, even though they may form on their own in nature, without an enzymatic catalyst their formation may take thousands to millions of years (due to the thermodynamics/kinetics of their formation).  However, basic amino acids and nucleic acids can form free of enzymes.

Also, for the "rearranging" theorists here, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" and the Law of the Conservation of Mass states that "matter cannot be created or destroyed".  Indeed, this means that regardless of what happens, it will always be "rearranging".  The only way creationists overcome this when stating their beliefs is by inventing supernatural speculation that cannot be tested.  This is why creationism is not science; though it is indeed very intriguing as a religious viewpoint and deserves its rightful place in the philosophy classroom (and the anthropology classroom as well). 

On to the statement about how it would take too long to observe the evolution of a living protocell when formed...  Evolution is dependant upon replication and mutation/change.  Some organisms have replication rates that are very fast compared to humans.  Microorganisms are definitely in this group.  As long as there is a process of change (biochemical mutation) and the organism is replicating fairly quickly, we may be able to observe its evolution.  Though we wouldn't see much change (the cells wouldn't magically turn into fish and then somehow remorph into wildebeasts...), it would most likely be detectable with the methods of biochemistry.  Indeed, in general biology, microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry labs in colleges and universities across the world, students are using stimuli of one form or another to cause communities of microorganisms to replicate and mutate over days and weeks, evolving into new strains right before their eyes. 

I personally am very interested in this research.  As an astrobiologist, I seek to understand how life may form, evolve, and radiate in this universe.  Understanding the basis for life as we know it is a very important part of that goal.  Thanks elder999 for bringing this up.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 9, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> So when I break wind in a crowded room I can blame it on God?


Nope, because He's already blamed you first... that's why people turn and look in YOUR direction when it happens. :lol:


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 9, 2008)

astrobiologist said:


> Since I am an astrobiologist and my main field of research has been in molecular biology, I feel a compulsion to reply
> 
> First off, MACaver, my speleologically inclinded fellow poster, you are assuming that all scientist must believe that something created them.  I don't believe in biblical creationism and I've worked in a few labs.  I never thought to myself, "I'd like to be better than the Christian god, so I'm going to play around in lab today trying to create life".  Also, remember, there are a lot of female scientists in the world (so we're not all just guys in lab coats).


My reply was intended to be tongue in cheek but without tonal inflections to help show that I can see how I might've *ahem* stepped on a few toes ... without realizing or intending to... :asian: My apologies for any offense. 
Not all scientists are atheists that I've known for a long time but I know the ones who are aren't trying to prove anything other than all those years of hard-study and work/research is actually taking them somewhere. 
You're a smarter person than me and the diploma(s) on your wall will attest to that.


----------



## teekin (Sep 9, 2008)

elder999 said:


> ...and *entirely* the product of,_ *"What do you think would happen if......"*_




All the coolest idea's and inventions start out with that phrase. If there is a wee bit of alcohol involved it's often an X-game. Like bungee jumping.
Lori


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

Grendel308 said:


> [/b]
> 
> Like bungee jumping.
> Lori


 

Guys at CalTech started that one.....:lol: 

You don't even wanna know about the places that phrase has taken me over the last 20 or 25 years...:lol:

Gotta good homemade submarine story......scary stupid fun! :lol:

(It's probably one of the only ones I'm _allowed_ to tell....:uhohh::lol: )


----------



## teekin (Sep 9, 2008)

Yep, or " if the Zodiac is completely submerged but the Motor isn't, will all 10 of us still make it across the lake?"  ( the answer is, yes)
Lori


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2008)

Grendel308 said:


> Yep, or " if the Zodiac is completely submerged but the Motor isn't, will all 10 of us still make it across the lake?" ( the answer is, yes)
> Lori


 
Pretty sure they're made to operate that way-leastaways, that's what *S*ome *E*xtra *A*ble *L*ads say......:lol:


----------



## crushing (Sep 9, 2008)

Grendel308 said:


> [/b]
> 
> All the coolest idea's and inventions start out with that phrase. If there is a wee bit of alcohol involved it's often an X-game. *Like bungee jumping.*
> Lori


 


elder999 said:


> *Guys at CalTech started that one*.....:lol:


 
Hmmm.   A couple responses come to mind. . .

Did CalTech have an exchange student program with Vanuatu?

Did the "guys at CalTech" really create bungie jumping, or did they merely re-arrange land diving?


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 10, 2008)

astrobiologist said:


> I never thought to myself, "I'd like to be better than the Christian god, so I'm going to play around in lab today trying to create life".


you mean, you don't? I thought we all did! hehe



> What's going on with protocell research is that we are trying to determine what is necessary, in cellular and molecular respects, for life as we know it to function.  Also, this research may give us a better idea of what was happening to primordial cellular forms which became life as we know it.


The question about what is critical for life has raged for over a decade now. Nothing novel about that. Knockout expirements have laid some pretty good groundwork for what is "critical". Frankly, genomics has not clearly annotated all of the existing genes for sequenced organisms (at least to my knowledge in the past few years), so a lot of what they are doing has to simply be shots in the dark. Mix a bit of that, take out this somewhat "needless chunk" and see what happens. I'd suggest fully comprehending what exists now before trying to go backwards. But what would i know 



> As far as the idea of "rearranging" is concerned, the amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids, and other molecules that these scientists are working with can be found in nature without the presence of life as we know it.  The more complex forms of these molecules are specific to life, because, even though they may form on their own in nature, without an enzymatic catalyst their formation may take thousands to millions of years (due to the thermodynamics/kinetics of their formation).  However, basic amino acids and nucleic acids can form free of enzymes.


yet life is not a simple arrangement of amino acids and base pairs. It's a carefully calibrated series of pathways. You don't simply mix and match things randomly and expect life to pop out. Even these groups are not attempting that (at least I hope not!).These guys are not re-inventing replication.



> I personally am very interested in this research.  As an astrobiologist, I seek to understand how life may form, evolve, and radiate in this universe.  Understanding the basis for life as we know it is a very important part of that goal.  Thanks elder999 for bringing this up.



It's an interesting field, with a lot of potential in the future.

Now, specific to the topic. What this group seems to be doing is using previous pathways and examples from existing organisms as a template to make something "novel". From a purist point of view, that happens every time a mutation happens or some sexually reproducing event occurs. It happens during knock-out assays in genetics labs on a daily basis. 

If you want to impress me, develop some novel biochemical pathway. Metabolize some novel substrate that has not been demonstrated before. Create a new organelle. Finish the complete annotation of existing genes before you start pounding your chest about "creating new life". Than you will have my respect. Until then, its just taking previous lessons and taking small steps forward.


Yes, its kind of interesting, but I'm not totally in awe...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 11, 2008)

I hope they don't create any tiny black holes that would destroy the world. =-P


----------



## astrobiologist (Sep 11, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> My reply was intended to be tongue in cheek but without tonal inflections to help show that I can see how I might've *ahem* stepped on a few toes ... without realizing or intending to... :asian: My apologies for any offense.
> Not all scientists are atheists that I've known for a long time but I know the ones who are aren't trying to prove anything other than all those years of hard-study and work/research is actually taking them somewhere.
> You're a smarter person than me and the diploma(s) on your wall will attest to that.


 
No need for apologies, my freind.  I wasn't angry over your earlier statement.  When it comes to discussions of science, especially evolutionary biology and astrobiology, I can get a bit sharp in my responses...  

mrhnau, I loved your response.  I must say, though, I don't think we are that far away from developing a new biochemical pathway (that functions within a closed system, hopefuly even a cell), tweaking an enzyme enough to catalyze a reaction with a new substrate(s) or to provide novel products, or possibly creating a new organelle.  It sounds far fetched, but where we were 10 years ago we could never have dreamed of 100 years ago and where we are now would have seemed pretty remote 10 years ago (in other words, human progress in science and technology is, for the most part, on an exponential growth curve).


----------

