• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Why can't we create LIFE?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 04 July 2003 - 02:56 AM


According to evolutionary theory, life sprang up from inanimate matter. Maybe it happened on the hotbeds of some ancient ocean floor. Maybe it happened when lightening struck a random and unique mixture of chemical compounds in a puddle. The point is THAT WE DON'T KNOW.

Why can't we figure this out? And why can't we ourselves create even the most primative, basic, life forms?

IMO, until we figure out how life started and can demonstrate the feasibility of replicating "the creation" we will never dispell the myth of religion.

#2 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 04 July 2003 - 03:08 AM

And when we do make this breakthrough expect many to call us true demons and go nuts applying the Babylon Meme. This is not so far in the future and it will rock a lot of people's world on a level that is more profoundly upsetting than is imaginable by those of us prepared for the event. It will be akin to any number of the competing memes of serious longevity, Seed AI into a Singularity, true uploading, and designer life forms.

Remember recently we concoted a pneumonia virus from off the shelf parts and it was viable. DNA can be assembled from components synthetically and then used to program species reproduction but you are correct that the BIG one reproducing life artificially from components that recapitulates evolution hasn't happened...

Yet.

And when it does how do you think your mother will take it?

How do you think she will handle her temple of premises shattering around her?

And when we shatter many people's faith what will it be replaced by "faith in reason"?
It won't likely be as simple as that.

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#3 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 04 July 2003 - 03:31 AM

The origin of life was something I was thinking about earlier too, when I came up with the unoriginal idea that crystals are a spontaneously forming structure that may have led to DNA. I found this website:

The Origin of Life

which discusses this possibility from the viewpoint of a more original thinker.. A. G. Cairns-Smith.

Peter (ocsrazor) added a good comment on the website to the thread that I mentioned it in..

http://www.imminst.o...t=0

The crystal article (actually a summary of the Cairns-Smith ideas on origins of life) is right on target. As we know now - life as naked replicator in open water is kind of silly - even as small a body of water as a tidal pool. You do need a surface to act on to concetrate enough molecules to get the information denstiy and level of interaction required to create a functioning whole. Cairns-Smith proposes clays as the possible surface for interaction. One of the most exciting ideas along this track is the concept that life arose in deep sea thermal vents, which have iron-nickel chemistry (which are great chemical catalysts) with lots of little pockets roughly the same size as bacterial cells and the pockets have extremely high molecular diversity. The idea is that these pockets acted as the protected environment in which pre-membrane biochemistry formed coherent molecular systems. Their is strong evidence for something like this happening because the two most primitive forms of life, the simple Prokaryotes and the Archaea, have internal biochemistries which suggest a common evolutionary ancestor, but their membrane structures are so different that it is likely that their different lipid coats arose in seperate evolutionary events. If this is true, the basic biochemistry of life comes first before formation of a protected chemical environment (the membrane) and it clears up a lot of the nasty timing issues involved in origin of life theory.


It is interesting that in the theory it suggests that two methods of passing information forward can exist at the same time with one eventually supplanted by the other in a kind of parallel evolution. From this perspective, computers are the "LIFE" that we create. It is co-evolving just as the organic molecules evolved their own method of 'crystallizing' leading to DNA. We are in effect, a persisting pattern generator that has managed to create a more efficient method of transmitting our patterns into the future. Although I do not believe in the 'god' of any religion, I do find it interesting that there seems to be an underlying thermodynamic self-organizing principle that has led to us and is pushing us to create another level yet... I wonder what will come after 'transhumanity'... so far crystals->dna->silicon.. have all been at least based in matter.. will the next form be based on plasma energy and magnetic flux.. nothing but pure consciousness? whew.. (shaking head and shuffling muttering out the door.. )

Edited by kperrott, 04 July 2003 - 03:34 AM.


#4 John Doe

  • Guest
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 July 2003 - 01:32 AM

According to evolutionary theory, life sprang up from inanimate matter.  Maybe it happened on the hotbeds of some ancient ocean floor.  Maybe it happened when lightening struck a random and unique mixture of chemical compounds in a puddle.  The point is THAT WE DON'T KNOW.

Why can't we figure this out?  And why can't we ourselves create even the most primative, basic, life forms?

IMO, until we figure out how life started and can demonstrate the feasibility of replicating "the creation" we will never dispell the myth of religion.


I would rather say that religion will remain until we can stop death. Even after solving death, religion might remain to provide context and meaning to our mysterious existence, but I tend to think that this function that religion serves is secondary to simply being a life jacket (and moral code).

I entirely agree that the point is "THAT WE DON'T KNOW". I think atheists and Darwinists often take a too extreme position in opposing Creationism, instead of a more agnostic position about human origins.

#5 immortalitysystems.com

  • Guest immortalitysystems.com
  • 81 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sausalito, California, USA, Earth

Posted 05 July 2003 - 02:24 AM

What about "pan spermia", i feel that the original "DNA Code" permeates all of the Milky Way Galaxy and that there is a very similar flora and fauna on all the planets, and there must be billions and billions of them in our Galaxy.
Just like there are comets moving around in our solar system which collide whith the planets and distribute the same DNA Code and start life where ever they land, there should be some form of matter that is moving between the different solar systems in this Galaxy.

DNA=GOD and GOD is everywere!

DNA=Homo Sapiens=GOD=Homo Immortalis!

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#6 ocsrazor

  • Guest OcsRazor
  • 461 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 05 July 2003 - 03:46 PM

Hi Gang,

Kissinger - Sometime in the next two years the construction of a new artificial bacteria from raw components will probably occur. There are multiple projects underway. Beyond that, creation of replicating biochemical systems from simple molecules is being investigated through industrial scale directed chemical evolution. It will probably be possible to design new life forms, with wholly new biochemical mechanisms, from scratch within a decade or two.

John Doe and ImmSys,
Given what we know about how self organizing systems form and the trajectory of evolution here on Earth, the chances of the panspermia, aliens, or god created us arguments being correct are of extremely low probability. As a scientist I would never say anything is not possible, but there would have to be some truly radical, world shaking evidence to convince me that selection and self-organization were not the forces responsible for life on Earth - there is just far too much evidence in their favor. You just don't need any external forces to create life in an environment so well primed for it as the early Earth.

Best,
Peter

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users