Notices
Results 1 to 49 of 49
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By BlasW
  • 1 Post By Zwirko
  • 1 Post By Barbi
  • 2 Post By tridimity

Thread: Why cant science make Life?

  1. #1 Why cant science make Life? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kerala,India
    Posts
    14
    Science has advanced this much.Still we are not able to create a life in the lab.Of course we did cloning.But why cant we restore the life of a dead man?I want to know what's the factor that hinders us?


    Once an angry man dragged his father along the ground through his own orchard. “Stop!” cried the groaning old man at last, “Stop! I did not drag my father beyond this tree.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    that's the beauty with science - most of the time you have to adjust the sentence "science can't do this" by adding "for the time being"
    we simply don't know whether science will ever be able to revive people that are now considered terminally dead, but one thing's for sure : either science will find a way or it will show that it just can't be done

    considering that decay sets in shortly after death which makes damage to the body soon irreversible, the first thing that would have to be taken is to halt this damage as soon as possible - i suppose that's what cryonics attempts to do


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The question is more complex and answers closer than we might think:
    Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life | Video on TED.com
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Cool video!

    I think one of the most important points made in the video is something creationists and intelligent design enthusiasts fail to comprehend, which is that there was not a blob of chemicals one minute and a living organism the next, but probably a long process where the boundaries of evolution and abiogenesis blurred. This much has always been a pretty straightforward point, but it is something that some people just can't or won't understand. Because once you acknowledge it, the dishonest reductio absurdum fallacy they all love to bring up becomes meaningless, which is that materialists claim that life came from rocks, or that it just popped into existence by itself, etc.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    probably a long process where the boundaries of evolution and abiogenesis blurred.
    I agree, we are hindered by using words that are simple (black and white) labels (Life vs death) that are convenient but not realistic. It probably took a long time for countless complex molecules to evolve which would eventually be incorporated and modified by pre-life structures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Interestng video and concept but just that - a concept, We have no idea how "life" was created - whether an slow or acute process and th semantics of this are not useful in answering the question.

    marnix offers the best perspective as we presume this is knowable. It's a matter of time until we have sufficient knowledge to understyand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907 View Post
    Interestng video and concept but just that - a concept, We have no idea how "life" was created - whether an slow or acute process and th semantics of this are not useful in answering the question.

    marnix offers the best perspective as we presume this is knowable. It's a matter of time until we have sufficient knowledge to understyand.

    But it is, at least, a proof of principle that self-replicating systems with life-like properties can arise via autonomous natural processes that rely on nothing more than chemistry and physics - and the importance of this paradigm should not be understated. We are essentially just a series of very well controlled chemical reactions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    so dying is merely a malfunction of the control system ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    98
    To my mind, you are misunderstanding the problem. Appearance of life on the Earth (1) and revitalization of dead (2) are two very different problems.

    (1) There were many experiments set to recreate conditions on ancient Earth. It was found that organic molecules are produced from non-organic in such conditions. I suspect that main problem there is to get rid of Earth organisms, i.e. prevent pollution of samples with present microorganisms in a long lasting experiment.

    (2) Revitalization of dead is an absolutely different problem. Many diseases and injuries, which were deadly some time ago are well treated now. And what do you mean under "restore the life of a dead man"? Do you want the same body or just consciousness?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kerala,India
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by BlasW View Post
    And what do you mean under "restore the life of a dead man"? Do you want the same body or just consciousness?
    I'll explain what i meant.suppose a man met with an accident.If we can replace his damaged organs before he dies,we can save his life.But if he died,can we give him life by relpacing his damaged organs with new ones?I think NO.I want to know why we cant do that?What may be the scientific reasons?
    Once an angry man dragged his father along the ground through his own orchard. “Stop!” cried the groaning old man at last, “Stop! I did not drag my father beyond this tree.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    98
    That's kinda easy to answer. When a person dies, his blood stops circulating, thus his organs doesn't get oxygen. Therefore these organs irreversibly degrade (die). Brain dies in around 4 minutes. Other organs can survive much longer (for hours, if they still have some oxygen and low temperature). But when a brain is damaged the game is lost. Under current technology it's possible to prolong life of the body almost indefinitely long. But in many countries death of a person is considered to be death of his brain. (Earlier it was stop of heartbeat or breath.)
    4n4nd likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Life is not defined solely as a "self replicating system" however the cutsie video pretends it to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907 View Post
    Life is not defined solely as a "self replicating system" however the cutsie video pretends it to be.
    Perhaps you should watch it....because if it makes anything clear, it's that life is a lot more than just replication.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 11th, 2011 at 12:16 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5
    First,

    Life as we know it always starts from life. Even though we can implant genetic material in an egg to sudo-create life with cloning, we did not create the egg. It has taken billions of years of random genetic mutations to move from asexual reproduction to have an egg to work with.

    Now add to that fact, we may be able to create the body of a person after death, but, the mind is what a person becomes with a life full of experiences. I would counter with a question of, How many years, deacdes, milenium will it take to preserve the person? A body should be within our reach, if not now, within a few-several decades.

    Is it within our reach to generate a worm with 100,291,840 base pairs (C. elegans - Genomics in C. elegans: So many genes, such a little worm )?

    Just my under-educated thoughts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    so dying is merely a malfunction of the control system ?
    Sort of, although I wouldn't really be this crude about it, and since the control system can only do so much (a cell in a tissue distant from the lungs that has had its Oxygen supply cut off due to non-functioning heart and/or lungs - no matter how efficiently it is programmed to carry out oxidative metabolism - will be unable to do so once its Oxygen supply is exhausted and the cell will ultimately die once it has likewise exhausted all other options for catabolism). Ultimately, death is an irreversible increase in entropy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Although arguably, the control system that is malfunctioning in this example would be the circulatory and/or pulmonary systems. However, it is still possible to survive with malfunctioning control systems (albeit, in a diseased state) so I still would not advocate the above definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Know that Lynn fox - nic thtrow away line that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    ... will be unable to do so once its Oxygen supply is exhausted and the cell will ultimately die once it has likewise exhausted all other options for catabolism).
    which means, if a car behaved like a cell, it would start falling apart as soon as it ran out of fuel
    tsk, tsk - bad design
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Why can't science "make life"? Like "make the grade"? Like "cut it"? Because scientists don't know how to play God, as simple as that.

    (ask me about playing God....if you need to)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver View Post
    Why can't science "make life"? Like "make the grade"? Like "cut it"? Because scientists don't know how to play God, as simple as that.

    (ask me about playing God....if you need to)
    Science have no idea how the first cell emerged here without the necessary materials that are used by the cell to replicate new cells. Most likely the first cell did not originate here on this planet since it is believed that the cell itself is so complicated that there was not enough time between the earth formation and the time for which the cell show up in the fossil record to explain its existance. However this information is so valuable to science and it would finally either put a nail in the coffin of religion or add to the story of evolution or better yet redefine the whole story of life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Coffin, nail, religion. Very Christian.

    Christ giving himself away without much of an understanding of his resurrection is quite vacuous, a vacusoity...........

    He must be in space, right.........up there.

    What do we know about space?

    (ha ha, "intelligent design")_


    What does "science" know of space in any manner that could hold the Ancients hopes on high?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kerala,India
    Posts
    14
    So,does everyone mean that science cannot create life of give life to an already dead man?
    Once an angry man dragged his father along the ground through his own orchard. “Stop!” cried the groaning old man at last, “Stop! I did not drag my father beyond this tree.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    It depends how you define "life".

    Being alive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    The fact is Science has created life But !

    Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first living cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA.
    The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.
    The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.
    WHAT ABOUT THAT ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by 4n4nd View Post
    So,does everyone mean that science cannot create life of give life to an already dead man?
    as has been said before, creating life and reviving a dead person are totally different things
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    The fact is Science has created life But !

    Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first living cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA.
    The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.
    The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.
    WHAT ABOUT THAT ?

    Sorry, this is not starting from scratch but using a bacterium's cell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by 4n4nd View Post
    Science has advanced this much.Still we are not able to create a life in the lab.Of course we did cloning.But why cant we restore the life of a dead man?I want to know what's the factor that hinders us?
    I am not even sure that is even possible.

    Maybe death is more like burning something than melting something.

    If you melt something, you can always freeze or unmelt it.

    If you burn something you can't just unburn it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    But why cant we restore the life of a dead man?
    We can for a good number of conditions that would have been imposible just a few decades ago.

    For the rest of the "dead", I'd say the reason probably boils down to the third law of thermodynamics.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    ... will be unable to do so once its Oxygen supply is exhausted and the cell will ultimately die once it has likewise exhausted all other options for catabolism).
    which means, if a car behaved like a cell, it would start falling apart as soon as it ran out of fuel
    tsk, tsk - bad design
    The car analogy would not fall apart for lack of fuel but if it sat there for months, the battery would have to be charged plus fuel to get it started again. In a cell that doesn't get fed, it can handle it for a short duration but in the long run it would starve to death, its batterybecomes permanently unchargeable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5
    As with the "creation of life" mention before, they started with a cell and added DNA. A person (you use Man) does go on living with organ tansplants. The system (new persons body) keeps the cells alive.

    Today we can bring someone back from death as can been seen when people fall into frozen lakes. The body is preserved log enough for revival.....

    We have come up with amazing advances in all fields and I am sure this field will advance well beyond our imaginations, though it may be after we pass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    What this discussion overlooks is that all lives must end, some time or another. Flies, trees, earthworms, turtles, bacteria, people all live for periods of hours, decades, months, years, or even centuries. But all of them, including us, must die.

    It's about numbers. We have ample atoms, molecules and various compounds that make up our physical and biological world. But, no matter how many there are, there's no way to make any more. We might acquire a few every now and again from a bigger than usual meteor, but that's it. If reproducing entities, trees, people, fish, butterflies increase without making way for the newcomers, where are the extra materials to come from? Fertility in farms and gardens comes from the number of times we can turn over nutrients, not from a magical source of extra molecules.

    We can all agree we don't want to die too early or too painfully. But die we must.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Posts
    13
    The reason why “science can’t create life” is because “life” is something that does not exist: it is a mythological construct handed down to us from Egyptian mythology, through our childhood and cultural religious-based teachings, but is not in fact something that is found existent in the hard sciences: chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics. This line of reasoning (quite refreshing to say the least) is what is called the “defunct theory of life” (Google), first positioned by Tesla, but only recently come into light with rise of the thermodynamic analysis of life, aka Schrodinger and the feeding on negative entropy description.

    The debate is long and winded, but the nuts and bolts are the fact that a human is an animate 26-element molecule (Ecological Stoichiometry, 2002; Human Chemistry, 2007) and molecules are not alive, but only can be viewed as having increased levels of animation and reactivity. In short, the human evolved over time from hydrogen atom precursors. The hydrogen atom is not alive and neither is a human, which is the reason why, since the time of Faust and his homunculus (laboratory-created life thing) to the present, science cannot produce it: because it is a "forced idea" (mythology forced into chemistry and physics).
    Last edited by Libb Thims; December 14th, 2011 at 03:10 AM. Reason: format
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Well then science should have no problem making a animate 26-element molecule
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907 View Post
    Interestng video and concept but just that - a concept, We have no idea how "life" was created - whether an slow or acute process and th semantics of this are not useful in answering the question.

    marnix offers the best perspective as we presume this is knowable. It's a matter of time until we have sufficient knowledge to understyand.

    But it is, at least, a proof of principle that self-replicating systems with life-like properties can arise via autonomous natural processes that rely on nothing more than chemistry and physics - and the importance of this paradigm should not be understated. We are essentially just a series of very well controlled chemical reactions.
    Since we are just a series of well controlled chemical reactions, how did the chemistry and physics become organized without a third mechanism that allowed no outside interference that would allow organization in the first place?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    Libb,



    Nobody here would describe life as anything other than pure biochemistry at base; there are few who would insist there is something else going on. Unless you believe in the divine spark, what other view of life can you possibly have? This view is neither refreshing nor does it comprises a serious debate. If anything, it is a foundation stone of modern biology (which also, don't forget, is a "hard" science).

    Life is whatever we define it to be - chemical systems that exhibit a certain suite of properties (no matter how ill-defined they may be). As such, some chemical systems are described as living while others are not, while yet others lurk in the shadows, neither one or the other. It is those systems that meet those criteria that are defined as "living". Thus, logically, life does exist. Put simply, life is that which we define to be life. There is no mystery or mythology in that. If you struggle to see any qualitative and definable differences between a gazelle and a salt crystal then maybe you aren't looking at the bigger picture - life is an emergent suite of properties governed by simple chemistry and physical law.

    Such a biochemical view of life is precisely why creating life will be possible, not a reason for to be impossible.
    4n4nd likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kerala,India
    Posts
    14
    I strongly believe,everything will be possible sooner or later.The moment an organisn dies,its organic body begins to decay and within minutes it would become irreparable.Otherwise we could make it alive just as we start a car by refilling petrol.

    But i have another doubt also.Our cells replicate everynow and all the time our body is renovated with new and young cells,which are formed from our old cells.That means our body always have new young cells.Then why/how ageing happens?
    Once an angry man dragged his father along the ground through his own orchard. “Stop!” cried the groaning old man at last, “Stop! I did not drag my father beyond this tree.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by 4n4nd View Post
    I strongly believe,everything will be possible sooner or later.The moment an organisn dies,its organic body begins to decay and within minutes it would become irreparable.Otherwise we could make it alive just as we start a car by refilling petrol.

    But i have another doubt also.Our cells replicate everynow and all the time our body is renovated with new and young cells,which are formed from our old cells.That means our body always have new young cells.Then why/how ageing happens?
    As we grow our cells have long telemeres so that every time they replicate new cells, the telemeres are shortened. Our cells through time can become damaged and can no longer replicate, this is where signs of aging appears in our skin, we have billions of cells and out of those billions of cells many are still replaced with new cells but the cells that can't be replaced due to damage are easily visible with the appearance of wringles, creases, and so on. Our muscles and bones suffer from the same fate as we age. If science can figure out how to lengthen our telemeres and eliminate damaged cells that take up space, they would be able to reverse the aging process.
    4n4nd likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Libb,



    Nobody here would describe life as anything other than pure biochemistry at base; there are few who would insist there is something else going on. Unless you believe in the divine spark, what other view of life can you possibly have? This view is neither refreshing nor does it comprises a serious debate. If anything, it is a foundation stone of modern biology (which also, don't forget, is a "hard" science).

    Life is whatever we define it to be - chemical systems that exhibit a certain suite of properties (no matter how ill-defined they may be). As such, some chemical systems are described as living while others are not, while yet others lurk in the shadows, neither one or the other. It is those systems that meet those criteria that are defined as "living". Thus, logically, life does exist. Put simply, life is that which we define to be life. There is no mystery or mythology in that. If you struggle to see any qualitative and definable differences between a gazelle and a salt crystal then maybe you aren't looking at the bigger picture - life is an emergent suite of properties governed by simple chemistry and physical law.

    Such a biochemical view of life is precisely why creating life will be possible, not a reason for to be impossible.
    You quoted, "life is what we define it to be" goes without saying and this also applies to everything else we give it a name and provide a meaning to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Since we are just a series of well controlled chemical reactions, how did the chemistry and physics become organized without a third mechanism that allowed no outside interference that would allow organization in the first place?
    Hi Barbi,

    I'm not eniterly sure that I have understood your question. I think that you are asking, how the laws of chemistry and physics could have led to the emergence of life, without requiring the assistance of an external influence (e.g. a Diety)? Am I correct in thinking that this is what you wish to ask?

    If so - autocatalytic self-replicating RNA molecules may represent the earliest biological information-coding system. It is conceivable that such RNA species would be selected for greater fidelity and fecundity and that ultimately the catalytic role was delegated to proteins. (With DNA subsequently assuming the information-encoding role and RNAs having roles in modulating gene expression). None of this necessitates the existence of a Deity or equivalent outside force.

    The video above outlines how such self-replicating systems may have come into existence.

    Ref - 'The chemical origins of life and its early evolution: an introduction' (Lilley & Sutherland, 2011) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

    Best wishes,

    Tri~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What this discussion overlooks is that all lives must end, some time or another. Flies, trees, earthworms, turtles, bacteria, people all live for periods of hours, decades, months, years, or even centuries. But all of them, including us, must die.

    It's about numbers. We have ample atoms, molecules and various compounds that make up our physical and biological world. But, no matter how many there are, there's no way to make any more. We might acquire a few every now and again from a bigger than usual meteor, but that's it. If reproducing entities, trees, people, fish, butterflies increase without making way for the newcomers, where are the extra materials to come from? Fertility in farms and gardens comes from the number of times we can turn over nutrients, not from a magical source of extra molecules.

    We can all agree we don't want to die too early or too painfully. But die we must.
    Yep, once we cease to provide a selective advantage to the propagation of our own genes (via the survival and reproduction of subsequent generations) we are no longer evolutionarily favoured.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    Since we are just a series of well controlled chemical reactions, how did the chemistry and physics become organized without a third mechanism that allowed no outside interference that would allow organization in the first place?
    Hi Barbi,

    I'm not eniterly sure that I have understood your question. I think that you are asking, how the laws of chemistry and physics could have led to the emergence of life, without requiring the assistance of an external influence (e.g. a Diety)? Am I correct in thinking that this is what you wish to ask?

    If so - autocatalytic self-replicating RNA molecules may represent the earliest biological information-coding system. It is conceivable that such RNA species would be selected for greater fidelity and fecundity and that ultimately the catalytic role was delegated to proteins. (With DNA subsequently assuming the information-encoding role and RNAs having roles in modulating gene expression). None of this necessitates the existence of a Deity or equivalent outside force.

    The video above outlines how such self-replicating systems may have come into existence.

    Ref - 'The chemical origins of life and its early evolution: an introduction' (Lilley & Sutherland, 2011) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

    Best wishes,

    Tri~
    No, not a deity. how would an RNA species be selected? How would the process take place?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    If, in a primordial 'soup', there is a limited supply of ribonucleotides and - say - a few different species of autocatalytic, self-replicating RNA molecules... those RNA molecules that replicate fastest (i.e. have the highest fecundity) and which incorporate the fewest number of errors (i.e. have the highest fidelity) will become more numerous in the overall population of RNA species, as they will out-compete the other species for resources (ribonucleotides). They will therefore be selected.


    Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

    Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce
    Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme
    marnixR and Lynx_Fox like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    If anyone wants a gentle introduction to the topic mentioned in the link Tridimity provided above you can watch a quicktime video of a presentation Joyce gave at the "From RNA to Humans symposium on Evolution" at the Rockefeller University site. Plenty of other good stuff on that page as well - including a talk by the bizarre-accented Eugene Koonin (who's work is well worth reading btw).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The question is more complex and answers closer than we might think:
    Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life | Video on TED.com
    That was a great vid. Made me think........ we're really just highly sophisticated versions of the protocells shown in the video.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Wow, great video!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 4n4nd View Post
    I strongly believe,everything will be possible sooner or later.The moment an organisn dies,its organic body begins to decay and within minutes it would become irreparable.Otherwise we could make it alive just as we start a car by refilling petrol.

    But i have another doubt also.Our cells replicate everynow and all the time our body is renovated with new and young cells,which are formed from our old cells.That means our body always have new young cells.Then why/how ageing happens?
    As we grow our cells have long telemeres so that every time they replicate new cells, the telemeres are shortened. Our cells through time can become damaged and can no longer replicate, this is where signs of aging appears in our skin, we have billions of cells and out of those billions of cells many are still replaced with new cells but the cells that can't be replaced due to damage are easily visible with the appearance of wringles, creases, and so on. Our muscles and bones suffer from the same fate as we age. If science can figure out how to lengthen our telemeres and eliminate damaged cells that take up space, they would be able to reverse the aging process.
    It should be "telomere", isn't it? Discovering "telomere" and its function bring a Noble on Medicine in 2009 to Elizabeth Blackburn from UCSF; Carol Greider from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (Baltimore) và Jack W. Szostak, Massachusett Hospital. They also discovered telomerase enzym which functions as a compensation for shorterned telomere during cell replication. However, telomerase enzym is also found significantly active in cancer cells. Conclusion: if we want to live young, we will die soon...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Sao Khue View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 4n4nd View Post
    I strongly believe,everything will be possible sooner or later.The moment an organisn dies,its organic body begins to decay and within minutes it would become irreparable.Otherwise we could make it alive just as we start a car by refilling petrol.

    But i have another doubt also.Our cells replicate everynow and all the time our body is renovated with new and young cells,which are formed from our old cells.That means our body always have new young cells.Then why/how ageing happens?
    As we grow our cells have long telemeres so that every time they replicate new cells, the telemeres are shortened. Our cells through time can become damaged and can no longer replicate, this is where signs of aging appears in our skin, we have billions of cells and out of those billions of cells many are still replaced with new cells but the cells that can't be replaced due to damage are easily visible with the appearance of wringles, creases, and so on. Our muscles and bones suffer from the same fate as we age. If science can figure out how to lengthen our telemeres and eliminate damaged cells that take up space, they would be able to reverse the aging process.
    It should be "telomere", isn't it? Discovering "telomere" and its function bring a Noble on Medicine in 2009 to Elizabeth Blackburn from UCSF; Carol Greider from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (Baltimore) và Jack W. Szostak, Massachusett Hospital. They also discovered telomerase enzym which functions as a compensation for shorterned telomere during cell replication. However, telomerase enzym is also found significantly active in cancer cells. Conclusion: if we want to live young, we will die soon...
    Pardon me, telomere is correct. The telomerase enzym is produced continuously in cancer cells, where as, in a normal body that is replacing cells with new ones it is regulated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    I thought about making another thread (and I still may) but I think this recently published theory of life might clarify why science (i.e., scientists) can't make life:

    Life | Free Full-Text | Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life

    Good luck!

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    21
    i think nobody change the nature.but i think that the science work a lot for the life...so that they didn't happen but i think that science grow very fastly but they wouldn't be successful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Mid-life career change.. Science Journalism?
    By Doozer in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 14th, 2011, 04:39 AM
  2. Are life science blogs important to your research?
    By JammyJames in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 1st, 2011, 07:55 AM
  3. Relationship between academia and industry in life science.
    By icewing22 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 16th, 2009, 04:51 AM
  4. Do some atheists make science appear dogmatic?
    By scientstphilosophertheist in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 18th, 2008, 03:45 PM
  5. Science costing or saving life?
    By jonourd in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 19th, 2007, 05:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •