Another step towards artificial life: Evolution of molecules in laboratory

by bohm 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  Hey!

  I just read this today, a professor Gerald Joyce has created small, very simple 'dead' molecules that are able to replicate themselves if placed amongst other dead molecules and (here it gets interesting) are able to accumulate mutations and become better at replicating themselves. Joyce estimate about 30 bits of information is passed along to each 'generation. Read more about it here:

  http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3325/life-evolution-a-test-tube

  or from his website here:

  http://www.scripps.edu/mb/joyce/Lincolnjoycenw.htm

  It is important to keep in mind that even though the molecules are replicating and are able to accumulate positive mutations, they are not alive - ie. they have no metabolism and no cell membranes, but i still think this is a very important step. It is known that Micelles are able to form spontainously replicate in the right enviroment so there is at least a candidate for a primitive membrane, and allready now people are getting self-assembled ribozymes to do things in the laboratory, and if they were able to do similar stuff like Joyces molecules it would be very interesting indeed.

  The next 50 years are going to be very interesting. Personally, if you had asked me 5 years ago i would have said life is so unlikely it is properly a 1-planet-in-a-galaxy-event. Today, it does not seem impossible it will happend in the laboratory over the next 100 years. Exiting times. wonder how this will go down with those who believe in creation and nothing else.
• 

  awildflower

  The next 50 years are going to be very interesting.

  I totally agree!!
• 

  Bonnie_Clyde

  "The next 50 years are going to be very interesting. Personally, if you had asked me 5 years ago i would have said life is so unlikely it is properly a 1-planet-in-a-galaxy-event. Today, it does not seem impossible it will happend in the laboratory over the next 100 years. Exiting times. wonder how this will go down with those who believe in creation and nothing else."

  OK, I'm no scientist, but if they are able to accumulate positive mutations (that are not alive) only under laboratory conditions, what are the chances that life could have happened just by chance with no laboratory conditions? I still believe in a Creator. I'm sure most of you will disagree.
• 

  aniron

  What is "artificial life" its either real or not.

  "professor Gerald Joyce has created"
  "created" ??

  "they are not alive - ie. they have no metabolism and no cell membranes"
  well when he gets them to think and have a life of their own then we will take notice.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  It meets basic definitions for life. It is self replicating, and adaptive. If you look at cells, that's all they do also, albeit with a much greater level of complexity. As far as metabolism is concerned, the molecules interact with the growth medium in order to replicate. That is rudimentary metabolic activity.

  We are looking at a difference of degree, here, not of kind.

  BTS
• 

  zoiks

  Bohm-

  Very cool stuff, indeed!

  well when he gets them to think and have a life of their own then we will take notice

  I doubt that. We've already seen creationists in general (YECs especially) ignore and deny any and all evidence that doesn't fit their "coherent worldview". Too bad.
• 

  bohm

  Bonnie: I think the point is that very simple molecules can replicate themselves from even simpler molecules in a way that mutation and selection (the building-blocks of evolution) can act on them and in turn make 'better' replicating molecules. It is not life (per my definition, but life is extremely hard to define), but it begins to sound life-ish. You are right that it is an important question if the 'simpler' building blocks could exist in nature (noone really knows what nature was like back then), but science is all about baby-steps.

  Aniron: Yes lets turn it into a english class!. First off - there is also artificial growth hormone and artificial sweetener, so i really, really have a hard time seing your point. Secondly: Yes created!. Look it up on wiktionary, it is a quite common word in english and you may want to learn it. I even think it is in the bible. Thirdly: So if scientists showed how abiogenesis could explain a cell, and even made it work in the laboratory, you would be indifferent because a cell cannot think. meh.

  BTS: True... To me, i think the splitting point between life and not life will be when/if scientists make something that has some kind of membrane around it, and a RNA/DNA-like structure inside it that evolution can work on and perhaps some kind of 'stuff' going on inside it to. But the border between dead and alive is a very fuzzy thing, i think it has been the source of many an edit war on wikipedia.

  Zoiks: The way i see it, a couple of years ago the difference in chromosome count between apes and humans was seen as an argument against evolution. Today it is a very strong argument for. I really hope this stuff can have a similar effect and in the long run, the 'scientific' part of the intelligent design movement is facing a collapse because fewer and fewer actual scientists can play along with the 'strong' interpretation of creation.