| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2005 08:47:35 PM |
| Object: |
How we could create life |
How we could create life
The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the
nanotechnology of the living cell
Paul Davies
Wednesday December 11, 2002
The Guardian
In 1953, a young chemist named Stanley Miller carried out a historic
experiment at the University of Chicago. He attempted to recreate the
conditions during the Earth's early days by sparking electricity through a
mixture of water and gases sealed in a flask. When Miller analysed the
results, he was pleased to find traces of amino acids, the building blocks
of proteins.
His experiment entered folklore as a pioneering attempt to "make life in a
test tube". The success of his simple procedure fostered the belief that
it was the first step on a road to life, down which a chemical soup would
be conveyed by the passage of time. In other words, by doing more of the
same sort of thing, eventually some kind of life would be produced.
To many people, the idea of creating life in the laboratory seems like
science fiction. Yet some scientists claim they are on the verge of doing
it.
The origin of life remains a tantalising puzzle, shrouded by the mists of
time. If scientists could create a second sample of life in the lab, it
would yield vital clues about how we got here. Somehow, billions of years
ago, a mixture of lifeless chemicals turned themselves into a living cell.
Repeating the chemical steps under controlled conditions could yield the
first artificial life form.
I see no reason in principle why synthetic life could not be made.
However, most scientists working on this challenge are simply barking up
the wrong tree. In the 19th century, life was seen as a type of magic
matter that emerged from the primordial ooze. The idea grew that this
organic matter could be cooked up in the laboratory from a primordial
broth if only the right ingredients were identified. It was in this spirit
that Miller performed his famous experiment, and more refined versions
have been carried out many times since. Disappointingly, researchers
remain stuck at the building block stage.
There is a fundamental reason for this impasse. Life, as we now know it,
is not magic matter. It isn't something that can be incubated by the
methods of 19th-century chemistry. Nor can it be conjured up by infusing
matter with energy, such as a bolt of electricity, à la Dr Frankenstein.
There is no life force over and above normal intermolecular forces.
Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an
information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity.
DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that
transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings
of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff - hardware
- but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals
in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to
produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the
wrong conceptual level.
The approach pioneered by Miller is bottom-up, synthesising the building
blocks of life from inorganic substances and then trying to assemble them
into more complex structures. Meanwhile, molecular biologists have been
making strides with a top-down approach, breaking apart the innards of
bacteria and viruses, and reassembling the components. Just last month,
Craig Venter, famous for his pioneering work on the human genome project,
announced his intention to create a brand new life form. Venter plans to
strip down and reconstruct the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium, a
primitive microbe that inhabits the genital tract.
But this isn't making life so much as rearranging it. Even a simple
bacterium is a vast assemblage of intricately crafted molecules, many of
them elaborately customised. Although those specialised molecules are not
themselves living, they are the products of living things. Scientists make
use of them in their microbial tinkering. In other words, they use the
products of living organisms to re-make living organisms. They remain a
long way from being able to put together a living cell from scratch.
If artificial life is manufactured, it will be by applying the lessons of
information technology and nanotechnology rather than organic chemistry.
These are emerging fields, and the principles that underlie them are only
dimly perceived. The hottest topic is quantum computation - an attempt to
harness the weird properties of electrons and atoms to process information
at the molecular level. Here, the concept of information is transformed,
and the rules for processing it are different. Quantum computation
enthusiasts foresee a leap in processing power if the technology can be
made to work. Perhaps this could pave the way to creating life in the lab.
Which leaves us with a curious conundrum. How did nature fabricate the
world's first digital information processor - the original living cell -
from the blind chaos of blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware
get to write its own software? The answer must wait until we understand
the nature of information, and the principles that govern its dynamics and
complexity.
· Paul Davies is a visiting professor at Imperial College and author of
The Fifth Miracle: the Search for the Origin of Life
pcwd@ozemail.com.au
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How we could create life |
22 Nov 2005 09:30:21 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211051247350001@pm4-broad-33.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
How we could create life
Jason, you're becoming quite a boring troll.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: How we could create life |
23 Nov 2005 01:46:46 AM |
|
|
In article <3uhgtmF10o1phU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211051247350001@pm4-broad-33.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
How we could create life
Jason, you're becoming quite a boring troll.
so are you
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How we could create life |
23 Nov 2005 03:04:36 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211051746460001@pm1-broad-78.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3uhgtmF10o1phU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211051247350001@pm4-broad-33.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
How we could create life
Jason, you're becoming quite a boring troll.
so are you
Excuse me? Obviously you don't know what the word means. You're a
christian invading an atheist newsgroup posting this tripe. Consequently,
YOU'RE the troll, idiot.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: How we could create life |
23 Nov 2005 08:50:23 AM |
|
|
(Jason) suddenly spluttered:
How we could create life
"Create life" off, loony troll.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: How we could create life |
23 Nov 2005 01:37:04 AM |
|
|
(Jason) wrote in news:jason-2211051247350001@pm4-broad-
33.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
How we could create life
The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the
nanotechnology of the living cell
Paul Davies
Wednesday December 11, 2002
The Guardian
It would be better to look into the work of those who actually know
something about the subject. Davies is not qualified and has published no
peer reviewed work in this field. He's a physicist.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: How we could create life |
23 Nov 2005 06:53:34 AM |
|
|
In article <jason-2211051247350001@pm4-broad-33.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
(Jason) wrote:
How we could create life
The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the
nanotechnology of the living cell
Paul Davies
Wednesday December 11, 2002
The Guardian
In 1953, a young chemist named Stanley Miller carried out a historic
experiment at the University of Chicago. He attempted to recreate the
conditions during the Earth's early days by sparking electricity through a
mixture of water and gases sealed in a flask. When Miller analysed the
results, he was pleased to find traces of amino acids, the building blocks
of proteins.
<snip rest>
Summation of argument:
" As of today we cannot precisely how life arose so therefore goddidit."
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
