Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Scientists Create Possible Precursor to Life


taniwha

Recommended Posts

How did life originate? And can scientists create life? These questions not only occupy the minds of scientists interested in the origin of life, but also researchers working with technology of the future.

If we can create artificial living systems, we may not only understand the origin of life - we can also revolutionize the future of technology.

Protocells are the simplest, most primitive living systems, you can think of. The oldest ancestor of life on Earth was a protocell, and when we see, what it eventually managed to evolve into, we understand why science is so fascinated with protocells. If science can create an artificial protocell, we get a very basic ingredient for creating more advanced artificial life.

http://astrobiology.com/2014/10/scientists-create-possible-precursor-to-life.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If nature can create life on accident, then science MUST be able to reproduce it.

If science can't reproduce it, what does that say about life being an accident?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That nature had much fewer budget, space, and time restrictions?

Even then shouldn't we have an idea how it happened? That first reproducing creature. And if we did, shouldn't we be able to duplicate what happened? If it happened accidentally it should not be too hard for science, which can produce the fusion of the Sun, and build molecules one atom at a time, to duplicate. Perhaps it is only a matter of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even then shouldn't we have an idea how it happened?

We have several.

That first reproducing creature.

Oh, heck, you were looking for something that specific? That is several orders of magnitude beyond "an idea of how it happened". What is it that you are even asking for? Would a replicating chemical compound be sufficient? Would it have to be organic? Would it have to reproduce sexually, or does asecual reproduction count? How about partheogenic reproduction? From which line of life? Does it have to be the one that resulted in us, or could it be from one of the other attempts that likely occurred and simply didn't make it?

That's one heck of a huge concept you've ruthlessly compressed into those four little words.

And if we did, shouldn't we be able to duplicate what happened?

Diechecker, come on man, you're asking, as if it was as reasonable a request as checking the current weather out the window, why we don't know with any degree of precision what happened somewhere on planet Earth 3.8 billion years ago, and then following it up, as if there was any logical reason to think so, with the idea that because we know about something, we should be able to duplicate it.

Hell, there are things in nature we do know about in far, far, greater detail than the origins of life on Earth, that we are still decades away from being able to duplicate. There are things we humans have created that we aren't completely sure how we did it or how to do it again.

If it happened accidentally it should not be too hard for science, which can produce the fusion of the Sun, and build molecules one atom at a time, to duplicate. Perhaps it is only a matter of time?

Time? Sure, time, resources, intent, knowledge, stability, there's a whole myriad of factors involved. Science is nothing like the linear progression you assume above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, heck, you were looking for something that specific? That is several orders of magnitude beyond "an idea of how it happened". What is it that you are even asking for? Would a replicating chemical compound be sufficient? Would it have to be organic? Would it have to reproduce sexually, or does asecual reproduction count? How about partheogenic reproduction? From which line of life? Does it have to be the one that resulted in us, or could it be from one of the other attempts that likely occurred and simply didn't make it?

That's one heck of a huge concept you've ruthlessly compressed into those four little words.

OK. So, if we're not talking about the first replicating organism, then aren't you suggesting the "accident" had to happen over and over again? The first replicating organism should be the standard, because it reproduces, and can evolve over time.

We have an idea of how everything happened after that self replicating organism first took off, right? So, how is it we know what these primordial organisms looked like, and what the soup they showed up in was probably like, but we don't really know how the soup came together and accidentally created a self replicating organism.

I understand science is working toward that, but if it happened in a puddle, maybe billions of times, then surely we can make it happen in a lab?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. So, if we're not talking about the first replicating organism, then aren't you suggesting the "accident" had to happen over and over again?

It's certainly a possibility. Nothing rules it out. It's also possible it didn't. It's also possible that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The first replicating organism should be the standard, because it reproduces, and can evolve over time.

It also dies. Enough die, the line dead ends (literally) and goes nowhere. Starting first is a big advantage, but it is nowhere near a guarantee that you are going to make it to the finish line.

We have an idea of how everything happened after that self replicating organism first took off, right?

Eh. Vaguely. Probably.

So, how is it we know what these primordial organisms looked like,

We don't, really. Then again, it depends, as I said from the beginning, on what we are calling "the first".

and what the soup they showed up in was probably like,

Soups. Early Earth was no more homogenous than it is today.

but we don't really know how the soup came together and accidentally created a self replicating organism.

Well, the soup has never been any real mystery. I mean, we are talking about billions of years and an entire planet's worth of soups to work with.

I understand science is working toward that, but if it happened in a puddle, maybe billions of times, then surely we can make it happen in a lab?

How would you (the general "you", not you personally) know if it did?

It's a similar problem the creationists face. Without firm definitions, there isn't a whole lot to go on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the next couple decades of research turns up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.