If life can arise out of chemicals, why hasn't anyone ever

because synthesis is incredibly expensive, tedious, and unnecessary (to make an organism from scratch)

also it's really complicated... it would be cool though...

>>8714248
Wouldn't it completely confirm a major theory as to how life evolved?

Wouldn't it disprove a god of any sort?

If we had a complete and accurate genome of an extinct animal would we be able to recreate it ?

>>8714238
Life doesn't just arise out of chemicals.
It's comes from synergetics influencing chemicals until an autopoetic system arises that is capable of semiosis and and self replication.
It's theoretically possible to make a chemical reactor that life can emerge in.
But you can just create and organism, it has to emerge.
Here is a very, very interesting talk on this subject from Terrance Deacon
media.uoregon.edu/channel/archives/5936

>If life can arise out of chemicals

[citation needed]

>>8714238
>Don't we have a general understanding as to how it occurred?

As no one was there at the time, no we do not. The current leading theory posits an RNA world, that is, primitive chemical synthesis in the primordial oceans lead to the production of RNA nucleotides that polymerised into larger RNA molecules. RNA like DNA, is capable of self replication, but can also catalyse chemical reactions like an enzyme.

The theory goes that the ancient oceans became an ecosystem of RNA molecules, with some specialised in collecting new RNA nucleotides, some specialising in cannabilising other RNA's, etc. From there, we could see a primitive ribosome evolve, with one RNA molecule specialising in making protein for other RNA molecules symbiotically. Non biological lipid synthesis would eventually see some of these RNA molecules enclosed in primitive membranes; at some point, the RNA molecules would have gained control of the splitting and division of these lipid micelles. Eventually, DNA would have overtaken RNA as the genetic material as it is more stable.

All this is completely theoretical conjecture; and it is easy to see how the process could not be replicated in the lab- it took thousands of years. However, experiments have been done with replicating RNA molecules-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman's_Monster

>>8714328

Can confirm, molecular biologist here.

check out the SELEX with RNA aptamers experiment. Drives a hard point that RNA is a very "playful" molecule in function.

>>8714336
>molecular biologist here

Yeah, I am too mate. Although haven't been in the field for a number of years. Trying to break back in ever since the discovery of CRISPR, but it's a hard slog.

>>8714263
>Wouldn't it disprove a god of any sort?
No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

>>8714263
The nature of a religious mind is that it will always backpedal to a claim slightly vaguer when the current one is disproved.

>>8714238
Please show me the part of the lifeform that is not chemicals.

>i'll wait.

>>8714366
The mind

File: image.jpg (63KB, 750x733px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 750x733px

>>8714366

>>8714342
>CRISPR
whats that? sounds familiar

If planets can arise out of chemicals, why hasn't anyone ever created a planet?

>>8714673
That's not the same thing, and you know it.

>>8714673
Also, the OP isn't a rhetorical question.

>>8714721
>>8714714
My point is that creating an entire organism from scratch would be extremely difficult. There's a reason it took at least a few hundred million years for it to get started on earth.

>>8714238
Its easy. I made your mum one last night.

File: 425939.jpg (267KB, 1170x828px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1170x828px

>why hasn't anyone ever created an organism?
Why don't you try Googling before making a thread.

We've made synthetic bacteria. In fact we just made one with the worlds shortest DNA ever.

It's called ‘JCVI-syn1.0’
Google it

>>8714238
You need bubbles added to that equation in order to make life from chemicals. That is the secret nearly everyone is missing.

>>8714263
As much as it disproved god when we made mini thunderbolts. Those who believe will believe regardless, because that's the nature of believing

>>8714238

If you want to wait around for a billion years for it to happen, go ahead

>>8714263
>Wouldn't it disprove a god of any sort?
Why? You do realize that God created all the laws which matter obeys right? It would simply give us an understanding of the mechanism by which God chose to create life.

File: consider the following.jpg (112KB, 786x514px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 786x514px

>>8714238
>If stars can arise out of gas and dust, why hasn't anyone ever created a star?
>Don't we have a general understanding as to how it occurred?

>>8714263
Worse.
By making life...
You have become a God to that creature.
Then it will hit you...
He must have felt this same way...

>>8715405
>moving goal posts

God can be anything you want it to be. Fuck the bible.

>>8714819
It's not a full synthetic bacteria, dumbass. It's just the replication of known genomes from other bacteria in a cell.

>>8715229
/thread

File: hqdefault.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>8716507
>If you want to make a synth bacteria, you must first invent the universe.

Seriously tho, what do you call a "full synthetic" bacteria?

>>8716419
>you need the bible to believe in god
hello there mr. angry-theist

>>8714278
Maybe -- but there is more to growing an animal than its genome.

Think of the genetic code as being the recipe for a cake. It tells you all about everything you need to make delicious cake (you must eat it), but it does not tell you how to make an oven, or where to buy cake pans. There are thins you need to do to get an organism that are not coded directly in the DNA.

>>8715405
This. Gos is the rulemaker.
His existence cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method

>>8716419
Where do you think the laws of the universe came from? Why is the speed of light the speed of light? Nothing?

It's quite possible we have a god who functions like a clockmaker, created the laws of the universe, set the universe into motion and then no longer intervened

>>8717331
Then M-theory crushes that with higher spatial and time dimensional dynamics creating string properties arising out of the Brain interactions.

>move the goal post further.

>>8714248
>and unnecessary (to make an organism from scratch)
t. brainlet.

>>8716576
>I buy pre-made computer parts and put them together
>That means I invented the first computer
good try retard.

File: gCjAopz.jpg (82KB, 752x950px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 752x950px

>>8714238
https://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg

/thread

>>8717346
SERIOUSLY!! tho, what do you call a "full synthetic" bacteria?

>>8716394
You try ...
To sound... Deep...
But in truth...
You only sound like a faggot

>>8716394
I made a crayon doodle once.

I AM THE GOD OF CRAYON DOODLES!!
ALL DOODLES SHALL BOW AND WORSHIP ME!

>>8716394
We're talking about single celled organisms, not animals