Can life be created in a lab?

[Zamtsa]

Clone usually result in making an invalid animal. If they are so great, why do they make, but make an invalid one. They couldn't make but with what Allahu Ta'ala already created.

They said they could clone, from what/ From their self created DNA?
Perhaps these 'creators'(in inverted comas) could be conscious of their own heart beat and order the heart "beat and pump all the blood to specific places," Subhaanallah, what a people with empty self consiousness and intelligence that would be, now isn't it?


May peace, development and save from guile be upon who follow the guidance.

 

[Hamayun]

But then they would have to find a law to explain where the law came from . . . and ultimately an explanation of why the universe is mathematical and of where mathematics came from and what numbers are.

Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so.'' Take your pick.

Excellent post Brother Chuck. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Azy]

Perhaps it would be helpful if a provisional definition of life was agreed upon.

 

[Hamayun]

Perhaps it would be helpful if a provisional definition of life was agreed upon.

Life is the opposite of death.

If you can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness etc then you are alive I guess...

 

[GuestFellow]

Life is the opposite of death.

If you can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness etc then you are alive I guess...

What about plants? :/

 

[جوري]

Perhaps it would be helpful if a provisional definition of life was agreed upon.

Let's put it this way.. if life can be created in a lab.. and I take a plant denature it to its most basic component, would you be able to re-anneal to its former vibrancy give it form bearing in mind that the same DNA that form the stalk, also forms the petals and breathe life into it anew. I am in fact giving you all its constituents and not asking you to create ex nihilo which is the genuine definition of 'from scratch'!

You are already a few steps ahead of 'nature', 'evolution' or whatever magic force that allowed for life and form and variety.

1- You already have the raw material to work with and don't 'gotta bring it from scratch'!
2- two, you have the very specific raw material to a rose, in other words you'll have all that you need to make one thing in specific, I am not for instance giving you flower DNA and asking you to give form and life to an apple.
3- you are actually manipulating the event in a controlled environment so that it isn't out in nature happening by some magic on its own.. a little wind a little sunshine a little time and voila!

all the best

 

[Azy]

Let's put it this way.. if life can be created in a lab.. and I take a plant...
I am in fact giving you all its constituents and not asking you to create ex nihilo

I'm not sure why you introduced the plant to be honest because the whole point of this thread seems to be creating life ex nihilo or at least that is the way I understood it.

Life is the opposite of death.
If you can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness etc then you are alive I guess...

I don't think that's a particularly useful definition, death is the end of life not it's opposite. As Guestfellow said there are plenty of things we consider to be 'life' which do not feel hunger, sadness and so on... plants, bacteria, fungi.

I can not think of any explanation or valid definition as to what life is from a physical sense. Chemically and in physical composition a dead fish is identical to a live fish.

I don't think that's entirely true, there are many ongoing chemical processes within a 'living' fish that are not within a 'dead' fish.

 

[جوري]

Anyway...
I'm not sure why you introduced the plant to be honest because the whole point of this thread seems to be creating life ex nihilo or at least that is the way I understood it.

Substitute plant then with anything else and create life ex nihilo .. and while at it please look up the definition of the word.. for there would be no raw material for you to work with, denatured or annealed!


all the best

 

[Ramisa]

Your second question is the one I can answer. A living thing is defined by 5 characteristics :1)Living things are stimulus(respond to their environment).2)They grow.3)Living things must get ride of wastes.4)Living things can reproduce.5) They need energy.

Without these five they are not defined as 'living things'. In the case of your question,if some form of life is formed and does not contain these 5 characteristics than it is not a living thing. Humans do not create life,only Allah The All Mighty can,does and will until the day of Judgement,Insha'Allah.

 

[Woodrow]

Your second question is the one I can answer. A living thing is defined by 5 characteristics :1)Living things are stimulus(respond to their environment).2)They grow.3)Living things must get ride of wastes.4)Living things can reproduce.5) They need energy.

Without these five they are not defined as 'living things'. In the case of your question,if some form of life is formed and does not contain these 5 characteristics than it is not a living thing. Humans do not create life,only Allah The All Mighty can,does and will until the day of Judgement,Insha'Allah.

:wa:

just my opinion:

I see those as being the very minimal criteria for defining life. Yet not complete or necessarily fully accurate. If we agree Angels exist and are living beings I do not think they have all of those qualities.

I also think those 5 qualities are incomplete. there seems to be 6th undefinable factor that is needed for something to be alive.

 

[Ramisa]

^That was the scientific view of non muslims for humans,not based on animals. But I do agree on what you have stated brother.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

I meant creating a living organism using no organic matter.

What do you mean by this? Organic compounds can be synthesized. Recently we found a piece of meteor containing organic compounds.

...or do you mean that we should try to make a completely new kind of life, say...silicon based?

That would be an entirely different undertaking. I don't think we can make life without applying selective pressure to self replicators... Do you know of any non-organic self replicators?

Right now the best I can hope for is that we reproduce the circumstances under which life formed in the first place. I don't expect more than oversimple single celled things that 'feed' upon basic organic compounds.

If you can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness etc then you are alive I guess...

That is yet another undertaking. As others have stated already, generally for something to be considered alive it need only be able to reproduce, respond to its environment, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis.

Under your definition only a relatively small number of higher mammals are alive, and yet it is still too inclusive. Can a computer algorithm that feels pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness, etc, be considered alive?

 

[جوري]

Originally Posted by Hamayun

I meant creating a living organism using no organic matter.

What do you mean by this? Organic compounds can be synthesized. Recently we found a piece of meteor containing organic compounds.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast20dec_1.htm
he means 'abiogenesis' A hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.. what does the sugared meteor have to do with his response or the topic?

...or do you mean that we should try to make a completely new kind of life, say...silicon based?

Again, I thought his statement was self-explanatory but we have gone ahead and defined it for you using the English dictionary!

That would be an entirely different undertaking. I don't think we can make life without applying selective pressure to self replicators... Do you know of any non-organic self replicators?

Sure, making use of your reproductive organs isn't creating though, it is called sexual reproduction.. can't really take credit for something you came ready equipped with, especially with your predecessors speaking of ' ex nihilo'

Right now the best I can hope for is that we reproduce the circumstances under which life formed in the first place. I don't expect more than oversimple single celled things that 'feed' upon basic organic compounds.

You know for a fact that life formed from a single cell?
I'd say that is right near impossible--

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCellAddendum_022703.pdf

That is yet another undertaking. As others have stated already, generally for something to be considered alive it need only be able to reproduce, respond to its environment, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis.

Irrelevant comment!

Under your definition only a relatively small number of higher mammals are alive, and yet it is still too inclusive. Can a computer algorithm that feels pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness, etc, be considered alive?

ah but it begs the question, do feeling inanimate 'non-organic' objects who do as you describe also appear ' ex nihilo' to randomly assemble and become more complex over time or do they have a maker?

something to ponder while brushing ones teeth!

 

[Azy]

lol, Mullan's back.

Gubbleknucker, the challenge as I understand it is to engineer something that comes under some agreed definition of 'life', starting with only the components that occur without the intervention of existing life. So you can have amino acids if you like since they occur naturally.

This looks interesting. Short article about it here.

ah but it begs the question, do feeling inanimate 'non-organic' objects who do as you describe also appear ' ex nihilo' to randomly assemble and become more complex over time or do they have a maker?

Isn't that the whole point of this thread, life that has a human creator?

 

[- IqRa -]

No @ 1st question.

 

[جوري]

lol, Mullan's back.

As often as abiogenesis and panspermia show up!

Isn't that the whole point of this thread, life that has a human creator?

Of course.. that is what we were all thinking.. in the beginning of time, when we were a lipid bi-layer.. there was just one lab in the galaxy.. and they kept trying for years.. searching the universe for a mitochondria .. and the golgi apparatus, and rough and smooth ER, and liposomes, some matrix etc etc etc etc.. each nerd in the one lab trying with a different set of amino acids to find the proper sequence to have one functioning protein, each protein meant to act, be acted on or function on another.. at times, they'd open the space window and let some light in to see the effect that had but it would denature all their works, so they'd start anew and try a little water.. but after a prolonged period of time (as per the video of 'converse' on the previous page.. magic happened.. and it all came together.. and kept coming together.. and budding and reproducing, then it gave us male and female, and happened several times all at the same time over a prolonged period of time, blue green algae into dinosaurs then amphibians then apes then humans and voila..

no God, but the lab in outer space should get full credit! ;D

all the best ..

 

[Azy]

As often as abiogenesis and panspermia show up!

I'm pretty sure I didn't get my point across in the other post.
It's not that I disagree with Mullan, on the contrary I would say that I totally agree with his conclusions. Assembling a primitive cell of the type described in the way described is so unlikely it's fair to say it would probably never happen.

My point is not that he's wrong. My point is that proving abiogenesis cannot happen by random assembly of a cell is akin to proving that bacterial pneumonia cannot be cured by rubbing peanut butter into one's scalp.

Of course it can't. No one ever claimed it could, and proving that this one mechanism could not work is not disproving abiogenesis any more than the peanut butter disproves the effective treatment of pneumonia.

 

[جوري]

I'm pretty sure I didn't get my point across in the other post.

I suppose the reason for that, is, that you never have a valid point!

It's not that I disagree with Mullan, on the contrary I would say that I totally agree with his conclusions. Assembling a primitive cell of the type described in the way described is so unlikely it's fair to say it would probably never happen.

How would you describe in very technical details the assembly of a primitive cell?

My point is not that he's wrong. My point is that proving abiogenesis cannot happen by random assembly of a cell is akin to proving that bacterial pneumonia cannot be cured by rubbing peanut butter into one's scalp.

Again, would you like to back up your points? I fear the irony of your otherwise clever conceptions is wasted if you don't provide us with a thorough scientifically accurate alternative!

Of course it can't. No one ever claimed it could, and proving that this one mechanism could not work is not disproving abiogenesis any more than the peanut butter disproves the effective treatment of pneumonia.

ah the last cry of a desperate man .. do you do this to embarrass yourself publicly?

 

[Azy]

How would you describe in very technical details the assembly of a primitive cell?

I wouldn't and don't really need to do so. That you don't know the technical details of the assembly of Adam from dust doesn't present a barrier to your acceptance of it as a possibility.

Again, would you like to back up your points?

It's not a matter of backing up my points but showing the flaw in your argument. To infer the truth of the universal from the truth of the particular is a logical fallacy.

One cannot say "Some mechanisms for abiogenesis are not valid, therefore all mechanisms for abiogenesis are not valid".

 

[Hamayun]

That you don't know the technical details of the assembly of Adam from dust doesn't present a barrier to your acceptance of it as a possibility.

In case you forgot to notice... she is a Muslim! :uuh:

We believe that Allah only has to say "Be" and it is. There are no technical details of Adam's (as) assembly. It's God's will. Simplesss!!

If he can create the universe from nothing, how hard can it be to create Adam?