Scientist Lee Cronin, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, and his research team, have demonstrated a new way to make chemical-inorganic cells called iCHELLs
Dr. Moshe Nahamani
Scientists from the University of Glasgow, Scotland, claim that they have succeeded in making the first steps in creating "life" from inorganic chemicals, a development that could define an entirely new field of "inorganic biology".
Scientist Lee Cronin, professor of chemistry at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, and his research team, have demonstrated a new way to prepare chemical-inorganic cells known as iCHELLs.
The main researcher explains: "All living things on Earth are based on organic biology (that is, carbon that appears in the basic building blocks such as amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, etc.), but the inorganic world is considered lifeless. "What we're trying to do is create evolving inorganic cells that replicate themselves so that they eventually become life. You can call it inorganic biology.”
Distinct complexes can be built inside the cells by creating internal membranes that allow control of the passage of materials and energy through them - that is, several chemical processes can be isolated within the same cell - just like in biological cells.
The researchers claim that the cells, which are also able to store electricity, could potentially be used in various types of applications in the fields of medicine, as sensors or to delineate chemical reactions. This research is part of a project by the lead researcher whose goal is to prove that inorganic chemical compounds are capable of replicating themselves and developing - just as organic (carbon-based) biological cells do.
"The big goal is to build complex chemical cells with life-like properties that can help us understand the emergence of life and also use this approach to define a completely new technology based on development in the world of materials - a type of living inorganic technology.
"A bacterium is essentially a single-celled organism composed of organic chemicals, and similarly why can't we produce microorganisms from inorganic chemicals and allow them to develop?
"If our approach is successful, it will give us wonderful insights into development and prove to us that there is more than just biological processes. In addition, we will be able to demonstrate that non-carbon-based life can exist and this will redefine our concepts regarding the design and planning of chemical structures."
The researcher's lecture regarding his research
The news about the study
28 תגובות
Omri:
After all, I myself showed that it was possible and only claimed that it was improbable - so why do you find it appropriate to show that it is possible and do so by presenting a way that is even less probable than the way I presented?
(I am truly convinced that it is much, much less likely, but it seems to me that "engineering improbable animals" is not the topic of discussion here, so I will refrain from detailing the reasons for this thought).
To Michael:
It seems to me that the formation of a wheel is indeed possible under the conditions of the earth.
I quote you:
"Basically - it is possible to develop body parts that are disconnected from others - one way is to develop a body in which all parts are connected and then separate parts through planned cell death (planned cell death also participates in the formation of our body).
Of course, the result is still problematic because one of the two - either the wheel must be made of a hard material that will not wear out during life - or it must have a complete metabolism (in the existing terms - of nutrition, immune system, self-repair system and blood circulation system) that is separate from the system of The rest of the body."
You say that the system must be separate from the rest of the body, but in fact it can be very similar to the shark tooth system.
The wheels can be created every time anew, and existing wheels can be replaced.
But really, in my opinion, it is unnecessary to ask why things developed in one way, and not in another, because it is impossible to know all the circumstances that caused things to happen the way they did.
You are asking questions like "Why weren't creatures with 10 legs and 8 wings created here?".
It just didn't happen, because it just didn't happen.
There are creatures that partially utilize inorganic materials, so why do we need creatures that are built entirely from these materials?
Uncle:
I don't see the connection between your words and mine.
I said nothing about the carbon content of the first replicator.
In my answer to Yehuda, I said that in order to discuss the issue, you need to know more details about the experiment (such as what materials are participating in it), and this remains my position.
The rest of the discussion is about speculation regarding unknown things.
The laws of evolution have never been different because these are mathematical laws that also allow software to evolve.
To Michael
I did not understand your response to the Golan Heights
Why can't it be that the first replicator was without carbon, and the carbon was added at a later stage? As a "successful mutation" ..
The first replicator had no competition at all.
Can we assume that the laws of evolution were different in the beginning?
R.H.:
Since the issue of the wheel was brought up by you, I did not find it appropriate to mention the rod (because it was clear to me that you knew about the rod and yet you said there were no wheels). I understood that you meant multi-layered and I explained why this is unlikely there.
Regarding substances that are not used - I do not know whether or not each substance has someone who feeds on it and I tend to assume that in any case a completely different metabolism prevents intense competition. In fact, I think that even in certain organic materials the use of components with opposite chirality is absent (and certainly there is no competition for them). In my opinion, in this case, the possibility of inextricable complexity (under Earth conditions) is more likely.
(I added the phrase "under the conditions of the Earth" because it is possible to describe situations in which a certain material necessary for this life is present on the Earth but is not found in a high enough concentration to support the development of life based on it and the ability to base life on the Earth is dependent on an intelligent factor that will concentrate the necessary materials and create an environment artificial that will allow the same life)
To everyone who commented on wheels,
.
The ability to produce wheels exists in nature. The bacteria rod is a wheel for everything with an axle and a motor. Despite this, this is a unique case and nature for some reason went in the direction of movement by limbs and not wheels. The same goes for jet motion, there are several cases in nature such as the squids, but this is not the dominant form of motion. "Why" is a very problematic and difficult question to answer.
The same about "why" creatures were not created as described in the article.
Nevertheless, a possible explanation is that, with the exception of a few noble metals and a few other materials, there is no resource on Earth that some life form does not use, so it is difficult to imagine a life form that does not compete with anyone for any resource. Assuming that the organic life forms are more successful there would be no chance for non organic life forms to survive.
Mirom Golan and R.H.:
I have raised the argument of extinction in the evolutionary race here in the past in relation to other life forms (to the best of my knowledge I was the first to ever raise this argument anywhere, but I do not know this for sure, only that I have not read such a claim anywhere).
However, I think that in the case before us this explanation is insufficient because the competition between the different animals is ultimately for the materials that make them up and if the "creatures" discussed here are not made of organic materials it may be that there is no competition for resources at all between them and the organisms we know.
Asaf:
I previously thought about the subject and came to several conclusions:
Basically - it is possible to develop body parts that are disconnected from others - one way is to develop a body in which all parts are connected and then separate parts through planned cell death (planned cell death also participates in the formation of our body).
Of course, the result is still problematic because one of the two - either the wheel must be made of a hard material that will not wear out during life - or it must have a complete metabolism (in the existing terms - of nutrition, immune system, self-repair system and blood circulation system) that is separate from the system of the rest of the body.
It is indeed complicated and unlikely to happen.
To the anonymous who talked about roads:
Your words are also true but cannot be said so decisively.
For example, as we know - there are also off-road vehicles that do not need roads.
I repeat and emphasize - I think both explanations are correct, but not because they represent an impossibility, but only because they represent an improbability.
Yehuda,
It is possible that such life did exist early in evolution but simply did not survive the evolutionary race. We could equally wonder why there are no Neanderthals among us today, and conclude from that that their existence was not possible. If indeed such life forms existed at the beginning of life on our planet, they would not have left a trace today.
Building next to me 🙂
Yehuda:
To answer your question (and in my opinion - even to ask it) you need to know more details about the experiment that was done.
One of the possible answers is the one with which creationists struggle with evolution - a problem of inextricable complexity.
It may be that there is no way that leads the raw materials through an evolutionary process where each step confers an advantage over the previous one until the stage where the artificial cells created in the experiment are created, while for the organic materials there is such a way.
Yehuda, I am the proof that even things that could not be created were created.
In any case, I have yet to see a bacterium with chicken wings formed.
Dear point
Look how after billions of years of evolution even you are created, a very special point!
And to the anonymous user I must tell you that you are wrong about the roads, because it is a fact that flying creatures were created even though there were no airports!
(:))
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, you assume in your question that everything that could happen happened within the framework of evolution... :\
There is nothing more to add.
to R.H
Regarding your 2nd question
I'm guessing that wheeled animals were not created primarily
Because in terms of natural selection, there were no roads…
For the audience and others
I returned to the article and read it again carefully. I was disturbed by the following elementary sentence:-
"A bacterium is actually a single-celled organism composed of organic chemicals, and similarly, why can't we produce microorganisms from inorganic chemicals and allow them to develop?" End quote.
Then I ask the following question:- So why then did an inorganic island bacterium as mentioned not develop here on earth??
After all, there was no lack of materials on the ancient earth and time is enough and allowed, and if there is evolution as well, then an inorganic bacterium should have already formed, but this is not the case.
So something is not right here, and I don't know what it is.
On the other hand, I know myself and apparently Michael does too, and I agree that there can be life, not exactly like the example of life on Earth, so again the difficult question is asked
Why did such life forms not form on Earth??
Is it possible that our carbonaceous life form prevented the formation of another kind of life?
Can this be compared with the example of the virtual life brought by Michael that even has evolution in it? So why do I agree that it can exist, and here, in the case of the inorganic bacteria, I rule it out in advance?
And each of these things I do with complete faith even though it seems as if the things are in contradiction!
What will I have to withdraw from? My opinion on the inorganic bacterium?, my opinion on the possibility of life different from those existing on Earth? Or I asked for something.
It looks like I have a problem here with a quantum system that the answer adapts itself to the question I am asking.
What does Michal think?, R, H, ?, others? I will be happy to hear
But please respond gently and politely even if I am wrong in a big way (:))
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For the audience and others
I returned to the article and read it again carefully. I was disturbed by the following elementary sentence:-
"A bacterium is actually a single-celled organism composed of organic chemicals, and similarly, why can't we produce microorganisms from inorganic chemicals and allow them to develop?" End quote.
Then I ask the following question:- So why then did an inorganic island bacterium as mentioned not develop here on earth??
After all, there was no lack of materials on the ancient earth and time is enough and allowed, and if there is evolution as well, then an inorganic bacterium should have already formed, but this is not the case.
So something is not right here, and I don't know what it is.
On the other hand, I know myself and apparently Michael does too, and I agree that there can be life, not exactly like the example of life on Earth, so again the difficult question is asked
Why did such life forms not form on Earth??
Is it possible that our carbonaceous life form prevented the formation of another kind of life?
Can this be compared with the example of virtual life brought by Michael that even has evolution in it? So why do I agree that it can exist, and here, in the case of the inorganic bacteria, I rule it out in advance?
And each of these things I do with complete faith even though it seems as if the things are in contradiction!
What will I have to withdraw from? My opinion on the inorganic bacterium?, my opinion on the possibility of life different from those existing on Earth? Or I asked for something.
It looks like I have a problem here with a quantum system that the answer adapts itself to the question I am asking.
What does Michal think?, R, H, ?, others? I will be happy to hear
But please respond gently and politely even if I am wrong in a big way (:))
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In fact, wheels already exist in nature. Or at least a rotary movement mechanism that only needs to be attached to a wheel. atp synthase for example.
Don't know what they are confusing the mind.
When I press CTRL+C and then CTRL+V I see on the screen the result of duplication...
Basically, the keyboard has carbon, so my whole argument falls apart...
It is hard to believe that living things can grow wheels.
To use the wheel you need a shaft that is not attached to the wheel body. How can a living thing grow the wheel if it is not attached to its body.
To God
Must admit you gave me food for thought,
I will think and answer.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Evolution exists even in computer programs.
Computer programs were not created by themselves on Earth either.
Evolution is a defined process that obeys the laws of probability and it really doesn't matter how it started.
Apparently this type of life could not have developed spontaneously on Earth, but that does not mean that it is not life (not to mention that evolution is not necessary at all to define life - even if you were created synthetically and you were not a product of evolution - you would be alive)
Yehuda:
And I actually expected you to take this news in a direction more typical of you and claim that it shows that the search for life in space does not have to be based on the search for the consequences of organic chemistry and the conditions that allow it (such as water, a range of temperatures, certain substances, etc.) - something that is true in itself but has no practical meaning as long as we do not know inorganic life and therefore do not know how to look for their effects or the conditions that enable them.
to R.H.
1. If there was an evolution in life/machines of this type, then surely we would also see life of the type that appears in the article on Earth. But, since we don't see this kind of life on Earth. That's why we don't have evolution here and that's why these are "just" machines.
They are of course highly sophisticated machines but not living beings.
2. Creatures with wheels were not created during evolution because the preference was in the direction of flight and creatures "preferred" to evolve in the direction of wings instead of wheels. But don't forget that the feature of (partial) rotation was given to certain parts of the body such as eyes.
I agree with you that the world is different from that primordial world where life was created for the first time. One of the most important changes is that it already has life. Therefore, if only for the reason that there is already life today, new creatures will not develop as before, if at all.
3. By the words "just a nano machine" I meant that it is not a live production. I don't know what live production is but I know what is not live production! These nano machines are not living things. They are sophisticated machines in the USA!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Well done! Such a short and terse message that raises so many questions.
1) Why wouldn't there be evolution in such cells? If they multiply imprecisely and compete for limited resources or if selection is applied against them, there will also be doubt.
2) Why were they not created during evolution? Why didn't creatures with wheels arise during evolution? Why is it a not so legitimate question that is usually very difficult to answer. In any case, why there is no spontaneous creation of new replicating molecules today is probably due to the fact that the world is saturated with life that takes advantage of everything that is available so that some new fragile molecule has no chance today.
3) What is "just sophisticated nano machines and nothing more. Far from the concept of life"? Isn't a bacterium just a sophisticated nano machine? And if so, is he alive? What is your definition of life?
I heard an interview with him on the Dr Kiki Science Hour show:
http://twit.tv/show/dr-kikis-science-hour/115
Fascinating and broadens horizons!
I find it hard to believe that this is possible since billions of years of evolution should have developed this kind of life as well
Or maybe evolution will not exist in the above creatures?, in that case it will be just sophisticated nano machines and nothing more. Far from the concept of life.
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda