I was wondering any form of reproducting life was produced using a bit of none organic matter.
I heard someone say that some scientist did it. But is that true i can't find really something of an article that matches his story.
I think you may be referring to the Miller/Urey experiment where they created a chemical 'soup' in a flask and passed current (lightning) through it to create amino acids...
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,857868,00.html
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
Slightly off topic, but how about a universe in a test tube?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/the-cosmos-in-a.html Actual life out of non-life has never been shown to have been made by humans though.
Because its not ethical...
Making life is a bit like playing 'God' and the maiority of ppl don't want that..
Read Brave New World, by aldous Huxley in his novel everyone is created by a machine... no one knows their parents and only the best can make children... this is very unethical...
Read the book and you'll see why...
...
some writers fantasy doesn't make it immoral and saying it is immoral is rather stupid, you don't produce a eating/drinking/thinking being, but the simplest of organisms, they only duplicate.
It doesn't work because you need luck
edit: and you have to have the right conditions.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue May 27, 2008 9:03 am; edited 1 time in total
| Poetsunited wrote: |
| Because its not ethical... |
People have tried to make life out of inorganic matter, and they've failed not because it's unethical, but because you need a lot of luck and time. Especially time: perhaps a billion years to get some life form. | Poetsunited wrote: |
Because its not ethical...
Making life is a bit like playing 'God' and the maiority of ppl don't want that..
Read Brave New World, by aldous Huxley in his novel everyone is created by a machine... no one knows their parents and only the best can make children... this is very unethical...
Read the book and you'll see why... |
So because a book says so, it's automatically unethical and shouldn't be considered an option?I agree with liljp617,
besides if I were to make life that would be "smart" like us it would be greatfull I think.
Why life in test tube is becouse we are very courious about
the origin of life.
I agree with such testings in test tubes even if it is with life or
life like things
| Poetsunited wrote: |
Because its not ethical...
Making life is a bit like playing 'God' and the maiority of ppl don't want that..
|
How can it be unethical if God did it, and God does not sin?
I do fail to see the point of doing it though. Modifying existing life would be much better for practical purposes, and for the purposes of disproving creationism, it is questionable because it demonstrates that life can be created in a highly controlled environment. The only reason I can see for trying is to get your place in the history books as the first man to create life out of inorganic substances.because a fictional novel says so its unethical? sorry but that logic doesnt stand with me
Im all for these type of experiments, helps us to possibly understand how it all got started
About relation beetwen ethic and genetic, I think,like Axel Kahn (french genetic scientist) than "one gene is never the the caracteristic of a destiny, one gene is only a body caracteristic"
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Poetsunited wrote: | Because its not ethical...
Making life is a bit like playing 'God' and the maiority of ppl don't want that..
|
How can it be unethical if God did it, and God does not sin?
I do fail to see the point of doing it though. Modifying existing life would be much better for practical purposes, and for the purposes of disproving creationism, it is questionable because it demonstrates that life can be created in a highly controlled environment. The only reason I can see for trying is to get your place in the history books as the first man to create life out of inorganic substances. |
A controlled environment, yes. But we have a decent idea of at least some of the conditions under which life began (in terms of what the planet was like). If we can create that specific controlled environment and match it to the conditions of the origin, then I think it's a step closer to understanding the overall origin of life. 
No reason not to figure out...if nothing else, simply out of curiosity.has anyone ever thought about the fetal position of a test-tube baby?
lol it would look kinda like just standing up. but that just my opinion of a stereotypical view of a test tube.
