If scientists can explain the origins of life, why can they not create life?

Question

Scientists claim to know what ingredients were present when life spontaneously began. But they are unable to recreate life in a laboratory. In the 50's a scientist named Miller was able to create amino acids. That is as close as they have gotten.

Answer 1

Why? The nature of the reaction. . .
The primordial earth was completely different than today's world. No oxygen, different temps, etc. Scientists can emulate that environment in very SMALL scales.
However, Earth is not small. It's huge. Life had many chances and tons of time to evolve; it isn't as though life started immediately after the primordial soup was established. In laboratories, scientists have an infintesimal amount of time to produce life as compared to the actual birth of life. Statistics and chance hold us down.
Scientists might not know all of the ingredients that were
Also, life did NOT spontaneously begin. It started out with small molecules that randomly reproduced. It's called the RNA world hypothesis. Little strands of RNA got together, and they found out that they were complementary to other ribonucleic acids floating around. So they indirectly reproduced by gathering those complementary acids, then letting them go off as single strands. Eventually, however, certain strands realized (figuratively) that it was more stable to stay as a double helix. From there it was a cascade - cell membranes came about, then division of labor, etc. Organelles emerged as cells began to specialize.
You can see that life took a REALLY long time to start. Scientists haven't reproduced life because we simply don't have the same amount of time to do so.

Answer 2

The origin of life generally takes a 'reverse' reductionist approach, as far as I'm aware (disclaimer - I am a neuroscientist, so I am not as familiar with the most intricate details of the beginning of life as, say, an evolutionary biologist, but I do have some training in evolutionary biology ):

1) Small organic molecules, created by chemical reactions from the Earth's volatile early environment and events in the sea, formed amino acids.

2) These amino acids formed RNA.

3) This simple genetic code, combined with other organic molecules which formed a small cell membrane and cytoplasm, became the basis for protocells.

4) Protocells, through the changes in their RNA, became the world' first bacteria, developing a more complex cell membrane and an interior similar to that of archaebacteria.

5) Bacteria conglomerated into small groups for survival purposes; these became the world's first eukaryotic cells.

6) Cells began to clump together, for survival, and became the world's first multicellular organisms .

Answer 3

Scientists also claim to know how the sun works, but they are unable to create their own for very long on earth.

They also know how neutron stars and black holes work, but those stupid scientists, they can't create these either.

Obviously, since these discoveries cannot be backed up by artificially creating them, they should be completely disregarded.

Unfortunately for you, this is not how the scientific method works. The scientific method requires:

Constructing a sensible hypothesis.
Evidence based on observations or experiments.
Analysis of these results.
If the observed results back up the hypothesis, chances are your hypothesis was correct. If not, your hypothesis is wrong.

The scientific method does not require you to mimick results in a laboratory.

I'd guess that you are big on intelligent design, which I will point out is not a science by any stretch of the imagination. So if you have a counter theory or counter example to the creation of life, based on your own observations and evidence, then the scientific community would gladly read your thesis and come to their conclusions.

Answer 4

you are correct. But life has one advantage we do not. If we try and create life the way it is been theorized it would take millions perhaps billions of years & that is a luxury we humans do not have. So we try to create the ingredients that were on Earth when life first began. By doing this scientist have created simple amino acids which is essential block for creating life.

Answer 5

Actually, no scientist would ever say that they know with certainty what was present at the abiogenesis event. At this point, they have an idea and it's not merely conjecture, but there is a good deal of uncertainty.

Regardless, expecting scientists to recreate in the lab what occurred in myriad places over hundreds of millions of years is unreasonable.

It's a typical creationist strawman and exhibits a lack of scientific acumen.

Answer 6

The foundation of existence frequently takes a 'opposite' reductionist approach, to this point as i'm conscious (disclaimer - i'm a neuroscientist, so i'm no longer as conscious of the main problematic info of the beginning up of existence as, say, an evolutionary biologist, yet I do have some guidance in evolutionary biology ): a million) Small organic and organic molecules, created by way of chemical reactions from the Earth's risky early environment and activities in the sea, formed amino acids. 2) those amino acids formed RNA. 3) this easy genetic code, blended with different organic and organic molecules which formed a small cellular membrane and cytoplasm, became the inspiration for protocells. 4) Protocells, in the process the diversities of their RNA, became the international' first micro organism, bobbing up a extra complicated cellular membrane and an indoors comparable to that of archaebacteria. 5) micro organism conglomerated into small communities for survival applications; those became the international's first eukaryotic cells. 6) Cells began to clump mutually, for survival, and became the international's first multicellular organisms .

Answer 7

Because the gulf between creating amino acids and a functioning one-celled organism is still huge. Your premise is about the same as claiming that since you can tell time, you should be able to build a digital watch using just a bucket of sand that contains high levels of silicon.

Maybe one day we'll manage to create that one-celled creature, but I wouldn't count on it for another 20 years, minimum.

Answer 8

That's right, Miller created the basic building blocks of life. He got lucky, had he persisted for another 10 million years or so, varying his ingredients, temperature, lightning bolts, etc, every thousand years or so, he may have produced proteins, or higher. Who knows what might have been achieved in half a billion years. But you know Miller, he just had to quit too soon.

Answer 9

Because there is more to life than just collections of amino acids, proteins and other chemicals. Scientists will never be able to make life just start. That is out of their hands.

Answer 10

When people thought the world was flat, was it?


People knew the world was round hundreds of years before we got into a space craft and took a picture of it. A theory is just that...at theory. As the technology gets better, the theory gets better. Sooner or later we'll get there.

If you wanted to expand "life" to include virus's we're already there. They're made in labs all the time. It's only a matter of time.