Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Artificial Cells “Created”


At Phys.Org today, a press release indicates that scientists have fashioned a type of stand-in for natural cells which can ‘mimic’ some of their functions/properties. The title of the PR is:

“Scientists create artificial cells that mimic living cells’ ability to capture, process, and expel material.”

Should we add this to the Miller-Urey experiment as a new piece of the puzzle as to how life started? Well, first of all, the limitations of the Miller-Urey experiment have been spelled out elsewhere, but should be well-known by now. Second, here’s what we read at Phys.Org:

To design the cell mimics, the researchers created a spherical membrane the size of a red blood cell using a polymer, a stand-in for the cellular membrane that controls what goes in and out of a cell. They pierced a microscopic hole into the spherical membrane creating a nano-channel through which matter can be exchanged, imitating a cell’s protein channel.

But in order to perform the tasks required for active transport, the cell mimics needed a mechanism to power the cell-like structure to pull in and expel material. In a living cell, mitochondria and ATP provide the necessary energy for active transport. In the cell mimic, the researchers added a chemically reactive component inside the nano-channel that, when activated by light, acts as a pump. When light hits the pump, it triggers a chemical reaction, turning the pump into a tiny vacuum and pulling cargo into the membrane. When the pump is switched off, the cargo is trapped and processed inside the cell mimic. And when the chemical reaction is reversed, the cargo is pushed out on demand.

“Our design concept enables these artificial cell mimics to operate autonomously and perform active transport tasks that have so far been confined to the realm of living cells,” said Stefano Sacanna, associate professor of chemistry at NYU and the study’s lead author.

Well, what about all this ‘designing’? Can we adduce that these ‘cell mimics’ were designed by considering the materials they’re made out of and how it’s assembled? If so, then, based on living cells, ‘design’ can also be adduced.

So, no, even if this experiment is tauted as the next “Miller-Urey” experiment, we see that in both instances it is the presence of the ‘intelligent’ agents that brought about their published results.

My bad, PaV. What I meant was I pity the fools who think this adds credence to a naturalistic abiogenesis, which is an impossibility. ET
dogs can actually compete with wolves,
:) C'mon man 80,000 feral dogs are now competing for territory, food and genetic supremacy against perhaps 250 surviving wolves. Lieutenant Commander Data
LCD: Under certain circumstances, dogs can actually compete with wolves, nevertheless I had read somewhere where some experiment of this kind had taken place and took it at face-value. But I can't now locate it. So, I apologize for referring to a study I hadn't actually seen myself. The perils of the internet. PaV
The classic example of this are dog breeds, which, left to themselves revert to a wolf-like animal. This is plain fact. The experiments have been carried out.
Firstly if they have wolves as rivals,they won't survive long enough "to revert" to a wolf-like ,secondly they just can't because they are defective wolves(genetically inferior -is called involution). Lieutenant Commander Data
ET: Ad hominem attacks will never pass as science. Here is an experiment conducted using highly precise technical means and the 'design' capacity of its 'creators.' (Did you notice that word in the PR?) How does that get us any closer to 'abiogenesis'? Darwin famously said that NS is much more powerful than AS (artificial selection) that breeders use. No, human ingenuity and telology is what gives us breeds that nature could never produce. The classic example of this are dog breeds, which, left to themselves revert to a wolf-like animal. This is plain fact. The experiments have been carried out. It is, in my estimation, a categorical error of thinking to equilibrate what human agents can do and what nature--left to itself and in random fashion, can do. To me, this seems foolish. The experiment here actually suggests that even basic, simple needs of a cell require ingenuity and design. PaV
I agree that this is “much ado about nothing,”
sure, there is much ado about nothing, AS ALWAYS ... people (like me) who follow this field getting use to it ... But, what i wanted to say (i apologize, English is not my first language), that Darwinists struggle to create even something so elementary as a hole. Of course, I know, this 'hole' is much more complex than it sounds, but Darwinists themselves called it 'a hole'. A membrane hole, and Darwinists are clueless ... Like i debated in my other posts, what do Darwinists actually expect ? Do they expect, that when they mix some chemicals, shaking it a little, heating it up, cooling it down, then suddenly thousands of parts / molecules start working together in a concert for a purpose like we see in the cell ? How absurd and irrational are all these experiments ? Obviously, to figure out how the cell was CREATED, it is beyond chemistry ... i am not saying this can't be reverse-engineered, but i as an engineer, i am 100% sure that Darwinists take very wrong approach. PS: yes, perhaps one day (in 1,000,000 years from now) it will be reverse-engineered, but when i look at the cell complexity, i have serious doubts, i doubt that humans will be ever able to re-create living cell ... martin_r
I think this is very cool. And I pity the fools that think this somehow adds credence to the impossibility of abiogenesis. ET
So they made a really tiny solar powered pump. Cool but not a cell AaronS1978
Martin_r: I agree that this is "much ado about nothing," however I was struck by the article's title. Though I figured it was going to amount to nothing, yet it gives the false impression that this work by the authors is a step along the way to the beginning of life. I just made sure it was overblown and am making sure the ID community is aware of this. I suspect we will be hearing more about this in the future, unfortunately. PaV
They pierced a microscopic hole into the spherical membrane creating a nano-channel
They had to pierce a hole.... who is piercing holes in real cell membrane in order to create nano-channels? This is so ridiculous.... such a stupid thing like a hole ... and Darwinists are clueless ... martin_r
The cell is the most complicated single entity in the known universe. They don’t know how it is controlled. More time should be spent on that. They may learn something. On multi-called entities, they haven’t a clue how they are assembled. Another area for learning. jerry

Leave a Reply