Yes, those methods speed up the production process. Also, I believe you're getting at abiotic creation of DNA, which didn't quite take the course you're suggesting when arriving at abiogenesis. First of all, and this has already been proven through research, the essential amino acids for DNA synthesis were created through high energy events, which led to polymerization, and eventually the DNA precursor: RNA. From there it's theorized that the RNA served as both a catalyst and template for further replication, eventually leading to living organisms/DNA. So to attempt to just simply construct DNA from scratch (which they can) would be pointless to the study of abiogenesis (which is what you're debating). Put quite simply, you're arguing "God of the gaps", which you'll find will get smaller and smaller in time.
I will ask a slightly different question...do you think that biologists could create a new organism - not using DNA or RNA as we know it...but create a life form? Is biology/bioengineering at the point where life would not rely upon DNA? -g
While I don't consider this even slightly on topic - No, life as we know it requires a basic genetic code.
We don't build computers from the atom up either, we simply assemble existing elements or grow boules of semiconductor using mass self-assembly. It is too time consuming and expensive to do anything atom by atom. the electronics-chemistry analogy is a bad one, however your argument fails because it is possible in principle to build a DNA molecule, but why take all that time and expense when there are building blocks all around us. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2010-05-21-genome21_ST_N.htm
Using the definitiopn of self replication, that would be doable in principle, but there is no money or motivation. machines build machines all the time now, we could set up an automated self repairing facility
It is interesting that you mention boules...even the Czochralski method of boule creation...requires a seed crystal to begin with...not really starting from scratch. We are very close to building computers from the atom level. Transistors have been made at the "atom" level...but, alas...no, we could not make a computer atom by atom. It is not just too time consuming or expensive...we do not have the technology to make a computer atom by atom. If we do not have the technology to create a computer atom by atom...we are left with "assembling" a computer...a LOT different ball game than building them atom by atom. What people here are considering "too time consuming" and "expensive"...the theory of evolution relies upon at its heart. As delta pointed out...a theory on how DNA arrived here on earth may be different than how things evolve...but, in the end we are talking about atomic manipulation within a molecule. -g
Even that "creation" was a synthesis of DNA from other parts. Various "pieces" of DNA were mixed and eventually...dropped into a pre-existing cell....not quite making it from scratch...more like adding a room to a house...the house (cell with walls, etc.) was already there...they changed the insides and moved things around.
You may be to some extent right...I may be "living in the gap"...but, what I was showing is that it is still a really big gap. That genetic code is way more complex than we as humans could come up with in human knowledge and technology. When people say that evolution (defined by me ) is random forces, time and materials (atoms of elements) changes DNA and somehow make the DNA molecule into something that is more orderly in outcome..evolution from single cell to say an elephant...I say no way. It breaks entropy. Things as we know them go from order to chaos and not from chaos to order...unless there is "intervention"...especially on the molecular scale. As you may have noticed...I am not a biologist (LOL - OK, really obvious). I went to school for electrical engineering. I did not take organic chem (wish I had), but, I do know the state of computers (I took courses in semiconductor fabrication and design). From my experience with computers...and just looking at humans (communicating, moving, thinking, etc.) I would say that we as humans could not "design" a new human or ape or elephant or heck even a slug...from scratch. We may be able to alter DNA, but the "scratch" thing comes into play. In my book the chances of a random creation...and an evolution by "chance" are mathematically absurd. My assertion would come down to this: The chances for random processes to create or evolve anything with greater precision and utility and design than we as humans could make with our brains and our technology is impossibly small. That, to me, means that "something smarter" and better equipped started this ball rolling. Ciao, gastropod