[theThinker (OP)]

Answer seems Yes. Synthesis without organic inputs.

Nature Magazine, 1887.
https://www.nature.com/articles/037007b0

"ANOTHER important acquisition to our store of knowledge has recently been made. Glucose, commonly called grape-sugar, has been artificially prepared by Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg."

What is the latest development. Is this synthetic glucose considered a "food", digestible.

[theThinker (OP)]

Nature Magazine, 1887.
https://www.nature.com/articles/037007b0

"ANOTHER important acquisition to our store of knowledge has recently been made. Glucose, commonly called grape-sugar, has been artificially prepared by Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg."

"The substance employed as the base of operations was acrolein,CH 2 =CH CHO (C3H4O), the aldehyde derived by oxidation of ally alcohol."

Somehow, the base substance to synthesize glucose must come from a source that traces back to an organic material. In this case, acrolein is produced industrially from propene which is from hydrocarbon (plant origin).

I would prefer a glucose synthesis that starts without materials that traces to plant/animal origins - inorganic materials.

[evan_au]

A wide variety of organic chemicals have been discovered in space, presumably formed in dust clouds from inorganic sources.

Glucose (C₆H₁₂O₆) is a fairly complex molecule; to date detection has not been reported in space, but a number of other molecules with 6 or more carbons have been discovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Ten_or_more_atoms_(21)

[theThinker (OP)]

A wide variety of organic chemicals have been discovered in space, presumably formed in dust clouds from inorganic sources.

Glucose (C₆H₁₂O₆) is a fairly complex molecule; to date detection has not been reported in space, but a number of other molecules with 6 or more carbons have been discovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Ten_or_more_atoms_(21)

I specify glucose as it is a basic food - providing calories in metabolism. Currently all food (including sugars) are harvested from plants or from animals.

My main question is that, despite our advanced state in science and technology, we are still unable to synthesize genuine food from the basic fundamental elements. To synthesize glucose from C,H, O, we need energy input (endorthermic). It seems we are not able to "defeat" the creator of living things. 

[Bored chemist]

The obvious answer is that plants make glucose from CO2 and water.

Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.


You can use calcium carbide (made by reaction of the elements if you like)  and water to make acetylene.
On a good day you can then get this reaction to make acrolein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroformylation

Or you can react acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde is made from ethylene by addition of water catalytically (I think they use a mercury salt as the catalyst).
You can get ethylene by partial hydrogenation of acetylene (see above) and you can get formaldehyde by hydrolysis of dichloromethane which you can et by chlorination of methane which you can (just about) get by the direct reaction of carbon and hydrogen.

It's not pretty, but it's possible (and there are probably better ways)
I think magnesium carbide gives an interesting set of hydrocarbons (including propyne) on reaction with water; that might be worth looking into if you are looking for acrolein.


 

[alancalverd]

.

It seems we are not able to "defeat" the creator of living things. 

More to the point, you can't defeat the laws of physics.

If you want to use glucose (or anything else) as a source of energy, you have to use more energy in its synthesis than you will get out from its combustion. The great thing about plants is that they synthesise all the food that animals need from animal waste (principally CO2) and sunlight.

[Bored chemist]

we are still unable to synthesize genuine food from the basic fundamental elements.

Yes we can.
So, you are basing your whole argument on a mistake.

To synthesize glucose from C,H, O, we need energy input (endorthermic).

Actually, if we had enough C, H and O that would be fine.
You can burn C or H for energy.

Again, you really don't seem to have thought this through.

[theThinker (OP)]

The obvious answer is that plants make glucose from CO2 and water.

Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.

You can use calcium carbide (made by reaction of the elements if you like)  and water to make acetylene.
On a good day you can then get this reaction to make acrolein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroformylation

I have not found from google a definite answer if acrolein can be synthesized in the laboratory from acetylene.

Please give a simple link as I know nothing about chemistry.

Question: Show me a DEFINITE link that  acrolein may be synthesized from acetylene. Tell if acrolein may be synthesized where the inputs do not come from organic sources (eg. hydrocarbon, crude oil,...)   

[theThinker (OP)]

...
Or you can react acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde is made from ethylene by addition of water catalytically (I think they use a mercury salt as the catalyst).
You can get ethylene by partial hydrogenation of acetylene (see above) and you can get formaldehyde by hydrolysis of dichloromethane which you can et by chlorination of methane which you can (just about) get by the direct reaction of carbon and hydrogen.

It's not pretty, but it's possible (and there are probably better ways)
I think magnesium carbide gives an interesting set of hydrocarbons (including propyne) on reaction with water; that might be worth looking into if you are looking for acrolein.

Google search gives no definite answer if  acetaldehyde and formaldehyde may react to give acrolein.

[theThinker (OP)]

.

It seems we are not able to "defeat" the creator of living things.

More to the point, you can't defeat the laws of physics.

If you want to use glucose (or anything else) as a source of energy, you have to use more energy in its synthesis than you will get out from its combustion. The great thing about plants is that they synthesise all the food that animals need from animal waste (principally CO2) and sunlight.

Living things have an element that is beyond the reach of physical laws of nature.

Of course, there are peop[le who believe that, one day, we may be able to create living things from inanimate materials. I don't.

[Bored chemist]

Living things have an element that is beyond the reach of physical laws of nature.

The evidence says otherwise.

Google search gives no definite answer if  acetaldehyde and formaldehyde may react to give acrolein.

Then it's just as well you can ask a chemist, isn't it?
However, I'm a little puzzled you you couldn't get Google to confirm what's said on the WIKI page about acrolein.

"The original industrial route to acrolein, developed by Degussa, involves condensation of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde:

HCHO + CH3CHO → CH2=CHCHO + H2O"

Show me a DEFINITE link

OK, you want a link to a page where a competent, qualified chemist tells you that it can be done?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86170.msg700727#msg700727

[Bored chemist]

Seriously, if you google "acetaldehyde and formaldehyde  react to give acrolein" you get articles telling you that they do.
Why is it that you don't believe facts, but you do believe  fantasies like "Living things have an element that is beyond the reach of physical laws of nature."?

[theThinker (OP)]

The obvious answer is that plants make glucose from CO2 and water.

Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.

You can use calcium carbide (made by reaction of the elements if you like)  and water to make acetylene.
On a good day you can then get this reaction to make acrolein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroformylation

Or you can react acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde is made from ethylene by addition of water catalytically (I think they use a mercury salt as the catalyst).
You can get ethylene by partial hydrogenation of acetylene (see above) and you can get formaldehyde by hydrolysis of dichloromethane which you can et by chlorination of methane which you can (just about) get by the direct reaction of carbon and hydrogen.

It's not pretty, but it's possible (and there are probably better ways)
I think magnesium carbide gives an interesting set of hydrocarbons (including propyne) on reaction with water; that might be worth looking into if you are looking for acrolein.

OK ! My bad. I missed the acetaldehyde and formaldehyde to acrolein part in the wiki.

I have now confirmed the correctness of your post. Now if we accept the 1887 article of Nature how Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg synthesized glucose from acrolein, then it would be true that we are able to synthesize food (glucose) from inorganic starting compounds. This would be a great surprise to me as we have successfully mimic photosynthesis in plants - a living thing.

I have a question. When I search google with : "laboratory" "synthesis" "glucose", why is that the only relevant link I get is still the 1887 article in Nature. Why is there not any other more recent articles about lab synthesis of glucose? 

[theThinker (OP)]

the Wiki page on glucose has a lot of information about glucose, but there is not a single reference on how glucose may be synthesized in the laboratory.

Why? Is it of no interest or importance at all?

[Bored chemist]

This would be a great surprise to me

That just confirms that you didn't know what you were talking about when you started.

I have now confirmed the correctness of your post.

What gave you the idea that you might need to?
Are you calling me a liar?

This would be a great surprise to me as we have successfully mimic photosynthesis in plants - a living thing.

It isn't exactly news.
You can actually make sugars from just formaldehyde.
That observation led to this outdated but still interesting idea.
https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/24/4/1210/20605/Studies-in-photosynthesisI-The-formaldehyde

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12174538.pdf

Now if we accept the 1887 article of Nature how Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg synthesized glucose from acrolein,

Why have you labelled an observation as something that you might not accept?

Why is there not any other more recent articles about lab synthesis of glucose?

Because glucose is very cheap.
Why would I make it in a lab when I can buy it at the grocery store?

I presume you didn't understand this bit  of what I posted earlier

Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.

Once you have synthesised glucose you have proved that you know what its structure is.
After that there is normally no point in making it in the lab.

There is an exception- if I want radioactively or isotopically labelled glucose, I can't pick it up at the supermarket.
And , of course, there are papers about that
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01649a055

But you don't understand enough about the subject to know what to look for.

[alancalverd]

Of course, there are peop[le who believe that, one day, we may be able to create living things from inanimate materials.

It would be difficult and pointless, but it has already happened without human or divine intervention so it's clearly not impossible.

[alancalverd]

the Wiki page on glucose has a lot of information about glucose, but there is not a single reference on how glucose may be synthesized in the laboratory.

Why? Is it of no interest or importance at all?

Indeed. It's cheap and plentiful from natural sources.

I think you are a bit hung up on the word "organic". There's nothing magical about organic chemistry: it just happens that the electronic structure of the carbon atom lends itself to forming the skeleton of very large molecules with complex shapes.

[theThinker (OP)]

This would be a great surprise to me

That just confirms that you didn't know what you were talking about when you started.

If I knew the answers, I would not have posted here to ask for clarifications.

The rest of your comments in this message here are not worthy of any reply from me.

I have now confirmed the correctness of your post.

What gave you the idea that you might need to?
Are you calling me a liar?

This would be a great surprise to me as we have successfully mimic photosynthesis in plants - a living thing.

It isn't exactly news.
You can actually make sugars from just formaldehyde.
That observation led to this outdated but still interesting idea.
https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/24/4/1210/20605/Studies-in-photosynthesisI-The-formaldehyde

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12174538.pdf

Now if we accept the 1887 article of Nature how Drs. Emil Fischer and Julius Tafel in the chemical laboratory of the University of Würzburg synthesized glucose from acrolein,

Why have you labelled an observation as something that you might not accept?

Why is there not any other more recent articles about lab synthesis of glucose?

Because glucose is very cheap.
Why would I make it in a lab when I can buy it at the grocery store?

I presume you didn't understand this bit  of what I posted earlier

Historically, the only way to prove the structure of a chemical compound was to synthesise it. Chemists got good at it.

Once you have synthesised glucose you have proved that you know what its structure is.
After that there is normally no point in making it in the lab.

There is an exception- if I want radioactively or isotopically labelled glucose, I can't pick it up at the supermarket.
And , of course, there are papers about that
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01649a055

But you don't understand enough about the subject to know what to look for.

[/quote]

[theThinker (OP)]

create

Of course, there are peop[le who believe that, one day, we may be able to create living things from inanimate materials.

It would be difficult and pointless, but it has already happened without human or divine intervention so it's clearly not impossible.

It may be pointless to you.  Just saying it has already happended is no answer.

[theThinker (OP)]

the Wiki page on glucose has a lot of information about glucose, but there is not a single reference on how glucose may be synthesized in the laboratory.

Why? Is it of no interest or importance at all?

Indeed. It's cheap and plentiful from natural sources.

I think you are a bit hung up on the word "organic". There's nothing magical about organic chemistry: it just happens that the electronic structure of the carbon atom lends itself to forming the skeleton of very large molecules with complex shapes.

I have read there are different interpretations about organic versus inorganic.

We all know ALL (?) of our current food sources comes plants and animals. The point of my original question was whether it is possible to synthesize food - mainly carbohydrates, sugar - from pure C, H, and O.

My first candidate was of course glucose, being the simplest of food. The question has nothing to do with economic feasibility, but an academic question.  The synthesis of glucose from the Nature article started from acrolein and I had to determine if acrolein had its origin from plants. I know glucose is "synthesized" commercially from starch.