[theThinker (OP)]

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.

Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch'
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/index.html

"(CNN) -- Genetics pioneer J. Craig Venter announced Thursday that he and his team have created artificial life for the first time. "

CNN: Did you create new life?

Venter: We created a new cell. It's alive. But we didn't create life from scratch.

We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.

I don't know how to interpret "We created ... out of a living cell."

But in the Bible, we were told Adam and Eve were created out of clay

[Bored chemist]

The question has nothing to do with economic feasibility, but an academic question.

And you answered it in your opening post.

Glucose, commonly called grape-sugar, has been artificially prepared

My first candidate was of course glucose, being the simplest of food.

Not really.
Ethanol, for example, is simpler and is a fine food for some bacteria.
It is made industrially from petroleum, but could be made simply enough from the elements.
Fermentation of dead plants is obviously easier.

[evan_au]

There is apparently quite a lot of Ethanol in molecular dust clouds...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Nine_atoms_(10)

[alancalverd]

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

but the one thing organic materials all have in common is a carbon chain skeleton.

[theThinker (OP)]

The question has nothing to do with economic feasibility, but an academic question.

And you answered it in your opening post.

Glucose, commonly called grape-sugar, has been artificially prepared

My first candidate was of course glucose, being the simplest of food.

Not really.
Ethanol, for example, is simpler and is a fine food for some bacteria.
It is made industrially from petroleum, but could be made simply enough from the elements.
Fermentation of dead plants is obviously easier.

I have often benefited by posting in forums and asking for clarifications, but we cannot just swallow whatever is given to us. We have to question when there is reason to.

I could easily accept your pointing out that ethanol is food for some bacteria and that ethanol could easily be synthesized - this is not as complicated as the case of acrolein. I think I am satisfied with this ethanol case though it is only food for bacteria and not human; it is still food for living things.   

On further thoughts, it might not be surprising that we could synthesize food (carbohydrates, sugar) from C,H, O. Our science and technology have done done what to me are actually miracles - planes which fly, transplanting hearts, etc... Still we probably cannot compete with nature's design that we get most of our food from plants.

Incidentally, is there one single common food item today - providing calories - that are genuine synthetic food without plant origins. Glucose is not as it is produced from starch.     

[paul cotter]

BC, a small correction is warranted: hydration of ethylene will give ethanol while hydration of acetylene( with hgso4 catalyst usually ) will give acetaldehyde. Other than that, i'm in full agreement with all your points.

[paul cotter]

Ethanol is food for the human creature( not ideal, but still food ). It is oxidised to acetate and used in the Krebs cycle to produce atp.

[theThinker (OP)]

There is apparently quite a lot of Ethanol in molecular dust clouds...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules#Nine_atoms_(10)

I think it pertains to the question how the universe was "created" or happened. "In the beginning there was light... ". I still believe that the universe IS created in six days.   

[alancalverd]

Incidentally, is there one single common food item today - providing calories - that are genuine synthetic food without plant origins.

If you want to be picky, probably not. Practically all the carbon that finds its way into laboratories and factories was harvested from coal, oil, chalk or limestone - the remains of things that lived when there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere - or recent plants and animals. Some CO2 is spewed up by volcanoes but direct capture from the air is not normally economic.

[Bored chemist]

ethylene

Doh!
Well spotted.
The point stands.
It's perfectly possible to make acrolein and thus glucose in a lab.
But nobody would bother.

[Bored chemist]

Incidentally, is there one single common food item today - providing calories - that are genuine synthetic food without plant origins.

No.
Because plants are cheap.
There might be some bits and pieces of additives that are synthetic.

[theThinker (OP)]

ethylene

Doh!
Well spotted.
The point stands.
It's perfectly possible to make acrolein and thus glucose in a lab.
But nobody would bother.

"But nobody would bother" maybe only after it has been done, not before.

If you could create a living cell from inanimate materials, would you bother? You would still "bother hell-of-a-lot" notwithstanding you would never be able to create "R'Bonney Gabriel The Greatess" for your own consumption.

[Bored chemist]

"But nobody would bother" maybe only after it has been done, not before.

Did youthink that was a matter of contention.
It's 2023.
People have made glucose in a lab. They have shown that it can be done. It's vey expensive. There's no great point to doing it today.
Nobody bothers.

On the other hand, nobody has (yet) made life in a test tube so it makes sense to try (even if you just want the cash from a Nobel prize).

So what?

notwithstanding you would never be able to create "R'Bonney Gabriel The Greatess" for your own consumption.

That seems to have been meaningless bollocks with an added spelling mistake.
Was it meant to be relevant?

[theThinker (OP)]

"But nobody would bother" maybe only after it has been done, not before.

Did youthink that was a matter of contention.
It's 2023.
People have made glucose in a lab. They have shown that it can be done. It's vey expensive. There's no great point to doing it today.
Nobody bothers.

On the other hand, nobody has (yet) made life in a test tube so it makes sense to try (even if you just want the cash from a Nobel prize).

So what?

notwithstanding you would never be able to create "R'Bonney Gabriel The Greatess" for your own consumption.

That seems to have been meaningless bollocks with an added spelling mistake.
Was it meant to be relevant?

I admit I have lost.

[Bored chemist]

I seem to be missing something.
What was the purpose of this thread?
You asked a question
Can glucose be synthesized without organic inputs as sources?
And immediately answered it

Answer seems Yes. Synthesis without organic inputs.

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

You made a statement that looks like it might be a question in disguise.

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

I don't know what the latest developments are but glucose is glucose is glucose. Of course you could use it as food.

Somehow, the base substance to synthesize glucose must come from a source that traces back to an organic material.

That depends on your definition of organic but, in any event the laws of physics say that you can make compounds from the elements.
Your assertion about where it traces back to is simply wrong.

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

Your "main question" is a false statement.

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

That just shouldn't be on a science page, should it?

You can't sensibly say you came here to ask us about the topic because, when I told you I got this

Question: Show me a DEFINITE link that  acrolein may be synthesized from acetylene.

It's not actually a question; it;';s just an assertion that when you get an answer you don't like, you refuse to believe it.

I admit I have lost.

Lost what? The plot?
This isn't meant to be a competition; it's meant to be a discussion.