References & Notes: (1) Branscomb, E.; Russell, M. J. Frankenstein or a submarine alkaline vent: who is responsible for abiogenesis? Part 2: as life is now, so it must have been in the beginning. BioEssays 2018, 40 (8), 1700182. Kitadai, N.; Maruyama, S. Origins of building blocks of life: A review. Geoscience Frontiers 2018, 9 (4), 1117-1153. Miller, S. L. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 1953, 117 (3046), 528-529. (2) Note. Technically cells can absorb some forms of energy like heat, but without a way to harness the energy it’s not useful and can even be damaging. (3) Note. Technically, there are five complexes involved in oxidative phosphorylation but only these three are relevant to the discussion at hand. Complex II (succinate dehydrogenase) also participates in the citric acid cycle and runs parallel to Complex I (NADH ubiquinone oxidoreductase) except Complex II receives electrons from FADH2 but doesn't pump protons and Complex I receives electrons from NADH. Complex V is the wonderful ATP synthase (or ATPase when it runs in reverse and breaks down ATP to pump protons backward to build up the gradient). (4) Note. Also known as “free radicals”, they damage molecules like DNA by altering or breaking covalent bonds and are a major source of what causes us to age. (5) Vu Huu, K.; Zangl, R.; Hoffmann, J.; Just, A.; Morgner, N. Bacterial F-type ATP synthases follow a well-choreographed assembly pathway. Nature communications 2022, 13 (1), 1-13. (6) Walker, J. E.; Saraste, M.; Gay, N. J. The unc operon nucleotide sequence, regulation and structure of ATP-synthase. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Reviews on Bioenergetics 1984, 768 (2), 164-200. (7) Lane, N. The vital question: energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life. WW Norton & Company, 2015; p 82. (8) Note. ~3k protons/sec per ATP synthase. Creating ~326 ATP molecules/sec. Biovisions at Harvard University: Electron transport chain ua-cam.com/video/LQmTKxI4Wn4/v-deo.html. (9) Note. Average human = 70kg. ATP = 507 g/mol. A human therefore weighs as much as about 140 moles of ATP. A human consumes about 140 * 6.022X10^23 = 8.43X10^25 ATP molecules per day. 1 day = 86,400 seconds. Therefore, each second, a human consumes 9.75X10^20 ATP molecules. Basically 10^21 ATP molecules per second, which is "a billion trillion ATP molecules per second". (10) Note. Producing ADP also requires many complex enzymes, each produced with the help of energy from ATP: pyrophosphokinase, amidophosphoribosyltransferase, GAR synthetase, GAR transformylase, FGAM synthetase, AIR synthetase, AIR carboxylase, SAICAR synthetase, adenylosuccinate lyase, AICAR transformylase, IMP cyclohydrolase, and adenylosuccinate synthase. Voet, D.; Voet, J. G.; Pratt, C. W. Fundamentals of biochemistry: life at the molecular level. John Wiley & Sons, 2016; pp 802-808. (11) Note. Some machines operate on other molecules with high energy-transfer potential, like GTP but the problems there are the same as with ATP. . (12) Lane, N. The vital question: energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life. WW Norton & Company, 2015; p 106. (13) Note. Via a pH gradient that provides a high pH (alkaline) solution that mixes with the neutral or lower pH seawater. (14) Miller, B.; England, J. Hot Wired. 2020. inference-review.com/article/hot-wired (accessed 2022 April 28). (15) Jackson, J. B. Natural pH gradients in hydrothermal alkali vents were unlikely to have played a role in the origin of life. Journal of molecular evolution 2016, 83 (1), 1-11. (16) Jackson, J. B. Natural pH gradients in hydrothermal alkali vents were unlikely to have played a role in the origin of life. Journal of molecular evolution 2016, 83 (1), 9. (17) Lane, N. The vital question: energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life. WW Norton & Company, 2015; p 168. (18) Bonora, M.; Patergnani, S.; Rimessi, A.; De Marchi, E.; Suski, J. M.; Bononi, A.; Giorgi, C.; Marchi, S.; Missiroli, S.; Poletti, F.; et al. ATP synthesis and storage. Purinergic Signal 2012, 8 (3), 343-357.
Love your videos and appreciate you posting the references here for those who would like to do further investigation. This thoroughness is excellent. I've been helping teach a young adult's study over the summer and showed your video "Darwins Biggest Problem" to our group last night.
@Colin Bennett, Let’s clear up some of the confusion here. The Chernobyl finding was about fungi that could live on the walls of the reactor. These are not bacteria. Fungi are eukaryotic, which are orders of magnitude more complex than simple bacteria. The complete details of energy harnessing in these fungi are still not clear, but you can be sure it is related to photosynthesis and uses chemiosmotic coupling - it is no simple process. You mention the “resource adaptability of life”. That is really beside the point, because the video explains why the first form of life required complex molecular machinery to start harnessing energy - life cannot harness energy without it. The special abilities of some extremely complex life to live off a variety of energy forms (i.e., a “Swiss Army Knife” type of life), is not so relevant, because it is very complex already. If you are going to call our arguments “ludicrous”, you are going to need a clear example of a very simple process to harness energy for the exclusive benefit of the simplest forms of life.
Your own analogy of charging a cell phone on a charcoal grill perfectly counters your own argument: We effectively HAVE moved from a charcoal energy system to a lithium battery system through a series of clumsy, evolutionary steps. A couple hundred years ago we had few energy sources other than "burning stuff," yet now we produce systems that seem similarly circular to the ADP-ATP cycle. Those "charcoal grills" of a couple hundred years ago _are_ responsible for the advanced electronic charging systems we have today, but of course you do not charge a cell phone with charcoal grill. You can see the same effects in almost any complex system-- computer programming is another example. The compilers of today are exceeding complex and could not be produced without a compiler. But all of these compilers are "children" of something that was nothing like a compiler-- just some simple instructions for processing text, which can be easily understood in a glance. These are not awkward truths. These are just a bunch of small, non-obvious steps that had to occur, but they occurred because that's what worked, and what survived.
I kept thinking “cell phones don’t evolve - bad analogy”. And the narrator kept using manipulative wording, such as referring to life as machines (unfortunately, biologists do that, too)
I think that's more subjective though isn't it, what one's particular interpretation of what constitutes a machine is? The compiler comparison isn't quite on the mark if you note that software languages, compilers, and programs were all designed at some step by something other than themselves.
@@tommyj4465 The standard definition for a machine includes that each part has a definite function. In biology, the parts’ functions can be multiple and changing. The parts themselves can change. The creationists’ arguments make a big deal of biologists saying “machine” exactly because they like the implication of intelligent design.
@@scienceexplains302 Oh I've never heard that argument against biologists, seems like anyone using arguments like that no matter what side they're on, is moving towards semantics. But does every single part of a machine always have to perform one single function and cannot perform another or change to perform another? Such as primary, secondary, tertiary etc functions and ability to manipulate/change replace to alter/add function (low level ai-driven potentially)?
@@tommyj4465 No, doesn’t have to, but as I said, I gave the standard definition. The potential for AI hasn’t seeped into all the word definitions yet. An AI-run machine that made multiple and changing uses for the parts would still not be a good analogy to life. Biology builds on whatever it has and whatever it can alter from that to survive. Machines are almost always built from “scratch” with all parts working together. We could stop making something, destroy all the old ones, then come up with a better one later. Once a life form goes extinct, it doesn’t come back (even cloning uses another animal’s DNA, etc) Our lowered voice box makes us susceptible to choking, even to death. Our craving for carbohydrates for energy doesn’t change when people become sedentary and no longer needed the energy, resulting in obesity and all the health issues that come with it.
Dude please don’t stop making videos. This stuff is not only VERY informative but it’s hilarious. Love the effort you put in and one day you’ll have TONS of subscribers.
Re: every part has to arrive at once? Ah. This is the fallacy of this entire line of reasoning. Evolution often results in taking crude, clunky systems that work ok, and refining them over many generations into simplified, streamlined ones. Thus, when you encounter the irreducible, you should think "how did it get reduced to this point?" and not "how did it develop to this point." Often times a complex machine that does something (say, take some chemical in from the environment to produce ATP) might mutate to gain functionality (say, also taking in ADP and ATP that would be abundant because of this, and using that to produce ATP more efficiently). When this process has matured to the point where its original function is no longer necessary, it will often lose all trace of ever having performed that function. Especially with something as granular as molecular machinery and such fast generation times. This means that irreducibles are often actually not the result of miraculous leaps of specified complexity from a single mutation, but the results of a secondary function of a mechanism becoming its primary function, and then, getting reduced to simplest form. Of course they are irreducible. Evolution reduced them all it could.
I'm no expert, but I will say this. The video is talking about "Chemical" evolution, not "Biological" evolution. As the video explains, the benefits of large amounts of time do not exist in a realm where things happen instantaneously, there are no 'generations'. Chemistry deals with inanimate objects, particles don't 'mutate' or 'gain functionality', you appear to be thinking of cellular lifeforms such as germs and bacteria, they only exist after life itself has begun. So it's not like a dinosaur eats some poisonous berries and dies, so his friends decide not to eat those berries, and therefore survive and learn. There is no element of "animate order" here, it's literally just random objects blowing around in the wind. Unless you think life itself has some sort of predestined will to exist.
@@Alfred5555 : Chemical evolution IS biological evolution. Biology is just a subset of organic chemistry. And yes, chemicals spontaneously transform all the freaking time, but you would need to have some kind of scientific education to realize this.
@@Alfred5555 It doesn't benefit form a large amount of time? Firstly, we do not know precicely the state of the earth or what caused it. The world was most likekly it a great state of turmoil. If we say that there are 1 action that happens every minute. Or even 1 action every hour. With that I mean that either chemicals bump into each other or that there are something happening to them. Over 1 billion years, with one action every hour, would mean almost 9x10^12 actions/reactions. Since the earth is large, it was likely at least thousands of interactions between elements every minute, which would bring it up to 1,9x10^18. From these actions, there might become some new chemical combinations. That would be 1 step. This new one would interact with others and could create something new as well, which would be another step. Since we do not know exactly what the first life form looked like, then we do not know if it all had to have happened in "one generation" or not. Anyways, if you remove time from the table, since everything happens instantaneously, then you can say the same about anything. It just doesn't make sense, unless everything that can happen, has happened, and that in the first given amount of time.
@@Alfred5555 that isn’t how evolution works. Dinosaurs don’t “learn” not to, the ones already alive that have mutations that keep them from trying to eat poisonous food are able to reproduce more, causing the next generations to slowly gain that mutation.
@@fredrikfjeld1575 Not everything happens instantaneously, just a lot of chemical reactions, which is what Chemical evolution is based. So as I said, there is no large amount of time to benefit from, and even if there was, inanimate particles don't mutate or gradually develop as cells appear to. All of this pertains to "pre-life", this isn't a discussion of origin of species, it's the origin of life. You're whole theory seems to be that "everything is inevitable, just wait long enough and it'll happen". Ok then.
"it makes the problem worse" No, not really. Which is more likely, randomly picking the best 20 moves all at once or randomly picking the best move, then doing it again, and again, and again, but with millions of blunders getting discarded in between? The complexity of early cellular machinery was probably nowhere near that of modern ATP synthase machinery. As to there being no evidence for this, well, unfortunately, this is exactly what we would expect. Things that adopted the new mechanisms would've outcompeted everything else. And the lucky few that could adapt in that changing world probably would've been pushed toward parasitic niches. Perhaps even becoming DNA viruses or similar.
But your analogy about picking moves is lacking an extremely important detail...The moves must not only be right, but also in the right sequence. To pick the right move 150 times is really improbable in a row, but doable if your possible choices arent too large. However, picking the right move 150 times in a row IN THE RIGHT EXACT ORDER quickly grows to uncomprehendably high numbers exponentially. With 20 amino acids, just a 4 long chain of specific order is 20^4, or 1 out of 160,000. 5 is 3.2 million, 8 is 25.6 billion, so what would 150 be??? Then thats just for a single working protein, now you need another and another. This all is multiplied again when you consider the fact every generated working protein enzyme must not only fit its targeted molecule to carry out the reaction, but every other enzyme has to match the first by fitting the new product molecule of the previous reaction. A simple 6 step reaction would require six functional enzymes at 20^150 chance each, then 6*20^150 odds they match each other; and this is yet to account they must generate at the same relative time AND in the same place to interact. If not, it would continue to react, break down etc, and the entire thing would start from scratch! should we even try considering a dna short segment at 4^350,000,000 odds?? ( thats being generous, most are billions long ) even if somehow all that worked, the chemistry of these things forming Spontaneously doesnt work. Itd be much easier to say that with enough time a mixture of water and carbon dioxide would eventually spontaneously form oxygen and long chain hydrocarbons. No amount of time would ever do that, it just doesnt work like that...and im leaving out 99.998 %of the problems just mentioning the simpler ones here. Im not saying i know the answer, but i do feel believing something happened despite the overwhelming evidence against it is a huge waste of time. Itd be better to look for more fitting theories rather than trying so desperately to keep alive one long dead
Don't bring logic into this. But yeah this video has the same fault of most anti abiogenesis arguements, assuming that the first lifeforms came complete with perfect and efficient systems and that you need a perfect and efficient systems to survive, when neither are the case. Not to mention the whole comparing early life to the simplist life today, as if that would actually be a reasonable comparison and I haven't finished this video or there other ones but I'm sure they've probably made the terrible argument of improbable equals impossible.
When they say it's still possible they're basically claiming a fish could instantly turn into an elephant. The first cell phase ignores all of Darwin's ideas about "billions of years".
It’s not obvious to me how the video goes from “what if life didn’t use atp” -> “it must have been another complex process”. Complex amino acids have been found on asteroids, suggesting they may be naturally occurring. If some combination of amino acids could harness energy, then couldn’t energy harnessing may have been a simple process rather than a complex one?
In theory sure. But considering that as a possibility and demonstrating it to be true are two very different things. I’m not saying it hasn’t been already because I have no idea. But if no one has ever seen it happen and we can’t even artificially reproduce it then it’s nothing more than speculation.
Finding amino acids here and there doesn’t make a protein. There are over 500 different types. Only 20 specific ones and 100% left handed forms (Essential in proteins folding into their 3D shapes and for metabolic functions, Chiral induced spin selectivity)are found in them. The average length protein is 400 amino acids long, specifically “spelled,” sequenced, oriented, alpha amino group-alpha carboxyl group. And energy is required to accomplish the peptide bond between every amino acid. So a mindless, process of trial and error in correctly assembling the correct and operative amino acids into an average protein is ridiculous pre ribosome and ATP synthase, which are molecular machines made of proteins. The simplest cell has 6.8 billion amino acids arranged in 42 million proteins. Trial and error could never get the “spelling” right.
@@vernonchitlen8958 so we’ve found several with a few people looking. Imagine what would be going on over the whole worlds oceans over hundreds of millions of years.
@@peteconrad2077 Imagine what you want. Scientists cannot sequester the 4 elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen of which amino acids are made separate from the other 94 naturally occurring elements. And induce a complete set of the 20 specific amino acids, 100% left handed sufficient for s single protein to form or even 2 amino acids to form a peptide bond. You think a prebiotic whatever including all 98 elements, these 4 elements assembling themselves into a protein possible? The 42 million proteins found in the simplest cell? Or add sulfur and phosphorus that makeup 97% of what cells are made. They could/would arrange themselves into DNA? It having a thousand times the information storage density, a 4 letter code compared to the zero’s and one’s, using 100,000,000 times less energy than the computers scientists are using to examine it with? Psalm 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. srch duons: researchers find second code hiding within dna
I think its worth noting --- ATP is moee involved in intermediary metabolism, and it has analogues. GTP, for example, is used in protein synthesis, (and GTPase is embedded in ribosomes, implying that it may have evolved very very early.) Many organisms use H2 CO2 metabolism, a kind if autotrophic metabolism that can easily happen sans ATP, sans enzymes, and sans genes. ATP is also geochemically synthesizable, so its all kind of a moot point.
@@peppermintgal4302 How does the fact that GTPase embedded in ribosomes imply that it EVOLVED at all? If "evolution" of such mechanism is required to be proven in the first place? How does the existence of GTP and GTPase (complex bio-machinery) somehow handles the problems enlisted in the video? What organisms DO NOT USE ATP-based energetic system?
@@timothykeith1367 Yes, with the fossil record we have fossils dating from more than 3.5 billions years ago. So yes it’s been a while since life has appeared.
This is really well animated and narrated, your humor is really good too! There is a big problem with the script though - these simplest forms of life you’re talking about, the ones that use ATP synthase, are actually some of the most complex life on the planet. In fact - ATP synthase and the proton pump system with all the electron stripping is only present in mitochondria, a part of eukaryotic cells. Early cellular life more likely created ATP through glycolysis. A much simpler process that doesn’t require any complex machinery and can happen right in the middle of the cell’s internal soup. Just wherever. Life is currently believed to have started as a strand of free floating RNA that replicated by collecting bits of free floating RNA and assembling it into a self copy. They didn’t need input energy - assembling RNA is free under the right conditions, because pieces of RNA want to form longer strands if they’re given the chance to. Eventually, these strands found their way into cell membranes (which are really just fancy soap bubbles - the very basic form of a cellular membrane self assembles), and from there eventually transitioned from using RNA for everything to using proteins. So there’s not really a problem with abiogenesis. Every milestone has a slow and gradual step leading up to it.
Hey Clayton, thanks for watching and the kind words! To address some of the things you brought up, even the simplest forms of life, including all prokaryotes, require ATP synthase. Nothing has ever been found that can live without ATP synthase. Methanogens and acetogens require ATP synthase. They don't use the respiratory complexes to pump protons across the membrane, they instead use a different complex array of enzymes to pump protons (via the Acetyl CoA pathway). Also, as stated in the video, fermenters use substrate level phosphorylation (which requires complex enzymes) to produce ATP, they still require ATP synthase as well as needing other forms of life to maintain their environment. So, fermenters have clearly taken a degenerative pathway to life, not a pathway of innovation advancing toward more complex life. Craig Venter's JVCI Syn3A, perhaps the simplest of all life, is a fermenter like this and has clearly taken a degenerative path to its existence. The remainder of your comment expresses strong belief in hypothetical processes that are not supported by science. No one has ever seen a true self-replicating RNA. You also say "pieces of RNA want to form longer strands if they’re given the chance to." Do you have a reference for that claim? The prior video clarified why cell membranes must meet conflicting requirements that cannot be met by fancy "soap bubbles". I hope that you are able to give more serious consideration to the content of these videos.
@@DaviniaHill with all due respect simply having a statement stating that person is wrong "just because" and putting out statements no way associated with what he has presented, causes nothing but important academic studies to become emotionally charged, And is disrespectful to the time effort put into these discussions. Instead of making wild claims, the appropriate action is to gather your facts and present a counter argument and to be properly evaluated. Have a good day.
@@DaviniaHill When did he bring up anything regarding the bible? Regardless, even if the bible is truthful, why would it include anything regarding dna or rna? Its purpose is not for science education.
Another reason hydrothermal vents simply don't work is because of it's water based environment. Water breaks down proteins into amino acids not connect them together.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go Well "prove" is a strong word, you can only prove mathematical statements. But I can show you why the *evidence* points to a creator God, and not a natural cause. We know: Proteins exist Proteins form life Proteins can NOT form life without pre-existing genetic information. Information cannot come from chaos; it requires a mind. Books don't write themselves, computers don't program themselves. A single cell contains more information than any book and is more complex than any machine. We can conclude that it is very likely that cells were created by a being more intelligent than any human. Conversely, it is very unlikely that they formed through haphazard chemical reactions. Again, I can't *prove* that it didn't happen naturally, but you can't prove that it did. It's just a matter of where the observational evidence points us to. And it doesn't point us to athiesm.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go, he made and connected them together and assigned to everysingle little atom a job that is so precise and perfect that your randomness would destroy it if it had even 1% authority over it!, its no secret that everything is perfected to a point that we have not even fully seen, as science progresses much more of this perfection is shown inshallah, so i am a muslim to That One that created and guided, i saw the world and thought, you saw the world and came up with quite literally the opposite of what you should think and what the signs tell you!, thats no way for a detective to work nor a human to think you, so yes it is a belief for me and you, but which belief makes more sense?,there must be a One powerful and eternal and All wise, the creation is quite literally miraculous just look at it and think,
There’s a lot of assumptions in what the first life on Earth would look like. The lines of what is orient alive aren’t clear now so I wouldn’t expect we know what all forms of life would look like.
There is something that cannot be denied, creationism marketing does evolve. UA-cam was kind enough to recommend me this video, I guess because I like to watch scientific content. If you came here for the same reason as me, let me save you some time. The creator of the video uses well-established scientific concepts but misrepresents them at every opportunity and imprints his biased personal opinion in to them, with the goal of confusing people and make them think that the origin of life or the atomic, chemical and eventually biological evolution have no scientific explanation whatsoever, or that the current explanation is absolutely implausible, which is certainly not the case. Although he never mentions intelligent design, it is clear to me that this is exactly what he is selling. In conclusion, fellow youtube citizen, if what you are looking for is a video with scientific content, you are not in the right place. (sorry).
My dude. I cannot BEGIN to express how AMAZING your freaking videos are (pardon the French). I listen to these pro and anti God debates all day and all not long, and I have NEVER come across anything even remotely as fun, educational, entertaining, and down right AWESOME as yours!! Not only are you guys incredibly smart and intelligent but you are also HILARIOUS!! Your comedic timing and content is absolutely remarkable. I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to find you guys!! I just want you to know that people like myself are listening to what you are saying, and it is making a great impact on our lives, and I want to do everything in my power to say whatever it takes to make sure you never stop making these videos, because they are fundamentally EXCEPTIONAL!!! So please, I beg you to keep churning out more and more content, because you are changing peoples lives. THANKS SO MUCH!!!!
We have a sample size of ONE remotely hospitable world, and it has life. And obviously it has live because we're here BECAUSE it has life. The most intellectually honest position until hard numbers exist on how simple self-sustaining abiotic pre-replication (bubble nucleation, crystals, fire, exothermic reactions, mycelle nucleation, convection currents, very simple nucleic acid replication, etc, etc) is that *we don't know* the odds of this stuff happening. Just that it did and we got here from it. This stuff could happen in every lukewarm nutrient-rich brine pool left to its own devices for a few million years, or it could require incredibly specific conditions and still require one in a trillion luck to happen once in a billion years, and then get wiped out early on all but one out of every million times. We don't know. It could be there is a relatively straightforward ladder here that given the right conditions, leads to rapid chemical evolution as each subsequent energy source is burned out and new ones spur great leaps in complexity, with life of some form emerging forth as surely as lighting a match and putting it in gasoline leads to fire. Or it could be that there are several great filters even after you have the right conditions present. That you could wind back Earth's clock 4 billion years and try as many times as you want but never kickstart life any more than randomly assembling natural Uranium gets you nuclear explosives. What we do know is that, however common or rare life is, life always sees a world with life. And intelligent life that can observe and rationalize that world with language and abstract thought will always see worlds of mind-boggling complexity of life with seemingly irreducible parts. This does NOT mean that these parts are evidence of anything but a series of pseudorandom steps with steps that ultimately don't lead anywhere being pruned.
Exactly, we dont know. With that said, why is random self generation from nothing the only possibility allowed and everything else is fairy tales??? If you dont know, then that also means you cant know how it didnt happen with any certainty, so auto rejecting any other possibilities that are different isnt being intellectually honest. Furthermore, the self generating abiogenesis idea through recent discoveries is proving less and less probable, nearly to the point of being impossible. Chemistry doesnt work that way. Describe how a protein polymer forms (see other comment for details its too much to type again). This is an old theory before anything about a cell was even known, and now that it is known it shows how the theory simply doesnt work in every area. abiogenesis research has went on for 70 years, and theres been zero progress; in fact, the answer is further away now than it ever has been due to what weve learned about biochemistry. All other old theories that new discoveries tear apart are dismissed to look for a better fitting model; why only this one is so desperately clung to when in all this time theres not ONE working model remotely close to describe the formation of basic precursor compounds, let along a complete living cell? To have evolution even be possible you first must have life already present else theres nothing to evolve; chemicals do not evolve into more complex orderly compounds that defies all known laws of thermodynamics. Yet most suggest evolution created life; thats impossible because it works on living organisms. Anything outside of that about life's formation falls into the realm of philosophy, not science
@@charlestownsend9280 is there any evidence that nothing can create anything? Is there any evidence that a non-directed unintelligible source can create a digital code and a self-replicating machine?
@@Golfinthefamily the only people who claim that something came from nothing are religious people, maybe learn what science says before criticising it. Why are you talking about digital code? If by self replicating machines you mean biological ones, yes, the fact that we exist would indicate that. None of your response is evidence that we came from magic though and disproving abiogenesis or evolution or the big bang doesn't automatically prove god/magic.
There are lots of ways to harness energy without complex molecular machines. Modern life "needs" complex molecular machines only in the sense that it IS a complex molecular machine. There is lots of evidence that these machines were much simpler in the past, for instance, it is likely that proteins are a relatively recent invention. DNA is transcribed into mRNA, which is the template used to make protein out of amino acids carried by tRNA and assembled into proteins inside the ribosome, which has rRNA as it's core. In fact, ATP itself is a building block of RNA, it's just an Adenosine with two extra phosphates. So it's likely that before proteins, life ran on RNA alone, and there was likely an RNA equivalent of ATP synthetase, a much simpler less efficient equivalent that has since died out. Funny how this video doesn't mention any of that, nor does it provide evidence for why ATP has to be made by the complex ATP synthetase. Saying that this is how it is made now, does not prove there isn't a billion other ways to make it. The entire "paradox" claim is pretty stupid. Before the modern synthetase, there was a slightly simpler one. And before that, there was a simpler one still. etc. etc. Just like every other evolutionary creation. It's no more a "paradox" than the fact that you need a computer to design a microchip, and yet it's impossible to build a computer without microchips. The "paradox" only exists because of ignorance: early computers didn't use microchips, and early microchips were simple enough to design without computers. But will anyone still remember this fact in 10 million years? How about 10 billion? TLDR: Just because you don't know how ancient life made ATP, doesn't mean there is no possible way to make it. Proving that there is no way to make it will take more than just disproving some bad hypotheses, you would need to disprove ALL possible hypotheses.
"Just because you don't know how ancient life made ATP, doesn't mean there is no possible way to make it". Of course, the old evolution of the gaps. That's always fun ;-) "Proving that there is no way to make it will take more than just disproving some bad hypotheses, you would need to disprove all possible hypotheses". Not quite, there's a hypothesis that you aren't willing to entertain. Presumably because it's not "possible". But out of the two positions of demanding an indefinite number of explanations to be disproven before they're even given, and putting forward a single supernatural explanation, which one is more intellectually honest?
@@frankdayton731 Thing is, that's pretty much how all knowledge works. In order to understand how this message got on your screen, you would need to learn several lifetimes worth of information (computer science, electronics, materials science, civil engineering etc. etc.) And until you do, someone can always say, well, I am glad you explained X, but what about Y? You are missing Y! For example, someone, when you give you brief description of now internet works they can go: Sure, that's how signals got to your computer, but how could your computer ever decode them fast enough?! Sure, that's how they got from your modem to your computer, but how could they ever travel around the world?! Sure, they could travel around the world, but how could you possibly have billions of users at once?! On and on.... Until every single piece of the puzzle is perfectly understood. We are not there yet with evolution, or biology, not even close... we don't even know how much more we have left to learn. The problem with supernatural "explanations" is that they are not explanations at all. They are not testable. Put another way, they make no concrete predictions. Evolution makes solid predictions. For example: evolution predicts that if all life on earth is related, the various organs and systems of different closely related species will work in a similar way. So you can do stuff like test drugs on dogs and rats, and expect these drugs to work on people. You can even measure how closely related animals are, and which systems diverged and how much, and using that you can pick a good species for developing one drug or another. Same with abiogenesis. It predicts the conditions under which life can start up. Which would allow us to determine how common such conditions may be, and where to look for life outside of the earth. And we are looking. So far we found nothing in the solar system, but the James Webb space telescope just came online, and that thing can determine the type chemical compositions of atmospheres of planets orbiting other stars. The research into primitive forms of life and abiogenesis can help us decide which markers to look for and how to interpret the gaseous compositions we find. Supernatural "explanations", not so much.
@@Yura135 the internet, microchips, and fiber optic cables all have easily documentable development histories and rational explanations. Someone would have to be intentionally intellectually dishonest to keep putting up the objections you cited. Abiogensis has no such explanations or documentation, so no you can't make "predictions" from that theory because you literally have no idea what the first life forms were or the exact conditions to produce them. And more importantly you have no idea how the modern cell came to be, how (and why) DNA developed, none of that. A Supernatural explanation is not magic, it is simply the theory that a being/entity exists outside of the laws of the physical universe. Or to put it differently, *transcends* such laws. They would have to exist by necessity in order to create and maintain said laws. Did the mathematical formulations for gravity predate the creation of hydrogen and helium or are they a result of those elements existence? Surely one had to give rise to the other, and it's nonsensical to think that an object created the very forces which maintains it's structure. To believe that is to believe in your own version of a self perpetuating god, but a non eternal material god.
@@frankdayton731 All abiogenesis theories/hypotheses make predictions. That's why this video is possible in the first place. All it is doing is looking at the predictions some of these hypotheses make (e.g. early life would needs a source of energy, this source of energy has to exist on earth, early life would need to convert energy to ATP) and testing these predictions to disprove these hypotheses. It is easy to disprove a given abiogenesis hypothesis, especially if it is not a very good one, and the video does a great job of it. But disproving them all is a very different task, as there aren't dozens, or hundreds, or billions of them. The space of all possible abiogenesis hypothesis is currently unbounded. We don't even know how many there are, the number could very well be infinite, or even a higher category of infinite. Disproving a few dozen and then making a logical leap that all of them are wrong is just that, an unsubstantiated logical leap. On the flip side, supernatural explanations are not explanations at all, because they make no testable predictions. If a supernatural being outside of laws of physics created life, what does that tell us about life that we can test to disprove this hypothesis? And more importantly, what concrete thing do we learn about the world? Does it mean life only exists on earth? Does it mean it only exists on earth-like planets? Can it exist on Mars, or Europa, or asteroids? We don't know. Since we can't prove or disprove anything about this supernatural being (up to and including the existence of this being), we learn nothing about where, how or why this being might have created life, or what shape these creations take. It's a non explanation. There is no information content there. It's just an elaborate "don't worry about it". As for your "internet documentation" argument, that's like saying it's impossible for life to start on earth because we don't have the manual or any documentation for how it happened. Yeah, we don't have any documentation. We have no idea how it happened, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. We don't have any documentation for how Egyptians built the pyramids, or how Leonardo developed his inventions. Would you say those things are also impossible without supernatural explanations? Are all things we don't currently understand "impossible" without supernatural intervention? Long story short, science is not religion and religion is not science. The clear delineation is this: is this hypothesis testable? Can you come up with a test that would disprove it? If not, your are not doing science. If yes, run that test. If it failed, you have a scientifically demonstrated this hypothesis to be false. If not, you failed to demonstrate it is false, come up with another test. Maybe eventually, after many tests where it fails to be proven false, you can upgrade your hypothesis to a theory. And that is as much certainty as you will ever get in science: after many tests, there is no known test to prove a given idea wrong. Nothing is ever proven right, everything is forever in doubt and up for revision at any time. All it takes is 1 failed test.
@@Yura135 "But disproving them all is a very different task, as there aren't dozens, or hundreds, or billions of them. The space of all possible abiogenisis hypothesis is currently unbounded." This is circular reasoning which takes it as an apriori assumption that abiogenisis *must* be true. That's the only way you can get infinite theories, because one of them has got to be the correct one. I am challenging the very premise that life spontaneously generated itself. You have to believe it did because you deny a creator exists, I don't. A Hindu can give me a thousand theories why vishnu is real, that only says something about the workings of that person's mind, and really not much about objective reality. My proposition is that an entity( regardless of what you want to call it) had to predate the conditions for life to exist in order to give rise to those very conditions. There's no disproving that logical assertion, there's just ignoring it or dismissing the person who makes it.
I dont know if you will read this or not (you probably wouldnt read this and probably wouldnt notice because im 1 years late) so the question is what happened to the ethanol or lactic acid if the organism live near hydrothermal vent or would the hydrothermal vent still deadly or life sustaining if the organism live near hydrothermal vent ? and how can the amino acid self assemble into protein ?
I received my b.s. in biology 20 years ago; and I was also of the mind, for most of my life from then forward, that evolution was the creation process of the Creator; and for most of my life since then, I felt satisfied with this thought-school merger, which i surmised to be true; and I was even prideful in my thinking, relative to this proposition of mine. I now know better, regarding both this and many other relevant truths that I assumed to be true for so long. All I will say further, concerning this issue, is that the arrogance of youth can only be penetrated by a willful and deliberate turn of one's heart and mind toward humility towards the Lord and a love for truth, absent all forms of pride; because, like it or not, the Almighty blinds the prideful to the truth; and, no matter how convincing and/or lopsided the arguments in favor of the truth may be, no amount of effort to communicate the truth will succeed in convincing such a person who has been given over to their deceptions by Him. This process can neither be understood nor its truth be believed by anyone prior to each individual having already crossed that rubicon, as herein aforementioned. Peace and Blessings to you, dear reader.
Ok, then what is the process or origin of life? I assume you must still think it’s some natural process of non living to living matter and not supernatural magic. Curious to know if you have preferred hypothesis? We do know it was a natural part of the Universe.
What do you mean by "we do know it was a natural part of the universe"? The universe is not an active contributor, it's a terminology for the expanse of the cosmos, like a field, or a mountain, or a beach, it's just a cosmographic location. And please tell me what "we KNOW", and how we "KNOW" it is so?
I don't know why you assume he thinks there was a natural process involved. The logical fallacy of Irreducible Complexity is a favorite among creationists. He just didn't _say_ "therefore God did it" -- he wants to let the doubt linger in the minds of the undecided, until they give up and accept creationism as being the only way to solve the problem of abiogenesis, because a magical solution doesn't hurt their brains as much as the alternatives. It's the exact same strategy as religious people asking non-religious people "but what if you're wrong?"
@@Alfred5555 We do not know of anything outside the universe and we know that we are made up of only material that we find elswhere in the universe. So by the knowledge we have, then "we know". Unless you are talking supernatural beings and events, which just moves the burden. Then we have to discuss how this supernatural entity, or event, made us, where it came from and how that event or entity came to be.
It was recently proven that basaltic glass catalyzes the production of RNA when it comes into contact with water containing basic organic molecules. Those basic organic molecules are themselves self-assembling and can be found all over the solar system, even on asteroids where there's no atmosphere. Cell membranes aren't necessary for abiogenesis, only some kind of semi-secure pocket that can help contain complex molecules while they interact; microscopic pores in the same basaltic glass mentioned previously (with tiny holes exposing them to the outside) will suffice just fine, as anyone who has ever lived indoors can tell you that nooks and crannies tend to accumulate all kinds of crap. All of this lends credibility to the volcanic-vent model for abiogenesis.
@@sentientflower7891 Life is a purely chemical process. RNA is a component of life. All of the basic elements of abiogenesis were present in the early Earth.
The experiment you're referring to (Jerome CA et al. Astrobiology 2022: 6; doi.org/10.1089/ast.2022.0027 ) required implausibly high concentrations of pure reactants, and the harnessed energy source (cyclic trimetaphosphate) could not be generated in a prebiotic world. It may be true that racemic mixtures of nucleotides can be found naturally in the universe, but what about the vast preponderance of other organic molecules that dilute these desired nucleotides? And, what about the fact that RNA naturally degrades rapidly? These problems aside, the linked nucleotides they generated in the experiment are not biologically relevant due to high percentages of the wrong type of bonds and the branching that took place in their formation. For any hope of replication of the RNA, the nucleotides that make up the RNA must be bonded correctly and have the correct chirality. Reality simply does not agree with the image you portray.
@@JAMESLEVEE seriously, have you thought about what it precisely means for a cell to be alive? None of the molecules essential to life are alive outside the context of a cell. All of the molecules essential to life - in a pure form such as if you happened to harvest them directly from living cells - placed in a pure sterile solution within a flask are not alive, nor could they become alive under any circumstance over any time period.
@@LongStoryShortVideos nice try, but...no. There were so many methods available for self-replicating molecules fo form on the early Earth, many of them simultaneously occurring, that it is only a matter of time before we can replicate the natural process in a laboratory. To which your response will be that it doesn't count because it was done in a lab. To which the obvious answer is, if it was God, and only God, who can create life, why can we do it at all?
Truly understanding the scale of time involved with the changes from the simplest unknown form of repeating information to more complex structures of life. Think about the number of ATP reactions per second you discussed and then try to imagine how many occur in a year, ten years, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, a million, ten million, a hundred million, a billion, etc. The number of recombinations in molecules leads to life as a sheer inevitability of time… and if it doesn’t seem possible, you’re not truly grasping how big those numbers are.
Yeah, I could tell it was some sort of religious "propaganda"(I don't think that word works here entirely) about a 3rd of a way through. He'd just say it's a half baked explanation
Apparently, YOU fail to grasp the complexity of the numbers. In order to get life, ALL these processes must be met, in order. No matter how many times one of these processes occurs, the chances of occurring at the precise moment needed, would require multitudes of times more occurrences. Your chances of hitting every single lottery drawing during your entire lifetime is more likely. Those are the odds against life occurring naturally, without help.
We are not denying that an energy gradient was available - we are denying that it could have been properly harnessed to produce only constructive chemical reactions, and that it had sufficient energy density to start life.
@@robstadler927 It probably didn't construct only productive reactions. But the productive reactions were productive and continued to happen. The unproductive ones just weren't productive. There's no goal, things just happen.
@@WolfFang884 actually, unproductive reactions produce a lot of useless garbage that would inhibit progress toward life, and destructive reactions could also occur with the molecules that could progress toward life.
So what is your hypothesis for the origin of life? I spotted a few issues within this video but I'm just curious to know what you believe if life didn't originate from natural processes?
Well if Simulation Theory is correct then our laws of physics are inherent only in the Simulation... life would, also, have been generated via said Simulation. I.E. it would have been programmed into said Simulation, or it would not happen. Incidentally this means that, if Simulation Theory is correct... then Creationists are correct. Simply not for the reason that they think.
@@thalastianjorus I wonder if you would know, when a computer program is "created" or "turned on" what is the detailed energy transfer? Does it look anything similar to how our world appears to of started?
@@Alfred5555 quite possibly, in fact, especially in a procedurally generated simulation. As the simulation begins it would immediately inflate that simulation with data in order to begin said procedural generation. To begin such programs need an incredible number of "dice rolls" to begin constructing order out of the seeming chaos of mixed variables and rules - which at first will look extremely chaotic as they're so 'close' to each other. All that they begin with is certain limitations, and it then 'explodes' outward from the designated 0,0,0 coordinate. It does this because, when first starting, all of its limitations are quite obvious. As it expands these limitations become more uniform across the system. Think of the game Star Citizen. When they first initiated the servers they established a 0,0,0 coordinate. Once they initiated the generation server it flooded the server with creations. As one observes more of the interior of the game - the server continues to generate more and more for there to be observed... within the limitations of that game.
He absolutely doesn't believe it originated from natural processes. He's using the logical fallacy of Irreducible Complexity, which is a favorite tactic among creationists. He just isn't _saying_ "therefore God did it", because he's letting doubt linger in the minds of the undecided until they give up and choose to accept creationism as the only plausible explanation, because a magical solution absolves them of needing to understand how it actually works.
The first life probably wasn't a modern methanogen, acetogen, fermenter, or modern organism of any kind. It was probably so much simpler it relied on different molecular machinery in general. The kind that would only really work if there is no competition from anything but literally bubbles and rocks.
The real problem isn't competition from other life forms. There's actually much more co-operation than competition involved in the complex ecosystems of today. It would harder, not easier for life to survive without a bio-environment.
You are suggesting an imaginary entity. There is no scientific evidence to support your suggestion. In fact, all evidence goes against your suggestion. You suggest that life started with a simpler organism that could live completely independently, but we know that the opposite must be true - organisms that can survive on their own, like the bacterium Desulforudis audaxviator, must have MORE complex metabolisms, because they must handle all of the necessary metabolic activity on their own, without the ecological synergy of other organisms. See the previous videos in this series for more about that.
@@LongStoryShortVideos You must take into account that the environment back then was different. Life has changed the environment a lot since it appeared, like how it cause the great oxydation event.
You’re comparing modern day eukaryotic cells, which took over a billion years to evolve with the first stages of prebiotic life, this is not an apt comparison. We’ve have demonstrated many possible pathways for simple, rudimentary analogs. Someone else mentioned non enzymatic ribose/rna synth, we’ve also recently demonstrated how autocatalytic molecules/sets can form from simple sodium isotopes and electricity, which go on to synthesize/catalyze more complex compounds without any template or blueprint. Chemical system evolution is more plausible than this video makes it out to be, by far.
@@sumo1203 Your refutation also mentioned eukaryotic cells, where the video actually refers only to the simplest forms of prokaryotic life. Did you watch the part about the methanogens and acetogens? Even JVCI Syn3A, the simplest known (human manipulated) cell, requires ATP synthase and the complexity of this video in order to harness energy. Perhaps you can provide a reference, if you intend to show that raw energy can be used to build complex molecules and reverse the detrimental effects of that same energy source.
@@robstadler927 even the first prokaryotic cells are vastly more complex then the first autocatalytic self templating molecule sets would have been. ATP synthesis is not required in all chemical systems. Even the membranes discussed in this video are vastly more complex than what’s discussed in literature - we’ve been abele to demonstrate lipids self assembling into barriers that could act as a rudimentary membrane to protect catalytic reactions. Much simpler, rudimentary beginnings. “Spontaneous formation of autocatalytic sets with self-replicating inorganic metal oxide clusters” - demonstrates how complex molecules are synthesized without any template or blueprint from autocatalytic sets derived from simple beginnings, sodium isotopes and electricity. ATP synthesis is certainly required for more advanced cells, and there is research investigating possible pathways and problems. “Modeling of abiotic ATP synthesis in the context of problems of early biosphere evolution” The question is by no means solved, and the specific route life took on this planet may never be answered, but given the current trend, I’m confident we will have full demonstrable pathways for systems Chemistry evolving into base level autocatalytic/self templating molecules/rudimentary cells.
@@sumo1203 Thanks for your response and references. You present possibilities that are distinctly separated from known life, but they are apparently sufficient for you to adopt abiogenesis as the inference to best explanation for life. For example, Lee Cronin admits that no one knows how self-replication arose, so he decided to show how inorganic molybdenum oxides can form autocatalytic sets. In my opinion, that comes across as an admission of futility.
Given your willingness to derive encouragement from this kind of data, I’m wondering: Is there any kind of future evidence discovery (hypothetical) that could possibly convince you that natural processes could not have started life?
This is a relatively good point. There's some good videos of scientists saying similar things. But even the scientists saying this point admit that the cells we see now may not look at all like the origin of life. In fact we're pretty sure it doesn't. Just as we now rarely use steam to power trains. We just need 1 simpler process literally just 1 and given enough time and multiplied by every planet that could produce this simpler process then we apply the anthropic principle it becomes increasingly likely.
I don't remember him saying that science itself is wrong, where/when did this occur? Is it not scientific exploration and progress to continually critically examine (and test if possible) and potentially reformulate as time goes on?
No no we still do use steam to power trains. The steam engine is no longer attached to the train, but the electricity that not moves the train was generated from a steam engine. As was all electricity we use.
@@tommyj4465 1. that's the problem with ongoing research, we don't have the answers to everything 2. You are correct, but this guy (in the video), while not outright proposing it, kinda implies that something else than a natural process is necessary to get the complexity of live. I might be wrong, but the undertone sounds like Intelligent design to me. Considering the ways he phrased natural processes and time.
Hey I’ve been watching a lot of your videos and I’m curious as to what you think the origin of life was. Are you religious or are you just explaining that our current ideas are flawed?
I don’t think he’ll answer that question either way because it doesn’t really affect the validity of his arguments but either way it would be treated as though it did.
@@pelicanantics9812 I think it is fair that to say that it has signs of Christian Apologism, however typically Christian Apologetics is focused primarily on theology and secondarily on scientific argumentation. The Creator of this channel even outright refused to have a theological discussion in one of his videos.
Can you be more specific as to what is naive? I've looked at both sides and the evidence indicates that the current origin of life paradigm is the naive position. At least we agree that I sound smart 🤓🤣
Can't thank you enough. I have over twenty grandchildren and five great grandchildren and it is videos like this that will show our children there are questions and processes that evolution cannot and does not answer. Smart stuff. ID way to go.
He actually does this (see his previous videos), just takes time of course and not all can be answered (everyone has lives), but he seems to do a pretty good job at responding to the criticisms which have the most well thought out and researched counters which are at least remotely objectively-based. Its also important to note that most of the criticisms though seem to come from those who have not watched the video entirely/thoroughly and/or have not checked out the referenced material he provides, so it's pointless to respond to those whose answers would come in those forms (ie already provided, burden of proof).
Yep, if there are any substantive video replies I'll frequently reply to them. Feel free to post links to any video replies and I'll see if they're worth making a response video on. Thanks!
(Opinion) Sometimes debates can be counterproductive, for instance if a person really does know and places great importance on being accurate, what they're talking about but it takes them time to research, then they don't usually perform well in debates and then fall victim to the audience's approval of their social performance. Debates have their place, but it seems like they don't usually provide quite the platform for multi-sided, respectful discussion that they purport to provide, they usually devolve into ridicule and condescension which are wholly unproductive human tendencies that prove nothing but the fact that we humans are pretty dumb. Perhaps it's better sometimes just to provide all sides and then let people learn and decide on their own, thereby increasing their knowledge of many sides in the process.
With the arguments given in this video, he won't beat a high school biology teacher. Perhaps its good that naysayers go out there and try to learn about it, but from where he learned such nonsense I can only wonder. For people on both sides of this equation, I implore you to study the natural sciences, surly how did we arise is fascinating to everyone as it shapes our views on the world we live in, but a word of advice, physics, biology and chemistry are one and the same. We only draw a line between them because there are some things more relevant for lab workings while others are for astrophysical calculations, in other words, for practicality. Finally, and quite sadly, to get the full picture going to university for it is really mandatory and it will take years, but I am sure there are viable online courses out there for specific topics, but this video is not one of them. Cheers!
That's quite the claim. Can you give a point by point evaluation and comparison, to show how the points objectively stack up against an average high school biology teacher?
@@robstadler5043 He's not addressing the fact that many of his arguments are just another form of the bunk "irreducible complexity" argument. Each bit of ATP synthase evolved separately with secondary or tertiary functions. And it's funny that he keeps saying that ATP is needed for ATP synthesis, but also admits later on that ATP CAN be synthesized spontaneously. And it only takes a little bit of it to bootstrap the process.
@@sam5992 Thanks for responding and providing some details on your claims that the video “leaves out a lot of information that proves him wrong.” Please understand that I am not here to try to prove you wrong - I am here to get at the truth. You make the claim that “Each bit of ATP synthase evolved separately with secondary or tertiary functions.” This is quite a strong claim, so I’m assuming you have much to back that up? Although it is possible to make an argument for homology between portions of ATP synthase and other enzymes, I believe that the evidence to support your claim is quite weak in comparison to the strong confidence that you convey. John Walker won the Nobel Prize for ATP Synthase in 1997 and has studied it for 40 years, and he offers no specifics of how it came about, except a generic plea to the power of evolution. Nick Lane is also quite an expert on ATP synthase and a strong believer that natural selection produced ATP synthase, but I’ve never heard any detailed explanation from him; certainly no experimental support. Then you indicate that the video claims “that ATP is needed for ATP synthesis, but also admits later that ATP can be synthesized spontaneously.” The video correctly states that ATP is needed to produce ADP, and ATP is needed to manufacture ATP synthase. I’m not sure which of these two points you are addressing. Please let me know if I have it wrong, but it seems like you are stating that the video makes incorrect statements because substrate-level phosphorylation is known to convert ADP to ATP? There are two key points here: 1) ADP must first be produced before substrate-level phosphorylation could convert ADP to ATP, but the production of ADP does require ATP. 2) No known form of life can live without ATP synthase. Even if substrate-level phosphorylation is used to produce ATP, ATP synthase is needed to produce the essential proton gradient, by consuming ATP and running in reverse. I can see that you hold strong beliefs, and you would like to prove that the video is wrong, but I don’t see the evidence for your beliefs. Rather than showing that the video “leaves out a lot of information that proves him wrong”, it may be your claims that are missing important information.
Great points that I had begun to focus in on before seeing this video. This is the final killer blow against origin of life theories because no cellular process can work without energy that is carefully directed to do useful work. So even if a fully formed cell and DNA or RNA complex miraculously formed by chance, it would immediately decay because it would be instantly starved of energy without ATP and the complex enzymes needed to create ATP and to release the energy from ATP in a controlled and functionally-directed manner. There is no way around this problem - life could not have started through random, inorganic processes! The evidence is clear, there must be an infinite, super-intellect who designed and created all the complex biochemistry required to support life!
The claim about all lifeforms utalizing the three specific respiratory chain complexs mentioned in the video is incorrect. Respiratory chain variation is a very real thing, especially among prokaryotes. Even for organisms that utalize the same type of respiration you can still have respiratory chain variation. For example the respiratory chains of aerobic archaea and eukaryotic mitochondria have major differences. Suggesting they developed differently. Also, not all lifeforms need chemosomotic coupling for survival. For example, Obligate fermenters lack the ability to carry out chemosmotic coupling. Instead they utalize fermentation for ATP synthesis. In fact, the first forms of metabolism were most likely forms of fermentation. Chemosynthetic coupling would have developed later, most likely as a response to the biuld up of acidic waste products produced by many forms of fermentation. The development of protiens that export hydrogen ions could have help with the matinace of cellular pH. Over the generations, these ancerstral proton pumps could have been tweaked to form a simple respiratory chain. Here is some sources if you would like to read up more on these topics. For the Development of respiratory chains www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26849/ For the respiratory chains of aerobic archaea www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC103747/
There’s no reason atp is needed for the first, most basic forms of “life” or self replicating molecules. It’s a stupid assumption only a creationist would make, because they assume life is created in place and then try coming up with poor justifications for that belief.
Technically there’s no reason God didn’t use science to create life. It would have been just easier for him to do so spontaneously, but on the other hand, less fun, both for him and us find this stuff out.
@@connorhaley3190 Technically there’s no reason the Splange Fairy didn’t gobbledy gobbledy and accidentally flummup life into existence. But until there is some evidence of such a thing occurring I see no reason to believe in it.
@@connorhaley3190 or god creating the world the way he did (with what we see from fossils and reasoning) WAS the easiest way. I mean what does God care that humans think it’s too long and complicated. “All knowing” no? No difference if it took a trillion years of a second
All you did was state what all evolutionists state... why not try to bring up counter arguments to prove him wrong? it should be easy since you are SOOOO confident you are right. how else did the most basic forms of life get energy?
Again, you gotta love how relentless commenters like Shawn Elliot and others constantly attempt to paint LSS as a Christian in order to paint his arguments/objections as illegitimate. Genuine and honest people who are seeking the truth will respond to the claims of the video rather than demeaning said claims by painting the creator of said claims as a creationist. But even with all of that said, so what if he is a creationist? You can be objectively right about something even if you have a slight bias towards it and that’s not just limited to science. Maybe, just maybe, upon further examination, you proponents of macroevolution genuinely have more faith to believe what you believe than those who believe in God because of how unequivocally absurd the idea of the universe as well as life beginning on its own is completely illogical and circular in reasoning (you guys believe nature is the explanation for nature but for that to hold any water the evidence would have to suggest the universe is eternal which it’s not so by definition there has to be a supernatural explanation of nature.) This is not a God of the gaps argument, this is an argument of logic and reason. Time, space, and matter are co-relative. None of the three can exist if all three are not present at the same time so using logic and logic ONLY we have already arrived at an entity of some sort that created space, time, and matter simultaneously in such a way that the laws of physics are arranged just right in order for the universe to even function the way it does, but on top of that for life to be able to begin and have the exponential amount of factors that allow life on this planet to not only survive but thrive the way it does. I have yet to quote the Bible once but using the common sense and logic God gave ALL of us I have come to the conclusion that beyond a reasonable doubt that there exists a space less, timeless, immaterial, powerful, and intelligent being that created the universe. Sounds a lot like what we would call God huh? Seek and you WILL find. God bless all who read this✝️
The arguments are illegitimate regardless of their religious origin. You discredit your own denial of the religious aspect when you end with “god bless”
@@an.d.m.a Nah. The argument is that we know something COULD NOT have happened on its own (the creation of the first living thing) which does in fact point towards a common designer or at least proves that abiogenesis is incredibly illogical and a pseudoscience. I’ll give you props though you have a lot more faith than I do to believe that mindless, random processes resulted in such complexity and incredible design👏
I think it would be worth mentioning that anger, insults, or other things that may be more motivated by emotions than anything else don’t solve any issues at hand and may end up worsening existing issues and/or creating new ones, regardless of which side of the argument you take.
Atheists love ad hominum attacks rather than admit that DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY! They can't argue from reason and must insult to FEEL victorious in their minds. I used to be an atheist. The LIES are exhausting.
The thing is when one side is purposely misrepresenting the science and being deceptive it can cause significant problems within society. And this isn't an accident, its a conscious attempt to decieve.
At one point (ADP and ATP) this video states that we all can't generate energy at all ever. Then goes back to abiogenesis without addressing that we are not all dead.
@@robstadler927 you have missed the point. If we can't make ATP we can't live.. now. Forget how we got here, we wouldn't be turning food into energy and thus would all die as soon as we ran out.
@@robstadler927ATP can be produced geochemically and there are many analogues used by modern life, anyways, like GTP, (used by ribosomes, and thus, probably more relevant to OoL... and also something that can be produced geochemically. And I'm not sure that it or ATP are used when the RNA subunits reproduce, anyways? I'll have to look that up.)
Let me guess - you think magic skydaddy did it is a simpler explanation. You just have an update on the argument-by-lack-of-imagination about evolution of the eye. Come on now, that's 19th C stuff.
Do you have a source for this original argument that you purport he just updated? Also I don't think he mentioned anything about "magic skydaddy", but you're free to guess what you wish.
@@jackthaller7151 There are more theories than that. But if we were to take your suggestion, then we would have to conclude it's by magic.... I guess you could call it that. Regardless of what you call it, you cannot reasonably ignore the unsolved problems for abiogenesis. I mean, you could ignore them, but not if you're gonna follow logic and reason. You'd just be making things up as you go. I don't know about you, but "magic" seems to me to be more reasonable and reliable than baseless fabrications. As far as any of us know, "magic" could be a type of logic or science we don't/can't understand. No, I don't actually think it's "magic". Just design. Like a watch.
He didn't list a single alternative to abiogenesis, but he was implying one very, very loudly. He just prefers to let doubt linger in the minds of the undecided, until they give up and accept creationism as the only plausible explanation, because a magical solution absolves them of needing to actually understand how it works.
I'm really enjoying the comments section. The anger, the frustration, the name-calling, the appeals to imagination, lack of engagement on the specifics. Very entertaining. If you're getting people this worked up, you must be doing something right.
Not really. This one has at least 75% of people complimenting the guy who made the vid and the rest are having healthy discussions. I don’t know if you read the same things I did.
You can’t even start discussing abiogenesis until you have a definition of what is life. Schrodinger defined it as something that can extract negative entropy from its environment in his book “What is life?”. It is a deceptively simple definition.
So if what is the replacement theory? If these creators created life did they make the state of life during the cambrian and then leave evolution to do the rest? Did all animals get created at once despite no evidence for this? Or do these creators design the traits of every creature born and then only change things slightly and gradually in a way that lines up with the evolution theory? If the last one is true then how does it survive Occam's razor? Just curious.
I suspect he's pushing young earth creationism. His video list includes stuff attempting to rebutt whale evolution. This video is also... not great. ATP has several analogues, and both it and many of its analogues can be produced geochemically.
Mercy!... Simply amazing that people don't realize... all of the science that think they know... Is "made up"... There is no Cambrian period... All of these ages , along with their names, were invented in the minds of racist atheists, bent on convincing the world. "We cannot allow the Divine a foot in the door" 😭😭😭 their offspring are the same that took down the ten Commandments off the schoolhouse wall... For fear it might influence the children... Should do good! 😭😭😭😭 Follow the money! "And isn't Society so much better now"😭😭😭
The other problem, even if all of your anti-abiogenesis points were fully correct and that were the end of the story, is to consider "what is the alternative to making improbably large precise steps in the evolution of early life?" Alternative 1, The great leap backward: Spontaneous generation of complexity. Highly derived, complex life could've emerged via sheer randomness. A million monkeys writing the complete works of Shakespeare not by gradual process of trial and error, but on their first try. However, if the complexity required for something as relatively simple as ATP synthase to arise ex nihilo is already mindbogglingly unlikely, it is even more unlikely that a more complex form of life arose. Alternative 2: Boltzmann brains vs bubbles? We could posit that the first life did not arise naturally but artificially. That is, some kind of intelligent entity engineered it to exist. This entity would need to have arisen via some process. Either gradual or instant. And arguably it creating the first life just kicks the problem of the first life back to its first ancestor. Gods, intelligent aliens, and more are too complex to self-organize from simple physical laws. Certainly far more complex than any unicellular organism. So now instead of explaining the origin of a nifty molecular mechanism, we are trying to explain the origin of an incredibly complex intelligent being which had to come about somehow, and take an interest in seeding early Earth with life for some reason. At this point we can throw out our scientific notation "one in 10^50" sort of probabilities and start using those 10^50 type numbers as the actual exponent. That's an even bigger step back then Spontaneous generation. 3. Steady state cosmological coincidence or closed timelike craziness? Perhaps the universe is infinitely old, or the beginning is just the end looped around? and so the first life or first life with modern molecular machinery didn't exist because every lifeform had a parent and it's just turtles all the way down. However, this contradicts both abundant evidence for complexity increase on Earth (e.g. a dinosaur or bird or mammal or plant is more complex than a unicellular organism), and the evidence for inflation of the universe from a hotter, denser form that would've been hostile to life as we know it. There's also the simple improbability of the universe having life even if it didn't have to evolve. Ultimately this is not a solution. Kicking the problem infinitely backward doesn't eliminate the problem. 4. Evolution of these machines happened, but we don't really know the details of how. As frustrating as it is, this is by far the most likely (only remotely likely) answer. There could've been a lot of coincidence involved. There could've been many steps and processes we are not fully aware of. Dozens of missing chapters of the history of life in our universe or on our planet which are not knowable through existing evidence, but which nonetheless occurred.
To get into ultimate origins in response to a detailed specific scientific argument is not helpful. Science is all about trying to address the tractable questions with the tools we have. How would you like it if I said there's a problem with the Big Bang theory because they haven't explained the ultimate origin of matter, or the laws of physics in the first place?
@@scienceexplains302 That is a good follow-up question, no doubt and anyone can to investigate it if they want. But it can't be raised as a "objection" to Big Bang theory - it never claimed to answer those questions. Rather the theory stands or falls on the basis of the evidence for it's own claims.
I have a riddle: you're a detective Ok So you're sent to the site of a suspected suicide, but the person had sketchy friends so you're supposed to figure out if it's a homicide or not. When you enter the scene in question you witness the following: 15 foot ceiling At the center of this big, tall room, was a man, hanging from a rope. Dead. The room was locked from the inside. No windows, only that one door, 10 feet from the center of the completely empty room. Only thing that seems super out of place is that the floor was wet, all around the empty house. The question is... Is this a case of self inflicted death, or did someone designed this murder scene to look like a suicide? Think hard...pause the comment if you have to.... Now, at first glance, considering the circumstances you might think "impossible for this man to reach 15 feet high ceiling, with nothing under his feet." Sometimes the evidence never left ... In this mystery, the wet floor is your only clue you need. But what about the wet floor? Well I can give you the answer, but if I do you won't appreciate the fact that things change, and can make things even more confusing. BTW It was a suicide. The wet floor all over the house, started out as giant blocks of ice. Then it melted. Life on earth went through a series of changes, you can't see it, but only cause you can't see it, doesn't mean you can out right negate the fact that sometimes things aren't as intuitive, all the time.
@@guyevans3224 it was slender enough for the man to push blocks of 🧊 through the door and stack them up and hang himself. Enough time passed to erode evidence. All that was left was the wet floor
Who made giant ice block? Why do they make gigantic blocks of ice? Is it specifically designed to aid in elaborate suicides? How did he transport it to his house from the mystery manufacturer? How did he get it in the house? How did he climb up a giant block of ice, unaided? Also, what was his motivation in deceiving the discoverers of his body? Just a few of the questions that arise from this scenario i would suggest. You see, the analogy is actually a perfect representation of the flaws associated with the Blind faith in the darwinian paradigm; those who follow it are so enamoured with it that they ignore the strength of the evidence that underpins it. We are supposed to just accept it without question, in the same way as we’re being asked to believe that the block of ice suicide counts as a feasible explanation, even as a riddle. On closer inspection however, the evidence, as with the block of ice, melts away!
@@guyevans3224 the ice company transports ice in giant blocks, as to save money on packaging🤣. The truck driver's marriage froze over... so ironically he uses the work that ended his marriage, for it to end his life. The empty house was the house sold by his wife. And so, that was his final message to her.... I'm not sure it's based on a true story, but perhaps life is riddled with similar life decisions I dunno. 8 billion people out there, I'm sure somewhere in there this is true, again and again
It's really awesome that you went into Complex detail about a Complex thing that most other people seem to try and answer in simple ways. I really was thinking about just how important it is for nearly every system in nature to have *(+/-) an area of high pressure and a area of low pressure with a middle membrane layer between. Positive charged states and negative charged states, high temperature and low temperature, very dense mixing with less dense, mixture of layers- like how water not only can mix layers within itself with colder and warmer, salty brackish and more fresh but the region of where water meets air and that area where the two layers meet, then you got where the atmosphere meets space and you can get static electric discharges from that interaction of those 2 layers. Within the core's of planets and stars you get different density layers, viscosity, rotational momentum, all creating electromagnetism, geological activity, solar flairs, nuclear energy, discharged photos, IR and UV light, all from the interaction of 2 states of differentials, which seems to engage a little interaction type engine within nature and I really wonder what truly occurred to create the immense complexity that we are surrounded by currently, so much so that we almost take it for granted and simplify the manner in which that it occurred in... Personally I like to think of oil and water. And bubbles. I feel like maybe in some tidal puddle or something that could have a mixture of concentration of different things, while having sun interacting on this smaller puddle to where it evaporated enough for things to not be so diluted, yet not completely dried up, and somehow get a oil and water type situation might be what helped star the first single cell organism.. just the interaction of the 2 having natural surface tension to create natural circular bubble like membrane layer and being hydrophobic of each other.. idk, it's just a start but Maybe someone way way smarter than me can take it from there... I was thinking about algea, like would a algae or possibly even an extremophile possibly evolve first? Or idk, this honestly is the craziest topic for me to think about. I love science, chemistry, and Nature in general. It all makes sense even tho it's mind-blowingly magical once it's there and around to study and break it down and figure out how it works. But when it comes to trying to figure out how any of this started.. it just utterly blows my mind. To think inorganic matter evolved naturally in some form or another to start a chain of organic compounds that would work to create biological diversity and life and ATP and DNA and mitochondria, and multicellular organisms, plants, Fungi, lichen, animals, like WHAT!!!??? HOW??
One of the things I find interesting is the evolution of the atmosphere and how it changed over time it makes me wonder what the weather was like throughout it's changes and how difference it might have been like has earth ever being completely covered in thick clouds for a period of time
The absurd complexity of LUCA suggests that LUCA is not first life. First life would've been far cruder and simpler, but lived in an environment without the competition from LUCA or other more complex life. Until we can deduce what the minimum viable lifeform is, we really have little idea what level of complexity the step from abiotic chemistry to prebiotic chemistry to life is.
LUCA is the LAST universal common ancestor, not the FIRST universal common ancestor, so yes, you are correct. This guy is just falling back on the Irreducible Complexity logical fallacy because it's a favorite approach among creationists to appeal to people whose brains hurt when they look at complex things.
Where do you guys get this "first life WOULD BE this and that"? I have a simple question - how do you KNOW for sure, what a "first life" WOULD or SHOULD look like? Did someone ever observed that other form of life or created it in the lab? No? Then how do you KNOW that your supposed life form can in principle exist in the first place? Do you really not realise that the "would be" form of life you make bold claims about is nothing but a product of your imagination?
Even if all the components of a cell by pure chance came into existence or copied by human efforts exactly it would not be alive. You would still have a dead cell. There is no way you can animate it to life. The interrelation of the cells need for a specific protein would demand a way for the cell to communicate with the DNA and then the DNA opening up similar to unzipping temporarily the exact spot on the strand where the RNA needed can be formed. Then it makes the protein in the shape needed to fit the place where it is needed. Then the new product must be transported to the exact place where it is necessary more efficiently than any man-made factory. The fairy tale of abiogenesis is absolutely insane and scientists are desperately wasting their minds on starting with a preconceived hypothesis and denying against all odds that all of this could happen without an intelligent creator
At no point was the proposition made that life was created by a god-like entity. The video just explained how the current model of chemical evolution being the origin of life is nonsense. We've been led long and far down a dark path by just another religion more extreme in it's dogma than any before.
You ask what his alternative explanation is, then proceed to put words in his mouth, then criticize those words. It's not helpful to assume to know what others think simply because they have a criticism of a particular theory/view, besidies even if someone does think something remotely like what you're simplistically describing, the views of most people are far more nuanced and complex than you're assuming.
@@tommyj4465 we've seen the same type of arguments from incredulity before that's why. Criticism here without offering any natural alternative amounts to a "just sayin'" supernatural god default conclusion.
I do remember being taught in biology class that cells can make atp directly from protein, and run on that, but it's just super innefisent so they only do that when they lack air or something else they need to recharge adp, so that could have been a starting point, then before life ran out of resources or choked itself out (that happened with oxygen at least once, if not more) and made something probably not as good as the modern ones, and had a massive advantage.
Another scentific nail in the coffin of 'naturalism'. Life requires the input of an external agency (outside of nature/universe) like the fine-tuning of the physical constants and the very laws themselves...
There's 1 thing that most scientists overlook... We truly don't know much. We apply what we "know" to all aspects of everything and expect everything to act/react the way we think we know how they should. But then we discover something that goes against EVERYTHING we "know" and we don't know how to explain it.... Because we truly don't know much!
Seems like that one saying is true ‘you can’t win an argument against an idiot’ By deleting my comment or arguing against it you further support this. Everyone who sees this comment, check again later to see if my comment is still here.
The gaps are getting microscopic? The trick here is most will have to do lots of reading to establish that the description of the problem is fair. And on finding that, if one is inclined then the vid needs no conclusion. And indeed none is given beyond a So we’ll leave it up to you. This shy apology posits something way more unlikely. A god/designer isn’t impossible I think. Its just many orders of unlikely above the chance of throwing a deck of cards in the air and they land in four neat ordered piles. But given enough time and perhaps infinite space with lots of decks thrown in the air.... so, arguing that there isn’t enough time for an effective aminotriphosphate to arise, is arguing there certainly isn’t enough time for a designer of amino acids to arise.
If this is typical, Long Story Short is a disingenuous Creationist channel. The 'Awkward Truths' are just incredulous objections about abiogenesis. No alternative hypotheses are offered.
So how did your imagined dna creator come into being? Where was it, before anything else existed? If it exists, it must have substance. What is it made of? Where did it get the stuff, it made everything else from? How did it make the first thing? (Detailed step by step process) Your argument if correct, proves your imagined dna designer (necessarily complex) cannot exist. Convoluted pseudoscientific, linguistic chicanery doesn't alter that. Complexity is very often, the first resort of the charlatan and the last of the deluded. If your dna creator exists, then demonstrate a standalone, separate from everything else, examinable example of it. Complexity, is not a sign of intent or intelligence. EVERYTHING we have found so far, follows the pattern simplicity combines and forms complexity? You are always in the position, of trying to use things that actually exist, in order to try and prove an imaginary thing exists. You are arguing Bugs Bunny created carrots. Carrots are real and complex and require and even more complex structure to grow them. Therefore Bugs Bunny is real.. Your argument disproves itself.
According to laws of physics matter can't be created or destroyed. If matter has a beginning it came to exist by a none physical proces by a none physical being... this being doesn't have to live under the laws of physics because he made them. This being would exist out of space and time.
@@andrewstringer3088 That's an abstract speculative imagining. Arguments are NOT realities. The "laws" of physics are just observable, detectable, realities, that seem to be pretty much constant. You are trying to use a speculative imagining, to prove another speculative imagining. Outside space and time is nowhere? You are saying, something made of nothing "existing" (how?) nowhere, made everything else out of the same nothingness. If a thing cannot be detected or its effects measured in any way, it is entirely irrelevant and useless as a solution. You might as well be arguing that the Fantastic fours human torches flame, is hotter than a fire breathing dragons breathe.?
Wow, I have to congratulate you, this was very slick. But it's still the same old creationist BS, boiling down to... "I can't believe/imagine how something this complex occurred naturally (so therefore intelligent design/supernatural creator)". In fairness though, you _may_ have raised points that will be addressed in future... as is usual... like, for example, Olbers' Paradox.
Naturalists live in their poor imagination: "no matter how complex and improbable it is, I am going to bet that it must have happened, even though I couldn't even successfully imagine how it really happened. "
@@timothykeith1367 maybe, we don't know. Maybe a supernatural being originated it all... maybe not. But that's just starting point isn't it? Does that mean a supernatural being continuously interferes in the universe?... no it doesn't. Everything points to a bottom up universe, not a top-down one. Complexity built from simple principles being repeated endlessly with variation.
@@LTworkshop how does concluding "god dun it" have any predictive power? Even when scientists say they don't know, when in the history of science has the supernatural EVER been ratified as the answer? _It never has!_ Even Newton's belief that the inexplicable orbit of Mercury proved God's existence did not withstand Einstein's later discovery of Relativity.
Thanks for the compliment! Though there was no argument based on ignorance, rather the entirety is focused on what we do know and the documented scientific problems surrounding the current explanations. Look forward to any challenges, that's how science improves.
You only used that phone example to explain that life needs a particular form of energy and life has complex tools to harness that energy. It’s a relatable analogy but at some point you have to reconnect it back to life. You’re argument isn’t incorrect, just confusing
ATP powers our biochemistry by phosphorylating organic molecules and since the phosphate ester bond is so strong, it makes the molecules more reactive. After reacting the phosphorylated molecules, the phosphorus is released as orthophosphate which is inert. In order to bind a phosphate group to an organic molecule, a higher energy bond has to be broken (in modern life it's the phosphodiester bond between the 2nd and 3rd phosphorus on the ATP molecule). There is an iron-nickel phosphide mineral known as schreibersite which while rare in the Earth's crust is common in metallic meteorites and when it corrodes in water, it will produce high energy phosphorus species such as pyrophosphate (also known as diphosphate). The bond between the phosphorus atoms in pyrophosphate is also phosphodiester bond and can react with organophosphates to form organophosphate. Another compound called metaphosphate is so reactive that it can be reacted with ADP to form ATP. Life emerged during the late heavy bombardment and it's primordial energy metabolism could have been up taking these energetic phosphates and releasing orthophosphate without re-using it. ATP synthase may have once been an ATP powered sodium/proton pump and fermentation biosynthesis pathways; both of which wound up being reversed.
Is at least one of all of your "could be"s been proven to be the case scientifically? "Could have been" in itself doesn't count as argument let alone evidence.
@@mirziyodm 1. Schreibersite is common in iron meteorites that have fallen from earth. 2. It's demonstrable that it releases reactive phosphorus species when it corrodes in water. 3. Reactive phosphorus species will react with organic molecules to form organophosphate groups. 4. It's been experimentally demonstrated that phosphorylated organic molecules can be fed in abiotic analogues of the pentose phosphate pathway (see "Conditional iron and pH-dependent activity of a non-enzymatic glycolysis and pentose phosphate pathway").
@@EQ_EnchantX kinda curious about the cellphones they had to built trebuchets. no honestly, it may not be perfect, but human development from using stone to sharpen stone to a modern smartphone is pretty close to how life could become mor complex over time.
@@thomaspriewasser6660 Your missing the analogy, for which I was talking about. You can't charge a cellphone, until you have a charger. You can't build the charger without the blueprints on the phone...that is the context
This video misses the biggest problem to creating life. Life is information based. No amount of just chemicals or information can create life. You need to have it all at once. No human has ever created life. Never happened. So even given all the energy you want you can't create life. No amount of amino acids or lipids can create life. Life always comes from life. And you can't create life. So where did life come from? From a Creator. It is all clearly written in the bible. There is nothing man can to create life. Every day on Earth there are billions of just dead organisms. All of the ingredients for life is right there. That bug you kill can never be rearranged to create life.
@@GuardianSoulkeeper He has always been. He is the originator of life and truth and light. Did you really think that our universe just popped into existence? Or that life just popped into existence? Do you think that complex, coded and specified information, like in Dna, just popped into existence. Bill Gates noted that "Dna is like a computer code but far more complex than any computer program written by humans." You have that complex, coded and specified information in every cell in your body. Do you really think that it just popped into existence also? If you believe those things then you have much more faith than I do.
@@nahshon9998 Do you really think your this creator just popped into existence? Why is the universe as we know it subject to this rule but your creator isn't?
@@GuardianSoulkeeper That isn't what I said. To make Dna, which we need for life, you need to program the information in the organism. Bill Gates noted that "Dna is like a computer program but far more complex than any computer program written by humans." When ever I see a computer program I assume a computer programmer. Did you have a way to program Dna? Remember that Dna is more complex than Windows? God claims he was "from the beginning". He created the universe and he created life. He says so in Genesis. Now if you have an actual observable and testable way to create complex, coded and specified, information, that you can show created that information let me know.
@@nahshon9998 Right, but your argument is that DNA is too complex to have developed naturally. You invoke some _even more complex_ system to explain it but then fail to question how this even more complex system could have developed naturally.
You don’t understand. Time is so big. Eventually through enough time we will discover the truths that abiogenisis was as absurd as the greek mythology.
Just because something is brilliant and complex after upgrading for a few billion years doesn't mean it started that way. There are more rudimentary ways of getting energy that simply would've been beaten out when other life upgraded what they had or developed secondary systems that took over. You want to compare it to technology, so many generating technologies need power to turn on, which has to initially come from a more rudimentary source. Think even of old crank cars, you don't really consider nowadays that the battery starts turning the engine and fires the first spark plug before the engine can turn itself over, then the engine also charges the battery so it may continue to start. Like the ADP, ATP and spinny boy example you gave, if you take any part out, battery, initial charge, engine, it just doesn't work, they all need each other to power each other. So how did this come to be? They just had another source, they cranked the thing by hand. Comparatively garbage, useless, no one wants that in a car today, but it did the job when that's what they had.
Also have to add that life today uses heaps of energy, because we've evolved more energy hungry systems. So sure, you won't find of anything on the level of ATP that could work, but that's like looking at a giant diesel freighter and deciding that that handcrank could never work.
@@protercool8474 It is interesting that your analogies of cars, engines, spark plugs, and diesel freighters are all intelligently designed methods to harness energy. But, you are intending to use them to suggest that no source of intelligence was necessary to start the process of harnessing energy toward the first life. Your hypothesis offers no evidence, just an imaginary pathway.
@@robstadler927 I presented no hypothesis nor does what I said require evidence because I'm not trying to present facts. The technology similies are in response to the ones this video used, I typically don't like using analogies to prove a point, but I will use them to make concepts clearer, or to dismantle someone else's analogy. No, rather than presenting my own thoughts, I'm just trying to point out flaws in someone else's argument. Which is actually exactly what this video tries to do to abiogenesis, it presents no evidence or argument of its own, which would be fine if it wasn't trying to compete with something that actually does. Abiogenesis is more than a rational argument, more than a hypothesis even, it's actually a theory. I can beat an irrational argument with a rational one, but you can't use any amount of rationality alone to disprove a scientific theory, you need a lot more.
@@robstadler927 I'll boil the video down: "Life can't have started from simple chemical reactions that became more complex over time because after a long time, life has become complex."
@@protercool8474 You wrote “I presented no hypothesis.” It seems that you did present a hypothesis when you wrote: “There are more rudimentary ways of getting energy that simply would've been beaten out when other life upgraded what they had or developed secondary systems that took over.” This would be a hypothesis of how life got started - it is a hypothesis that is lacking evidence. Then you say that the video “presents no evidence.” The evidence in the video seems clear: all known life depends on ATP synthase and proton gradients. All known life requires complex energy harnessing processes that demonstrate circular causality. That is well established evidence. And, we do know a lot about natural processes: they don’t create circular causality or complex enzymes - natural processes are demonstrably better at destroying things than building complexity like this.
To rephrase your effort to boil down the video into a single sentence, I’d say "Life can't have started from simple chemical reactions that became more complex over time because everything we know about natural processes runs in the opposite direction."
Interesting video, but you seem to have several contradictory statements and omissions. You talk about how geothermal vents would kill life, yet there are microorganisms that feed off the sulfur rich compounds coming out of them that exist no where else in the world and are sustained by the energy from these vents. Also, scientists have already done experiments where they recreated what they believe to be the "primordial soup" that early life sprang from and were able to witness several of the molecules that are the building blocks of life assemble themselves within that environment. Lastly, you talk about how life needs specific forms of energy and how early life wouldn't have been able to convert the energy sources available into the forms needed for life, yet plants convert solar radiation into useable energy every day, including very simple single celled plants like algae that likely could've been one of the first forms of life.
These are not contradictions on my part but misunderstandings on your part. Life can exist in extreme environments today, not because they are biologically simple, but because they have special adaptations over and beyond simple life. Photosynthesis is far from a simple process and isn't the answer you hope it to be. For problems regarding the primordial soup and other obvious objections see the previous videos in this series.
@@LongStoryShortVideos Yeah photosynthesis is stupidly complex, literally. Learning how photosynthesis works makes you wonder what kind of idiot created it that way, yet it makes perfect sense under evolution. Go figure.
References & Notes:
(1) Branscomb, E.; Russell, M. J. Frankenstein or a submarine alkaline vent: who is responsible for abiogenesis? Part 2: as life is now, so it must have been in the beginning. BioEssays 2018, 40 (8), 1700182. Kitadai, N.; Maruyama, S. Origins of building blocks of life: A review. Geoscience Frontiers 2018, 9 (4), 1117-1153. Miller, S. L. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 1953, 117 (3046), 528-529.
(2) Note. Technically cells can absorb some forms of energy like heat, but without a way to harness the energy it’s not useful and can even be damaging.
(3) Note. Technically, there are five complexes involved in oxidative phosphorylation but only these three are relevant to the discussion at hand. Complex II (succinate dehydrogenase) also participates in the citric acid cycle and runs parallel to Complex I (NADH ubiquinone oxidoreductase) except Complex II receives electrons from FADH2 but doesn't pump protons and Complex I receives electrons from NADH. Complex V is the wonderful ATP synthase (or ATPase when it runs in reverse and breaks down ATP to pump protons backward to build up the gradient).
(4) Note. Also known as “free radicals”, they damage molecules like DNA by altering or breaking covalent bonds and are a major source of what causes us to age.
(5) Vu Huu, K.; Zangl, R.; Hoffmann, J.; Just, A.; Morgner, N. Bacterial F-type ATP synthases follow a well-choreographed assembly pathway. Nature communications 2022, 13 (1), 1-13.
(6) Walker, J. E.; Saraste, M.; Gay, N. J. The unc operon nucleotide sequence, regulation and structure of ATP-synthase. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Reviews on Bioenergetics 1984, 768 (2), 164-200.
(7) Lane, N. The vital question: energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life. WW Norton & Company, 2015; p 82.
(8) Note. ~3k protons/sec per ATP synthase. Creating ~326 ATP molecules/sec. Biovisions at Harvard University: Electron transport chain ua-cam.com/video/LQmTKxI4Wn4/v-deo.html.
(9) Note. Average human = 70kg. ATP = 507 g/mol. A human therefore weighs as much as about 140 moles of ATP. A human consumes about 140 * 6.022X10^23 = 8.43X10^25 ATP molecules per day. 1 day = 86,400 seconds. Therefore, each second, a human consumes 9.75X10^20 ATP molecules. Basically 10^21 ATP molecules per second, which is "a billion trillion ATP molecules per second".
(10) Note. Producing ADP also requires many complex enzymes, each produced with the help of energy from ATP: pyrophosphokinase, amidophosphoribosyltransferase, GAR synthetase, GAR transformylase, FGAM synthetase, AIR synthetase, AIR carboxylase, SAICAR synthetase, adenylosuccinate lyase, AICAR transformylase, IMP cyclohydrolase, and adenylosuccinate synthase. Voet, D.; Voet, J. G.; Pratt, C. W. Fundamentals of biochemistry: life at the molecular level. John Wiley & Sons, 2016; pp 802-808.
(11) Note. Some machines operate on other molecules with high energy-transfer potential, like GTP but the problems there are the same as with ATP. .
(12) Lane, N. The vital question: energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life. WW Norton & Company, 2015; p 106.
(13) Note. Via a pH gradient that provides a high pH (alkaline) solution that mixes with the neutral or lower pH seawater.
(14) Miller, B.; England, J. Hot Wired. 2020. inference-review.com/article/hot-wired (accessed 2022 April 28).
(15) Jackson, J. B. Natural pH gradients in hydrothermal alkali vents were unlikely to have played a role in the origin of life. Journal of molecular evolution 2016, 83 (1), 1-11.
(16) Jackson, J. B. Natural pH gradients in hydrothermal alkali vents were unlikely to have played a role in the origin of life. Journal of molecular evolution 2016, 83 (1), 9.
(17) Lane, N. The vital question: energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life. WW Norton & Company, 2015; p 168.
(18) Bonora, M.; Patergnani, S.; Rimessi, A.; De Marchi, E.; Suski, J. M.; Bononi, A.; Giorgi, C.; Marchi, S.; Missiroli, S.; Poletti, F.; et al. ATP synthesis and storage. Purinergic Signal 2012, 8 (3), 343-357.
Love your videos and appreciate you posting the references here for those who would like to do further investigation. This thoroughness is excellent. I've been helping teach a young adult's study over the summer and showed your video "Darwins Biggest Problem" to our group last night.
@@lukecaporale this is what got my subscribe, also enjoy the artstyle good work 👏
In Chernobyl they found radiation-eating bacteria, showing the fundamental resource-adaptability of life. Your arguments are ludicrous.
@@capoeirastronaut This video is not about "fundamental resource-adaptability of life".
@Colin Bennett, Let’s clear up some of the confusion here. The Chernobyl finding was about fungi that could live on the walls of the reactor. These are not bacteria. Fungi are eukaryotic, which are orders of magnitude more complex than simple bacteria. The complete details of energy harnessing in these fungi are still not clear, but you can be sure it is related to photosynthesis and uses chemiosmotic coupling - it is no simple process.
You mention the “resource adaptability of life”. That is really beside the point, because the video explains why the first form of life required complex molecular machinery to start harnessing energy - life cannot harness energy without it. The special abilities of some extremely complex life to live off a variety of energy forms (i.e., a “Swiss Army Knife” type of life), is not so relevant, because it is very complex already.
If you are going to call our arguments “ludicrous”, you are going to need a clear example of a very simple process to harness energy for the exclusive benefit of the simplest forms of life.
can't imagine why the algorithm keeps suppressing this channel....
Because he’s lying?
@@ChunkOcoal about what?
UA-cam suppresses misinformation.
@@Mm17297I don't know. I'm halfway through the video, and he still has no point.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go that's not a lie tho
Your own analogy of charging a cell phone on a charcoal grill perfectly counters your own argument: We effectively HAVE moved from a charcoal energy system to a lithium battery system through a series of clumsy, evolutionary steps. A couple hundred years ago we had few energy sources other than "burning stuff," yet now we produce systems that seem similarly circular to the ADP-ATP cycle. Those "charcoal grills" of a couple hundred years ago _are_ responsible for the advanced electronic charging systems we have today, but of course you do not charge a cell phone with charcoal grill.
You can see the same effects in almost any complex system-- computer programming is another example. The compilers of today are exceeding complex and could not be produced without a compiler. But all of these compilers are "children" of something that was nothing like a compiler-- just some simple instructions for processing text, which can be easily understood in a glance.
These are not awkward truths. These are just a bunch of small, non-obvious steps that had to occur, but they occurred because that's what worked, and what survived.
I kept thinking “cell phones don’t evolve - bad analogy”.
And the narrator kept using manipulative wording, such as referring to life as machines (unfortunately, biologists do that, too)
I think that's more subjective though isn't it, what one's particular interpretation of what constitutes a machine is?
The compiler comparison isn't quite on the mark if you note that software languages, compilers, and programs were all designed at some step by something other than themselves.
@@tommyj4465 The standard definition for a machine includes that each part has a definite function. In biology, the parts’ functions can be multiple and changing. The parts themselves can change.
The creationists’ arguments make a big deal of biologists saying “machine” exactly because they like the implication of intelligent design.
@@scienceexplains302 Oh I've never heard that argument against biologists, seems like anyone using arguments like that no matter what side they're on, is moving towards semantics. But does every single part of a machine always have to perform one single function and cannot perform another or change to perform another?
Such as primary, secondary, tertiary etc functions and ability to manipulate/change replace to alter/add function (low level ai-driven potentially)?
@@tommyj4465 No, doesn’t have to, but as I said, I gave the standard definition.
The potential for AI hasn’t seeped into all the word definitions yet.
An AI-run machine that made multiple and changing uses for the parts would still not be a good analogy to life. Biology builds on whatever it has and whatever it can alter from that to survive.
Machines are almost always built from “scratch” with all parts working together. We could stop making something, destroy all the old ones, then come up with a better one later.
Once a life form goes extinct, it doesn’t come back (even cloning uses another animal’s DNA, etc)
Our lowered voice box makes us susceptible to choking, even to death. Our craving for carbohydrates for energy doesn’t change when people become sedentary and no longer needed the energy, resulting in obesity and all the health issues that come with it.
I’m grateful that LSS produced enough ATP to make this video ;D
Love the videos. Love the style. Love both the depth and brevity. Keep it up!
The shallowness and brevity
Dude please don’t stop making videos. This stuff is not only VERY informative but it’s hilarious. Love the effort you put in and one day you’ll have TONS of subscribers.
I was about to stop! Ok, I'll make some more 🙃
@@LongStoryShortVideos Yeah man you dont desevre so much hate, you just show what you belive in and i respect that
Yes, please make more, they’re so fun to watch 😁
These are great videos!
@jhonstockings2989 Shows what he believes or shows the facts of science?
Re: every part has to arrive at once?
Ah. This is the fallacy of this entire line of reasoning.
Evolution often results in taking crude, clunky systems that work ok, and refining them over many generations into simplified, streamlined ones. Thus, when you encounter the irreducible, you should think "how did it get reduced to this point?" and not "how did it develop to this point." Often times a complex machine that does something (say, take some chemical in from the environment to produce ATP) might mutate to gain functionality (say, also taking in ADP and ATP that would be abundant because of this, and using that to produce ATP more efficiently).
When this process has matured to the point where its original function is no longer necessary, it will often lose all trace of ever having performed that function. Especially with something as granular as molecular machinery and such fast generation times.
This means that irreducibles are often actually not the result of miraculous leaps of specified complexity from a single mutation, but the results of a secondary function of a mechanism becoming its primary function, and then, getting reduced to simplest form. Of course they are irreducible. Evolution reduced them all it could.
I'm no expert, but I will say this.
The video is talking about "Chemical" evolution, not "Biological" evolution.
As the video explains, the benefits of large amounts of time do not exist in a realm where things happen instantaneously, there are no 'generations'.
Chemistry deals with inanimate objects, particles don't 'mutate' or 'gain functionality', you appear to be thinking of cellular lifeforms such as germs and bacteria, they only exist after life itself has begun. So it's not like a dinosaur eats some poisonous berries and dies, so his friends decide not to eat those berries, and therefore survive and learn. There is no element of "animate order" here, it's literally just random objects blowing around in the wind. Unless you think life itself has some sort of predestined will to exist.
@@Alfred5555 : Chemical evolution IS biological evolution. Biology is just a subset of organic chemistry. And yes, chemicals spontaneously transform all the freaking time, but you would need to have some kind of scientific education to realize this.
@@Alfred5555 It doesn't benefit form a large amount of time? Firstly, we do not know precicely the state of the earth or what caused it. The world was most likekly it a great state of turmoil. If we say that there are 1 action that happens every minute. Or even 1 action every hour. With that I mean that either chemicals bump into each other or that there are something happening to them.
Over 1 billion years, with one action every hour, would mean almost 9x10^12 actions/reactions. Since the earth is large, it was likely at least thousands of interactions between elements every minute, which would bring it up to 1,9x10^18.
From these actions, there might become some new chemical combinations. That would be 1 step. This new one would interact with others and could create something new as well, which would be another step.
Since we do not know exactly what the first life form looked like, then we do not know if it all had to have happened in "one generation" or not.
Anyways, if you remove time from the table, since everything happens instantaneously, then you can say the same about anything. It just doesn't make sense, unless everything that can happen, has happened, and that in the first given amount of time.
@@Alfred5555 that isn’t how evolution works. Dinosaurs don’t “learn” not to, the ones already alive that have mutations that keep them from trying to eat poisonous food are able to reproduce more, causing the next generations to slowly gain that mutation.
@@fredrikfjeld1575 Not everything happens instantaneously, just a lot of chemical reactions, which is what Chemical evolution is based. So as I said, there is no large amount of time to benefit from, and even if there was, inanimate particles don't mutate or gradually develop as cells appear to.
All of this pertains to "pre-life", this isn't a discussion of origin of species, it's the origin of life.
You're whole theory seems to be that "everything is inevitable, just wait long enough and it'll happen". Ok then.
I subscribed. This channel is going places.
Eh, OP didnt review the literature on either the geochemical synthesis of ATP or on the evolution of ATP use or ATP analogues like GTP.
Yes. Let's abandon all established science, in favor of this UA-cam video.
"it makes the problem worse"
No, not really.
Which is more likely, randomly picking the best 20 moves all at once or randomly picking the best move, then doing it again, and again, and again, but with millions of blunders getting discarded in between?
The complexity of early cellular machinery was probably nowhere near that of modern ATP synthase machinery.
As to there being no evidence for this, well, unfortunately, this is exactly what we would expect. Things that adopted the new mechanisms would've outcompeted everything else. And the lucky few that could adapt in that changing world probably would've been pushed toward parasitic niches. Perhaps even becoming DNA viruses or similar.
Probably isn’t is, you all fail at that always
But your analogy about picking moves is lacking an extremely important detail...The moves must not only be right, but also in the right sequence. To pick the right move 150 times is really improbable in a row, but doable if your possible choices arent too large. However, picking the right move 150 times in a row IN THE RIGHT EXACT ORDER quickly grows to uncomprehendably high numbers exponentially. With 20 amino acids, just a 4 long chain of specific order is 20^4, or 1 out of 160,000. 5 is 3.2 million, 8 is 25.6 billion, so what would 150 be??? Then thats just for a single working protein, now you need another and another. This all is multiplied again when you consider the fact every generated working protein enzyme must not only fit its targeted molecule to carry out the reaction, but every other enzyme has to match the first by fitting the new product molecule of the previous reaction. A simple 6 step reaction would require six functional enzymes at 20^150 chance each, then 6*20^150 odds they match each other; and this is yet to account they must generate at the same relative time AND in the same place to interact. If not, it would continue to react, break down etc, and the entire thing would start from scratch! should we even try considering a dna short segment at 4^350,000,000 odds?? ( thats being generous, most are billions long )
even if somehow all that worked, the chemistry of these things forming Spontaneously doesnt work. Itd be much easier to say that with enough time a mixture of water and carbon dioxide would eventually spontaneously form oxygen and long chain hydrocarbons. No amount of time would ever do that, it just doesnt work like that...and im leaving out 99.998 %of the problems just mentioning the simpler ones here. Im not saying i know the answer, but i do feel believing something happened despite the overwhelming evidence against it is a huge waste of time. Itd be better to look for more fitting theories rather than trying so desperately to keep alive one long dead
But if the complexity was simple before, why it did not stay like that for at least a few organisms? Why don't it happen randomly all the time?
Unlikely DNA I’d recommend reading up on the world RNA hypothesis
Don't bring logic into this. But yeah this video has the same fault of most anti abiogenesis arguements, assuming that the first lifeforms came complete with perfect and efficient systems and that you need a perfect and efficient systems to survive, when neither are the case. Not to mention the whole comparing early life to the simplist life today, as if that would actually be a reasonable comparison and I haven't finished this video or there other ones but I'm sure they've probably made the terrible argument of improbable equals impossible.
When they say it's still possible they're basically claiming a fish could instantly turn into an elephant. The first cell phase ignores all of Darwin's ideas about "billions of years".
Sorry? Please explain the logic of your statement.
It’s not obvious to me how the video goes from “what if life didn’t use atp” -> “it must have been another complex process”. Complex amino acids have been found on asteroids, suggesting they may be naturally occurring. If some combination of amino acids could harness energy, then couldn’t energy harnessing may have been a simple process rather than a complex one?
Exactly. They don’t want to think about that one.
In theory sure. But considering that as a possibility and demonstrating it to be true are two very different things. I’m not saying it hasn’t been already because I have no idea. But if no one has ever seen it happen and we can’t even artificially reproduce it then it’s nothing more than speculation.
Finding amino acids here and there doesn’t make a protein. There are over 500 different types. Only 20 specific ones and 100% left handed forms (Essential in proteins folding into their 3D shapes and for metabolic functions, Chiral induced spin selectivity)are found in them. The average length protein is 400 amino acids long, specifically “spelled,” sequenced, oriented, alpha amino group-alpha carboxyl group. And energy is required to accomplish the peptide bond between every amino acid. So a mindless, process of trial and error in correctly assembling the correct and operative amino acids into an average protein is ridiculous pre ribosome and ATP synthase, which are molecular machines made of proteins. The simplest cell has 6.8 billion amino acids arranged in 42 million proteins. Trial and error could never get the “spelling” right.
@@vernonchitlen8958 so we’ve found several with a few people looking. Imagine what would be going on over the whole worlds oceans over hundreds of millions of years.
@@peteconrad2077 Imagine what you want. Scientists cannot sequester the 4 elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen of which amino acids are made separate from the other 94 naturally occurring elements. And induce a complete set of the 20 specific amino acids, 100% left handed sufficient for s single protein to form or even 2 amino acids to form a peptide bond. You think a prebiotic whatever including all 98 elements, these 4 elements assembling themselves into a protein possible? The 42 million proteins found in the simplest cell? Or add sulfur and phosphorus that makeup 97% of what cells are made. They could/would arrange themselves into DNA? It having a thousand times the information storage density, a 4 letter code compared to the zero’s and one’s, using 100,000,000 times less energy than the computers scientists are using to examine it with? Psalm 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well.
srch duons: researchers find second code hiding within dna
the debate here is interesting…. but i’m happy i finally found out how ATP works and life gets energy on a base level
@@ravent4123 thanks!
I think its worth noting --- ATP is moee involved in intermediary metabolism, and it has analogues. GTP, for example, is used in protein synthesis, (and GTPase is embedded in ribosomes, implying that it may have evolved very very early.)
Many organisms use H2 CO2 metabolism, a kind if autotrophic metabolism that can easily happen sans ATP, sans enzymes, and sans genes.
ATP is also geochemically synthesizable, so its all kind of a moot point.
@@peppermintgal4302
How does the fact that GTPase embedded in ribosomes imply that it EVOLVED at all? If "evolution" of such mechanism is required to be proven in the first place?
How does the existence of GTP and GTPase (complex bio-machinery) somehow handles the problems enlisted in the video?
What organisms DO NOT USE ATP-based energetic system?
There is no paradox! Your looking at the LATEST version of something that's been through a few million billion trillion bazillion revisions!
You can't prove that!
@@timothykeith1367 Yes, with the fossil record we have fossils dating from more than 3.5 billions years ago.
So yes it’s been a while since life has appeared.
@@timothykeith1367you are proof of that… evolution
No amount of time will cause life to come about without Intelligence. You pin all your hopes on time
You do an amazing job with your videos. Thanks for all the hard work. I'd love to see you continue your creations! Thanks again!
This is really well animated and narrated, your humor is really good too! There is a big problem with the script though - these simplest forms of life you’re talking about, the ones that use ATP synthase, are actually some of the most complex life on the planet. In fact - ATP synthase and the proton pump system with all the electron stripping is only present in mitochondria, a part of eukaryotic cells. Early cellular life more likely created ATP through glycolysis. A much simpler process that doesn’t require any complex machinery and can happen right in the middle of the cell’s internal soup. Just wherever. Life is currently believed to have started as a strand of free floating RNA that replicated by collecting bits of free floating RNA and assembling it into a self copy. They didn’t need input energy - assembling RNA is free under the right conditions, because pieces of RNA want to form longer strands if they’re given the chance to. Eventually, these strands found their way into cell membranes (which are really just fancy soap bubbles - the very basic form of a cellular membrane self assembles), and from there eventually transitioned from using RNA for everything to using proteins.
So there’s not really a problem with abiogenesis. Every milestone has a slow and gradual step leading up to it.
Hey Clayton, thanks for watching and the kind words! To address some of the things you brought up, even the simplest forms of life, including all prokaryotes, require ATP synthase. Nothing has ever been found that can live without ATP synthase. Methanogens and acetogens require ATP synthase. They don't use the respiratory complexes to pump protons across the membrane, they instead use a different complex array of enzymes to pump protons (via the Acetyl CoA pathway). Also, as stated in the video, fermenters use substrate level phosphorylation (which requires complex enzymes) to produce ATP, they still require ATP synthase as well as needing other forms of life to maintain their environment. So, fermenters have clearly taken a degenerative pathway to life, not a pathway of innovation advancing toward more complex life. Craig Venter's JVCI Syn3A, perhaps the simplest of all life, is a fermenter like this and has clearly taken a degenerative path to its existence.
The remainder of your comment expresses strong belief in hypothetical processes that are not supported by science. No one has ever seen a true self-replicating RNA. You also say "pieces of RNA want to form longer strands if they’re given the chance to." Do you have a reference for that claim? The prior video clarified why cell membranes must meet conflicting requirements that cannot be met by fancy "soap bubbles". I hope that you are able to give more serious consideration to the content of these videos.
@@LongStoryShortVideos yeah, you are wrong. But do tell, where in the bible is the process of DNA and RNA described.
@@DaviniaHill with all due respect simply having a statement stating that person is wrong "just because" and putting out statements no way associated with what he has presented, causes nothing but important academic studies to become emotionally charged, And is disrespectful to the time effort put into these discussions.
Instead of making wild claims, the appropriate action is to gather your facts and present a counter argument and to be properly evaluated.
Have a good day.
@@grimsunrise8561 nah, they are wrong. I don't need to write an academic paper.
@@DaviniaHill When did he bring up anything regarding the bible? Regardless, even if the bible is truthful, why would it include anything regarding dna or rna? Its purpose is not for science education.
The point about life requiring slightly alkali pH matches perfectly with the pH of blood which is 7.35 to 7.45.
Another reason hydrothermal vents simply don't work is because of it's water based environment. Water breaks down proteins into amino acids not connect them together.
"Goddidit" makes more sense.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6goIt kinda does
@@Pyr0Ben well, we know that proteins exist, and we know that amino acids exist, so we can start there. How do I start proving God exists?
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go Well "prove" is a strong word, you can only prove mathematical statements. But I can show you why the *evidence* points to a creator God, and not a natural cause.
We know:
Proteins exist
Proteins form life
Proteins can NOT form life without pre-existing genetic information.
Information cannot come from chaos; it requires a mind. Books don't write themselves, computers don't program themselves.
A single cell contains more information than any book and is more complex than any machine.
We can conclude that it is very likely that cells were created by a being more intelligent than any human.
Conversely, it is very unlikely that they formed through haphazard chemical reactions.
Again, I can't *prove* that it didn't happen naturally, but you can't prove that it did. It's just a matter of where the observational evidence points us to. And it doesn't point us to athiesm.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go, he made and connected them together and assigned to everysingle little atom a job that is so precise and perfect that your randomness would destroy it if it had even 1% authority over it!, its no secret that everything is perfected to a point that we have not even fully seen, as science progresses much more of this perfection is shown inshallah, so i am a muslim to That One that created and guided, i saw the world and thought, you saw the world and came up with quite literally the opposite of what you should think and what the signs tell you!, thats no way for a detective to work nor a human to think you, so yes it is a belief for me and you, but which belief makes more sense?,there must be a One powerful and eternal and All wise, the creation is quite literally miraculous just look at it and think,
There’s a lot of assumptions in what the first life on Earth would look like. The lines of what is orient alive aren’t clear now so I wouldn’t expect we know what all forms of life would look like.
There is something that cannot be denied, creationism marketing does evolve.
UA-cam was kind enough to recommend me this video, I guess because I like to watch scientific content. If you came here for the same reason as me, let me save you some time.
The creator of the video uses well-established scientific concepts but misrepresents them at every opportunity and imprints his biased personal opinion in to them, with the goal of confusing people and make them think that the origin of life or the atomic, chemical and eventually biological evolution have no scientific explanation whatsoever, or that the current explanation is absolutely implausible, which is certainly not the case.
Although he never mentions intelligent design, it is clear to me that this is exactly what he is selling.
In conclusion, fellow youtube citizen, if what you are looking for is a video with scientific content, you are not in the right place.
(sorry).
This should be voted to the top
Yeah, I got burned too.
Happy to respond to criticism of you have any specifics. What was misrepresented?
My dude. I cannot BEGIN to express how AMAZING your freaking videos are (pardon the French). I listen to these pro and anti God debates all day and all not long, and I have NEVER come across anything even remotely as fun, educational, entertaining, and down right AWESOME as yours!! Not only are you guys incredibly smart and intelligent but you are also HILARIOUS!! Your comedic timing and content is absolutely remarkable. I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to find you guys!! I just want you to know that people like myself are listening to what you are saying, and it is making a great impact on our lives, and I want to do everything in my power to say whatever it takes to make sure you never stop making these videos, because they are fundamentally EXCEPTIONAL!!! So please, I beg you to keep churning out more and more content, because you are changing peoples lives. THANKS SO MUCH!!!!
Oh stop, you're making me blush! (go on....) 😅 Thanks Alex!
We have a sample size of ONE remotely hospitable world, and it has life. And obviously it has live because we're here BECAUSE it has life.
The most intellectually honest position until hard numbers exist on how simple self-sustaining abiotic pre-replication (bubble nucleation, crystals, fire, exothermic reactions, mycelle nucleation, convection currents, very simple nucleic acid replication, etc, etc) is that *we don't know* the odds of this stuff happening. Just that it did and we got here from it. This stuff could happen in every lukewarm nutrient-rich brine pool left to its own devices for a few million years, or it could require incredibly specific conditions and still require one in a trillion luck to happen once in a billion years, and then get wiped out early on all but one out of every million times. We don't know. It could be there is a relatively straightforward ladder here that given the right conditions, leads to rapid chemical evolution as each subsequent energy source is burned out and new ones spur great leaps in complexity, with life of some form emerging forth as surely as lighting a match and putting it in gasoline leads to fire. Or it could be that there are several great filters even after you have the right conditions present. That you could wind back Earth's clock 4 billion years and try as many times as you want but never kickstart life any more than randomly assembling natural Uranium gets you nuclear explosives.
What we do know is that, however common or rare life is, life always sees a world with life. And intelligent life that can observe and rationalize that world with language and abstract thought will always see worlds of mind-boggling complexity of life with seemingly irreducible parts. This does NOT mean that these parts are evidence of anything but a series of pseudorandom steps with steps that ultimately don't lead anywhere being pruned.
Exactly, we dont know. With that said, why is random self generation from nothing the only possibility allowed and everything else is fairy tales??? If you dont know, then that also means you cant know how it didnt happen with any certainty, so auto rejecting any other possibilities that are different isnt being intellectually honest.
Furthermore, the self generating abiogenesis idea through recent discoveries is proving less and less probable, nearly to the point of being impossible. Chemistry doesnt work that way. Describe how a protein polymer forms (see other comment for details its too much to type again). This is an old theory before anything about a cell was even known, and now that it is known it shows how the theory simply doesnt work in every area. abiogenesis research has went on for 70 years, and theres been zero progress; in fact, the answer is further away now than it ever has been due to what weve learned about biochemistry.
All other old theories that new discoveries tear apart are dismissed to look for a better fitting model; why only this one is so desperately clung to when in all this time theres not ONE working model remotely close to describe the formation of basic precursor compounds, let along a complete living cell?
To have evolution even be possible you first must have life already present else theres nothing to evolve; chemicals do not evolve into more complex orderly compounds that defies all known laws of thermodynamics. Yet most suggest evolution created life; thats impossible because it works on living organisms. Anything outside of that about life's formation falls into the realm of philosophy, not science
Are you opposed to there being an intelligent designer?
@@Golfinthefamily is there evidence that we were magically designed?
@@charlestownsend9280 is there any evidence that nothing can create anything? Is there any evidence that a non-directed unintelligible source can create a digital code and a self-replicating machine?
@@Golfinthefamily the only people who claim that something came from nothing are religious people, maybe learn what science says before criticising it.
Why are you talking about digital code?
If by self replicating machines you mean biological ones, yes, the fact that we exist would indicate that.
None of your response is evidence that we came from magic though and disproving abiogenesis or evolution or the big bang doesn't automatically prove god/magic.
There are lots of ways to harness energy without complex molecular machines. Modern life "needs" complex molecular machines only in the sense that it IS a complex molecular machine.
There is lots of evidence that these machines were much simpler in the past, for instance, it is likely that proteins are a relatively recent invention. DNA is transcribed into mRNA, which is the template used to make protein out of amino acids carried by tRNA and assembled into proteins inside the ribosome, which has rRNA as it's core. In fact, ATP itself is a building block of RNA, it's just an Adenosine with two extra phosphates. So it's likely that before proteins, life ran on RNA alone, and there was likely an RNA equivalent of ATP synthetase, a much simpler less efficient equivalent that has since died out.
Funny how this video doesn't mention any of that, nor does it provide evidence for why ATP has to be made by the complex ATP synthetase. Saying that this is how it is made now, does not prove there isn't a billion other ways to make it.
The entire "paradox" claim is pretty stupid. Before the modern synthetase, there was a slightly simpler one. And before that, there was a simpler one still. etc. etc. Just like every other evolutionary creation. It's no more a "paradox" than the fact that you need a computer to design a microchip, and yet it's impossible to build a computer without microchips. The "paradox" only exists because of ignorance: early computers didn't use microchips, and early microchips were simple enough to design without computers. But will anyone still remember this fact in 10 million years? How about 10 billion?
TLDR: Just because you don't know how ancient life made ATP, doesn't mean there is no possible way to make it. Proving that there is no way to make it will take more than just disproving some bad hypotheses, you would need to disprove ALL possible hypotheses.
"Just because you don't know how ancient life made ATP, doesn't mean there is no possible way to make it". Of course, the old evolution of the gaps. That's always fun ;-)
"Proving that there is no way to make it will take more than just disproving some bad hypotheses, you would need to disprove all possible hypotheses".
Not quite, there's a hypothesis that you aren't willing to entertain. Presumably because it's not "possible". But out of the two positions of demanding an indefinite number of explanations to be disproven before they're even given, and putting forward a single supernatural explanation, which one is more intellectually honest?
@@frankdayton731 Thing is, that's pretty much how all knowledge works. In order to understand how this message got on your screen, you would need to learn several lifetimes worth of information (computer science, electronics, materials science, civil engineering etc. etc.)
And until you do, someone can always say, well, I am glad you explained X, but what about Y? You are missing Y! For example, someone, when you give you brief description of now internet works they can go: Sure, that's how signals got to your computer, but how could your computer ever decode them fast enough?! Sure, that's how they got from your modem to your computer, but how could they ever travel around the world?! Sure, they could travel around the world, but how could you possibly have billions of users at once?! On and on.... Until every single piece of the puzzle is perfectly understood. We are not there yet with evolution, or biology, not even close... we don't even know how much more we have left to learn.
The problem with supernatural "explanations" is that they are not explanations at all. They are not testable. Put another way, they make no concrete predictions.
Evolution makes solid predictions. For example: evolution predicts that if all life on earth is related, the various organs and systems of different closely related species will work in a similar way. So you can do stuff like test drugs on dogs and rats, and expect these drugs to work on people. You can even measure how closely related animals are, and which systems diverged and how much, and using that you can pick a good species for developing one drug or another.
Same with abiogenesis. It predicts the conditions under which life can start up. Which would allow us to determine how common such conditions may be, and where to look for life outside of the earth.
And we are looking. So far we found nothing in the solar system, but the James Webb space telescope just came online, and that thing can determine the type chemical compositions of atmospheres of planets orbiting other stars. The research into primitive forms of life and abiogenesis can help us decide which markers to look for and how to interpret the gaseous compositions we find.
Supernatural "explanations", not so much.
@@Yura135 the internet, microchips, and fiber optic cables all have easily documentable development histories and rational explanations. Someone would have to be intentionally intellectually dishonest to keep putting up the objections you cited. Abiogensis has no such explanations or documentation, so no you can't make "predictions" from that theory because you literally have no idea what the first life forms were or the exact conditions to produce them. And more importantly you have no idea how the modern cell came to be, how (and why) DNA developed, none of that.
A Supernatural explanation is not magic, it is simply the theory that a being/entity exists outside of the laws of the physical universe. Or to put it differently, *transcends* such laws. They would have to exist by necessity in order to create and maintain said laws. Did the mathematical formulations for gravity predate the creation of hydrogen and helium or are they a result of those elements existence? Surely one had to give rise to the other, and it's nonsensical to think that an object created the very forces which maintains it's structure. To believe that is to believe in your own version of a self perpetuating god, but a non eternal material god.
@@frankdayton731 All abiogenesis theories/hypotheses make predictions. That's why this video is possible in the first place. All it is doing is looking at the predictions some of these hypotheses make (e.g. early life would needs a source of energy, this source of energy has to exist on earth, early life would need to convert energy to ATP) and testing these predictions to disprove these hypotheses. It is easy to disprove a given abiogenesis hypothesis, especially if it is not a very good one, and the video does a great job of it. But disproving them all is a very different task, as there aren't dozens, or hundreds, or billions of them. The space of all possible abiogenesis hypothesis is currently unbounded. We don't even know how many there are, the number could very well be infinite, or even a higher category of infinite. Disproving a few dozen and then making a logical leap that all of them are wrong is just that, an unsubstantiated logical leap.
On the flip side, supernatural explanations are not explanations at all, because they make no testable predictions. If a supernatural being outside of laws of physics created life, what does that tell us about life that we can test to disprove this hypothesis? And more importantly, what concrete thing do we learn about the world? Does it mean life only exists on earth? Does it mean it only exists on earth-like planets? Can it exist on Mars, or Europa, or asteroids? We don't know. Since we can't prove or disprove anything about this supernatural being (up to and including the existence of this being), we learn nothing about where, how or why this being might have created life, or what shape these creations take. It's a non explanation. There is no information content there. It's just an elaborate "don't worry about it".
As for your "internet documentation" argument, that's like saying it's impossible for life to start on earth because we don't have the manual or any documentation for how it happened. Yeah, we don't have any documentation. We have no idea how it happened, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. We don't have any documentation for how Egyptians built the pyramids, or how Leonardo developed his inventions. Would you say those things are also impossible without supernatural explanations? Are all things we don't currently understand "impossible" without supernatural intervention?
Long story short, science is not religion and religion is not science. The clear delineation is this: is this hypothesis testable? Can you come up with a test that would disprove it? If not, your are not doing science. If yes, run that test. If it failed, you have a scientifically demonstrated this hypothesis to be false. If not, you failed to demonstrate it is false, come up with another test. Maybe eventually, after many tests where it fails to be proven false, you can upgrade your hypothesis to a theory. And that is as much certainty as you will ever get in science: after many tests, there is no known test to prove a given idea wrong. Nothing is ever proven right, everything is forever in doubt and up for revision at any time. All it takes is 1 failed test.
@@Yura135 "But disproving them all is a very different task, as there aren't dozens, or hundreds, or billions of them. The space of all possible abiogenisis hypothesis is currently unbounded."
This is circular reasoning which takes it as an apriori assumption that abiogenisis *must* be true. That's the only way you can get infinite theories, because one of them has got to be the correct one. I am challenging the very premise that life spontaneously generated itself. You have to believe it did because you deny a creator exists, I don't. A Hindu can give me a thousand theories why vishnu is real, that only says something about the workings of that person's mind, and really not much about objective reality.
My proposition is that an entity( regardless of what you want to call it) had to predate the conditions for life to exist in order to give rise to those very conditions. There's no disproving that logical assertion, there's just ignoring it or dismissing the person who makes it.
I dont know if you will read this or not (you probably wouldnt read this and probably wouldnt notice because im 1 years late) so the question is what happened to the ethanol or lactic acid if the organism live near hydrothermal vent or would the hydrothermal vent still deadly or life sustaining if the organism live near hydrothermal vent ? and how can the amino acid self assemble into protein ?
One's faith is not compromised through accepting that the Lord takes good time. Natural evolution IS natural creation.
This is the only religious comment in the entire comments section that is actually reasonable. Well done.
I am not at all religious myself but I will pay this comment as reasonable too.
I received my b.s. in biology 20 years ago; and I was also of the mind, for most of my life from then forward, that evolution was the creation process of the Creator; and for most of my life since then, I felt satisfied with this thought-school merger, which i surmised to be true; and I was even prideful in my thinking, relative to this proposition of mine. I now know better, regarding both this and many other relevant truths that I assumed to be true for so long. All I will say further, concerning this issue, is that the arrogance of youth can only be penetrated by a willful and deliberate turn of one's heart and mind toward humility towards the Lord and a love for truth, absent all forms of pride; because, like it or not, the Almighty blinds the prideful to the truth; and, no matter how convincing and/or lopsided the arguments in favor of the truth may be, no amount of effort to communicate the truth will succeed in convincing such a person who has been given over to their deceptions by Him. This process can neither be understood nor its truth be believed by anyone prior to each individual having already crossed that rubicon, as herein aforementioned.
Peace and Blessings to you, dear reader.
Ok, then what is the process or origin of life? I assume you must still think it’s some natural process of non living to living matter and not supernatural magic. Curious to know if you have preferred hypothesis? We do know it was a natural part of the Universe.
What do you mean by "we do know it was a natural part of the universe"? The universe is not an active contributor, it's a terminology for the expanse of the cosmos, like a field, or a mountain, or a beach, it's just a cosmographic location.
And please tell me what "we KNOW", and how we "KNOW" it is so?
I don't know why you assume he thinks there was a natural process involved. The logical fallacy of Irreducible Complexity is a favorite among creationists. He just didn't _say_ "therefore God did it" -- he wants to let the doubt linger in the minds of the undecided, until they give up and accept creationism as being the only way to solve the problem of abiogenesis, because a magical solution doesn't hurt their brains as much as the alternatives. It's the exact same strategy as religious people asking non-religious people "but what if you're wrong?"
@@Alfred5555 We do not know of anything outside the universe and we know that we are made up of only material that we find elswhere in the universe.
So by the knowledge we have, then "we know".
Unless you are talking supernatural beings and events, which just moves the burden. Then we have to discuss how this supernatural entity, or event, made us, where it came from and how that event or entity came to be.
@@fredrikfjeld1575 : There is no such thing as "outside the universe", just like there is no such thing as "before the beginning of time".
@@deusexaethera which is my point?
good videos, do you mention mutation rate of the curvature of the retina or can anyone reference anything about this please
It was recently proven that basaltic glass catalyzes the production of RNA when it comes into contact with water containing basic organic molecules. Those basic organic molecules are themselves self-assembling and can be found all over the solar system, even on asteroids where there's no atmosphere. Cell membranes aren't necessary for abiogenesis, only some kind of semi-secure pocket that can help contain complex molecules while they interact; microscopic pores in the same basaltic glass mentioned previously (with tiny holes exposing them to the outside) will suffice just fine, as anyone who has ever lived indoors can tell you that nooks and crannies tend to accumulate all kinds of crap. All of this lends credibility to the volcanic-vent model for abiogenesis.
No, that isn't the case. Why? Because RNA isn't life under any circumstance.
@@sentientflower7891 Life is a purely chemical process. RNA is a component of life. All of the basic elements of abiogenesis were present in the early Earth.
The experiment you're referring to (Jerome CA et al. Astrobiology 2022: 6; doi.org/10.1089/ast.2022.0027 ) required implausibly high concentrations of pure reactants, and the harnessed energy source (cyclic trimetaphosphate) could not be generated in a prebiotic world. It may be true that racemic mixtures of nucleotides can be found naturally in the universe, but what about the vast preponderance of other organic molecules that dilute these desired nucleotides? And, what about the fact that RNA naturally degrades rapidly? These problems aside, the linked nucleotides they generated in the experiment are not biologically relevant due to high percentages of the wrong type of bonds and the branching that took place in their formation. For any hope of replication of the RNA, the nucleotides that make up the RNA must be bonded correctly and have the correct chirality. Reality simply does not agree with the image you portray.
@@JAMESLEVEE seriously, have you thought about what it precisely means for a cell to be alive? None of the molecules essential to life are alive outside the context of a cell. All of the molecules essential to life - in a pure form such as if you happened to harvest them directly from living cells - placed in a pure sterile solution within a flask are not alive, nor could they become alive under any circumstance over any time period.
@@LongStoryShortVideos nice try, but...no. There were so many methods available for self-replicating molecules fo form on the early Earth, many of them simultaneously occurring, that it is only a matter of time before we can replicate the natural process in a laboratory. To which your response will be that it doesn't count because it was done in a lab. To which the obvious answer is, if it was God, and only God, who can create life, why can we do it at all?
Truly understanding the scale of time involved with the changes from the simplest unknown form of repeating information to more complex structures of life. Think about the number of ATP reactions per second you discussed and then try to imagine how many occur in a year, ten years, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, a million, ten million, a hundred million, a billion, etc. The number of recombinations in molecules leads to life as a sheer inevitability of time… and if it doesn’t seem possible, you’re not truly grasping how big those numbers are.
Yeah, I could tell it was some sort of religious "propaganda"(I don't think that word works here entirely) about a 3rd of a way through. He'd just say it's a half baked explanation
It requires some amount of faith to believe that objects can be dated billions of years old, no?
@@lukerosie4383 no.
Apparently, YOU fail to grasp the complexity of the numbers. In order to get life, ALL these processes must be met, in order. No matter how many times one of these processes occurs, the chances of occurring at the precise moment needed, would require multitudes of times more occurrences. Your chances of hitting every single lottery drawing during your entire lifetime is more likely. Those are the odds against life occurring naturally, without help.
@@OneTruePhreak "without help" meaning god? God requires infinitely more assumptions than abiogenesis
The acid water and alkali minerals in the earth’s early hydrothermal vents easily provided the energy gradient you deny was available.
We are not denying that an energy gradient was available - we are denying that it could have been properly harnessed to produce only constructive chemical reactions, and that it had sufficient energy density to start life.
@@robstadler927 On what basis?
@@robstadler927 It probably didn't construct only productive reactions. But the productive reactions were productive and continued to happen. The unproductive ones just weren't productive. There's no goal, things just happen.
@@WolfFang884 actually, unproductive reactions produce a lot of useless garbage that would inhibit progress toward life, and destructive reactions could also occur with the molecules that could progress toward life.
Can you do one on Chrial induced spin selectivity?
*Chiral
Enjoying ATP right now. 😁
So what is your hypothesis for the origin of life? I spotted a few issues within this video but I'm just curious to know what you believe if life didn't originate from natural processes?
Well if Simulation Theory is correct then our laws of physics are inherent only in the Simulation... life would, also, have been generated via said Simulation. I.E. it would have been programmed into said Simulation, or it would not happen.
Incidentally this means that, if Simulation Theory is correct... then Creationists are correct. Simply not for the reason that they think.
@@thalastianjorus I wonder if you would know, when a computer program is "created" or "turned on" what is the detailed energy transfer? Does it look anything similar to how our world appears to of started?
@@Alfred5555 quite possibly, in fact, especially in a procedurally generated simulation. As the simulation begins it would immediately inflate that simulation with data in order to begin said procedural generation. To begin such programs need an incredible number of "dice rolls" to begin constructing order out of the seeming chaos of mixed variables and rules - which at first will look extremely chaotic as they're so 'close' to each other. All that they begin with is certain limitations, and it then 'explodes' outward from the designated 0,0,0 coordinate. It does this because, when first starting, all of its limitations are quite obvious. As it expands these limitations become more uniform across the system.
Think of the game Star Citizen. When they first initiated the servers they established a 0,0,0 coordinate. Once they initiated the generation server it flooded the server with creations. As one observes more of the interior of the game - the server continues to generate more and more for there to be observed... within the limitations of that game.
He absolutely doesn't believe it originated from natural processes. He's using the logical fallacy of Irreducible Complexity, which is a favorite tactic among creationists. He just isn't _saying_ "therefore God did it", because he's letting doubt linger in the minds of the undecided until they give up and choose to accept creationism as the only plausible explanation, because a magical solution absolves them of needing to understand how it actually works.
@@deusexaethera Well said! I also picked up hints of the Fine Tuning argument.
The first life probably wasn't a modern methanogen, acetogen, fermenter, or modern organism of any kind. It was probably so much simpler it relied on different molecular machinery in general. The kind that would only really work if there is no competition from anything but literally bubbles and rocks.
The real problem isn't competition from other life forms. There's actually much more co-operation than competition involved in the complex ecosystems of today. It would harder, not easier for life to survive without a bio-environment.
You are suggesting an imaginary entity. There is no scientific evidence to support your suggestion. In fact, all evidence goes against your suggestion. You suggest that life started with a simpler organism that could live completely independently, but we know that the opposite must be true - organisms that can survive on their own, like the bacterium Desulforudis audaxviator, must have MORE complex metabolisms, because they must handle all of the necessary metabolic activity on their own, without the ecological synergy of other organisms. See the previous videos in this series for more about that.
@@JM-jj3eg Exactly - well said!
@@LongStoryShortVideos what about chemosynthetic bacteria?
@@LongStoryShortVideos You must take into account that the environment back then was different. Life has changed the environment a lot since it appeared, like how it cause the great oxydation event.
Steven Myers’s answer to the impossible hypothesis of life from non life , “ irreducible complexity”
You’re comparing modern day eukaryotic cells, which took over a billion years to evolve with the first stages of prebiotic life, this is not an apt comparison. We’ve have demonstrated many possible pathways for simple, rudimentary analogs. Someone else mentioned non enzymatic ribose/rna synth, we’ve also recently demonstrated how autocatalytic molecules/sets can form from simple sodium isotopes and electricity, which go on to synthesize/catalyze more complex compounds without any template or blueprint. Chemical system evolution is more plausible than this video makes it out to be, by far.
There is no such thing as prebiotic life.
@@sentientflower7891 yeah, meant the first stages of life from a prebiotic environment
@@sumo1203 Your refutation also mentioned eukaryotic cells, where the video actually refers only to the simplest forms of prokaryotic life. Did you watch the part about the methanogens and acetogens? Even JVCI Syn3A, the simplest known (human manipulated) cell, requires ATP synthase and the complexity of this video in order to harness energy.
Perhaps you can provide a reference, if you intend to show that raw energy can be used to build complex molecules and reverse the detrimental effects of that same energy source.
@@robstadler927 even the first prokaryotic cells are vastly more complex then the first autocatalytic self templating molecule sets would have been. ATP synthesis is not required in all chemical systems.
Even the membranes discussed in this video are vastly more complex than what’s discussed in literature - we’ve been abele to demonstrate lipids self assembling into barriers that could act as a rudimentary membrane to protect catalytic reactions. Much simpler, rudimentary beginnings.
“Spontaneous formation of autocatalytic sets with self-replicating inorganic metal oxide clusters” - demonstrates how complex molecules are synthesized without any template or blueprint from autocatalytic sets derived from simple beginnings, sodium isotopes and electricity.
ATP synthesis is certainly required for more advanced cells, and there is research investigating possible pathways and problems.
“Modeling of abiotic ATP synthesis in the context of problems of early biosphere evolution”
The question is by no means solved, and the specific route life took on this planet may never be answered, but given the current trend, I’m confident we will have full demonstrable pathways for systems Chemistry evolving into base level autocatalytic/self templating molecules/rudimentary cells.
@@sumo1203 Thanks for your response and references. You present possibilities that are distinctly separated from known life, but they are apparently sufficient for you to adopt abiogenesis as the inference to best explanation for life.
For example, Lee Cronin admits that no one knows how self-replication arose, so he decided to show how inorganic molybdenum oxides can form autocatalytic sets. In my opinion, that comes across as an admission of futility.
Given your willingness to derive encouragement from this kind of data, I’m wondering: Is there any kind of future evidence discovery (hypothetical) that could possibly convince you that natural processes could not have started life?
This is a relatively good point. There's some good videos of scientists saying similar things. But even the scientists saying this point admit that the cells we see now may not look at all like the origin of life. In fact we're pretty sure it doesn't. Just as we now rarely use steam to power trains. We just need 1 simpler process literally just 1 and given enough time and multiplied by every planet that could produce this simpler process then we apply the anthropic principle it becomes increasingly likely.
And that was the answer all along. Funny how a person tried to use science to prove that science is wrong.
Is there a documented/cited source for this 1 simpler process theory?
I don't remember him saying that science itself is wrong, where/when did this occur? Is it not scientific exploration and progress to continually critically examine (and test if possible) and potentially reformulate as time goes on?
No no we still do use steam to power trains. The steam engine is no longer attached to the train, but the electricity that not moves the train was generated from a steam engine. As was all electricity we use.
@@tommyj4465 1. that's the problem with ongoing research, we don't have the answers to everything
2. You are correct, but this guy (in the video), while not outright proposing it, kinda implies that something else than a natural process is necessary to get the complexity of live. I might be wrong, but the undertone sounds like Intelligent design to me. Considering the ways he phrased natural processes and time.
I love your videos! Please make one about the evidence for human evolution. I’m curious what you think about the dna mixing from Neanderthals etc.
Mmmmm DNA mixing 😘
Oh you mean the less than 2 percent of our dna that resembles Neanderthals. And how we’re more closely related to bananas.
Hey I’ve been watching a lot of your videos and I’m curious as to what you think the origin of life was.
Are you religious or are you just explaining that our current ideas are flawed?
I don’t think he’ll answer that question either way because it doesn’t really affect the validity of his arguments but either way it would be treated as though it did.
@@withlessAsbestos You’re right, but the weakness of those arguments makes the answer the OP is seeking rather obvious.
This seems like a pretty textbook Christian apologist channel to me.
@@pelicanantics9812 I think it is fair that to say that it has signs of Christian Apologism, however typically Christian Apologetics is focused primarily on theology and secondarily on scientific argumentation. The Creator of this channel even outright refused to have a theological discussion in one of his videos.
@@anhedonianepiphany5588 The same could be said for nearly any other unrepeatable condition of nature.
For a video that sounds smart, it's incredibly naive. :(
I'm guessing it was designed to mislead by posing as an attempt to inform and educate.
Can you be more specific as to what is naive? I've looked at both sides and the evidence indicates that the current origin of life paradigm is the naive position. At least we agree that I sound smart 🤓🤣
EXCELLENT VIDEO.
I know this channel will go far if you keep it up!
Can't thank you enough. I have over twenty grandchildren and five great grandchildren and it is videos like this that will show our children there are questions and processes that evolution cannot and does not answer. Smart stuff. ID way to go.
Are you going to make a video responding to youtube critic comments?
Why? UA-cam comments shouldn’t be taken seriously
He actually does this (see his previous videos), just takes time of course and not all can be answered (everyone has lives), but he seems to do a pretty good job at responding to the criticisms which have the most well thought out and researched counters which are at least remotely objectively-based. Its also important to note that most of the criticisms though seem to come from those who have not watched the video entirely/thoroughly and/or have not checked out the referenced material he provides, so it's pointless to respond to those whose answers would come in those forms (ie already provided, burden of proof).
Yep, if there are any substantive video replies I'll frequently reply to them. Feel free to post links to any video replies and I'll see if they're worth making a response video on. Thanks!
This
@@LongStoryShortVideos Ok :)
Awesome! Do you ever do debates with evolutionary biologists?
(Opinion) Sometimes debates can be counterproductive, for instance if a person really does know and places great importance on being accurate, what they're talking about but it takes them time to research, then they don't usually perform well in debates and then fall victim to the audience's approval of their social performance. Debates have their place, but it seems like they don't usually provide quite the platform for multi-sided, respectful discussion that they purport to provide, they usually devolve into ridicule and condescension which are wholly unproductive human tendencies that prove nothing but the fact that we humans are pretty dumb.
Perhaps it's better sometimes just to provide all sides and then let people learn and decide on their own, thereby increasing their knowledge of many sides in the process.
Very very rarely are debates anything but counter-productive
With the arguments given in this video, he won't beat a high school biology teacher.
Perhaps its good that naysayers go out there and try to learn about it, but from where he learned such nonsense I can only wonder.
For people on both sides of this equation, I implore you to study the natural sciences, surly how did we arise is fascinating to everyone as it shapes our views on the world we live in, but a word of advice, physics, biology and chemistry are one and the same. We only draw a line between them because there are some things more relevant for lab workings while others are for astrophysical calculations, in other words, for practicality.
Finally, and quite sadly, to get the full picture going to university for it is really mandatory and it will take years, but I am sure there are viable online courses out there for specific topics, but this video is not one of them. Cheers!
That's quite the claim.
Can you give a point by point evaluation and comparison, to show how the points objectively stack up against an average high school biology teacher?
There are no evolutionary biologists equipped to debate abiogenesis. Try to find one.
Thanks for taking time to create and edit these videos. It’s clear that a lot of work goes into their production.
He also conveniently leaves out a lot of information that proves him wrong.
@@sam5992could you please share some of this information?
@@robstadler5043 He's not addressing the fact that many of his arguments are just another form of the bunk "irreducible complexity" argument. Each bit of ATP synthase evolved separately with secondary or tertiary functions.
And it's funny that he keeps saying that ATP is needed for ATP synthesis, but also admits later on that ATP CAN be synthesized spontaneously. And it only takes a little bit of it to bootstrap the process.
@@sam5992 Thanks for responding and providing some details on your claims that the video “leaves out a lot of information that proves him wrong.” Please understand that I am not here to try to prove you wrong - I am here to get at the truth.
You make the claim that “Each bit of ATP synthase evolved separately with secondary or tertiary functions.” This is quite a strong claim, so I’m assuming you have much to back that up?
Although it is possible to make an argument for homology between portions of ATP synthase and other enzymes, I believe that the evidence to support your claim is quite weak in comparison to the strong confidence that you convey. John Walker won the Nobel Prize for ATP Synthase in 1997 and has studied it for 40 years, and he offers no specifics of how it came about, except a generic plea to the power of evolution. Nick Lane is also quite an expert on ATP synthase and a strong believer that natural selection produced ATP synthase, but I’ve never heard any detailed explanation from him; certainly no experimental support.
Then you indicate that the video claims “that ATP is needed for ATP synthesis, but also admits later that ATP can be synthesized spontaneously.” The video correctly states that ATP is needed to produce ADP, and ATP is needed to manufacture ATP synthase. I’m not sure which of these two points you are addressing. Please let me know if I have it wrong, but it seems like you are stating that the video makes incorrect statements because substrate-level phosphorylation is known to convert ADP to ATP?
There are two key points here: 1) ADP must first be produced before substrate-level phosphorylation could convert ADP to ATP, but the production of ADP does require ATP. 2) No known form of life can live without ATP synthase. Even if substrate-level phosphorylation is used to produce ATP, ATP synthase is needed to produce the essential proton gradient, by consuming ATP and running in reverse.
I can see that you hold strong beliefs, and you would like to prove that the video is wrong, but I don’t see the evidence for your beliefs. Rather than showing that the video “leaves out a lot of information that proves him wrong”, it may be your claims that are missing important information.
This is not physics, it is chemistry. Very few organic chemists think this (abiogenesis) is even possible.
Great points that I had begun to focus in on before seeing this video. This is the final killer blow against origin of life theories because no cellular process can work without energy that is carefully directed to do useful work. So even if a fully formed cell and DNA or RNA complex miraculously formed by chance, it would immediately decay because it would be instantly starved of energy without ATP and the complex enzymes needed to create ATP and to release the energy from ATP in a controlled and functionally-directed manner. There is no way around this problem - life could not have started through random, inorganic processes! The evidence is clear, there must be an infinite, super-intellect who designed and created all the complex biochemistry required to support life!
GREAT content 👏🏼 this channel is so underrated 📈
Whatever I am doing, I get notified of a newly released Long Story Short, I come rushing in....
👏YES!
At funeral: would you like to give the elegy ye…
Phone: buzz
HOLD UP!
I love how u explain such complicated topics in an entertaining and understandable way
The claim about all lifeforms utalizing the three specific respiratory chain complexs mentioned in the video is incorrect. Respiratory chain variation is a very real thing, especially among prokaryotes. Even for organisms that utalize the same type of respiration you can still have respiratory chain variation. For example the respiratory chains of aerobic archaea and eukaryotic mitochondria have major differences. Suggesting they developed differently.
Also, not all lifeforms need chemosomotic coupling for survival. For example, Obligate fermenters lack the ability to carry out chemosmotic coupling. Instead they utalize fermentation for ATP synthesis. In fact, the first forms of metabolism were most likely forms of fermentation. Chemosynthetic coupling would have developed later, most likely as a response to the biuld up of acidic waste products produced by many forms of fermentation. The development of protiens that export hydrogen ions could have help with the matinace of cellular pH. Over the generations, these ancerstral proton pumps could have been tweaked to form a simple respiratory chain.
Here is some sources if you would like to read up more on these topics.
For the Development of respiratory chains
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26849/
For the respiratory chains of aerobic archaea
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC103747/
There’s no reason atp is needed for the first, most basic forms of “life” or self replicating molecules. It’s a stupid assumption only a creationist would make, because they assume life is created in place and then try coming up with poor justifications for that belief.
Technically there’s no reason God didn’t use science to create life. It would have been just easier for him to do so spontaneously, but on the other hand, less fun, both for him and us find this stuff out.
@@connorhaley3190 Technically there’s no reason the Splange Fairy didn’t gobbledy gobbledy and accidentally flummup life into existence. But until there is some evidence of such a thing occurring I see no reason to believe in it.
@@connorhaley3190 or god creating the world the way he did (with what we see from fossils and reasoning) WAS the easiest way. I mean what does God care that humans think it’s too long and complicated. “All knowing” no? No difference if it took a trillion years of a second
There is no evidence for that. It’s on you to prove that assertion.
All you did was state what all evolutionists state... why not try to bring up counter arguments to prove him wrong? it should be easy since you are SOOOO confident you are right. how else did the most basic forms of life get energy?
Again, you gotta love how relentless commenters like Shawn Elliot and others constantly attempt to paint LSS as a Christian in order to paint his arguments/objections as illegitimate. Genuine and honest people who are seeking the truth will respond to the claims of the video rather than demeaning said claims by painting the creator of said claims as a creationist. But even with all of that said, so what if he is a creationist? You can be objectively right about something even if you have a slight bias towards it and that’s not just limited to science. Maybe, just maybe, upon further examination, you proponents of macroevolution genuinely have more faith to believe what you believe than those who believe in God because of how unequivocally absurd the idea of the universe as well as life beginning on its own is completely illogical and circular in reasoning (you guys believe nature is the explanation for nature but for that to hold any water the evidence would have to suggest the universe is eternal which it’s not so by definition there has to be a supernatural explanation of nature.) This is not a God of the gaps argument, this is an argument of logic and reason. Time, space, and matter are co-relative. None of the three can exist if all three are not present at the same time so using logic and logic ONLY we have already arrived at an entity of some sort that created space, time, and matter simultaneously in such a way that the laws of physics are arranged just right in order for the universe to even function the way it does, but on top of that for life to be able to begin and have the exponential amount of factors that allow life on this planet to not only survive but thrive the way it does. I have yet to quote the Bible once but using the common sense and logic God gave ALL of us I have come to the conclusion that beyond a reasonable doubt that there exists a space less, timeless, immaterial, powerful, and intelligent being that created the universe. Sounds a lot like what we would call God huh?
Seek and you WILL find.
God bless all who read this✝️
The arguments are illegitimate regardless of their religious origin. You discredit your own denial of the religious aspect when you end with “god bless”
I think that abiogenesis makes much more sense than the Christian creation theory.
@@jackthaller7151
God gives you the free will to have your own opinion
@@caseyconnell9336
Elaborate on how their illegitimate other than just saying so
@@an.d.m.a
Nah. The argument is that we know something COULD NOT have happened on its own (the creation of the first living thing) which does in fact point towards a common designer or at least proves that abiogenesis is incredibly illogical and a pseudoscience. I’ll give you props though you have a lot more faith than I do to believe that mindless, random processes resulted in such complexity and incredible design👏
I think it would be worth mentioning that anger, insults, or other things that may be more motivated by emotions than anything else don’t solve any issues at hand and may end up worsening existing issues and/or creating new ones, regardless of which side of the argument you take.
Agreed. I remember multiple arguments where two people kept arguing without even talking about the original issue and just insulting each other.
Atheists love ad hominum attacks rather than admit that DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY!
They can't argue from reason and must insult to FEEL victorious in their minds. I used to be an atheist. The LIES are exhausting.
The thing is when one side is purposely misrepresenting the science and being deceptive it can cause significant problems within society. And this isn't an accident, its a conscious attempt to decieve.
At one point (ADP and ATP) this video states that we all can't generate energy at all ever. Then goes back to abiogenesis without addressing that we are not all dead.
Yes, so maybe abiogenesis is actually not possible.
@@robstadler927 you have missed the point. If we can't make ATP we can't live.. now. Forget how we got here, we wouldn't be turning food into energy and thus would all die as soon as we ran out.
@@raywhite9069 I agree that if we can't make ATP we can't live. That is the point you wish to make, or is there something deeper?
@@robstadler927 yes
@@robstadler927ATP can be produced geochemically and there are many analogues used by modern life, anyways, like GTP, (used by ribosomes, and thus, probably more relevant to OoL... and also something that can be produced geochemically. And I'm not sure that it or ATP are used when the RNA subunits reproduce, anyways? I'll have to look that up.)
Lmao, another creationist pushes misinformation, why am I not surprised 🤨 🙄
You’re probably going to need to be a bit more specific in your critique old chum.
Wait a minute, why do you assume the earlier non-ATP system was complex?
He kind of says that they don't exist.....
Let me guess - you think magic skydaddy did it is a simpler explanation. You just have an update on the argument-by-lack-of-imagination about evolution of the eye. Come on now, that's 19th C stuff.
Do you have a source for this original argument that you purport he just updated?
Also I don't think he mentioned anything about "magic skydaddy", but you're free to guess what you wish.
@@tommyj4465 you're playing dumb here that's of course what he meant. It's not like we haven't seen it before.
So now it's insults, can't we talk about the video's contents on their own merit objectively?
There’s two theories
1: abiogenesis
2: magic
@@jackthaller7151 There are more theories than that. But if we were to take your suggestion, then we would have to conclude it's by magic.... I guess you could call it that.
Regardless of what you call it, you cannot reasonably ignore the unsolved problems for abiogenesis. I mean, you could ignore them, but not if you're gonna follow logic and reason. You'd just be making things up as you go.
I don't know about you, but "magic" seems to me to be more reasonable and reliable than baseless fabrications. As far as any of us know, "magic" could be a type of logic or science we don't/can't understand.
No, I don't actually think it's "magic". Just design. Like a watch.
Can’t wait for an evolution of the gaps theory from the evolution crowd
The more we look into things the more we realise how little we know. Thank you for this video
Interesting video. But didn't list a single alternative to abiogenesis.
He didn't list a single alternative to abiogenesis, but he was implying one very, very loudly. He just prefers to let doubt linger in the minds of the undecided, until they give up and accept creationism as the only plausible explanation, because a magical solution absolves them of needing to actually understand how it works.
I'm really enjoying the comments section. The anger, the frustration, the name-calling, the appeals to imagination, lack of engagement on the specifics. Very entertaining. If you're getting people this worked up, you must be doing something right.
no one is angry
That is possibly the exact opposite of the truth
Not really. This one has at least 75% of people complimenting the guy who made the vid and the rest are having healthy discussions.
I don’t know if you read the same things I did.
@@theangrysuchomimus5163 I was replying to JM not frozenweevil.
I'm not talking about all the comments or even most of them, but a significant fraction nevertheless.
You can’t even start discussing abiogenesis until you have a definition of what is life. Schrodinger defined it as something that can extract negative entropy from its environment in his book “What is life?”. It is a deceptively simple definition.
So if what is the replacement theory? If these creators created life did they make the state of life during the cambrian and then leave evolution to do the rest? Did all animals get created at once despite no evidence for this? Or do these creators design the traits of every creature born and then only change things slightly and gradually in a way that lines up with the evolution theory? If the last one is true then how does it survive Occam's razor? Just curious.
I suspect he's pushing young earth creationism. His video list includes stuff attempting to rebutt whale evolution.
This video is also... not great. ATP has several analogues, and both it and many of its analogues can be produced geochemically.
Mercy!... Simply amazing that people don't realize... all of the science that think they know... Is "made up"... There is no Cambrian period... All of these ages , along with their names, were invented in the minds of racist atheists, bent on convincing the world. "We cannot allow the Divine a foot in the door" 😭😭😭 their offspring are the same that took down the ten Commandments off the schoolhouse wall... For fear it might influence the children... Should do good! 😭😭😭😭 Follow the money! "And isn't Society so much better now"😭😭😭
The other problem, even if all of your anti-abiogenesis points were fully correct and that were the end of the story, is to consider "what is the alternative to making improbably large precise steps in the evolution of early life?"
Alternative 1, The great leap backward: Spontaneous generation of complexity. Highly derived, complex life could've emerged via sheer randomness. A million monkeys writing the complete works of Shakespeare not by gradual process of trial and error, but on their first try. However, if the complexity required for something as relatively simple as ATP synthase to arise ex nihilo is already mindbogglingly unlikely, it is even more unlikely that a more complex form of life arose.
Alternative 2: Boltzmann brains vs bubbles? We could posit that the first life did not arise naturally but artificially. That is, some kind of intelligent entity engineered it to exist. This entity would need to have arisen via some process. Either gradual or instant. And arguably it creating the first life just kicks the problem of the first life back to its first ancestor. Gods, intelligent aliens, and more are too complex to self-organize from simple physical laws. Certainly far more complex than any unicellular organism. So now instead of explaining the origin of a nifty molecular mechanism, we are trying to explain the origin of an incredibly complex intelligent being which had to come about somehow, and take an interest in seeding early Earth with life for some reason. At this point we can throw out our scientific notation "one in 10^50" sort of probabilities and start using those 10^50 type numbers as the actual exponent. That's an even bigger step back then Spontaneous generation.
3. Steady state cosmological coincidence or closed timelike craziness? Perhaps the universe is infinitely old, or the beginning is just the end looped around? and so the first life or first life with modern molecular machinery didn't exist because every lifeform had a parent and it's just turtles all the way down. However, this contradicts both abundant evidence for complexity increase on Earth (e.g. a dinosaur or bird or mammal or plant is more complex than a unicellular organism), and the evidence for inflation of the universe from a hotter, denser form that would've been hostile to life as we know it. There's also the simple improbability of the universe having life even if it didn't have to evolve. Ultimately this is not a solution. Kicking the problem infinitely backward doesn't eliminate the problem.
4. Evolution of these machines happened, but we don't really know the details of how. As frustrating as it is, this is by far the most likely (only remotely likely) answer. There could've been a lot of coincidence involved. There could've been many steps and processes we are not fully aware of. Dozens of missing chapters of the history of life in our universe or on our planet which are not knowable through existing evidence, but which nonetheless occurred.
Boom. Nailed it. There really is no feasibly realistic alternative to abiogenesis.
Top-down scenarios logically require an infinite regression of ever-greater creators, so they usually invoke special pleading.
To get into ultimate origins in response to a detailed specific scientific argument is not helpful. Science is all about trying to address the tractable questions with the tools we have. How would you like it if I said there's a problem with the Big Bang theory because they haven't explained the ultimate origin of matter, or the laws of physics in the first place?
@@JM-jj3eg That sounds like a good follow up question . I would like it
@@scienceexplains302 That is a good follow-up question, no doubt and anyone can to investigate it if they want. But it can't be raised as a "objection" to Big Bang theory - it never claimed to answer those questions. Rather the theory stands or falls on the basis of the evidence for it's own claims.
I have a riddle: you're a detective Ok
So you're sent to the site of a suspected suicide, but the person had sketchy friends so you're supposed to figure out if it's a homicide or not.
When you enter the scene in question you witness the following:
15 foot ceiling
At the center of this big, tall room, was a man, hanging from a rope. Dead.
The room was locked from the inside. No windows, only that one door, 10 feet from the center of the completely empty room. Only thing that seems super out of place is that the floor was wet, all around the empty house.
The question is...
Is this a case of self inflicted death, or did someone designed this murder scene to look like a suicide?
Think hard...pause the comment if you have to....
Now, at first glance, considering the circumstances you might think "impossible for this man to reach 15 feet high ceiling, with nothing under his feet."
Sometimes the evidence never left ...
In this mystery, the wet floor is your only clue you need.
But what about the wet floor?
Well I can give you the answer, but if I do you won't appreciate the fact that things change, and can make things even more confusing.
BTW
It was a suicide.
The wet floor all over the house, started out as giant blocks of ice. Then it melted.
Life on earth went through a series of changes, you can't see it, but only cause you can't see it, doesn't mean you can out right negate the fact that sometimes things aren't as intuitive, all the time.
How did a giant block of ice get in the house?
@@guyevans3224 it was slender enough for the man to push blocks of 🧊 through the door and stack them up and hang himself. Enough time passed to erode evidence. All that was left was the wet floor
Who made giant ice block? Why do they make gigantic blocks of ice? Is it specifically designed to aid in elaborate suicides?
How did he transport it to his house from the mystery manufacturer? How did he get it in the house? How did he climb up a giant block of ice, unaided?
Also, what was his motivation in deceiving the discoverers of his body?
Just a few of the questions that arise from this scenario i would suggest. You see, the analogy is actually a perfect representation of the flaws associated with the Blind faith in the darwinian paradigm; those who follow it are so enamoured with it that they ignore the strength of the evidence that underpins it. We are supposed to just accept it without question, in the same way as we’re being asked to believe that the block of ice suicide counts as a feasible explanation, even as a riddle.
On closer inspection however, the evidence, as with the block of ice, melts away!
@@guyevans3224 the ice company transports ice in giant blocks, as to save money on packaging🤣. The truck driver's marriage froze over... so ironically he uses the work that ended his marriage, for it to end his life. The empty house was the house sold by his wife. And so, that was his final message to her.... I'm not sure it's based on a true story, but perhaps life is riddled with similar life decisions I dunno. 8 billion people out there, I'm sure somewhere in there this is true, again and again
How big is each ice block?
Thank you for your efford. Please include in your channel list some chanels that you like.
It's really awesome that you went into Complex detail about a Complex thing that most other people seem to try and answer in simple ways. I really was thinking about just how important it is for nearly every system in nature to have *(+/-) an area of high pressure and a area of low pressure with a middle membrane layer between. Positive charged states and negative charged states, high temperature and low temperature, very dense mixing with less dense, mixture of layers- like how water not only can mix layers within itself with colder and warmer, salty brackish and more fresh but the region of where water meets air and that area where the two layers meet, then you got where the atmosphere meets space and you can get static electric discharges from that interaction of those 2 layers. Within the core's of planets and stars you get different density layers, viscosity, rotational momentum, all creating electromagnetism, geological activity, solar flairs, nuclear energy, discharged photos, IR and UV light, all from the interaction of 2 states of differentials, which seems to engage a little interaction type engine within nature and I really wonder what truly occurred to create the immense complexity that we are surrounded by currently, so much so that we almost take it for granted and simplify the manner in which that it occurred in... Personally I like to think of oil and water. And bubbles. I feel like maybe in some tidal puddle or something that could have a mixture of concentration of different things, while having sun interacting on this smaller puddle to where it evaporated enough for things to not be so diluted, yet not completely dried up, and somehow get a oil and water type situation might be what helped star the first single cell organism.. just the interaction of the 2 having natural surface tension to create natural circular bubble like membrane layer and being hydrophobic of each other.. idk, it's just a start but Maybe someone way way smarter than me can take it from there... I was thinking about algea, like would a algae or possibly even an extremophile possibly evolve first? Or idk, this honestly is the craziest topic for me to think about. I love science, chemistry, and Nature in general. It all makes sense even tho it's mind-blowingly magical once it's there and around to study and break it down and figure out how it works. But when it comes to trying to figure out how any of this started.. it just utterly blows my mind. To think inorganic matter evolved naturally in some form or another to start a chain of organic compounds that would work to create biological diversity and life and ATP and DNA and mitochondria, and multicellular organisms, plants, Fungi, lichen, animals, like WHAT!!!??? HOW??
One of the things I find interesting is the evolution of the atmosphere and how it changed over time it makes me wonder what the weather was like throughout it's changes and how difference it might have been like has earth ever being completely covered in thick clouds for a period of time
The absurd complexity of LUCA suggests that LUCA is not first life. First life would've been far cruder and simpler, but lived in an environment without the competition from LUCA or other more complex life. Until we can deduce what the minimum viable lifeform is, we really have little idea what level of complexity the step from abiotic chemistry to prebiotic chemistry to life is.
LUCA is the LAST universal common ancestor, not the FIRST universal common ancestor, so yes, you are correct. This guy is just falling back on the Irreducible Complexity logical fallacy because it's a favorite approach among creationists to appeal to people whose brains hurt when they look at complex things.
Where do you guys get this "first life WOULD BE this and that"? I have a simple question - how do you KNOW for sure, what a "first life" WOULD or SHOULD look like? Did someone ever observed that other form of life or created it in the lab? No? Then how do you KNOW that your supposed life form can in principle exist in the first place?
Do you really not realise that the "would be" form of life you make bold claims about is nothing but a product of your imagination?
What books do you recommend?
"Stairway to Life" by PhD biochemist Rob Stadler and PhD microbiologist Change Tan is a good start.
Really brave of them to actually have comments enabled.
SUPER brave.
So where's your evidence for supernatural magic?
It's all conveniently written in a single book on his bookshelf.
@@deusexaethera that's not evidence. That's an ancient book of unverifiable claims lol
@@drsatan9617 he was agreeing with you that the narrator is a creationist
Even if all the components of a cell by pure chance came into existence or copied by human efforts exactly it would not be alive. You would still have a dead cell. There is no way you can animate it to life. The interrelation of the cells need for a specific protein would demand a way for the cell to communicate with the DNA and then the DNA opening up similar to unzipping temporarily the exact spot on the strand where the RNA needed can be formed. Then it makes the protein in the shape needed to fit the place where it is needed. Then the new product must be transported to the exact place where it is necessary more efficiently than any man-made factory. The fairy tale of abiogenesis is absolutely insane and scientists are desperately wasting their minds on starting with a preconceived hypothesis and denying against all odds that all of this could happen without an intelligent creator
Yet nothing about life breaks any laws of nature.
🤮
What is the alternative? Life arising from some omniscient invisible entity? That explanation is far more unlikely and incredibly unscientific.
Right.
At no point was the proposition made that life was created by a god-like entity. The video just explained how the current model of chemical evolution being the origin of life is nonsense. We've been led long and far down a dark path by just another religion more extreme in it's dogma than any before.
You ask what his alternative explanation is, then proceed to put words in his mouth, then criticize those words.
It's not helpful to assume to know what others think simply because they have a criticism of a particular theory/view, besidies even if someone does think something remotely like what you're simplistically describing, the views of most people are far more nuanced and complex than you're assuming.
@@tommyj4465 we've seen the same type of arguments from incredulity before that's why. Criticism here without offering any natural alternative amounts to a "just sayin'" supernatural god default conclusion.
Does one always have to offer an alternative when critically evaluating something?
These arguments always end with the "building blocks of life" and go no further.
And your argument goes no further in proving him wrong
@@shaunmeyer8822 What argument?
And yet the fact is that life must have originated through the natural processes and laws of physics and chemistry that we know and understand.
I do remember being taught in biology class that cells can make atp directly from protein, and run on that, but it's just super innefisent so they only do that when they lack air or something else they need to recharge adp, so that could have been a starting point, then before life ran out of resources or choked itself out (that happened with oxygen at least once, if not more) and made something probably not as good as the modern ones, and had a massive advantage.
I love your videos! Please make a video addressing dna evidence for evolution.
Another scentific nail in the coffin of 'naturalism'. Life requires the input of an external agency (outside of nature/universe) like the fine-tuning of the physical constants and the very laws themselves...
Wasn't life from non-living matter disproven a very long time ago. Oh yeah, it goes by a different name now so there's a chance it may have happened.
There's 1 thing that most scientists overlook... We truly don't know much. We apply what we "know" to all aspects of everything and expect everything to act/react the way we think we know how they should. But then we discover something that goes against EVERYTHING we "know" and we don't know how to explain it.... Because we truly don't know much!
I just found this channel. It’s a travesty that you have so little views. Excellent content.
Seems like that one saying is true ‘you can’t win an argument against an idiot’
By deleting my comment or arguing against it you further support this.
Everyone who sees this comment, check again later to see if my comment is still here.
The gaps are getting microscopic? The trick here is most will have to do lots of reading to establish that the description of the problem is fair. And on finding that, if one is inclined then the vid needs no conclusion. And indeed none is given beyond a So we’ll leave it up to you. This shy apology posits something way more unlikely.
A god/designer isn’t impossible I think. Its just many orders of unlikely above the chance of throwing a deck of cards in the air and they land in four neat ordered piles. But given enough time and perhaps infinite space with lots of decks thrown in the air.... so, arguing that there isn’t enough time for an effective aminotriphosphate to arise, is arguing there certainly isn’t enough time for a designer of amino acids to arise.
If this is typical, Long Story Short is a disingenuous Creationist channel. The 'Awkward Truths' are just incredulous objections about abiogenesis. No alternative hypotheses are offered.
Love your videos, have you thought about discussing other topics?
Yep, all in good time
@@LongStoryShortVideos 🥳
Why would he? He’s made a big enough fool of himself with this.
@@peteconrad2077 Was that your best ?
@@praxitelispraxitelous7061 nothing more required.
You can tell this is a god-botherer by how irritable they get in the comments!
I see a lot of Evolutionist in tears, I don't see a lot of solid argument coming from them only appeals to "Muh Science"
@@mrnobodytheuser2950 That sentence doesn't make sense.
Why would evolutionists be in tears?
And an argument about what?
@@POWWOWMIK more evolutionist tears
@@mrnobodytheuser2950 ah, ok. I see what you mean now.
I love how evolutionists just completely ignore the REQUIREMENT of information for all these physical systems to do anything.
So how did your imagined dna creator come into being?
Where was it, before anything else existed?
If it exists, it must have substance. What is it made of?
Where did it get the stuff, it made everything else from?
How did it make the first thing? (Detailed step by step process)
Your argument if correct, proves your imagined dna designer (necessarily complex) cannot exist. Convoluted pseudoscientific, linguistic chicanery doesn't alter that.
Complexity is very often, the first resort of the charlatan and the last of the deluded.
If your dna creator exists, then demonstrate a standalone, separate from everything else, examinable example of it.
Complexity, is not a sign of intent or intelligence. EVERYTHING we have found so far, follows the pattern simplicity combines and forms complexity?
You are always in the position, of trying to use things that actually exist, in order to try and prove an imaginary thing exists.
You are arguing Bugs Bunny created carrots. Carrots are real and complex and require and even more complex structure to grow them. Therefore Bugs Bunny is real..
Your argument disproves itself.
According to laws of physics matter can't be created or destroyed. If matter has a beginning it came to exist by a none physical proces by a none physical being... this being doesn't have to live under the laws of physics because he made them. This being would exist out of space and time.
@@andrewstringer3088 aaarrggghhhhh!!! Glad to see another pastafarian In the comments! :)
@@andrewstringer3088
That's an abstract speculative imagining. Arguments are NOT realities. The "laws" of physics are just observable, detectable, realities, that seem to be pretty much constant.
You are trying to use a speculative imagining, to prove another speculative imagining.
Outside space and time is nowhere?
You are saying, something made of nothing "existing" (how?) nowhere, made everything else out of the same nothingness.
If a thing cannot be detected or its effects measured in any way, it is entirely irrelevant and useless as a solution.
You might as well be arguing that the Fantastic fours human torches flame, is hotter than a fire breathing dragons breathe.?
Wow, I have to congratulate you, this was very slick.
But it's still the same old creationist BS, boiling down to... "I can't believe/imagine how something this complex occurred naturally (so therefore intelligent design/supernatural creator)".
In fairness though, you _may_ have raised points that will be addressed in future... as is usual... like, for example, Olbers' Paradox.
What is the origin of so called natural processes? Are these self existant ?
Naturalists live in their poor imagination: "no matter how complex and improbable it is, I am going to bet that it must have happened, even though I couldn't even successfully imagine how it really happened. "
@@timothykeith1367 maybe, we don't know. Maybe a supernatural being originated it all... maybe not. But that's just starting point isn't it? Does that mean a supernatural being continuously interferes in the universe?... no it doesn't. Everything points to a bottom up universe, not a top-down one. Complexity built from simple principles being repeated endlessly with variation.
@@LTworkshop how does concluding "god dun it" have any predictive power? Even when scientists say they don't know, when in the history of science has the supernatural EVER been ratified as the answer? _It never has!_
Even Newton's belief that the inexplicable orbit of Mercury proved God's existence did not withstand Einstein's later discovery of Relativity.
Thanks for the compliment! Though there was no argument based on ignorance, rather the entirety is focused on what we do know and the documented scientific problems surrounding the current explanations. Look forward to any challenges, that's how science improves.
You only used that phone example to explain that life needs a particular form of energy and life has complex tools to harness that energy.
It’s a relatable analogy but at some point you have to reconnect it back to life. You’re argument isn’t incorrect, just confusing
ATP powers our biochemistry by phosphorylating organic molecules and since the phosphate ester bond is so strong, it makes the molecules more reactive. After reacting the phosphorylated molecules, the phosphorus is released as orthophosphate which is inert. In order to bind a phosphate group to an organic molecule, a higher energy bond has to be broken (in modern life it's the phosphodiester bond between the 2nd and 3rd phosphorus on the ATP molecule).
There is an iron-nickel phosphide mineral known as schreibersite which while rare in the Earth's crust is common in metallic meteorites and when it corrodes in water, it will produce high energy phosphorus species such as pyrophosphate (also known as diphosphate). The bond between the phosphorus atoms in pyrophosphate is also phosphodiester bond and can react with organophosphates to form organophosphate. Another compound called metaphosphate is so reactive that it can be reacted with ADP to form ATP. Life emerged during the late heavy bombardment and it's primordial energy metabolism could have been up taking these energetic phosphates and releasing orthophosphate without re-using it. ATP synthase may have once been an ATP powered sodium/proton pump and fermentation biosynthesis pathways; both of which wound up being reversed.
Is at least one of all of your "could be"s been proven to be the case scientifically?
"Could have been" in itself doesn't count as argument let alone evidence.
@@mirziyodm
1. Schreibersite is common in iron meteorites that have fallen from earth.
2. It's demonstrable that it releases reactive phosphorus species when it corrodes in water.
3. Reactive phosphorus species will react with organic molecules to form organophosphate groups.
4. It's been experimentally demonstrated that phosphorylated organic molecules can be fed in abiotic analogues of the pentose phosphate pathway (see "Conditional iron and pH-dependent activity of a non-enzymatic glycolysis and pentose phosphate pathway").
💗 Great example of the break down of the complexities of energies needed to account for the emergence of life.
The mind boggles! 🧠
You could also use a Stirling engine or a thermocouple to convert the grill energy to phone electricity.
You would need a charged phone to get the blue prints or materials to make them.
@@EQ_EnchantX kinda curious about the cellphones they had to built trebuchets.
no honestly, it may not be perfect, but human development from using stone to sharpen stone to a modern smartphone is pretty close to how life could become mor complex over time.
@@thomaspriewasser6660 Your missing the analogy, for which I was talking about. You can't charge a cellphone, until you have a charger. You can't build the charger without the blueprints on the phone...that is the context
@@EQ_EnchantX this doesn't make a lot of sense. Are you chicken and egging the charger and the phone?
@@jmarth523 That was the analogy made in the video...
This video misses the biggest problem to creating life. Life is information based. No amount of just chemicals or information can create life. You need to have it all at once.
No human has ever created life. Never happened. So even given all the energy you want you can't create life. No amount of amino acids or lipids can create life.
Life always comes from life. And you can't create life. So where did life come from?
From a Creator. It is all clearly written in the bible.
There is nothing man can to create life.
Every day on Earth there are billions of just dead organisms. All of the ingredients for life is right there. That bug you kill can never be rearranged to create life.
Where did the creator come from?
@@GuardianSoulkeeper He has always been. He is the originator of life and truth and light. Did you really think that our universe just popped into existence? Or that life just popped into existence?
Do you think that complex, coded and specified information, like in Dna, just popped into existence.
Bill Gates noted that "Dna is like a computer code but far more complex than any computer program written by humans."
You have that complex, coded and specified information in every cell in your body. Do you really think that it just popped into existence also?
If you believe those things then you have much more faith than I do.
@@nahshon9998 Do you really think your this creator just popped into existence?
Why is the universe as we know it subject to this rule but your creator isn't?
@@GuardianSoulkeeper That isn't what I said. To make Dna, which we need for life, you need to program the information in the organism.
Bill Gates noted that "Dna is like a computer program but far more complex than any computer program written by humans."
When ever I see a computer program I assume a computer programmer.
Did you have a way to program Dna? Remember that Dna is more complex than Windows?
God claims he was "from the beginning". He created the universe and he created life. He says so in Genesis.
Now if you have an actual observable and testable way to create complex, coded and specified, information, that you can show created that information let me know.
@@nahshon9998 Right, but your argument is that DNA is too complex to have developed naturally. You invoke some _even more complex_ system to explain it but then fail to question how this even more complex system could have developed naturally.
POV: Guy tells you about Hydrothermal Vents
"Chemical Evolution" hhmmm where do I know that term from hhhmmmmm... OH NO not the Ku...
You don’t understand. Time is so big. Eventually through enough time we will discover the truths that abiogenisis was as absurd as the greek mythology.
What do you think?
Just because something is brilliant and complex after upgrading for a few billion years doesn't mean it started that way. There are more rudimentary ways of getting energy that simply would've been beaten out when other life upgraded what they had or developed secondary systems that took over.
You want to compare it to technology, so many generating technologies need power to turn on, which has to initially come from a more rudimentary source. Think even of old crank cars, you don't really consider nowadays that the battery starts turning the engine and fires the first spark plug before the engine can turn itself over, then the engine also charges the battery so it may continue to start. Like the ADP, ATP and spinny boy example you gave, if you take any part out, battery, initial charge, engine, it just doesn't work, they all need each other to power each other. So how did this come to be? They just had another source, they cranked the thing by hand. Comparatively garbage, useless, no one wants that in a car today, but it did the job when that's what they had.
Also have to add that life today uses heaps of energy, because we've evolved more energy hungry systems. So sure, you won't find of anything on the level of ATP that could work, but that's like looking at a giant diesel freighter and deciding that that handcrank could never work.
@@protercool8474 It is interesting that your analogies of cars, engines, spark plugs, and diesel freighters are all intelligently designed methods to harness energy. But, you are intending to use them to suggest that no source of intelligence was necessary to start the process of harnessing energy toward the first life. Your hypothesis offers no evidence, just an imaginary pathway.
@@robstadler927 I presented no hypothesis nor does what I said require evidence because I'm not trying to present facts. The technology similies are in response to the ones this video used, I typically don't like using analogies to prove a point, but I will use them to make concepts clearer, or to dismantle someone else's analogy.
No, rather than presenting my own thoughts, I'm just trying to point out flaws in someone else's argument. Which is actually exactly what this video tries to do to abiogenesis, it presents no evidence or argument of its own, which would be fine if it wasn't trying to compete with something that actually does. Abiogenesis is more than a rational argument, more than a hypothesis even, it's actually a theory. I can beat an irrational argument with a rational one, but you can't use any amount of rationality alone to disprove a scientific theory, you need a lot more.
@@robstadler927 I'll boil the video down:
"Life can't have started from simple chemical reactions that became more complex over time because after a long time, life has become complex."
@@protercool8474 You wrote “I presented no hypothesis.” It seems that you did present a hypothesis when you wrote: “There are more rudimentary ways of getting energy that simply would've been beaten out when other life upgraded what they had or developed secondary systems that took over.” This would be a hypothesis of how life got started - it is a hypothesis that is lacking evidence.
Then you say that the video “presents no evidence.” The evidence in the video seems clear: all known life depends on ATP synthase and proton gradients. All known life requires complex energy harnessing processes that demonstrate circular causality. That is well established evidence. And, we do know a lot about natural processes: they don’t create circular causality or complex enzymes - natural processes are demonstrably better at destroying things than building complexity like this.
To rephrase your effort to boil down the video into a single sentence, I’d say "Life can't have started from simple chemical reactions that became more complex over time because everything we know about natural processes runs in the opposite direction."
Interesting video, but you seem to have several contradictory statements and omissions. You talk about how geothermal vents would kill life, yet there are microorganisms that feed off the sulfur rich compounds coming out of them that exist no where else in the world and are sustained by the energy from these vents. Also, scientists have already done experiments where they recreated what they believe to be the "primordial soup" that early life sprang from and were able to witness several of the molecules that are the building blocks of life assemble themselves within that environment. Lastly, you talk about how life needs specific forms of energy and how early life wouldn't have been able to convert the energy sources available into the forms needed for life, yet plants convert solar radiation into useable energy every day, including very simple single celled plants like algae that likely could've been one of the first forms of life.
These are not contradictions on my part but misunderstandings on your part. Life can exist in extreme environments today, not because they are biologically simple, but because they have special adaptations over and beyond simple life. Photosynthesis is far from a simple process and isn't the answer you hope it to be. For problems regarding the primordial soup and other obvious objections see the previous videos in this series.
@@LongStoryShortVideos Yeah photosynthesis is stupidly complex, literally. Learning how photosynthesis works makes you wonder what kind of idiot created it that way, yet it makes perfect sense under evolution. Go figure.