The Ultimate Evidence Against Abiogenesis!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Part 2 of the video on abiogenesis, let's do this.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/...
Original Video: • Unforgivable Lies of A...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Arguments against abiogenesis always seem to boil down to "here's a potential obstacle*, so there's clearly no conditions that would mitigate, prevent, or bypass this obstacle!"
* Which may or may not even be an obstacle in the first place.
I wonder what would he do if he found out that particles of light take every possible rout from A to B and the outcome we see is just a superposition of possibilities... 🤔
Probably the answere would be: Feynman was wrong and Nobel prize committee is BS 😁
The James tour approach. Glad Dave schooled him.
@@GameTimeWhy that "debate" was so painful to watch. i feel sorry for James' students.
@@Choryrth I'm sure they've felt that way for a long time.
@@Choryrth "TAKE THE CHALK AND PROVE IT"
The hardest thing creationists struggle with: nuances.
Black and white thinking doesn't lend itself well to nuances.
Also being honest and the facts! 😁😉
Thinking
No. Reality is their biggest stumbling block. It's beyond their comprehension so they make up simple stories they can cope with and simply ignore the facts.
More like incredulity. They ask a scientific question and then just throw up their hands and say it is impossible. Meanwhile scientists and communicators are explaining that it not only is possible but it is done every day.
Where would creationism be without misrepresentation?
I guess it wouldn't exist 🤔
Mental gymnastics and denying objective reality are easier than having to ask themselves difficult questions.
@@philbreadcrumbs8179 So you're saying it's some sort of selection pressure forcing creationism to change (or "evolve" if you will), in order to survive. 😆
@@Beacon80 Hilariously, we've already seen this with some creationists hiding behind the "Intelligent Design" label. The fact that they have to adopt scientific language means we are winning.
Please do tell us where RNA World could ever happen on the sterile Earth?
It’s amazing how creationists expect perfect answers for abiogenesis, when life took a billion years to come about. Man has only had primitive microscopes since the 1600’s, the discovery of nucleic acids in 1860’s and the discovery of the structure and function of DNA in the 1950’s. We’ve only known what DNA looked like and what it did for less than 70 years and creationists expect scientists to have created life or it must have been magic.
That's what happens when you're a wanna-believer desperately railing against the slow death of your religion's core beliefs.
Okay. Why isn't it reasonable to ask scientists how Abiogenesis happened circa 2023? Must we wait until 3023?
@@sentientflower7891 that's a silly question.
It isn't unreasonable to ask how abiogenesis happened, it's unreasonable to ask for a perfect and flawless explanation of the whole thing when we've only dipped our toes into the subject. And it's unreasonable to expect a perfect explanation or else "god did it and there's no point in exploring the idea further".
They want an unreasonably certain and perfect explanation or else it's the typical thought-terminating explanation "god did it"
@@DrPonner tell me what you know if you know anything at all. How did Abiogenesis happen?
@@sentientflower7891 No, it would be a waste of time. Also, I don't know that much about it to do it justice.
Creationist being honest challenge level: Impossible
How did Abiogenesis happen?
@@sentientflower7891 What's wrong with: "We don't know (yet)?" Your god doing it solves nothing.
@@sentientflower7891 How do you think it happened?
@@sentientflower7891
How about a very long chain of chemical reactions that created 99.9999% garbage and 0.0001% something that could actually be called alive made of aminoacids which ended up creating more of itself or more of other selves and so on.
@@sentientflower7891 I'm gonna go with chemistry.
How does this guy explain the recent study that was able to create 20 amino acids in conditions identical to early earth? Several of them bonded with one another in the lab environment, as well. Is this conkwocket seriously trying to make an argument for creationism?
Without any evidence for creation all they have left is attacking science with lies, because everyone knows that becomes evidence for fiction.
yes, the 'discovery institute' and the people around it are funny
they will claim that "see, scientists did it, so you MUST need and intelligent being to make this happens" while ignoring that a lot of things humans can make actually happens without human interference
@@naruarthur I've had somebody insist that if we can't make it in a lab today, that's evidence that it cannot happen naturally. Then, in the same argument, he insisted that, if we _can_ make it in a lab, that's evidence that it cannot happen naturally. I know a certain amount of double-think is required for these people, but they usually at least _try_ to hide it.
@@naruarthur they certainly will, but only the conditions are created, not the actual processes.
I don't understand this. Therefore, you CAN'T understand this, therefore [dennis prager voice] God
"Tide goes in, tide goes out."
Guy playing super stupid for money.
From Futurama: "I don't understand evolution and I have to protect my kids from understanding it!"
so what im getting from this is: guy says its not researched enough upon to draw conclusions or wtf is even happening
but he then: draws conclusions
did i get that right?
yes, stick is going round in verbal circles
@@MyMy-tv7fd thats not what I said, though both stick and the guy can be argued about going in circles. although i believe the video to showcase rather how NOT to talk about a topic if it isnt even researched upon enough, which is what stick is pointing out.
but go on
@@MyMy-tv7fdare you arguing for creationism?
I really hope you make another. Part 3. :)
The stupid creationist video is just a good vehicle to explain biological processes in an interesting way.
I feel like I'm learning a lot.
Thanks!
RNA isn't life. Naked RNA in solution isn't life.
@@sentientflower7891 Huh? Who said it was?
@@joed9305 if your end goal is the origin of life RNA World is just a dead end. Given that RNA World couldn't ever exist it is also a dead begin, too.
@@sentientflower7891Okay.... again, when did I say otherwise?
You're not learning a lot, you're listening to what he says and assuming it's true. I left a reply at the top listing a few of the things you're not learning.
Here before the hateful scum for once?
I may actually be here before the hateful scum.
That's nice.
I'll come back later to report them.
I will never understand why so many religious people straight up hate people like us. The universe doesn't care that the way it works contradicts their adult game of make-believe, but that's their problem. I don't get their outrage over nothing, let alone lash out so viciously at people like us. I coulda sworn wrath was a pretty big no-no . 🙄
Could it be their faith isn't as unshakable as they like to say it is? In my experience, evangelicals are the most fragile, weak-minded people I've ever met. They're so scared of being wrong. But instead of using that to reflect and contemplate, they instead lash out to avoid having to ask themselves any difficult questions. Cuz apparently, thinking for themselves is too scary. 🙄
@@WobblesandBean As the saying goes; "Ignorance is bliss".
ayyyy love this guy, your videos about him are great.
I wonder if James Tour wrote the script.
I feel like you should do a part 3. This is a subject that you are extremely knowledgeable on, and very effective. More so than a lot of other people. I've seen debunking these sort of things.
What he needs to do is a Part Zero in which he precisely describes how Abiogenesis happened.
@@sentientflower7891 No, he doesn't.
@@sentientflower7891Explain where god came from and then we'll talk.
@@shassett79 are you seriously offering the Atheism Argument for Abiogenesis?
@@sentientflower7891 I have no idea what "the atheism argument for abiogenesis is."
That said, like many creationists, you seem categorically opposed to all hypotheses for all seemingly naturalistic origins of life, so I think it's only fair to ask that you propose a hypothesis with more support or explanatory power than those you criticize.
You don't like their hypothesis? Fine. What's yours?
Looking forward to Part 3 ... whenever it arrives! 😊
How can you have something if that something breaks down? Well, if I have 10 M&Ms and eat 4, then add 6, I now have 12 M&Ms. If I eat 4, then add 8, I have 16. Eat 6, add 10, and 20 are in the pile. I have twice as many M&Ms as I started with AND have eaten 14. And as long as I add more from the bag faster than I eat them, the pile will get bigger and I will also eat more.
Things do breakdown. They just need to get made as fast or faster in order to still exist.
That was great, i learned a lot.
Again I say stupid people will believe anything that allows them to FEEL comfortable!
RNA World is just such a nonsense belief.
Thankfully gods always self assemble from the primordial goo with fully formed superpowers! Having superpowers, the made us because thy needed badly burned barbecued goats and children, and today they can't exist without constant brown nosing to the priestly class. This is irrefutable since it is self evident.
You forgot the most important thing.. the church needs 10% off the top of your salary
Great video, Professor!
Oooh! Oooh! Let me guess! Is his evidence "cause I say so?"
Sounds about right
My takeaway was "DNS can't be because water and unicorns". It was very confusing.
@@simond.455 chemistry is against RNA World.
@@sentientflower7891 _"chemistry is against RNA World."_ Citation needed. Oh wait, you have none.
At 6:15, Long Story Short says that synthesis, storage, and use of DNA monomers occurs in the absence of water. This is correct - that is how laboratories synthesize oligos.
Professor Stick misinterprets by thinking that Long Story Short is referring to storing or using DNA (not DNA monomers as stated). This leads to him ranting about something else he misunderstood.
Creationists:
"Amino acids cOuLdN'T pOsSiBlY have formed naturally!!!"
Also creationists:
"It's obvious that amino acids were created by an infinite, all-powerful, non-physical consciousness that's outside of time and space!!"
Yeah I love the palpable irony that he says that this stuff exists only in your dreams when he has failed to demonstrate a deity poofing anything into existence - let alone RNA strands that he thinks can't exist without being made by some thinking agent.
Amino acids are not living molecules……life I’d proteins and it’s impossible for amino acids to form useful proteins by random chance. Why are you commenting on something without any education?
@@EdGein542 As has been extensively established elsewhere int he comments, Eddy my man, you have literally no idea what you're talking about.
@@shassett79 👈this dummy cannot counter an argument so says it’s established somewhere in the comments. I’m laughing out loud at the ignorance
@@EdGein542 ^ Creationist lies. Google "how did the first proteins form" and read any mildly scientific source to see reams of evidence invalidating god-boy's nonsense.
I know this is irrelevant to his point, but EX-specially is one of the most grating "words" I hear people say.
3:35
@@irrelevant_noob AH, MY EARS!!
Hey Stick, do you have any comments about the Dr. Tour, Professor Dave debate?
It's amusing how creationists have only one goal in mind. They will do everything possible to make abiogenesis or evolution look impossible.
Their one goal is to make the existence of their God seem _plausible_ if not _inevitable,_ but in order to do that they have to try to discredit the evidence against it, which is pretty much all of reality. They try to discredit geology that disproves the flood, astronomy that disproves a 6000yr old universe, and psychology that would prove them delusional except for that special pleading stipulation. They even try to discredit other Christians who don't subscribe to their idiocy by accusing them of not being "true" believers. Their denial of science is just one of the conditions required to deny reality in favor of an ancient ignorant blood-magic superstition. They will not let facts interfere with their delusion.
Maybe it would be amusing if it was part of some "back in the old days" story... but sadly it's present reality. :-
Abiogenesis is Impossible. Sorry if you need it.
@@sentientflower7891 That's a lazy response.
@@prschuster that Abiogenesis is Impossible is factual, not lazy.
Have you guys watched Prof. Dave call James Tour a liar to his face when the dude finally accepted debating? Satisfying.
The more I learn about the details of how DNA and RNA work, the more sense abiogenesis makes. It's fairly ridiculous to argue against a thing that is now being studied by active observation of the processes that make it work. The biggest problem of knowing how life came about is narrowing down the many possibilities, not knowing if it is even possible anymore.
Then you are not learning. Proteins are required to make DNA, DNA is required to code for those proteins, ribosomes are required to actually make the proteins but about 60 different proteins are required to first make the ribosome. Understand? All three are required to make each other, none exists outside of a living cell. Abiogenesis cannot get to these three things being created all at the same time inside a living cell. It’s junk science.
@daveblocko
So, just for the sake of argument, if there were any reason to think proteins could arise without DNA, you'd probably be wrong about everything you just said... right?
@@shassett79 They cannot because the amino acids have to all connect with an alpha bond….there are other options that are easier. This is accomplished in a living cell. That’s jus one reason.
@@shassett79 Second reason, it’s statistically impossible for some random amino acids to connect with alpha bonds in an order that produces a useful protein. Even if it did, a protein by itself does nothing, it must be part of a system of proteins so you would have to randomly make a system of proteins which is impossible.
@@daveblockK, good. Just asking!
For anyone reading along, _be careful not to accidently type "proteins first" into Google and read anything that comes up!_ Probably nothing there, anyway.
Probably.
I like the part where he lists a problem (RNA attaching to itself or water molecules) right after the video explained a process that covers that (the bonds breaking when the water heats up)
Well if a creationist can't find a problem they make one up!
2:05 omg, is he really gonna step in and say that well established science contradicts well established science by citing strawmen and propping it all up with a basket full of presupposition and ignorance?
Yes (but I did watch the rest of Stick's video)
Again, I have to reiterate that life had about 600 MILLION years to develop. 600 Millions of abiotic chemical soup for the perfect conditions to happen. I wouldn't expect someone who thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old to be able to conceive how massively long 600 MILLION years is.
I keep making this point all of the time. There was a gap of 700 million years or more between the formation of the Earth and the first life appearing. Do people not realise that this is PLENTY of time for life to find a way by trial and error?
Not to mention that chemical and biological reactions happen naturally without supernatural intervention. It always boils down to a god of the gaps argument with religious people.
@@enumaelish6751 I usually go 600MY because it took time for the oceans to form. I do believe, but I have no proof that, liquid water was key to the formation of life but there are abiogenic theories that don't require it.
Some things cannot be accomplished in 600 million years. Sorry.
@@sentientflower7891 _"Some things cannot be accomplished in 600 million years. Sorry."_ And yet, your god can do it in 7 days...
@@sentientflower7891
"Some things cannot be accomplished in 600 million years."
I'll take unsubstantiated positive claims for 600 million, please, Alex.
If you can prove this, go publish a research paper which demonstrates it in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, then I'll take it seriously.
Apologists are such dishonest twits.
6:11 woah... Him being so far off reality... makes me wonder: what would be worse, if he was _that_ clueless, or if he was intentionally deceitful? 😵
Both. Intentional deceit and clueless as to how it appears to non-believers
When they have to lie Nad make crap up about the research to argue against it, their arguments are weak. Gotta lie to be a creationist.
No dummy. The science shows creation because no work in abiogenesis has produced a single solitary discovery that wasn’t man made to happen in a lab. Nothing will work in nature without humans. Not educated are you?
@@EdGein542 [calls people "dummy" but has no idea what science is about or even what the word "abiogenesis" means]🤡
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Dummy, obviously you’ve never been in a chemistry lab. The reactions in the abiogenesis research will not even happen in a lab if left to run without human intervention.
@@shassett79 You are uneducated so your opinion really doesn’t matter now does it?
@@EdGein542
>You are uneducated so your opinion really doesn’t matter
...says the guy who is sure he's smarter than all of the PhDs in Origin of Life research and chooses to argue about it on UA-cam rather than publishing lol.
1:21 🎉
So... His argument boils down to : As I don't understand it, then, it can't be real. Check mate, all of you who study and work at unravelling the mysteries of abiogenesis.
Life by graduated steps, following chemical processes: no. Life by miracle magic man: yes.
Chemistry doesn't engage in graduated steps.
@@sentientflower7891 there are different chemical process that take place one after another. Each may no seem insignificant but they build on top of each other. I don't know what they are but I am confident that is how it will work. Miracle magic man is still a no go I am afraid.
@@dr_ned_flanders chemistry doesn't operate in that manner. A cell does.
@@sentientflower7891 It doesn't matter. I am not an expert in abiogenesis. I don't need to be. Whatever the explanation of the origin of life that will be discovered, in due course, it will not be, God did it, so stop your little troll session and preach it to someone else.
@@sentientflower7891
"Chemistry doesn't engage in graduated steps."
Some radioisotopes decay in a series of graduated steps to produce daughter elements which decay into more daughter elements, etc.
Stars perform fusion reactions in a series of graduated steps in essentially the opposite process of nuclear decay.
Have you never heard of chain reactions?
Mixing bleach and ammonia results in a series of graduated steps in which both bleach and ammonia react to the products of their own mixture to produce deadly gases.
If you're going to deny every sentence in this video's comment section, maybe think for five seconds first before you say something so blatantly inaccurate.
I think one very important concept is that none of these processes are binary - that is, it is not 100% all bound to other stuff (or itself) nor 100% freely unbound - you brought up _affinity_, which I think is important as it points to these processes being on a spectrum and being somewhat competitive.
This lack of curiosity derived from making up all your ultimate answers is what I hate about religion.
2:30 Um, I’m pretty sure that self duplication is the single most important trait that could ever be selected for. Nothing else matters if you don’t have that
Thanks for educating me
It seems this you responding to a creationist responding to the simply explained guy. Your voices are different but similar so it would help to have some sort of color code or something to keep track of which is which. Playing this on my phone while I was working it was a little bit hard to keep track of who is talking.
Interessantíssimo!!! Interessantíssimo!!! Interessantíssimo!!!
According to Qiagen, DNA should be stored in TE buffer - which is around 0.1% (by weight, Tris-Cl and a little less EDTA - so, 98-ish% pure water.
I admit, I had to look up the recipe, but I used to work in biochemistry, and have done this myself.
Also - long-term storage of DNA is not the same as DNA in life - the DNA in our cells is stabilized by proteins, but is still - ultimately - in aquaeous solution at 37 C.
Doesn’t matter since proteins are first required to make functional DNA….it’s impossible to randomly create useful proteins….abiogenesis cannot ever get to DNA or proteins.
@@edgein8632 Another lie. RNA can create proteins; this has been demonstrated.
Not sure what that would look like. Best you could claim was there was not evidence in favor of, when there is quite a bit.
He's just plain wrong about not having rna prebiotically. Already been done.
Who told you that nonsense?
@@edgein8632 Jack Szostack among others in the last few decades.
Creationist, flatards, woo peddlers, etc can always say what science is wrong at but they can never prove anything right no matter how hard they ramble, scream, or deny reality
You have that backwards……there is nothing creationist claim about evolution or abiogenesis that evolutionists can disprove.
@@EdGein542 Evolution is a fact, champ. Start with BioLogos referenced below. It's a Christian organisation. Leave the biology to the experts.
Francisco Ayala, a renowned evolutionary biologist and recipient of the National Medal of Science and the 2010 Templeton Prize *(and a former Dominican priest),* recently stated the consensus of the field in these terms [Ayala2010, pg. 49-50]:
*The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution* ***cannot deny it.*** *Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion* ***beyond reasonable doubt.*** *The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time.* In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: *anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution* ***has become much stronger and more comprehensive,*** coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as *genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology.*
... ***Because the evidence is so overwhelming,*** ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and ***no longer needed,*** the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.
*"How many scientists question evolution? - sciencemeetsreligion.org"*
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. ***The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.*** *I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."*
***"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true.*** If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."
- Dr Francis Collins. Former head of the Human Genome Project and a Christian.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles:
*"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"*
(A Christian organisation)
Watch *"DNA Evidence that Humans and Chimpanzees Share a Common Ancestor : Endogenous Retroviruses - Stated Clearly"*
(Look for Dr Francis Collins at the end of the video, who was the former head of The Human Genome Project and is a Christian)
*"Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2"*
Watch *"Ken Miller on Human Evolution" - Kurpalac*
(Kenneth Miller is a theist)
*"Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - Science"*
*"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American"*
*"Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions | New Scientist"*
*"What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design | American Civil Liberties Union"*
*"The intellectual vacuity of mathematical arguments against evolution - Why Evolution Is True"*
*"Once again: misguided calls for a thorough revamping of evolutionary biology - Why Evolution Is True"*
*"Confessions of a former creationist - Trees In Space"*
@@EdGein542 like all cretards, you don't even know what the word evolution means.. evolution is the best supported scientific theory there is, not that you even know what a scientific theory is anyway
@@EdGein542 Nobody is obliged to disprove whatever creationists claim about evolution or abiogenesis. Rather, creationists are obliged to prove creation. Which, of course, they neither want to or can even if they did want to.
@@ArKritz84 No dummy. If you claim life started on its own then you have to prove it. Biochemistry shows life had to be created….if you want to prove otherwise then you have to disprove the science taught in college and is in textbooks. Ouch.
Binded?
Thank you for your part two
DNA breaks down rapidly?
OMG, genes mustn't exist on DNA and all that implies
SMH
You should delete that comment. Everything you said is wrong and uneducated
@@EdGein542 missed the sarcasm, did you?
@@stephenlitten1789 What sarcasm? Dummy
@@EdGein542 Sarcasm is a rhetorical form in which you employ verbal irony for the sake of a joke or mockery. You say something you _don't mean_ to imply something that you _do mean._
Here, I'll give you an example:
"Not only is EdGein _very smart,_ he also makes _very good points_ which are _super convincing!"_
@@shassett79 How about you seem like a very intelligent deep thinker
It's rather morbidly amusing how much effort some people (in this case creationists) will put into making what ultimately is just an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy to rationalize litteral magic.
Are you not ignorant?
What religious group is funding this ?
They're called the Discovery Institute and they're behind basically all creationist public policy initiatives in the last 30 years, including but not limited to:
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which a court found that teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools was a violation of the first amendment
- "Teach the Controversy," a propaganda campaign aimed at supplanting science with creationist nonsense in schools
- "The Wedge Strategy," a propaganda campaign to subvert the teaching of evolution and later drive other planks of their Christofacist platform
- "Irreducible Complexity," a propaganda campaign to disguise creationism as science
And you can see many examples of people advancing irreducible complexity in these comments! The standard thing is to stridently deny that scientists understand... anything... and then imply that the lack of knowledge points inevitably to a creator.
@@shassett79I always find it hilarious when creationists pull out Irreducible Complexity as if it's a gotcha. And are then dumbfounded when not only asked to prove it but also presented with things previously claimed as irreducibly complex but were shown not to be!
@sentientflower7891 seem like a troll, please don't feed him.
Unwinded??!!
also, it seems like there is a lack of knowledge in basic chemistry among a good bunch of creationists.
Getting tired or you just cannot explain it scientifically!!
Wow a whole 8k views you are beasting it
I wonder if the author of the original video actually took the time to watch these responses. My guess is that they know they would be proven wrong so choose not to learn.
This video was made by a creationist propaganda outlet called The Discovery Institute and, yes, they are well aware of the many, _many_ objections to their claims.
@@shassett79There are no objections to abiogenesis not working….calling that creationism is just uneducated nonsense
@@edgein8632 The Discovery Institute is an Intelligent Design Creationist propaganda machine.
I think the main problem really comes down to the conditions for all these things to fall in place are just really hard to imagine. And we are still just talking about the building blocks. If we are going to try to figure out how the first insanely complex self replicating nano machine "evolved", it's obviously also important to look at how and if the building blocks could have formed. Were they then formed in adequate numbers (considering their short life span) and were they able to interact with each other without interference? Considering all these little problems this all just seems incredibly hard to believe. You have to imagine even under lab conditions, creating a system with ideal conditions we can hardly manage these highly delicate things. It's hard to imagine a young earth that was very unstable and unpredictable, to have a magical oasis some place where all these factors where just right and an insanely complex machinery just formed out of nowhere.
Also wouldn't it be logical to assume we should find chemistry like this still on the more stable and very diverse earth of today? I can't really see a good argument for why we don't find any protocells and similar in abundance on this planet. Especially considering that now we do have a lot of building blocks of life just floating around randomly. It just doesn't add up.
Btw. just as a side note, just because somebody questions these things doesn't make them a creationist and even if people are in favor of intelligent design, doesn't make them creationists. Personally I can imagine that there are some kind of intelligent processes behind these things we haven't yet understood. Maybe chemistry or even quantum things are less random than we think they are and they do follow certain specific patterns for example. To me this would at least make more sense than random interactions + time. If you put all the building blocks for a house in a big pool and you keep stirring it to infinity it wouldn't assemble a house. That is just counter intuitive.
Protocells evolved
Your idea is that they can't happen because of that. Yet also you wish to ignore some laws of the universe.
It didn't just form out of nowhere it evolved over millions of year just for the first functional multicellular organism
@@CheeseLordAlmightytheOneGod as of now there is no evidence of protocells, there isn't even a good theory of how they might have looked like. I know the main theory is that they might have existed and they evolved and got replaced. But this doesn't really makes sense to me either. Let's say you have an insanely simple protocells, whatever that might look like. Just some random self replicating chemical process. Why would this just go away and not coexist with other more complex cells. More complex stuff usually builds on more simple stuff and is also codependent on it. Just like for example humans have many other symbiotic organism in and around our bodies that evolved together. If there were such a thing as protocells, I'm fairly confident we should still see it to this day in some way some where. Even if only at the harshest of conditions.
@@luggiunnerhose2722 First of all, Darwin gave a reason why we should not expect to see life originating today. Pay special attention to that last part:
""It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
(Darwin, C., 1871, Letter to Hooker)
oh hi
"The ultimate proof" that proves nothing
🤘🥳🤘
At 5:24 in the video, Long Story asks a reasonable question: “Where to even get high concentrations of free nucleotides on a prebiotic Earth?”
Professor Stick suggests they would be everywhere, and backs his unsupported claim with circular reasoning: If a prebiotic Earth produced properly structured RNA, then there must have been high concentrations of free nucleotides. That certainly does not explain where you get concentrated free nucleotides on a pre-biotic Earth. In addition, to form a complementary RNA, the nucleotides would also need to be activated (i.e., triphosphate form) which is unnatural and unstable on a prebiotic Earth.
Back to the question posed by Long Story Short: There is no good answer.
oh, is that some scientists trying to understand something? let me get information from OTHER scientists that understand other things and try to show them how dumb they are for not considering things that a lot of scientists knows
Nice.
Because misrepresenting chemistry is so convincing!
Misrepresenting chemistry dummy? All abiogenesis is misleading at best. It requires RNA to become a DNA substitute and we all know RNA degrades in a matter of hours outside of a living cell. Apologize for being so clueless.
@@EdGein542 I accept your apology for being foolish and misunderstanding chemistry.
@@nealjroberts4050 And yet you cannot talk about chemistry can you dummy? The RNA problem is right there for you to counter If you want to show abiogenesis isn’t junk science. But we both know you can’t so sit down, take the loss.
@@EdGein542 >Apologize for being so clueless.
Apologize for being a big doofus. Apologize for not even knowing that abiogenesis is a concept, rather than a specific hypothesis.
@@shassett79 Dummy, abiogenesis is strictly organic chemistry……and you claim you have an education. Im laughing at you.
If biological processes don’t work in the presence of water why is drying such a good preservation process for food 😂,
Drying kills, not a biological process. Dummy.
Your food is still alive ?
Please finish this. This guy is just parroting and dumbing down James Tour's beliefs about why he wants to shut down all research on the subject. Tour betrays his own realization that abiogenisis is getting closer and closer to a breakthrough that will bring down magical creation.
RNA World isn't an actual thing. It doesn't even work in a laboratory.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib the RNA World scenario is entirely a thought experiment and doesn't correspond to any situation that could arise in the real world, on the Earth or anywhere else, at any time even if the Universe is infinite in age.
@sentientflower7891 So that's just an assertion, right?
@@shassett79 it isn't an assertion as all the proponents of the RNA World know and acknowledge that abiotic chemistry on a sterile planet would not & could not ever generate the specific sort of RNA molecule required for their scenario.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib describe the RNA World if you imagine you know anything about it.
Ignorance, half truths and blatant lies. Another creationist that is true to form.
Really dummy? There isn’t one single discovery in abiogenesis that wasn’t forced to happen in a lab by humans…..nothing works in nature ..but dishonest non creationist claim they have accomplished something useful.
@@EdGein542 _i dOn'T uNdErStAnD sCieNce sO gAwd DiD iT!!_
@@shassett79 If you say so, I had a feeling you didn’t understand the science.
@@EdGein542 Can you just stop lying for a second and admit that you're just here to advocate for creationism by rejecting all origin of life research?
@@shassett79 Can you just admit you aren’t educated and just don’t want to hear anything that shows the stick is wrong?
FIRST HEHEHE
🏆🍾💰👏👏👏
I was going to watch the video, but then I saw your channel bio and realized that you can not be taken seriously.
He has a PhD
Creationists do nothing but lie!
that's incorrect: they provide cheap entertainment and opportunities to make educational response videos.
@@phileas007
You're right, but the lying is correct!
No just giving misinformation from ignorance.
No scientist in the world actually thinks Abiogenesis gets to life…none. Calling anyone who thinks this a creationist is uneducated nonsense.
He has a PhD is biological science I think he knows what he's saying
@@CheeseLordAlmightytheOneGod Who does? It’s definitely not the stick….he’s a kid
@edgein8632 if you denounce everything he says just because of a character and not by his accomplishments I think that a little dumb
@@CheeseLordAlmightytheOneGod It’s what he’s says….it’s all wrong. I think my original post is quite clear.
@edgein8632 yes and that is what a theory is, yet the original video just like oh your entire argument is false because somethings haven't been proven. Yet that's what a logical theory is until its proven wrong
The ultimate evidence against abiogenesis is the actual research. Not one single thing has been produced of value ever. Every single experiment is forced to happen in a lab by human manipulation. It’s pure organic chemistry, a good chemist can draw a beginning molecule and the desired outcome then figure out how to run the required reactions to get there. Problem is this requires humans to change pH, heat , filter, stop reactions at a certain time and isolate the product before it degrades, buy pure chemicals that have no idea how nature would make them or why they would be present. It’s junk science, not one researcher would say they are close to understanding anything to do with life and it’s dishonest to claim otherwise. The stick needs to apologize for spreading lies.
^ Creationist lies. But don't take my word for it! Google "abiogenesis research" and read any mildly scientific source...
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Yeah, this doofus started going really wide with his nonsense when he couldn't make it work elsewhere. He's pretty much in every thread, repeating the same dumb stuff now...
Ok, so God was too stupid to make a universe where life arises naturally, or what?
Whats your story, because a natural process, seems perfectly plausible, and we already have most of the steps sorted.
@@Marniwheeler We have zero of the steps sorted out. Who told you that nonsense? The more that’s learned the further away they get from understanding the unimaginable complexity of a living organism. Fact.
The design and creation was so perfect that it’s incomprehensible just how perfect. Being uneducated you don’t understand this.
@@shassett79 The same stuff you cannot show is wrong. Right dummy?
Getting tired or you just cannot explain it scientifically!!