planets and stars are not that spacial either but we can't create them in a lab. It's not like humans can create anything just because it's not special
In their debate, Lee cronin admitted that they don't know but he was very very upset James tour is exposing the truth, in their debate Cronin insist that this time or as of now we don't know but hopefully later next generation of scientist will discover, so if you truly listen to their debate, James tour won the debate. the argument of cronin is science will discover, logically they are lying that science has discovered the origin of life.
Absolutely. James Tour would blow Lee Cronin out of the water in a debate on the details. Cronin's claim that it's a "simple" problem would be revealed by Tour to be anything but.
Towards the end Cronin dismisses James Tour with a snigger and "nonsense", while hand waving him away mentioning "contradiction", and "not understanding information theory". So yes it would be great to see James Tour dismantle Lee Cronin's arrogance.
Or dr. Jerry Bergman who specializes in MUTATIONS scientific work, or Stephen Meyer concerning the impossibility of peptides connecting properly or amino acids, the proper ones, for a particular protein to fold in an EXACT form, and hundreds of other complexities that are necessary for constructing the cell, including the translating system- regulatory system, building machinery, instructions to begin with, etc.
@@sanderossi8013 How much of Jack Szostak's research have you read? How much of Professor Cronin's? How much of Professor Nick Lane's? How much of Nita Sahai's? How much of John Sutherland's?....... It's "none" isn't it? YOU are clueless. They are not.
@@mcmanustony nothing even remotely close to a buildingblock of life has ever been shown to be created without human intervention. Molecules don’t move towards building a cell, let alone an organ and forget about an organism. Neither do they move towards generating information.
It's difficult to provide a solution or answer to a question, whereby you've decided it must fit inside of a box, which you created. It doesn't allow for answers that exceed the size of the box.
Can prof. Cronin please explain what was guiding the process back in the pre-biotic era? Now a whole team of trained chemists are working on it overtime with a clear goal of recreating what he calls a "simple cell." What was a regulator then and how on earth did it know where to go next or what it wants to create?
I know this comment is two years old but I thought it's an interesting point. My understanding of Cronin's theory is that the chemical makeup of our earth, and the constraints of the laws of physics are the regulators, restricting the kinds of reactions that can in fact take place, and limiting but also defining the ways in which pre-biotic molecules can react. If there are x number of ways molecules can react under a given setting, and one of those ways results in a product that will produce more of the original molecule, then this process will be repeated and the molecule will eventually be self-reproducing, given energy is available. Any impurities in the reactions that produce advantageous effects in the production of further molecules will be propagated, and it is here that the idea of the process knowing where to go next comes in. The molecules have a search problem space defined by physics, and since they will do the easiest reaction they can, the ones that achieve self-replication by this process will obviously become the most dominant molecule in that area, because they are replicating. These are the same principles of evolution applied on a chemical scale, wherein the path of least resistance is chosen, mutations (impurities in the chemical sense) are introduced, and those that have the greatest chance of producing the same (or "better") molecules will naturally become dominant. These mutations, born of impurities and the addition of different other molecules, eventually results in more complex products being formed, that of course still self-replicate. Eventually, this process leads to the "simple cell". It is still evolution, where very small changes over a long time, and a lot of trial and error, eventually result in a deeper complexity. As I said, this is my understanding of his theory (and what an interesting theory it is), but I hope it makes more sense now. Check out Prof. Cronin's episode on the Lex Fridman podcast, he discusses these ideas there and it is fascinating
@@1RedneckCajun "wanting" does not come into it. The assumed fact that a randomly occuring molecule had naturally reproduced itself infers that it had no choice in the matter. That is of course unless you also assume that said molecule was actually 'conscious'.
@@MrGordyWordy Yeh I don't where you're going with this. What does "wanting" contribute to the discussion? I get the impression that you agree with my opinion, "wanting" is irrelevant to the discussion. Can a pre-biotic earth have conscious? Then "wanting" does, as you state, come into it. How can a pre-biotic have "wanting"?
It’s been mentioned before, but it’s really a crying shame the Dr Tour wasn’t a part of the debate. He’s forgotten more chemistry than all of these geniuses know combined.
@@petercarlson811 Tour is head of the team that created graphene, nano cars -- he's already gone down the road of improving function bottom-up; creating the complex recipes to create these (by comparison) very simple structures. The "it's very simple" statement early in the video simply can't be taken seriously.
@@offcenterconcepthaus "Tour is head of the team that created graphene,"... Ex-fucking-scuse me? Then kindly explain why he did not share the Nobel Prize in Physics 2010, which was exactly for the discovery of graphene. Beisde that, what has graphene to do with this topic? And nano cars. So what?
@@petercarlson811 You're excused. . Didn't **invent** -- been way down the rabbit hole: creation (synthesis) of graphene oxide, new nanotubes -- there's a long list. Check Wikipedia for the rest. . Nano cars are machines - the first attempts needed improvement, bottom-up; the nature of bottom-up construction meant a complete redesign - which in practice scales to living organisms.
Lee- " life is simple " 😂😂 really??? Then why is it so hard to figure it out 😂😂. I hope James Tour do come and debate this guys, that a cheap shot to mischaracterize Jim like that.
Of course for most viewers of this show anything that threatens their religious views is not going to be taken si seriously ,they prefer to believe the bible.
@Anthony Maurice And you fools want to pretend that a hot kettle is hot because god made it hot just because no one saw it boil. Thats how absurd creationism has gotten, its down to the point that there is everything but the exact way that the chemicals bumped together to form the first protocell, not because there are no known ways. But because there are too many, its pathetic. Its like theres a ruler with one of the increment lines missing and you nutters are saying therefore we don't know how long it is.
@Anthony Maurice Interesting, so because I recognise your name I know this has been explained to you. So I know you are lying. But ok, please explain every chemical pathway and how it was refuted. I know you won't, you are probably going to deflect because you don't actually know anything on the topic, as proven by the fact that you think the very example that protocells can replicate is evidence that protocells don't exist simply because it was measured. Sounds a lot like how those religious flat earthers deny gravity by saying the experiments aren't natural.
@Anthony Maurice James Tour does nothing of the sort. He just says words you think are convincing when all those words mean is exactly what I said "BU BU no one saw the kettle boil" Its asinine that so many of you idiots are enthralled with such a stupid argument. - I'm looking at a kettle, then looking back at a boiled kettle. And right now I'm talking to someone who honestly believe fairies made it hot and unless I saw it boil we cannot dismiss the fairies. You have failed to explain anything at all, and as such I can do nothing but conclude you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about and you merely know a single scientists name, a scientist who mind you admits he has no idea what he is talking about on this topic. How disappointing, I thought you had a new argument not just "James tour said nuh uh" pathetic.
Yeah a bit more than he could ever imagine. Trying to fit the origins of the universe or life into a petri dish, seems a little bit more complex than he could've imagined, no surprise there!
Unless life has always existed it means that life from non-living materials is a logical necessity. The alternative would be if life came from materials that were already alive, and that's just oxymoronic.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 I hear you -- but there's a laundry list of "yeah, you can do this, but you have to hold your mouth just right" preconditions. (purity, ph, pressure, temperature, cleaning out byproducts, starting/stoping reactions that will destroy the result - and on and on and on.)
As unlikely as it may be it still definitely happened. Even if God exists and God is responsible, it still involves living organisms being made from something non-living. I might just be ignorant, but as far as I can tell the whole argument between theists and atheists regarding life from non-life boils down to whether it happened naturally or if God did it. It's life from non-living materials either way.
Does anyone know how hard it is to synthesize DNA in the lab? We have to block side reactions and supply the proper molecule in its activated form to the growing chain. But the DNA has to have the code for proteins and enzymes a cell will need. This has to happen by chance. Moderate enzymes are 300 amino acids long. And there are lots of enzymes needed. This will not happen by random chance.
@@spatrk6634 Is the term 4 billion yrs the scientific explanation for DNA forming in the wild by itself? No attempt at explaining hyrdophobic side chains forming in water? No attempt to say how DNA accidently coded for proteins. Just a tired slogan, 4 billion yrs.
12:27 If the probability of the royal flush is already highly improbable verging on impossible, then what can be said of the probability of the royal flush itself producing an entity/assemblage capable of recognising itself? The way he slipped that in without recognising how vast an increase in the orders of magnitude of improbability there are is very concerning. Imagine going from 10^-6 to 10^-6000, these are random figures but to speak without mentioning the great potential chasm between the two numbers is appalling.
I think this is not the point he wanted to make. First of all what he is saying with the royal flush analogy is that the event producing a royal flush/life, is concomitantly producing the player. The royal flush only makes sense if there is a player. The royal flush have the same probability of beeing drawn as any arrangement of five cards. What makes the royal flush special is the value attributed to it by the player. Generally speaking, when we speak about the origin of life, we only consider the life we are aware of, our own biology carbon-based. So we are giving value to this special phenomenon. I think that what he is saying is that any chemical event wich produce a structure able to store information about itself should be considered. So if you considere it that way, you increase the number of possibility, you do not increase the complexity.
@8:54 Lee makes suck a hug claim without science, it is like the distance between earth and the next Earth like planet. It is vast and currently unknown. It is his faith statement without evidence.
Interesting discussion. In my opinion there are two possibilities for the emerging of life. First: it is inherent in every atom and needs and looks for ways to emerge in better possibilities of expression of itself. Second: there is a creator who brings life/awareness to the dead matter. Awareness/consciousness is the mysterious moment.
Even once you have life there is a continual process of emergence of yet more complex systems. Evolution helps explain how random changes get selected through their relative advantage, but the principle of emergence that underlies evolution could extend back to inorganic matter, inherently trying to do something interesting given the chance.
The Evo 2.0 contest for the 10 million is impossible to solve since Perry has set the parameters in such a way that he doesn’t allow for an alternative solution. He is telling the contestants how to solve this problem. Makes absolutely no sense to search for such an important solution and to force the contestants to stick to how Perry wants them to solve them. The way the prize is set up there is no way to solve it!
He's saying "the soup gets better at remembering"... am I missing something or is he seemingly attempting to reverse entropy and also attribute features of conscious beings to dead soup?
Yes. And he seems to say chance has order, not logos versus chaos, but chaos has logos within it when you find order. So order came out of chance, because chance becomes order and as you say complexity not entropy just happens.
@@offcenterconcepthaus The entire universe is a collection of countless deep time chemistry experiments. We are here because the local experiment just happened to create life, at least once.
@@worldmenders It's undefined though - which moves the proposition into a "faith-based" belief. The dynamics of creating even the precursors are "fine tuned" beyond the point of randomness as well. There's issues with randomly creating stable (useful) proteins, too -- odds that exceed it happening even once, let alone the number of tries (again undefined) it would take to generate a successful combinations as life progressed. . Point being -- we're talking about an unspecified process that generates precursors in sufficient quantities/purities, then keeps them stable, then generates stable proteins, then continues to do this across every form of like in existence, bottom-up with each successful change conferring advantage, piecemeal. It's a broken "system."
Entropy can locally decrease in one body at a cost of increasing it in another body. The net effect is an increase of overall entropy (since the increase is few orders of magnitude higher), nonetheless is such a process results in entropy decreased in one of the bodies. Examples: whenever an organisms eats it decreases entropy in itself, increasing it in its food. The only requirement of the decrease of entropy is tome input of energy.
@@martinploughboy988 That's because they haven't a clue of what it is. The only things 'simple' here are the people on this panel. If life is so simple then why are scientists at a complete and total loss on how it works; much less define it, or worse to create it.
@@offcenterconcepthaus Except you are watching a video about a guy who has created self replicating chemistry that is not even carbon based. So apparently you don't need those things at all, which is the guys point. Hes researching how systems become self sustaining or self referential, his approach has already explained the chirality, and since lipids are naturally occurring thats crossed off by default. His interest is in the information storage and how that arises and whether there are factors that dictate how it works, his research is aimed at explaining how ANY life can arise, such that we have a scientific framework to better interrogate how it arose on earth. Because its obvious that life occured on earth, its like the state of the earth before life is a kettle and the sate of the earth after the origin of life is a boiled kettle, obviously the kettle boiled. But there are people who are trying to say because we didn't see it boil how do we know its the same kettle? How do we know pixies didn't magic it hot? How do we know water doesn't sometimes spontaneously boil? ect.
James Tour is a blowhard! He is very anti-scientific in my view. I have watched him, and he seems to assert that THERE IS NO WAY THAT LIFE CAN ARISE FROM CHEMISTRY without a supernatural cause! How does he KNOW that???
He knows that for the same reason that a iphone wont assemble itself by random chance, and i iphone is a dwarf in complexity compared to the cell. In pre biology there is only chemistry something or someone has to assemble the parts in the right order under the right conditions in the right time. If someone says it simple they are very dishonest, for example, how do you get a cellmembrane without dna, and how do you get dna without a cellmembrane? A cell is very very very complex and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand this and the basic arguments that people like James Tour presents, its a fact and its a fact that James Tour is one of the brightest minds on this planet when it comes to understanding synthetic chemistry and how to build molecules.
@@christianaspas This is how he comes across to me..."I am a SYNTHETIC CHEMIST, and I KNOW EVERYTHING! And I have decided in my own mind that there is no way that life can arise from chemistry through naturalistic processes! And, there is no way that I could be wrong, because I KNOW EVERYTHING! But it's not surprising because you find that type of dogmatic thinking among the religious. One of the hallmarks of someone who is really smart is that they realize how much they don't know. The argument put forth by James Tour is kinda like someone living in the 18th century talking about how mankind will never be able to get to the moon.
the fact still remains, we are further away from the answer on the enigma of abiogenesis then we have ever been because we have discover all the time more and more of how complex a cell is. Sure you can downtalk Tour, but he actually knows what he is talking about on what real hurdles there is to make the first selfreplicating cell, there is no question about that.
@@christianaspas I don't claim to know everything. But what I do know is that all of the previously unknown mysteries for which we didn't know the answer and then we found out later what the answer was, there has never been a supernatural cause found for anything. The answer has always been a naturalistic mechanism for everything else, so even though there could be a supernatural cause for the origin of life, it is more reasonable to think that life arose from purely naturalistic causes, just like everything else in nature where we discovered the answer.
There is some overlap, though, and one affects the other. In the (incorrect) Neo-Darwininian model, all you need is DNA first, then everything else came after that. It oversimplifies the issue.
You have to be a bit more specific. Neo-Darwinism has different definitions depending on who you ask. We use the Modern-Synthesis to be specific. I see Neo-Darwinism as the evolutionary model from almost 100 years ago, not our current one. They are separate fields of science though. As well as the fact it doesn’t matter how life started. Evolution is about adaptation of existing systems, not the origins of those systems.
Assumption that life has to emerge necessarily due to laws of physics is not in line with second law of thermodynamics, which rather favors death instead of life. Life is extremely special.
@@bartoszmarcinkiewicz8409 Could be that it is a consequence due to some parameters of the quantum fields. Just as stars and black holes are consequences of the same parameters. What is the source of those parameters is another question.
The Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed or isolated systems with no outside source of energy. Neither evolution or abiogenesis violates these laws because the earth is not a closed or isolated system with no outside source of energy. We have the sun.
Disapointed that when Panspermia was brought up (~45 min), that no one was honest enough to mention that theory is “kicking the can down the road” (or off the planet). In other words, you’ve done nothing to explain how Life, or “proto-life’ managed to self assemble; you’ve just moved the question to another planet. I.E., how did it self assemble there? (Or the Origianal Planet that eventually resulted in a Life form advanced enough to “seed” it on other worlds.)
The idea of Panspermia was never intended to solve the origin of life, it is an option on how essential ingredients for life, could have come to earth. One fully within realistic possibilities. That leaves the origin of those ingredients still open. So does the pseudo answer “God did it” Which God? How did this deity do it? Where does this Deity come from? Is just the beginning of the cascade of follow up questions that need answers before any form of “God” can claim an explanatory nature. As it is now, we have no trace of solid evidence for any form of God or the supernatural in general.
Guys this wasn't a debate episode. James Tour wasn't on here because that wasn't the format of the discussion. His work was just addressed briefly among other scientists who weren't present.
Just getting started - but gotta make note of a few things and toss them out into cyberspace! Here goes... *LEE CRONIN:* *"I'm a scientist, I like evidence."* - The ever present naturalistic assumptions of the naturalist! (Circular?) But isn't that kind like a 'time/nature' of the gaps argument? I mean, we _know [sic]_ that nature did it... so we just need more time to figure it out. Time is the magical ingredient (or miraculous - Paul Davies?) - for both nature and us! _Am I way off there? Did I miss something?_ *"Being religious doesn't stop you from using evidence."* - Actually the historical fact of the matter reveals (let the _evidence_ show) that it was the theists who gave us scientific inquiry in the first place - and that for very good reason! *"We all have belief systems whether we declare them or not."* - And the atheists recoil in horror at the verbalizing of such a fact! *"I would like to make a couple of assertions..."* - He was more honest before he corrected himself. *"There is an evidence that there was a thing called the Big Bang."* - What was it? Where was it? What caused it to go bang? Where is the _evidence_ that any such thing could produce a universe - let alone life within itself? I might have missed something, but I believe it is more accurate to say that there is _evidence_ that there was a beginning. *"Now we understand that gravity produces stars."* - In order for there to be gravity, don't you need massive objects - like planets? Where did the planets come from? What causes gravity in a vacuum? Why would gasses ever condense to form planets or stars? *"There is nothing magical about the emergence of life. It's really simple."* - Is that what the _evidence_ shows? Aren't living things (even "simple" cells) more complex than anything man has ever intelligently engineered (something he often does by copying what has been produced, supposedly, by random chance, blind, and mindless nature)? I think I need him to define what he means by "really simple"! Okay, that's just in the first 15-minutes. Always interesting content on this channel!
@@brando3342 Sure. But that question is a preceding question, not the proceeding question. Why skip the first and most fundamental and perhaps important question?
@Sticky Steve *1st post:* Thanks for sharing your faith! But the questions remain: 1. Where did these gases come from? 2. When have we seen gases condense to form solids in outer space? *2nd post:* My theory is not simply that "God did it", but yours is obviously "Nature did it!" Okay, how did nature do it? Where did nature come from? You scoffers love to skip the first step... Testing the theists or the evolutionists model? Well, the former is consistent with what we do know, experience, and observe; your faith is not. _Yes, let's look at BOTH!_ *3rd post:* Sticky, you got owned before, then bailed. So, whenever you're ready...
I've read the transposable element or TE in DNA transposon discovered by Barbara McClintock. I don't see how this concept can debunk intelligent design when you need transposase enzymes that still need to be created or exist in order for this to happen. May be I'm missing something.
Big difference between free floating bubbles housing RNA and the cell converting the bubble into sequential code to where the cell creates a housing bubble.
It seems that life didn't begin IN water, but that water itself IS "alive", or can form structures that could be the basis of life. See the research of Roberto Germano and the "Xerosidrile" state of water (kind of structured "dry" water in filamentous form).
Mathematicians state the probabilities of life are impossible, James Tour concurs because he and all other chemical synthesis experts who really know how chemicals interact. Lee states the opposite, who to trust? Given that Lee stated life is easy makes me believe he is not a knowledgeable as he thinks.
@@petercarlson811 the reality. Find one expert in how chemicals interact and understand how chemical reactions occur who states that abiogenesis is reasonable. None have a clue how nature could create proteins let alone the RNA and vesicles required to form a proto-cell. Then ask how this protocell would be able to bring in the right chemicals to replicate every part of this cell to create a new cell. They would look bemused at best.
@@iain5615 "Find one expert in how chemicals interact and understand how chemical reactions occur... " You mean a chemist. Since you did not seem to understand that what you described was a chemist I have a strong suspicion that your understanding of empirical science in general, and chemistry in particular is quite poor. Therefore your claims so far in this thread seems to lack any merit.
@@petercarlson811 Lee has a chemical background but is not an expert in chemical synthesis. Just like biochemists, etc. Chemistry is a vast field and has a multitude of specialised fields. To state that life is easy shows he has little comprehension of what truly is entailed. A cell makes the most advanced manufacturing facilities look prehistoric. There is far more entailed than just simple chemical reactions. Amino acids, nucleobases, lipids and hydrocarbons are easy as they follow entropy and are expected in nature which is what has been discovered; however, to create proteins, DNA, lipids, etc. nature would have to go against entropy as the chemical compounds start becoming complex. If he could show how nature could achieve that feat then I would be more impressed.
@@iain5615 Seriously, chemistry is all about how charged atoms interact. It does not take an expert in organic synthesis to understand that. And organic chemistry is a field vast enough that one only specializes in as few areas therein. So this assertion of yours that Tour is some kind a supreme authority is ridiculous. You use Tour as an authority simply because his reasoning aligns with yours. Could that be because you both adhere to that ancient middle east mythology?
DNA are symbols representing something. That's completely different from something replicating itself like taking a mould of a footprint. It's like shouting footprint and all the molecules moving and your ears and brain hearing "footprint" but it has nothing to do with the mould copying the footprint, it is random molecules moving in waves and being interpreted by the brain. It has no connection with the footprint and the sand being pressed and the image it creates. It is the symbolic side of DNA that can't be explained.
Exactly! Exactly, this has never been addressed or explained. DNA and RNA have absolutely nothing to do with proteins or amino acids. They are information storing mediums, and they store encoded information, symbols that represent amino acids, this needs to be decoded and processed by complex molecular machinery. How does symbolism arise in matter? Never been answered. Probably never will be, because it doesn't.
Cronin's work sounds like he has just re-discovered stigmergy - an illusion of self-reinforcing sophistication. He avoids a traditional definition of life, wanting to leave it nebulous. His page isn't loading currently.
Lee Cronin is disappointingly, simplistically speculative and actually unscientific. Bottom line : proof of concept and the extent of the probability and improbability of his fantastical theory.
If life is inevitable if the conditions are right there must be evidence of life continually arising spontaneously. Is there evidence of this occurring?
@@petercarlson811 ........and where did they come from? And where did the rules that govern how the world operates come from? What set them off 13,7 billion years ago. (Or whatever is the latest esomate of the age of the Uni.?) Why not 30 billion years ago or the day before yesterday?
There is only a single way how one's claim to knowledge of "what life is?", can be proved with 100% certainty: that the person remains here alive forever to explain to all others personally how thaey can also do so. AND IT REALLY WORKS IN PRACTICE. Very simple. No experiments, no observations, no arguments of any kind needed.
There are 23 trillion molecules in a typical human somatic cell. Let's say that a "simple cell" has only 4% of that -- that's a trillion molecules in just the right configuration AND mysteriously "alive".
Steven Wiederholt the latest estimates are that there are roughly 100 billion stars in our galaxy, that each of these stars has a solar system of their own, and that the latest estimate we have is that there are over 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Does that make it more probable that on at least one of these planets, given the right conditions and billions of years, that life would arise?
The words in a book existed long before books existed. So how were words created, were they created as a means of communication, if they were, what existed first the words or the ideas communicated. Maybe what existed first was something that has always existed and is neither organic nor inorganic but spiritual which is something that is beyond our ability to understand. The structure of Spirit is so difficult to understand that we deny it's existence. But I assure you that many humans have been guided in there lives and decisions by something that is not an organic functions.
Wonderful, I have been following these talks as I myself am highly interested in the origin of life. I admire your approach, congratulations. I would like though to suggest the term teleonomy rather than teleology. Teleology has been associated with purpose whereas teleonomy (Greek Telos + Nomos= end+law) with mechanistic steps. I agree that RNA is more important than DNA in the origin of life steps and also I believe that there were many steps and that todays living systems and their components might not be abe to leads backward, sort of reverse origin, to the primitive cells. Lastly, I would like to stress that order and complexity are different things and that often in the literature these two concwpts are confused.
@@ronnied1172 No your not. You are conflating two different definitions. One where "special" is used in a scientific sense to refer to how rare or unique an event is in our universe, and another definition that relates to how meaningful something is to an individual person in their life. I am extremely special to my wife in a personal sense. I am not remotely special in an objective scientific sense with respect to the universe.
@@john1425 In a universe that does not have God, the word special has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Everything just IS. It doesn't matter if something is rare or not, in the end it just IS. No one can live life like that.
*The Modern Synthesis proposed that random copying errors combined with natural selection and population genetics would provide a gradual increase in speciation. But there are several problems with this view, five problems of which are highlighted below:* i) _Evolution is not steady and gradual, it instead consists of long periods of stasis followed by rapid stages of punctuated equilibrium, contrary to Darwin's predictions (Gould and Eldredge, 1993)_ ii) _Mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer, transposition, symbiogenesis, and hybridization are applied in a non-random way by natural genetic engineering systems_ (J.A. Shapiro 1993), which tailor responses to hundreds of sensory inputs in a cognitive manner (Shapiro, 2011). iii) _Random mutations are noise, and noise destroys information_ (Noise can be defined as anything that interferes with accurate transmission of the message, including random genetic mutations. One of Shannon's signature victories was identifying noise as information entropy. Shannon (1948) showed that noise is mathematically identical to Boltzmann's en-tropy in thermodynamics. This implies that information lost from noise is lost forever). iv) _Transposons can jump around the genome, repairing damage in real time (McClintock, 1953). Under the Modern Synthesis framework this should be impossible, and her findings were initially rejected. This is because the MS insisted organisms are passive recipients of accidental mutations which are selected for fitness. However, McClintock's plants engineered novel solutions to unforeseeable problems in real time by activating DNA editing systems and copying coding se-quences from other chromosomes. Cancer cells similarly reprogram their own genomes in real time, especially when subjected to chemotherapy. One species of cancer cell can generate hundreds of species in weeks_ (Heng et al., 2011) v) _Epigenetic inheritance has vindicated Lamarck, who for de-cades was derided for suggesting that acquired learnings can be passed to progeny_ (Baverstock, 2013; Noble, 2020; Torday and Rehan, 2013).
Darwin's central thesis is: species can change over time, new species come from pre-existing species, and all species share a common ancestor. i. Punctuated equilibrium is an explanation for the mechanism of evolution, it does NOT challenge evolution as the description how the diversity of life arose. ii. see i. iii. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations. Yes mutation (variation is noise) but cells have evolved mechanisms to decrease the effect of this noise, and it has been incredibly successful. With these repair mechanisms and selection better adapted variants have survived and flourished. Where there was no environmental selection pressure the genomes have stabilised (canalised). iv. Cancer cell mechanism of evading capture is evolution by natural selection. As regards the Modern Synthesis, gene flow is included, and that's what you would expect to see, especially as the Modern Synthesis was not set in stone. v. Derided yes, for the examples he gave, they were wrong, and unless you're going to say giraffe's grew longer because they wanted to reach higher into trees and this trait was directly passed to the offspring, good luck to you. Lamarckism inasmuch some mechanisms of acquired characteristics have come to light such as episomal transfer of epigenetic information has Lamarckian overtones, I'd agree that is undeniable. Also phenotypic change in cells and developmental proceses but not accompanied by genetic change until in later generations, that too has evidence. Selection of behavioural changes in reaction to environmental selection pressures prior to any genetic changes also has evidence to back it up. However, none of these objections attack evolution, and none of the proponents of these new mechanisms have ever arguments against evolution, just its underlying mechanism.
really puzzling - you would expect to hear a comment like that from most people, but not from a guy supposed to be a biologist or a chemist - for one he is misinforming people.
@@spatrk6634 I like how Lee Cronin expressed that the evolution group tends to act like evangelicals for abiogenesis while not understanding information theory. Rob Stadler said the same thing. Lee Cronin is an atheist and Rob Stadler creationist agree. This evolution group act like evangelicals.
He’s speaking to a group of lay people, and it was simple the terms he was expressing. Simple, inorganic compounds can form chemicals systems that template and create more complex molecules. Of course, the science may not be simple to understand or uncover, but the concept is straight forwards and derived from simple beginnings
@Man0vtrvth Indeed. Engines don't build themselves. Houses don't build themselves. Cars don't build themselves. Yet the simplest living cell is a more sophisticated machine than any of the above.
Tour got bad press from people who object to an hysterical lying fanatic smearing scientists for laughs from an audience of ignorant christian fundamentalists.
When I heard the statement the ''emergence of life is really simple'' I knew immediately this man has no understanding of what it means to be alive. He should give up trying to win the prize. He has NO CHANCE!
Okay, i'm writing this in May of 2021. Where's the beef, Lee? . . . Last I checked no one has won the 10 million. I'm really starting to think that Cronin may be a used car salesman with a nice British accent. Guess time will tell . . . or it won't.
Creating life from scratch is a dream as old as myth, but no one has done it-and as our knowledge deepens, the problem seems ever harder. With today’s emphasis on information and organization in biology, the task seems gargantuan. Synthetic biology is not creating life it is modifying an already living cells. * Sophia Roosth. Synthetic: How Life Got Made. University of Chicago Press* In the process it was discovered that around a third of genes essential to life are an enigma because no one knows yet what they code for. So the spark of life, and the ability to create it entirely from scratch without nature’s help, is still way beyond our capabilities. As Roosth calls it: a suspicion we don’t know or understand as much as we thought. This is a crisis of comprehensibility and coherence. This just shows the limits of our power and depth of our ignorance: we have no idea what a third of the genes actually do. We could be facing a stone wall to our limits to understand how life is created.
It's the hype control James Tour was addressing. Lee wants people to be excited. Great, but people tend to take an idea and inflate it to great links beyond want the science is or scientists say.
In 2005, the legendary atheist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins debated Design advocate George Gilder. The debate was on radio station WBUR in Boston (101). It was produced for National Public Radio’s On Point program. The show streamed on the web and I tuned in. Dawkins at the time was a professor at Oxford University. One of his admirers had created a special endowment for him, The Charles Simyoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science. One of the callers asked Dawkins about the Origin of Life. He replied that it was “a happy chemical accident.” A happy chemical accident?
@@20july1944 What does Being require? Our language is so poor at this depth. So much so, that as soon as something is 'becoming' we can see the majesty all over it.
And at time index 19:24 they said we do not know what life and evolution are, but yet he is certain that he knows where life came from. On what data is he drawing this conclusion if we cannot properly define life?
Perry 2:35 - "happy chemical accident is anti-scientific." Perry 3:20- "I was sympathetic towards intelligent design view (creationism). I really embraced that." Ummm is this guy a former priest or something?
Yeah agreed. Creationist/ID people have offered fake prizes for decades. They always write the rules to where they never have to actually give up the money. Typically the catch is that some specific person has to agree that they have been convinced. Extremely dishonest.
If something can happen, it will. Life exists, but we don’t know if it always did exist; or if or how it happened. And if it did happen, it hasn’t happened again since. So, what does that tell you?
That's easy to answer .. if complex to comprehend - and thus difficult to fully understand. Can 'chemistry' in the modern sense trace back to its origins the 'mystery' of life? No: However it may, with hit and miss/ amendable hypotheses, present an understanding of the chemical constituents involved (chemeia - material cast together, alloy/ alchemy - transmutation, impelled evolution) in any change of 'matter' = maternity, type, wood, stuff, thingness, observable data = hylos (material existence, dust and water, breathing beings). Life, however, refers to a particular kind of breath aka the spirit, i.e. innate, inner-motivating/ outer-reactive, animated existence, a notion of 'being' that is expressed with vitality, energy, action: chiefly, i) botane (botanological) photosynthetic eukaryotic organisms, vegitabilis = things able to live, plants, ii) zoe (zoological) animal (ensouled) being, compounded of inanimate matter and animate life (psychology), or iii) bios (biological) the course of a given lifetime, a mode of life e.g. moral, rational, intelligent, instinctive, compelled, accidental - and there, in the end, chemistry alone is unlikely to deal well with these immaterial concepts.
Lee Cronin is right when he argues that science and belief (in God) dont't interfere with each other and that they are compatible. But this seems only only to be accurate if one has a suitable concept of God such as "God is being itself or in Latin "esse ipsum subsistens" as Thomas Aquinas and others taught.
No matter what science comes up with, you can always give credit to something that exists outside of spacetime. Even if you're a young earth creationist, you could justify your beliefs against the knowledge from what we have gained from the geological strata, fossil evidence, and organisms that are alive today far older than the creation of the earth in this hypothesis by saying "that's how god wanted it to be made". That one statement can justify anything being that the god is an unfalsifiable creator. This is why unfallsifiable arguments are generally rejected in all cases other than arguments for a deity. They may be true, they may be false, our physical brains will never have the opportunity to know.
@@He.knows.nothing no im not a young earth creationist the universe is13.9 billion years old but design is everywhere from bigbang to periodic table to dna. To proton electron neutron energy levels and were do you want to go the flagellum of a bacteruim design big time
@@Psalm1101 matter and energy interact with each other in very specific ways. When the singularity exploded into the big bang, matter and energy rushed into the cosmos intertwined by their characteristics and what we see today is an inevitable result of them coming into contact with each other over time. Their characteristics are intrinsic properties, meaning that they could not have interacted any different way. Eventually, the correct element setting for life to develop in the simplest of forms occurred. I don't know what that form was exactly, no one does, but we have speculations that are just as plausible as a supernatural creator, if not more plausible given occums razor, that account for their development and once they gained the ability to reproduce, natural selection became their designer. Flagellum on bacteria? Designed by natural selection. Wings on birds? Designed by natural selection. Consciousness and the ability to have abstract thought demonstrated by intelligent species? Designed by natural selection.
@@He.knows.nothing i know black holes quantum physics which are singularitys and string theory all is theory except black holes and we know very little about them if there are a infinite number of universes we just live in the one that all of nature gets along perfertly from the quantum level atoms etc to large bodies gravity and space and time i think einstein called it the unified theory of all things he spent 30 years asking why all these work so well
"Life is just a manifestation of chemistry." I've never heard a dumber statement in my life. Jesus, it's like saying, assume you have a can opener. There's your can opener. It's only a can opener. What about MIND. (Oh, right just chemical processes. And the evidence for this is....???)
Creating life from scratch is a dream as old as myth, but no one has done it-and as our knowledge deepens, the problem seems ever harder. With today’s emphasis on information and organization in biology, the task seems gargantuan. Synthetic biology is not creating life it is modifying an already living cells. * Sophia Roosth. Synthetic: How Life Got Made. University of Chicago Press* For most biologists, evolution is almost a sacrament. Through random mutation and natural selection, evolution finds the “best” solutions to life’s problems. Evolution solves everything. The modern genetic era is now facing a reality. The human genome is full of apparently meaningless “junk”; it is impenetrably complicated; and some inheritable traits seem extremely hard to attribute to specific genes. As Roosth calls it: a suspicion we don’t know or understand as much as we thought. This is a crisis of comprehensibility and coherence. In the process it was discovered that around a third of those genes essential to life are an enigma because no one knows yet what they code for. So the spark of life, and the ability to create it entirely from scratch without nature’s help, is still way beyond our capabilities. This just shows the limits of our power and depth of our ignorance: we have no idea what a third of the genes actually do. We could be facing a stone wall to our limits to understand how life is created.
Biology remembers better with each future encounter making life inevitable in the right conditions. Sounds very strong. Give him the money! Would like to know more about the salt replicators, fascinating. Thanks for the show!
@ZappBrannigan23 Except chemicals are not biology, until the right conditions have already existed. Which then just begs the question all over again. Interesting, but he was correct when he said "that's cheating". They are cheating, they are starting with their own intervention of intelligence.
During an interview, when asked if the genetic code is really a code, Dr. Richard Dawkins answered, *_“It [the genetic code] is a code. It's definitely a code…”_* (Source: Jon Perry - Genetics & Evolution Stated Casually UA-cam Channel Interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins on 4-2-2022. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution)
the $10M prize is to whomever can provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation for how the first biological cell could have formed. Dr Cronin is not alone, he has serious competitors: Dr Szostak and others. However, it seems like nobody has made any serious attempt to grab he prize yet. But perhaps they are unaware of the fact that every day that brings new discoveries in Biology the finish line for those potential candidates to the prize is moving away.
@@lepidoptera9337 Why did the distinguished scientist Dr Szostak predict in 2014 that he will have it all figured out by 2017 or at the latest by 2019? Why such a rush? Any thoughts? Anyway, I look forward with much anticipation to reading the upcoming research papers describing future discoveries that shed more light on the amazing biological systems.
@@janwaska4081 I don't know why all of you guys are in such a rush. Are you that old? Is death near your doorstop? Well, in that case you can soon ask Jesus, anyway. :-)
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
He didn't say anything remotely like what you are inferring. He didn't even use the word 'like'. He said that hurricanes assemble, meaning they build up from something that is not a hurricane.
The origin of life scenario is solved this year ,2024. A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
Information is ever present everywhere. Evolution acting on life isn’t information but information storage, information alteration, information transmission and information selection. As evolution can happen in any medium with those properties. It doesn’t have to be biological. Any system that can store, alter, transmit and select information will have evolution acting on it.
ManicPandaz wrote, "Any system that can store, alter, transmit and select information will have evolution acting on it." I don't see Microsoft software evolving by itself through random changes in code.
@citizenguy No you don’t because binary and DNA are different information mediums with different properties. Humans also actively reset and reinstall any differently functioning programs. Computer viruses are a different beast than a home computer designed to stay exactly the same throughout its use. Computer viruses can adapt and evolve.
Hold on, ManicPandas. In one sentence you first say, "Any system that can..." Now you are claiming, "different information mediums with different properties." You specifically wrote, "As evolution can happen in any medium with those properties. It doesn’t have to be biological." You are wrong and seem to be admitting it.
Tour never claimed Intelligent Design or God or Designer, he simply said What people say in Origin of Life Chemically doesn't work - nothing more nothing else - Where do you get that he stands for Designer? He himself never spoke about it and never brought the topic - he only does science and keeps his faith separate.
most of videos of tour is him praising jesus and interacting with discovery institute. which are people who think that god created them out of mud using magical words. so this topic is something that people like Tour must deny validity of. because it goes against their faith
It is not absolutely a simple process! Damn! How can you so sure that life is simple? One thing that is absolutely certain is that we all learn the truth the moment we die
At 35:55 Cronin says, "life is not that special." If it's not that special, then why are you having so much difficulty creating it in your lab?
Some scientists are very good at contradicting themselves.
I am sorry, but to say "life is not that special" means you haven't actually looked at life and have no idea what it is.
planets and stars are not that spacial either but we can't create them in a lab. It's not like humans can create anything just because it's not special
@@twat1952a Maybe he's talking about his own life.
There is no such thing as a "simple" cell.
Yeah thats the first thing i thought.ignorance is bliss it seems.
Protocells were very simple.
@@user-xv4gu9eb2p can you make one from nothing??
“Simple” is subjective
Vince Buckley
👍
There cannot be a nothing .
Looking forward to a discussion between James Tour and Lee Cronin.
Lee wasn't making much sense during their last debate.... It was kind of bizaar the things coming out his mouth.
Brother, that has already happened
@@braggsean1026 I agree. But, would add this his answers did make sense because his position (philosophy) doesn't.
In their debate, Lee cronin admitted that they don't know but he was very very upset James tour is exposing the truth, in their debate Cronin insist that this time or as of now we don't know but hopefully later next generation of scientist will discover, so if you truly listen to their debate, James tour won the debate. the argument of cronin is science will discover, logically they are lying that science has discovered the origin of life.
How is james tour not here speaking to this please have him review the notes from this program asap
Tour's the man on this topic.
Absolutely. James Tour would blow Lee Cronin out of the water in a debate on the details. Cronin's claim that it's a "simple" problem would be revealed by Tour to be anything but.
Towards the end Cronin dismisses James Tour with a snigger and "nonsense", while hand waving him away mentioning "contradiction", and "not understanding information theory".
So yes it would be great to see James Tour dismantle Lee Cronin's arrogance.
Or dr. Jerry Bergman who specializes in MUTATIONS scientific work, or Stephen Meyer concerning the impossibility of peptides connecting properly or amino acids, the proper ones, for a particular protein to fold in an EXACT form, and hundreds of other complexities that are necessary for constructing the cell, including the translating system- regulatory system, building machinery, instructions to begin with, etc.
@@20july1944 Hes the man with the argument from ignorance.
Almost 100% anticipation, speculation and story telling. Get James Tour in there asap.
Great science is storytelling that is falsifiable.
Why Tour? this isn't his subject.
@@mcmanustonycorrect, it’s nobody’s. They’re all clueless.
@@sanderossi8013 How much of Jack Szostak's research have you read? How much of Professor Cronin's? How much of Professor Nick Lane's? How much of Nita Sahai's? How much of John Sutherland's?.......
It's "none" isn't it?
YOU are clueless. They are not.
@@mcmanustony nothing even remotely close to a buildingblock of life has ever been shown to be created without human intervention. Molecules don’t move towards building a cell, let alone an organ and forget about an organism. Neither do they move towards generating information.
It's difficult to provide a solution or answer to a question, whereby you've decided it must fit inside of a box, which you created. It doesn't allow for answers that exceed the size of the box.
@Holmes245 naturalism/materialism.
@@CanadianLoveKnot as opposed to working backwards and trying to make the evidence fit a religious mythos
Can prof. Cronin please explain what was guiding the process back in the pre-biotic era? Now a whole team of trained chemists are working on it overtime with a clear goal of recreating what he calls a "simple cell." What was a regulator then and how on earth did it know where to go next or what it wants to create?
I know this comment is two years old but I thought it's an interesting point. My understanding of Cronin's theory is that the chemical makeup of our earth, and the constraints of the laws of physics are the regulators, restricting the kinds of reactions that can in fact take place, and limiting but also defining the ways in which pre-biotic molecules can react. If there are x number of ways molecules can react under a given setting, and one of those ways results in a product that will produce more of the original molecule, then this process will be repeated and the molecule will eventually be self-reproducing, given energy is available. Any impurities in the reactions that produce advantageous effects in the production of further molecules will be propagated, and it is here that the idea of the process knowing where to go next comes in.
The molecules have a search problem space defined by physics, and since they will do the easiest reaction they can, the ones that achieve self-replication by this process will obviously become the most dominant molecule in that area, because they are replicating. These are the same principles of evolution applied on a chemical scale, wherein the path of least resistance is chosen, mutations (impurities in the chemical sense) are introduced, and those that have the greatest chance of producing the same (or "better") molecules will naturally become dominant. These mutations, born of impurities and the addition of different other molecules, eventually results in more complex products being formed, that of course still self-replicate. Eventually, this process leads to the "simple cell". It is still evolution, where very small changes over a long time, and a lot of trial and error, eventually result in a deeper complexity.
As I said, this is my understanding of his theory (and what an interesting theory it is), but I hope it makes more sense now. Check out Prof. Cronin's episode on the Lex Fridman podcast, he discusses these ideas there and it is fascinating
@@connorvangraan845 But why would a cell want to self-replicate? It's a purpose driven event isn't it?
@@1RedneckCajun "wanting" does not come into it. The assumed fact that a randomly occuring molecule had naturally reproduced itself infers that it had no choice in the matter. That is of course unless you also assume that said molecule was actually 'conscious'.
@@MrGordyWordy Yeh I don't where you're going with this. What does "wanting" contribute to the discussion? I get the impression that you agree with my opinion, "wanting" is irrelevant to the discussion. Can a pre-biotic earth have conscious? Then "wanting" does, as you state, come into it. How can a pre-biotic have "wanting"?
mr cronin is full of words that dont really have much to do with reality am afraid
Unbelievable is the best show in the world it truly is there’s no better content then right here
It’s been mentioned before, but it’s really a crying shame the Dr Tour wasn’t a part of the debate. He’s forgotten more chemistry than all of these geniuses know combined.
"He’s forgotten more chemistry than all of these geniuses know combined."
And how do you know this?
@@petercarlson811 Tour is head of the team that created graphene, nano cars -- he's already gone down the road of improving function bottom-up; creating the complex recipes to create these (by comparison) very simple structures. The "it's very simple" statement early in the video simply can't be taken seriously.
@@offcenterconcepthaus "Tour is head of the team that created graphene,"...
Ex-fucking-scuse me? Then kindly explain why he did not share the Nobel Prize in Physics 2010, which was exactly for the discovery of graphene. Beisde that, what has graphene to do with this topic? And nano cars. So what?
@@petercarlson811 You're excused.
.
Didn't **invent** -- been way down the rabbit hole: creation (synthesis) of graphene oxide, new nanotubes -- there's a long list. Check Wikipedia for the rest.
.
Nano cars are machines - the first attempts needed improvement, bottom-up; the nature of bottom-up construction meant a complete redesign - which in practice scales to living organisms.
@Anden Ekadi I hear you -- it just sounds absurd. Life requires extremely complex precursors at high levels of purification.
Lee- " life is simple " 😂😂 really??? Then why is it so hard to figure it out 😂😂. I hope James Tour do come and debate this guys, that a cheap shot to mischaracterize Jim like that.
Of course for most viewers of this show anything that threatens their religious views is not going to be taken si seriously ,they prefer to believe the bible.
@@frankwhelan1715 you think this garbage threatens creation....lol this is beyond embarrassing ! life is simple and nothing special pmsl
@Anthony Maurice And you fools want to pretend that a hot kettle is hot because god made it hot just because no one saw it boil.
Thats how absurd creationism has gotten, its down to the point that there is everything but the exact way that the chemicals bumped together to form the first protocell, not because there are no known ways. But because there are too many, its pathetic.
Its like theres a ruler with one of the increment lines missing and you nutters are saying therefore we don't know how long it is.
@Anthony Maurice Interesting, so because I recognise your name I know this has been explained to you. So I know you are lying.
But ok, please explain every chemical pathway and how it was refuted.
I know you won't, you are probably going to deflect because you don't actually know anything on the topic, as proven by the fact that you think the very example that protocells can replicate is evidence that protocells don't exist simply because it was measured.
Sounds a lot like how those religious flat earthers deny gravity by saying the experiments aren't natural.
@Anthony Maurice James Tour does nothing of the sort.
He just says words you think are convincing when all those words mean is exactly what I said "BU BU no one saw the kettle boil" Its asinine that so many of you idiots are enthralled with such a stupid argument.
-
I'm looking at a kettle, then looking back at a boiled kettle. And right now I'm talking to someone who honestly believe fairies made it hot and unless I saw it boil we cannot dismiss the fairies.
You have failed to explain anything at all, and as such I can do nothing but conclude you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about and you merely know a single scientists name, a scientist who mind you admits he has no idea what he is talking about on this topic.
How disappointing, I thought you had a new argument not just "James tour said nuh uh" pathetic.
I notice that Cronin still hasn't received the $10,000,000 Evolution 2.0 Prize. Perhaps the challenge of the prize is a bit more than he imagined?
Chill out and listen. He said before the end of his academic career which would be 20-40 years away.
Yeah a bit more than he could ever imagine. Trying to fit the origins of the universe or life into a petri dish, seems a little bit more complex than he could've imagined, no surprise there!
Awesome show! I really appreciate this program.
Organic Chemist James Tour has a lecture in Waterloo and Syracuse which SMASHES the idea life just happens from non life
Yes -- it's a pretty brutal takedown.
James Tour is a moron
Unless life has always existed it means that life from non-living materials is a logical necessity. The alternative would be if life came from materials that were already alive, and that's just oxymoronic.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 I hear you -- but there's a laundry list of "yeah, you can do this, but you have to hold your mouth just right" preconditions. (purity, ph, pressure, temperature, cleaning out byproducts, starting/stoping reactions that will destroy the result - and on and on and on.)
As unlikely as it may be it still definitely happened. Even if God exists and God is responsible, it still involves living organisms being made from something non-living.
I might just be ignorant, but as far as I can tell the whole argument between theists and atheists regarding life from non-life boils down to whether it happened naturally or if God did it. It's life from non-living materials either way.
Does anyone know how hard it is to synthesize DNA in the lab? We have to block side reactions and supply the proper molecule in its activated form to the growing chain. But the DNA has to have the code for proteins and enzymes a cell will need. This has to happen by chance. Moderate enzymes are 300 amino acids long. And there are lots of enzymes needed. This will not happen by random chance.
dna you see today is result of 4 billion years of evolution
ofcourse its hard to synthesize it
@@spatrk6634 Is the term 4 billion yrs the scientific explanation for DNA forming in the wild by itself? No attempt at explaining hyrdophobic side chains forming in water? No attempt to say how DNA accidently coded for proteins. Just a tired slogan, 4 billion yrs.
May want to rewatch the beginning of the video where this was explicitly covered - DNA based life was almost certainly not the first form of life.
12:27 If the probability of the royal flush is already highly improbable verging on impossible, then what can be said of the probability of the royal flush itself producing an entity/assemblage capable of recognising itself? The way he slipped that in without recognising how vast an increase in the orders of magnitude of improbability there are is very concerning. Imagine going from 10^-6 to 10^-6000, these are random figures but to speak without mentioning the great potential chasm between the two numbers is appalling.
I think this is not the point he wanted to make.
First of all what he is saying with the royal flush analogy is that the event producing a royal flush/life, is concomitantly producing the player. The royal flush only makes sense if there is a player. The royal flush have the same probability of beeing drawn as any arrangement of five cards. What makes the royal flush special is the value attributed to it by the player.
Generally speaking, when we speak about the origin of life, we only consider the life we are aware of, our own biology carbon-based. So we are giving value to this special phenomenon.
I think that what he is saying is that any chemical event wich produce a structure able to store information about itself should be considered. So if you considere it that way, you increase the number of possibility, you do not increase the complexity.
😊😊😊
@8:54 Lee makes suck a hug claim without science, it is like the distance between earth and the next Earth like planet. It is vast and currently unknown. It is his faith statement without evidence.
Excellent conversation. Thank you!
THIS conversation is unbelievable stupid. Duh
THANK YOU for the closed captioning...is there a transcript some where?
Interesting discussion. In my opinion there are two possibilities for the emerging of life. First: it is inherent in every atom and needs and looks for ways to emerge in better possibilities of expression of itself. Second: there is a creator who brings life/awareness to the dead matter. Awareness/consciousness is the mysterious moment.
The FSM wants you to be careful with the pasta! Do not overcook it!
Even once you have life there is a continual process of emergence of yet more complex systems. Evolution helps explain how random changes get selected through their relative advantage, but the principle of emergence that underlies evolution could extend back to inorganic matter, inherently trying to do something interesting given the chance.
The Evo 2.0 contest for the 10 million is impossible to solve since Perry has set the parameters in such a way that he doesn’t allow for an alternative solution. He is telling the contestants how to solve this problem. Makes absolutely no sense to search for such an important solution and to force the contestants to stick to how Perry wants them to solve them. The way the prize is set up there is no way to solve it!
Should have had Lee Cronin vs. James Tour.
Yesssss!!!!!
Why no one mentions about the “irreducible complexity” of a cell?
He's saying "the soup gets better at remembering"... am I missing something or is he seemingly attempting to reverse entropy and also attribute features of conscious beings to dead soup?
Yes. And he seems to say chance has order, not logos versus chaos, but chaos has logos within it when you find order. So order came out of chance, because chance becomes order and as you say complexity not entropy just happens.
On top of that you have to start and stop reactions - hold products a specific temperatures, ph, and pressures, then purify. Rinse/repeat.
@@offcenterconcepthaus The entire universe is a collection of countless deep time chemistry experiments. We are here because the local experiment just happened to create life, at least once.
@@worldmenders It's undefined though - which moves the proposition into a "faith-based" belief. The dynamics of creating even the precursors are "fine tuned" beyond the point of randomness as well. There's issues with randomly creating stable (useful) proteins, too -- odds that exceed it happening even once, let alone the number of tries (again undefined) it would take to generate a successful combinations as life progressed.
.
Point being -- we're talking about an unspecified process that generates precursors in sufficient quantities/purities, then keeps them stable, then generates stable proteins, then continues to do this across every form of like in existence, bottom-up with each successful change conferring advantage, piecemeal. It's a broken "system."
Entropy can locally decrease in one body at a cost of increasing it in another body. The net effect is an increase of overall entropy (since the increase is few orders of magnitude higher), nonetheless is such a process results in entropy decreased in one of the bodies.
Examples: whenever an organisms eats it decreases entropy in itself, increasing it in its food.
The only requirement of the decrease of entropy is tome input of energy.
but, the real question here is cronin, about "the information" youve mentioned, where does the primordial earth get it from? you?
Indeed, and not once do they define life.
@@martinploughboy988 That's because they haven't a clue of what it is. The only things 'simple' here are the people on this panel. If life is so simple then why are scientists at a complete and total loss on how it works; much less define it, or worse to create it.
He did say 'Agency". hahahaha
"it's actually very simple"......I lol and changed the video.
@John gatti
I'm still watching, that was very arrogant though.
Exactly -- not a serious discussion. You need proteins, lipids, etc. -- good luck generating chiral molecules in a cave.
@@offcenterconcepthaus That's not at all what the video is about though. Everyone involved is non-Neo-Darwinist.
@@offcenterconcepthaus Except you are watching a video about a guy who has created self replicating chemistry that is not even carbon based.
So apparently you don't need those things at all, which is the guys point.
Hes researching how systems become self sustaining or self referential, his approach has already explained the chirality, and since lipids are naturally occurring thats crossed off by default.
His interest is in the information storage and how that arises and whether there are factors that dictate how it works, his research is aimed at explaining how ANY life can arise, such that we have a scientific framework to better interrogate how it arose on earth.
Because its obvious that life occured on earth, its like the state of the earth before life is a kettle and the sate of the earth after the origin of life is a boiled kettle, obviously the kettle boiled. But there are people who are trying to say because we didn't see it boil how do we know its the same kettle? How do we know pixies didn't magic it hot? How do we know water doesn't sometimes spontaneously boil? ect.
@@AvNotasian "Created"
They should have brought James Tour to the discussion also, it would have been hilarious 😀
James Tour is a blowhard! He is very anti-scientific in my view. I have watched him, and he seems to assert that THERE IS NO WAY THAT LIFE CAN ARISE FROM CHEMISTRY without a supernatural cause! How does he KNOW that???
He knows that for the same reason that a iphone wont assemble itself by random chance, and i iphone is a dwarf in complexity compared to the cell. In pre biology there is only chemistry something or someone has to assemble the parts in the right order under the right conditions in the right time. If someone says it simple they are very dishonest, for example, how do you get a cellmembrane without dna, and how do you get dna without a cellmembrane? A cell is very very very complex and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand this and the basic arguments that people like James Tour presents, its a fact and its a fact that James Tour is one of the brightest minds on this planet when it comes to understanding synthetic chemistry and how to build molecules.
@@christianaspas This is how he comes across to me..."I am a SYNTHETIC CHEMIST, and I KNOW EVERYTHING! And I have decided in my own mind that there is no way that life can arise from chemistry through naturalistic processes! And, there is no way that I could be wrong, because I KNOW EVERYTHING! But it's not surprising because you find that type of dogmatic thinking among the religious. One of the hallmarks of someone who is really smart is that they realize how much they don't know. The argument put forth by James Tour is kinda like someone living in the 18th century talking about how mankind will never be able to get to the moon.
the fact still remains, we are further away from the answer on the enigma of abiogenesis then we have ever been because we have discover all the time more and more of how complex a cell is. Sure you can downtalk Tour, but he actually knows what he is talking about on what real hurdles there is to make the first selfreplicating cell, there is no question about that.
@@christianaspas I don't claim to know everything. But what I do know is that all of the previously unknown mysteries for which we didn't know the answer and then we found out later what the answer was, there has never been a supernatural cause found for anything. The answer has always been a naturalistic mechanism for everything else, so even though there could be a supernatural cause for the origin of life, it is more reasonable to think that life arose from purely naturalistic causes, just like everything else in nature where we discovered the answer.
Would the Wright Bros. (or anyone else) have been able to invent a flying machine without having seen and understood the flight of birds?
Any news from Dr Cronin or his competitors for the prize, including Dr Szostak who said that by now he would have figured it out? There yet?
Why does it matter? Are you urgently in need of an abiogenesis reactor for your back yard?
What does evolution or Neodarwinism have to do with abiogenesis? Those are two different scientific fields.
There is some overlap, though, and one affects the other. In the (incorrect) Neo-Darwininian model, all you need is DNA first, then everything else came after that. It oversimplifies the issue.
You have to be a bit more specific. Neo-Darwinism has different definitions depending on who you ask. We use the Modern-Synthesis to be specific. I see Neo-Darwinism as the evolutionary model from almost 100 years ago, not our current one.
They are separate fields of science though. As well as the fact it doesn’t matter how life started. Evolution is about adaptation of existing systems, not the origins of those systems.
Neither is science.
Assumption that life has to emerge necessarily due to laws of physics is not in line with second law of thermodynamics, which rather favors death instead of life. Life is extremely special.
Life is impossible in total order but possible in the transition from order to disorder. Exactly the transition we see in the universe.
@@petercarlson811 Then it looks like universe is a put-up job for life.
@@bartoszmarcinkiewicz8409 Could be that it is a consequence due to some parameters of the quantum fields. Just as stars and black holes are consequences of the same parameters. What is the source of those parameters is another question.
The Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed or isolated systems with no outside source of energy.
Neither evolution or abiogenesis violates these laws because the earth is not a closed or isolated system with no outside source of energy. We have the sun.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 Exactly.
Disapointed that when Panspermia was brought up (~45 min), that no one was honest enough to mention that theory is “kicking the can down the road” (or off the planet). In other words, you’ve done nothing to explain how Life, or “proto-life’ managed to self assemble; you’ve just moved the question to another planet. I.E., how did it self assemble there? (Or the Origianal Planet that eventually resulted in a Life form advanced enough to “seed” it on other worlds.)
The idea of Panspermia was never
intended to solve the origin of life, it is an option on how essential ingredients for life, could have come to earth. One fully
within realistic possibilities. That
leaves the origin of those ingredients still open.
So does the pseudo answer “God did it” Which God? How did this deity do
it? Where does this Deity come from? Is just the beginning of the cascade of
follow up questions that need answers before any form of “God” can claim an explanatory nature. As it is now, we
have no trace of solid evidence for any form of God or the supernatural in
general.
It's akin to the multiverse theory and the origins of the Universe, it answers nothing regarding the problem, it just sidesteps the issue.
I think everyone understands this…
Guys this wasn't a debate episode. James Tour wasn't on here because that wasn't the format of the discussion. His work was just addressed briefly among other scientists who weren't present.
Just getting started - but gotta make note of a few things and toss them out into cyberspace! Here goes...
*LEE CRONIN:*
*"I'm a scientist, I like evidence."* - The ever present naturalistic assumptions of the naturalist! (Circular?) But isn't that kind like a 'time/nature' of the gaps argument? I mean, we _know [sic]_ that nature did it... so we just need more time to figure it out. Time is the magical ingredient (or miraculous - Paul Davies?) - for both nature and us! _Am I way off there? Did I miss something?_
*"Being religious doesn't stop you from using evidence."* - Actually the historical fact of the matter reveals (let the _evidence_ show) that it was the theists who gave us scientific inquiry in the first place - and that for very good reason!
*"We all have belief systems whether we declare them or not."* - And the atheists recoil in horror at the verbalizing of such a fact!
*"I would like to make a couple of assertions..."* - He was more honest before he corrected himself.
*"There is an evidence that there was a thing called the Big Bang."* - What was it? Where was it? What caused it to go bang? Where is the _evidence_ that any such thing could produce a universe - let alone life within itself? I might have missed something, but I believe it is more accurate to say that there is _evidence_ that there was a beginning.
*"Now we understand that gravity produces stars."* - In order for there to be gravity, don't you need massive objects - like planets? Where did the planets come from? What causes gravity in a vacuum? Why would gasses ever condense to form planets or stars?
*"There is nothing magical about the emergence of life. It's really simple."* - Is that what the _evidence_ shows? Aren't living things (even "simple" cells) more complex than anything man has ever intelligently engineered (something he often does by copying what has been produced, supposedly, by random chance, blind, and mindless nature)? I think I need him to define what he means by "really simple"!
Okay, that's just in the first 15-minutes. Always interesting content on this channel!
@Sticky Steve
No mass = no gravitational force. Correct me if I'm wrong. Please explain.
@Jesse Bryant
Where it all comes from is a different question!
@@brando3342
Sure. But that question is a preceding question, not the proceeding question. Why skip the first and most fundamental and perhaps important question?
Well said
@Sticky Steve
*1st post:* Thanks for sharing your faith! But the questions remain: 1. Where did these gases come from? 2. When have we seen gases condense to form solids in outer space?
*2nd post:* My theory is not simply that "God did it", but yours is obviously "Nature did it!" Okay, how did nature do it? Where did nature come from? You scoffers love to skip the first step...
Testing the theists or the evolutionists model? Well, the former is consistent with what we do know, experience, and observe; your faith is not. _Yes, let's look at BOTH!_
*3rd post:* Sticky, you got owned before, then bailed. So, whenever you're ready...
I've read the transposable element or TE in DNA transposon discovered by Barbara McClintock. I don't see how this concept can debunk intelligent design when you need transposase enzymes that still need to be created or exist in order for this to happen. May be I'm missing something.
It's simple is it. I'd say these guys know about as much as I do on this subject as I do and that is nothing.
Big difference between free floating bubbles housing RNA and the cell converting the bubble into sequential code to where the cell creates a housing bubble.
It's really simple 😂
The book title “from matter to life” is wrong. It’s “life that matters” :-)
boy-o-boy Lee really wants that $10mil
It seems that life didn't begin IN water, but that water itself IS "alive", or can form structures that could be the basis of life.
See the research of Roberto Germano and the "Xerosidrile" state of water (kind of structured "dry" water in filamentous form).
Mathematicians state the probabilities of life are impossible, James Tour concurs because he and all other chemical synthesis experts who really know how chemicals interact. Lee states the opposite, who to trust? Given that Lee stated life is easy makes me believe he is not a knowledgeable as he thinks.
"because he and all other chemical synthesis experts who really know how chemicals interact."
What kind of nonsense claim was that?
@@petercarlson811 the reality. Find one expert in how chemicals interact and understand how chemical reactions occur who states that abiogenesis is reasonable. None have a clue how nature could create proteins let alone the RNA and vesicles required to form a proto-cell. Then ask how this protocell would be able to bring in the right chemicals to replicate every part of this cell to create a new cell. They would look bemused at best.
@@iain5615 "Find one expert in how chemicals interact and understand how chemical reactions occur... "
You mean a chemist. Since you did not seem to understand that what you described was a chemist I have a strong suspicion that your understanding of empirical science in general, and chemistry in particular is quite poor. Therefore your claims so far in this thread seems to lack any merit.
@@petercarlson811 Lee has a chemical background but is not an expert in chemical synthesis. Just like biochemists, etc. Chemistry is a vast field and has a multitude of specialised fields. To state that life is easy shows he has little comprehension of what truly is entailed. A cell makes the most advanced manufacturing facilities look prehistoric. There is far more entailed than just simple chemical reactions. Amino acids, nucleobases, lipids and hydrocarbons are easy as they follow entropy and are expected in nature which is what has been discovered; however, to create proteins, DNA, lipids, etc. nature would have to go against entropy as the chemical compounds start becoming complex. If he could show how nature could achieve that feat then I would be more impressed.
@@iain5615 Seriously, chemistry is all about how charged atoms interact. It does not take an expert in organic synthesis to understand that. And organic chemistry is a field vast enough that one only specializes in as few areas therein. So this assertion of yours that Tour is some kind a supreme authority is ridiculous. You use Tour as an authority simply because his reasoning aligns with yours. Could that be because you both adhere to that ancient middle east mythology?
These debates are terrific. All of them. Great contributors, but the true star is Justin Briarley. He does a terrific job!
DNA are symbols representing something. That's completely different from something replicating itself like taking a mould of a footprint. It's like shouting footprint and all the molecules moving and your ears and brain hearing "footprint" but it has nothing to do with the mould copying the footprint, it is random molecules moving in waves and being interpreted by the brain. It has no connection with the footprint and the sand being pressed and the image it creates. It is the symbolic side of DNA that can't be explained.
Exactly! Exactly, this has never been addressed or explained.
DNA and RNA have absolutely nothing to do with proteins or amino acids. They are information storing mediums, and they store encoded information, symbols that represent amino acids, this needs to be decoded and processed by complex molecular machinery.
How does symbolism arise in matter?
Never been answered. Probably never will be, because it doesn't.
Cronin's work sounds like he has just re-discovered stigmergy - an illusion of self-reinforcing sophistication. He avoids a traditional definition of life, wanting to leave it nebulous. His page isn't loading currently.
Lee Cronin is disappointingly, simplistically speculative and actually unscientific. Bottom line : proof of concept and the extent of the probability and improbability of his fantastical theory.
A bit full of himself like many young people are until the passing of time puts you in your place.
If life is inevitable if the conditions are right there must be evidence of life continually arising spontaneously. Is there evidence of this occurring?
Get James Tour up in here.
@Déjà Siku Crazy when a comment you made 8 months ago actually gets answered and you see a vid now providing the very thing you were looking for. :)
Where did the 'primordial chemicals' and the electricity come from, to BEGIN with??
From the quantum fields they exist in.
Hydrogen and space-time.
@@worldmenders The fields are more fundamental.
Thor
@@petercarlson811 ........and where did they come from? And where did the rules that govern how the world operates come from? What set them off 13,7 billion years ago. (Or whatever is the latest esomate of the age of the Uni.?) Why not 30 billion years ago or the day before yesterday?
Now I must go understand teleology. 😀
There is only a single way how one's claim to knowledge of "what life is?", can be proved with 100% certainty:
that the person remains here alive forever to explain to all others personally how thaey can also do so. AND IT REALLY WORKS IN PRACTICE.
Very simple. No experiments, no observations, no arguments of any kind needed.
Say what you want about a "simple cell" but the cell is Anything but Simple. It drives me crazy when people talk about a "Simple Cell"!
There are 23 trillion molecules in a typical human somatic cell.
Let's say that a "simple cell" has only 4% of that -- that's a trillion molecules in just the right configuration AND mysteriously "alive".
@@20july1944
And Everything has to work perfectly at the same time, or no Life.
Steven Wiederholt what are the odds eh?
@@Glasstable2011
1 in 10 to the 77th power?
Steven Wiederholt the latest estimates are that there are roughly 100 billion stars in our galaxy, that each of these stars has a solar system of their own, and that the latest estimate we have is that there are over 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Does that make it more probable that on at least one of these planets, given the right conditions and billions of years, that life would arise?
The words in a book existed long before books existed. So how were words created, were they created as a means of communication, if they were, what existed first the words or the ideas communicated.
Maybe what existed first was something that has always existed and is neither organic nor inorganic but spiritual which is something that is beyond our ability to understand. The structure of Spirit is so difficult to understand that we deny it's existence.
But I assure you that many humans have been guided in there lives and decisions by something that is not an organic functions.
In the beginning was the word 😊
Lee Cronin supports I D with his computer analogy.
He is ID an he doesn't know it
Wonderful, I have been following these talks as I myself am highly interested in the origin of life. I admire your approach, congratulations. I would like though to suggest the term teleonomy rather than teleology. Teleology has been associated with purpose whereas teleonomy (Greek Telos + Nomos= end+law) with mechanistic steps. I agree that RNA is more important than DNA in the origin of life steps and also I believe that there were many steps and that todays living systems and their components might not be abe to leads backward, sort of reverse origin, to the primitive cells. Lastly, I would like to stress that order and complexity are different things and that often in the literature these two concwpts are confused.
"Life is not that special" - Lee
My question to you then, why are you still living it and acting like it is special?
Why are you playing word games instead of addressing real arguments?
@@john1425 I'm just pointing out the obvious. His actions clearly show he doesn't mean what he says. No word games pal.
@@ronnied1172 No your not. You are conflating two different definitions. One where "special" is used in a scientific sense to refer to how rare or unique an event is in our universe, and another definition that relates to how meaningful something is to an individual person in their life. I am extremely special to my wife in a personal sense. I am not remotely special in an objective scientific sense with respect to the universe.
@@john1425 In a universe that does not have God, the word special has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Everything just IS. It doesn't matter if something is rare or not, in the end it just IS. No one can live life like that.
@@ronnied1172 Thats a really depressing world view. Reason #9,999 to not be a Christian. I don't know any atheists that look at life that way.
*The Modern Synthesis proposed that random copying errors combined with natural selection and population genetics would provide a gradual increase in speciation. But there are several problems with this view, five problems of which are highlighted below:*
i) _Evolution is not steady and gradual, it instead consists of long periods of stasis followed by rapid stages of punctuated equilibrium, contrary to Darwin's predictions (Gould and Eldredge, 1993)_
ii) _Mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer, transposition, symbiogenesis, and hybridization are applied in a non-random way by natural genetic engineering systems_ (J.A. Shapiro 1993), which tailor responses to hundreds of sensory inputs in a cognitive manner (Shapiro, 2011).
iii) _Random mutations are noise, and noise destroys information_ (Noise can be defined as anything that interferes with accurate transmission of the message, including random genetic mutations. One of Shannon's signature victories was identifying noise as information entropy. Shannon (1948) showed that noise is mathematically identical to Boltzmann's en-tropy in thermodynamics. This implies that information lost from noise is lost forever).
iv) _Transposons can jump around the genome, repairing damage in real time (McClintock, 1953). Under the Modern Synthesis framework this should be impossible, and her findings were initially rejected. This is because the MS insisted organisms are passive recipients of accidental mutations which are selected for fitness. However, McClintock's plants engineered novel solutions to unforeseeable problems in real time by activating DNA editing systems and copying coding se-quences from other chromosomes. Cancer cells similarly reprogram their own genomes in real time, especially when subjected to chemotherapy. One species of cancer cell can generate hundreds of species in weeks_ (Heng et al., 2011)
v) _Epigenetic inheritance has vindicated Lamarck, who for de-cades was derided for suggesting that acquired learnings can be passed to progeny_ (Baverstock, 2013; Noble, 2020; Torday and Rehan, 2013).
Darwin's central thesis is: species can change over time, new species come from pre-existing species, and all species share a common ancestor.
i. Punctuated equilibrium is an explanation for the mechanism of evolution, it does NOT challenge evolution as the description how the diversity of life arose.
ii. see i.
iii. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations. Yes mutation (variation is noise) but cells have evolved mechanisms to decrease the effect of this noise, and it has been incredibly successful. With these repair mechanisms and selection better adapted variants have survived and flourished. Where there was no environmental selection pressure the genomes have stabilised (canalised).
iv. Cancer cell mechanism of evading capture is evolution by natural selection. As regards the Modern Synthesis, gene flow is included, and that's what you would expect to see, especially as the Modern Synthesis was not set in stone.
v. Derided yes, for the examples he gave, they were wrong, and unless you're going to say giraffe's grew longer because they wanted to reach higher into trees and this trait was directly passed to the offspring, good luck to you. Lamarckism inasmuch some mechanisms of acquired characteristics have come to light such as episomal transfer of epigenetic information has Lamarckian overtones, I'd agree that is undeniable. Also phenotypic change in cells and developmental proceses but not accompanied by genetic change until in later generations, that too has evidence. Selection of behavioural changes in reaction to environmental selection pressures prior to any genetic changes also has evidence to back it up.
However, none of these objections attack evolution, and none of the proponents of these new mechanisms have ever arguments against evolution, just its underlying mechanism.
There is nothing magical in the emergence in of life. It is really simple.
-Lee Cronin
How can anyone take this guy seriously?! 🙄🙄🙄
Science tries to explain.. Creationists "know" and explain nothing.
really puzzling - you would expect to hear a comment like that from most people, but not from a guy supposed to be a biologist or a chemist - for one he is misinforming people.
@@spatrk6634 I like how Lee Cronin expressed that the evolution group tends to act like evangelicals for abiogenesis while not understanding information theory. Rob Stadler said the same thing. Lee Cronin is an atheist and Rob Stadler creationist agree. This evolution group act like evangelicals.
He’s speaking to a group of lay people, and it was simple the terms he was expressing. Simple, inorganic compounds can form chemicals systems that template and create more complex molecules. Of course, the science may not be simple to understand or uncover, but the concept is straight forwards and derived from simple beginnings
I think your 10 million dollar prize is safe.
1:11 God is the key to the origins problem. You can DM me and I will tell you where you can mail my check
@Man0vtrvth Indeed. Engines don't build themselves. Houses don't build themselves. Cars don't build themselves. Yet the simplest living cell is a more sophisticated machine than any of the above.
@Man0vtrvth nuh uh. Aliens
@Man0vtrvth what came first. The sun or the plants?
Great conversation! Get Lee and James to dialogue! I think James gets a lot of bad press from people who do not understand what he's saying.
Tour got bad press from people who object to an hysterical lying fanatic smearing scientists for laughs from an audience of ignorant christian fundamentalists.
When I heard the statement the ''emergence of life is really simple'' I knew immediately this man has no understanding of what it means to be alive. He should give up trying to win the prize. He has NO CHANCE!
Gerald, you are spot on. The guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
James Tour vs Lee Cronin please
Okay, i'm writing this in May of 2021. Where's the beef, Lee? . . . Last I checked no one has won the 10 million. I'm really starting to think that Cronin may be a used car salesman with a nice British accent. Guess time will tell . . . or it won't.
Creating life from scratch is a dream as old as myth, but no one has done it-and as our knowledge deepens, the problem seems ever harder. With today’s emphasis on information and organization in biology, the task seems gargantuan. Synthetic biology is not creating life it is modifying an already living cells. * Sophia Roosth. Synthetic: How Life Got Made. University of Chicago Press*
In the process it was discovered that around a third of genes essential to life are an enigma because no one knows yet what they code for. So the spark of life, and the ability to create it entirely from scratch without nature’s help, is still way beyond our capabilities.
As Roosth calls it: a suspicion we don’t know or understand as much as we thought. This is a crisis of comprehensibility and coherence.
This just shows the limits of our power and depth of our ignorance: we have no idea what a third of the genes actually do.
We could be facing a stone wall to our limits to understand how life is created.
It's the hype control James Tour was addressing. Lee wants people to be excited. Great, but people tend to take an idea and inflate it to great links beyond want the science is or scientists say.
2:35 citation needed
In 2005, the legendary atheist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins debated Design advocate George Gilder. The debate was on radio station WBUR in Boston (101). It was produced for National Public Radio’s On Point program. The show streamed on the web and I tuned in.
Dawkins at the time was a professor at Oxford University. One of his admirers had created a special endowment for him, The Charles Simyoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science.
One of the callers asked Dawkins about the Origin of Life. He replied that it was “a happy chemical accident.”
A happy chemical accident?
Lee has a bad bout of itching......could it be the revenge of the salt children?
Is there an oil that existed on earth prior to life existing on earth?
Consider the splendour of a reality occupied by only a single atom, dancing as they do.
Why did you post that? What is your point?
@@20july1944 What does Being require? Our language is so poor at this depth. So much so, that as soon as something is 'becoming' we can see the majesty all over it.
@Donald McRonald
True. We marvel at the majesty of ONE SINGLE atom, imagine how intelligent someone would have to be to create life itself.
@@brando3342 What's your definition of intelligence and how do we test for it?
@@donaldmcronald8989 Do you think there are any non-living things that are intelligent? That would start bounding the definition of intelligence.
I haven't seen Perry in a while
chemistry cannot build a context period. Context are always based on an observer.
And at time index 19:24 they said we do not know what life and evolution are, but yet he is certain that he knows where life came from. On what data is he drawing this conclusion if we cannot properly define life?
Did Lee win the prize?
No way 😂
Please, get James Tour on the show. Preferably to debate someone, but at least get him on the show!
Perry 2:35 - "happy chemical accident is anti-scientific."
Perry 3:20- "I was sympathetic towards intelligent design view (creationism). I really embraced that."
Ummm is this guy a former priest or something?
Don’t start driving to the bank just yet
Yeah agreed. Creationist/ID people have offered fake prizes for decades. They always write the rules to where they never have to actually give up the money. Typically the catch is that some specific person has to agree that they have been convinced. Extremely dishonest.
_"Don’t start driving to the bank just yet"_...but start the car.
jwkivy: but who created the car? 😊
@@kensmith8152 Karl Benz
@@kensmith8152 cars are waaaay to complex to just "happen". 100% proof of God.
If something can happen, it will.
Life exists, but we don’t know if it always did exist; or if or how it happened.
And if it did happen, it hasn’t happened again since. So, what does that tell you?
"It's very simple" ..oh boy, just go home, don't waste our time.
That's easy to answer .. if complex to comprehend - and thus difficult to fully understand. Can 'chemistry' in the modern sense trace back to its origins the 'mystery' of life? No: However it may, with hit and miss/ amendable hypotheses, present an understanding of the chemical constituents involved (chemeia - material cast together, alloy/ alchemy - transmutation, impelled evolution) in any change of 'matter' = maternity, type, wood, stuff, thingness, observable data = hylos (material existence, dust and water, breathing beings). Life, however, refers to a particular kind of breath aka the spirit, i.e. innate, inner-motivating/ outer-reactive, animated existence, a notion of 'being' that is expressed with vitality, energy, action: chiefly, i) botane (botanological) photosynthetic eukaryotic organisms, vegitabilis = things able to live, plants, ii) zoe (zoological) animal (ensouled) being, compounded of inanimate matter and animate life (psychology), or iii) bios (biological) the course of a given lifetime, a mode of life e.g. moral, rational, intelligent, instinctive, compelled, accidental - and there, in the end, chemistry alone is unlikely to deal well with these immaterial concepts.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Teleology has a finality to its purpose. Can chemistry provide or create that purpose?
What the hell is on the back of Lee Cronin's head???
Jimmy Bob it appears to be some new life form evolving 😆
Which means life cannot happened randomly on earth. Thank you very much Lee 😉
hahahahaha..... this guy is a complete scammer
Lee Cronin is right when he argues that science and belief (in God) dont't interfere with each other and that they are compatible.
But this seems only only to be accurate if one has a suitable concept of God such as "God is being itself or in Latin "esse ipsum subsistens" as Thomas Aquinas and others taught.
No matter what science comes up with, you can always give credit to something that exists outside of spacetime. Even if you're a young earth creationist, you could justify your beliefs against the knowledge from what we have gained from the geological strata, fossil evidence, and organisms that are alive today far older than the creation of the earth in this hypothesis by saying "that's how god wanted it to be made". That one statement can justify anything being that the god is an unfalsifiable creator. This is why unfallsifiable arguments are generally rejected in all cases other than arguments for a deity. They may be true, they may be false, our physical brains will never have the opportunity to know.
@@He.knows.nothing no im not a young earth creationist the universe is13.9 billion years old but design is everywhere from bigbang to periodic table to dna. To proton electron neutron energy levels and were do you want to go the flagellum of a bacteruim design big time
@@Psalm1101 matter and energy interact with each other in very specific ways. When the singularity exploded into the big bang, matter and energy rushed into the cosmos intertwined by their characteristics and what we see today is an inevitable result of them coming into contact with each other over time. Their characteristics are intrinsic properties, meaning that they could not have interacted any different way. Eventually, the correct element setting for life to develop in the simplest of forms occurred. I don't know what that form was exactly, no one does, but we have speculations that are just as plausible as a supernatural creator, if not more plausible given occums razor, that account for their development and once they gained the ability to reproduce, natural selection became their designer. Flagellum on bacteria? Designed by natural selection. Wings on birds? Designed by natural selection. Consciousness and the ability to have abstract thought demonstrated by intelligent species? Designed by natural selection.
@@He.knows.nothing i know black holes quantum physics which are singularitys and string theory all is theory except black holes and we know very little about them if there are a infinite number of universes we just live in the one that all of nature gets along perfertly from the quantum level atoms etc to large bodies gravity and space and time i think einstein called it the unified theory of all things he spent 30 years asking why all these work so well
Oh yes he failed and were doing the same today
"Life is just a manifestation of chemistry." I've never heard a dumber statement in my life.
Jesus, it's like saying, assume you have a can opener. There's your can opener. It's only a can opener.
What about MIND. (Oh, right just chemical processes. And the evidence for this is....???)
Creating life from scratch is a dream as old as myth, but no one has done it-and as our knowledge deepens, the problem seems ever harder. With today’s emphasis on information and organization in biology, the task seems gargantuan. Synthetic biology is not creating life it is modifying an already living cells. * Sophia Roosth. Synthetic: How Life Got Made. University of Chicago Press*
For most biologists, evolution is almost a sacrament. Through random mutation and natural selection, evolution finds the “best” solutions to life’s problems. Evolution solves everything.
The modern genetic era is now facing a reality.
The human genome is full of apparently meaningless “junk”; it is impenetrably complicated; and some inheritable traits seem extremely hard to attribute to specific genes.
As Roosth calls it: a suspicion we don’t know or understand as much as we thought. This is a crisis of comprehensibility and coherence.
In the process it was discovered that around a third of those genes essential to life are an enigma because no one knows yet what they code for.
So the spark of life, and the ability to create it entirely from scratch without nature’s help, is still way beyond our capabilities.
This just shows the limits of our power and depth of our ignorance: we have no idea what a third of the genes actually do.
We could be facing a stone wall to our limits to understand how life is created.
Biology remembers better with each future encounter making life inevitable in the right conditions. Sounds very strong. Give him the money! Would like to know more about the salt replicators, fascinating. Thanks for the show!
@ZappBrannigan23
Except chemicals are not biology, until the right conditions have already existed. Which then just begs the question all over again. Interesting, but he was correct when he said "that's cheating". They are cheating, they are starting with their own intervention of intelligence.
Lee: "The universe likes to assemble itself." LOL is that the latest "scientific" evidence?
1:05:00
It's so funny to hear a scientist saying that chemicals were trying to become amino acid, then protein, etc. :-)))
During an interview, when asked if the genetic code is really a code, Dr. Richard Dawkins answered, *_“It [the genetic code] is a code. It's definitely a code…”_* (Source: Jon Perry - Genetics & Evolution Stated Casually UA-cam Channel Interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins on 4-2-2022. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution)
the $10M prize is to whomever can provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation for how the first biological cell could have formed.
Dr Cronin is not alone, he has serious competitors: Dr Szostak and others.
However, it seems like nobody has made any serious attempt to grab he prize yet. But perhaps they are unaware of the fact that every day that brings new discoveries in Biology the finish line for those potential candidates to the prize is moving away.
What's so urgent about it? Nature took hundreds of millions of years to get it done. We can wait a couple more for a reproduction, can't we? ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Why did the distinguished scientist Dr Szostak predict in 2014 that he will have it all figured out by 2017 or at the latest by 2019? Why such a rush? Any thoughts?
Anyway, I look forward with much anticipation to reading the upcoming research papers describing future discoveries that shed more light on the amazing biological systems.
@@janwaska4081 I don't know why all of you guys are in such a rush. Are you that old? Is death near your doorstop? Well, in that case you can soon ask Jesus, anyway. :-)
12:12
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Cronin is clearly the "barnum and bailey" huckster in this group. He got it figured out. But doesnt want the 10 million dollar prize..
Oh and sound! Vibration. X
34:44 hurricanes “LIKE” to build things 😳
Has this scholar seen how Dorian(hurricane) decimated the Bahamas. 🤯
He didn't say anything remotely like what you are inferring. He didn't even use the word 'like'. He said that hurricanes assemble, meaning they build up from something that is not a hurricane.
@Beagez07
Doesn't really coincide with "the appearance of design" now does it!
Get James Tour on the show, preferably with Lee Cronin.
LOL at Perry Marshall attacking Richard Dawkins right off the bat.
The origin of life scenario is solved this year ,2024. A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
Materialists are soulless - they take it as a compliment 😂
Information is ever present everywhere. Evolution acting on life isn’t information but information storage, information alteration, information transmission and information selection. As evolution can happen in any medium with those properties. It doesn’t have to be biological. Any system that can store, alter, transmit and select information will have evolution acting on it.
ManicPandaz wrote, "Any system that can store, alter, transmit and select information will have evolution acting on it."
I don't see Microsoft software evolving by itself through random changes in code.
@citizenguy No you don’t because binary and DNA are different information mediums with different properties. Humans also actively reset and reinstall any differently functioning programs. Computer viruses are a different beast than a home computer designed to stay exactly the same throughout its use. Computer viruses can adapt and evolve.
Hold on, ManicPandas.
In one sentence you first say, "Any system that can..." Now you are claiming, "different information mediums with different properties."
You specifically wrote, "As evolution can happen in any medium with those properties. It doesn’t have to be biological."
You are wrong and seem to be admitting it.
Tour never claimed Intelligent Design or God or Designer, he simply said What people say in Origin of Life Chemically doesn't work - nothing more nothing else - Where do you get that he stands for Designer? He himself never spoke about it and never brought the topic - he only does science and keeps his faith separate.
most of videos of tour is him praising jesus and interacting with discovery institute.
which are people who think that god created them out of mud using magical words.
so this topic is something that people like Tour must deny validity of.
because it goes against their faith
It is not absolutely a simple process! Damn! How can you so sure that life is simple? One thing that is absolutely certain is that we all learn the truth the moment we die