The RNA Origin of Life
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- RNA may have been the origin of life on Earth. Go on a whirlwind tour of RNA's evolving role through billions of years of evolutionary history.
Play the RNA Lab: www.pbs.org/wgb...
Find discussion questions for this video and other resources in the RNA Lab collection on PBS LearningMedia: www.pbslearning...
CREDITS
Writer/Director/Producer
Alex Rosenthal
2-D Animator
Qa'ed Mai
Narrator
George Zaidan
Music
Scorekeepers Music Library
Freesound.org SFX
103605 waves at the dock by floating tree
110393 water splash by soundscalpel.com
195616 footsteps dirt by xDimebagx
144265 impact misc tools 0004 by D W
164283 book-drop by -Bender-
209583 oven mitt impact by Zott820
181774 ustling paper by keweldog
202021 bulldozer small cu by Geldart
136291 flipping through page 2 by SamerMM
82377 paper flip 1 by gynation
This video has changed my life. I already signed up for chemistry and micro and cellular bio. thank you.
How has it gone ?
How is it going with that? Should we be starting calling you Dr.?
I encourage you to look up the problems with this hypothesis, it is a very bad explanation, even the video is hard to watch. The only feasible answer to the origin of life is God since DNA (and RNA) store complex information and that can only come from a source of intelligence. To believe that RNA can create protein or by itself or arise by chance is just absurd, although it serves as a good excuse to evade the obvious.
I love the "...don't entirely know". These people have no CLUE. Especially funny is this: "RNA is made from DNA by an enzyme called RNA polymerase (an enzyme that makes a polymer of RNA). "
@@angeloskyriakides542 gOd iS thE aNSweR sIncE I cAN't UndErSTand sOmeTHing
But where does "god" comes from ? Some kind of god replication ? An universe fart ?
It is as likely as life would come from nothing, but only life we can see.
It bothers me so much that because a theory is not complete, some people as you would say this kind of shite.
Enjoy the doom your God is pouring on earth as we speak
Cool Ive read about this for years but its cool to see someone try to animate in way that easy to describe towards those who lack context. Thank you.
i much preferred Stated Clearly's version of this explanation because saying that " the strongest code could survive" makes no sense if you don't explain the processes that create the competition in the first place. As usual, a pretty video but not very informative.
Uhh, because if a protein that is slightly different is more efficient or effective (ie, a better fit) for the environment, it will make better use of the resources available in the environment and "out compete" others of similar purpose.
I'm not sure what's unclear. Is it the method or about competition ion general?
@@rsrt6910 his question is, how does an rna molecule make use of its enviroment, or even express traits? Stated clearly videos answer this
Welcome to atheistic science
This is a pretty decent discovery. What originally brings competition at chemical level is that when subjected to heat, or UV radiation, molecules build forms that are more efficient at expelling heat. So instead of it being random, there is selection, and the better a molecule is at expelling heat, the more likely it is to build up, and stay in that form until it builds into more improved version. And eventually into RNA.
Artistic and sensationalized videos get more clicks than educational ones. That's the competition.
Further important points to mention: even though the longer term store of genetic plans is DNA, this is still converted to RNA today as the messenger that is decoded into the required protein; secondly most protein molecular machines consist of a large percentage of folded RNA strands, indeed the proteins involved often only add to the efficiency of the machines which function albeit slowly solely as folded RNA.
Proteins perform MUCH MORE function (catalytic) in a cell, than RNA.
I appreciate the honesty of saying "we don't know". The complexity of the first rna driven first cell is not "simple". To think it just happened by uncontrolled, random, natural(unthinking) processes requires evidence it could happen. We don't have that
PRECISELY! The world of scientific naturalism simply insists, as does this presentation, that "somewhere along the way," such complex molecules as RNA surprisingly found their way into existence. No explanation. No evidence. No confirming experimentation. And they call such assertions "science"?
@@davidchapman4064 "No explanation. No evidence. "
As an expert on the technical literature you'll be able to explain where Professor John Sutherland and Dr Matthew Powner went wrong in their synthesis of nucleotides.
"And they call such assertions "science"?"- no, I'd call your post what it is- sneering in perfect ignorance.
The laws of physics and chemistry are not random.
@@mcmanustony evolution is. Set laws of physics and chemistry show design. They can't just happen :)
Yes right, according to evolution theorie everything came from try and error then laws were made very random and in some cases the question arises nature laws were first and living cells adopted or cells were first and laws were created…
wow I wish my college slides and clasess were like this, this is so fun to watch and take notes lol why not make school fun? =(
Because a video like this takes a huge amount of money to produce per hour of video, and college slides (any decent ones at least) are much denser with critical supporting information and detail.
Because college or school is not about 'education', it's about rote learning and memorization of various facts and figures. It's not designed to be fun or entertaining. It's just fascinating stuff presented in the most boring possible manner, resulting in burnout from most students, save for the most masochistic ones. True learning comes from having fun. Learning from play and the like. As long as you're having fun, you're learning. The moment it's painfully boring, you won't grasp or remember a thing. We have fundamentally failed to understand and build proper education that actually works.
Very nice! Easy to understand and very good animations :)
Pity that it's completely unsustained)
"It is almost a miracle." - Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick
More specifically ... "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against. "
This is why finding extrasolar life would be one of the greatest scientific boons to molecular cell biology!
Finding intelligent life that we can compare notes with would settle a lot of the debate overnight.
@@rsrt6910
It doesn't have to be intelligent life, microbes are enough to prove a point.
@@rsrt6910 Then the question would still be how did life start on those planets? and it is important to address what is the definition of life is. I saw a video where they created "life" in a lab and considered a soap like substance "life" and Why does anything exist at all?
@@rsrt6910 that just kicks the proverbial can down the road to the same question :)
Considering our understanding of rna now, it would have to be a miracle to simply "happen" in a soup or naturally. Origin of life scientists should say "we don't know" more, because they don't
The Origin of Life is Chemical Synthesis.Marine algae(green seaweed):Cellulose is a cell
so RNA is conscious? how does it make decisions? how does it move? how does it evolve and what is it competing for? i find it hard to understand how RNA became protein
Since we STILLdon't know how to quantify OR qualify what is or isn't consciousness, there's no way to ask your question in the form of a scientific observation so the question is largely irrelevant.
@@rsrt6910 wake up bro
@@varavarala313
?
@@varavarala313
ok
go cry on those churches and teach creationism to the delusional oxymorons like you
You're the one who must be woken up by science
Consciousness is a human construct. Nothing in this world is objectively 'conscious'. There is no clear divide between decision making and mere chemical reactions, so it is a waste of time to apply these labels to early proto-life.
Very well broken down for the layman. Glad I watched.
Brian Parsons this is idiocy ,do you really believe in the bs in this video
@@pleasesubscribe7659
no u
_Stated Clearly_ did a better job than this
So what do you guys think about Dr James Tour?
Lying for Jesus.
He's a proven liar.
Its weird to think that rna and species are basically a game of war of tanks where they try out different designs and see which can last
The end game for the most suited (adapted) to the environment is to have the highest chance/probability of Survival (ie. Survival of the fittest), The ones that are not, will not survive, like the early Forms of life Charnia.
This needs an update as we have way more information about this now.
Seems like RNA couldnt self replicate yet.
But to replicate RNA used molds and the building blocks kinda formed within those molds
This has been tested and it works
It is an amazing break through within science and abiogenesys and I would love to see a video about this!!!
Do you have a link to this paper? Sounds super interesting
@@dissturbbedyes 👍
Of course mould but then we don't associate mould with life as much as we associate RNA itself@@dissturbbed
@@mad5161
You're joking, right?
@@mirziyodm nope, if we started associating mold with 'life' then we might as well call machines and computers as living beings.
I searched for video about whether DNA or RNA came first. The video before this one was a video that said evolutionists don't have an explanation, but creationists do. I think the comments on that video was disable for a reason
Creationists do not gave an explanation. They make guesses , without any evidence to back up the guess, then they call their guess an explanation.
But don't we still have the problem of why RNAs "wanted" (for lack of a better word) to survive? I guess if we can have laws of physics just exist for no reason, and chemicals and elements just exist for no reason, we can have a combination of it all form into something that randomly wants to store information and "survive"? I guess, I means it's definitely possible.
sgtsnakeeyes11 This whole video is a HUGE oversimplification of what we understand of the process. The configurations that RNA takes is simply a result of the order in which the nucelotides are joined (there are a couple of different processes possible for that) which gives rise to how those now expanded chains react with other substates in the environment. There's no mind here - it's just carbon chemistry at work, As far as complexity......you can see that in the variety of ways that water crystallizes. And that's just hydrogen bonding at work. Carbon chemistry is much more complex and allows far more subtlety.
No because if RNA exists the types of RNA that are better at survival and reproduction will become more common. The laws of physics exist because physical things have consistent properties. Would you expect their properties to change randomly? And with enough trials forming self replicators is inevitable not just possible.
Tl;dr
There's no _will_ in the process; just the laws of physics.
Good overview. Best hypothesis I've seen yet. Yeah, that's right--RNA can be both an information store and a nanomachine. It makes sense that it came first.
@Gary Eastman I don't understand what you're trying to say, though it seems like you're maybe being a little obtuse? Yeah, we have "no evidence," but we're trying to figure it out, and this seems like a likely hypothesis. Do you have an alternative that you'd like to suggest?
@@Elephantine999If you found a computer in the woods would you assume the minerals and metals randomly came together and formed the computer? Or do you have an intelligent mind that tells you someone had to have designed and created it? It's amazing that people assume they're so smart, yet can't piece together the simplest explanations.
@@Acta_Non_Verba there were billions of years for RNA nucleotides to be assembled in a certain order to then be able to fold into a working "machine". The percentage of this happening is very low for a single molecule, but now think of billions of them; the chance goes way up, and add the time it had to occur, then it becomes reasonable. Obviously, this is very simplified, but the principle is still there. Your analogy of a computer is flawed as a computer is not made up of a simple building block like RNA or another type of polymer like RNA.
@@Acta_Non_Verbait's fascinating that one can think they're so smart while employing circular reasoning through a flawed analogy
The fact you call RNA/DNA simple is fascinating my friend. Time and energy do NOT create life. @@rubenhillier770
This was a bit sketchy on how the RNA mocules replicated and competed
But the animation was great for a general overview.
Thanks
_Stated Clearly_ (UA-cam channel) did a better explanation for this, go check it out.
All of the information in DNA came from a mind. ALL information comes from a mind. It NEVER comes from random chance.
The most universal and primitive functions of the molecular biology and biochemistry of modern organisms feature RNA, and some of that features DNA reverting to RNA before they can commence.
Is an intelligence behind life possible? I don't mean creationism, I mean that something created life, and how life evolves. If we are to believe the universe expanded from a mass the size of a pea, is it so crazy to hypothesize that life iis a creation of some sort of consciousness or intelligence?
That is the only possible explanation to the existence of life... intelligent design.
+Joseph Barrel yep! DNA and evolution just by random chance and time? mmm no.
+Axel Thirud here's what I think: like a seed that grows into a tree, life exists to evolve into some final product. I think that all life that has ever existed did so to help life to evolve into us. 99.999% of all life that has ever existed is extinct. mankind is the point where the man takes over the design process. when we start altering DNA we are altering the process of life. I think this is also by design.
consciousness could be described as an electromagnetic field held in place by a brain. do consciousness is not made of carbon. consciousness is energy. light. it is not matter. is life ehat is needed to hold consciousness non this universe? the purpose of life could be to serve as a home for consciousness.
get where I am going with all this? consciousness could be the purpose of evolving life.
i think God is a universal consciousness.. man is a vessel for the consciousness of God to interact with the world. Every human life throughout history is part of this global consciousness.
I know I am a bit all over the place, but I think I described the idea... human consciousness could be the purpose of DNA based life. why, I don't know..
Scott McCall
The only problem is that how can flesh give rise to something other than flesh or superior to flesh.
We nourish these bodies with the same substance from which we are made, and we don't seem to recall that without consciousness we are lifeless.
Therefore, the truth lies in our consciousness, that He who created us, too has a conscious mind and does not need a body made of flesh.
+Joseph Barrel it would seem that consciousness evolves from life. if there is no "God", then life and consciousness should be predictable like chemical reactions, gravity, quantum physics, etc. if life, naturally and without intelligence, arises on it's own, then it should be able to be simulated using mathematics. I don't think you would ever get to consciousness starting out with only hydrogen atoms and gravity and using mathematics to simulate the evolution of the universe to get there. if there is no God then it should be possible to explain life arising from lifeless elements using only mathematics. I say that's impossible.
there must be an intelligence behind the existence of life. life is like a special state of matter. you can only create living tissue from preexisting living tissue. all life it seems relies on life before it to exist. the atoms that make up a living organism are held together differently than atoms that make up a rock. it seems the process of evolution starts when single celled organisms use photosynthesis to terraform a planet using sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water. I think there's a name for this period in time, I'll have to Google it later.
panspermia is possibly a fundamental part of evolution buy still leaves the question of who put life in the universe. is life necessary to have consciousness in the universe? does life exist merely to support consciousness? is consciousness quantifiable or measurable beyond its Influence upon the atoms that it controls with "Free will"?
I'm just an artist who thinks about these questions a lot. I'm no scientist. but I can't help but ponder my existence in this universe. we will all be dead one day like every person who has ever existed. the meaning if eternity is timelessness. to live is to experience time in quantifiable steps. to live outside the flow of time is eternity. I believe we can exist in the flesh and in eternity. OK my head hurts now!
1:30 "this may have happened", "or perhaps", "some scientists have even speculated", "one way or another, self replicating rna's emerged, replicated, and evolved" ... These are all very scientifically based statements that support RNA world hypothesis. Thanks for sharing.
Until we have time machine, it's impossible to know for sure.
Something is just impossible to know - live with it.
Yet, the best we can is to reproduce the process. So now it's not a historic investigation problem - it's an engineering problem, which is much easier (at least, possible).
The scientific method is based on postulation and hypotheses, total shocker. Guess what? This is how all science begins. Scientists have created countless hypotheses and many have eventually been shown to ne true. Gravity, optics and more! Your comment is of no substance. While science continues to progress you write this worthless pile of rubbish.
The simplest of beginnings. A single, self-replicating RNA molecule. What?! What about that is simple?
"One way or another self-replication RNA emerged"? Uh . . . how?
This does not explain why or how any RNA molecule began replicating. If anyone knows an answer to that, I will send them karma. Replicating RNA would be the beginning of evolution, once you have replication you have competition. But I just can't fathom the very beginning. What reason would cause any strand to make a copy? By what mechanism?
By what mechanism? intelligence.
Who? God.
Code cannot randomly come together and start existing. Especially code that can replicate cells. I don't think even scientists can create a completely new code which works with carbon from scratch that can do this without using DNA.
My uneducated guess is that it was a very simple form of replication: floating in water and having the right shape for other floating molecules to attach to and build upon. If the original shape happened to have the right structure, it could keep building itself in the same interlocking structure using the other molecules that are floating by. And the replication just happens when a piece of this molecule happens to break off and create a new object that can be built upon. Over time this would become more complex as the shape of the molecule becomes, by the process of elimination, better at collecting raw materials to grow itself and later break off to replicate itself.
Base pairing.
From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved
So, so true, and so, so beautiful.
If only everyone could see it.
Those _"endless forms"_ certainly _are_ beautiful and wonderful. But there's no way they evolved from a microbe. They were clearly *designed* to be beautiful and wonderful. We know too much now to go back to 19th century thinking.
RNA is produced in the living cell and does not *-self-* replicate
What a nice bed time story
It is a nice story 8) but it’s far from reality
***These problems simply highlight one of the challenges for the RNA world hypothesis and for any materialistic explanation for the genetic code. A viable theory would have to explain for both the encoding and decoding several steps:
Amino acids and nucleotides would have to be created in abundance and then brought together. They would have to originate in separate locations, since the conditions needed for their synthesis are quite different, and cross-reactions would have prevented the creation of either. (See Shapiro’s Origins.)
The amino acids and nucleotides would have to form into long chains. These chains would have then needed to replicate by a selective process biased toward sequences which performed some useful biological function. The challenge is that any selective process would have only selected for the efficiency of replication, which has no connection to any life-permitting activity.
A functional protein or RNA strand would have to unfold to allow for its sequence to be translated. And, such functional sequences would have to separate themselves from other useless chains. An enormous number of chains would have to exist for a useful sequence to have had any chance of forming.
Individual codons would have to be so strongly attracted to their corresponding amino acids, that they would attach to them for an extended period of time.
Some enzyme-like molecules would have to come along and then polymerize the nucleotides into strands of RNA or the amino acids into proteins.
All useful products would have to migrate to some safe location until they could be encapsulated into a cellular membrane. A viable membrane would have to be selectively semipermeable, so it would allow the right molecules to enter and waste products to leave.
Neither Yarus nor any other researcher has even come close to properly addressing any of these issues in a purely materialistic framework. Nor will they, for any realistic scenario requires intelligent agency to properly coordinate all of these fantastically improbable steps***
RNA can't replicate itself though right? So how would there be any evolution happening? There would have to be so many nucleotides floating around even to make one and they don't seem to occur naturally very often.
1.RNA with the help of expressed proteins can replicate itself,l. 2.RNA-dependent RNA Pol to replicate or RNA-dependent DNA Pol (reverse transcriptase) to form cDNA.
3. RNA also has catalytic activity.
You can compare a RNA or Virus to a computer virus..... It may give you some answers and questions to ponder upon.
And ofcourse they need nucleotides to do so. Something is needed to make something.
Does this really boil down to belief?
Not belief as in religion (religious belief). But belief as in a cognitive human capability we have.
We know for a fact what we don't know. We accept the fact of what we dont know. (Not like we have a choice)
Accepting something as "true" is part of what believing is. It's not the "fact" or "information" that constitutes belief , its the acceptance/what we make of it that constitutes belief.
So here is the point of my question.
It seems that those who don't know the "origins" or the how of somethings existence, deny the possibility that what exists could have been made. And by "made" I mean coded for, built, constructed as a result of intelligence, no more but definitely no less than the intelligence they exhibit in their observation and understanding what exists/ been made.
It is almost beyond my belief (ability to accept) that with their science (knowledge) they seem almost to be incapable of knowing anything other than what they have chosen to believe or not believe.
"It seems that those who don't know the "origins" or the how of somethings existence, deny the possibility that what exists could have been made. And by "made" I mean coded for, built, constructed as a result of intelligence, no more but definitely no less than the intelligence they exhibit in their observation and understanding what exists/ been made."
Great. Well, except there is no apparent evidence of a creator, and no evidence of the possibility of such. So when you say "deny the possibility" it is only due to that lack of evidence.
Science is evidence-based. Without evidence, it's only speculation.
@@hammalammadingdong6244
Hey Mr. Uh Maumau the evidence is overwhelming, but as you demonstrated, it's also refutable. Thanks for being evidence that it is "A Question of Belief.
Science the word etymology
Is simply "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know ..."
Scientist in various fields of science, see clearly and with certainty, KNOW everything made visible, seen, is constituted from things not seen (invisible), acting under laws and principles invisible to the naked eye.
What is known with certainty of the origins of what's MADE is unknown. So we hypothesise and develop theories to further our understanding based on our scientific observations. Whether you attribute the unknown origins to an intelligence greater than yours or to a process of unknown origin is based on what you choose to accept as true aka as believe. That you don't know is not a question, what you believe you know is questionable.
My apologies if the word or concept of "creator" offends your religious sensibilities. I personally don't believe in "God." so I try not to use the word.
Science at its simplest is "to know."
@@anotherpointofview222 - you seem to be saying that because science can’t currently explain something, then your explanation can’t be excluded.
Is this accurate?
@@hammalammadingdong6244
No that's not what I'm saying, more accurately ..
"Science" for me is not some monolithic entity that says, does, or explains anything,....it's 's not a person....Its a field with a diversity of areas, with a diversity of people with varying thoughts, ideas, theories, hypotheses, speculations,... based on "science" (knowledge, data,information, evidence) aquired over time.
To answer your question. I don't have an explanation. I have questions. I don't propose to have the answer. Questions are more important, than answers for me because they lead to discovery.
Answers lead some people to think that what they know... their knowledge * Science*, is the Answer.
@@anotherpointofview222 I don't disagree with your statement. Science describes both a method of inquiry and the body of knowledge and supporting evidence that it produces. It's is a process and the results of that process.
Science is limited in scope to that which can be observed objectively (i.e., that which exists in reality) and thus far no objective evidence has been produced to demonstrate the possibility of a creator/designer, or any mechanism that could explain such a thing. There are no testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and no proposals by ID/creationist advocates to produce them. There are no models to test and no experiments to gather data.
At this time, ID is simply an interesting speculation. The only thing that would change that is objective evidence.
Thanks so verrrrry much for the easy to understand science lesson!!
Thank God for creating Rna.
And just like that this week, June 2022, there are findings that show RNA can form in basalt/volcanic rock vaults with water as a solvent. It's so easy it's mind blowing. A high school chemistry lab can do the experiment.
What video/article are you referring to i want to watch it.
@@JumboH ua-cam.com/video/313xu0l9yPc/v-deo.html
Be careful making statements like this. Rna cannot form from rock and water in nature. Think about it slowly and what that would really take.
Stars "propagate"? Are you kidding? Stars form out of hydrogen clouds. They have a life span, and then they die. The universe is slowly losing its usable energy. Entropy is the rule of the day. This looks nothing like life!
@@davidchapman4064 Life is a local abatement of entropy.
Its about the arrangements & its probabilites
where did RNA come from?
Magic.
The universe is infinite and eternal, it has no beginning nor ending.how could it expand when the space it expands to is the universe. its center is everywhere and its circumference is no where. this subject is far beyond the consciousness and comprehension of scientist. theres an essence of life in all things that they will NEVER innerstand. Never
I suppose the same way there can be a "big bang" when *nothing* happened to cause an energy transfer large enough to create matter.
thats not how we define something as alive...
for something to be called alife it has to be able to grow, reproduce, it needs irritability, can organise itself and has a metabolism.
Simple RNA with some lipids around it can not be called alive yet
yes thats clear but then what about the living cell that RNA is an integral part of. Life was sparked by an infinite force that has no beginning; thats beyond the visible - physical world. THE BREATH OF LIFE - THE VITAL FORCE FROM THE SPIRITUAL REALM THAT MOST SCIENTIST ARE OBLIVIOUS TO
1:53 bois, i think we've found it
*the original battle royale*
Have you read The Revolutionary Phenotype?
It takes a great deal of intelligence to understand that life began by accident.
Since we don't know where life on Earth came from we can't say it began by accident
@@JerryMetal I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thanks.
@@JerryMetal Scientists still don't know everything about a single bacterium. Nature's technology is superior to human technology.
@@jamesfletcher7196 Nature doesn't have technology. Technology is by definition designed.
it takes a great deal of hatred of God you mean.
Simple and understandable👏
Tnq❤
If we can't find an answer is it easier to add millions and billions of years?
The depictions of RNA were too stylized and not representative enough of how they function.
lol ahahah
Which software was used to animate this?
That was made by a software called Randomex. A software that was made by typing 0 and 1 aleatory.
but HOW did RNA start?
Easy to understand
proteins can carry information too
Well... They're bad at it, I suppose.
Here's to hoping they solve the apparent uni-chirality problem with more than just principles of thermodynamics!
But thermodynamics ultimately runs everything on this world.
This isn't new - and it doesn't explain the complexity of a cell or what was the selective pressure that gave rise to extinction of some of the replications - or why we don't see loose RNAs just replicating.
It doesn't need to.
RNA doesn't need to build a cell at first to do it's job, that's the whole point.
at 1:59 should have said,
(survival of the most suited to the environment)
rather that
"survival of the fittest"
It should have said a lot of things differently. Perhaps it could have at least touched on filling in the myriad blanks left in the whole hypothesis... like, for instance, what was the intelligence or energy by which the RNA was driven to evolve itself while having no brain or even any of the more fundamental parts necessary for it to be "motivated" to do anything?
Steve Kasian An invisible man who was always intelligent.
I think that they should have just explained the evolutionary definition of the word "fittest".
***** fittest seems to confuse people into equating healthy and strong with the same. Fittest is fine as long as the meaning is well understood in biological terms .
So the copy is the original??
back to chiken and egg.
Can an egg hatch without chiken, can a baby born without a womb, can things created without creator, can an effect exist without a cause?
Lost in sequence.
So many assumptions it’s hard to know where to begin. Where has it been shown that RNA can function without DNA and proteins and the structures of a cell as a whole? On its own, RNA is completely useless. It’s like saying you can make a car with just the steering wheel. The steering well doesn’t make sense without the rest of the car. Likewise, RNA has no purpose without the rest of the cell.
Actually, a better analogy within the context of the topic it's like saying you can make a BETTER car starting starting with car.
Males sense to me contextually.
Here:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943892/
Sword doesn't kill spear my friend. Only in hollywood
SHAME we've never seen the formation of a self-replicating RNA anywhere.
Except for where we have, of course.
Here:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943892/
heri styono Jack Szostak has made replicating RNA
@@ttecnotut "Has made"
There is the problem!
Second Horseman yes, through natural processes like heating & cooling. Those lab conditions are mimicking the conditions of the planet from long ago
Thats not quite correct. RNA is not a life form. We still dont know how the earliest life came into being.
The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life)
But certainly we will know it in a few years
we do not know exactly, I am SO EAGER to learn about pre cambrian life
No. What they're looking for is the origin of a cell itself. Nobody said that RNA is a life form, though it can be argued that a strand of RNA can be considered as *_alive_* since it has proven to be able to replicate and/or metabolize (ribosomes and other ribozymes, today's ribosomes are coated with proteins for added stability and function). RNA could be the very first ingredient for life as we know it, it is the main component of a protocell after all.
How much data RNA holds?
Each amino acid could be compared to 2 bits. So a string 600 long would contain 1200 bits = 150 bytes. That's enough to encode this comment in ASCII.
TheDamped lol alien programmers
The "information" is in the proteins shape. It's like asking how musk information does a lampshade hold.
@@HardKore5250yeah had to be programmer(s) ) of some sort. We didn't just evolve no way
This video strangely uses words out of context, like 'biological', 'life' etc. when attempting to explain where life came from. If we are before life's origin, in the proper sense, then we cannot uses those words to describe things. I thought I understood this hypothesis, but this video confused me further.
I saw when you showed the origin but I saw Pangea Not vaalbaara
Nice graphics. Where's the evidence?
There:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943892/
@@Angelmou
Lol. You want evidence, here's a wall of text. Lol.
@@godexists2177
Peer reviewed experiments with the quoted sources. :-)
@@Angelmou
In the age of UA-cam videos, why would you post a wall of text? Didn't they see the RNA and film it replicating?
Your paper proves intelligent design, @@Angelmou. It says, _"An RNA enzyme has been developed that ..."_ The key word was *_"developed",_* not "found".
00:33 Mike Wizowski
It's been 10 years and this video is still triggering creationists! Now that's impressive!
Thank you. now I can understand :3
Well, in fact no one has no idea. Next video please
Evolution of the gaps; I don't know, therefore a billion years did it.
That's not how this works sir
I think you're missing the point sir.
Why Mars? 🤔
what does everyone want to survive?
Those who didn't, didn't survive
Funny how entropy never comes up in any of these fantasy cartoons meant to deceive young people. Like cytosine, adenine, uracil and guanine were just floating around in a pool of soup and decided to join together. Think in reality and it's just not plausible.
And this happened randomly without consciousness?
What a ignorant we are in
This video cracks me up :) Is this what you call science? It is at best story telling. Fairy tales. Life started billions of years ago in some primeval soup :)
Stated Clearly, watch videos on order, yadda yadda... this is getting redundant now...
Patrik Nilsson stated clearly's vid is better
Also it's primordial.
Also, if the trans-spermia hypothesis becomes a theory, then it becomes over ten-billion years.
Producing RNA is the result of intelligent design, purified molecules and sequencing machines!
What is this? Nova kids?
Watching in 2020
Could RNA not be formed during the Big Bang or another astronomical phenomenon ?
I watch a lot of educational vid, and everytime these PBS channel always DISappoint me.
Take this subject for example, go see vid on RNA world by "stated clearly". You'll see a clear difference.
PBS presents science story as just a piece if statement; it doesn't seek to really give supporting evidence, reference nor reasoning.
I hope you can improve since this feels like a wasted potential.
ooh yay, you know Stated Clearly, I was starting to feel as if I were their PR guy, lol.
Also (to everyone else) yes, I concur, watch this awesome channel, but watch the videos in order, they pretty much progress. That or just use their playlists.
Stated Clearly explains it better
Now I get it.
i personally blieve in divine creation but if you dont then that's great too were all here to learn something and that's whats really important
I LOVE how this video begins by uncategorally stating that we DON'T KNOW how life began, but then goes on to explain how, maybe, life could of started, AS IF that was the way it started! After watching you'd think we knew how life started when in reality, just like they initially said, WE DON'T KNOW. Oh well, at least they have a cartoon, that definitely makes it more REAL, LOL!
Yeah well, the title DID give away what the video was going to be about.
(In the bizz, we call this "foreshadowing")
Sure making theories without the ability to back them up is a part of science. How can you prove something you never think of?
@@martinscarton4561 That's the thing with these religious nuts, they don't want to think. They're completely content living in their own bubble of ignorance.
All you showed was cells evolving into more strong cells that called micro evolution the cells stade as cells no macro evolution happen.
I find it odd how hard scientists try to prove how dna and evolution must have happened by an accident of physics, maybe a multiverse (giving a couple lenient infinite crap shoot so that one by luck alone was just right to be where the most complex system we know of would just happen with absolutely no conscious intervention or design. I understand creationism, Islam, all that goofy stuff is folklore, but to me it makes more sense that something is behind all of this. I dunno I feel it in my gut as do many. nothing to do with religion. something so complex we don't understand it, and I mean complex beyond comprehension. and it happened by mere carbon chemistry and laws if physics. it truly sounds ridiculous to me. I don't have the answer and until a scientist and explain and create life, nobody has a clue as to the origin of human existence and life
A complete cop out..... what I thought I'd hear is how RNA makes life (not that it comes from Mars!!!)
''We not entirely know'' . What?? Science dont have even a clue of how that happened by natural means.
They have more of a clue than you think
Rawen1982 Not even once. Just speculations.
Lauro Neto You really don't know much about this do you?
Watch the videos by the channel Stated Clearly, in order.
Lauro Neto the fact you don't know doesn't mean science has no clues.
Why isn't new life coming into existence now, or is it and no one is looking? Shouldn't we be looking for this to answer this? In 4 billion years just once it happened. This seems like we're a fluke.
Oh, just "happy accidents", like mutations. Mutations never are an asset to a living organism, they're always a liability. At best they're neutral.
Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral to living organisms depending on the specific mutation and the environment in which the organism lives. While it is true that many mutations are neutral or even harmful, some mutations can provide a selective advantage and increase an organism's fitness. For example, a mutation that allows an organism to better tolerate extreme temperatures or to resist a particular disease can be advantageous in certain environments.
Another example of a beneficial mutation is lactase persistence, which is the ability to digest lactose, a sugar found in milk, into adulthood. In many human populations, including those of European and African descent, the ability to digest lactose is due to a mutation that occurred about 10,000 years ago. This mutation allowed individuals to consume milk and other dairy products as a source of nutrition, which would have been advantageous in areas where other food sources were scarce. Today, lactase persistence is a common trait and is considered a beneficial mutation.
you are wrong.
Humans see in three colours because of a mutation on a duplicated opsin gene on the X chromosome. All old world primates share this exact pattern both refuting your false claim about mutations and demonstrating compelling evidence for common ancestry.
Starcraft SFX at 2:11
BUT WHAT MAKES RNA ALIVE?
Seems far fetched. Unless RNA originated from crystals... Even then it's unfathomable how complex intelligent life arose. Even if you define evolution as: Natural selection, Mutation, Genetic Drift & Gene Flow. Starting from RNA without any other explanation is incomplete.
The process of natural selection is often described as coming about through a process of natural selection??? An early RNA would have to of been a super RNA to carry out functions that proteins now perform and It would have to of been information rich. It would have to of bonded nucleotides to amino acids and reproduce reproductive information right off the bat.
Early RNA performed simple repetitive tasks, some coming to the ability of replicating an RNA sequence (perhaps their own, perhaps not) through interacting with the molecules around them, and so forth.
Check out the channel Stated Clearly, where the whole process is explained quite nicely. Watch their videos in order.
all a "living" thing needs to do to have natural selection effect it is 1: replicate 2: mutate 3: affect its environment or improve its chances of survival in some way. RNA can do all of those and can also create proteins which helps alot
It all has to start with an information rich system Semi. Natural selection is also a process of selecting and not creating. For instance it doesn't create through mutation a functioning part that is built upon for 100s of thousands of years or millions of years that will aid in survival in the future. Natural selection selects parts that improves survival.
but RNA can indeed self-assemble randomly and sometimes those random strains can create "parts" of RNA molecules RNA can also create proteins both of which can affect its survival
That's the rub. An early RNA has to be a super RNA performing many functions. It doesn't have 100 thousand years to develop simple reproduction. It needs code and would have to be information rich.
This is a non-believable scenario. It cannot be built gradually. It requires coordination and information from the start.
nope
It says how they joined but doesn't say why. Is there no why is it an accident ?
+poodtang1 mutations
Stated Clearly, search it, watch playlists or videos in order.
Yep.
That's it.
Sorry if you were expecting more out of the secrets of creation.
Neither the chicken or the egg came first, but some third object.
StrikingTan the egg was around long before the chicken
Lucifer, I always understood that paradox to imply "What came first, the chicken or the [chicken] egg." Otherwise it's really not much of a paradox. Maybe it's just me.
TheDamped i have never heard it used that way.
+the damp, it would still be the egg, when the first chicken was born it started off in an egg
+Max Seyler
I guess that would depend on your definition of chicken. But from a biological perspective there is no first of any species. There is never any animal born whose parents are not a member of the same species as that animal. (partial exception for hybrids) I seem to remember this video indicating otherwise, I think it was just a simplification. Kind of like we know what an adult looks like and what a child looks like but there is never a single second when prior to that second you were a child, yet during and after that second you are an adult (laws and bar mitzvot aside).
This is not scientific Dr. Szostak had to retract his award winning paper
You have authority over science?
Please, Any young Scientists out there watching this. Please do your own studying and look at Chemical Evolution. The Idea that chemical reactions are going to have a mechanism "driving them forward" to a more and more complex design? In all of nature ( outside of Life) this is not the case. It is to bad that science has taken a wonderful working hypothesis like "The Origin Of Species", And tried to extrapolate this faulty "Origin Of Life" idea from it. I ask all young scientists entering the community to take a moment and think on this. Before just accepting it as fact. Or even likely possible.
It is the only plausible way it could have happened. The facts are these:
There was once a time when no life existed on the planet. The earliest life on earth is 3.8 billion years old. Then we have a billion years of nothing but unicellular life, until the Ediacaran when the first multicellular life appears.
So we have a planet with no life on it, followed by a billion years of unicellular life. The evidence suggests it came from the materials that were already there.
It's also a matter of logic. Unless life has always existed it means the first life had to come from non-living materials. And it doesn't really matter if you think it happened naturally or if you think God is responsible, it's life from non life either way. A fully formed living Adam made from non-living dust of the earth is abiogenesis at light speed, but it's abiogenesis nonetheless.
If tomorrows headline read " Mars rover finds simple protein" Would we all be shocked and exclaim 'There was life on Mars at some point!!'. Or would we be reserved and caution " Maybe this is a randomly created protein. On its way to life?@@speciesspeciate6429
love science..........................:)
protein smashed the file cabinet 😂 lmao 😄
Yo, Nova, your "building blocks" need a machine to put them together. How about yáll getting the so-called scientist, B Nye to bumble through this with you? Great for laughs, planning to use this presentation here to explain folly to some folks.
this is the kind of video you end up coming up with when you just don't acknowledge God the Creator/Designer and try to come up with some explanation... you end up looking like a fool.. "These beyond amazingly complex machine like things just... came about randomly by chance!"
OK!
🤷🏻♂🤷🏻♂
this “chance” took billions of years to happens it wasn’t an overnight thing or a gamble. an incomprehensible amount of time and trial and error/survival of the fittest yielded the early single cells and from there, EVEN MORE trial and error and chance. when you dumb something down so much it will eventually lose meaning
The Library of Babel
So....we still don't know.
@rent a shill
You need to go back to school.
We know what ALIVE is.
We don't know what started it.
@rent a shill
Are you a life?
Go back to basic biology class, and learn the characteristics of life, living things.
And thats why its a hypothesis
@@usmansaqlain6776 "Somehow RNA formed in the Magic Soup."- so. you're familiar with Sutherland and Powner's work on the prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides?
primordial soup ??? so funny that this story keeps getting told , RNA is unstable , just one problem not dealt with here