Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 сер 2024
- www.ted.com In his lab, Martin Hanczyc makes "protocells," experimental blobs of chemicals that behave like living cells. His work demonstrates how life might have first occurred on Earth ... and perhaps elsewhere too.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/tra....
The "self replication moment" was seriously impressive...
This is also the first time I've seen a good road-map of where to go to figure out the origins of life. More like this please ^.^
Me too
When that protocell replicated itself I just went, "WOAH!"... I'm starting to love TED again. :D
At that moment, you were duped!
The speaker made no claims that were not demonstrable. So, why would 56 people do a thumbs down? This went against their Sunday school lessons?
You can thank "Science Uprising" for that
To be fair they may have just not found it fascinating and thought it was boreing.
Jesse Riker Sure it wasn't 23 thumbs down...?
@@cjhepburn7406 it's 61, go troll somewhere else.
Purple Rei Just checkking...no need 2 get touchy. Cj.
my jaw dropped and i got goosebumps when it replicated!
Holy shit! I was like "it's alive" like 3 or 4 times during this... When that hybrid protocell suddenly mutliplied I had to stand up from my chair in awe...
This is one of those TED talks that REALLY get you to think, definitely favoriting this.
A very clear explanation and visual demonstration of protocells. Excellent for someone with little background in chemistry. Yes, that self-replication moment was a "WOW!" moment.
the interacting protocells were SO CUTE ^_____^
That was a LOT of information to cram into 14 minutes. I feel like I only got the cliff notes, ha. He did a great job of running though all that so fast.
yeah its interesting but if you dig deeper and see all the assumptions made this is a mess. start with RNA
The RNA tid bit is prolly just a proof of concept to show the catalytic ability of montmorillonite. Researchers are still working on how the genetic material could've naturally occured. So much work to be done
No I'm not ignorant : They did an experience where they took the nucleus out of the cell, and the cell was performing many of it's basic task for a while. The only difference is that it die quickly and does not reproduce, because the function of maintenance and division are not there. It was pretty much alive.
Why haven't I seen this before?
The Vatican...
Greatest video i seen on youtube. Thank you Martin hanczyc for your great presentation, a wonderfull introduction to evolutionary biology. And thanks TED for making the title and subtitle in my native language.
@@hasanbey59 Yeah since we have been doing science for 3 million years... But it's so simple, what we humans call Nature does what it wants... But to think a man made God creates thinks....nope.
What are the five chemicals he used to do the experiments?
Water, 2 types of oils and 2 types of colorings to identify them. Most likely
@@sealofapoorval7437 Ok. H2o. What were the oils and colors...
@@sealofapoorval7437 I think it was more than that. And he said water was not used
How did Martin activate the chemicals?
"They are dirty little protocells."
oh my god. i died.
i dont understand how he can make this happen but it is AMAZINGGGGGG
This absolutely needs more views! Amazing talk and stunning new insights.. Non-life behaving as if it is life. The ''sponteneous cell division'' and the ''hybrid behaviour'' blew me away! Can't give this enough thumbs up :-)
I don't know, but by the end of the video, I'm starting to feel like this guy deserves a Nobel prize for his findings.
Does anyone know how I might be able to perform any of the experiments described in the videos?
thats my favourite thing about science. even if i have no clue what so ever, how they do things like this, i still find it fascinating.
I'm a bit curious whether the protocells actually moves itself to the food or if its transportation is caused by mere osmosis/diffusion (or similar).
Anyway, it is an amazing and inspiring talk. This is the kind of talks you want to see from TED.
It would be interesting to see a longer and more detailed talk on the subject though. This one was, frankly, a bit shallow (albeit still amazing).
My jaw dropped when he got the protocells to replicate. Thats really amazing, I wish I knew the details on what exactly he used to make them and what made them behave the way they did.
My draws dropped when he said oil particles splitting into two oil droplets was self replication! Please!
@@rogbec01 I thought I was the only one thinking that.... droplets of things moving about.. *ooooh it's alive!"
Gould actually also said something to the extent of the extreme rarity of transition forms is the trade secret of paleontology. Google it - you might find it. He also got mad that Creationists used the quote. Some people say that it was out-of-context, but how so? Just because someone does not agree with your thesis does not mean that it is out-of-context.
Anyway, I am a biotech student. I made a reply to this video. Thought you might be interested in seeing it.
The short answer is "chemistry". The best way to visualize it on a human scale would be to get a bunch of Bucky Balls (oops, not anymore) spread them out on a table, and shake the table around. The attraction and repulsion causes movement and activity. This is an extreme simplification, but it will start to give you an idea. If you think of atoms as specialized "magnets" that selectively attract and repel, it REALLY helps to visualize things.
that, is both amazing and amusing, i could almost hear simon form yogscast screaming " aaaaawwwwwww" when the blobs moved
@khatack Possibly.
Egotism, inequality and injustice have their big share too.
Good point about schools, reminds me of when I acknowledged that during the period of dictatorship in my country, philosophy and sociology were excluded from the classes because it had a potential for forming thinkers.
This might be the most significant video ever...
Very interesting. I have been contemplating very much lately, the step between chemical reactions via self replicating molecules to life. This shows that the step really isn't as big as previously thought to be. This shows a principle of how it could have started on a much more simple level than what we think, when looking at the complexity of DNA, not to mention the complexity of a full modern cell.
Intriguing
I have a prediction.
When scientists manage to make life from building blocks and conditions that can be proven to have existed on the early earth, there will still be creationists saying "prove that it was this very way it happened"
Scientists will say "we can't, we can only prove that it works but other chemical reactions might also create life". Then there will still be creationists that triumphantly say "science don't know, therefor god did it" and claim victory to the debate.
Maybe they will have a point too.
And what alternatives explanation do you have?
Punctuated equilibrium is not incompatible with Darwin theory. Darwin never written that the rate of evolution was stagnant. Gould's just re-took some advancement in the field of mathematics to apply it on evolutionary mechanism, and added it to the work on genetic revolutions by Ernst Mayr.
By the way, you could see it works really well since the idea been used in organizational behaviour, technological studies, psychology and in the department of defence.
This is why everyone should appreciate the language of Chemistry. It's the beautiful science that literally governs life at the fundamental level. The reason why you can think (acetylcholine neurotransmitters), move (Adenosine Triphosphate), Replicate (DNA), why you are still alive (Cis-platin, Aspirin, Penicillin) and how crimes are solved (NMR, Mass Spec, IR analysis etc). As logical as Maths and as Natural as the earth underneath your feet.
The chain goes:
Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Sociology
That knowing the laws of nature of a Big Bang, you could extrapolate how that universe will work (at least one version, anyways: as you go left-to-right, it gets more specific about "this version of"-- I'm prolly not making this clear, but best I can do), and from there, know how an organism could work, including brain chemistry, and to goup behavior.
And going left, you may see there's many potential expressions.
I remember a previous Ted talk related to this one. Both of these are great.
this is the most amazing thing i've ever seen
Thirdly, since you ask so much: there been a study by William Ratcliff in Minnesota U who created multicellular species out of a single cell brewer yeast. How did he do that? By putting the yeast through selective pressure.
I've known the phrase "primordial soup" for a while but this video shows me that the point of origin of life has been likely found with not much made of it somehow
Woah, it actually reproduces!?!? Amazing!
one of the greatest ted talks in a while
This video is so interesting. Wow.
There is a difference between pseudo-random and pure random when it come to distribution curve. Mutations could be find in some area more often than what a standard distribution would predict - so it's not pure random as far as math goes. Beside, after, you got natural selection which act on multiple generations to get rid of any randomness.
As for organic soup, it is not "rejected", but in the box of "more research needed". It's not straightforward, but some elements are observable.
awesome talk ... very well given ... thank you
This is absolutely amazing.
I want my TED talks in 1080p ! I demandsss it...
Mars is actually quite extreme. The types of chemicals reactions that are needed for cellular life to exist require the existence of liquid water. Most people do not realize, however, that in addition to the many, many, attributes of Earth that make life possible - we also have a planet with just the right geochemistry, atmosphere, position in the galaxy, etc. to make science and technology possible. Some scientists have used this to build a strong argument for the existence of God.
It's just chemistry. Chemical bonds. Attractions between chemicals.
And socalled miracles is still magic. The difference while miracles (magic) still hasn't truly been observed or replicated as a supernatural cause by a super entity or force that everybody can agree on in the world. While here we observe life coming from nonlife (what creationists keeps throwing in our face that it's impossible) in reality for everybody to see and everyone can replicate wich makes creationist "life can't come from nonlife" wrong.
I still don't understand. How do these protocells works? How do they move, mate and eat. I don't understand how this works, any further explanation would be greatly appreciated.
WOW that was amazing!!
First of all, to deny that pseudorandomness exist mean that you deny your own computer&a lot of mathematics. Secure connection on the net are made with pseudo-random generators. To test for pure randomness or pseudorandomness, you follow the monte-carlo method and attach the result to a standard distribution curve. Beside, pseudo-random distribution is usually more efficient because it is often cheaper and got result that are really close to the real thing.
The terms are actually used in this fashion on a regular basis. Yes, it is not a completely accurate statement, however this is how the terms are used, even in a college biology classroom (something that I have much experience with).
God disapproves^^
This was a truly ground-breaking and interesting TEDTalk.
Wow!!! This guy is blowing my mind! : )
@JMartinsATV Actuallly, this presentation forces me to totally re-evaluate the meaning of intelligence
The cell do not used DNA to store information, DNA is more like a blueprint that is include in a "safe" that the cell for making a copy of itself. A cell could live without DNA, it just can't reproduce.
And, even without knowing the origin of DNA, the mechanism of evolution will still work. That's a preriquisite.
And even there: research such as Origin and Evolution of Mitochondrial DNA by Michael W. Gray is getting near an evolutionary explanation of DNA.
Semi Conservative half old strand half new. So new cell is really a short hand for semi new dna molecule. In truth no dna molecule is really truly so. Only half.. truly so. The new strand is the only new part. Wow.
This is amazing!!! Absolutely wow-inducing at 6:45.
I don't necessarily agree with this comment in all areas, but it is one of the most well-thought-out comments that I have read on UA-cam. Nice job Hayden.
What would be the hype of finding one of these protocells in a different planet? Would prob. feature a headline of the sort "LIFE FOUND ON MARS" :)
At what pressure were his oil droplet experiments conducted? Did he try the experiment with no light at all ? Does the shape and size of the container matter? And , when the "cellular division" occured, was that two new hybrids or the re-seperation of a and b ?
I wish this was 20 minutes long so he could give a more detailed explanation of what he was actually showing us. Still, very good talk.
@D4RK5iDERS
To be honest they already cut the volume downon the intro.
If you don't believe me go and re-watch the older TED-talks.
What I'm curious about is, did the two new protocells replicate again producing 4 new cells, and what exactly is the process that drove them to split apart like that
binary fission
at two points 10:22 and 11:38 the nice young man said that the black junk tar ozz was organic. This is absolutely amazing!!!!!!
@MaxieGracie feathers are decent insulators and can be water proof. (The present theory is that feathers evolved from a hair-like substance, I think.) A [bird] wing is essentially a specialized arm with feathers growing from it. So we have feathers evolving. Then we have feathers orienting to form a proto-wing to facilitate gliding, because gliding is a huge mobility advantage. From gliding its not a huge stretch to get to true flight.
This is from a half-remembered biology course...
@xinlo First off I wasn't really responding to anyone, in fact I didn't read the comments. Secondly, it's really up to the individual to take the theory and ponder for themselves. I literally have no say in what anyone believes in.
@plllll0 This is not is not intended as an attack on Hanczyc's research nor a question of whether or not he should continue. I think we (he) should continue his research so that we might better understand the world around us regardless of your beliefs. However, I also think that to conclude that his current work and thesis provides any type of additional concrete foundational evidence for evolution or the "creation of life" is a huge mistake. Take it for what it is...a thesis, nothing more.
I have a video where I replied to this. I looked up his research and explained it in lay-terms, however I also put up a link to a Nature news article on the subject if you want more detail. Both of them, and the other links I posted, should be understandable to most laypeople.
In order for abiogenesis to work hydrocarbons must have been made inorganically since there were no preexisting methanogenic lithotrophs this would make sense as hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane, hexane, Alkenes, acetylene, and benzene have been made inorganically in the lab using abiotic conditions. This could mean that the hydrocarbons in the earth could’ve been made through this inorganic process.
Actually Jee Teex has you. You were the one who asked. Everything that we actually know about biochemistry says that life needs liquid water in order to perform the basic functions that would be required for a living cells. Is it possible that somehow there might be some other way of doing things - perhaps, however good science doesn't make conclusions that go beyond the evidence. Design is actually quite consistent with the evidence.
This absolutely blows my mind... I wish I knew more about chemistry and biology so i could understand this better... because this is seriously blowing my fucking mind out.
Great talk, and no the intro volume isn't especially loud, but still 15 seconds I don't have to spend
Truly remarkable. Bravo.
I am a 4th year biotechnology student. I am also a Young Earth Creationist. I actually made a video response to this. I know what I am talking about, since I have taken a TON of biochemistry, chemistry, biology, genetics, etc. at very good secular schools. Yes there are stupid Creationists out there, but there are also stupid Evolutionists out there. Creationists may be a minority in the scientific community, but they're there.
Young Earth and Biotechnology student? You realize geology proves that the earth is way older than 6,000 years old. There is concrete, definite, substantial and abundant evidence.
Not only does geology, but so does every branch of science as well.
@DaddyDAJ
Well, for example, we have separately created phylogenetic trees based off of a variety of fields that all align with the basic genetic field, aside from a few minor discrepancies. I'm talking genetics, embryology, histology, paleontology, and plenty other I can't remember. We have vestigial, homologous, and analogous structures to look at. For natural selection, we even have emergent adaptations to live in previously impossible conditions, like high pH, or arsenic rich.
@MaxieGracie I'll put that quote in more modern terms for you: The biggest hole in my theory is the lack of fossils. Which is explained my the rarity of fossilization.
Adding a new genome adds more genes to work with, then small changes make it into new information. Even though it didn't happen all at once its still new information (this is of course just an educated guess I'm not a biologist, neither are you, so neither of us are qualified.)
I'm a creationist but I do not disagree with this video. It opens up alot of new scientific possibilities.
This is nothing more than oil drops in water, easily explained by physics, nothing close to cell replication and complexity of cell membrane, just smoke and mirrors to try and give some credence to theory of abiogenesis. An embarrassing fact believed by atheistic evolutionists that is irrational based on the complexity of a living cell
@oweja I am amused by your reply separating down to the components of the discussion. I also totally agree with you.
I'll contribute to cause: Every course of action one takes was caused by some kind of preceding factor.
@MaxieGracie
You're right, that only goes back through eukaryotes, if I remember correctly. But that's just one method of investigation. How about retrovirus mapping. They produce fixed structures and they are complex and unique, so it is not inference conjecture that they are the same. Mapping according to RVs produces literally the SAME TREE as LINEs and SINEs and all other disciplines. This alignment with independent disciplines is what makes it more than conjecture. It all points to the tree
There's a nice discussion about religion going on down here.
All I want to say, though, is that it is amazing that we can create life-like things this way, and that it helps all of us understand how life might have come into existance.
Great presentation.
You know, I agreed with you with everything you said. And THEN you had to bring up the last part, which has nothing to do with anything above and is a non-sequitur.
I actually made a video reply to this. My major is biotechnology. I've got one more year (plus about two classes, because I refuse to do 18 credits at a time). You will get a different view on this research with my video, however I explain things so that the average person can understand them, and I put links in the description box so that you can see another talk he did and read more about this in a Nature news article.
Dude, people don't really care about science, they care about the truth and science is our best approach of uncovering truth. Whether or not a designer exists and has affected the design of living organisms on planet earth is completely unknown but considering our understanding of reality, we can say that probably a designer has not created or affected life (and the universe in general) because we uncover more and more the truth (or close to it) and find that everything has a natural mechanism..
my belief is that there are three stages, proteins, protolife, and life. the first stage, proteins, is simply just a bunch of proteins, but, as they mix and become more complex, the enter the protolife stage. the protolife stage includes things that are now complex enough to no longer be considered proteins, but, they're not complex enough to be life, for example, viruses. as protolifeforms become more and more advanced and complex, they begin to match more and more criteria to be considered life. once they meet enough of the criteria to be considered life, they would be very complex. Finally, the protolife becomes so complex, that it would become life.
You've made an several assumptions which are not true:
1. That I would be impressed by undergraduate philosophy.
2. That I would accept "faith", which is belief in the absence of proof, as proof of anything.
3. That I wanted to continue this conversation.
Any questions?
Good, class dismissed.
Robots are being developed using this theory. compounds added together or to metals can form different metals (or plastics etc.) Also the carbon structure in oil can be used to lubricate the robots moving parts which are different to the moving parts of life.
So, I love this kind of stuff and i'm not here as a hater, but doesn't it seem like we've made such little progress in the area of abiogenesis. We're still putting in molecules we know can form membranes, and leaving them saturated in amino acids and it's STILL not turning out like the biologists/chemists can agree upon? I hope we find a plausible answer in my lifetime, but it still seems pretty far away.
It would seem creating life is kind of hard, i wouldn't really hold it against them, considering the things we're actively learning, we'll get there.
Can the "droplet" at 06:12 die? Can it be brought back to life if it can?
I am interested in replicating this for my homeschooled son. Does anyone know offhand where can I find information on the necessary equipment? Many thanks!
Without looking it up on the internet, can you tell me what the next sentence says?
From about 6:00 to about 6:20 - a droplet of oil is placed in the environment, self-assembles (OK so far, aliphatic molecules do that), but then the author says that it has a metabolism that can convert energy. I watched this several times, but that is not clear. Please explain.
I believe he is referring to it's ability to create motion by a chemical reaction. The energy is derived from the environment, taken inside the droplet, and reacted to create perhaps a gas from a liquid, propelling itself forward. I know that in the simplest forms of natural occurring life, simple chemical conversions are common and usually cause motion .
@MaxieGracie You don't seem to understand what evolution is. Microevolution is not a separate theory, it simply demonstrates the mechanism which we can apply to macroevolution to explain how it works. In essence, "microevolution" demonstrates the changes between one generation and another. In the world of evolution, one generation is virtually insignificant. Apply that to a million generations, however, and you will end up with a vastly different living creature. That is macroevolution.
@NaxNax96 As I understand it evolution is the label assigned the process of random mutation and natural selection which produces "positive" effects over long time scales. Positive meaning of course helpful in long term survival of the species.
Not as you have stated it as being only the positive genetic mutations. Both negative and neutral mutations as well as natural selection are essential for the process of evolution.
@reglee51 they didn't say it was life. The protocells are between alive and not alive. They don't quite fit in either category :3
@MaxieGracie
The difference between micro and macro evolution is the difference between a single step and a staircase.
If you accept that steps exists you can not deny staircases exists.
If you accept that staircases exist you can not deny steps exist.
@NaxNax96 There may always be a blind spot in the application of the concept of optimal decision-making. There is huge redundancy in the process of developing a more complex organism. Because our greatest obvious danger is ourselves, things in our society that influence our behaviour, are the most important to keep a bit of redundancy around.
They are just selecting possible chemical compound suspects for the hypothesis of abiogenesis,once the chemicals (that could have arisen by natural & unguided processes)have been introduced,they let them develop unguided (ie without intelligent input)and they move, feed and replicate without any intelligence needed.The scientist didn't force them to do this, they did it by purely natural unguided means, just as the hypothesis suggests.So it is possible that complexity arises without a designer.
@matics19 People who want to be educated are already subscribed to TED and therefore have it in their front page.
@MaxieGracie
Yes it has. You haven't actually tried to research this I can tell. Look up "speciation". There are countless examples of this. You can also find a recent type of snake that has grown four limbs. Though not an example of speciation it's still a significant change to the structure of the organism. If evolution can bring 4 limbs out of 0 limbs, it can make some other significant changes. Could add wings, could change internal organ structures. If you don't believe me look it up.
I just made a video reply to this. A lot of people are misunderstanding what he is talking about.