How do you keep RNA from degrading in a 24 hour period for at use temperatures when you must keep it at -112* to keep it from degrading? As time passes for the RNA to function is reduced by its instability how is that time sensitive instability overcome in a prebiotic world? Or stated this way, given this time problem what time limited step process is required to bring it from a prebiotic world to a useful functioning RNA? How does a prebiotic world purify to get homochirality forms of the molecules? How does a protein fold up into its proper three dimensional structure in a prebiotic world when the possible ways of folding are near equal to the number of elementary particles in the universe? Since chiral induced spin selectivity makes purification processes power efficient and molecule by molecule selective what mechanism process produced this required structure in sequence to operate at the limits of what Physics says is possible? Where do the interactomes come from that are needed by the RNA and ribosomes within a cell? By what steps are they made and how many different kinds are needed for a first cell to operate? What mechanism is used to divide the cell of these interactomes so that when cell finishes replication all of the interactomes needed are still in each cell? What process is used to make sure both halves are viable? Then what mechanism chooses to flip the separation sequence on thereby pinching the cell into two cells? By what specific process did the functioning codons get made that are in the RNA?
Don’t worry about the small stuff….the “given enough time” story fixes all of those impossible problems……but don’t bring up the DNA needing proteins to regulate the reactions to make it problem….that can’t be solved.
@@crackheadbiden3273As this presentation and the comment is about RNA. What is your point? It’s pretty clear that as we learn more about the chemistries possible in the early Earth there are path ways to an RNA life epoc. God isn’t required. Which I am sure you are going with your straw man comment.
@@byrnemeister2008 the problem with RNA and DNA is that they caramelize in a day or less. Also all life uses left handed spin we call Homochirality. Aside from only one natural process to produce just one chemical in homochiral form we know of no other self purifying process. This is a huge unresolved problem. All we see currently are processes that block the formation of the first cell. We do not even know how to make prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell walls. We have no clue. The best we have made to date is porous plastic beads. Simply saying God isn’t required means you have solved all the steps and made the first living cell. Nobel prize here you come. Anyone who does this will certainly get the Nobel for the effort. Till then God is an acceptable requirement.
@@markoconnell804 its not huge unresolved problem. lots of research papers on all you just said that is a " unresolved problem". saying "we have no clue" demonstrates how you operate, god was never a requirment, its a concept you use to fill the gaps in your knowledge. "i dont know how this is possible, hence god did it" and you can continue living your life without thinking about stuff. the one who demonstrates that past century of origin of life research is all wrong, will certainly get nobel prize. until then, god is impossibility.
@@spatrk6634 it is not a small problem. In fact the statistical odds of pre-biological matter being able to turn into life through random chance is so low you would stand a better chance of assembling a box of Lego into the photo on the box just by shaking it for a few million years.
This is all UNSUPPORTED FANTASY. Not a single part of this entire lecture's POINT has ANY FACTUAL BASIS in OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE! He COMPLETELY IGNORES FACTS to PRETEND that life could emerge from a prebiotic chemistry! Hilarious! MILLER...of the Miller Urey experiment ... proved that this MIRACLE event never happened...yet his results are IGNORED and touted as the reason we should BELIEVE in this man's sully ASSUMPTIONS! Lol. No silly...NOTHING shows that RNA CODE could have EVER FORMED without HUMAN MANIPULATION in experimentation. Yet...he BELIEVES anyways!!! How silly...how UNSCIENTIFIC!!! His entire lecture is one of stating an "ASSUMED FACT" which has no basis in our OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE and then backing his statements with information that DOESN'T do anything to prove his silly ASSUMPTIONS. No...such a waste of a lecture time is NOT informative. It is deceptive.
@@thegreatbehoover788 Prerequisites to be a young earth creationist according to Lyman Stewart: 1. IGNORANCE You must, without question or exception, be completely ignorant of science, logic, evolution and reality in general, to be a Creationist. Every "argument" a Creationist puts forth to "disprove" Evolutionary Theory is nothing more than a mangling of a conspiracy theory, outright lies, logical fallacies, exaggerations and misinformation. They also rely on the same, recycled, refuted dead-end arguments. There has not been one new Creationist argument recently put forth. It's still attacking radiometric dating with the abhorrent notion that decay rates can vary, without any evidence, and it's still lying about the Law of Entropy to make it seem as if it makes evolution impossible. Nothing has changed. No explanation why there is no Technetium on earth or the ratio between U235/U238, which is explained by science because the earth is 4.543.000.000 years old. They also claim that the speed of light varies to solve the problem with stars being 13.390.000.000 light years away. Then they must replace General Relativity with a new theory, and they have nothing of course, since no creationist understand cosmology or math (or basically anything). 2. DISHONESTY You must be completely dishonest to purport Creationist arguments. Creationists routinely lie about thermodynamics, radiometric dating, Evolutionary Theory, speed of light, science, scientists and general scientific concepts. 3. INEXCUSABLE INCOMPETENCE It's not lying if you think it's true. Many Creationists actually believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics refutes Evolutionary Theory. This is simply stupidity, and it is totally inexcusable. Anytime someone who doesn't have a legitimate authority in science tells you that scientists are wrong because of whatever reason, you'd better check up on it before just blindly accepting it as fact. The fact that so many have been taken in by Creationist's anti science and lies is testament to intellectual laziness. It is also a testament to the serious lack in scientific education of the general populace. 4. FERVENTLY RELIGIOUS LUNACISM If you believe that the bible is correct about the creation of the Universe, then you must believe that it is completely literal, as no contextualist would ever interpret a story which contradicts physical evidence and is contradicted by another story in the same book, in the same section. Light before the sun, ants have four legs and no queen, PI equals 3 etc. 5. RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY If you believe that the bible is to be interpreted literally, then you believe that all other religions are wrong, and that all of their followers will forever be tortured in the afterlife. Consequently, you also must believe that it is your duty, as a Christian, to seek out and destroy all these other religions' sacred objects and defile their practices. Anyone who interprets the bible literally must also accept that racism, slavery and sexism are all the will of God. 6. DISBELIEF IN HUMAN RIGHTS The bible makes it clear that humans have no rights. No one has the right to practice their own religion (except Christianity and Judaism) without punishment, and no one is allowed to say what they want to say without retribution. To do so violates some of the Ten Commandments. 7. ANTI-DEMOCRATIC/PRO-THEOCRACY MINDSET The bible makes it clear that a democracy based on the will of the people is not God's preferred government. Rather, the best government is a dictatorship, enforced with terrorism, mass-homocide and "Big Brother" tactics (i.e. "God knows everything that you do"). 8. BELIEF THAT GOD IS THE ARBITER OF MORALITY The bible purports the massively-flawed belief that God is infallible. Even though God has been convinced to change his mind repeatedly by human beings in the bible, he is still incapable of doing wrong. This belief only reinforces the belief that humans have no rights, as we are under the watchful eye of God, who will severely punish us for minor infractions. Slavery and child-rape are promoted. 9. BELIEF THAT ALL BRANCHES OF SCIENCE ARE CONSPIRING TO COVER UP "THE TRUTH" OF CREATIONISM In order to be a Creationist, you must believe that scientists are untrustworthy servants of the devil, whose agenda is to distort facts and make it seem as if Evolution is the truth, when, in reality, they're not telling us about the volumes of "facts" that the Creationists do. Scientists want everyone to believe that the Universe was caused by random chance, that there is no God, and life has no meaning (because, Evolution obviously necessitates all of these things). All branches of science that give evidence for an ancient Earth are just flunkies for the Evolutionists. Astrophysics, geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, quantum theory, engineering, anthropology, logistics, medicine, osterology, history, ...none are credible branches of science, only beams in the support structure of Evolution. 10. OVERALL, GENERALIZED STUPIDITY If you're a Creationist, you're an idiot. I don't care if you're the nicest person on Earth, have a doctorate in astrophysics, or stumped Stephen Hawking on general physics. The complete dismissal of so many branches of science, scientists' credibility, evidence in addition to the intellectual laziness and fervent religious bigotry that come with being a Creationist makes one a complete idiot. This is one blanket statement that I am not afraid to make, because it is simply true. If you find a religiously-tolerant Creationist, you've found a hypocrite. The person in question would accept the bible as literal truth on a scientific level, but would be ignoring the commandments of racism, religious intolerance and persecution that God handed down to the Israelites
@Blank B Informative? You’re easily pleased. It’s just a whole bunch of just so stories without a scintilla of tangible explanation. Jack has wasted his entire career trying to scientifically demonstrate how life self assembled. All he has achieved is to scientifically demonstrate that life can not self assemble. Unfortunately Jack is starting from a flawed premise.
It is not informative, it is imagination. It is only people who "want" to believe what he imagines who will believe what he imagines. Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. Adaptation is fact. Darwinian evolution is imagination, false assumptions built around fact. Yes it is fact that we find fossils, some with similarities. This does not mean that one turned into the other, this part is imagination. Yes it is fact that the genetic information to create an organ in human beings is similar to the genetic information to create the same organ in other creatures. No this does not mean that one turned into the other, this part is imagination. Darwinian evolution is a made up story by people who want something to believe in other than special creation. Evolution is not science, not fact, it is a myth based on the fact that all life is created with the ability to adapt to changing environments by random selection of genetic variants created within the cell, the gene pool.
Jack Szostak is a major contributor to origin of life research. 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 290references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
The assembly of complex molecules involves a series of enzymes that must react in a proper sequence, very often producing intermediates that are useless to the cell until the final product is formed. Evolutionists imagine that these enzymes evolve randomly, often from a duplicate gene, and that the succession of steps in the synthesis, at least often, represents the succession of steps in the historical evolution of the process (the Granick hypothesis). But forces of natural selection could not operate to favour an organism which had ‘evolved’ a series of enzymes which merely produced useless intermediates until it somehow got around to making the end product. The Calvin cycle requires eleven different enzymes, all of which are coded by nuclear DNA and targeted precisely to the chloroplast, where the coding sequence is clipped off at just the right place by a nuclear-encoded protease. In reality, as described in the preceding paragraph, none of the enzymes can be missing if the Calvin cycle is to function. It is true that many of these enzymes are ubiquitous in living systems because every living cell needs to generate ribulose phosphates for the production of RNA, but evolutionists cannot solve the problem by merely pushing it back in time. The assembly of chlorophyll takes seventeen enzymes.21 Natural selection could not operate to favour a system with anything less than all seventeen being present and functioning. What evolutionary process could possibly produce complex sophisticated enzymes that generate nothing useful until the whole process is complete? Some evolutionists argue that the assumed primeval organic soup had many of the simpler chemicals, and that only as they were used up did it become necessary to generate the earlier enzymes in the pathway. In The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, the authors set forth the good basic chemistry that demonstrates that there could never have been an organic soup, and present some of the evidence out there in the world indicating that there never was.22 Denton23 and Overman24 also cite a number of experts who suggest that there is no evidence for such a primitive soup but rather considerable evidence against it. Chlorophyll itself, and many of the intermediates along its pathway of synthesis can form triplet states, which would destroy surrounding lipids by a free radical cascade apart from the context of the enzymes that manufacture them and the apoproteins into which they are inserted at the conclusion of their synthesis.25 According to Asada26 ‘triplet excited pigments are physiologically equivalent to the active oxygens’, and according to Sandmann and Scheer, chlorophyll triplets ‘are already highly toxic by themselves . . . .’27 The entire process of chlorophyll synthesis from δ-aminolevulinic acid to protoporphyrin IX is apparently tightly coupled to avoid leakage of intermediates.28 Almost all of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis are involved in handling phototoxic material.29 For many of these enzymes, if they are not there when their substrate is manufactured, the cell will be destroyed by their substrate on the loose in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apel30 has cited four of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis for which this has been proven to be the case. This is a significant problem for evolutionists, who need time for these enzymes to evolve successively. Each time a new enzyme evolved it would have produced a new phototoxin until the next enzyme evolved.
Do something better with your time than cutting and pasting swathes of Answers in Genesis. Read a book written by a scientist, go to school, go to a library.......this is just fucking pitiful.
@@platzhirsch4275 But you don't. You are impervious to education. Why cut and paste reams of fucking nonsense from bible thumping halfwits- without stating that these aren't your words- and then lie that you're interested in science? Stop telling lies Sparky, you'll feel less dirty.
@@mcmanustony ATP synthase is an irreducibly complex motor-a proton-driven motor divided into rotor and stator portions as described and illustrated earlier in this paper (Figure 8). Protons can flow freely through the CF0 complex without the CF1 complex, so that if it evolved first, a pH gradient could not have been established within the thylakoids. The δ and critical χ protein subunits of the CF1 complex are synthesized in the cytosol and imported into the chloroplast in everything from Chlorella to Eugenia in the plant kingdom.49 All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail. Using a factory assembly line as an analogy, after all the otherwise useless and meaningless parts have been manufactured in different locations and shipped in to a central location, they are then assembled, and, if all goes as intended, they fit together perfectly to produce something useful. But the whole process has been carefully designed to function in that way. The whole complex must be manufactured and assembled in just one certain way, or nothing works at all. Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible. The little proton-driven motor known as ATP synthase consists of eight different subunits, totalling more than 20 polypeptide* chains, and is an order of magnitude smaller than the bacterial flagellar motor,50 which is equally impossible for evolutionists to explain. Evolution cannot account for the assembly and activation of rubisco. All attempts to reconstitute a 16-unit rubisco from any source have failed, so the assembly of rubisco must be studied in the chloroplast extracts.51 The eight large (L) subunits of rubisco are coded by the chloroplast DNA, and the eight small (S) subunits by nuclear DNA. The S subunit of rubisco is synthesized on free cytosolic polyribosomes* and maintained even during synthesis in an unfolded state by chaperones* of the Hsp70 class and their protein partners.52 When the small unit is brought to the import complex of the chloroplast, the fourteen-polypeptide chloroplast Cpn60 chaperonin protein associates with IAP100 (protein) of the import complex and can also associate with mature imported small subunits. The chloroplast Cpn60 chaperone is similar to the E. coli GroEl protein.53 After the unfolded precursor protein enters the stromal space, it binds briefly to a stromal Hsp70 chaperone protein and the N terminal targeting sequence is cleaved.54 The large subunits of the rubisco enzyme are produced by the DNA and machinery of the chloroplast itself and stored complexed to a Cpn60 chaperonin.55,56 This chaperone protein keeps the large subunit protein from folding incorrectly, and therefore becoming useless,57 and is also necessary for the proper binding of the eight large subunits; without it they will form a useless clump.58 In many plants, the large subunits are chemically modified by specialized enzymes59 before they bind to the chaperonin protein. There is strong evidence that chloroplast Cpn60, Cpn21 and Hsp70 also participate in the assembly of the sixteen-unit rubisco complex.60 After a soluble L8 core is formed with the assistance of the chaperonin proteins, tetramers (four-part complexes) of small subunits bind to the top and bottom of the complex to form the complete enzyme.61 There are almost certainly other chaperones and chaperone-like polypeptides or lipo-proteins involved that are not yet characterized. How do evolutionists explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast? Before it evolved a way to get the protein inside, there would be no benefit from keeping it unfolded outside. How could blind chance ‘know’ it needed to cause large subunit polypeptides to fold ‘correctly’ and to keep them from clumping? It could not ‘anticipate’ the ‘correct’ conformation before the protein became useful. And evolution would need to be clever indeed to chemically modify something not yet useful so that it could be folded ‘correctly’ when even the ‘correctly’ folded polypeptide would not yet become useful...
Reminds me of learning about The Human Eye in elementary school (actually happened) where one of my classmate had no time to learn the homework, but could precisely remember to the previous week’s Inner Ear text which he knew by heart, so when the teacher asked him to tell about the human eye he gave this recitation: The Human Eye... The Human Eye... is positioned close to the ear, and the inner ear contains the otolith organs-the utricle and saccule-and the semicircular canals belonging to the vestibular system, as well as the cochlea of the auditory system.
aaaaaaa.....Tour did nothing of the sort. What he did do was damage his professional reputation by lying about an expository paper by Szostak screaming libelous abuse to a congregation of scientifically illiterate Southern Baptists. Tour has a long list of publications in peer reviewed literature. Not a single solitary syllable in a single one addresses OoL research. Take a seat......
@Kraig StClair Search for "Dr James Tour Destroys Chemical Evolution in 10 minutes" - it has disabled comments and disabled like/dislike, since James Liar Tour is a coward. If you analyse his misrepresentation of thermodynamics, his claim result in that cooking food is impossible. If you analyse his denial of emergent properties chemistry would be impossible.
Although having the presence of the correct components necessary for Life is important for one to advance the theory that Life spontaneously arose without an intelligence guiding it, there are some incredible hurdles to jump (e.g., mathematical improbability for correct sequence of well over a hundred amino acids, inexplicably resisting the 50/50 chance of inclusion of right-handed amino acids at each & every sequential position in the polypeptide chain, etc.!). And when we minimize these serious objections to these highly mathematically-improbable hurdles, we inadvertently advance the expectation of multiple occurrences of spontaneously generated living cells from non-living matter. In other words, when we minimize (or downplay) the high level of improbability of the occurrence of abiogenesis, we automatically simultaneously and equally imply the greater probability of multiple occurrences of abiogenesis. Furthermore, the more we demand that abiogenesis be treated as a reasonable and natural expectation (instead of an incredible improbability), the more we automatically & simultaneously increase the expectation that abiogenesis be viewed as common an occurrence as, say, extinction of a species.
@Kilo Sierra I don't see why it is significant to make a distinction between "believes in" and just "believes", but since I can't think of any significant implications, then I'll re-phrase my question, and I'll change it to a statement, as well: "If one BELIEVES something no one has ever seen before (i.e. abiogenesis, formation of the Universe, etc.), it is an issue of believing it by faith." For instance, non-Christian scientists believed for many years that the Universe was eternal, having no beginning. Then, a Belgian scientist (who was also a creationist) discovered evidence that the Universe did indeed have a beginning, just like the Bible had claimed for centuries. As a result, many scientists changed their belief to agree that the Universe DID have a beginning. A simple Google search will reveal many things which scientists previously believed, which turned out to be wrong.
Even if all the components of a cell by pure chance came into existence or copied by human efforts exactly it would not be alive. You would still have a dead cell. There is no way you can animate it to life. The interrelation of the cells need for a specific protein would demand a way for the cell to communicate with the DNA and then the DNA opening up similar to unzipping temporarily the exact spot on the strand where the RNA needed can be formed. Then it makes the protein in the shape needed to fit the place where it is needed. Then the new product must be transported to the exact place where it is necessary more efficiently than any man-made factory. The fairy tale of abiogenesis is absolutely insane and scientists are desperately wasting their minds on starting with a preconceived hypothesis and denying against all odds that all of this could happen without an intelligent creator
@Kraig StClair just dodge all of the problems by bringing up God of the gaps fallacy and pretending like this defeats the points brought up by the OP. What wonderful logic.
Great video! Detractors have nothing but empty claims. New research suggests mixing of primordial RNA and DNA, and a genetic code that preceded RNA world.
Just look at your statement. Sounds like a statement I heard about those always searching but never finding truth. “ New research suggest mixing of primordial RNA and DNA and a genetic coat that proceeds are in a world” Suggestions are not evidence and in themselves are empty claims. God’s best on your quest for truth
@@boyofGod81 First of all, try to get your quote right. It was not what you posted "that proceeds are in a world" but rather "that preceded RNA world" (RNA =RiboNucleic Acid). Scientific research continues on, we don't have all the answers and do not pretend to - you should try not pretending sometime. Here is the full name of the study in question: Prebiotic Phosphorylation and Concomitant Oligomerization of Deoxynucleosides to form DNA The evidence they provide includes: "we show that diamidophosphate (DAP) with 2-aminoimidazole (amido)phosphorylates and oligomerizes deoxynucleosides to form DNA-under conditions similar to those of ribonucleosides." Now, why not go find a beginner's science source to help you understand what they're talking about. It's not very simple.
@@boyofGod81 Some believers are... something between sad and funny. For you, if the scientists cannot provide absolutelly all the answers, with all the details, right now and here, then God. But simultaneously, I bet that you will be unable to explain (and demonstrate) how God manipulates and create the reality. Simply saying "God did it" is synonym of "a wizard did it", specially if you cannot provide anything testable.
@@diegocastejon6897 Back at ya. Except for it is straight sad and funny. Look at your sentence if the scientist cannot provide absolutely all the answers... that is not what scientist do or what science is science is knowledge and scientist search for knowledge. Wake knowledge that scientists are the knowledge givers is ludicrous. Your strawman argument that if some believers attributing everything to God that’s scientist don’t answer is off base. Even Darwin and the Industrial Age that’s still used bloodletting as modern medicine new that if an organism or part could not have evolved slowly through small increments that his theory was dead. Even after The discovery of mutations in the genetic code code, God deniers still clinging onto a naturalistic explanation. Some of course being honest enough to admit they just thought of a higher power they would have to obey. All you have to do is look at Richard Dawkins book title the blind watchmaker. I was sinful must’ve person bay to reject the obvious. Again Richard Dawkins Has people believe him when he said biology is the study of complex things that give the appearance of being created for a purpose. Yet those that have had historical views or experience with the living creator that leave out the word appearance are Ridiculed and Marginalized. We put the unknowable of Creation on a creator while you as a naturalist put your trust in man. If I only had half the face you have. God’s best
@@mcmanustony wouldn’t you think that organic chemistry fits into the field of “origins of cellular life”? He often does not invoke God in his debates. I don’t think your comment is grounded in reality. When Tour debates it’s usually the other guy who seems religious oddly enough.
@@justinpeterburford Tour is a synthetic organic chemist. He has published 700+ papers in the peer reviewed literature of that field. He has published precisely NOTHING on the origin of life. He has misrepresented the field, he has targeted individual scientists for lies and abuse. His slander of Jack Szostak will shame Tour every day for what remains of his career. "I don’t think your comment is grounded in reality."- why? I know for a fact that Tour can't even engage in professional academic correspondence without preaching and proselytising. "When Tour debates it’s usually the other guy who seems religious oddly enough."- WHICH other guys? Can you actually name some of these people?
@@mcmanustony I mean the other guy seems more religious as they typically make appeals to the old Darwinian framework which is no longer plausible. As to who he debates. Lee Cronin, Dave Farina and Joshua Swamidass. His main point is that abiogenesis as a field has made little progress but makes substantial claims, and as a synthetic organic chemist he notices the hyped up nature of those claims. The back and forth with Dave Farina is a great example of that. And I have seen him make a good defense of his position without invoking God. It’s not his style. Maybe you read more on him than I did. Good day
@@justinpeterburford " little progress but makes substantial claims"- WHICH substantial claims? Any of them shown false? By whom? Where? Why is Tour so relentlessly dishonest if his case is so good? Why does he lie so much?
The increasing oxygen levels can also be increased with a gradual build up of life on earth 🌎. The cambrian explosion shows a sudden and explosive increase in higher life forms and then throughout the whole cambrian period nothing else happened, the life forms didn't change, just as the life forms in the pre cambrian time. Oxygen levels increased however until the next explosive and sudden explosion of new and higher life forms. It's great to study Bats, that suddenly appeared 54 Million years ago. They suddenly appeared all over the earth in slightly different forms but without any precursors. They didn't evolve from other creatures, they just suddenly appear seemingly out of nothing. And: the Bats from 54 million years ago look just like Bats today!!!!!!!!
have they replicated the conditions of early earth and reproduced cellular life? and have we observed this recreated cellular life coming together to form a living breathing animal? if so, is there observable real-time video evidence of this? thank you for your response in advanced.
No, cellular life has not been created. Please understand, the earth was dead for for the first maybe 700 million years. Origin of life research really began in earnest 70 years ago.....so expecting scientists to replicate a phenomenon in the lab, in one 10 millionth of the time it took on the early earth is a big ask. Nonetheless- much is known about synthesis of the molecules needed to form a simple replicating protocell. Much is being learned about autocatalysis and how reactions can make compounds that make more of themselves- this is not life, but is a prerequisite. Much is known about the natural occurrence of amino acids....and much is being done on studying their polymerisation. living breathing animals came around one billion years AFTER the first cells. For a billion years or so ALL life was unicellular. You could look up Nick Lane's videos here on the evolution of eukaryotes.
Even if they could create life from non life all it would prove is that an intelligence could create life. It amazes me how gullible people are. He stands there and tells people what he imagines might have happened and people believe it is fact.
“We think they could self assemble into simple cells or protocells” I am to put my eternal destiny on “WE think” “ might have been” “ The option I believe it” Oh my goodness God help us
@@andresehnem name 1 “hypothesis” that is backed by empirical data. You need to watch Dr. James tour video series on AbioGenesis. You are being lied to. God’s best
@@truthbebold4009 great on. Funny how people put their trust in a UA-cam science professor. They have no problem questioning a guy who taught longer in the science classroom than Professor Dave. Good old Dr Dino. Yet Dr. Hovine speaks more sense then the parrot Professor Dave.
//"I am to put my eternal destiny on..."// You should not presuppose any such thing at all. Your response constitutes an appeal to consequences fallacy ... in this case, barely even hypothetical consequences. Seemingly imaginary ones. The truth is whatever is objectively demonstrable. Whether you think it serves your cultural-mythology's narrative of "eternal life" or not is utterly irrelevant, and fallacious. And scientists use language that is cautious for good reason. They're intellectually honest. Blind-faith conviction in ancient mythology might make you feel good, but it's an indictment upon your epitemology to think that speaking carefully and not overstating one's capacities is somehow a bad thing...
If you listen closely this speculations has nothing to do with science then even if you get amino acids in a pond they have little to do with functional proteins, let alone a highly complex cell. Even the probability of assembling a single simple protein is 10^164 a number even higher than the number of atoms in the universe, 10^90. Its crazy to assume a single protein could assemble itself just by chance, and even if it did a cell is such an unbelievable complex organism that its even more crazy to believe a cell could assemple itself just by pure chance.
@@sparkyy0007 Its Hilarious to watch Dr. Tour ask for any scientist in his audience for a rebuttal...and then...crickets chirping. But they come on these channels and start spouting nonsense. They KNOW it is a lie.
@@thegreatbehoover788 Dr nick Matzke called Tour's bluff that no scientist could explain evolution over lunch, and it was hilarious to see how fast Tour ran from his own challenge. However, when Tour was preaching to a fundie audience and he lied about Dr Jack Szostak, it wasn't funny, just creepy and disappointing that such a distinguished scientist would stoop to lying for Jesus (for which, to his credit, he apologized, saying he knew it was wrong).
@@ergonomover Did you just AGAIN FAIL to support your silly BELIEFS with ACTUAL EVIDENCE???🤣🤣🤣 Why yes....you did!!!! You CLAIM your silly BELIEFS are true...yet you ONLY have hearsay about someone else defending your FAITH....not a single paper has been presented DEVOID OF FAITH STATEMENTS by any EVOLUTIONISTS or BELIEVERS in ABIOGENESIS...THOUSANDS OF OPPORTUNITIES....A few attempts...but NEVER...NOT EVER: UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE That's because you have only FAITH BASED ASSUMPTIONS and PSEUDOSCIENCE driving the narrative. Post your BEST SCIENTIFIC PAPER...I'll EASILY point out the FAITH statements...it's that simple. Your embarrassing by running from the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and quibbling over hearsay. Typical!!!🤣🤣🤣
@@thegreatbehoover788 You're funny! First from James Tour: "That was a strong word (“lying”) which I regret saying. I have already apologized to Jack Szostak by phone, and he very graciously accepted the apology. If given a chance, I would likewise apologize to any of those cited in that talk to whom I said such a thing. My behavior was inappropriate." Tour made a public challenge, boasting that no one had taken up his invitation to explain evolution over lunch. He was still doing so after Nick Matzke accepted the challenge, right? Of course Matzke wanted to record the exchange to protect both parties and as teaching tool. Tour refused, are you denying this? Public challenge, but then refusal to make the exchange public, what did Tour have to hide? It's not a matter of belief, since it's all on record.
Huh...looks like my comment didn't post or was removed? Possibly bc of what it said. So how about instead I just say that at 16:40, the slide has the incorrect spelling of "that word" and it should be spell d i k e in this context
The intoduction is very poor ,we need technicals details not just generalities for beginners in science, james tour was right To say wé are clueless, and i m a chemical engineer
Don’t worry folks - story telling is alive and well and still at the tax payers expense . Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin - long long ago and far far away………….
A lot of the stuff he is describing can be explained through a gradual build up of life on our planet- however not through Darwinism but Design. Its clear that natural processes build up mountain's etc. Its obvious that first simple life forms where planted on earth and allowed to multiply over millions of years, including plants and photosynthesis- causing oxygen levels to rise .... then came the cambrian explosion. Suddenly. Suddenly a great diversity of life forms came into place and spread on earth. These life forms where very complex and had no precursors. They appeared suddenly. Its impossible Darwinism can Account for this. Then after these life forms spread for mullions of years the mammalian explosion occurred. Again a great diversity of life wothout precursors. No need to mention what intelligence is behind this process but to exclude intelligence in this process is modern stupidity and not science.
Assuming that Life were just planted on earth, we are but postponing and moving the question of Origin of Life to somewhere else. How did it originated in that somewhere else, was it also planted there? If there is the possibility of Life originating somewhere else, then be transported here, why isn't there the same possibility of it also originated spontaneously right here? Unless that indirectly you are trying to say that Life was planted here by Higher beings who did just "created" it, in that case there is no much to be verified, since it fits a religious faith based believe. but if we were to take a more scientific and inquisitive approach to that question, Is it really totally unacceptable that Life on Planet Earth might indeed be the firsts? That no one "planted" us, but we are a by product of Billions of years of different levels of darwinian evolution, that started with simple atomic and molecular interactions that would eventually create useful genetic information, and with more time, a complex ecosystems of adaptive living creatures? Perhaps we still know too little of the Universe, our Planet and Life to assume there are better chances of Life originating out there than in here.
@@MrMizahell i dont think its for science to interpret where this intelligence came from as its not likely to be ever answered. However is it intelligent to decline this idea? I dont think so especially as a critical look at abogenisis can demonstrate they darwinian theories can never explain life on earth, and all fossil records show a sudden accurance of major life forms. I could postulate the idea that life was planted on earth starting with simple life forms first, allowing those to spread on earth for millions of years, accounting for rise in oxygen levels, by the way. Then this intelligence set up the cambrian explosion. Again leaving this life forms again to spread over millions of years. Filling earth with these life forms. Then the mammalian explosion was set loose. Plants where allowed to spread similarly. This idea cant be refuted and fits perfectly into all available data whereas Darwinism has to be squeezed into reality ( and doesn't really fit) this idea conveniently fits into all observable data.
@@platzhirsch4275 okay very interesting your explanation. But darwinian evolution does not intend to explain the origin of Life, it focus on the origin of biodiversity in this planet , which is something that is observable (just like we can observe man adapted species like dogs and cats that never existed before). And as you said, the fossil record does show "moments" of increased number of species, but it is something expected when some conditions are met that would allow an increase in populations, expansions and diversification of species, and those "moments" also mentioned sometimes as "explosions" happened over millions of years, for context the domestic "pug" has only been separated from its "wolf" like ancestors a couple of thousand years old. imagine what would millions of years do to species living in a thriving environments. You should also note that we don't find complex organism existing previously to simple organism, meaning that simple organism have existed before complex organism. Which implies this questions: Why the first "Life" that was planet (around 3.5 billion years ago) had to be the most simple that have ever been found? Almost as if it was somehow natural? In scientific environments, is not that it is purposely declined the idea that something intelligent planted Life on this planet, but since it is a very speculative idea in which there is no evidence, and lacks logical stability, as I mentioned in my previous comment, since that it would require the same questions applied to those that "planted" it here, its clearly only a strategy to postpone hard questions. Scientist do follow the evidence, and if its ever found evidence of something have "planted" Life on the planet, there will be within an year, a community of scientist that will be analyzing every single detail and try on give us a better understanding of what actually happened in that context. Therefore, I hope you understand, that since we do have very little time to be alive and study these mysteries of existence, that so much fascinates us, to some people, myself included, is unacceptable to simple postpone the search for answers don't matter how it hurt our ego, and instead choose to accept emotional and cultural engraved believes, that do not demonstrates any type of consistency, having thousands of different explanations that varies greatly according to popular cultures (like religions), individuals or groups, and the period of time they are inserted in.
@@MrMizahell hi again. Thank you for a very detailed answer. I would personally call the Evolution you describe as adaption. Somehow the DNA of a Dog is included in the wolf DNA. BUT you can never get a Wolf out of breeding dogs thus a dog cuts down on DNA and isnt an "Evolution" from a wolf. Didnt think about it like this? Ok. Please do. The fossils of the cambrian era appear suddenly in the sediments. Very suddenly. This period lasted some 100 million years yes, but only because it took this time for these animals to spread the earth sufficiently. There is however no transition from pre- cambrian life form to cambrian life forms, as especially the fossils in China show. Then came the mammalian explosion. Again abrupt and without intermediate steps. These ideas should encourage research into origin of life, but give new ideas about interpreting existing data. But: it cannot proof that there must have been intelligence involved in this process, it can only suggest this hypothesis as a possible answer and if we analyse all data carefully we may actually see that this is the only theory that satisfies all available data.
@@platzhirsch4275 Hi Andreas, you are welcome, thank you as well. If you want to call evolution, adaption, by all means you would be correct, its just that the name Evolution attempts to indicate that we are talking about really long periods of adaptations. When you say that Dog DNA is "included" in the wolf DNA, I am not sure if you actually mean that a whole DNA of a dog is in the DNA of the wolf, or that as has been found and studied, that certain wolves had pieces of dogs DNA in their own, which demonstrates that they interbred at some point in the past. About the cambrian explosion, I like to remind you that, has been many times in the past in which science have found a mistery, a complicated question that requires heavy thinking and expensive research to eventually give the correct answer, which is neither easy nor fast process, because science is a process in which the question is very closely pursued, not only supposed or whished to be true. And real scientist actually like to find moments where things are unclear, is when real science happens, the time to dig in and see what comes out, and as they do that, sometimes they come up with hypothesis that "could" explain the findings and the results, but it only becomes a theory when it becomes confirmed. At the moment, there are many hypothesis trying to explain the cambrian explosion, based on highly complex scientific investigations, and as we keep searching and testing, eventually there will be an more consistent answer. But just like once, the orbit of Mercury was only explained by "God misteries" one day, if we keep doing good science, the Cambrian explosion will also be understood as well as we now known and understand every single move of Mercury orbit. You might ask then, why are the scientists not also exploring the hypothesis that Life was "planted" on planet Earth? And the answer is: besides the fact that evidence is non-existing, there is nothing that leads scientist in that direction. But I believe, that I am not alone, when I say that I would be very happy to see and read a scientific paper that realisticly presents the case for "planted" Life as you have mentioned, showing through an detailed analyses of all available data, that "planted" Life on planet Earth is the only possibility that satisfy the data. That would be super amazing kkk I think is also important to make it clear, that the "planted" Life possibility have not been completely discarded, and it is considered one of the possible answers, although is it is considered having a very low possibility of being the correct one, due to it having no scientific base, but be made of mostly claims that majority of scientists don't find convincing enough, neither that have sufficient information to begin testing if its either false or true. Mainly because as I mentioned before, it requires a faith like approach, and gives no directions on what should be the observations and testings to eventually prove it correct or incorrect. Therefore, is not because scientist have a grudge and they are not researching this, because they don't want to think outside the box or they want to hide the truth from the masses, no, it is mainly because there is not suficient evidence to even make this claims, and they do not have time to just persue any wild theory that exists, which is very unfortunate because it would be fun, but its the reality we live in my friend.
Nope. It is called hypothesis in science and is developed by the smartest people on earth. It might be wrong it might be right. When science get it wrong, they learn something new and get a new basis of the understanding. They always back their claim up with evidence. You just never went to school, since you don't understand science, a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis.
@@thegreatbehoover788 Uh, no. It is a claim in the OP "Our sun is a periodical nova producer" - You need evidence. You have no evidence. In fact if the sun was a Cepheid, pulsating or cataclysmic star we would all be dead as far as science can tell. The sun is not even producing metal it is currently producing helium.
Even in the RNA-world community that timeline is seen as deceptive. By presenting one's ideas with zero evidence along with established geological results, one immediately takes them to be comparable. These ideas are not shared, even among his collaborators.
You're just an ignorant hater who is jealous of Jack Szostak being an expert in this field. Just arrogant and closed-minded to all the fantastic ideas he presents, which unlike the dogma & stories spouted by religiontards, he backs up with mathematics calculations and physical experiments. The calculations are the highest form of rationality. Not some childish verbal debate.
The only place these Ideas is not shared in in the conspiracy theory Young Earth Creationism. Young Earth Creationism isn't science. Their answer to every question is "goddunit".
Anyone discussing the origin of life, without discussing the impossibility of life having come about by anything other than intelligently directed processes, is doing their audience a profound disservice
Yet there is no evidence of an intelligently designed origin. It's merely a belief like Santa Claus,the tooth fairy,Zeus or the other myriad of fictional gods.
@@m9078jk3 Interesting. Then where did the information that codes for the functional structures of proteins come from, since information can only come from information? The assertion there is no evidence for intelligent design is like finding a perfectly formed castle on a beach and saying there's no evidence that anyone built it
@@cd1857 "information can only come from information" - do you have a scientific peer reviewed paper supporting that assessment or is it yet another lie you pulled out of your behind?
@@freddan6fly Yes, there is a scientifically reviewed paper stating that...but its reserved only for the scientifically literate so I'm afraid I can't disclose it to you
@@cd1857 "since information can only come from information?"- what the hell does that even mean? there have been zero examples of castles built by anything other than a group of human beings. If we see something that is built by humans we infer that humans built it. You can give no example of a supernatural designer intervening in nature to design any biological system. Your comparison is beyond hopeless.
@@spatrk6634 Nobel prize, what an amazing achievement. Way smarter in his field of expertise than 99% of the rest of the planet. However anyone who believes in the idea of life from non-life, sorry, that's fantasyland on steroids.
@@stephenbell-booth2648 for the first billion years of its existence this planet was dead. Now it is not. Life emerged from non life. Either there was a natural process responsible for that, at least partly explicable by science, or it was magic. Your personal incredulity is not an argument for anything other your personal incredulity. There are dozens and dozens of researchers worldwide examining this question. Have you read any of their work or is blabbering inanities about steroids as good as it gets?
@@mcmanustony interesting point of view, thank you for sharing. I was educated at a mainstream college and was taught the standard narrative how billions of years ago the Big Bang happened and millions of years ago a simple cell (love that description) changed, and became something different, then that thing changed, and after a while more complex forms of life appeared and eventually men and women evolved. The narrative seemed unbelievable then and remains more unbelievable as each year passes and better information surfaces. In the end, it’s quite simple really; there are two options to consider, a top-down, intelligent mind/created process, or the bottom-up, mindless, no purpose, no cause, ‘survival of the fittest’ approach. That our bodies are made up of about 100 trillion cells, with something like 6 billion nucleotides inside every cell I’m not brave enough to suggest that any part of that complexity mindlessly evolved.
@@williamparker7102 As usual, empty assertions with no evidence. Go on then, show me where in chemistry it says 'god did it'. If there was one iota of evidence to support the god theory you theists would be screaming it into the faces of the ever growing army of atheists.
@@Ozone280 science has no evidence for either. Either some intelligence crested the information we see in the universe or blind chance based on impossibilities. It depends on which 'impossibility' you choose to believe in.
@@iain5615 Nothing happens without reason, at least nothing we can observe. Everything has a cause, even the most rare accident has somewhere in its lead up, a something that caused it - and all these causes turn out to be natural occurrences. Why then, whould we believe without question (as theists do) that for SOME things we have no answer for, that god did it? Doubly so when there is zero evidence to support the assertion that god exists in the first place. The day that theists say where their god came from - without piffling on about their god being the only thing that needed no creation - will be the day I ask the to prove it. And there is plenty circumstantial evidence for natural abiogenesis, which is the best we can do right now. However, as with thunder and earthquakes, the REAL answer is out there somewhere and will be found. I'll wager it won't be 'god did it'!
Let me skip to the main points. “We know a living cell has a genome/DNA, a functional cell membrane and a metabolism. We have absolutely no idea how any of this could have developed. In fact, we cannot even explain how the first proteins occurred. We have no clue about how to solve chirality, how RNA was made and not degraded…..we know nothing”……sorry for wasting everyone’s time. Best wishes, Jack.
@@mcmanustony My education is in Biochemistry so I’m confident that organic chemistry never gets to biochemistry without a guided hand. Proteins are required to make DNA, Ribosomes are required to make proteins, Ribosomes are made up of about 60 different proteins and DNA is first required to code for all of the proteins. None occur in nature outside of a living cell, none do anything without the other two, all three are required to make each other. All three must be created at the same time in the same place……all life has all three….that is the absolute proof of creation. Nobody can dispute that.
@@jimdandy9118 " I’m confident that organic chemistry never gets to biochemistry without a guided hand"- would that be The Baby Jesus? Where did John Sutherland and Mathew Powner go wrong?
@@mcmanustony Did you really just say that nonsense out loud? RNA absolutely cannot be spontaneously synthesized….who told you that nonsense? By the way, you do realize RNA is very unstable and degrades in a matter of days outside of a living cell so cannot be an early form of DNA. Nobody takes an RNA world seriously because of that. Aren’t educated are you now?
Great talk. I liked that Dr. Szostak acknowledge the works of lots of other scientists, colleagues and students.
How do you keep RNA from degrading in a 24 hour period for at use temperatures when you must keep it at -112* to keep it from degrading? As time passes for the RNA to function is reduced by its instability how is that time sensitive instability overcome in a prebiotic world? Or stated this way, given this time problem what time limited step process is required to bring it from a prebiotic world to a useful functioning RNA? How does a prebiotic world purify to get homochirality forms of the molecules? How does a protein fold up into its proper three dimensional structure in a prebiotic world when the possible ways of folding are near equal to the number of elementary particles in the universe? Since chiral induced spin selectivity makes purification processes power efficient and molecule by molecule selective what mechanism process produced this required structure in sequence to operate at the limits of what Physics says is possible? Where do the interactomes come from that are needed by the RNA and ribosomes within a cell? By what steps are they made and how many different kinds are needed for a first cell to operate? What mechanism is used to divide the cell of these interactomes so that when cell finishes replication all of the interactomes needed are still in each cell? What process is used to make sure both halves are viable? Then what mechanism chooses to flip the separation sequence on thereby pinching the cell into two cells? By what specific process did the functioning codons get made that are in the RNA?
Don’t worry about the small stuff….the “given enough time” story fixes all of those impossible problems……but don’t bring up the DNA needing proteins to regulate the reactions to make it problem….that can’t be solved.
@@crackheadbiden3273As this presentation and the comment is about RNA. What is your point? It’s pretty clear that as we learn more about the chemistries possible in the early Earth there are path ways to an RNA life epoc. God isn’t required. Which I am sure you are going with your straw man comment.
@@byrnemeister2008 the problem with RNA and DNA is that they caramelize in a day or less. Also all life uses left handed spin we call Homochirality. Aside from only one natural process to produce just one chemical in homochiral form we know of no other self purifying process. This is a huge unresolved problem. All we see currently are processes that block the formation of the first cell. We do not even know how to make prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell walls. We have no clue. The best we have made to date is porous plastic beads. Simply saying God isn’t required means you have solved all the steps and made the first living cell. Nobel prize here you come. Anyone who does this will certainly get the Nobel for the effort. Till then God is an acceptable requirement.
@@markoconnell804 its not huge unresolved problem.
lots of research papers on all you just said that is a " unresolved problem".
saying "we have no clue" demonstrates how you operate,
god was never a requirment, its a concept you use to fill the gaps in your knowledge.
"i dont know how this is possible, hence god did it"
and you can continue living your life without thinking about stuff.
the one who demonstrates that past century of origin of life research is all wrong, will certainly get nobel prize.
until then, god is impossibility.
@@spatrk6634 it is not a small problem. In fact the statistical odds of pre-biological matter being able to turn into life through random chance is so low you would stand a better chance of assembling a box of Lego into the photo on the box just by shaking it for a few million years.
I love this. Very informative
This is all UNSUPPORTED FANTASY. Not a single part of this entire lecture's POINT has ANY FACTUAL BASIS in OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE! He COMPLETELY IGNORES FACTS to PRETEND that life could emerge from a prebiotic chemistry! Hilarious! MILLER...of the Miller Urey experiment ... proved that this MIRACLE event never happened...yet his results are IGNORED and touted as the reason we should BELIEVE in this man's sully ASSUMPTIONS! Lol.
No silly...NOTHING shows that RNA CODE could have EVER FORMED without HUMAN MANIPULATION in experimentation. Yet...he BELIEVES anyways!!! How silly...how UNSCIENTIFIC!!! His entire lecture is one of stating an "ASSUMED FACT" which has no basis in our OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE and then backing his statements with information that DOESN'T do anything to prove his silly ASSUMPTIONS.
No...such a waste of a lecture time is NOT informative. It is deceptive.
@@thegreatbehoover788 Prerequisites to be a young earth creationist according to Lyman Stewart:
1. IGNORANCE
You must, without question or exception, be completely ignorant of science, logic, evolution and reality in general, to be a Creationist. Every "argument" a Creationist puts forth to "disprove" Evolutionary Theory is nothing more than a mangling of a conspiracy theory, outright lies, logical fallacies, exaggerations and misinformation. They also rely on the same, recycled, refuted dead-end arguments. There has not been one new Creationist argument recently put forth. It's still attacking radiometric dating with the abhorrent notion that decay rates can vary, without any evidence, and it's still lying about the Law of Entropy to make it seem as if it makes evolution impossible. Nothing has changed. No explanation why there is no Technetium on earth or the ratio between U235/U238, which is explained by science because the earth is 4.543.000.000 years old. They also claim that the speed of light varies to solve the problem with stars being 13.390.000.000 light years away. Then they must replace General Relativity with a new theory, and they have nothing of course, since no creationist understand cosmology or math (or basically anything).
2. DISHONESTY
You must be completely dishonest to purport Creationist arguments. Creationists routinely lie about thermodynamics, radiometric dating, Evolutionary Theory, speed of light, science, scientists and general scientific concepts.
3. INEXCUSABLE INCOMPETENCE
It's not lying if you think it's true. Many Creationists actually believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics refutes Evolutionary Theory. This is simply stupidity, and it is totally inexcusable. Anytime someone who doesn't have a legitimate authority in science tells you that scientists are wrong because of whatever reason, you'd better check up on it before just blindly accepting it as fact. The fact that so many have been taken in by Creationist's anti science and lies is testament to intellectual laziness. It is also a testament to the serious lack in scientific education of the general populace.
4. FERVENTLY RELIGIOUS LUNACISM
If you believe that the bible is correct about the creation of the Universe, then you must believe that it is completely literal, as no contextualist would ever interpret a story which contradicts physical evidence and is contradicted by another story in the same book, in the same section. Light before the sun, ants have four legs and no queen, PI equals 3 etc.
5. RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY
If you believe that the bible is to be interpreted literally, then you believe that all other religions are wrong, and that all of their followers will forever be tortured in the afterlife. Consequently, you also must believe that it is your duty, as a Christian, to seek out and destroy all these other religions' sacred objects and defile their practices. Anyone who interprets the bible literally must also accept that racism, slavery and sexism are all the will of God.
6. DISBELIEF IN HUMAN RIGHTS
The bible makes it clear that humans have no rights. No one has the right to practice their own religion (except Christianity and Judaism) without punishment, and no one is allowed to say what they want to say without retribution. To do so violates some of the Ten Commandments.
7. ANTI-DEMOCRATIC/PRO-THEOCRACY MINDSET
The bible makes it clear that a democracy based on the will of the people is not God's preferred government. Rather, the best government is a dictatorship, enforced with terrorism, mass-homocide and "Big Brother" tactics (i.e. "God knows everything that you do").
8. BELIEF THAT GOD IS THE ARBITER OF MORALITY
The bible purports the massively-flawed belief that God is infallible. Even though God has been convinced to change his mind repeatedly by human beings in the bible, he is still incapable of doing wrong. This belief only reinforces the belief that humans have no rights, as we are under the watchful eye of God, who will severely punish us for minor infractions. Slavery and child-rape are promoted.
9. BELIEF THAT ALL BRANCHES OF SCIENCE ARE CONSPIRING TO COVER UP "THE TRUTH" OF CREATIONISM
In order to be a Creationist, you must believe that scientists are untrustworthy servants of the devil, whose agenda is to distort facts and make it seem as if Evolution is the truth, when, in reality, they're not telling us about the volumes of "facts" that the Creationists do. Scientists want everyone to believe that the Universe was caused by random chance, that there is no God, and life has no meaning (because, Evolution obviously necessitates all of these things). All branches of science that give evidence for an ancient Earth are just flunkies for the Evolutionists. Astrophysics, geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, quantum theory, engineering, anthropology, logistics, medicine, osterology, history, ...none are credible branches of science, only beams in the support structure of Evolution.
10. OVERALL, GENERALIZED STUPIDITY
If you're a Creationist, you're an idiot. I don't care if you're the nicest person on Earth, have a doctorate in astrophysics, or stumped Stephen Hawking on general physics. The complete dismissal of so many branches of science, scientists' credibility, evidence in addition to the intellectual laziness and fervent religious bigotry that come with being a Creationist makes one a complete idiot. This is one blanket statement that I am not afraid to make, because it is simply true. If you find a religiously-tolerant Creationist, you've found a hypocrite. The person in question would accept the bible as literal truth on a scientific level, but would be ignoring the commandments of racism, religious intolerance and persecution that God handed down to the Israelites
@Blank B
Informative? You’re easily pleased. It’s just a whole bunch of just so stories without a scintilla of tangible explanation. Jack has wasted his entire career trying to scientifically demonstrate how life self assembled. All he has achieved is to scientifically demonstrate that life can not self assemble. Unfortunately Jack is starting from a flawed premise.
It is not informative, it is imagination. It is only people who "want" to believe what he imagines who will believe what he imagines.
Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. Adaptation is fact. Darwinian evolution is imagination, false assumptions built around fact.
Yes it is fact that we find fossils, some with similarities. This does not mean that one turned into the other, this part is imagination.
Yes it is fact that the genetic information to create an organ in human beings is similar to the genetic information to create the same organ in other creatures. No this does not mean that one turned into the other, this part is imagination.
Darwinian evolution is a made up story by people who want something to believe in other than special creation.
Evolution is not science, not fact, it is a myth based on the fact that all life is created with the ability to adapt to changing environments by random selection of genetic variants created within the cell, the gene pool.
Bunch of pseudoscience.
Here is real science:
ua-cam.com/video/v36_v4hsB-Y/v-deo.html
Jack Szostak is a major contributor to origin of life research. 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 290references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
Where did the information suddenly came from?
The assembly of complex molecules involves a series of enzymes that must react in a proper sequence, very often producing intermediates that are useless to the cell until the final product is formed. Evolutionists imagine that these enzymes evolve randomly, often from a duplicate gene, and that the succession of steps in the synthesis, at least often, represents the succession of steps in the historical evolution of the process (the Granick hypothesis). But forces of natural selection could not operate to favour an organism which had ‘evolved’ a series of enzymes which merely produced useless intermediates until it somehow got around to making the end product. The Calvin cycle requires eleven different enzymes, all of which are coded by nuclear DNA and targeted precisely to the chloroplast, where the coding sequence is clipped off at just the right place by a nuclear-encoded protease. In reality, as described in the preceding paragraph, none of the enzymes can be missing if the Calvin cycle is to function. It is true that many of these enzymes are ubiquitous in living systems because every living cell needs to generate ribulose phosphates for the production of RNA, but evolutionists cannot solve the problem by merely pushing it back in time.
The assembly of chlorophyll takes seventeen enzymes.21 Natural selection could not operate to favour a system with anything less than all seventeen being present and functioning. What evolutionary process could possibly produce complex sophisticated enzymes that generate nothing useful until the whole process is complete? Some evolutionists argue that the assumed primeval organic soup had many of the simpler chemicals, and that only as they were used up did it become necessary to generate the earlier enzymes in the pathway. In The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, the authors set forth the good basic chemistry that demonstrates that there could never have been an organic soup, and present some of the evidence out there in the world indicating that there never was.22 Denton23 and Overman24 also cite a number of experts who suggest that there is no evidence for such a primitive soup but rather considerable evidence against it.
Chlorophyll itself, and many of the intermediates along its pathway of synthesis can form triplet states, which would destroy surrounding lipids by a free radical cascade apart from the context of the enzymes that manufacture them and the apoproteins into which they are inserted at the conclusion of their synthesis.25 According to Asada26 ‘triplet excited pigments are physiologically equivalent to the active oxygens’, and according to Sandmann and Scheer, chlorophyll triplets ‘are already highly toxic by themselves . . . .’27 The entire process of chlorophyll synthesis from δ-aminolevulinic acid to protoporphyrin IX is apparently tightly coupled to avoid leakage of intermediates.28 Almost all of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis are involved in handling phototoxic material.29 For many of these enzymes, if they are not there when their substrate is manufactured, the cell will be destroyed by their substrate on the loose in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apel30 has cited four of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis for which this has been proven to be the case. This is a significant problem for evolutionists, who need time for these enzymes to evolve successively. Each time a new enzyme evolved it would have produced a new phototoxin until the next enzyme evolved.
Do you know how books work?
Do something better with your time than cutting and pasting swathes of Answers in Genesis. Read a book written by a scientist, go to school, go to a library.......this is just fucking pitiful.
@@mcmanustony I prefer talking science if you can...that's better than just throwing insults, isn't it?
@@platzhirsch4275 But you don't. You are impervious to education. Why cut and paste reams of fucking nonsense from bible thumping halfwits- without stating that these aren't your words- and then lie that you're interested in science?
Stop telling lies Sparky, you'll feel less dirty.
@@mcmanustony
ATP synthase is an irreducibly complex motor-a proton-driven motor divided into rotor and stator portions as described and illustrated earlier in this paper (Figure 8). Protons can flow freely through the CF0 complex without the CF1 complex, so that if it evolved first, a pH gradient could not have been established within the thylakoids. The δ and critical χ protein subunits of the CF1 complex are synthesized in the cytosol and imported into the chloroplast in everything from Chlorella to Eugenia in the plant kingdom.49 All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail. Using a factory assembly line as an analogy, after all the otherwise useless and meaningless parts have been manufactured in different locations and shipped in to a central location, they are then assembled, and, if all goes as intended, they fit together perfectly to produce something useful. But the whole process has been carefully designed to function in that way. The whole complex must be manufactured and assembled in just one certain way, or nothing works at all. Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible. The little proton-driven motor known as ATP synthase consists of eight different subunits, totalling more than 20 polypeptide* chains, and is an order of magnitude smaller than the bacterial flagellar motor,50 which is equally impossible for evolutionists to explain.
Evolution cannot account for the assembly and activation of rubisco. All attempts to reconstitute a 16-unit rubisco from any source have failed, so the assembly of rubisco must be studied in the chloroplast extracts.51 The eight large (L) subunits of rubisco are coded by the chloroplast DNA, and the eight small (S) subunits by nuclear DNA. The S subunit of rubisco is synthesized on free cytosolic polyribosomes* and maintained even during synthesis in an unfolded state by chaperones* of the Hsp70 class and their protein partners.52 When the small unit is brought to the import complex of the chloroplast, the fourteen-polypeptide chloroplast Cpn60 chaperonin protein associates with IAP100 (protein) of the import complex and can also associate with mature imported small subunits. The chloroplast Cpn60 chaperone is similar to the E. coli GroEl protein.53 After the unfolded precursor protein enters the stromal space, it binds briefly to a stromal Hsp70 chaperone protein and the N terminal targeting sequence is cleaved.54
The large subunits of the rubisco enzyme are produced by the DNA and machinery of the chloroplast itself and stored complexed to a Cpn60 chaperonin.55,56 This chaperone protein keeps the large subunit protein from folding incorrectly, and therefore becoming useless,57 and is also necessary for the proper binding of the eight large subunits; without it they will form a useless clump.58 In many plants, the large subunits are chemically modified by specialized enzymes59 before they bind to the chaperonin protein. There is strong evidence that chloroplast Cpn60, Cpn21 and Hsp70 also participate in the assembly of the sixteen-unit rubisco complex.60 After a soluble L8 core is formed with the assistance of the chaperonin proteins, tetramers (four-part complexes) of small subunits bind to the top and bottom of the complex to form the complete enzyme.61 There are almost certainly other chaperones and chaperone-like polypeptides or lipo-proteins involved that are not yet characterized.
How do evolutionists explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast? Before it evolved a way to get the protein inside, there would be no benefit from keeping it unfolded outside. How could blind chance ‘know’ it needed to cause large subunit polypeptides to fold ‘correctly’ and to keep them from clumping? It could not ‘anticipate’ the ‘correct’ conformation before the protein became useful. And evolution would need to be clever indeed to chemically modify something not yet useful so that it could be folded ‘correctly’ when even the ‘correctly’ folded polypeptide would not yet become useful...
Reminds me of learning about The Human Eye in elementary school (actually happened) where one of my classmate had no time to learn the homework, but could precisely remember to the previous week’s Inner Ear text which he knew by heart, so when the teacher asked him to tell about the human eye he gave this recitation:
The Human Eye... The Human Eye... is positioned close to the ear, and the inner ear contains the otolith organs-the utricle and saccule-and the semicircular canals belonging to the vestibular system, as well as the cochlea of the auditory system.
Aaaaaand James Tour has basically dismantled this.
aaaaaaa.....Tour did nothing of the sort. What he did do was damage his professional reputation by lying about an expository paper by Szostak screaming libelous abuse to a congregation of scientifically illiterate Southern Baptists.
Tour has a long list of publications in peer reviewed literature. Not a single solitary syllable in a single one addresses OoL research.
Take a seat......
Aaaaaaaand he didn't.
@Kraig StClair Search for "Dr James Tour Destroys Chemical Evolution in 10 minutes" - it has disabled comments and disabled like/dislike, since James Liar Tour is a coward. If you analyse his misrepresentation of thermodynamics, his claim result in that cooking food is impossible. If you analyse his denial of emergent properties chemistry would be impossible.
@@mcmanustony Incorrect. Dr Tour has made this speaker look foolish ua-cam.com/video/WKLgQzWhO4Q/v-deo.html
@Kraig StClair Amen to that ua-cam.com/video/WKLgQzWhO4Q/v-deo.html
Although having the presence of the correct components necessary for Life is important for one to advance the theory that Life spontaneously arose without an intelligence guiding it, there are some incredible hurdles to jump (e.g., mathematical improbability for correct sequence of well over a hundred amino acids, inexplicably resisting the 50/50 chance of inclusion of right-handed amino acids at each & every sequential position in the polypeptide chain, etc.!).
And when we minimize these serious objections to these highly mathematically-improbable hurdles, we inadvertently advance the expectation of multiple occurrences of spontaneously generated living cells from non-living matter.
In other words, when we minimize (or downplay) the high level of improbability of the occurrence of abiogenesis, we automatically simultaneously and equally imply the greater probability of multiple occurrences of abiogenesis.
Furthermore, the more we demand that abiogenesis be treated as a reasonable and natural expectation (instead of an incredible improbability), the more we automatically & simultaneously increase the expectation that abiogenesis be viewed as common an occurrence as, say, extinction of a species.
@Kilo Sierra How often do we see occurrences of self-replicating chemistry arising randomly in nature today?
@Kilo Sierra If one believes in something no one has ever seen before, isn't that an issue of believing it by faith?
@Kilo Sierra I don't see why it is significant to make a distinction between "believes in" and just "believes", but since I can't think of any significant implications, then I'll re-phrase my question, and I'll change it to a statement, as well: "If one BELIEVES something no one has ever seen before (i.e. abiogenesis, formation of the Universe, etc.), it is an issue of believing it by faith." For instance, non-Christian scientists believed for many years that the Universe was eternal, having no beginning. Then, a Belgian scientist (who was also a creationist) discovered evidence that the Universe did indeed have a beginning, just like the Bible had claimed for centuries. As a result, many scientists changed their belief to agree that the Universe DID have a beginning.
A simple Google search will reveal many things which scientists previously believed, which turned out to be wrong.
@Kilo Sierra You sound like you're a skeptic who believes we should expose these frauds, LOL!
@Kilo Sierra Great! I'm glad you don't identify as a skeptic as I've found them to be quite hypocritical and dishonest.
Oke
Even if all the components of a cell by pure chance came into existence or copied by human efforts exactly it would not be alive. You would still have a dead cell. There is no way you can animate it to life. The interrelation of the cells need for a specific protein would demand a way for the cell to communicate with the DNA and then the DNA opening up similar to unzipping temporarily the exact spot on the strand where the RNA needed can be formed. Then it makes the protein in the shape needed to fit the place where it is needed. Then the new product must be transported to the exact place where it is necessary more efficiently than any man-made factory. The fairy tale of abiogenesis is absolutely insane and scientists are desperately wasting their minds on starting with a preconceived hypothesis and denying against all odds that all of this could happen without an intelligent creator
That is just religious belief that hinders you from accepting science.
@Kraig StClair just dodge all of the problems by bringing up God of the gaps fallacy and pretending like this defeats the points brought up by the OP. What wonderful logic.
"Abiogenesis is absolutely insane"
Also
"God did it"
Hope you see the problem here 😂
Great video! Detractors have nothing but empty claims. New research suggests mixing of primordial RNA and DNA, and a genetic code that preceded RNA world.
Indeed!
Just look at your statement. Sounds like a statement I heard about those always searching but never finding truth.
“ New research suggest mixing of primordial RNA and DNA and a genetic coat that proceeds are in a world”
Suggestions are not evidence and in themselves are empty claims. God’s best on your quest for truth
@@boyofGod81 First of all, try to get your quote right. It was not what you posted "that proceeds are in a world" but rather "that preceded RNA world" (RNA =RiboNucleic Acid). Scientific research continues on, we don't have all the answers and do not pretend to - you should try not pretending sometime. Here is the full name of the study in question:
Prebiotic Phosphorylation and Concomitant Oligomerization of Deoxynucleosides to form DNA
The evidence they provide includes: "we show that diamidophosphate (DAP) with 2-aminoimidazole (amido)phosphorylates and oligomerizes deoxynucleosides to form DNA-under conditions similar to those of ribonucleosides."
Now, why not go find a beginner's science source to help you understand what they're talking about. It's not very simple.
@@boyofGod81 Some believers are... something between sad and funny. For you, if the scientists cannot provide absolutelly all the answers, with all the details, right now and here, then God. But simultaneously, I bet that you will be unable to explain (and demonstrate) how God manipulates and create the reality. Simply saying "God did it" is synonym of "a wizard did it", specially if you cannot provide anything testable.
@@diegocastejon6897 Back at ya. Except for it is straight sad and funny. Look at your sentence if the scientist cannot provide absolutely all the answers... that is not what scientist do or what science is science is knowledge and scientist search for knowledge. Wake knowledge that scientists are the knowledge givers is ludicrous. Your strawman argument that if some believers attributing everything to God that’s scientist don’t answer is off base. Even Darwin and the Industrial Age that’s still used bloodletting as modern medicine new that if an organism or part could not have evolved slowly through small increments that his theory was dead. Even after The discovery of mutations in the genetic code code, God deniers still clinging onto a naturalistic explanation. Some of course being honest enough to admit they just thought of a higher power they would have to obey.
All you have to do is look at Richard Dawkins book title the blind watchmaker. I was sinful must’ve person bay to reject the obvious. Again Richard Dawkins Has people believe him when he said biology is the study of complex things that give the appearance of being created for a purpose. Yet those that have had historical views or experience with the living creator that leave out the word appearance are Ridiculed and Marginalized. We put the unknowable of Creation on a creator while you as a naturalist put your trust in man. If I only had half the face you have. God’s best
I appreciate the effort these scientists put in. I’ve learned a lot, but I have no confidence in abiogenesis. Dr. James Tour FTW
Tour doesn't work in this field and has contributed nothing to it. He is a lying religious fanatic pushing a religious narrative.
@@mcmanustony wouldn’t you think that organic chemistry fits into the field of “origins of cellular life”? He often does not invoke God in his debates. I don’t think your comment is grounded in reality. When Tour debates it’s usually the other guy who seems religious oddly enough.
@@justinpeterburford Tour is a synthetic organic chemist. He has published 700+ papers in the peer reviewed literature of that field. He has published precisely NOTHING on the origin of life. He has misrepresented the field, he has targeted individual scientists for lies and abuse. His slander of Jack Szostak will shame Tour every day for what remains of his career.
"I don’t think your comment is grounded in reality."- why? I know for a fact that Tour can't even engage in professional academic correspondence without preaching and proselytising.
"When Tour debates it’s usually the other guy who seems religious oddly enough."- WHICH other guys? Can you actually name some of these people?
@@mcmanustony I mean the other guy seems more religious as they typically make appeals to the old Darwinian framework which is no longer plausible. As to who he debates. Lee Cronin, Dave Farina and Joshua Swamidass.
His main point is that abiogenesis as a field has made little progress but makes substantial claims, and as a synthetic organic chemist he notices the hyped up nature of those claims. The back and forth with Dave Farina is a great example of that. And I have seen him make a good defense of his position without invoking God. It’s not his style. Maybe you read more on him than I did. Good day
@@justinpeterburford " little progress but makes substantial claims"- WHICH substantial claims? Any of them shown false? By whom? Where?
Why is Tour so relentlessly dishonest if his case is so good? Why does he lie so much?
The increasing oxygen levels can also be increased with a gradual build up of life on earth 🌎. The cambrian explosion shows a sudden and explosive increase in higher life forms and then throughout the whole cambrian period nothing else happened, the life forms didn't change, just as the life forms in the pre cambrian time. Oxygen levels increased however until the next explosive and sudden explosion of new and higher life forms. It's great to study Bats, that suddenly appeared 54 Million years ago. They suddenly appeared all over the earth in slightly different forms but without any precursors. They didn't evolve from other creatures, they just suddenly appear seemingly out of nothing. And: the Bats from 54 million years ago look just like Bats today!!!!!!!!
The Origin of Life is Chemical Synthesis.Marine algae(green seaweed):Cellulose is a cell
ua-cam.com/video/WKLgQzWhO4Q/v-deo.html
Great detailed info
have they replicated the conditions of early earth and reproduced cellular life? and have we observed this recreated cellular life coming together to form a living breathing animal? if so, is there observable real-time video evidence of this? thank you for your response in advanced.
No, cellular life has not been created. Please understand, the earth was dead for for the first maybe 700 million years. Origin of life research really began in earnest 70 years ago.....so expecting scientists to replicate a phenomenon in the lab, in one 10 millionth of the time it took on the early earth is a big ask. Nonetheless- much is known about synthesis of the molecules needed to form a simple replicating protocell. Much is being learned about autocatalysis and how reactions can make compounds that make more of themselves- this is not life, but is a prerequisite. Much is known about the natural occurrence of amino acids....and much is being done on studying their polymerisation.
living breathing animals came around one billion years AFTER the first cells. For a billion years or so ALL life was unicellular.
You could look up Nick Lane's videos here on the evolution of eukaryotes.
Even if they could create life from non life all it would prove is that an intelligence could create life.
It amazes me how gullible people are. He stands there and tells people what he imagines might have happened and people believe it is fact.
ua-cam.com/video/0D6eCR62aqM/v-deo.html
@@jt2097 Exactly. Pure conjecture, a religious belief. Here is what REALLY happened: ua-cam.com/video/NqoVxwdWWpg/v-deo.html
@@mcmanustony Please understand, NONE of the conjecture of which Jack speaks here has ANY basis in fact. None. ua-cam.com/video/NqoVxwdWWpg/v-deo.html
“We think they could self assemble into simple cells or protocells”
I am to put my eternal destiny on
“WE think”
“ might have been”
“ The option I believe it”
Oh my goodness God help us
yes, it means the hypotheses are still being tested, it is not Newtonian mechanics.
@@andresehnem name 1 “hypothesis” that is backed by empirical data. You need to watch Dr. James tour video series on AbioGenesis. You are being lied to. God’s best
@@boyofGod81 Don't you know that professor Dave is gonna end Dr Tour's career?
April fools!
@@truthbebold4009 great on. Funny how people put their trust in a UA-cam science professor. They have no problem questioning a guy who taught longer in the science classroom than Professor Dave. Good old Dr Dino. Yet Dr. Hovine speaks more sense then the parrot Professor Dave.
//"I am to put my eternal destiny on..."//
You should not presuppose any such thing at all. Your response constitutes an appeal to consequences fallacy ... in this case, barely even hypothetical consequences. Seemingly imaginary ones.
The truth is whatever is objectively demonstrable. Whether you think it serves your cultural-mythology's narrative of "eternal life" or not is utterly irrelevant, and fallacious.
And scientists use language that is cautious for good reason. They're intellectually honest. Blind-faith conviction in ancient mythology might make you feel good, but it's an indictment upon your epitemology to think that speaking carefully and not overstating one's capacities is somehow a bad thing...
If you listen closely this speculations has nothing to do with science then even if you get amino acids in a pond they have little to do with functional proteins, let alone a highly complex cell. Even the probability of assembling a single simple protein is 10^164 a number even higher than the number of atoms in the universe, 10^90. Its crazy to assume a single protein could assemble itself just by chance, and even if it did a cell is such an unbelievable complex organism that its even more crazy to believe a cell could assemple itself just by pure chance.
Yup, pure pseudoscience.
James Tour rips these charlatans.
@@sparkyy0007
Its Hilarious to watch Dr. Tour ask for any scientist in his audience for a rebuttal...and then...crickets chirping. But they come on these channels and start spouting nonsense. They KNOW it is a lie.
@@thegreatbehoover788 Dr nick Matzke called Tour's bluff that no scientist could explain evolution over lunch, and it was hilarious to see how fast Tour ran from his own challenge. However, when Tour was preaching to a fundie audience and he lied about Dr Jack Szostak, it wasn't funny, just creepy and disappointing that such a distinguished scientist would stoop to lying for Jesus (for which, to his credit, he apologized, saying he knew it was wrong).
@@ergonomover
Did you just AGAIN FAIL to support your silly BELIEFS with ACTUAL EVIDENCE???🤣🤣🤣 Why yes....you did!!!!
You CLAIM your silly BELIEFS are true...yet you ONLY have hearsay about someone else defending your FAITH....not a single paper has been presented DEVOID OF FAITH STATEMENTS by any EVOLUTIONISTS or BELIEVERS in ABIOGENESIS...THOUSANDS OF OPPORTUNITIES....A few attempts...but NEVER...NOT EVER:
UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE
That's because you have only FAITH BASED ASSUMPTIONS and PSEUDOSCIENCE driving the narrative. Post your BEST SCIENTIFIC PAPER...I'll EASILY point out the FAITH statements...it's that simple. Your embarrassing by running from the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and quibbling over hearsay. Typical!!!🤣🤣🤣
@@thegreatbehoover788 You're funny! First from James Tour: "That was a strong word (“lying”) which I regret saying. I have already apologized to Jack Szostak by phone, and he very graciously accepted the apology. If given a chance, I would likewise apologize to any of those cited in that talk to whom I said such a thing. My behavior was inappropriate."
Tour made a public challenge, boasting that no one had taken up his invitation to explain evolution over lunch. He was still doing so after Nick Matzke accepted the challenge, right? Of course Matzke wanted to record the exchange to protect both parties and as teaching tool. Tour refused, are you denying this? Public challenge, but then refusal to make the exchange public, what did Tour have to hide?
It's not a matter of belief, since it's all on record.
Huh...looks like my comment didn't post or was removed? Possibly bc of what it said. So how about instead I just say that at 16:40, the slide has the incorrect spelling of "that word" and it should be spell d i k e in this context
The intoduction is very poor ,we need technicals details not just generalities for beginners in science, james tour was right To say wé are clueless, and i m a chemical engineer
James Tour is right that James Tour is clueless......
there, fixed it for you.
Don’t worry folks - story telling is alive and well and still at the tax payers expense . Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin - long long ago and far far away………….
Oh you were writing about religious tax free explanation from Church;)
You're not very good at this are you Brian. What are you good at?
@@mcmanustony "You're not very good at this are you Brian. What are you good at?" - My guess is *Nothing*
A lot of the stuff he is describing can be explained through a gradual build up of life on our planet- however not through Darwinism but Design. Its clear that natural processes build up mountain's etc. Its obvious that first simple life forms where planted on earth and allowed to multiply over millions of years, including plants and photosynthesis- causing oxygen levels to rise .... then came the cambrian explosion. Suddenly. Suddenly a great diversity of life forms came into place and spread on earth. These life forms where very complex and had no precursors. They appeared suddenly. Its impossible Darwinism can Account for this. Then after these life forms spread for mullions of years the mammalian explosion occurred. Again a great diversity of life wothout precursors.
No need to mention what intelligence is behind this process but to exclude intelligence in this process is modern stupidity and not science.
Assuming that Life were just planted on earth, we are but postponing and moving the question of Origin of Life to somewhere else. How did it originated in that somewhere else, was it also planted there? If there is the possibility of Life originating somewhere else, then be transported here, why isn't there the same possibility of it also originated spontaneously right here? Unless that indirectly you are trying to say that Life was planted here by Higher beings who did just "created" it, in that case there is no much to be verified, since it fits a religious faith based believe. but if we were to take a more scientific and inquisitive approach to that question, Is it really totally unacceptable that Life on Planet Earth might indeed be the firsts? That no one "planted" us, but we are a by product of Billions of years of different levels of darwinian evolution, that started with simple atomic and molecular interactions that would eventually create useful genetic information, and with more time, a complex ecosystems of adaptive living creatures? Perhaps we still know too little of the Universe, our Planet and Life to assume there are better chances of Life originating out there than in here.
@@MrMizahell i dont think its for science to interpret where this intelligence came from as its not likely to be ever answered. However is it intelligent to decline this idea? I dont think so especially as a critical look at abogenisis can demonstrate they darwinian theories can never explain life on earth, and all fossil records show a sudden accurance of major life forms.
I could postulate the idea that life was planted on earth starting with simple life forms first, allowing those to spread on earth for millions of years, accounting for rise in oxygen levels, by the way. Then this intelligence set up the cambrian explosion. Again leaving this life forms again to spread over millions of years. Filling earth with these life forms. Then the mammalian explosion was set loose. Plants where allowed to spread similarly.
This idea cant be refuted and fits perfectly into all available data whereas Darwinism has to be squeezed into reality ( and doesn't really fit) this idea conveniently fits into all observable data.
@@platzhirsch4275 okay very interesting your explanation. But darwinian evolution does not intend to explain the origin of Life, it focus on the origin of biodiversity in this planet , which is something that is observable (just like we can observe man adapted species like dogs and cats that never existed before).
And as you said, the fossil record does show "moments" of increased number of species, but it is something expected when some conditions are met that would allow an increase in populations, expansions and diversification of species, and those "moments" also mentioned sometimes as "explosions" happened over millions of years, for context the domestic "pug" has only been separated from its "wolf" like ancestors a couple of thousand years old. imagine what would millions of years do to species living in a thriving environments.
You should also note that we don't find complex organism existing previously to simple organism, meaning that simple organism have existed before complex organism. Which implies this questions: Why the first "Life" that was planet (around 3.5 billion years ago) had to be the most simple that have ever been found? Almost as if it was somehow natural?
In scientific environments, is not that it is purposely declined the idea that something intelligent planted Life on this planet, but since it is a very speculative idea in which there is no evidence, and lacks logical stability, as I mentioned in my previous comment, since that it would require the same questions applied to those that "planted" it here, its clearly only a strategy to postpone hard questions.
Scientist do follow the evidence, and if its ever found evidence of something have "planted" Life on the planet, there will be within an year, a community of scientist that will be analyzing every single detail and try on give us a better understanding of what actually happened in that context.
Therefore, I hope you understand, that since we do have very little time to be alive and study these mysteries of existence, that so much fascinates us, to some people, myself included, is unacceptable to simple postpone the search for answers don't matter how it hurt our ego, and instead choose to accept emotional and cultural engraved believes, that do not demonstrates any type of consistency, having thousands of different explanations that varies greatly according to popular cultures (like religions), individuals or groups, and the period of time they are inserted in.
@@MrMizahell hi again. Thank you for a very detailed answer.
I would personally call the Evolution you describe as adaption. Somehow the DNA of a Dog is included in the wolf DNA. BUT you can never get a Wolf out of breeding dogs thus a dog cuts down on DNA and isnt an "Evolution" from a wolf. Didnt think about it like this? Ok. Please do.
The fossils of the cambrian era appear suddenly in the sediments. Very suddenly. This period lasted some 100 million years yes, but only because it took this time for these animals to spread the earth sufficiently. There is however no transition from pre- cambrian life form to cambrian life forms, as especially the fossils in China show.
Then came the mammalian explosion. Again abrupt and without intermediate steps.
These ideas should encourage research into origin of life, but give new ideas about interpreting existing data. But: it cannot proof that there must have been intelligence involved in this process, it can only suggest this hypothesis as a possible answer and if we analyse all data carefully we may actually see that this is the only theory that satisfies all available data.
@@platzhirsch4275 Hi Andreas, you are welcome, thank you as well.
If you want to call evolution, adaption, by all means you would be correct, its just that the name Evolution attempts to indicate that we are talking about really long periods of adaptations.
When you say that Dog DNA is "included" in the wolf DNA, I am not sure if you actually mean that a whole DNA of a dog is in the DNA of the wolf, or that as has been found and studied, that certain wolves had pieces of dogs DNA in their own, which demonstrates that they interbred at some point in the past.
About the cambrian explosion, I like to remind you that, has been many times in the past in which science have found a mistery, a complicated question that requires heavy thinking and expensive research to eventually give the correct answer, which is neither easy nor fast process, because science is a process in which the question is very closely pursued, not only supposed or whished to be true. And real scientist actually like to find moments where things are unclear, is when real science happens, the time to dig in and see what comes out, and as they do that, sometimes they come up with hypothesis that "could" explain the findings and the results, but it only becomes a theory when it becomes confirmed.
At the moment, there are many hypothesis trying to explain the cambrian explosion, based on highly complex scientific investigations, and as we keep searching and testing, eventually there will be an more consistent answer. But just like once, the orbit of Mercury was only explained by "God misteries" one day, if we keep doing good science, the Cambrian explosion will also be understood as well as we now known and understand every single move of Mercury orbit.
You might ask then, why are the scientists not also exploring the hypothesis that Life was "planted" on planet Earth? And the answer is: besides the fact that evidence is non-existing, there is nothing that leads scientist in that direction.
But I believe, that I am not alone, when I say that I would be very happy to see and read a scientific paper that realisticly presents the case for "planted" Life as you have mentioned, showing through an detailed analyses of all available data, that "planted" Life on planet Earth is the only possibility that satisfy the data. That would be super amazing kkk
I think is also important to make it clear, that the "planted" Life possibility have not been completely discarded, and it is considered one of the possible answers, although is it is considered having a very low possibility of being the correct one, due to it having no scientific base, but be made of mostly claims that majority of scientists don't find convincing enough, neither that have sufficient information to begin testing if its either false or true. Mainly because as I mentioned before, it requires a faith like approach, and gives no directions on what should be the observations and testings to eventually prove it correct or incorrect.
Therefore, is not because scientist have a grudge and they are not researching this, because they don't want to think outside the box or they want to hide the truth from the masses, no, it is mainly because there is not suficient evidence to even make this claims, and they do not have time to just persue any wild theory that exists, which is very unfortunate because it would be fun, but its the reality we live in my friend.
Mostly speculation and guesswork but somehow they just, know. 😂
No kiddo mostly experiments and experiment based guesses.
Nope. It is called hypothesis in science and is developed by the smartest people on earth. It might be wrong it might be right. When science get it wrong, they learn something new and get a new basis of the understanding. They always back their claim up with evidence. You just never went to school, since you don't understand science, a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis.
Our sun is a periodical nova producer there of the high concentration of precious metals ...
And the sun producing precious metals is NOT creating life...never.
Uh, no.
@@freddan6fly uh....yes.
@@thegreatbehoover788 Uh, no. It is a claim in the OP "Our sun is a periodical nova producer" - You need evidence. You have no evidence. In fact if the sun was a Cepheid, pulsating or cataclysmic star we would all be dead as far as science can tell. The sun is not even producing metal it is currently producing helium.
Even in the RNA-world community that timeline is seen as deceptive. By presenting one's ideas with zero evidence along with established geological results, one immediately takes them to be comparable. These ideas are not shared, even among his collaborators.
You're just an ignorant hater who is jealous of Jack Szostak being an expert in this field.
Just arrogant and closed-minded to all the fantastic ideas he presents, which unlike the dogma & stories spouted by religiontards, he backs up with mathematics calculations and physical experiments. The calculations are the highest form of rationality. Not some childish verbal debate.
The only place these Ideas is not shared in in the conspiracy theory Young Earth Creationism. Young Earth Creationism isn't science. Their answer to every question is "goddunit".
Anyone discussing the origin of life, without discussing the impossibility of life having come about by anything other than intelligently directed processes, is doing their audience a profound disservice
Yet there is no evidence of an intelligently designed origin. It's merely a belief like Santa Claus,the tooth fairy,Zeus or the other myriad of fictional gods.
@@m9078jk3 Interesting. Then where did the information that codes for the functional structures of proteins come from, since information can only come from information? The assertion there is no evidence for intelligent design is like finding a perfectly formed castle on a beach and saying there's no evidence that anyone built it
@@cd1857 "information can only come from information" - do you have a scientific peer reviewed paper supporting that assessment or is it yet another lie you pulled out of your behind?
@@freddan6fly Yes, there is a scientifically reviewed paper stating that...but its reserved only for the scientifically literate so I'm afraid I can't disclose it to you
@@cd1857 "since information can only come from information?"- what the hell does that even mean?
there have been zero examples of castles built by anything other than a group of human beings. If we see something that is built by humans we infer that humans built it.
You can give no example of a supernatural designer intervening in nature to design any biological system. Your comparison is beyond hopeless.
Seriously? This man desperately needs to get with the picture.
which man? Which picture?
"this man" has a nobel prize.
what picture are you talking about?
@@spatrk6634 Nobel prize, what an amazing achievement. Way smarter in his field of expertise than 99% of the rest of the planet. However anyone who believes in the idea of life from non-life, sorry, that's fantasyland on steroids.
@@stephenbell-booth2648 for the first billion years of its existence this planet was dead. Now it is not. Life emerged from non life. Either there was a natural process responsible for that, at least partly explicable by science, or it was magic.
Your personal incredulity is not an argument for anything other your personal incredulity.
There are dozens and dozens of researchers worldwide examining this question. Have you read any of their work or is blabbering inanities about steroids as good as it gets?
@@mcmanustony interesting point of view, thank you for sharing. I was educated at a mainstream college and was taught the standard narrative how billions of years ago the Big Bang happened and millions of years ago a simple cell (love that description) changed, and became something different, then that thing changed, and after a while more complex forms of life appeared and eventually men and women evolved. The narrative seemed unbelievable then and remains more unbelievable as each year passes and better information surfaces. In the end, it’s quite simple really; there are two options to consider, a top-down, intelligent mind/created process, or the bottom-up, mindless, no purpose, no cause, ‘survival of the fittest’ approach. That our bodies are made up of about 100 trillion cells, with something like 6 billion nucleotides inside every cell I’m not brave enough to suggest that any part of that complexity mindlessly evolved.
As usual no explanation of the origin of life. Just 'some how'.
Not as convincing as 'god did it' is it?
@@Ozone280 that's right. Study chemistry.
@@williamparker7102 As usual, empty assertions with no evidence.
Go on then, show me where in chemistry it says 'god did it'.
If there was one iota of evidence to support the god theory you theists would be screaming it into the faces of the ever growing army of atheists.
@@Ozone280 science has no evidence for either. Either some intelligence crested the information we see in the universe or blind chance based on impossibilities. It depends on which 'impossibility' you choose to believe in.
@@iain5615 Nothing happens without reason, at least nothing we can observe. Everything has a cause, even the most rare accident has somewhere in its lead up, a something that caused it - and all these causes turn out to be natural occurrences. Why then, whould we believe without question (as theists do) that for SOME things we have no answer for, that god did it? Doubly so when there is zero evidence to support the assertion that god exists in the first place.
The day that theists say where their god came from - without piffling on about their god being the only thing that needed no creation - will be the day I ask the to prove it.
And there is plenty circumstantial evidence for natural abiogenesis, which is the best we can do right now. However, as with thunder and earthquakes, the REAL answer is out there somewhere and will be found. I'll wager it won't be 'god did it'!
Let me skip to the main points. “We know a living cell has a genome/DNA, a functional cell membrane and a metabolism. We have absolutely no idea how any of this could have developed. In fact, we cannot even explain how the first proteins occurred. We have no clue about how to solve chirality, how RNA was made and not degraded…..we know nothing”……sorry for wasting everyone’s time. Best wishes, Jack.
How much actual OoL research have you actually read?
I’m betting my house on….fuck all.
@@mcmanustony My education is in Biochemistry so I’m confident that organic chemistry never gets to biochemistry without a guided hand. Proteins are required to make DNA, Ribosomes are required to make proteins, Ribosomes are made up of about 60 different proteins and DNA is first required to code for all of the proteins. None occur in nature outside of a living cell, none do anything without the other two, all three are required to make each other. All three must be created at the same time in the same place……all life has all three….that is the absolute proof of creation. Nobody can dispute that.
@@jimdandy9118 " I’m confident that organic chemistry never gets to biochemistry without a guided hand"- would that be The Baby Jesus?
Where did John Sutherland and Mathew Powner go wrong?
@@jimdandy9118 The first cells are not thought to have used DNA.
RNA can be synthesised with mineral catalysts and in the absence of complex enzymes.
@@mcmanustony Did you really just say that nonsense out loud? RNA absolutely cannot be spontaneously synthesized….who told you that nonsense? By the way, you do realize RNA is very unstable and degrades in a matter of days outside of a living cell so cannot be an early form of DNA. Nobody takes an RNA world seriously because of that. Aren’t educated are you now?