How did life begin? Abiogenesis. Origin of life from nonliving matter.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2019
- Sponsored by Kishore Tipirneni's new book "A New Eden" available here: getbook.at/NewEden | Abiogenesis - origin of life. Living matter from non-living matter. The origin of living organisms from inorganic or non-living material is called abiogenesis. But abiogenesis is not evolution.
Despite the incredible variations of life we see today, at the fundamental level, all living things contain three elements: Nucleic acids, Proteins, and lipids. These three things had to have been present in order for life to start.
The most important component may have been lipids which make up the cell walls because without a way to encapsulate certain elements, they various chemicals could not come together to potentially interact.
Lipids molecules have a unique structure. The round part loves water. The tail part hates water. So it has a tendency to self-assemble into natural spheres. However, when there are certain salt ions present, it destroys the lipid spheres. But RNA and other functions of a cell require salts and other ions. However, researchers at the University of Washington showed that lipid spheres do not disassemble if they are in the presence of amino acids, precursor to protein molecules. So it turns out that lipid cell walls and proteins need each other to exist, in salty water.
Today, genetic information is stored in DNA. RNA is created from DNA. The simplicity of RNA compared to its cousin DNA, is the reason that most scientists think DNA came from RNA. This is part of the “RNA world" HYPOTHESIS, which theorizes that RNA was the essential precursor which led to the first living matter. But how did the first RNA molecule form from non-living chemicals? This is not clear cut, so here are some theories. RNA is made of three chemical components: the sugar ribose, the bases and phosphate. Figuring out how the bond between the bases and ribose first formed has been a difficult to replicate in the lab because cells in our body require complex enzymes to bring RNA building blocks together before they combine to form polymers. In a 2009 study, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that RNA could have formed on the surface of clays which act like catalysts to bring RNA bases together.
But how did proteins form? In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins, was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth. It turns out that it’s pretty easy to form many kinds of organic molecules, in a wide range of environments.
But having all the precursors get together inside a lipid cell wall does not necessarily mean that they will all come together to form a self-replicating living cell. This is not well understood.
There are creationist arguments such as, if I put all the parts of a watch in a big vat and keep stirring it, a functioning watch is not going to magically form inside the vat. And some cite an estimate by scientists Hoyle and Wickramasinghe showing that the probability of all the chemicals in a simple bacterium arising on their own by chance, is one in ten to the 40,000th power.
But these arguments are oversimplifications. They ignore the fact that sophisticated life forms like current day bacteria almost certainly did not arise spontaneously, but arose in much simpler incremental steps. The actual probability is not how the hundreds of complex chemicals can come together to form a modern day bacterium, but the probability of a few chemicals forming and coming together to form the precursors of life that can chemically evolve over time to form the simplest kind of life form that may have looked nothing like any evolved life form we see today.
But showing how even this chemical evolution could have happened is problematic. Scientists have had trouble figuring out what could have driven chemicals to evolve the complexity needed for biological functioning. But in 2014, Jeremy England, physics professor at MIT showed mathematically that the driving force for chemical evolution may be Entropy. The one thing that distinguishes living things from non-living things is its ability to capture energy and convert it to heat. England argues that when exposed to an external source of energy, such as the sun, any group of molecules will restructure themselves to dissipate more and more energy.
While there is no single generally accepted theory for the origin of life, all credible proposals show that life under natural conditions by a slow processes of chemical and molecular evolution could plausibly result in simple life forms over a long period of time. Do we have proof that this is how life came about - no. At least not yet. Is it plausible - absolutely.
#abiogenesis - Наука та технологія
ERRATA: Yes, you did hear me say Newton's 2nd law of (puts his head inside his shirt) of thermo. Totally embarrassing! I could make the excuse that my mechanical engineering background trained me to associate Newton with any mention of the words "2nd law," which is precisely the case. However, I also have a degree in Chemical engineering, so this is shameful. Sorry Sadi Carnot, wherever you may be!
For those that may want to investigate this topic further, Derek Mathias has a good list of references here: www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-in-2020-the-scientists-still-believe-that-abiogenesis-is-possible
Also as Claire Jordan points out in the same forum: Consider that in only 30 years, scientists have been able to show that stable lipid bubbles can form spontaneously, DNA placed in these bubbles can self replicate successfully, the components of RNA and metabolic processes can be created in a lab by reacting raw chemicals in the lab, although we haven’t got them to click together yet. This is only in the last 30 years in a handful of labs, using glorified test tubes. Nature, on the other hand, had hundreds of millions of years and a whole planet with billions upon billions of chemistry experiments going on all over the place.
I acknowledge that this process has not been figured out completely, nor demonstrated satisfactorily, but what has been done in only 30 years has powerfully demonstrated its plausibility.
@SuperYT4Ever Ok boomer.
“One step closer!”People say that the Bible can’t be tested, but on the contrary, it can be.Hey I like the fact that we can converse about opinions ,truths and possibilities!It shows what great character you have.
The Bible is clearly unlike any other document in history. Every claim it makes about science is not only true but crucial for filling in the blanks of our understanding about the origin of the universe, the earth, fossils, life, and human beings. The more we study and learn about the world, the more we come to appreciate the Bible’s flawless, supernatural character.
Indeed, this is one way the Bible’s authenticity can be tested. Christ Himself, the Word of God who is the author of all Scripture, asserted that we should be able to believe everything He says about earthly things (John 3:12).
Over the centuries the Bible has been rigorously tested for scientific accuracy, and it has never failed. Not only is God’s Word always true; it has proven to be the key to understanding God’s world today!
Hey I like the fact that we can converse about opinions ,truths and possibilities!It shows what great character you have.
Jay Just no. The Bible is not metaphysical: even the early Christians were aware of this. I am a Christian but I'm not daft enough to use scripture for a basis of physical, empirical reality. The view you're putting forth is akin to that of scholasticism: that's right, the dogmatic school of philosophy that kept Europe in the dark ages whilst the Muslims were busy doing all the science.
Science has nothing to do with religion. Please, think outside the box and don't confine your mind to your supposedly flat Earth.
Dewy When people say I’m a Christian, I always wonder is that true???Real Christians know that when God created the heavens and the earth, that literally means everything!So what’s all in the universe and earth, everything right??
Here, let me give you Bible ASTRONOMY: The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).
ANTHROPOLOGY: The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood” descended from one man and one woman (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20). Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals, but today genetics has verified that there is only one human race.
BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.
GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.
So if the Bible wins hands down in every earthly thing we can test, why don’t people trust what it says? The issue is not the truth of Scripture, but vain reasoning and “willful ignorance” (Romans 1:21; 2 Peter 3:5).
Science in the Bible
The Bible offers many specific examples of amazingly accurate science, and science has uncovered many amazing evidences that the universe and earth are young, as the Bible describes.
Astronomy
Stars are innumerable (Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22)
Stars differ in glory (1 Corinthians 15:41)
Stars follow a predictable pattern (Jeremiah 31:35)
Earth is round, not flat (Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 103:12)
Earth hangs on nothing (not built on pillars) (Job 26:7)
Scientific evidence of a young universe:
1) Spiral galaxies
2) “Missing” supernova remnants
3) Short-lived comets
4) Moon moving away from Earth
Geology
Water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10)
Sea currents (Psalm 8:8)
“Fountains of the deep broken up” (Genesis 7:11)
Scientific evidence of a young earth:
1) Continents erode too fast
2) Too much mud on the sea floor
3) Too much sodium in the ocean
4) Too rapid decay of earth’s magnetic field Biology.
Pisstake Lunatic???Don’t toot your own horn just yet. When the single cell evolved over millions of years ha ha ha.That is what you are taught and believe as an evolutionist right??
Let me reteach you the right way:
Can a single cell isolated from a multicellular body live independently?
The answer is a Big NO!
Let's understand this with an example, say I isolate one of my body cells. Most cells of our body don't phagocytise large food particles. They are adapted to absorb digested food. They directly take in biomolecules, like glucose. So, if won't survive in outside world, unless in a special culture medium.
The true definition of Multicellularity is: A body that has more than one cell and the cells cannot survive on isolation.
Looking at Cell Functions
Cells come in many sizes All cells have a purpose. If they don't do anything productive, they are not needed anymore.A cell's purpose is much more important than acting as small organizational pieces. They had their purpose long before they started working together in groups and building more advanced organisms. When alone, a cell's main purpose is to survive.
Even if you were a single cell, you would have a purpose. You would have to survive. You would be moving around (probably in a liquid) and just trying to stay alive. You would have all of your pieces inside of you. If you were missing a piece you needed to survive, you would die. Scientists call those pieces organelles. Organelles are groups of complex molecules that help a cell survive.
In conclusion, the evolutions viewpoint is the breeding ground for real lunatics!To much Zombie and Hunger Games movies.....
Give hydrogen enough time and it will start to question its existence
And how do you know that? What proof do you have?
*@Thomas G* So chemical elements are now analogous to sentient beings, is that it? Whatever helps you to assuage your fears that life did not in fact emerge by naturalistic processes but via intelligent design by an entity that is infinite in nature and stands outside of time and space. As your namesake atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel once said; _"My guess is that this _*_cosmic authority_*_ problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life."_ Thomas Nagel concluded; _"I DON'T WANT God to exist! I DON'T WANT the universe to be like that"_ I guess you can relate to that?
@@Locutus.Borg. If consciousness is a complicated form of matter, then matter is a simple form of consciousness.
@@bluenami7520 _"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"_ Thank you for playing _philosophical thought experiments 101_ 😉👍
@@Locutus.Borg. Scientists are very rigid in their beliefs about the origins of existence. They seem so convinced that everything had to happen by chance that they're limiting the findings of their own research.
The truth is, the universe is a lot more complex than the constraints of human intelligence can comprehend.
What evidence do we have? The scientific method is limited and not absolute. This is where scientists need to learn to evolve from their reductionist culture and realize life isn't a lab experiment.
I always knew that lipids were most important, that's why I love french fries.
Because Grumpus Maximus lost his sense of civility, you sir have the best answer of the thread! Much Respect from a fellow french fry lover. One question, Mayonaise or Ketchup?
Fat People = Beginning of life
@@rwarren58 both
French fries are made from potatoes: starch or carbohydrates. They do fry them in oil.
Imma let you finish but let's give it up to ma gurls proteins and RNA. Literally all DNA encodes for them! 👏👏👏
RobertRamirez4965 said in his OP that "there are nine essential amino acids required for life". That's wrong.
But I wanted to make sure what he meant, so I asked for clarification, and he replied, "We as humans need about 20 amino acids for life, but 9 are considered essential and necessary for life." Robert doesn't seem to understand that either. In general, all life needs the same 20 amino acids (there are exceptions), but some organisms cannot synthesize all 20 so they have to get the ones they can't synthesize by consuming a source that contains them. Those are the essential amino acids: the ones the species cannot synthesize for itself and must obtain in its diet.
What Robert said in his OP is wrong. It is true for humans (and most other mammals), but not for most reptiles or fish; and most bacteria don't have any essential amino acids, because they can synthesize all of the amino acids they need.
And Robert is all over the place, ranting like a loon. The video is about the origin of life, and he thinks he is talking about the origin of life, but he talks essential amino acids for humans, and eukaryotic cells. That makes no sense at all.
This is what I mean by sticking to the topic. Now you are actually providing scientific responses that make sense, though I may not agree with all of them.
@@itapinfomaps6233 The topic is science. You strayed from the topic when you posted about the bible. I could get a 5 year old to explain this to you, if needed.
Can I just say THANK YOU. So much detail. I watched this with my 7 year old and he seems to have understood it. Exceptional work. Watching this I can tell it's a video that'll stand the test of time.
How did your seven year old go understanding the important concept that everything originally came from nothing ?
@@malcolmscrivener8750simple answer is they didn’t
It's my humble request tell your kid to read chapter 21 verse 30 of the quran.
@@malcolmscrivener8750 he seems to be smarter than you
No place in this video did it show how chemicals could violate the laws of science and farm a functional protein for life.
No evolutionist in the world had shown a chemical equation that could make a protein for life. The only thing that evolutionists say isi "Evolution did it" as their 'god of the gaps' but never using science. Evolutionism is a false religion.
4 billion years laters those chemicals are typing comments about wondering how they came to be.
Good perspective!
False
And we all might be unleaded fuel floating in some future humanoid's red convertible.
@Steve Meikle Meaning is not conferred through a book or lecture or a video. Meaning is a choice you make. It is not necessarily nihilism.
@Steve Meikle im pretty sure everyone watching these videos is aware what nihilism is sir
So it's highly likely that the transition from chemical to biological evolution could be a great filter.
Excellent point! I think a lot depends on the volume of precursor organic molecules present in the prebiotic earth. This is just not well understood.
And as unlikely as it is for life to evolve, that probability is mediated by millions of galaxies containing millions of stars with millions of planets and moons.
At that point it looks pretty likely for abiogenesis to occur?
It's not only possible, but somewhat probable, that we are completely alone in the universe. 😔
@@SirYenner I think it is more likely that intelligent life is so incredibly rare that we may be the only intelligent life in our local group of galaxies. If there were 1 billion intelligent species in the observable universe, this would be so incredibly rare that it would be highly unlikely any of these species would find another.
Lol. If abiogenesis is impossible then the only alternative would be if life always existed, that instead of life from non-living materials it was life from materials that were already alive. That is oxymoronic.
RNA and DNA are "Self-Replicating molecules?" No. They require proteins to replicate. They do not replicate on their own.
But RNA can make proteins
I'm neither a materialist nor a "intelligent designer", but the problem with these arguments is they leave out a fundamental component: Action / Process / Function. It's NOT enough to bring the right ingredients together. Biological life depends on proteins, of which there are 1000's, to carry out specific operations. How did these proteins "learn" to carry out these operations? How did the the protein that separates DNA into two strands of RNA get this functionality?
The problem for the creationists is there is no evidence or data for the supernatural so it is infinitely less likely than natural process that obey the laws of physics.
@@lrvogt1257 and there is no evidence that it created itself, seems like we are in a pickle here.
@@Jbarack98 : There is a great deal of evidence that all natural processes have natural precursors. We just haven't identified it. There is no evidence for anything that isn't natural so that seems infinitely less likely.
This needs MUCH more study.
Everything needs much more study, but don't expect study to turn up any gods or miracles.
@@luvdomus right.
@@luvdomus it doesnt prove they are non existent either.
That's an atheist's scientific pretension
There isn't any realm of science that doesn't... that's kinda the point of science. It is a never ending quest for deeper understandings of how the universe operates.
@@koppite9600 Relax, science is not trying to take Jesus away from you. Nor is it trying to disprove the existence of ghosts or fairies, for those who like to believe in them.
Really great video! Covered all of the topics I was wondering about and in just the right amount of detail. Thanks!
Lets say there is a BRICK WALL 10ft high, do you think its possible that over time pieces of bricks would find one another and form this 10ft wall, would a billion years make a difference? How about i multiply that complexity by a million or much more?
Yes, just the right amount of detail - NONE. You people have no idea of the incredible statistical mountains you have to climb just to get molecules to form amino acids. That’s saying nothing of the even more statistically impossible odds of creating life from simple chemical evolution.
@@astrawboiii1853 "Lets say there is a BRICK WALL 10ft high, do you think its possible that over time pieces of bricks would find one another and form this 10ft wall,"
Are bricks flexible structures with regions that have positive or negative charge and so attract one another, with bonds forming spontaneously, where the bonds can break and reform, over and over, in different combinations, spontaneously? Nope. You used a logical fallacy: false analogy.
@@ErroneousMonk1 "You people have no idea of the incredible statistical mountains you have to climb just to get molecules to form amino acids. "
LOL Dude, we've found amino acids in meteorites ... we know amino acids can form naturally.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger This is science speaking and unlike theory, this is scientefic LAW, the second law of thermodynamics states that everything in the universe eventually moves from order to disorder. Then how did it become ordered in the first place??
Godbless your soul
What's the mechanism for pre-life chemicals to be preserved and protected for long enough time for chemical evolution to have occurred? Wouldn't they be subject to destruction by the same environmental forces that created them in the first place?
We've found amino acids, sugars, and nucleobases in meteorites. They weren't destroyed.
The alternative application of the term "Trinity" in this video seems intentionally ironic.
You are on to me!
God himself is what came to my mind too
I am a Christian and I have moments where the whole thing seems really unlikely and fairy tailish’. My mind runs a blitz on my beliefs. Before I was a Christian I had the same kinds of moments where the whole thing made so much sense that I questioned my convictions that God was for idiots. I wish we could all admit that we have these feelings and that our mind occasionally runs a blitz on our beliefs shaking our foundations. Instead of working together to learn how to sure up our foundations we fight and attack one another’s foundations because we are most consumed with just “being right”. It is easier to attack one another’s foundation hoping our own still stands than it is to help build solid foundations together. It’s so disgusting and disheartening. Blowing someone else’s candle out doesn’t make yours brighter. It just increases the darkness around all of us.
@@MyPieDied7-6-47 you know most people we question God because we don't know him and we don't know the awnser to some of our questions immediately we think the worst now i know why Jesus says Get away from me Satan you think like a Human not like God
@@MyPieDied7-6-47 I think it's important to know how science really works - we don't scientifically prove anything - we scientifically disprove things and leave what we cannot disprove. We aren't attacking beliefs, we are critical of everything, especially ourselves (because if I don't rip all the holes in my own argument, then someone else will - and they get credit for it; but doing it yourself (i.e. stating the limitations of your findings in the conclusion of your paper, stating the limitations of your equipment/technique, reviewing and reflecting on past experiments and papers) will get you big credit - and if you do ever prove something that was previously unknown, congrats! That's a discovery and is what science is all about!
The reason we are hard to shake of our ideas is because the ideas we hold are backed up by hundreds of years of research into nature, our interpretations will change with time and different truths may be apparent to different people, but science deals with understanding above all else - its a concerted effort to understand the universe (it's a very messy place, so we've all had to specialise - but that is why communication is important - arguably understanding of communication is also a science that could be perfected by social scientists and should be practiced by all).
The only issues I have with religion is that while scientists from around the world can agree on their findings that bring us closer to practical nuclear fusion, religions across the world can't agree on how to read the same book... In Europe we spent over 1000 years worshipping the bible and all we got out of it was a slightly different horse saddle and a lot of churches... 100 years of science? Well in 1900 there was no powered flight, most infections meant death, the moon shot was an impossible fever dream, nuclear power was 'impossible' even to the scientists discovering the potential of nuclear science... The internet, the International Space Station, the smartphone in your pocket right now came about over a period barely longer than a single human lifetime - and the number of scientists working on the problems we see in the world have grown massively since then. Given another generation of hard science with more resources, technologies to build upon, researchers looking in every corner and checking every link... We are the scholars that realised the bible wasn't everything - Nature is.
Because of the immense number of star systems in just the milky way galaxy, I once assumed that alien life would be very common. But after learning what it takes for life to form at all (let alone multi-cellular life), I'm really starting to think that we're the only intelligent species that we'll ever know about
Good point ..but I can assure you we are not alone in the universe, I have saw close at hand a UFO not of this world..if you see this type of thing you know you are not alone..also billions of planets out there !,
You missed a point. Every planet or asteroid or star or what ever it is, used to be a part of another greater body. Depending on the way it was separated, different atoms react in a different way. On Earth, life formed because of Carbon and Hydrogen but that doesn't necessarily mean that would be the only pair of atoms capable of forming a complex life form. Just take our solar System as an example. Different planets are formed in a different way. Some are just gases, some are solids even some are liquids or any form in the cosmos . No bodies were able to produce suitable atmosphere to produce a life form in our solar system but there is a chance that other unseen parts of cosmos that different atoms could combine to develop a life from from non living things and they could exist in unimaginable ways.
Yes. Intelligent life beyond earth is highly unlikely. I think we are the first intelligent life in the universe and so far the only one to. First of all it took 9 billion years before our planet formed. Then it took 4 billion years for life to even occure and develope here. It took the whole life of the universe to develope human beings. For a more advanced species to have envolved in the same time or less is highly unlileky. Maybe some billion years ahead we finaly get some company.
There is a high probability of life out there but you have to remember, space is huge. Stars are thousands to millions of light years away. That's light traveling for years just to get to us. And space is expanding too so many things are moving away from us faster than light. I think we can only see like 10% of everything and everything else is beyond our reach. Add the extreme randomness of what it took for us, there's no wonder we haven't met any aliens. They are all too far away.
It isnt that the earth is the only planet with life, it is that the earth is the only planet with this kind of life
Where did the INFORMATION that is needed to form proteins come from?
Virus's??
If 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen come together and make water, where did the INFORMATION needed come from? Your premise is faulty. There is no pre-designed template. A trillion trillion trillion trillion things bump into each other. Some make new things, and present new properties. Let that happen for millions and billions of years and a lot can happen.
The Miller Urey experiment did indeed form amino acids. However, what may have been conveniently overlooked is that the amino acids formed in the Miller-Urey experiment never combined to form proteins. The simplest proteins in a living organism are approximately 150 amino acids in length, and must be in the correct sequence and correct shape. Additionally, this also does not account for the myriad of proteins in a single cell organism. Color me skeptical that life happened by pure chance.
The simplest protein in any *modern* organism is not applicable to the first organism. All extant organisms are the results of billions of years of evolution.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 what is the probability of that happening? you say protein now isn't as it was at the point of origin, so what are the chances of that happening in 13 billion years in an molecular finite universe? wouldn't there be a lot of failures? I'm curious cause that's some scary shit
edit: I read online in a study from Sarajevo university it's a 10 to the power of 40,000 chance for that to happen
study is : SOME MATHEMATICAL ASPECTS OF ABIOGENESIS
@@HA-td3uw : The universe is very old and very large and unlikely things happen all the time. Without knowing the process we cannot assess the odds but life did begin very early in Earth's history. 3.7 billion years ago.
Random chemistry becomes more complex incrementally and an increasing number of increasingly complex molecules increases the possibilities of increased complexity.
@@lrvogt1257 so each evolutionary jump makes a lot of things harder and harder to stack for the lack of a better word... wouldn't there be a lot of failures? like I said in a molecularly finite universe (we'd run out of elements and RNA from all these failures)... we shouldn't be here at all, right?
I'm curious about the maths of that all. recently I read about the insanely high number of combinations of human genes. it's just scary stuff to think about.
@@HA-td3uw : I would think there are trillions of combinations of molecules that do nothing special and fall apart all the time. Viruses replicate but are not alive. There are other self-replicating molecules. There are clumps of chemicals that move and seek out energy in life-like ways. Since there is no supernatural data to study it is only reasonable to study these pre-biotic natural phenomena.
It’s ironic how so many viewers say that he explains this so well, when in reality, he explains nothing except how impossible abiogenesis is except if you accept statements of faith from some scientist. He cites many things that have been debunked by science as being possible for a biogenesis, at times in a deceitful way because he seems to know they’ve been debunked but why mention them.
S Cooper - abiogenesis has not been ‘debunked’.
Hamma Lammadingdong lmao. It actually has been regarded as impossible. Only these half bakes up and coming biology teachers push this non sense, to ppl who will simply agree in order to feel smart.
I recommend doing some research
S Cooper - like I said.
Hamma Lammadingdong this guy is pretty much explaining to you throughout the entire video that it’s impossible. If you listen closely he is performing semantic gymnastics. He only says what has to be present, this is where we should look, maybe this, perhaps that, .... we don’t have a clue how this could happen.
Hamma Lammadingdong you ever notice that not one of the prominent figures in science constantly are in videos but you never see them making videos with false click bait claims like this one? You only see aspiring subpar biologist (many times, with a British accent in order to really dupe you into thinking they are smart) make videos with titles like this.
I concede the fact that most scientist rely on the assumption that abiogenesis must be true since most are materialist with no other option, but you NEVER see them feigning to explain how it happened. In fact, it’s is so impossible for like to arisen this way that many scientist have entertained other weird theories such as the panspermia which suggest that alien life forms first seeded life here which still doesn’t answer the question of how life started. There are many other theories out there such as “maybe we are part of a computer simulation” and “maybe we don’t exist at all.”
The real scientist know this is impossible because there is so much that has to be present in order for a life form to function.
However, you are free to have faith in whatever you want to, but just don’t blindly say “duh, it’s science” without understanding it’s not. It takes a lot of faith in order to believe a functioning cell can arise from non living material. What’s funny is, not only do materialist don’t know how life started and run from that topic (except for nobodies like this guy) but they don’t even know what life actually is or what’s the mechanism for it.
Love when he says "thats coming up right now" it brings the hype
I think the explanation is quite simple. A process that seems impossible, becomes possible given enough tries and times to make it happen. I actually find it quite satisfying. As it is actually quite a good explanation for what we should expect to find in the galaxy in terms of life. We would find lot's of failures at the attempt at this process, but very few successes. If any. Even if there was only one success per galaxy of our size. It would still result in so many civilizations out there. The reason why we don't see these civilizations is because there is no need to ever travel outside your galaxy. This to me is a satisfying answer to life and why we will never find it.
Interesting point of view, but why or what is causing the process to keep trying? Where did the materials in the universe come from? How about the instruction in the DNA and how did consciousness come about?
Romans 1:19-20: Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
@@itapinfomaps6233even if no answers to your questions were ever provided, it’s not evidence that the Bible is true or relevant.
@@itapinfomaps6233 your mind is not designed to comprehend it,but it's the truth,all comes from nothing
Thank you for this video. This is the best overview of the science of abiogenesis I have seen. I appreciate your ability to present the essential approaches and goals of scientific inquiry into the origins of life. I look forward to more of your work.
This video is wrong tho it’s a contradiction of cell theory
@@dillonstapleton1213 did not know that. Gives me something else to learn about.
@@dillonstapleton1213 Cell theory is a theory about modern life, not the first living thing.
I myself know exactly how the first life came to be, it's called creation and it came from all mighty God.
@@ericday4505 You believe that, you don't know it. If you knew it, you would be able to provide really good evidence justifying your belief to be true.
Amusing reading the butt hurt comments from halfwit creationists. Carry on as you all sound so knowledgeable!
It's incredible seeing a creator as large and as busy as Arvin still replying to new comments thanks for interacting with your community and bringing complex issues to a level us simpletons can understand
Tumbleweed lol
You’re not a simpleton. Think for yourself bro!
And he also doesn’t insult anyone who questions the science, unlike ‘Professor Dave’.
yeah I was pretty surprised to see that he still replies to new comments also he replied to my comment about how he's one of the main factors that helped liberate me from religion :D
@@michaelportaloo1981 Professor Dave only insults extremely dumb people like flat earthers or Christians that try to prove the Bible using the Bible which by the way I was still a Christian at the time and I had to agree that you can't prove anything using itself so yeah he's not really wrong for insulting people who are like that
Such a great synopsis about this topic! Life is all about high to low energy, the meaning we make of it is through the gift of consciousness, which is all a product of entropy
Actually life requires low/decreasing entropy with high/increasing energy. And how exactly does entropy produce consciousness??
The Catholic clergy’s theory is :
the physical body was created by evolution,
while the soul / consciousness was created by creation.
When god said he created man in his image, he was talking about the soul, not the physical body.
Apparently a complex physical body can’t become conscious without a soul entering it and operating it.
I think consciousness is a curse rather than a "gift" its so weird that its disturbing
If life is about high to low energy, how does life begin on its own and increase in complexity? Isn’t that the opposite of entropy?
Not sure if you really know what you’re talking about
Nice explanation! Unfortunately, the Miller-Urey experiment has now been shown to have some major flaws, so does not help in explaining how life evolved. See for example Conway-Morris´ book Life´s Solutions.
The spontaneous formation of complex biomolecules has been confirmed in many subsequent experiments under a wide array of conditions and by the presence of biomolecules in space.
Also the Urey-Miller experiment produced at least 20 different amino acids, far more than were originally detected.
Difficult to recreate in the lab is an understatement. The clay studies show that the more that adhere to clay the harder to remove making a simplistic RNA molecule impossible. All scientists know proteins are impossible to form naturally from chemicals. 1 in 10^45 power is an understatement for proteins except the very simplest polymer. This guy is really understating the problems.
Goes back to what came first the chicken or the egg
@@Ricklawrence Well all we know is that the first common ancestor was so complex was perhaps the very first life or was very close in time to the very first life that there is no good explanation as to where this complex information and regulatory networks came from.
The Chicken and Egg question is easier to answer - we do know that the environment changes a life form during its own life. This is why identical twins become less identical during their lifetimes. These changes are then passed to the offspring during fertilisation. With sperm and eggs, the impacts that changed both the father and mother during their lives impact the offspring. With mammals where the mother directly affects the embryo, the current environment directly impacts the embryo development itself. So it is pretty much both the Chicken and Egg together.
Synthetic life has been created in the lab and can reproduce. ua-cam.com/video/NnivFz2rbM4/v-deo.html
Could that near statistical impossibility have happened in another planet, in the form of extremifiles and have come from another solar system to reboot seed the planet, giving it a couple billion year head start?
except that proteins ARE natural chemicals
I was literally wondering about this earlier. UA-cam is reading my minds
Same
Abiogenesis only offers "hypotheses". There are still no substantive Theories of Abiogenesis. The world is still waiting for the scientific method to be successfully applied to the abiogenesis hypotheses. From Wikipedia, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. The problem causing confusion on this topic, as well as many other subjects, is that Ideological ‘Agenda’ (using deceptively manipulated data, misinformation, and disinformation pushed with propaganda) can masquerade as "Science" in some of the most fundamental and important areas in society. Biogenesis has already passed the scientific method countless times. Abiogenesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
@@moses777exodus
We already know. One day it will be proven.
You are more right than you know. UA-cam’s algorithms present you what you want.
Bro me too. The government has mind altering technology I guess 🤷🏾♂️
Sadly, these types of videos often skip all of the the elements that would defeat abiogenesis, such as the fact that the amino acids that supposedly facilitate the lipids self-assemblingq would all have to be LEFT-handed amino acids (as RIGHT-handed amino acids would ALSO destroy the cell). So, how did nature isolate the forming cell from right-handed amino acids?
Chirality is just one major issue, and it is an issue with more than just the lipid particles. Chirality comes into effect in just about every aspect of the formation of a cell. To me, the biggest question is where did the information come from that directs the proteins in how to form correctly to build all the parts of the cell? There is no possible way all of this happened by accident. If abiogenesis has proven anything, it's that a natural beginning of life is not possible.
@@chrispark2698 Abiogenesis proves abiogenesis is not possible?
@@michaelportaloo1981 The study of abiogenesis has shown that the probability of the formation of life from non-living matter is so incomprehensibly low as to be practically impossible.
@@chrispark2698 Sounds like a paradox. Do you mean the study of the possibility of abiogenesis?
@@michaelportaloo1981 Abiogenesis literally means "the beginning of biological life." Scientists studying this subject are trying to prove that abiogenesis has natural, material origins. I am saying that those studies have only shown naturalistic and materialistic methods to be unable to evolve life from non life.
The "improbable chance" argument often used to describe the origin of life is overly simplistic. It ignores the correlation between sequential biological events, which is crucial for understanding how life could arise from non-living matter. Instead of viewing these events as independent, we should consider them as interconnected steps where the occurrence of one event increases the likelihood of subsequent ones. This is where Bayesian updating becomes useful-it adjusts the probabilities of these steps based on prior occurrences, showing that each step can make the next more (or potentially much more) probable, rather than all steps being isolated and equally unlikely.
Who or what is directing or controlling this process and if that is case, why can't we duplicate this process today in a lab?
@@itapinfomaps6233 Sustained fusion inside stars occurs, but we can't duplicate that today in a lab.
this video ended my midlife crisis
Every midlife crisis is bound to end super or later. Ever hear of a 95 year old man in a mud life crisis?
The intellectual obstacle as I see it is that we're making the incorrect assumption that "living" matter at its core is something different than a chain reaction among "non-living" matter. What we call death is in the end nothing more than a failing loop, as the instructions for its continuation accumulates corruptions to a level that it can no longer self-correct or self-sustain.
God created everything, it makes no sense to create something so Complexe out of nothing....where did the atoms that so called came together came from?
@@curiousgeorge6921 from stars.
@@curiousgeorge6921 where did god come from?
@MillillioN but so might atoms do also, we don't know what lies beyond the Universe. This might even be a simulation, again. there are endless theories, none of which can be proven.
curious george to begin with no atom came together to form life! Don’t mind these arrogant people.
Apologies in advance if this comment has already been made, there is another line of ideas on how to arrive at of chemical evolution or abiogenesis. There are very interesting ideas into what are the simplest and most common metabolic processes in a cell, based on the plausible assumption that these can provide more specific clues into how abiogenesis came about. In particular the reverse Krebs cycle is pinpointed, as, I hope I'm remembering this properly, it is an auto assembling feature of the key molecules involved, and doesn't require catalysts or enzymes to occur. From this point, it is plausible to retrace the steps that may likely have been required to arrive at this point, providing a pathway to guide thought and research on the process of abiogenesis. It is spoken of as an evolution of molecules, until it reaches a point where it become an evolution of the biological molecules involved in this pathway.
Vibration rules motion.
Frequency of vibration dictates formation...
attraction or repulsion.
Every speck of matter has
its particular influence upon every other speck of matter.
A human body has 34 billion miles of just DNA, every atom of it vibrates with such unison, and yet with such diversity, as to form the walking talking being. Even it's thoughts have their frequencies. That radiate out into eternity.
Great explanation. Keep it up.
As a theist I found this a fairly well balanced and very interesting video
Same
@wallace decure
That's honest isn't it
As a theist or as an atheist? Lol
You're doing such great work here! I'm certain your channel will continue to grow, & likely quickly. Thanks & keep it up! 😃
Isn't it odd that all the people posting negatively about your video just happen to be religious?
And isn't odd that none of them can give a better explanation than abiogenesis for how life came to be on Earth?
Do you also find it odd that the majority of people commenting on this video are atheist? Do you find it odd that you have no concept of confirmation bias? LOL
So well explained! O finally understood something about the origin of life.
There's another question I'm seeing here: how was it in the first place that the universe happened to have the 110+ elements that have the natural proclivity to combine in such ways that, under the right conditions, they will self-assemble into increasingly complex forms.
Grant Dillon this is an argument from incredulity. are you suggesting that there was a “watchmaker “? The question actually shifts even further because the properties of these elements derives from the fundamental physical constants precise values. The answer is “we don’t know” yet.
since there is no evidence for a watchmaker, the search is other directions like, are these the only allowed values for the constants? did the value change in the last 13.8 B years? are there infinite universes with all possible combinations of the constants?
What you're really asking is why does the universe exist as it does as opposed to not. And that's a good question, and that's what scientists and natural philosophers and physicists are trying to do all the time and we may never know but the more we learn te closer we get to one day maybe finding out
Atoms form a lot of things throughout the universe, most of which do not involve biology or consciousness. Life is just one of the many cycles that matter goes through, it isn't the point or goal of the universe, which never produces a final result, only constant change. The universe will one day pass the phase where life can be be possible, and will be lifeless for far longer than it has ever been habitable to organisms like us.
Read the Quran
@@hydaromar6532 The Quran does not explain the origin of life-- that is a scientific, not a religious matter.
Beautifully explained. I had no idea about abiogenesis before I watched your video. Thanks very much.
and the abiogenesis KEEP ON without any evidences
Sadly it does have the God botherers come out from under their rocks.
I highly recommend you start with the wiki pages of:
Abiogenesis
RNA World
And from there go read all the references!! 🤩🤩
BBC's documentary series on the Wonders of Life is also too good to miss and is very much all about writing Gods _out_ of the story
With respect, while being highly technical, this presentation essentially piles speculation upon speculation upon speculation trying to explain abiogenesis in a way which, to me, violates the tenets of Accom's Razor, which holds that the most obvious explanation for a phenomenon is likely the correct explanation. The idea that the advent of life occurred without a supervising intelligence ordaining it and guiding it is impossible rationally to accept. What is most amazing is the lengths to which some highly intelligent human beings are prepared l go to in order to eliminate the need for an intelligent creator working in the process of creation. To be sure, further scientific research is needed, but, in the meantime, Accom's Razor surely must win the day.
Applying Occam’s razor to the origin of life would favor a naturalistic explanation as it requires fewer assumptions.
Ya, I mean, if it was intelligent design, we would have to figure out where the intelligent designer came from. Any being, intelligent enough to design the first life, would probably be more complex than the first life was. So, I don’t see how intelligent design is a better explanation than saying we don’t know the answer, yet. And, the same goes for ‘where did the universe come from?’ Nobody knows where God came from, or how he created the universe so, I don’t think it’s any better an explanation than saying we don’t know, yet.
Isn’t it really bizarre to think how we are all here and know nothing about it all. How is that happening? I guess it really bothers me that we have developed enough awareness to be bothered by it and to care so much. Life would be easier being blissfully ignorant. But since we can ponder all this, it drives me nuts, but love researching it.
@@karmasutra4774 ya, life is crazy.
Not sure if anyone pointed this out. "Chemicals react they do not evolve." And figuring out how these chemicals stayed out of equilibrium is a problem proponents of abiogenesis avoid like the plague.
What creationists avoid like the plague is talking about any specifics like how/when/where the alleged creator caused any change in this universe... because they have no evidence and don't know anything about it or what it did. They haven't the slightest clue what "creation" entails or when, where and how it happened.
Intelligent design has no process, no mechanism of change, no validated model, and no empirical scientific substance whatsoever. ID is 100% pure philosophy of mind, an extension of religion that seeks to distance itself from all of the failures of religion to explain what science has explained.
"ID is definitely not a science ... it is a philosophy ... closer to aesthetics [i.e. beauty and art]"
"Science involves a process, [a mechanism] or procedure, a way of understanding how things work"
"ID doesn't address the question of how things work"
----Dr. Imad ad-Dean Ahmad (creationist)
ua-cam.com/video/OsjhFKYAWlk/v-deo.html
Information in DNA is not scientific evidence because anything can be used or labeled as information. Labeling something as information doesn't automatically transfer the cause or origins to a mind.
Inference to intelligence from complexity is not scientific evidence, because complexity is not measurable or objectively quantifiable; it is assessed subjectively. Also, the most important part, the alleged designer, hasn't manifested "materially" one single time in this universe, at least in the presence of humans under a controlled scientific experiment or direct repeatable observation. Many people have claimed such events but none have been confirmed, and many have turned out to be natural, psychological phenomenon.
@@ja31472 How odd that you should say the Creator has not manifested himself in the presence of humans this close to Christmas.
@@thereaction18 I'm not disputing that *false ideas, myths, stories, fiction, and philosophies of mind* cause humans to change their behavior, thus altering the physical universe.
I'm disputing your false claim that the ideas that cause human action are *accurate depictions of something outside human minds,* and the idea that human action somehow proves the truth of that idea, or existence of a god.
Did you know humans have created so many religions and gods that *all 365 days of the year* hold some special significance to some religion or god? So you are simply wrong, it is not odd or improbably at all, if you know something about religion (besides your own) and history.
Did you actually forget that there are other gods, thousands of them, all equal and without a single direct manifestation?
How odd that you think one religion holds some special truth about a god, when there are so many others that wouldn't consider my actions odd, unless their sacred holiday also happened to be near christmas.
The creator did not manifest, the idea inside human minds caused humans take action, just like when pagans killed animals and drank their blood to appease the Blood God, who, like the god of the bible, also did not manifest or alter one single atom in this universe.
In those cases, it was *humans* that caused the action.
@@ja31472 are you saying that Darius G.'s comment is false or that ID is equally if not more stupid and fallacious? I don't know anything about chemistry.
@@matthew8720 The comment is false; philosophical gaps to not and will never affect anything in science that consists of many lines of evidence and billions of other supporting facts. Gaps in one area of science do not reduce the power, validity, or correctness of an explanation in another area.
This statement: "figuring out how these chemicals stayed out of equilibrium is a problem proponents of abiogenesis" is a type of gap argument/fallacy, an appeal to ignorance or hole in knowledge, which is philosophical. It says something about you and your mind, not about the way nature works.
Philosophical gaps are not, and have never been a problem for science that says how known, demonstrated things work.
Darius' comment is equivalent to saying "in the year 1700, physics had not yet figured out how the sun produces energy [therefore the sun-god-done-it]".
It's equivalent to saying "in the year 1930, biology had not yet discovered the nitty-gritty details of genetic transfer (DNA) therefore god-done-it".
It's equivalent to saying "in the year 1820, physics had not yet discovered what light is made of and how it propagates, therefore the god-of-light-done-it".
It's equivalent to saying "in the year 5000BC, no science had figured out how nearly everything works, therefore god did almost everything".
It's equivalent to saying "in the year X, science had not yet figured out Y [therefore the Y-god-done-it]", which is a universal truth that you can apply to anything at almost any time, but has no effect on what you do know.
It is a "stupid" argument, and totally fallacious to appeal to a gap in knowledge, and claim a lack of knowledge says something about the universe external to your mind. That is simply false.
Lack of details of abiogenesis really don't matter to knowing, with good certainty, what the ultimate cause of life came down to chemical, physical processes, since all known living [and non-living] processes, including those *keeping you alive right now,* are chemical, physical processes. Attributing origins to some other completely different, undemosntrated cause is invalid in every way possible.
"ID is equally if not more ... fallacious?"
There is nothing unscientific or fallacious about saying known, demonstrated, mechanisms of chemistry and physics in some unknown ordering and with unknown initial conditions are mathematically *guaranteed* to be more likely the cause of life or anything else in this universe, than any other hypothesis in involving things, entities or mechanisms that are not yet proven to exist or cause change, unobserved, unknown, undemsontrated, and more complex (and therefore have more assumptions, so are less likely to be true).
It's an undisputable, direct application of the scientific method, which is optimal at accuracy and minimizing bias. The parsimony principle or Occam's razor is the guiding principle here.
ID is totally fallacious and unscientific. ANY explanation that involves demonstrated mechanisms that use already proven to exist processes is more likely to be true that an explanation depending on undemonstrated, un-verified, un-tested, unobserved, ultra-complex (conscious/intelligent) entities. What exactly it did, when, where and how, creationists can't say. They have no process, no mechanism, no model, no predictions, and no empirical substance.
"I don't know anything about chemistry."
The important thing to know relevant to this argument is that chemistry (and physics) is:
1) not random
2) specifies outcomes based on prior conditions, surrounding environment, and a set of rules, laws, uniformities, etc, that determine or specify the outcome. [1]
3) The outcome, change or result does not depend on complexity or using something as information (which can be done for anything), it depends only on #2.
[1] Sometimes this outcome is so critically dependent on starting conditions you can get a vastly different outcome with the tiniest change. This is deterministic chaos, or sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and the reason the "information" that biologists call DNA, is "highly specified". Natural laws did the specifying with a sensitive dependence on starting conditions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
"The driving force for chemical evolution ... is entropy ... in the presence of [energy] any group of molecules will restructure themselves to dissipate heat."
... to me that is a profound and almost eureka-like moment.
It is saying that Physics is describing another 'force' if you will, that is *emergent* within bio-organic-chemistry that *drives* the tendency toward ever more increasing *complexity* .
Could not that chemical evolution
also carry this underlying *impulse* up and into biological evolution, and thereby set that up as well on such a high hill of potential ?
I mean, this is like I have always intuitively felt ... that the universe wants to find itself *made* in ever more sophisticated forms.
... You can see that expressed even in the spectrum from particulate to galactic matter.
I absolutely love this entire concept, and hope the science discovers and confirms more !
I might also point out that the 30 years you are describing, came about after I did my first 'college' in my youth including physics and chemistry, and it seems that after the decade after I left ... science has discovered so much more in the following three decades than I could have ever imagined !
Professor Ash: I would like to see a video on what pieces or organelles of the cell can be retro-hypothesized back to what scientists think might be any early working prototype of a living cell. I'm aware that cellular machinery, structure, and function are so astoundingly complex, that a cell is almost like a 'factory planet' unto itself. That was probably also a "very large hill." So if there are any scientific discoveries or conjectures out there on much simpler prototypical life, I would love to have you describe these for us ... as you do *so* well.
This was absolutely brilliant
Excelent video. Brief and concise. Thanks.
This video deserves millions of views; all your videos are so well made (The topics chosen are really interesting), your voice is clear & the vocabulary you use is easy to understand even for the non native speakers, the breakdown into sub topics makes it easier to understand the whole picture & the animations are amazing as well. All in all love your channel & thank you for the amazing work 🤗😘
Swag yolo tbh fam 🔥🔥🔥
@@stevejobs5488 - Absolute worst reply ever.
There are none so easily convinced as those who want to be convinced.
@Archock Encanto Life is preceded by code. For code a coder is necessary. Get past that.
@Archock Encanto what's wrong with that, science proves all other theories cannot happen !
About halfway through the video entropy was what came to my mind before you said it. As I've been getting older I've been looking at most things through the eyes of math/physics.
That's a dumb progression.
@@davidludwig3975 it ain't that dumb if it came to me before he even said it.
@@davidludwig3975 that's a dumb comment.
@@krshna77 inch habe das schon gesagt, mein Freund.
@@Pomorchik The chances of this happening are so astronomically small i don't see how anyone can call proposing it as a solution science.
I believe the renowned Robert Shapiro described it as absolute fantasy.
This video is quite interesting and enlightening.
Every single step of faith you have to give to believe in abiogenesis is wildly more unlikely than believing in God. And yes, there are great scientists out there who believe in God.
None of the video is based on faith at all. It is based on actual observable chemical and physical phenomena. The only question is how it happened in the sequence necessary. Are observable chemical reactions and physics wildly more unlikely than belief that an unobservable undetectable conscious entity created this from nothing?
You explain everything so well. Your video is amazing as usual.😄
There is nothing but bullshit.
@@pleasesubscribe7659 that's very philosophical. "All is Bullshit". It's called nihilism. You should sell t -shirts. Of course, you do realize that you include yourself in that statement?
@@pleasesubscribe7659 What is your problem? I wasn't refering to you.
@Nabil Essadiki What are you using to inform me of such? A scientific invention that was once considered impossible. Try again.
It's all pure fantasy. What man can't do in ideal conditions happened by chance in a hostile environment where time is the enemy!!!
This is my favorite science video since the last one you made. You have a gift for explaining complex ideas in a way that anyone who wants to understand will. You can only simplify things a certain amount. Television is for everyone else. Thanks. Keep the great videos coming!
It was horribly stupid
science ? assumption at best
@@hosoiarchives4858 how? He explained it so well I didn't even know lipids can form naturally from carbon monoxide and hydrogen or form spheres in the water for chemicals to turn it into a cell
@@hosoiarchives4858 It's stupid to you because you've been brainwashed by religion.
@@Paul-ts5qw how does your religion explain how atgc get synthesized abiotically
There plenty of examples of "self-Ordering" in Nature. Science has uncovered a few, but many more need to be observed, before we can get close to understanding where life begins. Al life is chemistry, the flowing of energy, and the consumption of fuel.
Awesome! Thank u so much!....so underrated!
You are forgiven, Arvin, for the errata. A Mechanical Engineering major myself, I never thought I could be interested in organic chemistry. This is immensely fascinating - thank you. Your water origin video that just preceded this one makes me think if any of the elements needed for the simplest life form on earth (nucleic acid, proteins, lipids) were delivered by the asteroid(s) or comet(s). Also, the infinite number of multiverses are constantly being born and recreated, perhaps the basic structures of each universe can differ as well? Even at particle or string levels? Tis means the host possessing consciousness can be vastly different from that of his universe (let alone from the earth). Or would the consciousness itself have totally different meaning and mechanism compared to ours? Again, thank you, Arvin for sharing your knowledge. If your goal is to make this world smarter, you certainly are succeeding.
Hey, I'm actually studying to become a mechanical engineer one day and I just wanted to say, do you have any tips or recommendations you could give?
@@pedro_6120 2 things: 1. Make sure you have the necessary math skills before entering a mechanical engineering major in college. If you don't, you should retake the math classes before taking college level math / engineering classes. 2. This probably applies to any major. If you don't get above 3.0 GPA at the time of graduation (both overall GPA and engineering field GPA), your chance of landing an engineering job is shot. Beware. And good luck! :)
I love that idea of life being a product of entropy
Ironic isn't it?
What does that even mean Jordan? It means nothing. All this is nonsense. All that exists, arises from consciousness in continual computation. Everything can be described by spiritual and mathematical laws, which arise from an intelligence, a semblance of universal mind. The universe is able to be described using mathematics, mathematics involves logic, reason, creativity and intentional design. The universe and life is full of logical and reason based concepts...and we are being told it's all an accident lol. The masses will be confused for a few hundred years to come, before they work out what some cultures knew long ago, in the long lost annals of antiquity. There exist powerful men on this world, who want nothing more than to have zombie materialists incapable of connecting the dots and making deep and profound spiritual connections with their world, their reality, existence, life, and each other - and for the time being this group is succeeding.
@@TheLuminousOne Are we talking God?
em cee - in my view it is not practical or sensible to use the 'God' word itself...because of the historical religious connotations associated with that term...- nature...is more accurate or universal consciousness....we all sprang from the same and we shall return to the same...we belong to this all-encompassing creative force...life and existence within this totality bind us as one, as we are all subject to its laws and essence
@@TheLuminousOne you lost me at I intentional design. To me the universe doesn't appear to be based on logic and reason but rather logic and reason are based on the universe. How could it be the other way around when all you know is based on what you see. If another universe existed then to a conscious being there ours might defy all logic. Why are you also so confident that the idea of matter arranging itself into living organisms as a result of mechanics that encourage energy dissipation is wrong? Sry but I'm very skeptical of anyone who speaks with certainty on things out brightest minds are uncertain about.
You have to love the circular logic offered here, when he claims one possible avenue is organic compounds arriving on meteorites - without offering an explanation on how they got on the meteorites and where they came from. If you believe this statistically impossible explanation, you might as well believe it was the hand of god, since both are equally plausible.
Watched the whole video but still did not find a plausible explanation for the origin of life from nonliving chemicals.
Our urge to put everything in a 'box' is our real failure.
Duh, you just put everyone in your little box...
I can understand that Magic is a must-have ingredient for a happy little life, but not everyone likes the bliss of resignation.
Love the way you explain & break stuff down.
Think of it... We all came from a single cell... Which we all share its DNA. life really is fascinating.
The LUCA, yes. But you have to remember that LUCA itself took a long time to form from prior generations of living things, and possibly also competing with other simple life forms.
Saul Griffith's video on self assembling blocks that can only assemble in particular ways is very interesting.
Random movement causes the blocks to come into contact in different ways.
Only particular ways lock together.
His blocks had magnets, and the north or south pole was exposed and particularly shaped faces.
In the early earth, the tides and ions in the ocean may have been significant features.
?????
And in this way, living beings came into being and learned how to use energy to survive and then learned how to relocate - all based strictly on chemical reactions. Because these “life forms” would’ve had no brain. Unbelievable how much rope you’ll give to these people in order to avoid contemplating a creator. It’s really amazing.
@@ErroneousMonk1science slowly and methodically helps us find answers. Magical thinking is not the way.
@@kevinm9246 But abiogenesis IS magical thinking. You make assumptions that suit your personal biases and then try to make facts conform to your opinions.
@@ErroneousMonk1 "But abiogenesis IS magical thinking. "
Show us any OoL researcher saying in a scientific paper, "and this step occurred by magic".
@@ErroneousMonk1 Hey, pal, where's that peer-reviewed scientific paper on abiogenesis that says, "and this step right here occurred by magic"?
I've been watching a bunch of origin of life videos (layperson), and this is the meatiest and most satisfying so far. Keep up the good work!
I bet you like that meat 😜🌭
Steve Jobs wtf?
@@jacktheiss4085 it a knob joke.
I know, don't blame me.
@@stevejobs5488 That's what she said....... Literally! Zing, bang, pow!
Hi Stephanie! Did you find any other good ones after this? I'm on the same quest. I appreciate Arvin Ash's ability to speak directly, trusting in the intelligence of his audience but keeping it in layman's terms. So, I'd be interested in seeing any others you'd put on the same bookshelf. :-)
Damn I remember when this channel was at several thousand subscribers, it’s really grown a lot
There's a sucker born every minute. Phineas T Barnum. Maybe he didn't say it, but it's ascribed to him and is the best description of humanity.
Life arising from complex chemicals naturally organizing to more efficiently dissipate energy. That’s such a wild thought. Thank you for this very interesting video.
If that's the case then we should easily be able to bring a simple yeast cell back to life, all the parts are there after all.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep kind of.
I'm no where near an expert on this but here's my limited explanation on this.
The dead yeast cell has about 3 courses of events that could happen.
1. It is dead. When cells die they don't fall as corpses the way multicellular life does. They either are killed getting torn apart or blow themselves apart.
Obviously the cell can't be eaten in this situation so I'll use a virus, and protein reactions (based on compliment systems) and apoptosis (cell self destruct) for some examples.
A) virus.
In this scenario a virus infects the yeast cell. Basically the yeast is punctured and the virus forces its genetic material into the yeast cell. The yeast cell's organelles are now forced to stop making necessary proteins and instead start building new viruses. These will later burst out of the yeast cell.
In this situation the cell would be too far gone. It's internal systems hijacked and it's structures too damaged.
B) protein death.
This is based on the immune response in blood called compliment proteins. A series of proteins that rip "massive" holes into invasive cells.
Here the insides if the cell are lost and the outer structure is compromised.
C) apoptosis.
This is a self destruction of the cell. Here it literally blows itself apart.
In all of these examples the body gets far too damaged for this to be even a question.
2. Anatanasis.
This is not exactly a full resurrection but is similar to the temporary death multicellular life can enter.
Here a cell can be fully shut down and be both practically and seemingly dead, just to resume activity moments later.
Not quite resurrection but this is actually a natural process in some cells!
3. Cells can be reanimated.
I don't know the full details but an experiment from Yale last year had some pig cells be reanimated.
But the project used a synthetic blood. So I'm not sure this was done to 1 cell or a full structure.
If it was a full structure the same process that made man made horrors within comprehension like the living meat grape and meat leaf made by the action lab (I think) would probably be similar.
Conclusion. The simplest answer is no. A dead cell is dead. Some cells can enter a dead state and return to an active state. Some cells can be reanimated using additional resources. And different cells can use the same scaffolding.
Please do your own research though as this is basically just 15 minutes of googling an remembering things poorly so im very likeky to have left out mass details and even have been quite incorrect.
If you do some research and feel like it. I'd love some corrections or criticism.
Have a good day.
What they will achieve first? Replicate life formation in lab? Or the final "theory of everything" ?
I have always followed the tenet that if physics provides a probable answer to a question; then any other answer that requires a supernatural foundation is in error.
That is a good tenet to follow.
@@ArvinAsh i noticed you mention primordial soup.. its not scientifically proven and hence its from a story.
@@koppite9600 If you mean, do we have fossil evidence of a primordial soup, then correct, there is no fossil evidence. However, there is plenty of evidence of ecosystems devoid of life that have the complex molecular organic chemistry to be the seedlings of from which early simple self replicating molecules could have formed. There is nothing supernatural or mythical about this. If you are chemist, you can find many systems like this on earth today.
@@koppite9600 Science deals with degrees of liklihood rather than absolute certainty, and it is a better approach to determining truth than religion is.
@@koppite9600 The early earth had water and organic molecules like amino acid polymers. That's what life is made of and what the term "primordial soup" refers to.
Funny how people inflicted with religion see this as utter nonsense, yet are content in their fairytale that a magical all powerful being just willed everything into existence instantaneously.
See here, It's comments like yours that causes many to view evolution as a religion and nothing to do with science. Why not address the questions of those who question evolution and link the sources that convinced you that evolution is a fact, along with references for the fossil records you say exist?
@@sevenlineitapinfo2944 - It’s all good to ask questions, but questions aren’t evidence and they don’t refute evolution.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Yeah but what good are answers without the questions. Questions are what lead most scientist to new discoveries with leads to evidence.
@@sevenlineitapinfo2944 - what good are questions when the answers are ignored if they contradict your favorite narrative?
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Hmm! I think you need to ask that question to those who have, as you say "favorite narrative?" because I sure didn't mention anything about having a favorite narrative
What a beautiful video!
Thank you for your very informative presentation. Where did earl earth, and salty water already existed, and is this common in our known universe?
Few days ago, i told my mom that we are so advanced that can now produce sun in the laboratory ; she replied "but you cannot create life in the lab." 🤐
we are getting very close... synthetic bacteria is already created...
There are a couple possibilities for the start of life.
1. Abiogenesis
2. Spontaneous Generation
3. Life from life (meaning there was always life)
4. Life from established life (highly intelligent beings create life)
This though just pushes the question back a step.
Out of these, most people believe spontaneous generation is impossible. Life from life means there has always been a life which is totally unsupported. So that leaves us with abiogenesis.
If you would like to add any other mechanisms about the creation of life, please comment and give solid reasoning as to why it is likely. Additionally, it would be nice if you could find some studies supporting your claims.
@spaghetti yummy I guess that is another mechanism of creation but what created those highly intelligent beings?
I guess life creating life is so common of a mechanism I didn't care to add it.
@@andrecloete2006 That video is so funny, synthetic chemists and those damn biologists.
Abiogenesis: a scientific BELIEF!
@StarLander6 said, "why is there none of this unique primordial self replicating RNA not being seen made by natural process today?"
Darwin addressed this general topic more than 150 years ago. In the quote at the end, pay attention to the last part: "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which wouild not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
Now that life is ubiquitious, organic molecules would not accumulate and complexify over long periods of time because bacteria or some other living organisms would consume/incorporate them.
That ignores any other differences that might prevent things that occurred some 4 billion years ago from occurring today. For example, back then the atmosphere was largely devoid of molecular oxygen (it is not anymore), and the oceans had much more ferrous iron dissolved throughout them than today. If either of those was important in self-replicating RNA forming, then we shouldn't expect it to occur today.
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
(Darwin, C., 1871, Letter to Hooker)
Mr Ash's explanations of topics are refreshingly clear, and make complex subjects comprehensible to simple folk. :)
Whats so clear about " we dont know"
So how did we get a salty liquid for lipids to gather together?
The more I know about science, the more I realize what I don’t know. I’m 57 and would have been a lifetime student if I could. Thanks to the internet I am a student again.
No go look at james tour talk about abiogenesis to see the other side of the story
@@exclusive_148 Tour is clueless. He shows images of, and discusses, eukaryotic cells when talking about the origin of life.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Lol. Im sure tour has forgotten more than you will even know. Everything from prelife and origin of life leads to the cell which is the basic unit life requires so what are you talking about?
@@exclusive_148 I think Tony is trying to tell us that the eukaryotic cell is the product of evolution and not abiogenesis. I've seen the relevant James Tour video; the premise he was making is the complexity of a typical cell, not how the very first cell appeared.
@@realscientistflanders1688 Tour is talking about abiogenesis when he shows images of, and discusses, eukaryotic cells. He is clueless.
Clearly lots of possibilities and maybe. One thing is clear the more we study life the more we understand just how fantastically complex it is. To compare a watch or a jumbo jet or a work of Shakespeare to a living cell goes to show just how ludicrous the idea of life appearing spontaneously is.
Actually, the more we learn about these processes, the more plausible pathways we find that explain how it may have happened.
hey you didnt tell anything about dna
Good job!
I watched a presentation for a PhD work about abiogenesis years ago. It was very simple and it made a lot of sense (to me at least). The way that the particles would penetrate and organize themselfs inside the 'buble' it was dictated by natural laws like pressure diferencial, osmosis, positiv/negativ charged particles, etc.. So the main point was that the 'buble' almost trapped the particles and once inside they would organize into small stable structures by 'chemestry rules'. And from time to time more 'bubles' would fusion into one bigger 'buble' with bigger structures inside. It was almost a symbiotic relation between the shell and the structures inside the 'buble'.. the particles needed a shell in order to 'organize' into much bigger structures (cause of the protection of the shell) and the 'bubles' with more particles inside were more stable, so it was almost like natural selection aplied to non living things if I recall corectly. The bigger structures (even ADN/ARN) could only form inside of a shell.
I've searched it a long time ago but I couldn't find it, it just dissapeared... :/
Was it this guy?
ua-cam.com/video/PqPGOhXoprU/v-deo.html
@@ZeeZee9 I don't think it was that one, cause I don't remember beeing a person on the screen but this one looks even better. I'll give it a full whatch later. Thanks for posting it!
@@2FaceTube Ok great. No problem!
And where do the natural laws come from? Why do they exist in their form? Why do molecules work the way they do? Why is there electricity? Why is there gravity? What causes gravity and why are there such things as quantum physics and thermodynamics? You all just assume that these laws exist without wondering how or why. Isn’t that interesting?
@@ErroneousMonk1 those are still open questions.
Excellent treatment of the subject. Love your open mind on the subject.
I never could understand those that separate physics from chemistry and molecular biology. Always at the root of everything there is physics. 0 it seems that even for some of the most advanced among us shaking off magical thinking is very difficult.
Amazing video, I learned so much. I summarised what I learned here, plus some extra research of my own using the things you showed as a guide.
Abiogenesis theory describes the naturalistic origin of life on Earth from simple chemical substances, thought to have occurred in the late Hadean eon (before 3.5 billion years ago).
Astrochemistry: molecules relevant to organic chemistry are ubiquitous in the Solar System
- Water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen were present on the Hadean Earth. These can form racemic amino acids in the presence of electrical energy (lightning), as shown in the Miller-Urey experiment (1952). The experiment has been criticised for not being an accurate reflection of early Earth conditions however, and it is now thought that the primary energy source was solar UV radiation or heat from hydrothermal vents.
- Panspermia hypothesis: amino acids with slight enantiomeric excess have been found on meteorites, which may have been delivered to Earth during the late heavy bombardment.
- The cause of this enantiomeric excess is not well understood - one theory is selective photolysis by circularly polarised synchrotron radiation from pulsars in deep space.
Prebiotic Chemistry: formation of biomolecules and organic matter from inorganic matter
- Hydrothermal vents release chemicals as well as providing heat energy, making reactions more feasible.
- Wohler’s urea synthesis (1828) from inorganic salts showed there is nothing ‘special’ about organic matter.
- Mineral guided catalysis: minerals, such as borates, can stabilise sugars. Mineral-rich tidal pools could have been sites of heterogeneous catalysis, where wet-dry cycling can lead to autocatalytic cycles which introduce a kind of prebiotic selection. This is the ‘hot spring model’ in the primordial ‘soup’.
Macromolecule Assembly
- Lipid assembly: carbon monoxide and hydrogen can form lipids in the presence of mineral catalysts. However, lipids are destabilised by aqueous ions, which must have been present for other biomolecules to form. Chelation by amino acids has been shown to re-stabilise lipids and their bilayers.
- Protein assembly: proteins form from amino acids in water despite being energetically unfavourable, due to either chemical activation by minerals, or absorption into the hydrophobic regions of lipid micelles.
- RNA world hypothesis: Nucleotides polymerise on hot clays to form RNA. RNA acted both as a genetic code as well as an autocatalyst (ribozymes), allowing it to self-replicate while carrying out specific functions. Ribozymes were replaced by enzymes later in the evolutionary process.
- Autocatalytic cycle: a self-sustaining set of reactions in which the products catalyse the formation of itself, as well as other reactions in the cycle. This permits self-replication and ‘chemical evolution’. Chemical evolution is thermodynamically favourable in these cases since the molecules are collectively able to dissipate energy gradients imposed upon them into heat, maximising net entropy.
- Homochirality: could have occurred at the polymer level (chiral induced spin selectivity) or at the monomer level (asymmetric catalysis). Selection amplified differences in e.e. over time.
Protocell Formation and its Subsequent Evolution
- Biomolecules can be encapsulated in a lipid bilayer, which forms spontaneously. This would have been an extremely primitive cell (a protocell), and may or may not be considered life. It is not yet clear how metabolism arises in this process: this seems to be the only remaining 'black box' in OoL research.
- A protocell forms a prokaryotic cell over time by gradual specialisation and evolution. This represents the first sign of something considered life today.
- Endosymbiotic theory: a prokaryote ‘absorbed’ a small aerobic bacterium without consuming it. The bacterium became the cell’s mitochondria, forming the first eukaryotic cells.
- Multicellular organisms arose when eukaryotic cells exchanged vesicles containing biomolecules, bringing them close together, a kind of cooperation.
- Selective pressures from the environment favoured cells which could tolerate their surroundings, providing the driving force for biological evolution by natural selection.
- Speciation occurred when the fitness landscape changed but organisms remain divided, leading them to take diverging evolutionary pathways, creating diversity, such as that which occured in the Cambrian explosion. This process proceeds all the way up to today, with the organisms becoming ever more specialised with each generation.
13:08
Love your channel. Very warm and kind voice and understandable.
why doesn’t this same process of chemical evolution from inanimate matter to life continues to occur on earth?
Why some animals/plants do not evolve?
Quick answer. We still don’t really know.
@StarLander6 said, "the Gibbs equation ..."
Doesn't mean jack if the conditions of interest aren't those used in the calculation.
Calculations are done for specific conditions, usually "typical" or standard conditions. Those are the conditions for which the results apply. For abiogenesis, the conditions of interest can be very different: for example, alkaline hydrothermal vents have huge pH gradients that can drive reactions forward that "the Gibbs equation" say are impossible under "typical" conditions.
The "Gibbs equation" that is calculated under specific constant conditions also doesn't mean a thing if:
a) reactants become more concentrated (as can occur during wet-dry cycles, and at air-water interfaces)
b) products are removed (as can occur if water washes away products more readily than reactants)
c) temperature changes (as can occur during freeze-thaw cycles)
d) pH changes (as occurs at alkaline hydrothermal vents)
e) an input of energy from the surrounding occurs (as can occur when UV light begins impinging upon shallow water in the morning)
i really love your videos😍😍😍
respect from Pakistan
Thanks my friend. I appreciate it.
So whats the role of Allah/god /adam & even in creation of life?
Are they all fake Stories ?
Does that mean Muhammad who said he was prophet of god lied deliberately ??
@@kaizen_monk
Muhammad is not a prophet of God or even a prophet. He's a pedophile.
@@kaizen_monk God knows better😂😂😂
@@kaizen_monk I am atheist, but why do you want to be this kind of guy that attacking people for no reason?
The era of heavy bombardment is also a reason for polymerisation of rna, and most of these meteorites had amino acids and ingredients of life.
Where are the meteorites with "ingredients for life" today, extinct. Another natural process that we don't see anymore.
So, life on earth was "seeded" from the cosmos? Where does the cosmic life come from and why isn't it common to see aliens.
So if your THEORY is true how did the meteorites get the building blocks of life on them.
@@leroybrown9143 Uracil, cytosine and thymine, have been formed in the laboratory under outer space conditions, using starting chemicals such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites.
This evidence that there is more than one way to make crucial components of life increases the likelihood that life emerged elsewhere in the Universe, according to the research team, and gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by impacts from meteorites and comets assisted the origin of life.
A meteorite analyzed in the study at its collection site in Antarctica. Credit: Antarctic Search for Meteorites program, Case Western Reserve University
In the study, scientists with the Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., analyzed samples from fourteen carbon-rich meteorites with minerals that indicated they had experienced high temperatures - in some cases, over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. They found amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, used by life to speed up chemical reactions and build structures like hair, skin, and nails.
Previously, the Goddard team and other researchers have found amino acids in carbon-rich meteorites with mineralogy that revealed the amino acids were created by a relatively low-temperature process involving water, aldehyde and ketone compounds, ammonia, and cyanide called "Strecker-cyanohydrin synthesis."
Also, I read not long ago how scientists have recently discovered complex organic compounds in interstellar dust clouds, and some that are thought to have been vital to the formation of life on early earth.
So as you can see the ingredients for life are common enough in the universe, and found in space. If I had to guess your problem with this I'd say that you were a theist who has already ruled out the possibility of life arising by any other means than a God snapping his fingers, but if this is the case you should probably take the bible more figuratively seeing as it is not a book that accurately depicts reality. The scientific method is a process that gets us the closest to the truth of our reality, and while a process like abiogenesis is largely based on speculation right now, the science being done only continues to strengthen the possibility of it having happened rather than ruling it out.
@Stefano Portoghesi Well, at least one person believes you. Really? So, we have anaerobic bacteria extant today, are they evolving? No. Sounds like the kind of thing that you could simply test in a lab and get results and duplicate over and over as proof. You know, apply science... rather than fabricate this, "nature was different..." hoax.
the "different conditions" argument is as bunk as the hoax it attempts to obfuscate. Under rapidly changing conditions species don't evolve, they go extinct, as demonstrated repeatedly in the fossil record. A record where one cannot find evolution, but instead finds stasis until extinction. Nice try though.
@Stefano Portoghesi ""God'' or "Intelligent Designer" has absolutely nothing to do with it " This is a tired line, just so you know. Nor little green men, aliens had absolutely nothing to do with it, nor "mother nature" or "the blind watch-maker." Not even little green watch-makers riding water-laden asteroids from Mars.
Like water, there are organic compounds all over, you've gone from the necessary and predictable presence of "building blocks" in the universe to "life" on a bridge of rank conjecture, speculation and make believe with pithy, pseudo-religious statements like, "it must have happened, after all, here we are." Sounds like something else that can be, and has been, tested in a controlled setting. What were the results?
Sounds almost plausible, hell, sounds like something you can both observe and demonstrate, but you can't. Because evolution by natural selection ISN'T "demonstrable" it's entirely and conveniently unverifiable. But worse, attempts at verification and the natural record itself refute gradual evolution. And they refute it more strongly over time.
Buy hey, if you believe it, more power to you.
This video is amazing
Suddenly I feel the need to accelerate entropy
Amazing content Arvin! Can you tell me what is the background score you used? It's very soothing..
Sure, we used several tracks on this video: "Spring to life" by Gary Arnold, "Cause and effect" by Brian Curtin, "Lost in time" by Brian Curtin, and "Before we change our mind" by Russell Bell.
@@ArvinAsh Thanks for the sources. Really appreciate it :)
Still by no science or craft that we now possess may we bring life forth from it's absence.
Still a profound mystery.
Exactly!
really makes you think
Life is chemicals. Any chemical bond can form under the right pressure and temperature. Therefore, life is inevitable, given that the correct range of pressure and temperature exist for all of the necessary components.
I don't believe, that it is a fact, that life emerges under the right circumstances therefore it was inevitable. we can't even build a seed of a plant. even if we have the blueprint of all the molecules arranged in the right place. it would not become alive, and grow and replicate. we don't know what is happening when something becomes alive. it is a mystery.
One of all-time greatest scientists, Louis Pasteur, proved 150 years ago that life only comes from life. Nobody has been able to prove the contrary until today. His discoveries opened the door to a medical revolution from which mankind benefits until today.
This nice video presents an unproven theory.
"Pick up a biology textbook and have a closer look. When reading about the Theory of Evolution in plants and animals you will find statements offered as evidence that are pregnant with words and phrases like: perhaps, probably, we imagine, we think that, may have occurred, we might expect, we do not know, we can make intelligent guesses about, the evidence seems to suggest, although it is not entirely clear we are confident that, although direct evidence is lacking we believe that, our examination suggests a plausible way that, it seems to represent, perhaps, probably evolved from, we suspect that, its curious anatomy suggests it may be a descendant of, we do not know but it has been suggested that, further ongoing research should prove that……. and on and on it proceeds to fill in the gaps and make the whole story flow smoothly. This has nothing to do with facts, but is pure wishful thinking." Axel Kramer
Romans 1:19-20: Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
@@itapinfomaps6233 The above quote from Romans 1 has been presented innumerable times on debate forums. But it can never be followed up. If I ask for a single example of evidence for the biblical god that is so logically compelling that all objective, rational people are without excuse for not believing, none can be provided.
Instead, the believer gives examples that are subjective, invalid, or both subjective and invalid, "God changed my life", "God found my car keys", “Go look in the mirror!”, “Just look around you!”, or “One just need look at a sunset!”.
All they can do is regurgitate vague, meaningless, trite cliches, or subjective personal experiences - both are things that people of any religion can do.
They cannot be specific. They cannot clearly state exactly what it is that is allegedly so logically compelling that all objective, rational people are forced to conclude that their god actually exists.
In order words, the biblical claim is unsupportable and false. It’s a cute little saying, but unsupportable, worthless, and wrong.
Really thorough but concise. Great stuff.
It’s horribly stupid
You forgot the 4th necess
ary component, CARBOHYDRATES
This was a very good video, thank you.
It's nice to see a video on this topic that doesn't involve Professor Dave or James Tour having an online spat.
Haha. I have talked to Dave about that video, and admire his no-holds-barred approach, but yeah, it can get ugly!
@@ArvinAsh The spat continues it seems. It's entertaining, if nothing else.
I could never understand the creationist argument. "Life could not possibly have come out of nowhere, it needs a creator". Then how did the creator come about? It's the exact same logical problem! The only difference being that we know much more about the origins of life than the origins of any creator.
One of the great scientists of all history, Louis Pasteur, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, showed through experiments that seem simple today, that life only comes from life. Until then people believed that abiogenesis happens all the time, although it was called spontaneous generation, or among common people “shit makes flies”. Pasteur’s discovery had and still has huge practical implications, particularly in health care. Darwin’s theory and its modern updates and the necessary theory of abiogenesis have had mainly philosophical implications, some of them ugly ones, like eugenics which was very acceptable among scientists until Adolf Hitler put it in practice in large scale.
To affirm that what according to all experience and experiments cannot happen today, somehow magically took place in a distant past is not science, it is theorizing. Miller’s and Urey’s experiment did not produce life. Besides those experiments are not representative for a random surge of life, since they were prepared and carried out by intelligent persons. In the following almost 70 years since then no evidence of abiogenesis has been produced or observed.
The theory of abiogenesis does not provide evidence against intelligence as source of life. It only proves that there are people who do not want to believe in such intelligent origin of life.
Over ever decreasing ignorance!! Loved that! It so explained why our kind have been set back for so long.
Yes, that, and the Catholic Church, according to Carl Sagan in Cosmos held us back for nearly 1,000 years, with their love of whole numbers and Pythagorean geometry, not to mention torture, corruption, intolerance, and racism.
Fascinating post. I learned a great deal of new information because it was explained in clear, understandable language. I believe that electricity played and still plays a critical role in the creation and existence of life. I was surprised that it received no mention.
It might have been over simplified during the protein part 7:56
@@badbilly7499 Lets say there is a BRICK WALL 10ft high, do you think its possible that over time pieces of bricks would find one another and form this 10ft wall would a billion years make a difference? How about i multiply that complexity by a million or much more? How much more complicated is a lifeform that could duplicate itself.
No skeptic would buy this theory
@@astrawboiii1853 Well it's like infinite monkey theorum where if a monkey has a typewriter in front of it and starts pounding at all the keys randomly for an infinitely amount of time. Eventualy the monkey will produce the complete the entire works of William Shakesphere. Which is basically is what Arvin Ash is implying about how life could have come from non-life.
Intelligent design. Our first cell had a creator.
@@shadf7902we can't prove that. But we also can't prove you are wrong.
What we can prove is that we can explain our World around us without any need for an external créator
This is so unbelievable!