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.
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
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.
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.
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! 👏👏👏
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.
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
Excelent video. Brief and concise. Thanks.
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.
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.
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
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.
Love when he says "thats coming up right now" it brings the hype
This was absolutely brilliant
Awesome! Thank u so much!....so underrated!
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
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
So well explained! O finally understood something about the origin of life.
Sure makes sense to me in fact I had a deck of cards on my desk the other day that assembled itself into a house over night.
That makes no sense as we are talking about chemistry, in chemistry things self-assemble all the time, most objects don't have the chemical properties to do this type of stuff.
@@Evolcun A protein molecule couldn't self assemble in the amount of time represented as 1 year per atom in the entire universe. All this self assembly into things that are required for life is one giant steaming pile. My deck of cards self assembling has a greater chance,
@@timtoolman9940 No, it doesn't, learn chemistry, things self assemble all the time.
@@Evolcun A protein just randomly assembles no not happening then assembly is one thing function is another. All you it just built itself from nothing people are crazy.
@@timtoolman9940 Have you heard of chemical reactions? Obviously not, things can and do self-assemble into complex molecules in the right conditions, If you don't understand basic Chemistry please do not try to debunk abiogenesis as you will embarrass yourself, and you already are. Science doesn't care about ignorance, you are not qualified to call us crazy when you don't even understand chemistry, also, It's kind of ironic that a person who bases everything they believe on a 2000-year-old book with no evidence supporting it is calling us crazy, we have evidence and facts, you don't, we know what we're talking about, you don't, come back when you learn high school chemistry.
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
Amusing reading the butt hurt comments from halfwit creationists. Carry on as you all sound so knowledgeable!
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.
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 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.
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 🤷🏾♂️
What a beautiful video!
This video is quite interesting and enlightening.
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
You're doing such great work here! I'm certain your channel will continue to grow, & likely quickly. Thanks & keep it up! 😃
Amazing way of explaining complicated things
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.
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.
"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 video is amazing
This is so unbelievable!
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?
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
Watched the video. Still don't understand; what "dead thing" suddenly starts to protect itself (survivorship)?? what is the point?
no living thing will come out from non living
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN It has to otherwise you stumble against the 'Problem of the Creator of God'
I agree. What is not clear to me is why molecules would tend towards becoming something more? I mean I understand that atoms can form molecules because the laws of physics, but then why progresses into cellular organisms, then viruses, then multicellular? Like this had to be "coded" in advance by "someone" otherwise why would mere chemicals have this possible albeit arduous path ahead of them with them being nothing but mere matter. How can atoms and molecules have all the right parameters so that such things could occur? What exactly makes a set of lifeless molecules decide to replicate part or the entirety of its formed "organism"? There has to be some set of self-preserving instructions underneath this all... Try and code any piece of software, the variables you define will not just go ahead and suddenly interact with each other and become something more and more complex, you need rules, you need definitions, you need instructions, functions, etc., otherwise there is nothing.
@@hidd3n_ he explained it in the video, being more complex increases the rate at which it increases entropy, so the system will go towards that, easiest path and all
This was a very good video, thank you.
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 !
James Tour is the master on this topic.
Oh my have you seen his new series. Our you tuber called Professor Dave attacked Dr. tour as a religious nut. Dr. tour is on I believe the seven out of a 13 video series exposing the religion or faith believe of the naturalist
Tour is clueless about abiogenesis. He knows so little about it that he shows images of, and discusses, eukaryotic cells when talking about the origin of life. I laugh in his face.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger not amazingly, you are wrong.
A top-level chemist should know the chemistry needed.
You don’t like it, so that’s all on you.
Atheists hate Dr. Tour.
Atheists hate science.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger dr. tours also went through the impossibility of rni spontaneously organizing and replicating by chance. There’s an F for you in this class.
@@boyofGod81 hallo , what did evolution say about DNA 50 years ago ?
Thy thaught 80% 0f it was not active and lost. Today it is very much active and proves evolution to be completely false .
Why don't you rather go and tell you relatives , the baboons you insulted them as your inmates
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
WOW WOW WOW...how incredibly intensively insightfully interesting.
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! :)
Love the way you explain & break stuff down.
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.
Brilliant. Thanks so much
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. :-)
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!!!
Great explanation. Keep it up.
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 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.
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
@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)
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
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?
Love your channel. Very warm and kind voice and understandable.
Great video and explanation.
Thank you for your very informative presentation. Where did earl earth, and salty water already existed, and is this common in our known universe?
Excellent treatment of the subject. Love your open mind on the subject.
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.
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
Totally agree with your first premise, all magical thinking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Really thorough but concise. Great stuff.
It’s horribly stupid
Arvin, I absolutely love your videos. Please keep them coming.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thanks!
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...
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.
Very honest and informative summary. Seems a lot of content teaching theory of abiogenesis is simplistically asserting we have the basic mechanisms elucidated. They are reacting against the 'christian science' people and losing objectivity. Scientists should never hesitate to clearly state 'we really don't know', because, ultimately that's where the authority comes from.
One of the most debatable and hard topic to discuss is this. We are all curious about this
Love the videos Arvin!
Thanks for watching my friend!
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 :)
That was a really good video
What they will achieve first? Replicate life formation in lab? Or the final "theory of everything" ?
Beautiful presentation. Great explanation. Target group is not for complete neophytes. Really like your style. You actually reference the study and who did the study and not only use the bland expression 'Scientists'. Thank you. Happily subscribing. Keep up the good work!
Abiogenesis. That magic word proves life started by accident. Not even an attempt to explain how lipids formed somehow in water. Where did the carbon chain come from or the phosphate and how did they attach at the right place and show up in large numbers and identical. This is all just a story. I guess its the best they got.
Studies? Human directed experiments with incredible amounts of foreknowledge of how things work cannot create life. This is fodder for people who think they’re intelligent, but who aren’t.
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
hey you didnt tell anything about dna
Humans have already proved life was created by creating life themselves.
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 same people who say a creator must be responsible for inexplainable phenomena never seem bothered to explain where the creator came from.
I'm not religious. But part of religion is the belief that your creator always was.
So they usually don't come from something. They are a force above the universe-something like a dimension but also hates the guys in some cases...
@@Salmacream So something far more extraordinary, and containing far more complex specific information than, the entire current universe and all its ultracomplex life can just exist without a cause, but a comparatively infinitesimally small amount of information could not? Makes no sense whatsoever.
PS: Not that you were claiming it.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Because gods make the universe in their stories. Then it would be more energy not less lol.
Just messing with your idea.
You understand what He just said? Well the creator has always existed. I know you believe that with all the material things you understand die. WEll you do not understand an immortal non material existing being. A spiritual realm no physical person can live there, yet.
Atheists ignore basics of religions because they no nothing about it if god exist outside of space and time and is eternal how could he have been created? I’m taking that over we came from nothingness lmaooooo
If you look at the effects of sound waves on water or sand, you can see how they assemble shapes. This is just a hunch but perhaps this is key in the arrangement of certain molecules.
Message to the editor. The background music is way too loud. Anyway, this guy is so engaging that he does not need background music. Quite franky it wrecks an otherwise great video.
This has to be the best video on UA-cam. It seems to me now that life is some form of advanced chemistry.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod You were doing so well until that last paragraph. _"the further back in time you go, the less accurate it is"_ Yet Jesus Himself quoted scripture from that period and quoted it with authority and as an authoritative source of the truth of God's word. After all it prophesied so much about Jesus. _"The New Testament therefore, being most recent, is most accurate."_ So therefore it is still, to some extent, inaccurate? Consider how separate eyewitness testimonies written in many cases over 60 years after the event and from separate sources still line up perfectly and are consistent with that of acceptable minor variance of similar eyewitness testimony today that is accepted of corroborating evidence of an event.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod We seem to share similar opinions about the beginning of the universe, the origin of life and the emergence of mankind. We even reference similar sources. IMO though it is best to argue on the science alone and point towards the evidence in support of intelligent design over naturalism. Also, just a tip (as I have fallen for this myself), take the timestamps out of your video urls. The trailing end of a number of your source references include "&t=1387s, &t=4928s, &t=1579s, &t=162s, &t=144s etc. Which is the timestamp in seconds of how far into the video you were before copying the video link. When people cut & paste they end up half way through or at the end of the video. 😉👍
@AllSeeingEye ofGod Also, as you seem to be arguing for the Judaeo-Christian God I'm a little surprised that link your profile name and picture with a symbol that is also linked to Hinduism, Buddhism, Caodaism and atheistic secret societies like the Illuminati. It's confusing. I realise though that my own profile is not a perfect example either but the genesis of my involvement on UA-cam was more reflective of that background.
@@Locutus.Borg. The name of the TRUE God is the golden delta of Enoc.
We Are Resurrected.
Stated Clearly did it better imo
ua-cam.com/play/PLInNVsmlBUlREtDyJ2VpCLWK50Ua-cegZ.html
but this video is still great.
Wonderful.. Excellent communicator 👌👍
This was the best explanation of biogenesis I've seen so far on UA-cam. Others just glance over the details. I am going to watch it again, because "the devil is in the details", they say, and it's those little details that are SO interesting and intriguing and make me want to learn more. THANKS!
its abiogenesis, not biogenesis
one letter makes big difference here
This is not about biogenesis. It is about abiogenesis.
This video glossed over a truck load of details. It doesn’t even come close to approaching anything explaining the formation of the first living cell
Spoiler alert. There are NO details on this video. There is no evidence provided in this video. It doesn’t refute what it claims to refute. And it doesn’t explain anything. It just says, We think this and that could’ve happened completely randomly and by chance. Period.”
@@ErroneousMonk1 So you didn't like the evidence he presented. Why not pick one and let's discuss it?
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.
Perhaps there are new forms of life coming into existence even as Arvin was talking. Excellent video and as always a very listenable voice.
That is a real possibility. The natural process is so slow, that we would likely not be able to detect it. Thanks for your support my friend.
It's very likely that new types of proto-life are still created today, but they can't compete with it's more evolved and specially evolved cousins in the fight for resources. They have no evolutionary advantage and thus probably go extinct almost immediately.
Perhaps somewhere, in a far far away galaxy, many billions of light years away :-) . Alternatively, that one chance in a trillion for life to emerge in the universe, has happened.
I was thinking exactly the same thing!
@@Pspersonal-bp8by I was always thinking about why only one tree of life.. I understand that root of ours isn't one cell as horizontal gene transfer, and symbiosis (chloroplast, mitochondria) made it much more complex. And maybe that's the answer before "tree of life" started there were whole forest. Afterwards your suggestion made new ones an impossibility ..
Jim Tour said that it is impossible to create something without the proper environment. The availability of other materials must be present already to create. So, it must be created all together.
No, they just have to exist at the same time and place.
“Rocks don’t fall from the sky.” - French Academy of Sciences.
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” -Lord Kelvin
“There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable." - Albert Einstein
‘A Biogenesis is impossible.” - James Tour
Lipids are important but if I remember correctly they have a sort of dipole self assembly that is easier to work out, compared to protein folding.
GREAT 👍