747s don't reproduce with variation, gaining complexity through natural selection. Molecules like amino acids, membranes and nucleobases can self-assemble. Nucleobases can stack and combine with phosphate chains to form nucleotides, which can stack into ling chains of nucleic acids like RNA. RNA can fold into ribosomes, which can copy the RNA as well as translate certain sequences into proteins, utilizing available amino acids. No magic is needed, just millions of replicating components polymerizing and growing increasingly complex with each replication.
Thank you sir. For me, it's a different angle on how it may have happened. Your explanation for your approach is easy to understand. I am looking forward to your presentation. Cheers
Francis Santos The man is a joke and this video is worse than a joke. Have you had any chemistry classes? Evolutionists are the most naïve and gullible people ever encountered and I am not even a creationist.
@@TheMickeymental hello Brad. Yes, I have taken chemistry classes. If you think the video is a joke, that is your opinion. Evolution is a theory. It helps me understand how things may have happened. If that makes me naive and gullible, I plead guilty. If you have proof against the theory of evolution without being a creationist more power to you. You can present your thesis for a masters or doctoral degree before a university panel, Ted talk, etc and I will read the reviews and arguments for and against your talking points. Meanwhile I am very comfortable that in time someone will have something to make the theory of evolution closer to a fact. I look forward to the progress of the guy in the video.
@@TheMickeymental hello Brad. When you declare something a lie, you must know the truth, a fact that can be proven again and again as in science truth. Otherwise your "lie" is just an opinion. It will take faith to believe your truths and things you brand as lies. Cheers
@@francissantos7448 Okay, Evolution is a lie yet you believe this lie. It takes faith to believe your lie. Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is not possible. Would you please characterize the chemical processes which created the first self-replicating cell? Use any source you desire to investigate, nothing is off limits. The following is a list of possible arguments you will use and the fallacious reasoning employed. 1. The claim is made that I am religious or a creationist and proceed to ramble on about flaws in the Bible. I am not a creationist and hypothetically if I were Gandhi and Billy Graham conjoined and resurrected this would not have any bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of my science. Darwin was a theologian and yet his opinions are supported and any theistic and evolutionist’s opinion is accepted. This determines religion is not the basis for rejection, but contrary opinion is the justification used to disallow an argument. It is also hypocrisy. 2. Abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. That is stating evolution does not need life to begin speciation. That is a post hoc fallacy and impossible. 3. The evolutionist goes silent or claims some nonsense evolution is fact. That is cowardice or ipse dixit. 4. The evolutionist ignores the question and proceeds to opine about the fossil record or other anecdotal evidences unrelated to abiogenesis. That is deflecting. 5. The evolutionist will make some disjointed asinine statement and claim I am running away. I never run away but when the evolutionist continues to act stupidly I will end the conversation and then the evolutionist will repeat the process. 6. The evolutionist will claim there is not any concept as an evolutionist. Of course they are mimicking a different evolutionist. They make this claim and fail to reference a lexicon or dictionary. 7. They ignore the question and use an insult and mute. 8. They will find and error in grammar, speling, or punctuation no matter how small and justify this as an excuse to void and argument? 9. The claim is made that their expertise is not in chemistry. This is a common ploy used among autodidacts. This is also hypocrisy because they will opine at length regarding biology without any reference to their credentials or make claims which cannot be proven. 10. The evolutionist at some point in the conversation will lose their temper and state become absurd.
I’d very much liked to have Marcel later reveal to everyone that his sister’s cat is actually alive some random years ago, but no longer. Maybe flashing a slide with a pet tombstone on it.
Jeremy England is looking into a related idea-which I'll over-simplify- that if you have a lot of molecules in a bath, repeated jostling by various energy sources increases the number of possibilities for new combinations and shapes to form. These can have new properties and behaviors until some molecules begin attaching to more molecules and begin assembling their own new forms. Some of these tend to repeat more easily and newer more complex forms begin evolving.
How? Why are these molecules combining to form ever more complex things. The reality of this is they would break down. When your idea requires you to ignore the laws of thermodynamics and every experiment you do it’s not a good idea.
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Cheap as an e book.
Interesting, would've liked some more technical detail though. I think the closing message to "appreciate life because it's rare" was a bit trite as well.
Agreed. I really don't want to be told that I should appreciate life because he thinks it's rare. It probably isn't rare. Life is probably inevitable. And it's probably inevitable that we'll exist at some point. This could be one experience of many for all we know.
If you know ANYTHING about biology, you can skip all the way up to 9:07. The beginning will be a waste of your time. And if you know ANYTHING about the origin of life, the entire video will be a waste.
Dear DNAunion, I am sorry to hear that my talk was not informative for you. The point of my talk was to inform the general audience (people with no prior knowledge about the subject) about the origin of life problem and explain how I try to contribute to it with my research. I understand that it might not include new insights for people who already know a lot about biology or the origin of life, but I think TEDx is not the stage for experts to share new ideas with each other. In my opinion TEDx-talks should be accessible and understandable for everybody.
@@MeanMarcello I totally agree with you Marcel, I do know a few things about the origin of life (my undergraduate thesis was about it) and I think your talk was nice and well crafted for the general public. Congrats and lots of luck with your PhD!
@@surrealcereal948 "I'm not a real professor. It's just a name. It's just a little persona, that's all" -ProfessorDave "I Hate chemistry. It's too hard for me. I failed to get my masters two times.." -ProfessorDave ProfessorDave is under qualified. James Tour is a REAL scientist. He has a PHD in synthetic chemistry with over 50 scientific achievements. There's literally no comparison; Dave is a UA-camR LOL
The most fundamental question for mankind is still the same that it always was: What's for lunch? If you can't answer that question daily with certainty, then you will soon not be asking any more questions at all. ;-)
This presentation did nothing to persuade me to believe in abiogenesis. He spent half the time rambling about how to define life. He then showed how RNA could polymerize in a controlled laboratory setting. He concluded by saying that life was VERY improbable...
@Headley Springer You can look at it like that. The Universe is an incredibly large and old place, therefore rare things happen all the time. If there is a pretty much infinite amount of planets and (as far as we know) 14 billion years of time, it eventually must happen. And wherever it did happen, that is us on planet earth. Maybe there is alot of other life forms that formed differently on other planets Therefore, to say that the probability is incredibly low that life on earth emerged, is not really a valid point. The chance of it happening is 100%, because otherwise, we couldn't ask the question. Everything that is theoretically possible will happen at one point in a universe or maybe even multiverse that is that old.
I learned that I still don't see , at all , how nonlife became life . If anyone thinks that they now understand , please let me know . ( without entering Babble On of course )
Check out the arvin ash video on abiogenesis. He goes into much more detail about how the building blocks of a living cell; amino acids, lipids, and proteins can be created through chemistry using the material and natural phenomena present on primordial earth. He also provides decent arguements for why these separate, "building blocks" may have came together and were able to benefit from the union. Arvin uses a more scientific format and vocab with analogies that are better explained and much more relevant to the subject. Of course a definite answer to abiogenesis being the origin of life is yet to be reached, his video provides evidence why the possibility of this taking place, thought improbable, is far from naught given the right conditions, chemicals, material, and geothermal/meteorological events. I hope you find it interesting and much more informative than this presentation. :)
Look up James Tour a leading synthetic chemists. He explains that it's quite impossible for life to form on its own. Also why I don't understand why people believe aliens exist when it's mathematically not possible. Something is wrong with the mainstream science community and why they're spreading that message?
life is not natural, the life force is a supernatural energy, PERIOD.SURE YOU CAN BRING CHEMICALS TOGETHER, TO FORM AMINO ACIDS, LIPIDS, PROTEINS, BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE THEM FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS, INFORMATION ,INSTRUCTIONS,ONLY COMES FROM INTELLIGENCE.PERIOD.
it can't, it's not remotely possible. study it, you will agree. start with how a protein is formed and ask yourself if that could just happen . look into what would be required in the simplest cell. remember, when francis crick realized the complexity he went straight to panspermia because he KNEW [like hoyle] the impossibility of spontaneous life.
Who cares what tours thinks? He is of no importance anymore. IF he had evidence to defend his own claims he would have written a scientific paper with evidence but he didn't. He made youtube video which anyone can do and they do. He's nothing more than a sad joke nowadays.
@@sparky5584 nice ad hominem attack. Check out his series on abiogenesis. Please tell us which paper he sites to show dawinist are the joke is incorrect. God’s best on your quest
@@boyofGod81 Why don't you tell me one claim he made and I will let you know if it needs to be refuted and if it does I will. So what exactly is his claim and what evidence does he use to back his claim. I will wait right here. When we finish with the first claim we will move on to a second claim also of your choice. Your turn.
@@sparky5584 Come on pull your head out of the sand or whatever it is. Tours has done 13 vids. Just do video 13 which is his conclusion vid. I you afraid you might hear some thing that goes against your worldview? God’s best
Did life originate on Earth only once? Could there have been more than one LUCA? More than one tree of life? If life could have originated more than once, must it necessarily have been DNA/RNA based? Could there have been another means of heredity and evolution? Why aren't there new trees of life "originating" now?
Lucky in cards is why you can think life started even once. Why heck if you have trillions of people playing cards it’s possible for somebody To repeatedly get a royal flush and hearts, right?
To take your lego as an example, evolution does not require that lego pieces be randomly assembled into a full size replica of the Eiffel Tower, it only requires that one of more final pieces be added to an almost nearly complete Eiffel Tower. The fact that it was for all intents and purposes indistiguishable from a complete Eiffel Tower is what the theory of evolution would predict. In fact, if I had trillions of trillions of scrapyards full of Boeing parts (and only Boeing parts), that are positively attracted to each other, which will only asssemble in a strict order (ie wings only attach to fuselages, sick bags to backs of chairs etc) under action of a continuous whirlwind, blowing for billions of years, as is the case for chemicals acting in accordance with the laws of physics in spacetime, then why would I be surprised to find myself tripping over nothing but complete Boeings? Especially when the Boeings are endowed with the abilty and urge to make multiple copies of themselves from all the Boeing parts that are freely available all around themselves? Oh and the egg came first, obviously.
Don't let yourself get intimidated by the indeed big amounts of scrap in the ancient scrapyards and seemingly infinit amount of time your wind is blowing. If you actually DO the math you will see that these trillions and trillions of boeing parts and billions of years are STILL not even CLOSE enough to explain how RNA can turn into a primitive procaryotic cell WITHOUT requiring any external intelligent agent. It's a bit like how many people mistakingly think about global warming "The earth is SO big, WE couldn't have any effect on it".
@@VandamPlastics So is your claim "we don't know exactly how it happened, therefore God"? We have a pretty general idea on how the first protocol formed. Just not an exact idea. All of which is based on evidence.
Very simple explanation to the origin of life . Its amazing how life emerged from simple chemical reaction to eventually evolving . Nature is amazing.....
@@Programm4r ok?? What do you mean, we know life comes from simple molecules What we don't know is which part of earth Coastline, bottom of the oceans, pools of water etc etc
@@lycaonpictus4433 Life is composed of the same molecules found in dirt, yes; however, that does not prove that cells come together by chance and come alive. That's just not how it works.
I think when you look at a cell you have to concede it looks designed and not the result of random chance. It’s inexplicably complex and full of causality dilemmas. You need DNA to make proteins but you need proteins to make DNA, you need proteins to make a functional cell membrane but you can’t build them without a functional membrane, you need ATP to power a ribosome but you can’t make ATP to do it without the working ribosome. You can’t build a long replicating molecule without error correction enzymes but you need a long molecule to encode the enzymes and on and on. There is a case to say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it might just be a duck.
This^^^^ Evolutionists sometimes claim that abiogenesis is not of the theory but it most certainly is. The information coding plus transcription and translation of DNA is mind boggling. Nature does not select chemicals. There is not a single example of physicochemical processes composing or writing information. The idea that the cell came about naturally is like expecting ocean waves to write a sonnet in sand preserving each necessary word through tide and time until the sonnet is complete. Good post by you!
@@JACKnJESUS No it is not different issues. Evolution is based on a materialist philosophy. Abiogenesis is a formidable hurdle for materialism. Darwin’s tree of life does not exist except in the imagination. The Cambrian rocks show an abrupt appearance of nearly every phylum followed by stasis or extinction. I could suggest a library of books to read but the most comprehensive is Theistic Evolution A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique.
@@seaknightvirchow8131 Your word salad notwithstanding, abiogenesis is about the origin of life...and that's all it is. Evolution is how life adapts. The two are totally separate issues. Besides...each issue has only one source for truth...science. Anything else is simply...made up.
@@JACKnJESUS You guys always come back with cliches. There is almost nothing that is true with regard to the fairy tale of neo Darwinism. The tree of life, descent with modification, mutations leading to change in body plan, and natural selection explaining a cell became mollusks and Mozart. I don’t know who you think you are kidding by slapping ‘science’ on methodological naturalism. The textbooks are still telling the same fibs despite observational science.
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew. Read 1 John 4. Read Genesis. God created all things!
Your RNA example is far to simplistic to represent what is really going on! There are more dimensions to the RNA structure and process that make it impossible to evolve on it's own! The fact that the information for the RNA construction is in the DNA, but the information for the construction of the DNA amino acids is in the RNA! You have source of information problem to work out first! This is not the only problem with evolution, but just one out of hundreds of other impossible occurrences that must take place! Too many to discuss here! Check out Kent Hovind's UA-cam channel for the real scientific facts of life's origin!
747s don't reproduce with variation, gaining complexity through natural selection.
Molecules like amino acids, membranes and nucleobases can self-assemble. Nucleobases can stack and combine with phosphate chains to form nucleotides, which can stack into ling chains of nucleic acids like RNA. RNA can fold into ribosomes, which can copy the RNA as well as translate certain sequences into proteins, utilizing available amino acids.
No magic is needed, just millions of replicating components polymerizing and growing increasingly complex with each replication.
Liked it very much
Simply explained
This guy seems so charitable and honest. It's very refreshing to see that in a scientist
Too bad for you he is lying.
@Brad Davies I’m not sure why it’s too bad for me and you made an accusation without backing it up. So your comment means nothing
@@PeJoVi If you cannot quote properly, I can see how you could come to your conclustion.
@Brad Davies I don’t think you can see how I came to my conclustion
Most scientists are like this man.
Thank you sir. For me, it's a different angle on how it may have happened. Your explanation for your approach is easy to understand. I am looking forward to your presentation. Cheers
Francis Santos The man is a joke and this video is worse than a joke. Have you had any chemistry classes? Evolutionists are the most naïve and gullible people ever encountered and I am not even a creationist.
@@TheMickeymental hello Brad. Yes, I have taken chemistry classes. If you think the video is a joke, that is your opinion. Evolution is a theory. It helps me understand how things may have happened. If that makes me naive and gullible, I plead guilty. If you have proof against the theory of evolution without being a creationist more power to you. You can present your thesis for a masters or doctoral degree before a university panel, Ted talk, etc and I will read the reviews and arguments for and against your talking points. Meanwhile I am very comfortable that in time someone will have something to make the theory of evolution closer to a fact. I look forward to the progress of the guy in the video.
@@francissantos7448 Believe any lie you desire such as evolution is a theory and you have taken chemistry classes
@@TheMickeymental hello Brad. When you declare something a lie, you must know the truth, a fact that can be proven again and again as in science truth. Otherwise your "lie" is just an opinion. It will take faith to believe your truths and things you brand as lies. Cheers
@@francissantos7448 Okay,
Evolution is a lie yet you believe this lie. It takes faith to believe your lie.
Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is not possible.
Would you please characterize the chemical processes which created the first self-replicating cell?
Use any source you desire to investigate, nothing is off limits. The following is a list of possible arguments you will use and the fallacious reasoning employed.
1. The claim is made that I am religious or a creationist and proceed to ramble on about flaws in the Bible. I am not a creationist and hypothetically if I were Gandhi and Billy Graham conjoined and resurrected this would not have any bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of my science. Darwin was a theologian and yet his opinions are supported and any theistic and evolutionist’s opinion is accepted. This determines religion is not the basis for rejection, but contrary opinion is the justification used to disallow an argument. It is also hypocrisy.
2. Abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. That is stating evolution does not need life to begin speciation. That is a post hoc fallacy and impossible.
3. The evolutionist goes silent or claims some nonsense evolution is fact. That is cowardice or ipse dixit.
4. The evolutionist ignores the question and proceeds to opine about the fossil record or other anecdotal evidences unrelated to abiogenesis. That is deflecting.
5. The evolutionist will make some disjointed asinine statement and claim I am running away. I never run away but when the evolutionist continues to act stupidly I will end the conversation and then the evolutionist will repeat the process.
6. The evolutionist will claim there is not any concept as an evolutionist. Of course they are mimicking a different evolutionist. They make this claim and fail to reference a lexicon or dictionary.
7. They ignore the question and use an insult and mute.
8. They will find and error in grammar, speling, or punctuation no matter how small and justify this as an excuse to void and argument?
9. The claim is made that their expertise is not in chemistry. This is a common ploy used among autodidacts. This is also hypocrisy because they will opine at length regarding biology without any reference to their credentials or make claims which cannot be proven.
10. The evolutionist at some point in the conversation will lose their temper and state become absurd.
Seems like you confirm what is already known...life doesn't come from a junkyard.
I’d very much liked to have Marcel later reveal to everyone that his sister’s cat is actually alive some random years ago, but no longer. Maybe flashing a slide with a pet tombstone on it.
That would have been so ducking funny. Like he’s trying to prove to his sister that he didn’t kill that cat
Nice
Jeremy England is looking into a related idea-which I'll over-simplify- that if you have a lot of molecules in a bath, repeated jostling by various energy sources increases the number of possibilities for new combinations and shapes to form. These can have new properties and behaviors until some molecules begin attaching to more molecules and begin assembling their own new forms. Some of these tend to repeat more easily and newer more complex forms begin evolving.
How? Why are these molecules combining to form ever more complex things. The reality of this is they would break down. When your idea requires you to ignore the laws of thermodynamics and every experiment you do it’s not a good idea.
Very nice introduction to the origin of Life. I really liked the comparison with a scrapyard.
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Cheap as an e book.
Interesting, would've liked some more technical detail though. I think the closing message to "appreciate life because it's rare" was a bit trite as well.
Agreed. I really don't want to be told that I should appreciate life because he thinks it's rare. It probably isn't rare. Life is probably inevitable. And it's probably inevitable that we'll exist at some point. This could be one experience of many for all we know.
If you know ANYTHING about biology, you can skip all the way up to 9:07. The beginning will be a waste of your time. And if you know ANYTHING about the origin of life, the entire video will be a waste.
Dear DNAunion,
I am sorry to hear that my talk was not informative for you.
The point of my talk was to inform the general audience (people with no prior knowledge about the subject) about the origin of life problem and explain how I try to contribute to it with my research. I understand that it might not include new insights for people who already know a lot about biology or the origin of life, but I think TEDx is not the stage for experts to share new ideas with each other. In my opinion TEDx-talks should be accessible and understandable for everybody.
@@MeanMarcello I totally agree with you Marcel, I do know a few things about the origin of life (my undergraduate thesis was about it) and I think your talk was nice and well crafted for the general public. Congrats and lots of luck with your PhD!
As if you are so knowledgeable. Isn't it?
@@MeanMarcello I agree with you. Thanks for the info and narrowing the subject to a very specific, understandable level. Cheers.
The key statement in this presentation was "I don't know". Listen to James Tour.
James Tour would blow this guy away.
The fact that "we are all sitting here" proves nothing about the origin of life.
Watch James Tour debunking on ProfessorDaveExplains. An actual academic based youtube channel.
@@surrealcereal948 Have you watched James Tour response series to that video?
From an atheist perspective, abiogensis must have occurred because we exist. Great observation. Bad conclusion.
@@surrealcereal948 "I'm not a real professor. It's just a name. It's just a little persona, that's all" -ProfessorDave
"I Hate chemistry. It's too hard for me. I failed to get my masters two times.." -ProfessorDave
ProfessorDave is under qualified. James Tour is a REAL scientist. He has a PHD in synthetic chemistry with over 50 scientific achievements. There's literally no comparison; Dave is a UA-camR LOL
The most fundamental question for mankind is still the same that it always was: What's for lunch? If you can't answer that question daily with certainty, then you will soon not be asking any more questions at all. ;-)
This presentation did nothing to persuade me to believe in abiogenesis. He spent half the time rambling about how to define life. He then showed how RNA could polymerize in a controlled laboratory setting. He concluded by saying that life was VERY improbable...
Life is very improbable yet we are here
@Headley Springer You can look at it like that. The Universe is an incredibly large and old place, therefore rare things happen all the time. If there is a pretty much infinite amount of planets and (as far as we know) 14 billion years of time, it eventually must happen. And wherever it did happen, that is us on planet earth. Maybe there is alot of other life forms that formed differently on other planets Therefore, to say that the probability is incredibly low that life on earth emerged, is not really a valid point. The chance of it happening is 100%, because otherwise, we couldn't ask the question. Everything that is theoretically possible will happen at one point in a universe or maybe even multiverse that is that old.
I learned that I still don't see , at all , how nonlife became life . If anyone thinks that they now understand , please let me know . ( without entering Babble On of course )
Check out the arvin ash video on abiogenesis. He goes into much more detail about how the building blocks of a living cell; amino acids, lipids, and proteins can be created through chemistry using the material and natural phenomena present on primordial earth. He also provides decent arguements for why these separate, "building blocks" may have came together and were able to benefit from the union. Arvin uses a more scientific format and vocab with analogies that are better explained and much more relevant to the subject. Of course a definite answer to abiogenesis being the origin of life is yet to be reached, his video provides evidence why the possibility of this taking place, thought improbable, is far from naught given the right conditions, chemicals, material, and geothermal/meteorological events. I hope you find it interesting and much more informative than this presentation. :)
Look up James Tour a leading synthetic chemists. He explains that it's quite impossible for life to form on its own. Also why I don't understand why people believe aliens exist when it's mathematically not possible. Something is wrong with the mainstream science community and why they're spreading that message?
life is not natural, the life force is a supernatural energy, PERIOD.SURE YOU CAN BRING CHEMICALS TOGETHER, TO FORM AMINO ACIDS, LIPIDS, PROTEINS, BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE THEM FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS, INFORMATION ,INSTRUCTIONS,ONLY COMES FROM INTELLIGENCE.PERIOD.
@@mangiakoo4997
Look up James Tour debunking by ProfessorDaveExplains. He exposes that lunatic James Tour.
it can't, it's not remotely possible.
study it, you will agree.
start with how a protein is formed and ask yourself if that could just happen . look into what would be required in the simplest cell.
remember, when francis crick realized the complexity he went straight to panspermia because he KNEW [like hoyle] the impossibility of spontaneous life.
Curious to know what Dr. James Tour thinks of this presentation.
Check out his last video serious on AbioGenesis. There will be nothing keeping the RNA that was correctly folding from corrupting.
Who cares what tours thinks? He is of no importance anymore. IF he had evidence to defend his own claims he would have written a scientific paper with evidence but he didn't. He made youtube video which anyone can do and they do. He's nothing more than a sad joke nowadays.
@@sparky5584 nice ad hominem attack.
Check out his series on abiogenesis. Please tell us which paper he sites to show dawinist are the joke is incorrect.
God’s best on your quest
@@boyofGod81 Why don't you tell me one claim he made and I will let you know if it needs to be refuted and if it does I will. So what exactly is his claim and what evidence does he use to back his claim. I will wait right here. When we finish with the first claim we will move on to a second claim also of your choice. Your turn.
@@sparky5584 Come on pull your head out of the sand or whatever it is. Tours has done 13 vids. Just do video 13 which is his conclusion vid. I you afraid you might hear some thing that goes against your worldview? God’s best
TOTAL BS WITH NO SOLID PROOF, JUST CONJECTURE.
Wrong subject pal. "Proof" is only used in mathematics and logic. Not science.
He didn't claim to have proof. It is a hypothesis that can be tested and modified with data rather than a supernatural belief with nothing to test.
Leuke presentatie Marcel Eleveld. erg leerzaam.
Did life originate on Earth only once?
Could there have been more than one LUCA? More than one tree of life?
If life could have originated more than once, must it necessarily have been DNA/RNA based? Could there have been another means of heredity and evolution? Why aren't there new trees of life "originating" now?
Lucky in cards is why you can think life started even once. Why heck if you have trillions of people playing cards it’s possible for somebody To repeatedly get a royal flush and hearts, right?
To take your lego as an example, evolution does not require that lego pieces be randomly assembled into a full size replica of the Eiffel Tower, it only requires that one of more final pieces be added to an almost nearly complete Eiffel Tower. The fact that it was for all intents and purposes indistiguishable from a complete Eiffel Tower is what the theory of evolution would predict.
In fact, if I had trillions of trillions of scrapyards full of Boeing parts (and only Boeing parts), that are positively attracted to each other, which will only asssemble in a strict order (ie wings only attach to fuselages, sick bags to backs of chairs etc) under action of a continuous whirlwind, blowing for billions of years, as is the case for chemicals acting in accordance with the laws of physics in spacetime, then why would I be surprised to find myself tripping over nothing but complete Boeings? Especially when the Boeings are endowed with the abilty and urge to make multiple copies of themselves from all the Boeing parts that are freely available all around themselves?
Oh and the egg came first, obviously.
Don't let yourself get intimidated by the indeed big amounts of scrap in the ancient scrapyards and seemingly infinit amount of time your wind is blowing. If you actually DO the math you will see that these trillions and trillions of boeing parts and billions of years are STILL not even CLOSE enough to explain how RNA can turn into a primitive procaryotic cell WITHOUT requiring any external intelligent agent.
It's a bit like how many people mistakingly think about global warming "The earth is SO big, WE couldn't have any effect on it".
Biological organisms aren't lego blocks nor eiffel towers. No man made things can be compared to biological organisms.
@@VandamPlastics
So is your claim "we don't know exactly how it happened, therefore God"?
We have a pretty general idea on how the first protocol formed. Just not an exact idea. All of which is based on evidence.
@@surrealcereal948 So why do they?
@@TheRealBoroNut
Why do they what?
So the man explained nothing about the origin of life. A waste of time.
Stand up, now sit down, now do that 10 times. Now that your energy is gone. You are not a life form.
Um energy isn't all gone, but ok let's say I'm dead after doing 10 sit ups.
"We know its possible because we are here today"
You sure about that bro?
yes
I am almost positive I am here because I have testable evidence.
Supernatural beliefs have no evidence.
Very simple explanation to the origin of life .
Its amazing how life emerged from simple chemical reaction to eventually evolving .
Nature is amazing.....
It is pretty amazing, isn't it?
Now if only you can prove that life emerged from a simple chemical reaction... It must be so simple that it doesn't happen. lol
@@Programm4r ok??
What do you mean, we know life comes from simple molecules
What we don't know is which part of earth
Coastline, bottom of the oceans, pools of water etc etc
@@lycaonpictus4433 Life is composed of the same molecules found in dirt, yes; however, that does not prove that cells come together by chance and come alive. That's just not how it works.
@@Programm4r so how does it work?
Edit: not trying to be rude genuinely curious
7.
I think when you look at a cell you have to concede it looks designed and not the result of random chance. It’s inexplicably complex and full of causality dilemmas. You need DNA to make proteins but you need proteins to make DNA, you need proteins to make a functional cell membrane but you can’t build them without a functional membrane, you need ATP to power a ribosome but you can’t make ATP to do it without the working ribosome. You can’t build a long replicating molecule without error correction enzymes but you need a long molecule to encode the enzymes and on and on. There is a case to say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it might just be a duck.
This^^^^ Evolutionists sometimes claim that abiogenesis is not of the theory but it most certainly is. The information coding plus transcription and translation of DNA is mind boggling. Nature does not select chemicals. There is not a single example of physicochemical processes composing or writing information. The idea that the cell came about naturally is like expecting ocean waves to write a sonnet in sand preserving each necessary word through tide and time until the sonnet is complete. Good post by you!
@@seaknightvirchow8131 Abiogenesis: Origin of life. Evolution: Success of life. Two different issue.
@@JACKnJESUS No it is not different issues. Evolution is based on a materialist philosophy. Abiogenesis is a formidable hurdle for materialism. Darwin’s tree of life does not exist except in the imagination. The Cambrian rocks show an abrupt appearance of nearly every phylum followed by stasis or extinction. I could suggest a library of books to read but the most comprehensive is Theistic Evolution A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique.
@@seaknightvirchow8131 Your word salad notwithstanding, abiogenesis is about the origin of life...and that's all it is. Evolution is how life adapts. The two are totally separate issues. Besides...each issue has only one source for truth...science. Anything else is simply...made up.
@@JACKnJESUS You guys always come back with cliches. There is almost nothing that is true with regard to the fairy tale of neo Darwinism. The tree of life, descent with modification, mutations leading to change in body plan, and natural selection explaining a cell became mollusks and Mozart. I don’t know who you think you are kidding by slapping ‘science’ on methodological naturalism. The textbooks are still telling the same fibs despite observational science.
Analogy at the start of the presentation sucked so hard
Found this when searching for "voice of cpu in movie War Games"
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew. Read 1 John 4. Read Genesis. God created all things!
Go away
Typical TED talk. 15 tedious minutes of unprofound verbiage by a college student that could have been reduced to 30 unprofound seconds.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
None scientific and also none comedian..
Your RNA example is far to simplistic to represent what is really going on! There are more dimensions to the RNA structure and process that make it impossible to evolve on it's own! The fact that the information for the RNA construction is in the DNA, but the information for the construction of the DNA amino acids is in the RNA! You have source of information problem to work out first! This is not the only problem with evolution, but just one out of hundreds of other impossible occurrences that must take place! Too many to discuss here! Check out Kent Hovind's UA-cam channel for the real scientific facts of life's origin!
Um, RNA and DNA are both made of amino acids bud.
Hovind is a total crackpot. Even if you don't want to believe in science, you can do better than him.
“The fact that we are sitting here is proof that it’s possible.” That is the most unscientific claim I’ve ever heard and they applauded that? 😂
LOOOOOOL
I suppose you haven't heard a lot of scientific claims then
Abiogenesis is Impossible.
Why? Because you say so?
Don't just claim it, demonstrate it. Actually explain, in detail, how abiogenesis is allegedly impossible.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Abiogenesis cannot even begin. It is that impossible.
@@sentientflower7891 Don't just claim it, demonstrate it. What part of that can't you understand?
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger it has already been demonstrated. Louis Pasteur did the definitive experiments.
The shaggy mailman modestly preserve because mandolin monthly squeak off a piquant collar. handy, accidental millennium