Origin of life on Earth: How it happened | Nick Lane and Lex Fridman
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2022
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Nick Lane: Origin of L...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Backbone: playbackbone.com/lex to get perks with order
- Notion: notion.com
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off
- Blinkist: blinkist.com/lex to get 25% off premium
GUEST BIO:
Nick Lane is a biochemist at UCL and author of Transformer, The Vital Question, and many other amazing books on biology, chemistry, and life.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Věda a technologie
this channel has all the right questions mankind has wanted and needed the answers to for so long. keep up the great content! its more entertaining than television 💯
Fascinating the concept of these things. Its crazy you can be "alone" in the middle of a forest or desert somewhere but all around you in billions of numbers , you have processes and bacteria microscopic that cant be seen by your eye but are still performing. Makes me think what else is going on that we just dont sense and see
there is so much other shit going on that the mind cant possibly process. i think as humans evolve over time.. so will our consciousness. thats when things will start to really get questionable and i think it has already begun to happen
@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 I find it amazing how the concept of the human rational brain can pair intent and progress from said rational brain to the concept of evolution which is mindless and claimed to be pure adaptation. It's not a model of advancement to perfection it's a model of good enough to survive. Food for thought. The concept of evolution is nonsensical through and through from every field of science you examine it from.
Fascinating topic. Thank you!
Nick Lane is one of the most interesting people alive today. Fascinating stuff.
You have lived a sheltered life.
As many have said, still all questions around the origin. The incredible amount of precise reactions needed in the creation of proteins and assembling of a cell is far beyond chemistry still.
do you think simulation is a possibility?
@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 , how would that solve anything? Its like the old god of gaps. Where would the programmers of the simulation have come from?
@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 most religion's doctrine actually believe that this world is a simulation/test and there's another world beyond this world. And as a software engineer I kinda buy that idea.. the better a VM is the better that it hides the fact that it is virtual (software/code/users doesn't know that they are living in a VM) and this applies to any form of VM wether it is operating system VM or a code execution VM like LLVM (and JVM but you know, Java) as opposed to running it on bare assembly (clang vs gcc).
@@HR-yd5ib what was happening before bigbang?
@@farrellraafi1301 in the context of the big bang, before is ill defined actually.
What this all seems to start pointing to is not how rare intelligent life is, albeit extremely rare, but just how improbable abiogenesis and single celled life is at all.
That is the understatement of the century lol. It's been calculated there isn't enough time in the life of multiple universes stacked on top of each other for glucose to even form correctly that it can be used for life... glucose one of the most simple of molecules for life.
Exactly. Single celled life is abnormally, astrononically stasticslly unlikely
And that's why the Fermi paradox. Not a paradox after all, life simply can't be form.
If what he says is true...why has life not happened again? Why has life only happened once in the history of earth?
The advent of free oxygen which combines with hydrogen instead of carbon-dioxide. What wasn't covered was that the atmosphere on earth at the time was composed of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The oceans had carbon-dioxide making the seas acidic. The gradients of the alkalinity of the vents to an acidic sea is a dis-equilibrium which life's chemistry is based on and would have been important to the hypothesised proto-life within the vents. The hydrogen ions being pumped through the vents is another case of dis-equilibrium. (Life's building blocks are made of CO2, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus....quite a short-list!)
Once independent life started, being based on CO2; it would have functioned as a sink for CO2 plus the naturally occurring rare O2 would then be augmented by the evolution of photosynthesis.
As Nick says in the interview early cells would relatively quickly colonise other deep sea vents and destroy the chances of any other cells becoming independent of the 'mineral cells' and labyrinths inside the vents. So although we still have alkaline vents there is not enough CO2 in the deep ocean to enable life to independently start again.
Also be aware that the first signs of life is from zircon crystals c. 4.1 billion years old. Yet L.U.C.A is only 3.8 billions years old. Each alkaline vents only exists for tens of thousands of years before expiring. There were probably millions of them. This means that between them they could have supported many RNA cell populations, and fewer populations with a more complex metabolism. It appears only one vent did, by chance, evolve independent cellular life forms (Bacteria & Archaea); with-in the constraint of tens of thousands of years. The myriad of other proto-life forms didn't quite make it but had between 4.1 and 3.8 billion years to produce independent cells. "Nice try but no cigar."
Because any new clade of life couldn't compete with modern clades, which have had nearly 4 billion years to evolve successive adaptations, and because you're a moron, and because any unsolicited comments or likes will elicit the blockage of the commentator and the deletion of the post.
Fascinating
The vent providence theory is critical to protect early biochemistry (that led to nucleic acids) from solar radiation damage before ozone? Photosynthesis happened in shade? Did life start after water presence on Earth?
It's all nonsense and doesn't work. There is no current naturalistic theory to origin of life far less even a clue to how the fundamental molecules could form. Molecules that's a far cry from forming whatever life is.
he glossesd over the difficulties of problem of the Origin of Life
*_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857)
The stunning mathematical odds against such a scenario should serve as a huge disclaimer. Just because they can put a number on it people do. Then somehow they feel good about the possibilities that are still impossible.
Thank you.
@@ThatGuy-kz3fx look at the statistically improbable odds of spontaneous generation of life and consider the odds for that spontaneously generated “life” to progress to the endlessly complex array of current life on the planet (without the answer to “why” being considered, a separate conundrum) We can all look at the same numbers, and come to different conclusions. Some will say that despite those astronomical odds there was a way, it happened, but for that to be true you still have to consider the earth improbably positioned, perfectly adjacent to the sun, and the improbable existence of life forming materials in the right place in the Universe. In the end we’re all still believing in miracles.
@@benmilesg nothing in the natural world has been explained by a miracle, it is always found to be explainable by natural causes.
The number of biochemical experiments conducted in the universe is effectively infinite
life didn't happen in a trillion other non existent universes that never existed , think of the chain of events from the beginning of the universe till now as a small stream , trickling along a dry river bed, filling up all the cracks and crevices as it goes along, if it can't happen it won't if it can it will,
the more I listen to scientists and mathematicians talk about what might be behind everything, the more I think that we have a category error. full respect for the depth of their knowledge, commitment and success at mining logic - but why do we think that will give us access to reality.
Nick thinks if you add information to a system that is growing anyway then that it makes life. So what growing systems on a prebiotic earth could there be? Chemistry alone does not make systems. Chemistry only reacts. And where did the RNA come from? Where did the molecules come from and was the RNA strand put together with all the information in it? Random chance? Impossible. How did the RNA not degrade and somehow manage to wiggle through the 'growing system's wall? These are very unsatisfactory arguments Nick.
your understanding of chemistry is very unsatisfactory
@@spatrk6634 Yours is non existent
Nick Lane's book "Life Ascending" goes into this, I recommend
He doesn't know how life started. Absolutely clueless.
Interesting. Single origin. Perhaps the split thereafter is contingent upon what the signaling substrate is ie the composition of the available minerals and composition thereof. Fwiw
Are they describing Proof of Work?
I've been wondering if it was something like a combination of things that set things in motion. For instance thermal vents and a limnic eruption. Thermal vents provide the chemistry to begin life, and a limnic eruption ejected the material outward increasing diversity.
or we could just be in a simulation created by a higher power. its just really hard to comprehend even the possibility of everything being created from natural evolution. not saying its not possible, but the simulation theory seems much more probable. just my opinion
You need trillions and trillions of years multiple universes of time just for the theoretical time need for even the most basic fundamental molecules of life to even be produced. That's without them even doing anything together. Far less a single cell of life. Life is clearly the product of a top down creation from a God, not bottom up from molecules going to a higher state. These molecules are all structured and tent pole components that all are chicken and the egg type issues that need to exist altogether at the same time. Think proteins that have to be folded many times in specific ways yet there are no enzymes coded to do it and the enzymes are made from proteins so... even the most simple molecule glucose has trillions of ways the molecules can be linked yet only one way that is compatible for life. Dr James Tour has gone over these issues extensively. Origin of life research is a scam.
I didn’t know the villain from The Rocketeer was so smart…
There is a Common Designer.
Common ancestors is one view point.
Another view point is a common designer.
host looks like a very serious profesor examining student
those eyebrows are soo RAD
🥸😂😂 bro has eye carpets
Matter is magic, self-creating fairy dust which can naturally change it’s form from non-living to living under the right conditions. Simple as that.
not saying this isn’t possible.. but do you think matter is magical enough to create everything over time that exist today? from humans, animals, plant life, planet alignment, compared to a higher intelligence creating all of this? i just think its far too coincidental for all of this to exist naturally. i dont know maybe im not smart enough to understand the subject but thats just my personal understanding of all this. i hope one day we can truly know the truth
@Baby Fark Matter is absolutely magical enough. In the absence of God, matter is God-like. The unassailable will of the Divine can be easily replaced by the mindless crawl of natural processes. By thermal vents, phosphorus and time. Once it gets rolling, it reproduces, quarrels and eventually thinks itself enlightened. See? Magic. I think it was Chesterton to said that a slow miracle is just as impressive as an instantaneous one. I’ll have to check. Forget the simulation, which implies a designer. Would said designer have a beginning in it’s reality? A thermal vent on an unknown world? Or would it be simply an NPC in yet another simulation, spawned from more magical fairy dust? Well?
@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 The truth is that life cannot come from non life. That is the truth. Life has been repeatedly shown and proven that without exception it only comes from other life. Scientists cannot make the simplest cell in a high tech lab from non life. Scientists are clueless how life began. Absolutely clueless.
The same process happened trillions of times.. All over the planet..
Afred Russel Wallace (1912), co-founder of the theory of evolution, along with Darwin, made the following concise quotation in a reply to Dr. Schafer: "life is the cause, not the consequence, of organisation." Is this quotation not valid at all now?
He concluded: "I submit that, in view of the actual facts of growth and organisation as here briefly outlined, and that living protoplasm has never been chemically produced, the assertion that life is due to chemical and mechanical processes alone is quite unjustified. NEITHER THE PROBABILITY OF SUCH AN ORIGIN, NOR EVEN ITS POSSIBILITY, HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING WHICH CAN BE TERMED SCIENTIFIC FACTS OR LOGICAL REASONING."
translation: we are living in a simulated reality
I would say MIND is the cause not the consequence of organisation.
Some progress since then.@@rl7012
This is the first time that I've heard of Nick Lane and it is an accident that I wish I could have avoided.
The Shadow Biosphere were life made up of different bonds of chemistry or a different genetic structure could be thriving all over Earth yet we cant detect it or to know what to even look for when it comes to secondary life.
Where could the code have come from?
@@Edruezzi
Cool story. Is there scientific support for this story? Or is it just a story.
It's all guess work people... we're all stuck in an alien Trueman show is my outrageous guess.
Yes, you are Michael......enjoy your after lunch bathroom break, we always do......
truman
@@Mister_Durden pmsl
Totally agree, as the most intelligent life on earth i dont believe it was an accident...
@@scottm8914 🌍 Earth : episode 63560 - watch the dumb apes murder eachother again! Brought to you by Smorlax, enjoy a crisp refreshing Smorlax with your friends today!
The real problem is that he has been trying to synthesize life for his entire professional career with no success.
Nick Lane has not been trying to synthesize life.
While he has not attempted to synthesize life in a laboratory, his research and writings focus on understanding the fundamental processes that underlie the emergence and maintenance of life.
Lane has made significant contributions to the field of bioenergetics, particularly in exploring the role of energy generation and utilization in early life forms. His work on the theory of endosymbiosis, which explains the origin of eukaryotic cells through the incorporation of mitochondria, has been influential.
Lane's books, such as "The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life" and "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life," delve into topics related to the origin and evolution of life, exploring the connections between energy, evolution, and the emergence of complex organisms.
In summary, while Nick Lane's research and writings are focused on understanding the processes that contributed to the origin and evolution of life, he has not attempted to synthesize life in a laboratory.
@@spatrk6634 you are poorly informed
@@howardjones2021 Informed about what?
He is not trying to make life in a lab.
You are misinformed.
I'll be here when you are ready to apologize for lying.
Well...form what I remember he's been studying it for ten years. Some have studied quantum mechanics for longer and still haven't figured it out. We've been trying to produce nuclear fusion and haven't figured it out and that goes on inside trillions of stars. It would seem synthesizing life would be far more complex than simple nuclear fusion.
You are a liar.
I think there were thousands if not millions of different things that had to happen just right at the right time and sequence to make it possible for us and every form of life to be here and if we keep breaking the sacred hoop of life, I mean like insects are extremely important to our ecosystem it's really amazing we all play a part and as humans it's our jobs to reverse the absolute destruction we've inflicted I mean scientist's have been telling us all the way back to the late 1800's but the dummies we put in charge of the future of the only planet we have care more about their payments from big oil then the future of even their own kids and grandchildren nevermind us we already know they don't give two shits about us it really is Mind boggingly disgusting and really just straight up evil ghouls they are, there is NO planet B and time is running out, first they said they just didn't believe us about climate change because we'll you know it snows in the winter sometimes then it was well ok I guess there is a climate problem after their mansions started gettin flooded every two or more years then it was every year so know they just say well is their really anything we can do about it the planet has always cooled and heated without even mentioning or they probably don't even know not at the rate of time ever in earth's history but then at that point their brains just shut-off or malfunction but hopefully we haven't already passed the threshold. ✊ RISE UP AND VOTE the LIVES OF YOUR KIDS AND GRANDCHILDREN ARE AT STAKE SO PLS HELP US SAVE THE 🌎 and all the beautiful life in all its forms.
PS thank you for reading this long message if you did it just really does make me mad how some people can be so stubborn I'm just very passionate when it comes to this topic. PEACE AND LOVE ✌👍👍✊👋
It's possible that it's much simpler. We're in a habitable zone. We have a Moon that is the right size and distance, that formed at the perfect time. It absorbed impacts...Jupiter takes impacts.... We have a star that is the right size and distance. Things evolved at the perfect time... Maybe it was just a small amount of variables that occurred that made us come about. That's actually a bit scary to think about. I get all of the other things that you're saying, but I think I'll comment on that at later time.
Ah dude ... Humans make the earth better. Sure, we destroy sometimes, but we build and improve way more than we tear down.
== Design and the combinatorial numbers Mr. @@matthoward598and the permutations along with exponential numbers needed for life to exist is proving design. Everything in existence was by design. Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ===
oh no
Can't be done without Intelligent Design.
What does intelligent design mean to you? What exactly do you picture happening? Are all chemical reactions in life natural reactions, or does god intervene with each reactions to maintain life? IF the former, then we can't know for sure that it didn't happen (arise) naturally given enough time under the right conditions. If the latter, then it's not really designed at all...a god could make any old material be alive if all life processes are maintained by divine intervention.
@@rizdekd3912 It means top down rationality aka mind behind everything, that either directly created or structured by providence the improbable events to occur in the naturalistic setting still akin to a miracle by all intents and purposes for life to begin. All the fundamental molecules are like tent poles and required to exist each on their own at the same time for life and there are countless chicken and egg issues too like folded proteins with no enzymes to do it which enzymes are proteins. Yet same thing with the immaterial information, the coding stored in said enzymes to fold in said structured way and so on and so on. So top down is the only rational sense of anything forming.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep That implies that creation was not just the creation of the materials in the world but also the processes, methods, mechanisms and means by which anything happens...to and including how the corruption of sin could occur. IOW, if part of your worldview is that nature was created whole and good and became corrupted by sin, then something in that creation...some method, some mechanism had to have been designed, created, set in motion and continuously maintained SO THAT if and when one person sinned the entire world including the lineage of man which God designed would be affected by that sin. No process can exist in a world entirely created and designed by such a top down intelligence except that it was intentionally created by God. So something about how genes replicate or are passed on somehow passes on a corrupted nature and/or the means by which human souls are generated has to incorporate some flawed mechanism so that those souls are created sinful/fallen/corrupted.
All the above assumes a belief in the fall of creation which you may or may not hold.
@@rizdekd3912 That is kinda going off on another tangent now. Sin ultimately requires a moral standard which would be from said creator and requires a mind a will developed enough to grasp it which we don't have at the origin of life as life showed up more and more complex only as the conditions on earth allowed it. I would say that is evidence in itself of top down creation in some regard as there appears to be a foresight in the appearance of the progression of life. Just as it was for the appearance of first life.
If you want to talk about a Christian biblical perspective, the bible does state the universe exists within and is sustained by God. That the universe is governed by a law of decay. That sin is ultimately separation from God which is from disobeying him. That man was created to exist in tandem with God, that is why separation from God, is stated as a death, humans are like the living dead they are fish out of water. God is called the Word, the truth truth itself, God created by the transfer of information we are a word based universe if you will an argument could be made. And to tie that in all life is based on this immaterial concept of information stored in DNA. So separation from the Word, God is allowing decay to happen. We do see decay in genomes of species not evolution to a higher state of information like with the famous ecoli citrate experiment and with the spanish flu, and so on. The only evolution we do see is reduction evolution which is a benefit from a decay or removal information in the genome. That is how the ecoli could partially metabolize citrate, that is largely how bacteria gain antibiotic resistance they aren't actually adapting they are losing a function that allowed the drug to be uptaken into the cell as an example. So that is interesting. So I would say there is a case to be made but I or perhaps anyone in general doesn't have right now or will never have the specifics to tie it all together in an exhaustive way. There is appears to be relation to the narrative in many ways though. The bible also states sin was around before man was creation because of the fall of Lucifer and the preAdamic race he turned against God and God destroyed which are only mentioned as demons and why they are stated as earth bound disembodied spirits that seek a body, they aren't stated to be fallen angels in the text which many confuse.
This is all really going off on different tangents though and you brought up sin so may as well mention the text states said God does know everything and created the plan for redemption of man before the creation of the universe and one purpose of this universe is the ultimate destruction of sin. So that being said one could argue said God never did setup perfection of biology and naturalistic systems to this end. Another argument would be no system like specifically biology can be perfect anyways so God was actively sustaining it perhaps in perfection for man at least at one point. There are lots of ways one could approach the conversation. But as science has progressed we have gotten more answers like with the discovery of DNA, information theory and the decay of information like in DNA and so on that does tie in so I feel there are more answers to come. We do have mitochondial eve and y chromosome adam data which is interesting too. Perhaps there is more to be said as how many of these things could be tied into a top down argument. I haven't thought about it frankly.
why is the pseudo scientific babble of "Intelligent design" neccessary?
Life is the feedback loop of novelty that the universal consciousness enjoys
You really need to get Hugh Ross on your show. Vents are BS.
Hugh Ross isn't fun for the naturalist he goes for the jugular with hard science right away lol.
We shouldn’t be worried about the origin of life would be worried about the origin of language
different question. different disciplines
What an idiotic comment.
Look, the truth seems to be, we haven't a clue. Time to listen to Dr James Tour ?
They wont.
why james tour?
he has nothing to do with origin of life research.
he has 10+ hour youtube series on origin of life and he does not mention autocatalysis once.
that tells us that he havent got a clue about what he is talking about
How does James Tour say life started on earth?
@@spatrk6634 Why because he actually understands chemistry at a level beyond these origin of life researchers and gets to the core of their bs calling out their claims. They have no chemistry to produce anything.
@@rizdekd3912 He doesn't he gives commentary on the origin of life researchers chemistry as a highly accredited chemist himself who understands biological chemistry. He calls out their grifting claims and shows they have zero chemistry to produce what they claim and lists all the issues. They literally can't even make the most fundamental molecules MOLECULES for life.
Code………
"obvious"
This is ridiculous. God bless
Did he just say one chuck norris 🤣🤣🤣 could have made it through
When he said there was no oxygen and went on to say the C from CO2 joined with H that that freed up the O2 molecule. Interesting idea till you destroy your own thought with a simple mistake.
Obviously he meant there was no free oxygen...O2.
@@rizdekd3912 Except now he is dealing with twice as much free oxygen as he is Carbon. One C to two O now free. He doesn't explain why the H would prefer to hook to the C as soon as the O2 is free which the H would like a whole lot better.
@@finky555 This is a short video and he's touching on several different issues and not going into detail on any. And maybe I'm reading to much into what he's saying. But I took it to mean that when the process he is conjecturing...ie somehow in thermal vents where chemical-spawned precursors to life (as we know it) formed, there wasn't any free oxygen. And I took it to mean that IF there was free oxygen, the process he is conjecturing could not have happened. And to address what I think your point is, even IF some of those reactions started to happen and a little (relatively little) oxygen was released, it wouldn't be enough to consume ALL the hydrogen. IOW the environment would still be essentially without free oxygen.
@@rizdekd3912 Thanks for the discussion rizdikd but I don't know enough to dispute yay or nay at this point. It just doesn't add up in my mind.
@@finky555 To be sure, life either arose naturally or was somehow created by some sort of intelligence. But to me, positing some sort of intelligence is just pushing the problem back a step and not really solving how life can exist since the intelligence is living. And then this intelligence, for some unexplainable reason, both had the wherewithal AND the motivation to a) create a physical world and then b) create life IN that physical world. It seems an unnecessary step to do both if the goal was some sort of life with which it could commune when the existence of this intelligence is proof the physical world isn't needed for life. But, like you, I really don't know much about it but do enjoy discussing it with people. I do appreciate that you aren't (don't seem to be) attaching significance...even moral significance...to what one believes about how life may have gotten started. Thanks.
3.31 'basically what life is doing it's hydrogenating carbon dioxide, its taking the hydrogen that bubbles out of the Earthi in these hydrothermal events and sticks it on C02 and its as simple as that'. ?????
What? Is he supposed to be the expert? If it were that simple then why can't scientists build even the simplest of living cells from non life? In no way shape or form is building life simple. Nick has ignored the incredible chemistry and sequence specificity and engineering building needed to produce even the simplest of cells. It is mathematically impossible to life to have arisen by chance.
And NOBODY has made the molecules needed for life on a prebiotic earth in a lab. Our best scientists cannot produce the first building blocks that cells need in homochiral form. Why is Nick pretending this whole thing is easy when he knows full well that origin of life research hasn't made any progress in 70 years???
origin of life research is progressing each year by leaps and bounds.
its just that you have your mind set to not understand it because of religious reasons.
@@spatrk6634 Stop making dumb assumptions and cite your evidence for your wild claims. Origin of life has never been further away from making life from non life. So cite your evidence instead of your invalid religious claims.
@@rl7012 The Sutherland lab experiment: In 2009, the Sutherland lab at the University of Cambridge reported the synthesis of two of the four RNA nucleotides using simple chemical reactions that might have been present on early Earth.
The Szostak lab experiments: The Szostak lab at Harvard has conducted several experiments exploring the origins of self-replicating molecules, including the synthesis of small RNA molecules capable of self-replication.
The Bada lab experiments: The Bada lab at the University of California, San Diego has conducted experiments exploring the formation of amino acids and other organic compounds in various environments, including on early Earth and on other planets.
The discovery of ribozymes: In the 1980s, Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman independently discovered that RNA molecules can act as enzymes, catalyzing chemical reactions in a manner similar to proteins. This discovery provided important support for the RNA World hypothesis, which suggests that early life forms may have relied on RNA molecules for both genetic information and catalysis.
These are just a few examples of the many experiments and studies that have been conducted in the field of origin of life research, and the search for the origin of life continues to be an active area of investigation.
While you cry about it on youtube.
@@spatrk6634 They are all failures. Science has no idea how ribosomes in homochiral form came to be on prebiotic earth.
Making experiments and failing and then digging up the non results in order to try and spin it into a success is not the same thing as moving scientifically forward or proving a hypotheses.
These people promise the earth moon and stars to the atheist grant givers with an agenda, and the narratives is an atheist one so even when they fail spectacularly which they often do and never publish, the least worst results get published as if they are successes. Learn to read and think for yourself.
@@spatrk6634 None of that is evidence. Cite your evidence not the failed experiments or random research.
sounds errily close to what those scientology folks believe lol (without the obvious exceptions)
Quite ironic isn't it? Scientism should be called out for the cult that it is.
lots of handwaving pseudo-science at best in this interview. How did we get the complex functionally specified (instructional, prescriptive) information processing in the biological systems? the distinguished guest in this video has no clue but says so much nonsense.
He did explain things quite well, I'm guessing you're biased because of creationist beliefs. The common theory as of my understanding is that certain molecules under the right circumstances started to multiply. At first there really wasn't any complexity in the rudimentary RNA, which only had the information for duplication. Once the RNA and DNA was there, the process of evolution pushed the simple life forms into more complex ones. For more in depth explanation watch the video
Relax Oscar 🎉
@@eduardx6750 RNA and DNA are sequence specific chains in which many thousands of molecules need to be in the exact right order. Explain that.
@@rl7012 Actually read the data and evidence of how RNA and DNA arose from geochemical processes into primordial biochemistry before you write such a moronic response you dunce 😂😂
Life and Consciousness is Eternal,
there is NO 'origin', in real sense,
Life is always born from with-in,
our cells is born with-in us, in order
to the Life-Unit-principle, and
Organism-Shifting-Principle.
We are analog to brain-cells in Earths
Body- and Mind-structure.
Aliens where on a vacation and needed a bathroom break. Earth was close. So....
That isn't origin of life then. Origin of life is origin of life not transfer of life.
And here I thought the title of the video was "Origin of live on Earth: How it happened" @@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
@@weareallanimals As I said that still isn't the ultimate origin of life even if you preface it with earth. Not in the sense of the term "origin of life" with the goal the research is ever done for, which is as in the ultimate origin of life.
Even if you want to play games with semantics it's still 50/50 as that still isn't the ultimate origin of the life that came to earth. But I'm sure you realize that lol.
Uh huh.@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
@@weareallanimals Glad you see what the phrase origin of life means now. Complicated stuff...
TLDR... dude has absolutely, unequivocally, no fucking idea whatsoever.
Love James Tour
Yes he quickly points out how absurd they are they have zero science to support even the most basic starting point for origin of life the fundamental molecules yet origin of life researchers constantly grift they have almost figured it out and we will produce life in the next few years when they literally haven't the vaguest clue about anything.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep How much origin of life research have you actually read? Or is regurgitating Tour's slogans and lies as good as it gets?
@@mcmanustony lmao are you the science?
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep not sure what, if anything, that is supposed to mean. I doubt you know either.
I asked a simple enough question. The answer is NONE isn't it. You're just another lying smear merchant bellyaching in ignorance aren't you?
For "life" to start in a puddle, it would be like every slot machine in a casino to hit a jackpot as a lightning strike on said puddle.
He doesn't talk about life starting in a puddle.
Wow duct... that's an awfully generous probability when mathematicians have calculated it would take multiple ages of universes just for a bio identical molecule of glucose to be formed from nonbiological processes. There are over a trillion ways for the molecules to hook up and only one is what life uses. Glucose just glucose. It's mind boggling how people think a materialistic naturalistic model is the way to do science, all it does is hinder scientific progress. There is a reason intelligent design birthed modern science because it actually works and isn't hollow at it's core with a missing deus ex machina mechanism that magically manifests rationality from irrationality aka magic.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep "mathematicians have calculated it"- which mathematicians? Published where?
Something like that, which is why it likely wasn’t a single puddle, but millions of them all over the world over millions of years.
Thermodynamics
Come on folks. Human cells have DNA. DNA has coding. Coding by accident? from a hydro vent? Coding by design. Admit we are confounded.
Not confounded in the least. We Don't know the complete pathway yet, but we know the destination in detail and we have passed several milestones along the journey. The inescapable fact is that inanimate matter gradually became animate. Why on earth would anyone believe that it just popped into existence because some intelligent entity simply gave the word? There isn't a single piece of evidence for any such entity in the first place. It is pure guess work. And pretty poor guess work at that because there is no similar entity in the whole of creation that gives a clue to what this entity might be.
Until some evidence can be produced as to what this entity is, it cannot be included in the list of possible scenarios that caused inanimate matter to become animate. Once the evidence can be produced, then we have a hypothesis as to WHAT happened, but that is only the start. We then have to find evidence as ot HOW it happened,. What the process was. Just saying that this entity just thought it, said the word and "poof" it popped into existence just does not cut it. It is a ridiculous claim as it stands.
The natural science explanation is so, so much further along the road to this that the god hypothesis is almost out of sight back in the past.
@@mchooksis
There is no natural explanation for how life began. The natural explanation is definitely not further along the road than any other explanation as it hasn't even got off the starting blocks.
We don't know how ANY of life ls building blocks could arise naturally.
We don't know how a cell membrane could arise naturally.
We don't know what how DNA information could arise naturally.
All we have is speculation with no scientific support.
@andrewdouglas1963 of course there is a natural explanation. You are blind or ignorant of you cannot see that. What you are saying is that if you have a jigsaw picture in front of you, you are incapable of starting the jigsaw to make the pictuure you have in front of you until you know where all the pieces go. At some point you would know what the completed jigsaw looked like even if some of the pieces are missing.
Trust me, ool research has a great many of the pieces already. If you are not a scientist you have no way of understanding this.
@@mchooksis
So you believe there is a natural explanation for the natural universe.
That's circular reasoning isn't it?
I'm not terribly interested in how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together.
The bigger question is what caused the jigsaw pieces to exist? The jigsaw pieces can't answer that themselves.
@andrewdouglas1963 circular reasoning? Please explain how that represents circular reasoning?
Rr your next point, You are talking about and confusing two different things here. Personally, my interest is in biological OOL. The transition between inanimate matter to inanimate matter How to put the jigsaw together. How the jigsaw pieces got here is a question for cosmologists and physicists. and they have some pretty good ideas about how matter evolved from energy. No supernatural entities required. But that's a different topic. Your interest serms to be related to the cosmological science of creation. Which do you want to talk about?
What a bunch of bs, think about the odds of this? And then factor in the fine tuning of the universe. Noone can comprehend the mathematical improbability that life just came by chance.
We dont need to comprehend it, we are proof it happened
@@keviscool
The evidence points towards design rather than random chance or freak accident.
This was a waste of 14 minutes. The short but correct answer is we are clueless how life began.
Speak for yourself.
@@mcmanustony👈This guy cannot speak about science so disregard.
@@AronblocksU the facts contradict you. Yay! Facts!
@@mcmanustony 👈Guitar man worthless as usual
If we can verify a second biogenesis by finding alien life on other worlds then we will know that the process how life forms must be natural and will form under the right conditions. If not, then we are alone in the universe and the origin of life on earth could only be considered supernatural and we live in Gods simulation.
According to your logic: if we close our eyes to never find a planet with alien life, then God exists because we are crap at searching for alien life, and the worse we are the more likely God exists?
We haven't even found the first abiogenesis. So even if we find a planet with alien life on then who is to say how that life started? It is just kicking the can down the road.
I love your answer. I think exactly to he same
How would that show life will form naturally under the right conditions? Wouldn't the automatic response be that it must have been intelligence that did it there, too?
We've found amino acids on meteorites so we know some of the chemistry works, even in the harshness of space.
The nub of it.
No nub there. Just word salads and invalid claims.
"The reaction couldn't happen in the presence of oxygen"... Of course you realize he just completely killed his entire theory in one fell swoop as the thermal vents in the ocean were in water which is H2O...do we completely ignore the "O" part of H2O? Lol
He talking about oxygen in the atmosphere. The oxygen in H20 is bonded to hydrogen. There are Trace amounts of oxygen dissolved in water (like how fish breath) but I would imagine long ago those levels would have been a lot different.
Let's talk scale. is Earth a Galaxy Ovum? @elonmusk
first
Put a plastic on head for a minute and everything stop 😆
Never heard anyone talking for so long without saying anything in particular.😂
That's origin of life researchers for you lol. They all got nothing yet 2-5 years and they will create life they have it almost solved!!!! haha they are the ultimate grifters.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep You are a lying smear merchant....nothing more.
== Never will these pseudoscience evolutionist's priest cause life to happen Mr. @@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep . The ultimate grifters. I like that. They will never tell you about the decaying process at the molecular levels. Nothing would ever happen or turn into anything at the atomic levels. Atoms can not assemble themselves into life. Even the most simplest of all life forms could never self replicate and cause life. Chemistry is an exacting process like the laws of physics. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible === Isaiah 40: 28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is a God for all eternity. He never tires out or grows weary. His understanding is unsearchable. [] Revelation 4 : 11 “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.” ====
All these attempts to explain the origins of life seem a lot like the old models of the universe with the heavenly spheres. The math gets super complex when you put the weong thing at the center.
Consciousness, Spirit, is what give material form. There is something greater than us, and putting it in the center solves all of these equations sooo much more easily.
Life does not emerge out of chemistry because we need energy for chemistry to take place. In physics, we all learn that energy is needed to do work. Without energy, no particle can move to produce a chemical reaction. Thus, energy must come first, and life is energy. Life was there before chemistry took off.
What a lot of BS. The information in the cell just arose by chance
Panspermia has my vote
That's not origin of life, that's transfer of life. That's just throwing the ball down the court. A non-answer.
Dawkins argues convincingly that the unit of selection is the individual gene vice the single cell.
Dawkins is a fool
@@zhamed9587 I agree Dawkins is a massive fool. Mindless matter and mutation manifesting code, aka a form of language aka information an immaterial concept is utter absurdity. He essentially believes in magic, rationality from irrationality. Evolution is a mythology of magic. It's hilarious because he knows it and has it pointed out to him by other academics in debates and gets laughed at yet is the one with the big mouth pointing fingers and making fun of other people for believing in mind instead of his magic. He is a total clown.
So basically it’s the same old fallacy: it’s very simple but I can’t explain exactly how or know how to do it but given a loooong time surely it’s possibly
Never believe these pseudo scientists who give you these kind of arguments
Nick Lane is 'fascinating '.. really? He's talking from strictly a chemical way of thinking and he becomes incredibly vague when talking about Life itself!?!.. He sounds more like a Democrat 'talking head ' rather than a thoughtful Scientist. Mostly HOGWASH, I say! Thank you.
It’s not a mystery: God created it. But we’re evil and this is too hard to handle.
if we are then he made us evil because he's all powerful (don't present me with god works in mysterious ways bullshit)
someone created it. no way everything we wake up and see in the world every day was a natural process. not saying its not possible, but if i had a gun to my head and was told i had to choose correctly if life began naturally or by a creator.. i would choose a creator.
@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 you're an ape that evolved to be able to use tools maybe our brains arent made to grasp this level of complexity and abstraction
“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain {from the foundation of the world.”}
Revelation 13:8 KJV
The universe was made for the crucifixion, and the definite salvation of God’s chosen people from their sins. God made the world to kill His perfect Son. Yes, everything has been predestined, and no you would not naturally worship Him, unless He saves you.
@@sinnersaved9208 expelliarmus -harry potter