Видео

🎉❤🎉❤🎉❤🎉

Si t'es si fan de Villani, tu pourrais commencer par bien orthographier son nom 😉

@@AllemandInstable pas d’orthographe aux noms propres tête de noeud

Have you always been a lying smear monger?

c'est juste la représentation d'une simulation de mécanique du point, on s'en tape que ce soit rond ou carré c'est vraiment une remarque non pertinente et juste là pour la toxicité et condescendance gratuite

@@magyougamM.0 franchement tu ne fais juste que confirmer ce que j'ai dit au message précédent, si ça te rend heureux de te penser aux dessus des autres, qu'il en soit ainsi je ne vais pas te juger de la même façon que tu le fais de manière maladive. Par contre, ça ne sert à rien de répandre ton venin, garde le pour toi.

@@magyougamM.0 Bon j'ai pas que ça à faire que répondre aux trolls, donc je vais prendre sur moi pour un dernier message "Il parlait de boules de billard... Ne soit pas insultant mon ami. Pour un physicien, mon domaine, son discours sur les fentes de youg, était vraiment allembiqué... En physique un point n'existe pas... Et en math ?? ça devient très compliqué... Il faudrait une pointe infiniment fine pour placer un point, ce qui n'est pas possible...cqfd🙂 " Bon déjà il s'agirait d'apprendre à rédiger un message... sans points de suspension... en plus de donner un un air condescendant... c'est insupportable... Ensuite cela ne fait que montrer que tu n'arrives même pas à suivre un argument, l'essence de ce qu'il essaye de démontrer est le fait que beaucoup de systèmes que l'on considère aléatoire, c'est à dire que l'on **nomme** aléatoire sont en réalité des systèmes non aléatoires. Un exemple de cela est un système chaotique, car la grande sensibilité à la condition initiale nous fait penser que le système agit complètement aléatoirement. Pour illustrer cela il utilise une simulation d'un système chaotique, un point qui bouge et qui rebondit sur les parois, et la forme de ses parois va faire émerger ou non un système chaotique. Il utilise donc comme façon de s'imager un tel système comme un billard. donc pour la démonstration qu'il propose **ON N'EN A RIEN A FOUTRE que** "les billes au départ sont cubiques", il donne juste en parlant de boule de billard une interprétation au système qui n'est en soit pas utile à la démonstration mais juste pratique pour visualiser le système qu'il propose pour rendre le tout plus vulgarisé et sympa. C'est d'ailleurs vraiment l'hopital qui se fout de la charité de dire cela visiblement de la part d'un "physicien" de reprocher ici une modélisation simplificatrice lorsque c'est littéralement ce que ne cesse de faire les physiciens dans leurs propres problèmes. "Pour un physicien, mon domaine, son discours sur les fentes de youg, était vraiment allembiqué..." En fait ce que cela montre c'est juste que tu as envie de crier sous tous les toits que tu serais apparemment physicien ou je ne sais quoi, faire ton intéressant en dénigrant les autres, quelque part ça marche en soit puisque je te réponds. Mais tu es pathétique et ridicule. "En physique un point n'existe pas... Et en math ?? ça devient très compliqué..." bah non c'est pas du tout compliqué la définition d'un point : c'est un élément d'un espace affine. Et y a même une bijection entre le point et un vecteur si tu fixes un point de ton espace affine en regardant relativement à ce point, chose que beaucoup d'étudiants exploitent pour faire leurs dessins pour comprendre l'algèbre linéaire notamment. Donc lorsque tu écris ce message : "Il faudrait une pointe infiniment fine pour placer un point, ce qui n'est pas possible...cqfd🙂" Tu ne fais que te ridiculiser, tu es incapable de suivre un raisonnement sans rentrer déjà dans des détails qui n'ont aucune importance pour le propos, et le tout dans un style condescendant et insupportable juste pour essayer de t'offrir désespéremment ton petit quart d'heure de gloire (spoiler alert, c'est raté). Tu es à côté de la plaque. Si j'étais toi, j'arrêterais le massacre ici. "...cqfd🙂"

@@magyougamM.0 Très constructif... Agenouillez vous devant vos maîtres, l'histoire nous a pourtant donné des leçons, non retenues...

Here's all they have to offer: "Jesus made us 6000 years and you know it, so you're actually telling a lie and going to Hell by talking about origin of life." That's it.

oui tout à fait : cela est dû au fait qu'une probabilité de 100% est un évènement certain, mais certain "presque sûrement" exemple ? prenons un nombre x que l'on tire aléatoirement dans [0,1] (uniformément) on peut choisir l'évènement "le nombre x tiré est dans l'intervalle ouvert ]0, 1[" la probabilité de cet évènement est 1, cela est dû au fait que la loi uniforme sur [0,1] est une loi à densité : la probabilité que x appartienne à un certain sous ensemble de [0,1] est égale à la taille relative de ce sous ensemble par rapport à [0,1] ( c'est intuitif, vu que la loi est uniforme ) la proba exacte se calcule comme la longueur de l'intervalle ou réunion d'intervalles considérés hors la longueur de ]0,1[ est 1, puisque la longueur de [0,1] est 1 et que la longueur des ensembles contenant un unique point est 0, en d'autres termes, en retirant un nombre fini de points à notre intervalle, on ne change pas sa taille. Une autre façon de l'interpréter est que, lorsque l'on considère un ensemble qui est infini mais très dense, comme les nombres réels entre 0 et 1, la probabilité de tomber sur un nombre spécifique est nulle. L'aspect continu de notre loi est ce qui nous donne le fait qu'ici probabilité de 0 n'implique pas impossible, et donc que retirer un évènement de probabilité 0 à un évènement de probabilité 100% de change pas la probabilité. Et pourtant il est tout à fait possible de tomber sur ce nombre en particulier bien que la probabilité soit de 0. C'est une propriété de l'intégrale qui sert à calculer notre probabilité, si vous pouvez comprendre que la probabilité est la somme (intégrale) de la pondération d'occurence des nombres : la densité (exemple la courbe en cloche, soit la gaussienne de la loi normale) alors il suffit de remarquer qu'enlever un point ne change pas l'aire sous la courbe. ( on enlève un rectangle de hauteur égale à la pondération et de longueur 0, soit la longueur d'un point ) j'espère que cela aide au moins à éclairer

@@AllemandInstable Éclairé ou plutôt ébloui par une explication si brillante. Je vous remercie. Votre générosité me touche. Cœur et intelligence remarquable, je vous souhaite une santé physique tout aussi excellente.

Who provides better science in your opinion? I'm very interested in learning more about the topic so I'd love to look it up

I'm also curious, about what exactly he's saying isn't scientifically correct? I mean at a technical level because I understand that much of what he says is assumption and speculation, but in order to make progress in science you first have to make those assumptions in order to form a hypothesis, right?

@@YtoRetry It is all just a story. It is all untestable.

How is it untestable? There are literally teams testing pieces of the theories. I can personally think of ways to test some of it and I'm not a chemist or biologist

@YtoRetry It's as testable as Stonehenge arising naturally.

Can you show us the mathematics? And when you fail might you consider taking a deep breath and try to comment on matters you might know something about

@@mcmanustony Google it. Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible. Also you take a deep breath you ignoramus. Go on, get a good gulp of air in there and hope some of it kick starts a brain cell.

@@rl7012 I didn't ask for a google search. You made a claim about mathematics. "As per usual"....you are talking out of your hole. You can't show the mathematics because you haven't a fucking clue about either mathematics or biology. Get yourself to a library and try to salvage an education.....and while you do work on you manners.

Why do you say it's mathematically and scientifically impossible?

There's obviously a lot to figure out. Is there anyone out there who can DEFINITIVELY say WITH PROOF that they know the answer? There tons of science that we don't understand and still need to prove, which is why they are doing experiments and HAVE TO conjecture about how things happen

My buddy said the biochem teacher was a fraud and he became a neurologist, and was from NYC so I thought he was jaded and the Biochem teacher who was from Baltimore and spoke with an accent like he was from the Baltimore of 1750, seemed to me sincere. I believed he believed what he was saying was out of a noble cause, or at least, from an underlying compassion for his fellow man and a love of knowledge and its a priori usefulness to the physician who needs all tools at his disposal in his armamentarium. By the second term I had to agree. The guy was 4/5 person, 1/5 fraud, and growing.

The pencil started as chalk.

Speaking of it makes one get at list some credit ,if one could duplicate any of it a God will arise instantly ,thievery at scientific level .

I don't disagree with your skepticism, but to call this a religion is simply slander. So he didn't show any science? Come on. Get real. The bible shows ZERO evidence of anything. This presentation was loaded with evidence to point us in certain directions.

grow up and try to salvage an education. This is not religion it's science.

@@punkypinko2965 He is talking about "we" a group religious mentality. He is talking about "origins of life" like he was there and talking about creative force that is prevalent through time . He is only showing illustrations of things that nobody has seen in real life like it's a church with icons and frescoes . That and much more is why it's a religious doctrine. If you are offended by religious label, it's maybe because you are a religious nutcase who is also deceptive.

@@mcmanustony Origin of life is religious.

52:13 he briefly mentions fatty acid formation and how they form vesicles.

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger vesicles = bilayer lipids?

@@johnveagan8228 Fatty acid vesicles are a form of lipid bilayer

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger No, fatty acid vesicles are not the same as lipid bilayers. Fatty acid vesicles are spherical structures formed by single-chain amphiphiles, such as fatty acids, that have a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail. Lipid bilayers are sheet-like structures formed by double-chain amphiphiles, such as phospholipids, that have two hydrophobic tails and a hydrophilic head

@@johnveagan8228 Fatty acid vesicles are a form of lipid bilayer. Fatty acids are lipids, and in fatty acid vesicles they exist as a bilayer.

It does not hang together it is total conjecture, impossibilities and full of grant chasing phrases. The man is clueless.

​@@rl7012 what opposing ideas do you feel are better and more plausible? Why not post a video rebuttal so that we can better understand where the issues in his thoughts are and what might be a better theory

The Age of Life The ability to carry out actions differentiates inanimate matter from living matter. In turn, every action involves the management of Information. We do not know what Matter is or what Life is, and we assume that all life forms that currently inhabit the planet descend from a common ancestor (LUCA), an organism whose complexity is evident if we consider that it is attributed the ability to reproduce. Due to the above, it is reasonable to assume that “seeds of life” existed prior to LUCA. Assuming that the “seeds of life” emerged together with the Big Bang is a bold postulate, and as such requires a solid empirical foundation. When observing Evolution considering the information that our ancestors have managed, and that currently managed by humanity, it is possible to distinguish seven evolutionary milestones; Its analysis allows us to postulate that Life goes back to the origin of the Universe, and the existence of an “evolutionary pattern” is evident, which turns out to be the Golden Ratio. Evolutionary Milestones -Emergence of ”Seeds of Life”(1) (thirteen thousand eight hundred million years ago). -Emergence of LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) three thousand eight hundred million years ago -Emergence of the brain (five hundred and fifty million years ago). -Emergence of what was the precursor of human language (2) (twenty-seven million years ago) -Emergence of the language that characterizes us(3) (around two hundred and twenty thousand years ago). -Emergence of “the information age” with the transistor (1950) -Evolutionary Singularity(4) proposed by Ray Kurzweil, who postulates that humanity will access a Singularity as a result of the exponential growth of information management (year 2045). Evolutionary sections Among successive evolutionary milestones we can distinguish the following six “Evolutionary Tranches”, with the duration indicated (in years): Tranche 1: 10,000,000,000 (13,800,000,000 - 3,800,000,000 = 10,000,000,000) Tranche 2: 3,250,000,000 (3,800,000,000 - 550,000,000 = 3,250,000,000) Tranche 3: 523,000,000 (550,000,000 - 27,000,000 = 523,000,000) Tranche 4: 26,780,000 (27,000,000 - 220,000 = 26,780,000) Tranche 5: 219,905 (220,000 - 95(5) = 219,905) Tranche 6: 95 (95 - 0 = 95) The particular variation experienced by the Evolutionary Sections over time suggests using the logarithm of said sections (LT) to analyze their behavior over time. The logarithms in question are as follows: LT1 = 10.0000 LT2 = 9.51188 LT3 = 8.71850 LT4 = 7.42781 LT5 = 5.34224 LT6 = 1.97772 The lines between two successive logarithms have the following slopes (P) P1 = -0.48812 (9.51188 - 10.0000 = -0.48812) P2 = -0.79338 (8.71850 - 9.51188 = -0.79338) P3 = -1.29069 (7.42781 - 8.71850 = -1.29069) P4 = -2.08557 (5.34224 - 7.42781 = -2.08557) P5 = -3.36452 (1.97772 - 5.34224 = -3.36452) After searching for an “evolutionary pattern” we will determine the variation between successive slopes, which is given by the Ratio (R) between them, that is, P2/P1; P3/P2; P4/P3; P5/P4, and is the following: R1 = 1.62538 R2 = 1.62682 R3 = 1.61586 R4 = 1.61324 The above values differ from the Golden Number (1.61803), a number also called the golden number, the number of God, the extreme and average ratio, the golden ratio, the golden mean, the golden ratio and the divine ratio, by 0.45%; 0.54%; 0.13% and 0.30%, respectively. In turn, the average of the sum of the ratios is 1.62032. This value differs from the golden ratio by 0.14%. The results obtained allow us to postulate that Evolution follows a pattern that is a function of Information and the golden ratio, and that Life goes back to the origin of the Universe. (1)The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is the putative common ancestral cell from which the three domains of life, Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya, originated. The complexity that LUCA is assumed to have does not give rise to affirming that it arose by “spontaneous generation”, it being valid to postulate the pre-existence of “seeds of life” prior to the emergence of LUCA; It is postulated that the origin of the “seeds of life” dates back to the moment when Matter arose in the Universe, that is, around thirteen thousand eight hundred million years. (2)“We find that the anatomical potential to produce and perceive sounds differentiated by their formants began at the latest by the time of our last common ancestor with Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) about 27 Ma ago”; " Which way to the dawn of speech?: Reanalyzing half a century of debates and data in light of speech” (Science magazine) (3) The last change in the position of the hyoid bone in humans, which would have allowed access to the language that characterizes us, took place approximately two hundred and twenty thousand years ago, and its data is based on archaeological evidence and anthropological studies. There is no scientific source that records this change on an exact date. (4)Due to the exponential growth of information technologies, Ray Kurzweil postulates that a Technological Singularity will occur in the year 2045, at which time technological growth will be so rapid and so profound that it will be impossible to predict what its consequences will be. (5) It is the time between 1950 and 2045, the latter year in which Ray Kurzweil postulates that a Singularity will take place.

"If LUCA was as described, it would be there today and is not." What? You just vomited out nonsense. And without providing any science, or even logic, supporting it.

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger I can’t prove something that was never there. It is up to you to prove it was there and there is complete absence of evidence it was. Therefore, just another wild hypothesis, no better than any other fiction.

@@yp77738yp77739 " It is up to you to prove it was there" Nope. Logical fallacy: attempt to shift the burden of proof. YOU made the claim in your OP. YOU have the burden of proof. Go ahead, meet it. I don't have to lift a finger until you meet your burden of proof, and if you fail to, you lose and I prevail. Good luck.

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger The primary point I was making was that we are no closer to understanding abiogenesis than we were 2000 years ago. We don’t even understand what codes for and controls cellular architecture, so how can we expect to understand how the first cell was formed when we don’t know how they are formed today. The secondary point I was making was that if there were some spontaneous generation event, forming a proto cell, you would expect a similar (but modified)process to be present today. But there is zero evidence of it. Sometimes it’s OK to just say, we don’t know.

@@yp77738yp77739 The statement you made that I asked you to support was, "If LUCA was as described, it would be there today and is not" You have failed to support it. You lose.

Spot on

He explained his idea of how life started updated here ruclips.net/video/6rTWLnCFW4I/видео.html He may be totally wrong, you might disagree. Put forward an alternative hypothesis. What is significant is how inseparable geochemistry, chemistry and physics are to the emergence of self replicating systems.

@@SmallWetIsland He didn't put his idea forward, he just gives a load of 'maybe''s, 'could have's', 'might of', 'likely to' and a host of other stitching it together to make his fairytale fit. This isn't science this is story telling. Nick lane is in the business of storytelling not science.

Why do scientific presentations like this one always attract the religious freaks? Don't you have better things to do than comment on things that you are too ignorant to try to even begin to understand, while hiding in your fog of stupidity?

​​@@rl7012there's no way to know for certain how life started on this planet. There maybe many ways. What Rick lane does is trying to find at least one possible and experimentally proven way it couldv happen. That's enough to answer a lot of questions.if you implying that religion has a better answer, it's for sure has nothing but a fairytale of a ridiculous story, very unsatisfying and plain boring. Also, Rick deliberately keeps most of the technical details out, adjusting to his audience. If you had more knowledge, his story would be a lot more interesting and convincing to you. So, instead of getting annoyed at your own ignorance, get curious and busy learning, and see for yourself from a higher place

ya vraiment pas de rapport entre le mouvement brownien qui est un processus presque sûrement continu d'accroissements stationnaires gaussiens indépendants le mouvement d'une bille de billard n'est pas du tout un mouvement brownien, la direction ne change que lorsque la bille ne tape une paroi, donc on n'a même pas le fait qu'en chaque instant t de la trajectoire les coordonnées sont gaussiennes