Видео

You don't know what you're talking about. You cannot revive a dead bug - if it's actually dead - because the chemistry of dead and alive is so different you can never pull some switch to just make dead alive again. Decay sets in in minutes. Yet, you can "revive" a "dead" person by shocking them - and it's done in hospitals all over the world on the daily. Except you can do that only while they're still not dead dead. But that doesn't even matter, as that's not what he's saying, not even close, which you would know if you didn't skip all those high school biology classes, or at least listened to the video. Here's a hint: all biology can be reduced to chemistry and physics. Literally all of it. Oh and there is no "mental" and "physical" in any separate forms, dualism has been long overcome.

Stop pretending you finished high school.

Thank you for that excellent and deep analysis.....now, back to your lego.

It is absurd to believe that there was a mind behind the origin of life! FTFY

Define "mind".

What's it about?

@@lifeisgood339 it's about bs gullible people gobble up like candy.

@@chickenlover657 well that's not an answer but cool

@@lifeisgood339 Define "answer" then?

Every living creature has experiences. This is not even under dispute in science.

It's a natural force, genius.

@@chickenlover657 Is that the answer?

@@MrJamesdryable Did you expect more than a simple fact?

@@chickenlover657 I didn't expect anything.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡😌🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Wasted on you that's for sure.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Read his books first.

@@ever-sj2dl Thanks, I will do that. Which book do you recommend I start with? Or should I simply start from his first to his most recent?

@@johnprentice1527 I recently read his book The Vital Question, which goes into all of what he talks about here - lots of it very hard to understand (speaking for myself who never studied chemistry!) though I believe he probably explains it better than anyone else could) - proton pumps across membranes powering the Krebb cycle etc - stuff that was discovered fairly late in the 20th C, and how that - basically metabolism rather than genes - may have been the essential 'first' step in the origin of life. Nick is on that side of the debate, cell walls and metabolism first, vs the idea of information systems - genetic systems - being the first step. I haven't read his more recent book that apparently goes into this as well (Transformer: The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death). Lane also wrotethe book Oxygen which got really good reviews as well, and I want to read - free oxygen only came about because of life, and created a huge shift in in the evolution of both life and geology. There are a lot of other great books by others on these topics that are a little broader, I highly recommend The Story of Earth: The First 4.5 Billion Years, from Stardust to Living Planet by Robert Hazen, he started the whole realization of how geology and life evolved together. However the particular "Vital Question" Lane raises in the book I read, is very basic and mind-blowing if you know anything about the evolution of life, and one that I hadn't thought of before even though I've been trying to learn as much as I can about the early earth and the evolution of life: WHY even though life appeared and flourished very shortly after the formation of the Earth (Earth formed approx 4.5 billion years ago, first life close to 4 billion years ago, complex multicellular life only showing up around half a billion years ago) - WHY did morphologically (shape-wise) complex life forms (like worms) take so long before showing up and why did that step only happen once? All complex life, us to worms to mushrooms all descend from a single common ancestor, a eukaryote (itself a symbiotic combination of an archeon and a bacteria). Only happened once in 4 billion years, not so encouraging for the possibility of complex life occurring in other parts of the universe. Likely for NON-complex life occurring, though... Mind blowing question.

Then you don't recognize science when you see it.

@@davidrosen5137 That's not real science. That's religionists, with way too much blind faith grasping at scientific straws like a drowning man Trying to save their failing religion

@@GeorgeSchumpf Apparently you don't recognize religion either.

@davidrosen5137 Basically your religion is what you believe in, what you put your faith in. And if you think not that materialistic and secularist academics do not worship at the altar of their particular brand of pseudo science, then maybe it is you that are confused about both science and religion. The academy has all the trademarks of religion, including dogma, pope-ish hierarchy, catechism, heretics, persecution, vestments, altar boys, cathedrals, excommunication and exclusion of any truth that might put the grand edifice in question.

@@GeorgeSchumpf False equivocation fallacy. Religion centers around faith in a supernatural deity; science is a method for gaining knowledge of the natural world through inquiry. Faith is the excuse people use to believe something for which there is no evidence. Science tests hypotheses and accepts or rejects those hypotheses based on whether or not the data (evidence) supports them. Science has the goal of getting closer and closer to the best explanation for natural phenomena based on experimentation and evidence. Science may have questions that can't be answered, but religion has answers that can't be questioned. That academia may have a dysfunctional structure has nothing to do with science the verb, but the egos of humans. Apparently you're bitter about both science academia for some reason. So, yea, the confusion is all yours.

What about Tour? His actual work, not that any of his fans has an interest in it, is in a totally different field.

Troll