I "discovered" Dr Lane some 12 years ago. Since then I have read all his books and have tried to follow presentations available on RUclips. I have no idea how he can run two laboratories, write books and travel for the many presentations he does. In my opinion, this presentation is indicative that he has reached an apotheosis in his field. Thank you, Dr Lane and bravo. Thank you to Colloque Wright for posting this talk.
You have no idea how he does it well let me tell you he fabricates and uses his imagination and uses words like 'could', 'might have' 'likely to' 'may have; and other non committal words as he doles out his invented rubbish. Nick Lane is clueless about how life started. He just projected a way 'it may have happened' but even in his way of how it may have happened is nonsense. His theories are nonsensical rubbish. No way his imagination is anything like reality because all Nick Lane does is show his massive ignorance again and again and again. And gullible people fall for it. They believe that this bs er is telling them facts when he is living in a world of 'could have' 'might have'. No way did chemicals accidentally build self reproducing life by chance. No way. Science doesn't even know how prebiotic earth got the building blocks to make the first cells. Do not worship this bs er as he is absolutely clueless and gets money and glory for making u stories for the gullible and those wanting to believe him so much that they are prepared to believe anything.
I've seen Lane give a dozen versions of this lecture and I think I am getting close to understanding it. As George McFLy once said, "This is good stuff"
I open my desk drawer. It has a bunch of pencils. Short ones, long ones, yellow ones, and red ones, Nubs, nibs, and unused ones are all in the drawer. How did they get there? I grind one up. I divide up the parts. I got graphite, paint, wood, a lot of wood. I make the graphene in my backyard campfire. I pour some chemicals together and make some paint. I still got to get the hole in the wood and grow the tree, but its doable, you know?
Thank you Professor Lane. You said the electric charge across the cell membrane is the equivalent of a bolt of lightning. After reading IN SEARCH OF CELL HISTORY, by F M Harold, I am aware of the importance of the origin of the cell membrane, as well as the origin of the organic chemistry in cells. Space plasma (lightning is plasma) is known to self organize into DOUBLE LAYERS. These can be in different shapes, including spheres, and these spherical double layers are scalable. That is, plasma structures are similar at all scales. I propose that lightning striking earth will create and deposit on the ground tiny cell sized spherical double layer charged spheres. These would be identical in size, shape, and separated charges to cell membrane structures. The result of lightning striking the "primordial soup" would be to introduce a ready made, raw and empty charged membrane into the chaotic mix on the ground. The ability of plasma to separate charges into organized structures just might be the foundation for organic chemistry to access a ready made energy source and for LIFE to develop. Irving Langmuir called the electrically charged gas in his lab PLASMA, because it had properties of organization resembling blood plasma. The universe is 99.9% plasma. It carries electromagnetic charges. Electromagnetism is the strongest force in the universe. It is a good place to look for the origin of life.
@@roberttormey4312 do you know that lightening is what you do to hair? Lightning, however, is a slightly more powerful, & meaningful force. What credibility do you have when you can't even distinguish such vastly different forces?
Год назад
@@chrisfreebairn870 More than you. Your extremely stupid reaction to a typo shows a broken mind.
@@chrisfreebairn870Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein ….nothing to do with hair lightening. In her fiction story the building of a human ….Frankenstein….required lightening to bring it to life.
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Are you serious? Read the comment I responded to, then mine & perhaps you'll see how stupid yours is. Lightning It's electrical, lightening is done to hair - to lighten it. Understand.
@@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
Great communicator but must be wrong. If LUCA was as described, it would be there today and is not. We are still missing a large piece of the jigsaw as it is currently illogical, the key is what drives information conservation against the gradient of the second law of thermodynamics, something as yet unknown seems to differentiate life from non life. It appears to be an engineered biological machine. Probably the second most important question for us, behind the origin of the universe itself. The strategy of looking at the very small and the very large seems to be the only way to go.
"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.
i loved the Krebs Cycle. The nervy biochem teacher that wanted me to memorize ridiculous things (look at your schematic), him I grew to hate. The biochem teacher didn't ask how all those reactions got together on their own. He was teaching guys and gals that were going to spend their lives preserving life and health. Leave God out of that. He mentioned some vents. They hadn't been found, but they would. HOW DO THE SOAPS SAPONIFY IN ALL THAT HEAT? Back to the biochem teacher. A real asshole. Not in an overt way. The opposite. He would read his notes and answer questions, completely devoid of imagination. It's frightful when a human acts like a robot. I am still PTSD'D FROM IT. OY OY the PTSD I could tell you about. Biochemistry is where I found God. I prayed I would pass the stupid test so I could go become a cardiothoracic surgeon, and Thankfully I was saved.
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.
As per usual he explained zilch about how life originated. He just spouts what we already know how complex and engineered cells are. But he NEVER EVER addresses how life actually started. He just says 'could have', 'may have', 'we think that'.. rubbish. He has no idea how life started. None.
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
Nick Lane couldn't help Mike Russell get to even the protocell stage in theory with this model and he brought disgrace to Origin of Life research by equating Oparins' primordial soup idea to a can of Heinz soup. Is he even interested in a thorough scenario of life's origin or just getting famous with his erroneous lectures.
I "discovered" Dr Lane some 12 years ago. Since then I have read all his books and have tried to follow presentations available on RUclips. I have no idea how he can run two laboratories, write books and travel for the many presentations he does. In my opinion, this presentation is indicative that he has reached an apotheosis in his field. Thank you, Dr Lane and bravo. Thank you to Colloque Wright for posting this talk.
You have no idea how he does it well let me tell you he fabricates and uses his imagination and uses words like 'could', 'might have' 'likely to' 'may have; and other non committal words as he doles out his invented rubbish. Nick Lane is clueless about how life started. He just projected a way 'it may have happened' but even in his way of how it may have happened is nonsense. His theories are nonsensical rubbish. No way his imagination is anything like reality because all Nick Lane does is show his massive ignorance again and again and again. And gullible people fall for it. They believe that this bs er is telling them facts when he is living in a world of 'could have' 'might have'. No way did chemicals accidentally build self reproducing life by chance. No way. Science doesn't even know how prebiotic earth got the building blocks to make the first cells. Do not worship this bs er as he is absolutely clueless and gets money and glory for making u stories for the gullible and those wanting to believe him so much that they are prepared to believe anything.
Drugs.
As always Nick Lane is elegant, lucid, and inspiring, and he never moves away from core scientific process or principles. Bravo Professor Lane
I've seen Lane give a dozen versions of this lecture and I think I am getting close to understanding it. As George McFLy once said, "This is good stuff"
What a gifted lecturer and fascinating material!
00:00 Intro
08:00 START > Prof. Nick Lane
Had to laugh when Nick made the allegory of spending your 80 p. on the slot machine...
I open my desk drawer. It has a bunch of pencils. Short ones, long ones, yellow ones, and red ones, Nubs, nibs, and unused ones are all in the drawer. How did they get there? I grind one up. I divide up the parts. I got graphite, paint, wood, a lot of wood. I make the graphene in my backyard campfire. I pour some chemicals together and make some paint. I still got to get the hole in the wood and grow the tree, but its doable, you know?
The pencil started as chalk.
The sea is diverse so not to be alone.
Thank you Professor Lane.
You said the electric charge across the cell membrane is the equivalent of a bolt of lightning.
After reading IN SEARCH OF CELL HISTORY, by F M Harold, I am aware of the importance of the origin of the cell membrane, as well as the origin of the organic chemistry in cells.
Space plasma (lightning is plasma) is known to self organize into DOUBLE LAYERS. These can be in different shapes, including spheres, and these spherical double layers are scalable. That is, plasma structures are similar at all scales.
I propose that lightning striking earth will create and deposit on the ground tiny cell sized spherical double layer charged spheres. These would be identical in size, shape, and separated charges to cell membrane structures. The result of lightning striking the "primordial soup" would be to introduce a ready made, raw and empty charged membrane into the chaotic mix on the ground.
The ability of plasma to separate charges into organized structures just might be the foundation for organic chemistry to access a ready made energy source and for LIFE to develop.
Irving Langmuir called the electrically charged gas in his lab PLASMA, because it had properties of organization resembling blood plasma. The universe is 99.9% plasma. It carries electromagnetic charges.
Electromagnetism is the strongest force in the universe. It is a good place to look for the origin of life.
Yeah, that’s the ticket! Lightening! Mary Shelley figured it all out ages ago.
@@roberttormey4312 do you know that lightening is what you do to hair? Lightning, however, is a slightly more powerful, & meaningful force.
What credibility do you have when you can't even distinguish such vastly different forces?
@@chrisfreebairn870 More than you. Your extremely stupid reaction to a typo shows a broken mind.
@@chrisfreebairn870Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein ….nothing to do with hair lightening. In her fiction story the building of a human ….Frankenstein….required lightening to bring it to life.
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Are you serious? Read the comment I responded to, then mine & perhaps you'll see how stupid yours is.
Lightning It's electrical, lightening is done to hair - to lighten it.
Understand.
I dont see how the protons are being ‘pumped out’ of the cell - ?
Awww.
Wikipedia has an article: "Proton Pump"; that should give you a start.
@@HotelPapa100 I’m working my way through all his books, with wikipedia back up
the bong hit I just took throttled a lot of mitochondria by golly
I thought god started life - my whole life I’ve been lied to!
So few of the obstacles mentioned… homochirality, bilayer lipids and so forth. Sad.
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.
Abiogenesis is not possible
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
live has always been here same as energy and mater we are all the same
Great communicator but must be wrong. If LUCA was as described, it would be there today and is not. We are still missing a large piece of the jigsaw as it is currently illogical, the key is what drives information conservation against the gradient of the second law of thermodynamics, something as yet unknown seems to differentiate life from non life. It appears to be an engineered biological machine. Probably the second most important question for us, behind the origin of the universe itself. The strategy of looking at the very small and the very large seems to be the only way to go.
"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.
i loved the Krebs Cycle. The nervy biochem teacher that wanted me to memorize ridiculous things (look at your schematic), him I grew to hate. The biochem teacher didn't ask how all those reactions got together on their own. He was teaching guys and gals that were going to spend their lives preserving life and health. Leave God out of that. He mentioned some vents. They hadn't been found, but they would. HOW DO THE SOAPS SAPONIFY IN ALL THAT HEAT? Back to the biochem teacher. A real asshole. Not in an overt way. The opposite. He would read his notes and answer questions, completely devoid of imagination. It's frightful when a human acts like a robot. I am still PTSD'D FROM IT. OY OY the PTSD I could tell you about. Biochemistry is where I found God. I prayed I would pass the stupid test so I could go become a cardiothoracic surgeon, and Thankfully I was saved.
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.
As per usual he explained zilch about how life originated. He just spouts what we already know how complex and engineered cells are. But he NEVER EVER addresses how life actually started. He just says 'could have', 'may have', 'we think that'.. rubbish. He has no idea how life started. None.
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
Nick Lane couldn't help Mike Russell get to even the protocell stage in theory with this model and he brought disgrace to Origin of Life research by equating Oparins' primordial soup idea to a can of Heinz soup. Is he even interested in a thorough scenario of life's origin or just getting famous with his erroneous lectures.
Have you always been a lying smear monger?