I think one thing people forget as they marvel at the statistical improbability that we would be here, is that we just weren’t around to notice all the times we weren’t. Eons of failed dead end pre-life structures, then eons of the simplest types of proto-life, the eons of single celled creatures, and eventually we stumbled along. Since we put ourselves at the center of the story, of *course* this is all here for us, right? Ha; no. We’re just that one lucky coin flip in several trillion that eventually lands on its edge.
So, since Dawkins says DNA (or RNA) holds digitally encoded information, which is base 64 for each amino acid, and, in the match of codon to a.a,there are 64! Ways to arrange the "look up table," Systems are required for life. Incomplete systems go nowhere, have no replication advantage in previous. Complexification is absurd. That a new protein formed randomly can make an existing protein retain its function while interacting is vanishing small . Look at a ribosome, and ask yourself, if each new part couldn't add advantage, but maybe 30 parts could do translation, how do the other 60+ parts "appear from code" such that they enhance functionality?
THERE IS NO LUCA. The DNA replication systems and code which underlie each schema for pro, and archaea, and the membranes organelles in eukaryotes simply lacks homology.
I might be misunderstanding what you're saying; but, saying there is no last common ancestor to modern life doesn't make any sense. Unless you're just saying evolution can't exist because sure have that opinion not debating that.
Life via abiogenesis is impossible, proteins and RNA are too complex, there's too many limiting factors. Availability of constituent elements is not sufficient when causal interactions are not capable of producing proteins without other protein systems already present. The constituent elements for nanites are alsk present, Iron, Gold, Silicone etc, yet you wouldn't think that nanites self generated, yet organic nanites (proteins) are far more complex and you think they self generated? You could have a life supporting planet in every star system in every galaxy in every Universe in the multiverse and life still wouldn't self generate. That's how impossible it is for life to self generate and self improve it's own genetics.
@@commanderpinnacles God. If God is the eternal information of reality and the collective/gestalt super consciousness of all reality then He is the best explanation for intelligent structuring of Natural Forces as well as Life. It also coincides with the Law of Conservation and with Causality, for both to be true then information could never have a beginning, no "nothing to something" rather "always something which can transform into more of itself".
Speaking of getting away from a city to see the stars, the most breathtaking sight I have ever seen was being on the fantail deck of a Navy ship on the equator, in the middle of the Indian Ocean, on a cloudless, moonless night. About as far from lights as you can get, and able to see both the northern and southern night skies at the same time. At that point, you have no doubt that there must be other life out there. My brother in law told me about one of the exercises for getting his master mariner’s ticket, which said pick a star and steer the ship by it for 15 minutes (a common way to maintain heading without using the compass). He said it was actually difficult because there were so many stars that it was difficult to keep his eye on the correct one without confusing it with another. You had to pay attention. I have city dwelling friends who have never seen stars. They think there are two or three, and point to Venus and Jupiter. I love taking them to camp in the Mojave. It is sad that now that we have at least some understanding of what stars are, most people can no longer see them.
"Speaking of getting away from a city to see the stars," - You. Just wait until you find out that you don't have to get away from the city to see the stars in the sky. All you have to do is turn off the lights at night. Duh.
Your last sentence hits hard. I live in a small city but the region around is very densely populated so we have much light pollution. And I just noticed that I have never really seen a naturally bright night sky :’(
@@danielduncan6806 Yeah, try getting everyone in the city to turn out all the lights. There is almost nowhere on land without at least some light pollution.
The enzyme catalase can make more than 40 million reactions per second. One single protein. 40 million turnovers. In one second. The speed of reactions in this scale is insanely fast, simply incomprehensible for a human mind. Now imagine this molecular interactions happening in global scale, for millions and millions of years
Crick disagrees with you, consider he received a Noble prize I'll side with him. "The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." Evolution from Space, p.24. It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be 10^18 seconds. Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there are only 10^80 electrons. Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28. Considering Crick received a Noble prize I'll side with him. "The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." Evolution from Space, p.24. It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be 10^18 seconds. Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there are only 10^80 electrons
What does reactions mean in this context? Is that like how it responds to its environment, and if so, how do you respond 40 millions times in a second. Beyond my comprehension 🤯
@@BranoneMCSG catalase breaks hydrogen peroxide (h2o2) to water and oxygen. The speed of this reaction depends on the amount of H2O2 available for the enzyme to work. When there's enough h2o2 the enzyme's top speed is more than 40 million reactions per second. The enzyme is just too small, nothing compared with an animal cell, so it can work way faster. It blew my mind when I learned this in a biochemistry class. People commonly claim the spontaneous origin of life is impossible because the probability is too low, cause they try to imagine the steps randomly happening. But the scales are just unimaginable. The size of earth, the amount of biomolecules, the scale of time and the speed of molecular reactions are all simply incomprehensible for our monkey brains to work with.
@@hjdhjddsahIn other words a lot of things are happening every single second and an unimaginable amount of chemical reactions occur in a billion years let alone a single year or day. Understanding weather systems in terms of entropy and how it uses up energy in the overall environment, and seeing how chemical reactions may get to structure themselves through the dissipation of energy under our understanding of entropy it should be no surprise that matter can organize itself with such complexity over such an insane amount of time
People walk around every day without realizing the walking statistical miracle that they are. We are stardust that can ponder our own creation and the universe that - for some reason - exists at all, and gave birth to us. Stand proudly in awe of the majesty of life.
@@CasepbX You don’t think a life form created by almost 5 billion years of evolution that went from inanimate matter to a thinking, conscious being is special? You’re awfully hard to impress!
Statistical miracle is right. Assuming that you believe in multiverses. We live in a universe where life is possible, even minute changes to quantum mechanics or entropy or gravity even (none of which have to be what they are) and life is impossible. To get it right, you may need quadrillions or more random universes. And that's just space, matter and time itself. Keep on going down the requirements and the odds against life are far beyond astronomical. Add to that the odds against complex life. Add to that the odds against intelligent life. Is it really so odd to think there may be a creator?
I don’t disagree but we don’t know exactly how rare life is. Just because we haven’t found any from our searches means very little. We’ve searched statistically nothing using a very narrow set of parameters. There’s most likely an immense amount of life just in our galaxy and while it’s probably safe to assume advanced intelligent life is rare compared to more primitive life, there still probably lots of it out there.
i think language models brought a new understanding of how complex behaviors can arise from very simple instructions. It's a lot like game of life - a tiny set of rules and states can create incredibly complex patterns. But with AI it's even more evident - all it's trying to do is to predict the most fitting next word in a sentence, but from it, with enough parameters, emerges hauntingly realistic thought patterns - enough that it can often pass off as human intelligence. life is a lot like that. simple basic rules that stacked in large enough numbers creates incredibly complex structures, which pile up on top of each other to create even more complex systems, that together form a living being. Looking down from the top down, it seems almost impossible that such complexity can arise without design. but looking at the lowest level --- it is inevitable that it does.
I think we need to put more emphasis on "large" because a single physical system contains so many states it's quite literally unimaginable. You don't even directly simulate wind with a computer.
That’s the principle of emergence. A single ant is pretty simple, only reacting to stimuli, but an ant colony can build a nest, cross rivers, and harvest fungi.
I love the theory that life is inevitable as we are going to undoubtedly be the largest cause of entropy we know of. Basically life is inevitable due things trending towards disorder, it made order (life) because it would accelerate the disorder process. Ahh entropy, it giveth life, it taketh away
@@Aryasvitkona I think so too. If you like that, you might like this one too, "Is life a consequence or a product of mind?" (Given that there is no experiment we can conduct to prove anything exists outside of mind and an eternal 'mindverse' satisfies Occam's razor as the explanation requiring fewest assumptions).
Yeah I'm sad when I see them sponsor a channel but I can't 100% fault the creator. People should know Better Help is no bueno. They have been credibly accused of a number of data privacy issues including allegations they sold private mental health information to advertisers. Which if true is a pretty serious breach of ethics let alone morals.
It comes down to "What is life?" I've seen well thought-out arguments from professional biologists that there is only one form of life on Earth, RNA, and everything else is just different manifestations of that. The thing is, though, that RNA does not itself meet any of the current definitions of "living thing."
I think most of that comes from the fact of those definitions try to explain the abstracts of the word using specific contexts and scenarios that don't count others therefore there can be clash Even then it's a paraphyletic tree of means that could be completely turn on it's head if we discover something like an alien lifeform that breaks all earth chemical composite
Life via abiogenesis is impossible, proteins and RNA are too complex, there's too many limiting factors. Availability of constituent elements is not sufficient when causal interactions are not capable of producing proteins without other protein systems already present. The constituent elements for nanites are alsk present, Iron, Gold, Silicone etc, yet you wouldn't think that nanites self generated, yet organic nanites (proteins) are far more complex and you think they self generated? You could have a life supporting planet in every star system in every galaxy in every Universe in the multiverse and life still wouldn't self generate. That's how impossible it is for life to self generate and self improve it's own genetics.
@@shaydorahl6740 We are here. That all the proof you need to show that it is possible. Because if your claim is that life has been designed, then you haven't answered anything, you just pushed the goalpost. You still have to explain how this designer came to be. And if it was possible for a designer to be, then it's not that much ridiculous to think that life could simply do the same all by itself. If magic is your answer, than it can apply to life without the need for a designer. The idea of a designer is completely superfluous and useless.
@@theslay66 Part 1) ----- "We are here. That all the proof you need to show that it is possible." ----- That's stupid. That's like looking at a computer (which we made) and saying "Because it's here then it must be possible for it to self-arrange". Nanites don't self-arrange, and proteins (organic nanites) which are far more complex than nanites don't self-arrange either regardless of the abundance of constituent elements present due to limiting factors.
I suggest you check out Lee Cronin's work regarding assembly theory. Him and his research team have come up with a test for life based on just looking at complex molecules. I believe he said an assembly index of 15 or more indictes that your sample was alive while anything below that was made through abiotic processes. So far it's the best way I've seen scientists test for life in an analytical way. Edit: Since the topic is pretty complex I do not know exactly what assembly index would mean other than assigning numbers to a certain quality of a molecule in order to help understand how many times it would have had to undergone a prior chemical process to get to where it is now.
@@jimk8520 Damn you, your comment notification lost me a battle in Raid Shadow Legends. I'm coming for you lad - you've got less than 6 hours to install Aura
You're not noticing complexity with a watch, you're noticing artificiality. A coin or an arrowhead is not complex, but you still know they had a designer, because you recognize their artificiality.
A watch also does not self organize. You can throw a bunch of virus parts into water and they will self assemble into viruses (well, empty ones). Watches don't do that.
Life via abiogenesis is impossible, proteins and RNA are too complex, there's too many limiting factors. Availability of constituent elements is not sufficient when causal interactions are not capable of producing proteins without other protein systems already present. The constituent elements for nanites are alsk present, Iron, Gold, Silicone etc, yet you wouldn't think that nanites self generated, yet organic nanites (proteins) are far more complex and you think they self generated? You could have a life supporting planet in every star system in every galaxy in every Universe in the multiverse and life still wouldn't self generate. That's how impossible it is for life to self generate and self improve it's own genetics.
@@Styphon Yup, any other conclusion at this point is childish and idiotic. Aliens would have the same problem evolving as we would, some of the limiting factors of abiogenesis (and biggest) are rooted in lack of causal potential - an information insufficiency paradox - natural laws alone are insufficient to develop complex nanite systems whether synthetic or organic (proteins). So yes, without a doubt it was God. Plus God makes sense considering that God is the eternal information of reality itself, He made this reality out of His own essence/information. God is the best explanation all in all, resistance to that logical stance is illogical at this point.
This is one of the best channels the internet has produced. I wish I had it when I was a kid. Now I’m 49 and enjoy it even though I know much of the content. Besides, Alex McColgan’s voice is like Heroin.
My favorite autocatalytic example is rust. It's so simple, and common. Every mechanic knows that rust will spread. If you look at some rust spots on a car, you already feel like some spreading bacterial infection eaten the metal...
One question that’s bugging me for months , if this is all true , how come we cant put all this stuff together and create some type of life ? The reason given was oxygen concentration, but we can control that in a lab right ? Have we ever created life from nothing? Genuinely curious
We believe it’s theoretically possible, we just don’t know with certainty the correct ratios of chemicals/necessary conditions/etc. etc.. Scientist *have* been able to turn simple molecules into more complex ones (such as amino acids) by replicating conditions thought to be similar to so-called “primordial soup”, which is a good start, but obviously something is still missing. That said, understanding how something likely came about is different than being able to recreate it, after all. Our inability (so far) to induce abiogenesis doesn’t mean our theories on the origin of life are incorrect - simply that they’re incomplete at the moment. In my personal opinion, the biggest ingredient we lack, which the early Earth had in abundance, is time.
And then there is the leap to simple animal life, taking more billions of years. But once it starts life forms explode in variety of ways. Only to be wiped out by a hostile universe, over and over until ... The universe calms down long enough for intelligence to emerge, perhaps to be wiped out more than once. Finally here we are, not only intelligence and self aware, but existing long enough for advanced technologies to emerge through us. Maybe also more than once. It's that last step that is the most precarious. So easily snuffed out and the whole process has to start over again, maybe. Or not. It's that part that makes me think there are such slim chances for other civilizations anywhere near us. OTOH, if there are others, it is quite likely they would be closer to us that we might think. Those same pauses in hostility from the universe (even just on a local scale) that gave this planet a chance to produce advanced civilizations may have given nearby star systems the same chance in the same time period. A relatively local Goldilocks Zone in our galaxy. Why have we not heard from them? They may all be very behind us in technology, hoping to hear from us someday. Although, once started, technology tends to shoot straight up at a blistering pace, that start here could just as well not have take place on earth for thousands of years yet. Hundreds of thousands of years. It all depended on how comfortable our remote ancestors were with the status quo. Comfort does not breed change.
Life 'finds a way' - I think more like 'Life wants to live' - I recall when scientists found bacteria basically doing the backstroke and thriving in nuclear reactors, later still reading about 'Conan the Bacterium' to 'Extremophiles' and Tardigrades... and so on. Life certainly does what it says on the can.
Could be true but on the other hand, there are trillions on trillions of other planets surely many just like earth. I guess the question would be if life does/did exist, was it at the same time as us before an extinction event.
Another great episode. Even as an evolutionary biologist, you synthesised a complex topic in a remarkably short video, helped by really stunning graphics. Of course, your narration makes Astrum my favourite science channel. I hope Better Help is a generous sponsor, because your way of building the advert into the end of the video is absolutely masterful.
When i was working abroad on a hot summer night, i looked up and saw in its pure color, an arm of the milky way. Mix of brown, purple and so many stars. I was mesmorized and began questioning that there had to life out there. It also gave me interest in learning more about astronomy. Back in the city, yet to see it again but its etched in my brain for life.
Our chemistry is the SAME through out the VAST Observable Universe 🧑🏿💻🤓. I bet my life that there are other organisms in our Universe 😂. The more we see, the more we understand, that we DON’T understand👨🏿⚕️🤓keep searching🔭👏🏿👏🏿🦠💉😷
Regarding entropy,: We don't have to squint our eyes and wave our hands around thermodynamics to justify the claim that entropy on Earth is increasing. In fact, entropy on Earth has decreased throughout its existence. The salient missing point is that entropy always decreases *In A Closed System,* which is often overlooked in these discussions. Entropy can most definitely decrease in a non-closed system to which energy can be added. And Earth is not a closed system. It receives copious amounts of energy from the sun-- energy which has served to sustain life in all its diverse forms, decreasing entropy so that life can evolve into more ordered and complex forms. So we don't need to wave our hands and squint our eyes to convince ourselves that entropy on Earth is increasing, because it's not. It's clearly decreasing, and for a reason that thermodynamics allows.
My guess is that breaking down the false barrier between the animate and the inanimate is behind understanding abiogenesis. Yes, there is a huge gap between the most complex chemicals and the simplest life. However, that gap is as misleading as the apparent gap between humans and other species. There wasn't always a gap, but there is now. It seems that if some entities complexify enough over time, they demolish or absorb all of their peer entities, giving a false impression of great uniqueness. The uniqueness is somewhat of an illusion, because all the transitional forms obviously did once exist, but they were swept aside, leaving apparent gaps. It's all a continuum, including life and non-living things, despite what we perceive as gaps.
@@sentientflower7891 That gap is another illusion, like the so-called gap between humans and other animals. Life and death have separated over time, but early on in evolutionary history they would have been almost indistinguishable. It's possible that the first ever life lasted only seconds, or less. There is a reason why there is a new field - geobiology. Biology and geology are not separate - they are aspects on one thing.
Hard to imagine the young Earth, spinning much faster with a Moon orbiting much closer, causing tidal forces that would have ravaged early coastal areas far inland, like tsunamis are to us today, but with every incoming tide. This was also an ocean with chemistry far different than today. Maybe something about the shape of the helix coil of RNA/DNA makes it more resilient to these conditions, it holds together better, maybe even assisted in how the first DNA chains came together initially because of these extreme tidal environments of an ocean with far different chemistry going on. Nature sort of selected it in that way.
You are sooooo close. Maybe I can push you over the edge. If we evolved on this planet, this planet's design is a part of our design. If we evolved, we evolved to live on exactly this Earth, not just this Earth, but this Earth, in this Earth's point in time and space as well. Meaning, even the slightest deviation from the current state of this planet, and we all die, as in extinction; complete eradication of our species. This would mean we don't "just exist", that instead, we are a FUNCTION of this planet. "You're insane, what the F does that mean?" Well, I am glad you asked. It means you're fated to die on this rock, like the estimated 117 billion humans that lived and died on this rock before you. Hahahahaha! Enjoy your weekend.
16:00 I don’t like how you framed that quote. Yes absence of evidence is not absence of evidence, but that's not what's happening. If I look in a room, and no one is in there, that's not absence of evidence of no on being there, that's definitive evidence of absence.
Im still prefferential to life originating from thermal vents in the ocean, at the time life developrd there was an exceptional amount of geological activity happening and many shallow hot springs fueld by hydrothermal.
@@CantankerousOB it has done in several experiments. However, life as we know it, took about 100 million years to emerge from those conditions. Most experiments haven't even gone past a couple of months.
Wait. It's an adaptive design. So how did it adapt to begin with? How did a bunch of chemicals suddenly decide which way to go? Did they manage to program DNA themselves? A watch is simply a complex design, since it's intended to fulfill a specific role and nothing more. But how did chemistry decide natural selection? How did it decide to program DNA to not just perform a specific task, but to adapt as well?
this is called the "unmoved mover" in some cosmologies, the concept that there must be a basic point of origin that has always existed from which all of reality comes
The question is absurd because it implies infinite regression. It's no different than saying the earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise, but what's under that tortoise? Another one, and another and another... turtles all the way down. All the way down to what? Because we live in a universe that abides by the laws of cause and effect, we cannot fathom infinity. But if our universe was created out that which exists outside of the universe itself, then whatever that is does not necessarily have to abide by the laws of our universe. Infinite regression is absurd no matter what realm you are in, but infinity is not. Simple logic would dictate there is an endpoint at which a force all powerful and infinite exists. Is it God? Perhaps. But it's something.
@@100percentSNAFU Bunch of claims, no evidence. Would be time to learn what intellectual honesty mean and start saying "I don't know", if you can't prove your claims. NEXT!
@@100percentSNAFU I dont see how simple logic dictates an endpoint? It doesnt necessarily dictate anything in that regard. But assuming everything needs a start, the logic of that assumption breaks with the claim "everything has a start except for X", wouldnt you agree?
I feel like there must have been many different proto-cells, incredibly simple structures that simply didn't evolve past a certain point. Consider viruses as a potential example - partial structures that interact with more complex organisms to reproduce. If we consider dozens, if not hundreds, of potential basic forms of life, that then leads to intense selective pressure to adjust and evolve, which kick-starts the whole process. I should note that I'm no expert, but I've seen many videos like this, and if we're discussing a game of chance with regards to life, then we also have to consider that game of chance playing out for all the proto-life that didn't manage to survive. Imagine dozens of chemical and atomic structures combining and recombining to form something more complex. This could even still be happening, the universe rolling the dice on whether or not those same combinations can happen yet again. That gives us the best chance of such complex life emerging from basically nothing. I'd compare it to a child playing with a set of blocks, knocking them down and rebuilding them tirelessly, but infinitely more complicated than that. Imagine tossing a packet of sauce mix into a boiling pot of water, and watching the chemicals and ingredients bubble around, mixing together like a chaotic dance. Eventually in that comparison you get uniformity, aside from clumps and pockets that you have to break down. Those clumps form patterns, irregular but predictable based off how the water boiled, how it structured itself even in chaos. It feels fitting, to me at least. And while I don't know enough about the topic to really consider further than that, it also suits the chaotic nature of the universe we live in. Stars are constantly fusing atoms to make denser and denser elements, then exploding violently to fling those materials out in all directions. Our universe on a large scale might represent what happens on much smaller scales, and the patterns that emerge could quite literally be universal. If that's the case, it gives us a turbulent dance to analyze and comprehend, on every scale, and I think that's beautiful.
@@TheZMDX I don't do feelings. And I reject your apology. An apology is an acknowledgement you made a mistake, AND the effort to undo it. Your apology is neither of those; so it is rejected.
@@danielduncan6806Why no hope? The nearly infinitely improbable in a nearly infinite universe means virtual certainty. Molecules identified as self assembling, scattered through the entire universe, in all the possible catalyzing environments, means an infinite number of life-creating experiments going on. We are but just one.
@@Styphon Hope itself is an illusion. It is the non-religious form of prayer. When a religious person is helpless, they turn to prayer. When a non-religious person is helpless, they turn to hope. Both are equally as useless, because they are the same. Watch this; "I hope he..." "I hope they..." "I hope it..." "I hope she..." Do you see the pattern? You see that, right? They are all asking someone ELSE to do it. Why is that? Because you are helpless, you can't do it, so you hope someone or something else does it. Even in the case of "I hope I...", you're putting it in the hands of luck. You don't hope to put your socks on, and a plumber doesn't hope to fix the pipes. Why not? Because those are thing you know how to do, or in the case of the plumber, they are capable. You NEVER hope for the things you CAN do. So, why no hope? Because hope doesn't even exist. There just simply isn't such a thing. If you can't do it, you just simply can't do it. And you can't do it.
Star Trek: Discovery said it very well in their first episode. The building blocks of life (as we know it) are not uncommon in the universe, it only makes sense that life exists elsewhere or everywhere
I absolutely love Astrum. Thank you Alex. You and your team do such an amazing job with your videos. Really informative, relaxing and just a joy to watch ❤
It's kind of crazy, but many researchers think life might have originated at least 2x here on Earth. I was thinking, life is a probability, not a terrific chain of odd events into a single occurrence. Similar conditions spawn similar chemical and physical processes. Organic molecules exist, if things are right, they'll organize and you can flip a coin from there.
Its not just the philosophical 'WHY' and the opportunistic 'IF' , its also about the window of 'WHEN' and scientific filter of 'HOW' and statistical 'PROBABILTY' that all need to align, before any 'life' can be be spawned / generated.
Typing this just BEFORE watching. My 1st reaction to that question: Chaos DID create the pocket watch, by giving rise to the entities that created the pocket watch.
This is a really good video. I like how the expalanation goes from high level to low level with just the right of detail for me to follow. Where did you get all the graphics and information from? I had a look at the video description, but there aren't any references.
ATP synthase has a molecular weight of 500,000 Daltons (a dalton is essentially the mass of a hydrogen atom). All proteins, including ATP synthase, are made of amino acids strung into a peptide chain. There are about 22 amino acids associated with life and the average weight of an amino acid is 110 Daltons. So one would expect that ATP synthase consists of a peptide chain about 4,500 units long! Dr. Stephen Myer mentions the chances of making a functional protein from a 150 unit peptide chain with 22 amino acids to choose from is 22^150 which is about 2.38 × 10 exp 201 (note: there are about 10 exp 80 atoms in the universe). Since there are about 20,000 known functional proteins associated with our bodies, and just for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume the peptide chains are all 150 units long, then the chances of randomly finding a functional sequence out of 10 exp 201 possibilities is simply ridiculous to consider. I would think that all known computers running full blast for a trillion years could not find very many. So ATP synthase with a 4,500 unit long peptide chain is even more ridiculously impossible (goto duckduckgo and enter"22^4500" and see what it says)! AND even if a functional protein supernaturally popped up, it would last for a little while until it busted apart due to thermal agitation or some chemical reaction took place. So some means of replicating this super precious functional protein that you found would have to supernaturally arise simultaneously with its creation. AND not only that but the but replicating machinery would have to replicated as well so that more than one replicator can exist. Well, the replication machinery would have to also be made of proteins and replicating machinery would have to be in place for them as well. AND nothing happens without energy so you would have to have set of proteins (enzymes) supernaturally pop into existence to digest carbohydrates proteins and fats into usable molecules to be metabolized in the cell many of which are much longer than 150 amino acids in length. So the fact that ATP synthase actually exists (which needs to be encoded in the DNA) AND there is molecular machinery (more proteins which also need to be encoded in the DNA) to manufacture the pieces of ATP synthase AND there is even more machinery which translates the DNA into mRNA (all of which needs to be encoded in the DNA), AND you would have to supernaturally already have a sufficient proton gradient across the membrane of the mitochondria (which also needs to be replicable) to get the ATP synthase to spin, etc. etc. Well at some point you just have to throw your hands up and realize that THERE IS AN EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT GENIUS CREATOR THAT LOVES YOU!!!
You know I’m not religious by any means but I’ve always been slightly creeped out by the fact that photons are aware of when Humans observe them or not 😭😭
It is not the case. What you are describing is a misinterpretation of measurement in quantum mechanics, which was used in pseudo-science articles for sensationalism.
Mate, can you do a video on the recent discoveries over the past few weeks by perseverance suggesting pretty sold evidence that there was once life on Mars. Also the sulphur crystals accidentally found and the theories of nuclear explosions above Mars' surface long ago?
The idea that there was only one origin of life on Earth is a hotly debated topic. Currently there is a lot of evidence that life started independantly at least twice. LUCA would then be the last one that succeeded.
No, that's a category error. Things within this universe are observed to rely on cause and effect. Before big bang theory was adopted secularists assumed the universe is, was, and always had been. BBT shattered that and we now know there was in fact a beginning, which itself requires something outside of space, time, and matter to cause it. Whatever that "something" is, once you've left the realm of space/time/matter you're in an entirely different category that no longer relies on cause and effect. "What color is the number 7" is as sensible a question as "Who made the maker."
@@Deathwish026I wish people who use the word 'theory' in comments about scientific topics understood the meaning of 'theory' as used in science. It is not a supposition.
@@TylerR909 That all relies on ignorance though, the discovery of the big bang doesn't rule out the universe having always existed. All that the cosmic background radiation tells us is that we can't know what happened before it, not that it's impossible for something to have existed before (a very common misconception). For all we know the universe could cycle between expansion and The Big Crunch and the big bang was just what happens at the end of a big crunch.
Apparent excess entropy from life formation gets off-loaded to the external environment, since that is a viable component of the system? Very cool, I never heard that before, but it couldn't make more sense - life, to maintain itself, keeps draining energy rapidly from the environment, adding to external entropy, I think...awesome! 2M subs well earned, lol
"300,000 years" and all we've physically done to search for reason, is step outside, and come back in again. We have/had 4600+ religions, none helped our physical journey. One of our favourite things to do is "reduce our number" assertively. Slowing our progress. Yet we are surrounded by endless materials, and endless places. Endless things to explore. It's The Human Race, not the human watch. I think we need to start running very fast, to more rocks and stars. Not waiting for something to come extinguish us. It saddens me so very much, that we may be too self indulgent to survive. Not worthy.
@@100percentSNAFU ""Grow up" says the child who trolls the comment section solely to flame and lob ad hominem insults, but adds nothing to the conversation." Wow, dude, you are really one "special" kind of human for sure.
It looks like we don’t have any explanation yet for the causes of some favorable events that could explain why an initial “encoding machinery” would appear in first place.
There is no "encoding machinery", you just can't swallow that your magical sky daddy can not hide into the unknown corners of our understanding of reality anymore. Grow up!
Life via abiogenesis is impossible, proteins and RNA are too complex, there's too many limiting factors. Availability of constituent elements is not sufficient when causal interactions are not capable of producing proteins without other protein systems already present. The constituent elements for nanites are alsk present, Iron, Gold, Silicone etc, yet you wouldn't think that nanites self generated, yet organic nanites (proteins) are far more complex and you think they self generated? You could have a life supporting planet in every star system in every galaxy in every Universe in the multiverse and life still wouldn't self generate. That's how impossible it is for life to self generate and self improve it's own genetics.
@@Muckytuja How was God hiding when He is reality itself? Information is eternal, the gestalt cobsciousness of eternal, infinite information is God Himself. He was never hiding, He's in plain sight. Believing in nothing to something, non complexity to complexity, that's magic, secular naturalism is of that delusion. So perhaps you should grow up?
@@shaydorahl6740 "Life via abiogenesis is impossible" That's your opinion, where is your evidence that it is impossible by natural laws of biochemistry? Because your logic dictates that magic is more plausible, cause that doesn't require some level of knowledge in chemistry and biology.
@@shaydorahl6740 "How was God hiding when He is reality itself?" Another claim, another missing proof about it! Would be time to learn about logical fallacies and how an honest person operates! ;)
There is a great lecture on RUclips from Santa Fe Institute, by Dr Eric Smith, titled something like Inevitable Life. Anyone who is interested in abiogenesis, but struggles to visualize it, should go watch that lecture after they've finished this video.
I enjoy the faith-based comments and assurances. "We WILL figure out abiogenesis. One day." Its not even that I disagree with the sentiment. Maybe we will. But the absolute certainty that abiogenesis happened, "we just need the evidence to prove it" strikes me as a fundamental verificationism.
The next question would then be: why is the physics of the universe the way it is, rather than anything else? Why are subatomic particles a thing, rather than something else? Why are static forces equal to X instead of Y? One could argue that life was able to form due to a specific design of the universe, where chemistry exists in such a way as to allow for the building blocks of life to form
What is really mind numbing is to actually believe that everything in the finely tuned universe we live in just happened by sheer chance. The universe could have existed in nearly an infinite number of forms, yet it exists in such a way that star formation can happen, life can happen, and specific laws and rules exist that cannot be broken or circumvented such as entropy and light speed. It isn't a lucky fluke, it's a design. And you don't have to be "religious" to believe there is a Creator of all, just logical. If you want to talk about "dishonesty", maybe try first being honest with yourself. What is more probable...a bunch of matter and energy appeared out of complete nothingness and then organized itself into a complex state complete with physical laws, or a force greater than our limited knowledge can fathom designed it this way? Cause and effect. With no cause, there is no effect.
How does the watchmaker argument fall apart? Because intricacy isn’t a hallmark of design, simplicity is. Talk to any software engineer. - Matt Dilahunty
This is the video I've been needing so I can show people how God doesn't have to be the only option, unfortunately many are too busy/scared to learn how science drives biology and evolution.
Your belief in evolution without a god is also the belief that humans will always be limited and evolution is limited. Because if evolution went on to the point where humans and their technology could create life (ai awakening or whatever) then humans become god. And if it happened once, maybe it happened before and we were created. But such thoughts take a lot of thinking.
I'm 3 minutes in and you've already made a huge oversight. The idea that there's a designer doesn't necessarily limit itself to life, but can apply to the physical universe as a whole and the complex systems that make life possible to begin with. The properties of atoms, the elements, the mathematical truths upon which the physical world is based. The notion that this infinitely complex system, the very laws of nature, arose out of an absolute vacuum for no reason at all, is quite frankly, absurd. And without answering that base question, the higher level question of the origins of life cannot be answered. Evolution and belief in a great creator can coexist, as the former is a product of the ladder. And something tells me that an entity capable of creating a universe that in turn becomes self-aware wouldn't do so by accident or without intent.
I agree with you that nothing mentioned in the video precludes the existence of a supreme creator - and I don’t think believing in god means you can’t also acknowledge all the things we’ve learned and discovered through modern science - but at the same time I also don’t agree that this existence, this universe in which we find ourselves, was *necessarily* created with intent by an entity with such a capability. If you can accept that god can simply exist without first being created, why can’t you accept the same for our cosmos?
@@Shunned_Potato Your existence is the strongest evidence there could be. If you want to argue that something that by our understanding is physically impossible (creation of matter and mathematical laws to govern said matter into becoming self-organizing and self-aware, out of an absolute vacuum in which the very concept of an electron doesn't exist no less) is not only possible, but has lead to our existence, you make a cohesive and logical alternative argument for that. No one ever has to this date, and I'll be listening when you do. You're simply rejecting the most logical hypothesis, but failing to present your own alternative. That's not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of intellectual rigidity and stubborness.
@@alexcallender My argument isn't that God cannot have a creator Himself. But as the creator of our dimensions of time and space, He must exist outside of time and space, which makes Him by definition extra-dimensional. That means from our perspective, He always existed and always will (the Alpha and the Omega). I don't think our minds are even capable of comprehending what might exist beyond our own universe and its dimensions any more than a dog is capable of comprehending quantum mechanics, and so I don't find any use in debating it. It's all just a bunch of maybe's and what if's. What I'm arguing is purely logical based on our understanding of our own universe and laws of physics.
Bunch of accidental pocket watches developed over billions of years and then had the audacity to call a pocket watch they just made "complex". We are funny creatures.
the key is its infact intelligent design, there is a creative force in this universe and this is the absolute consicousness that is the source of all existence.
"creative force" doesn't need to be conscious. Also, then there would be a question where did that obviously complex consciousness come from. If you think complex life can't come from nothing and can't exist since forever, then that would apply to that hypothetical creator too. If you think that hypothetical creator did come from nothing or exist always, then more simple life forms here on Earth could too. Logically you would find yourself in this trap.
@@KateeAngelSomething outside time and space doesn't need a cause. A omnipotent being is independent of everything. That's why people say that God is the unmoved mover. Everything needs Him to exist but He doesn't require anything else. Life, just like everything else on this universe, exists inside of the fabric of time and space, thus, things like life folow the rule of cause and effect.
If you look at the 'design' of what is in living beings and compare them, if they /were/ designed the designer is either stupid or incompetent or both. And who'd want to worship that?
Charles Darwin was an atheist with a profound hatred for God. His ideas always appeal to other atheists in need of an alternative to answer to the burning question of existence. While it doesn’t offend me that people have different beliefs, I do tire of evolution being presented as the only “scientific” explanation, when there are plenty of good scientists that believe in creationism as a result of their own exploration. Furthermore it’s not reasonable to answer a philosophical question in scientific terms. Though good science & good philosophy go hand in hand, they aren’t the same thing. Best of luck to you!
@@Thundereus unlike the effects of prayer or something. Must be an easy experiment, have one group pray for a carrot to turn blue and the other for it to turn it into a watermelon and observe absolutely nothing happen.
@@laurencekoetsier You clearly don't understand how evolution works and that it can be observed on single cells because evolution in complex organisms takes hundreds of thousands of years. We just see the current status of all life. You don't really think evolution is over? It is life itself evolving all time...
The famous scientific calculation saying that bumble bee can not fly was very well supported by a lot of evidence it just did not fit the observation .
I do not like the designer analogy in this video. If it infers that complex things can emerge without a designer which in this case is God, please stop. This is the third educational YT video this week that I watch which is belittling God. Please stick to science and leave theology alone.
First of all you mean “imply”, not “infer”, and secondly he is not implying that so much as directly stating it. It is not a matter of theology to assert that complexity does not require intelligent design - it’s a statement of scientific fact backed up by empiricism. I’m sure Alex’s intention is not to “belittle God”, and I do not agree that he did so in this video.
I knew this video would be a waste of my time. It's oversimplified, makes absolute claims without any evidence, and spouts all the same old substance lacking theory's. "A Creator being just doesn't hold up" then fails to give one reason why other than life is a closed self evolving object so life's inevitable....smh bro seriously.....
@@alexcallender also going around liking your own comments is lame af and before you make too much of a fool out of yourself maybe learn what cope and seethe actually mean instead of using them incorrectly and making yourself look pathetic and unintelligent
@@alexcallender I bet you found this video profound and learned so much from it. Do us the favor and teach us your wisdom. That way we will all be trained on what not to do.
Unfortunately, we skip a whole bunch of steps right at the very beginning. Assuming hydrocarbons spontaneously assemble, they're not liable to be fatty acids but rather hydrocarbons. Fatty acids require oxygen. Hydrocarbons do not have a charged end and so instead of forming vesicles they form blobs in water. Nucleic acids such as RNA spontaneously assemble when they are present and then auto catalyze and break apart very rapidly. They're very fragile except under the perfect conditions in a cell. Even then they don't last very long. RNA does not automatically assemble proteins. It requires a fairly complex structure that is partly protein already. Proteins do not spontaneously fold into enzymes or cell structures without ribosomes. They form blobs of amino acids that are highly unlikely to be active. The probability of all of these things coming together is infinitesimal. The mathematics make it highly improbable. It is important to note that to the best of our knowledge, life arose on Earth exactly once. All the structures have chirality which implies that all organisms on Earth descend from a single original organism. The universe is only some 93 billion light years, and has only endured some 14 billion years. There is not enough matter or time in the universe for life to have emerged spontaneously to any reasonable probability. And yet here we are. There have to be other factors at play that we do not understand. For decades now we have been trying to recreate the conditions that caused Life to arise on Earth spontaneously. We can get amino acids, we can get nucleic acids, we may be even can get fatty acids. The problem is, we have in no way succeeded in making structures that are more complex than oligo nucleotides, small peptides, and maybe some vesicles. Anything more complex has been very much beyond us. And that is under the most ideal conditions. And that is even ignoring the fact that life on Earth requires the earth to be the ideal place for life to exist. And it's not just that it is in a Goldilocks zone as far as the sun is concerned. The Earth is Rocky but has water. It has a thick atmosphere. It is seeded with elements that are rare in the universe such as phosphorus. So life could not have arisen in the early universe because they were not enough elements to make a rocky planet. My understanding is that phosphorus requires the merger of two neutron stars to be formed... Which is not a hugely common event. The sun has to be just the right size and brightness and age. It's entirely possible that a moon is important for the formation of life. How many planets have we found with a moon the size of ours around the planet the size of ours in a goldilock zone? I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer, but I'm just pointing out that the more we look the more difficulties we find. We have been looking for life on other planets basically since we pointed a telescope at the skies. And to date we haven't found anything. We have the Webb telescope, The Hubble, radio telescopes galore, and other very advanced technology... And still nothing. We will probably send probes to Europa, Titan, and other moons, to drill through their ice caps to look for life. My suspicion is we won't find it. And if we do find it, we will find that it is very similar to organisms on Earth. And that would be because the originated on Earth and were blasted into the cosmos by meteor strikes. We are rapidly finding the data to fill the Drake equation. And yet, we still don't know the most important one: the rate of spontaneous generation. The best our data can provide is that rate is approximating zero.
If you all want to actually learn something seek out a cellular biologists and ask them how "inevitable" life is when "flashing a light on atoms' and see what they have to say. It's going to be completely different than this garbage.
I firmly believe there is life everywhere. We humans fixate on walking, talking beings. Nah, there is single-cell life crawling around moons and planets across the galaxy and beyond
TAKE ONE PART OF IT , and go research till you understand. Repeat till you get through the whole video .The meaning of life is the most interesting question anyone plays with , because it is such a complicated puzzle.
I understand that natural selection and/or self-assembly didn't need someone, i.e., a scientist for life to develop and evolve into what it is today. Meaning science just canceled itself. So, all schools and scientific research are a waste of time and money. If a scientist wasn't needed in the beginning for life to start and develop, a scientist isn't needed now. If we evolve into something else then what we are it will be natural, not in a lab. Peace and Ahev
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
I think one thing people forget as they marvel at the statistical improbability that we would be here, is that we just weren’t around to notice all the times we weren’t. Eons of failed dead end pre-life structures, then eons of the simplest types of proto-life, the eons of single celled creatures, and eventually we stumbled along. Since we put ourselves at the center of the story, of *course* this is all here for us, right? Ha; no. We’re just that one lucky coin flip in several trillion that eventually lands on its edge.
So, since Dawkins says DNA (or RNA) holds digitally encoded information, which is base 64 for each amino acid, and, in the match of codon to a.a,there are 64! Ways to arrange the "look up table,"
Systems are required for life. Incomplete systems go nowhere, have no replication advantage in previous.
Complexification is absurd. That a new protein formed randomly can make an existing protein retain its function while interacting is vanishing small . Look at a ribosome, and ask yourself, if each new part couldn't add advantage, but maybe 30 parts could do translation, how do the other 60+ parts "appear from code" such that they enhance functionality?
THERE IS NO LUCA.
The DNA replication systems and code which underlie each schema for pro, and archaea, and the membranes organelles in eukaryotes simply lacks homology.
Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times...
...suppose one day, it lands on its edge. The wheel of fate must turn.
I might be misunderstanding what you're saying; but, saying there is no last common ancestor to modern life doesn't make any sense. Unless you're just saying evolution can't exist because sure have that opinion not debating that.
@@glenliesegang233 Natural selection isn't "random" at all. Everything you think you know about it is wrong. You know nothing at all.
Your "ugh" in the middle of "Life finds a way." just killed me. 🤣🤣🤣
He's always on the lookout for a future ex-Mrs. Astrum.
Somewhere, Goldblum is sitting back smugly in his seat. Not that it has anything to do with this video; it's just something he's probably doing. 😏
Life via abiogenesis is impossible, proteins and RNA are too complex, there's too many limiting factors.
Availability of constituent elements is not sufficient when causal interactions are not capable of producing proteins without other protein systems already present.
The constituent elements for nanites are alsk present, Iron, Gold, Silicone etc, yet you wouldn't think that nanites self generated, yet organic nanites (proteins) are far more complex and you think they self generated?
You could have a life supporting planet in every star system in every galaxy in every Universe in the multiverse and life still wouldn't self generate.
That's how impossible it is for life to self generate and self improve it's own genetics.
@@shaydorahl6740what are you suggesting?
@@commanderpinnacles
God.
If God is the eternal information of reality and the collective/gestalt super consciousness of all reality then He is the best explanation for intelligent structuring of Natural Forces as well as Life.
It also coincides with the Law of Conservation and with Causality, for both to be true then information could never have a beginning, no "nothing to something" rather "always something which can transform into more of itself".
Speaking of getting away from a city to see the stars, the most breathtaking sight I have ever seen was being on the fantail deck of a Navy ship on the equator, in the middle of the Indian Ocean, on a cloudless, moonless night. About as far from lights as you can get, and able to see both the northern and southern night skies at the same time. At that point, you have no doubt that there must be other life out there.
My brother in law told me about one of the exercises for getting his master mariner’s ticket, which said pick a star and steer the ship by it for 15 minutes (a common way to maintain heading without using the compass). He said it was actually difficult because there were so many stars that it was difficult to keep his eye on the correct one without confusing it with another. You had to pay attention.
I have city dwelling friends who have never seen stars. They think there are two or three, and point to Venus and Jupiter. I love taking them to camp in the Mojave.
It is sad that now that we have at least some understanding of what stars are, most people can no longer see them.
on a hilltop 20-odd km north of Townsville, much the same. :P
"Speaking of getting away from a city to see the stars," - You.
Just wait until you find out that you don't have to get away from the city to see the stars in the sky. All you have to do is turn off the lights at night. Duh.
Your last sentence hits hard. I live in a small city but the region around is very densely populated so we have much light pollution. And I just noticed that I have never really seen a naturally bright night sky :’(
I have experienced that in my time in the Canadian Navy. The sky is so overwhelming.
@@danielduncan6806 Yeah, try getting everyone in the city to turn out all the lights. There is almost nowhere on land without at least some light pollution.
The enzyme catalase can make more than 40 million reactions per second. One single protein. 40 million turnovers. In one second.
The speed of reactions in this scale is insanely fast, simply incomprehensible for a human mind. Now imagine this molecular interactions happening in global scale, for millions and millions of years
Crick disagrees with you, consider he received a Noble prize I'll side with him.
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."
Evolution from Space, p.24.
It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be 10^18 seconds. Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there are only 10^80 electrons.
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.
Considering Crick received a Noble prize I'll side with him.
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."
Evolution from Space, p.24.
It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be 10^18 seconds. Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there are only 10^80 electrons
What does reactions mean in this context? Is that like how it responds to its environment, and if so, how do you respond 40 millions times in a second. Beyond my comprehension 🤯
@@BranoneMCSG catalase breaks hydrogen peroxide (h2o2) to water and oxygen. The speed of this reaction depends on the amount of H2O2 available for the enzyme to work. When there's enough h2o2 the enzyme's top speed is more than 40 million reactions per second. The enzyme is just too small, nothing compared with an animal cell, so it can work way faster.
It blew my mind when I learned this in a biochemistry class. People commonly claim the spontaneous origin of life is impossible because the probability is too low, cause they try to imagine the steps randomly happening. But the scales are just unimaginable. The size of earth, the amount of biomolecules, the scale of time and the speed of molecular reactions are all simply incomprehensible for our monkey brains to work with.
@@hjdhjddsahIn other words a lot of things are happening every single second and an unimaginable amount of chemical reactions occur in a billion years let alone a single year or day. Understanding weather systems in terms of entropy and how it uses up energy in the overall environment, and seeing how chemical reactions may get to structure themselves through the dissipation of energy under our understanding of entropy it should be no surprise that matter can organize itself with such complexity over such an insane amount of time
People walk around every day without realizing the walking statistical miracle that they are. We are stardust that can ponder our own creation and the universe that - for some reason - exists at all, and gave birth to us. Stand proudly in awe of the majesty of life.
We aren't as special as we think.
@@CasepbX You don’t think a life form created by almost 5 billion years of evolution that went from inanimate matter to a thinking, conscious being is special? You’re awfully hard to impress!
Statistical miracle is right. Assuming that you believe in multiverses. We live in a universe where life is possible, even minute changes to quantum mechanics or entropy or gravity even (none of which have to be what they are) and life is impossible. To get it right, you may need quadrillions or more random universes. And that's just space, matter and time itself. Keep on going down the requirements and the odds against life are far beyond astronomical. Add to that the odds against complex life. Add to that the odds against intelligent life. Is it really so odd to think there may be a creator?
I don’t disagree but we don’t know exactly how rare life is. Just because we haven’t found any from our searches means very little. We’ve searched statistically nothing using a very narrow set of parameters. There’s most likely an immense amount of life just in our galaxy and while it’s probably safe to assume advanced intelligent life is rare compared to more primitive life, there still probably lots of it out there.
It would be better if this place didn't suck so much
What is life? Baby don't emerge me. Don't emerge me. No more...
i think language models brought a new understanding of how complex behaviors can arise from very simple instructions. It's a lot like game of life - a tiny set of rules and states can create incredibly complex patterns. But with AI it's even more evident - all it's trying to do is to predict the most fitting next word in a sentence, but from it, with enough parameters, emerges hauntingly realistic thought patterns - enough that it can often pass off as human intelligence.
life is a lot like that. simple basic rules that stacked in large enough numbers creates incredibly complex structures, which pile up on top of each other to create even more complex systems, that together form a living being. Looking down from the top down, it seems almost impossible that such complexity can arise without design. but looking at the lowest level --- it is inevitable that it does.
I think we need to put more emphasis on "large" because a single physical system contains so many states it's quite literally unimaginable. You don't even directly simulate wind with a computer.
That’s the principle of emergence. A single ant is pretty simple, only reacting to stimuli, but an ant colony can build a nest, cross rivers, and harvest fungi.
Life is an emergent property of matter. It must emerge elsewhere in a universe this vast if the laws of physics are consistent across it.
I love the theory that life is inevitable as we are going to undoubtedly be the largest cause of entropy we know of. Basically life is inevitable due things trending towards disorder, it made order (life) because it would accelerate the disorder process. Ahh entropy, it giveth life, it taketh away
@@Aryasvitkona I think so too. If you like that, you might like this one too, "Is life a consequence or a product of mind?" (Given that there is no experiment we can conduct to prove anything exists outside of mind and an eternal 'mindverse' satisfies Occam's razor as the explanation requiring fewest assumptions).
Here we go better help again. Blood money is the best money.
Over Dramatic much?
Ask any phlebotomist! 🩸
@@budgiefriend I wish it was the case.
And?
Yeah I'm sad when I see them sponsor a channel but I can't 100% fault the creator. People should know Better Help is no bueno. They have been credibly accused of a number of data privacy issues including allegations they sold private mental health information to advertisers. Which if true is a pretty serious breach of ethics let alone morals.
Half the comments: discussing the video.
The other half: BetterHelp 😅
Had a pretty horrible day today, again for the 3rd time this week. But this video really helped with that
In life it’s pain vs suffering - hope you choose the former and have a better day tomorrow!
Pain is both historian and fortune teller. For none of us truly get to live without a healthy dose of pain.
I've recently had to confront my own mental health issues.
It's uhh.... it's not fun.
We struggle not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities…
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor been there mate, not fun at all. Hope you can see through it
It comes down to "What is life?" I've seen well thought-out arguments from professional biologists that there is only one form of life on Earth, RNA, and everything else is just different manifestations of that. The thing is, though, that RNA does not itself meet any of the current definitions of "living thing."
I think most of that comes from the fact of those definitions try to explain the abstracts of the word using specific contexts and scenarios that don't count others therefore there can be clash
Even then it's a paraphyletic tree of means that could be completely turn on it's head if we discover something like an alien lifeform that breaks all earth chemical composite
Because we try to compare ourselves with our surroundings,. something is "a living thing" if it does what we do, really closed minded of you ask me
Life via abiogenesis is impossible, proteins and RNA are too complex, there's too many limiting factors.
Availability of constituent elements is not sufficient when causal interactions are not capable of producing proteins without other protein systems already present.
The constituent elements for nanites are alsk present, Iron, Gold, Silicone etc, yet you wouldn't think that nanites self generated, yet organic nanites (proteins) are far more complex and you think they self generated?
You could have a life supporting planet in every star system in every galaxy in every Universe in the multiverse and life still wouldn't self generate.
That's how impossible it is for life to self generate and self improve it's own genetics.
@@shaydorahl6740 We are here. That all the proof you need to show that it is possible.
Because if your claim is that life has been designed, then you haven't answered anything, you just pushed the goalpost. You still have to explain how this designer came to be.
And if it was possible for a designer to be, then it's not that much ridiculous to think that life could simply do the same all by itself. If magic is your answer, than it can apply to life without the need for a designer. The idea of a designer is completely superfluous and useless.
@@theslay66
Part 1)
-----
"We are here. That all the proof you need to show that it is possible."
-----
That's stupid.
That's like looking at a computer (which we made) and saying "Because it's here then it must be possible for it to self-arrange".
Nanites don't self-arrange, and proteins (organic nanites) which are far more complex than nanites don't self-arrange either regardless of the abundance of constituent elements present due to limiting factors.
I suggest you check out Lee Cronin's work regarding assembly theory. Him and his research team have come up with a test for life based on just looking at complex molecules. I believe he said an assembly index of 15 or more indictes that your sample was alive while anything below that was made through abiotic processes. So far it's the best way I've seen scientists test for life in an analytical way.
Edit: Since the topic is pretty complex I do not know exactly what assembly index would mean other than assigning numbers to a certain quality of a molecule in order to help understand how many times it would have had to undergone a prior chemical process to get to where it is now.
Kool
Better help is a scam that still manages to help some people. Scam first, help 2nd.
I hope Better Help has a small plot of land from Established Titles.
@@louithrottler 😂💯
@@jimk8520 Damn you, your comment notification lost me a battle in Raid Shadow Legends. I'm coming for you lad - you've got less than 6 hours to install Aura
You're not noticing complexity with a watch, you're noticing artificiality. A coin or an arrowhead is not complex, but you still know they had a designer, because you recognize their artificiality.
A watch also does not self organize. You can throw a bunch of virus parts into water and they will self assemble into viruses (well, empty ones). Watches don't do that.
AI watches might, time will tell.
@@JP_26 And if and when it does, we will be forced to ask..."Has A.I. become alive?"
Life via abiogenesis is impossible, proteins and RNA are too complex, there's too many limiting factors.
Availability of constituent elements is not sufficient when causal interactions are not capable of producing proteins without other protein systems already present.
The constituent elements for nanites are alsk present, Iron, Gold, Silicone etc, yet you wouldn't think that nanites self generated, yet organic nanites (proteins) are far more complex and you think they self generated?
You could have a life supporting planet in every star system in every galaxy in every Universe in the multiverse and life still wouldn't self generate.
That's how impossible it is for life to self generate and self improve it's own genetics.
@@shaydorahl6740So you assume some god did it instead? 🤣
@@Styphon Yup, any other conclusion at this point is childish and idiotic.
Aliens would have the same problem evolving as we would, some of the limiting factors of abiogenesis (and biggest) are rooted in lack of causal potential - an information insufficiency paradox - natural laws alone are insufficient to develop complex nanite systems whether synthetic or organic (proteins).
So yes, without a doubt it was God.
Plus God makes sense considering that God is the eternal information of reality itself, He made this reality out of His own essence/information.
God is the best explanation all in all, resistance to that logical stance is illogical at this point.
We are alone. Alone in our vanity, alone in our dogmas, alone in putting concepts and beliefs in a box that suits us.
This is one of the best channels the internet has produced. I wish I had it when I was a kid. Now I’m 49 and enjoy it even though I know much of the content. Besides, Alex McColgan’s voice is like Heroin.
I love these videos so much, the way its paced, its contents and the editing
My favorite autocatalytic example is rust. It's so simple, and common. Every mechanic knows that rust will spread. If you look at some rust spots on a car, you already feel like some spreading bacterial infection eaten the metal...
One question that’s bugging me for months , if this is all true , how come we cant put all this stuff together and create some type of life ? The reason given was oxygen concentration, but we can control that in a lab right ? Have we ever created life from nothing? Genuinely curious
Good question. I feel like we're neanderthals banging rocks together, wondering why we're still thirsty.
We believe it’s theoretically possible, we just don’t know with certainty the correct ratios of chemicals/necessary conditions/etc. etc.. Scientist *have* been able to turn simple molecules into more complex ones (such as amino acids) by replicating conditions thought to be similar to so-called “primordial soup”, which is a good start, but obviously something is still missing.
That said, understanding how something likely came about is different than being able to recreate it, after all. Our inability (so far) to induce abiogenesis doesn’t mean our theories on the origin of life are incorrect - simply that they’re incomplete at the moment.
In my personal opinion, the biggest ingredient we lack, which the early Earth had in abundance, is time.
My old master Darth Plagueis could create life using the force. Unfortunately for him it wasn't enough to keep himself alive
@@alexcallenderawesome answer that helped a lot thank you
Yup, it’s very hard to replicate a billion years in a lab.
I love that Campbell's primordial soup haha
And then there is the leap to simple animal life, taking more billions of years. But once it starts life forms explode in variety of ways. Only to be wiped out by a hostile universe, over and over until ... The universe calms down long enough for intelligence to emerge, perhaps to be wiped out more than once. Finally here we are, not only intelligence and self aware, but existing long enough for advanced technologies to emerge through us. Maybe also more than once. It's that last step that is the most precarious. So easily snuffed out and the whole process has to start over again, maybe. Or not. It's that part that makes me think there are such slim chances for other civilizations anywhere near us. OTOH, if there are others, it is quite likely they would be closer to us that we might think. Those same pauses in hostility from the universe (even just on a local scale) that gave this planet a chance to produce advanced civilizations may have given nearby star systems the same chance in the same time period. A relatively local Goldilocks Zone in our galaxy. Why have we not heard from them? They may all be very behind us in technology, hoping to hear from us someday. Although, once started, technology tends to shoot straight up at a blistering pace, that start here could just as well not have take place on earth for thousands of years yet. Hundreds of thousands of years. It all depended on how comfortable our remote ancestors were with the status quo. Comfort does not breed change.
Life 'finds a way' - I think more like 'Life wants to live' - I recall when scientists found bacteria basically doing the backstroke and thriving in nuclear reactors, later still reading about 'Conan the Bacterium' to 'Extremophiles' and Tardigrades... and so on. Life certainly does what it says on the can.
I know it takes money to produce quality content but please get a quality sponsor for your videos.
Why is it that everyone avoids the very real possibility that This is When and Where Life was Born? We could well be the First.
Could be true but on the other hand, there are trillions on trillions of other planets surely many just like earth. I guess the question would be if life does/did exist, was it at the same time as us before an extinction event.
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
big if true
Another great episode. Even as an evolutionary biologist, you synthesised a complex topic in a remarkably short video, helped by really stunning graphics. Of course, your narration makes Astrum my favourite science channel. I hope Better Help is a generous sponsor, because your way of building the advert into the end of the video is absolutely masterful.
wonderful video from beginning to very end
When i was working abroad on a hot summer night, i looked up and saw in its pure color, an arm of the milky way. Mix of brown, purple and so many stars. I was mesmorized and began questioning that there had to life out there. It also gave me interest in learning more about astronomy. Back in the city, yet to see it again but its etched in my brain for life.
Our chemistry is the SAME through out the VAST Observable Universe 🧑🏿💻🤓. I bet my life that there are other organisms in our Universe 😂. The more we see, the more we understand, that we DON’T understand👨🏿⚕️🤓keep searching🔭👏🏿👏🏿🦠💉😷
Regarding entropy,: We don't have to squint our eyes and wave our hands around thermodynamics to justify the claim that entropy on Earth is increasing.
In fact, entropy on Earth has decreased throughout its existence.
The salient missing point is that entropy always decreases *In A Closed System,* which is often overlooked in these discussions. Entropy can most definitely decrease in a non-closed system to which energy can be added.
And Earth is not a closed system. It receives copious amounts of energy from the sun-- energy which has served to sustain life in all its diverse forms, decreasing entropy so that life can evolve into more ordered and complex forms.
So we don't need to wave our hands and squint our eyes to convince ourselves that entropy on Earth is increasing, because it's not. It's clearly decreasing, and for a reason that thermodynamics allows.
My guess is that breaking down the false barrier between the animate and the inanimate is behind understanding abiogenesis. Yes, there is a huge gap between the most complex chemicals and the simplest life. However, that gap is as misleading as the apparent gap between humans and other species. There wasn't always a gap, but there is now. It seems that if some entities complexify enough over time, they demolish or absorb all of their peer entities, giving a false impression of great uniqueness. The uniqueness is somewhat of an illusion, because all the transitional forms obviously did once exist, but they were swept aside, leaving apparent gaps. It's all a continuum, including life and non-living things, despite what we perceive as gaps.
The gap between life & death is quite significant and cannot be bridged. How then is chemistry & biochemistry a continuum?
@@sentientflower7891 That gap is another illusion, like the so-called gap between humans and other animals. Life and death have separated over time, but early on in evolutionary history they would have been almost indistinguishable. It's possible that the first ever life lasted only seconds, or less.
There is a reason why there is a new field - geobiology. Biology and geology are not separate - they are aspects on one thing.
It's fascinating, how the entire evolution of man from a single cell life form to a multicellular one takes place within 9 months inside the womb.
Alex, you’re amazing! Keep posting more and more
I was pondering this on the drive home LITERALLY YESTERDAY
Well, if chaos created life and life created pocket watches ,then by extension chaos created pocket watches
I love that you sent Paley to the woodshed in the first three minutes.
Keep BetterHelp out of your videos. Just do research, don’t take blood money
So do better help just suck or are they actually kill people like what blood money are you talking about?
So do better help just suck or are they actually killing people what blood money are you talking about?
Please explain. An accusation needs explanation
If he caved to the pressure, soon he would have no sponsors. It's a slippery slope.
Hard to imagine the young Earth, spinning much faster with a Moon orbiting much closer, causing tidal forces that would have ravaged early coastal areas far inland, like tsunamis are to us today, but with every incoming tide. This was also an ocean with chemistry far different than today. Maybe something about the shape of the helix coil of RNA/DNA makes it more resilient to these conditions, it holds together better, maybe even assisted in how the first DNA chains came together initially because of these extreme tidal environments of an ocean with far different chemistry going on. Nature sort of selected it in that way.
DNA couldn't exist in that event and RNA couldn't form either.
we are messy in our interactions with our environment by design apparently. the universe loves entropy, and our task it to add to that.
You are sooooo close. Maybe I can push you over the edge. If we evolved on this planet, this planet's design is a part of our design. If we evolved, we evolved to live on exactly this Earth, not just this Earth, but this Earth, in this Earth's point in time and space as well. Meaning, even the slightest deviation from the current state of this planet, and we all die, as in extinction; complete eradication of our species.
This would mean we don't "just exist", that instead, we are a FUNCTION of this planet.
"You're insane, what the F does that mean?"
Well, I am glad you asked. It means you're fated to die on this rock, like the estimated 117 billion humans that lived and died on this rock before you.
Hahahahaha! Enjoy your weekend.
16:00 I don’t like how you framed that quote. Yes absence of evidence is not absence of evidence, but that's not what's happening. If I look in a room, and no one is in there, that's not absence of evidence of no on being there, that's definitive evidence of absence.
Im still prefferential to life originating from thermal vents in the ocean, at the time life developrd there was an exceptional amount of geological activity happening and many shallow hot springs fueld by hydrothermal.
then why can't science replicate that?
@@CantankerousOB it has done in several experiments. However, life as we know it, took about 100 million years to emerge from those conditions. Most experiments haven't even gone past a couple of months.
@@salt-emoji has any lab ever created DNA from the base chemicals?
@@jakefromstatefarm1405 Yes, DNA synthesis has been a thing for a good while now.
@@jakefromstatefarm1405 DNA synthesis replicates existing DNA by using an existing DNA template. It doesn't create new DNA from chemicals.
Wait. It's an adaptive design. So how did it adapt to begin with? How did a bunch of chemicals suddenly decide which way to go? Did they manage to program DNA themselves? A watch is simply a complex design, since it's intended to fulfill a specific role and nothing more. But how did chemistry decide natural selection? How did it decide to program DNA to not just perform a specific task, but to adapt as well?
The chemical reactions are self-catalysing. They organised themselves by the nature of the reaction.
@@cptrelentless80085 Catalyzed by what? And how does it decide to remember it?
@@kazearqaz1734 You don't understand what a catalyst is, do you?
@@cptrelentless80085lol that’s a stretch. Anything to make that Darwinian theory work no matter how stupid it sounds
@@OceanusHeliosIn a technical sense, I don't. No anwered the question anyway.
Saying aliens don’t exist is like taking a jug of water and saying fish don’t exist; we have hardly explored into space.
Assuming it exists elsewhere is an act of faith.
We have no proof of it anywhere else, and it's only happened here once.
Excellent point but let us remember our Fermi
It truly is a numbers game problem is I suck at math
@@farrglehorn8216
You're right!
We have found evidence of none.
We have been contacted by none.
We are alone.
Yes, LOTS more evidence that we are unique in the universe than not being alone @leveljoe
6:42 If you want to skip to the start of the answer on key building blocks of life...
Who designs the designer? Surely a designer would be even more complex 🙂
this is called the "unmoved mover" in some cosmologies, the concept that there must be a basic point of origin that has always existed from which all of reality comes
The question is absurd because it implies infinite regression. It's no different than saying the earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise, but what's under that tortoise? Another one, and another and another... turtles all the way down. All the way down to what? Because we live in a universe that abides by the laws of cause and effect, we cannot fathom infinity. But if our universe was created out that which exists outside of the universe itself, then whatever that is does not necessarily have to abide by the laws of our universe. Infinite regression is absurd no matter what realm you are in, but infinity is not. Simple logic would dictate there is an endpoint at which a force all powerful and infinite exists. Is it God? Perhaps. But it's something.
@@100percentSNAFU Bunch of claims, no evidence. Would be time to learn what intellectual honesty mean and start saying "I don't know", if you can't prove your claims. NEXT!
@@100percentSNAFU "The question is absurd because it implies infinite regression."
Exactly my reaction any time someone tries to claim god is real.
@@100percentSNAFU I dont see how simple logic dictates an endpoint? It doesnt necessarily dictate anything in that regard. But assuming everything needs a start, the logic of that assumption breaks with the claim "everything has a start except for X", wouldnt you agree?
I feel like there must have been many different proto-cells, incredibly simple structures that simply didn't evolve past a certain point. Consider viruses as a potential example - partial structures that interact with more complex organisms to reproduce. If we consider dozens, if not hundreds, of potential basic forms of life, that then leads to intense selective pressure to adjust and evolve, which kick-starts the whole process.
I should note that I'm no expert, but I've seen many videos like this, and if we're discussing a game of chance with regards to life, then we also have to consider that game of chance playing out for all the proto-life that didn't manage to survive. Imagine dozens of chemical and atomic structures combining and recombining to form something more complex. This could even still be happening, the universe rolling the dice on whether or not those same combinations can happen yet again. That gives us the best chance of such complex life emerging from basically nothing.
I'd compare it to a child playing with a set of blocks, knocking them down and rebuilding them tirelessly, but infinitely more complicated than that. Imagine tossing a packet of sauce mix into a boiling pot of water, and watching the chemicals and ingredients bubble around, mixing together like a chaotic dance. Eventually in that comparison you get uniformity, aside from clumps and pockets that you have to break down. Those clumps form patterns, irregular but predictable based off how the water boiled, how it structured itself even in chaos.
It feels fitting, to me at least. And while I don't know enough about the topic to really consider further than that, it also suits the chaotic nature of the universe we live in. Stars are constantly fusing atoms to make denser and denser elements, then exploding violently to fling those materials out in all directions. Our universe on a large scale might represent what happens on much smaller scales, and the patterns that emerge could quite literally be universal. If that's the case, it gives us a turbulent dance to analyze and comprehend, on every scale, and I think that's beautiful.
This video gave me hope, thank you
This video is the exact opposite of hope. The fact you think this gives you hope proves we are all doomed.
@@danielduncan6806 I am sorry you feel that way.
@@TheZMDX I don't do feelings. And I reject your apology. An apology is an acknowledgement you made a mistake, AND the effort to undo it. Your apology is neither of those; so it is rejected.
@@danielduncan6806Why no hope? The nearly infinitely improbable in a nearly infinite universe means virtual certainty. Molecules identified as self assembling, scattered through the entire universe, in all the possible catalyzing environments, means an infinite number of life-creating experiments going on. We are but just one.
@@Styphon Hope itself is an illusion. It is the non-religious form of prayer.
When a religious person is helpless, they turn to prayer. When a non-religious person is helpless, they turn to hope.
Both are equally as useless, because they are the same.
Watch this; "I hope he..." "I hope they..." "I hope it..." "I hope she..." Do you see the pattern? You see that, right? They are all asking someone ELSE to do it. Why is that? Because you are helpless, you can't do it, so you hope someone or something else does it.
Even in the case of "I hope I...", you're putting it in the hands of luck. You don't hope to put your socks on, and a plumber doesn't hope to fix the pipes. Why not? Because those are thing you know how to do, or in the case of the plumber, they are capable.
You NEVER hope for the things you CAN do.
So, why no hope? Because hope doesn't even exist. There just simply isn't such a thing.
If you can't do it, you just simply can't do it. And you can't do it.
Star Trek: Discovery said it very well in their first episode. The building blocks of life (as we know it) are not uncommon in the universe, it only makes sense that life exists elsewhere or everywhere
I absolutely love Astrum. Thank you Alex. You and your team do such an amazing job with your videos. Really informative, relaxing and just a joy to watch ❤
It's kind of crazy, but many researchers think life might have originated at least 2x here on Earth. I was thinking, life is a probability, not a terrific chain of odd events into a single occurrence. Similar conditions spawn similar chemical and physical processes. Organic molecules exist, if things are right, they'll organize and you can flip a coin from there.
Beautiful video. Thank you!
Its not just the philosophical 'WHY' and the opportunistic 'IF' , its also about the window of 'WHEN' and scientific filter of 'HOW' and statistical 'PROBABILTY' that all need to align, before any 'life' can be be spawned / generated.
I think this is one of your most beautiful videos yet. Thanks so much for this.
Typing this just BEFORE watching.
My 1st reaction to that question: Chaos DID create the pocket watch,
by giving rise to the entities that created the pocket watch.
This is a really good video. I like how the expalanation goes from high level to low level with just the right of detail for me to follow.
Where did you get all the graphics and information from? I had a look at the video description, but there aren't any references.
The part about Shrodinger and not violating entropy by including the open system of the environment really blew my noggin' there! Good video!
Life is just a definition we've created anyway.
Isn't everything?
Meaningless comment. Life is obviously distinct from non-life. That difference is what we care about and wish to better understand.
ATP synthase has a molecular weight of 500,000 Daltons (a dalton is essentially the mass of a hydrogen atom). All proteins, including ATP synthase, are made of amino acids strung into a peptide chain. There are about 22 amino acids associated with life and the average weight of an amino acid is 110 Daltons. So one would expect that ATP synthase consists of a peptide chain about 4,500 units long!
Dr. Stephen Myer mentions the chances of making a functional protein from a 150 unit peptide chain with 22 amino acids to choose from is 22^150 which is about 2.38 × 10 exp 201 (note: there are about 10 exp 80 atoms in the universe). Since there are about 20,000 known functional proteins associated with our bodies, and just for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume the peptide chains are all 150 units long, then the chances of randomly finding a functional sequence out of 10 exp 201 possibilities is simply ridiculous to consider. I would think that all known computers running full blast for a trillion years could not find very many.
So ATP synthase with a 4,500 unit long peptide chain is even more ridiculously impossible (goto duckduckgo and enter"22^4500" and see what it says)! AND even if a functional protein supernaturally popped up, it would last for a little while until it busted apart due to thermal agitation or some chemical reaction took place. So some means of replicating this super precious functional protein that you found would have to supernaturally arise simultaneously with its creation. AND not only that but the but replicating machinery would have to replicated as well so that more than one replicator can exist. Well, the replication machinery would have to also be made of proteins and replicating machinery would have to be in place for them as well. AND nothing happens without energy so you would have to have set of proteins (enzymes) supernaturally pop into existence to digest carbohydrates proteins and fats into usable molecules to be metabolized in the cell many of which are much longer than 150 amino acids in length.
So the fact that ATP synthase actually exists (which needs to be encoded in the DNA) AND there is molecular machinery (more proteins which also need to be encoded in the DNA) to manufacture the pieces of ATP synthase AND there is even more machinery which translates the DNA into mRNA (all of which needs to be encoded in the DNA), AND you would have to supernaturally already have a sufficient proton gradient across the membrane of the mitochondria (which also needs to be replicable) to get the ATP synthase to spin, etc. etc. Well at some point you just have to throw your hands up and realize that THERE IS AN EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT GENIUS CREATOR THAT LOVES YOU!!!
And all there is to do is love Him back and investigate and marvel at all that He created.
It is also the ONLY known solution to the "chicken or the egg" dilemma.
You know I’m not religious by any means but I’ve always been slightly creeped out by the fact that photons are aware of when Humans observe them or not 😭😭
That's not what happens, it's just the way it is poorly explained.
And they only wave when you're not looking. 😏
It is not the case. What you are describing is a misinterpretation of measurement in quantum mechanics, which was used in pseudo-science articles for sensationalism.
Only creatures with sufficiently complex brains can possess “awareness”. Photons are not aware.
@@WebertRLZ I'm curious. Never heard of this before, can you explain, or provide a trustworthy source?
Mate, can you do a video on the recent discoveries over the past few weeks by perseverance suggesting pretty sold evidence that there was once life on Mars. Also the sulphur crystals accidentally found and the theories of nuclear explosions above Mars' surface long ago?
There is no need to add an entity. Stuff happens.
It's a lot of maybe probably and can happen takes a lot of faith. No?
Your wife will say "Stuff happens" when you find out I've been plowing that box for months.
@@bluefireburns6890trillions of planets in the observable universe, not such a low chance, and you couldn't comment this if you weren't alive
@@bluefireburns6890 No, not really. It did take quite a lot of deductive reasoning though.
@@alexcallender what process did your mind take?
The idea that there was only one origin of life on Earth is a hotly debated topic. Currently there is a lot of evidence that life started independantly at least twice. LUCA would then be the last one that succeeded.
Bh have a bad rep online , please do not allow them to advertise.
Bh stands for Bob Hendrick
Booby holders
If there is a maker, the maker himself ought to have his own maker, ad infinitum.
No, that's a category error. Things within this universe are observed to rely on cause and effect. Before big bang theory was adopted secularists assumed the universe is, was, and always had been. BBT shattered that and we now know there was in fact a beginning, which itself requires something outside of space, time, and matter to cause it. Whatever that "something" is, once you've left the realm of space/time/matter you're in an entirely different category that no longer relies on cause and effect. "What color is the number 7" is as sensible a question as "Who made the maker."
@@TylerR909 thats all presuming BBT which is still a theory remember is actually what happened.
@@Deathwish026I wish people who use the word 'theory' in comments about scientific topics understood the meaning of 'theory' as used in science. It is not a supposition.
@@TylerR909 That all relies on ignorance though, the discovery of the big bang doesn't rule out the universe having always existed. All that the cosmic background radiation tells us is that we can't know what happened before it, not that it's impossible for something to have existed before (a very common misconception). For all we know the universe could cycle between expansion and The Big Crunch and the big bang was just what happens at the end of a big crunch.
@@Deathwish026 me when I slept through every single science class I've ever taken: (I never learned that a theory is something that's been proven)
I put this video on to fall asleep but it was way TOO interesting, so I forced myself to stay awake and watch this!
Congrats on 2 Million! Well done
Apparent excess entropy from life formation gets off-loaded to the external environment, since that is a viable component of the system? Very cool, I never heard that before, but it couldn't make more sense - life, to maintain itself, keeps draining energy rapidly from the environment, adding to external entropy, I think...awesome! 2M subs well earned, lol
"300,000 years" and all we've physically done to search for reason, is step outside, and come back in again. We have/had 4600+ religions, none helped our physical journey. One of our favourite things to do is "reduce our number" assertively. Slowing our progress. Yet we are surrounded by endless materials, and endless places. Endless things to explore. It's The Human Race, not the human watch. I think we need to start running very fast, to more rocks and stars. Not waiting for something to come extinguish us. It saddens me so very much, that we may be too self indulgent to survive. Not worthy.
perfectly put.
Lame.
@@100percentSNAFU ""Grow up" says the child who trolls the comment section solely to flame and lob ad hominem insults, but adds nothing to the conversation."
Wow, dude, you are really one "special" kind of human for sure.
As my dad used to say, “ just because you didn’t find what your looking for, means your closer to finding the answers. Don’t stop looking.”
It looks like we don’t have any explanation yet for the causes of some favorable events that could explain why an initial “encoding machinery” would appear in first place.
There is no "encoding machinery", you just can't swallow that your magical sky daddy can not hide into the unknown corners of our understanding of reality anymore. Grow up!
Life via abiogenesis is impossible, proteins and RNA are too complex, there's too many limiting factors.
Availability of constituent elements is not sufficient when causal interactions are not capable of producing proteins without other protein systems already present.
The constituent elements for nanites are alsk present, Iron, Gold, Silicone etc, yet you wouldn't think that nanites self generated, yet organic nanites (proteins) are far more complex and you think they self generated?
You could have a life supporting planet in every star system in every galaxy in every Universe in the multiverse and life still wouldn't self generate.
That's how impossible it is for life to self generate and self improve it's own genetics.
@@Muckytuja
How was God hiding when He is reality itself?
Information is eternal, the gestalt cobsciousness of eternal, infinite information is God Himself.
He was never hiding, He's in plain sight.
Believing in nothing to something, non complexity to complexity, that's magic, secular naturalism is of that delusion.
So perhaps you should grow up?
@@shaydorahl6740 "Life via abiogenesis is impossible"
That's your opinion, where is your evidence that it is impossible by natural laws of biochemistry? Because your logic dictates that magic is more plausible, cause that doesn't require some level of knowledge in chemistry and biology.
@@shaydorahl6740 "How was God hiding when He is reality itself?"
Another claim, another missing proof about it! Would be time to learn about logical fallacies and how an honest person operates! ;)
There is a great lecture on RUclips from Santa Fe Institute, by Dr Eric Smith, titled something like Inevitable Life. Anyone who is interested in abiogenesis, but struggles to visualize it, should go watch that lecture after they've finished this video.
Man, I'll be here for the comments for sure. Just going to get some popcorn first.
Oh god no... it's embarrasing we still have to talk about magic and spirits when topics such as these are brought up.
This is going to get chaotic. 🙄
Why? The only logical explanation is God.
@@manoz6194 In your head it is, it's not in mine.
@@Dooguk I welcome a better explanation. God is always going to be on top no matter what.
The best phrase: Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack
You're accepting a scam-sponsor like 'BetterHelp"?
Shame! 👎
Relax keyboard warrior.
Why not go and shame someone truly worthy of it?
Anything more than what you can d
Shame😂
Grown up people are free to make their own choices?
So, make a competing company called "WorseHindrance".
better not help
Eh, get that money. Even youtuber's have to eat
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Wow! Words to live by!
Another astronomically good video, as always!
Imagine not knowing how evil BetterHelp is but trying to educate your audience, Ms. Morissette add it to your list.
I enjoy the faith-based comments and assurances. "We WILL figure out abiogenesis. One day."
Its not even that I disagree with the sentiment. Maybe we will. But the absolute certainty that abiogenesis happened, "we just need the evidence to prove it" strikes me as a fundamental verificationism.
The next question would then be: why is the physics of the universe the way it is, rather than anything else? Why are subatomic particles a thing, rather than something else? Why are static forces equal to X instead of Y? One could argue that life was able to form due to a specific design of the universe, where chemistry exists in such a way as to allow for the building blocks of life to form
Was going to say that!
Always one step back, instead of forward. The dishonesty of religious people is just mind-numbing.
What is really mind numbing is to actually believe that everything in the finely tuned universe we live in just happened by sheer chance. The universe could have existed in nearly an infinite number of forms, yet it exists in such a way that star formation can happen, life can happen, and specific laws and rules exist that cannot be broken or circumvented such as entropy and light speed. It isn't a lucky fluke, it's a design. And you don't have to be "religious" to believe there is a Creator of all, just logical. If you want to talk about "dishonesty", maybe try first being honest with yourself. What is more probable...a bunch of matter and energy appeared out of complete nothingness and then organized itself into a complex state complete with physical laws, or a force greater than our limited knowledge can fathom designed it this way? Cause and effect. With no cause, there is no effect.
@@100percentSNAFU So the Sun was designed to give skin cancer?
@@100percentSNAFU So the Sun was designed to give skin crab? (can't say the name of the disease because RUclips AI ban my comment)
How does the watchmaker argument fall apart? Because intricacy isn’t a hallmark of design, simplicity is. Talk to any software engineer. - Matt Dilahunty
This is the video I've been needing so I can show people how God doesn't have to be the only option, unfortunately many are too busy/scared to learn how science drives biology and evolution.
Your belief in evolution without a god is also the belief that humans will always be limited and evolution is limited. Because if evolution went on to the point where humans and their technology could create life (ai awakening or whatever) then humans become god. And if it happened once, maybe it happened before and we were created. But such thoughts take a lot of thinking.
Yea… I dunno about the early RNA/early protein part…
Great video Alex. You do good work bringing these topics to the general public :)
I'm 3 minutes in and you've already made a huge oversight. The idea that there's a designer doesn't necessarily limit itself to life, but can apply to the physical universe as a whole and the complex systems that make life possible to begin with. The properties of atoms, the elements, the mathematical truths upon which the physical world is based. The notion that this infinitely complex system, the very laws of nature, arose out of an absolute vacuum for no reason at all, is quite frankly, absurd. And without answering that base question, the higher level question of the origins of life cannot be answered. Evolution and belief in a great creator can coexist, as the former is a product of the ladder. And something tells me that an entity capable of creating a universe that in turn becomes self-aware wouldn't do so by accident or without intent.
The god of the gaps argument basically. Get some evidence of that creator then come back. The rest of us will stick to science and critical thinking.
I agree with you that nothing mentioned in the video precludes the existence of a supreme creator - and I don’t think believing in god means you can’t also acknowledge all the things we’ve learned and discovered through modern science - but at the same time I also don’t agree that this existence, this universe in which we find ourselves, was *necessarily* created with intent by an entity with such a capability.
If you can accept that god can simply exist without first being created, why can’t you accept the same for our cosmos?
@@Shunned_Potato Your existence is the strongest evidence there could be. If you want to argue that something that by our understanding is physically impossible (creation of matter and mathematical laws to govern said matter into becoming self-organizing and self-aware, out of an absolute vacuum in which the very concept of an electron doesn't exist no less) is not only possible, but has lead to our existence, you make a cohesive and logical alternative argument for that. No one ever has to this date, and I'll be listening when you do. You're simply rejecting the most logical hypothesis, but failing to present your own alternative. That's not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of intellectual rigidity and stubborness.
@@alexcallender My argument isn't that God cannot have a creator Himself. But as the creator of our dimensions of time and space, He must exist outside of time and space, which makes Him by definition extra-dimensional. That means from our perspective, He always existed and always will (the Alpha and the Omega). I don't think our minds are even capable of comprehending what might exist beyond our own universe and its dimensions any more than a dog is capable of comprehending quantum mechanics, and so I don't find any use in debating it. It's all just a bunch of maybe's and what if's. What I'm arguing is purely logical based on our understanding of our own universe and laws of physics.
@@MrFreeGman I disagree that it’s logical.
Bunch of accidental pocket watches developed over billions of years and then had the audacity to call a pocket watch they just made "complex". We are funny creatures.
the key is its infact intelligent design, there is a creative force in this universe and this is the absolute consicousness that is the source of all existence.
Our educational system has failed you.
@@Shunned_Potato Or maybe it just failed to indoctrinate me..
@@FluffyFractalshard
Oh the irony
"creative force" doesn't need to be conscious. Also, then there would be a question where did that obviously complex consciousness come from. If you think complex life can't come from nothing and can't exist since forever, then that would apply to that hypothetical creator too. If you think that hypothetical creator did come from nothing or exist always, then more simple life forms here on Earth could too. Logically you would find yourself in this trap.
@@KateeAngelSomething outside time and space doesn't need a cause.
A omnipotent being is independent of everything.
That's why people say that God is the unmoved mover. Everything needs Him to exist but He doesn't require anything else.
Life, just like everything else on this universe, exists inside of the fabric of time and space, thus, things like life folow the rule of cause and effect.
Fascinating but O my head! Many thanks for all your postings and looking forward to the next😁
Chaos could never create life. Only the Creator can.
If you look at the 'design' of what is in living beings and compare them, if they /were/ designed the designer is either stupid or incompetent or both. And who'd want to worship that?
Charles Darwin was an atheist with a profound hatred for God. His ideas always appeal to other atheists in need of an alternative to answer to the burning question of existence.
While it doesn’t offend me that people have different beliefs, I do tire of evolution being presented as the only “scientific” explanation, when there are plenty of good scientists that believe in creationism as a result of their own exploration.
Furthermore it’s not reasonable to answer a philosophical question in scientific terms. Though good science & good philosophy go hand in hand, they aren’t the same thing.
Best of luck to you!
@@claycon wasn't Darwin a freemason?
Evolution happens all the time and we can observe its effects.
@@Thundereus unlike the effects of prayer or something. Must be an easy experiment, have one group pray for a carrot to turn blue and the other for it to turn it into a watermelon and observe absolutely nothing happen.
@@laurencekoetsier what are you talking about?
@@laurencekoetsier You clearly don't understand how evolution works and that it can be observed on single cells because evolution in complex organisms takes hundreds of thousands of years.
We just see the current status of all life.
You don't really think evolution is over? It is life itself evolving all time...
The famous scientific calculation saying that bumble bee can not fly was very well supported by a lot of evidence it just did not fit the observation .
I do not like the designer analogy in this video. If it infers that complex things can emerge without a designer which in this case is God, please stop. This is the third educational YT video this week that I watch which is belittling God. Please stick to science and leave theology alone.
First of all you mean “imply”, not “infer”, and secondly he is not implying that so much as directly stating it. It is not a matter of theology to assert that complexity does not require intelligent design - it’s a statement of scientific fact backed up by empiricism. I’m sure Alex’s intention is not to “belittle God”, and I do not agree that he did so in this video.
"Stick to science but not the bits that contradict my book please."
I think life on other planet like ours is possible, because mother nature has learned how to make life on earth so it has knowledge and experience
There is nothing to learn here. It's all hypothesis and speculation
you think we can't wonder about stuff without having bulletproof theories?
No, it’s more than that. It’s probable conclusions derived through deductive reasoning built on top of centuries of empirical research.
Tonnes of evidence is nothing to you?
12:00 Look up Levinson’s paradox. Interesting stuff…I just finished my biochemistry class. This video triggered some anxiety in me.
I knew this video would be a waste of my time. It's oversimplified, makes absolute claims without any evidence, and spouts all the same old substance lacking theory's. "A Creator being just doesn't hold up" then fails to give one reason why other than life is a closed self evolving object so life's inevitable....smh bro seriously.....
Cope, and also seethe.
@@alexcallender that makes zero sense..
Litterly a 50 IQ comment.
See how stupid that comment is 😉
@@alexcallender also going around liking your own comments is lame af and before you make too much of a fool out of yourself maybe learn what cope and seethe actually mean instead of using them incorrectly and making yourself look pathetic and unintelligent
@@alexcallender I bet you found this video profound and learned so much from it. Do us the favor and teach us your wisdom. That way we will all be trained on what not to do.
@@kuwaitisnotadeployment1373 Still seething, huh? Hilarious.
Unfortunately, we skip a whole bunch of steps right at the very beginning.
Assuming hydrocarbons spontaneously assemble, they're not liable to be fatty acids but rather hydrocarbons. Fatty acids require oxygen. Hydrocarbons do not have a charged end and so instead of forming vesicles they form blobs in water.
Nucleic acids such as RNA spontaneously assemble when they are present and then auto catalyze and break apart very rapidly. They're very fragile except under the perfect conditions in a cell. Even then they don't last very long.
RNA does not automatically assemble proteins. It requires a fairly complex structure that is partly protein already.
Proteins do not spontaneously fold into enzymes or cell structures without ribosomes. They form blobs of amino acids that are highly unlikely to be active.
The probability of all of these things coming together is infinitesimal. The mathematics make it highly improbable.
It is important to note that to the best of our knowledge, life arose on Earth exactly once. All the structures have chirality which implies that all organisms on Earth descend from a single original organism.
The universe is only some 93 billion light years, and has only endured some 14 billion years. There is not enough matter or time in the universe for life to have emerged spontaneously to any reasonable probability.
And yet here we are.
There have to be other factors at play that we do not understand.
For decades now we have been trying to recreate the conditions that caused Life to arise on Earth spontaneously. We can get amino acids, we can get nucleic acids, we may be even can get fatty acids. The problem is, we have in no way succeeded in making structures that are more complex than oligo nucleotides, small peptides, and maybe some vesicles. Anything more complex has been very much beyond us. And that is under the most ideal conditions.
And that is even ignoring the fact that life on Earth requires the earth to be the ideal place for life to exist. And it's not just that it is in a Goldilocks zone as far as the sun is concerned. The Earth is Rocky but has water. It has a thick atmosphere. It is seeded with elements that are rare in the universe such as phosphorus.
So life could not have arisen in the early universe because they were not enough elements to make a rocky planet. My understanding is that phosphorus requires the merger of two neutron stars to be formed... Which is not a hugely common event.
The sun has to be just the right size and brightness and age. It's entirely possible that a moon is important for the formation of life. How many planets have we found with a moon the size of ours around the planet the size of ours in a goldilock zone?
I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer, but I'm just pointing out that the more we look the more difficulties we find.
We have been looking for life on other planets basically since we pointed a telescope at the skies. And to date we haven't found anything. We have the Webb telescope, The Hubble, radio telescopes galore, and other very advanced technology... And still nothing.
We will probably send probes to Europa, Titan, and other moons, to drill through their ice caps to look for life. My suspicion is we won't find it. And if we do find it, we will find that it is very similar to organisms on Earth. And that would be because the originated on Earth and were blasted into the cosmos by meteor strikes.
We are rapidly finding the data to fill the Drake equation. And yet, we still don't know the most important one: the rate of spontaneous generation. The best our data can provide is that rate is approximating zero.
The odds of our existence clearly were not zero, and here we are. Cherish life as it is extremely unlikely.
If you all want to actually learn something seek out a cellular biologists and ask them how "inevitable" life is when "flashing a light on atoms' and see what they have to say. It's going to be completely different than this garbage.
Literal 65 IQ comment.
@@alexcallender ok I'll bite. Link the scientific paper that shows how life is created in a lab for me so I can be smart like you
@@alexcallender yeah you're right claiming that life is inevitable when you shine light on a group of atoms. Is most definitely a 50 IQ comment.
@@kuwaitisnotadeployment1373 You’re legitimately one of the dumbest creatures I’ve ever encountered online. I genuinely pity you.
@@alexcallender you made a ass outta yourself today.
I firmly believe there is life everywhere. We humans fixate on walking, talking beings. Nah, there is single-cell life crawling around moons and planets across the galaxy and beyond
Who else didnt understand a thing?
TAKE ONE PART OF IT , and go research till you understand. Repeat till you get through the whole video .The meaning of life is the most interesting question anyone plays with , because it is such a complicated puzzle.
Me! I learnt more about watches than anything
I understand that natural selection and/or self-assembly didn't need someone, i.e., a scientist for life to develop and evolve into what it is today. Meaning science just canceled itself. So, all schools and scientific research are a waste of time and money. If a scientist wasn't needed in the beginning for life to start and develop, a scientist isn't needed now. If we evolve into something else then what we are it will be natural, not in a lab.
Peace and Ahev
@@JohnJohn-cu7nk yea, and thinking he has nearly figured out how and what it is mind blowing...
@Mosshugallwalls Science is always the latest thoughts that we have in the evidence .Or Logic as its known.Only religions claim to
Know it All