Hope he writes a book soon. I knew phosphorus was a critical element for life but didn't know that it was a constraint on the efficiency of life on Earth. Hope you interview him again a year or two down the road. Thanks.
Dr. Ranjans Is an absolute joy to listen to In no small part because he is challenging to listen to. Rarely have I heard anyone that knows their subject matter as well or addresses it so Concisely, I look forward to you having him back..
I loved when dr Ranjan's eyes shined when you asked about the techno signatures. Fraser you are magical with your questions. That's why I love to watch your programs😊
This is my favorite interview on the channel so far. I love his brilliance and also how well read he is across so many disciplines. This guy is next level!
I've been watching videos at 1.05 for like a year to try to speed myself up, I'd like to go to 1.1 and so on and see if I can trick my brain into thinking faster or maybe just being a better listener lol
Abiogenesis is my favorite subject in science, even more so than astronomy. I've watched every lecture and read every book I've been able to get my hands on. While I still find the possibility of life-as-we-don't-known-it exciting and interesting, I have to admit that it's very unlikely. Carbon and water are not only good at what they do, they're so much better at it than _everything_ else. Especially carbon. An alternative solvent would be much easier to get away with than an alternative base element. My gut feeling is that, if we had a database of all life-bearing planets in our universe, instances of life would be something like: • 97% carbon in water • 1% carbon in ammonia • 1% carbon in all other solvents • 1% not carbon-based
totally agree, non organic chemist's (almost everyone) do not appreciate the massive richness of carbon chemistry, carbon is a magic element, in that it can form up to four strong stable bonds with many other elements but also the bonds can be broken without needing massive energy which makes it a very versatile starting point for small, larger and truly massive molecules. Carbon chemistry also happens to be the most diverse and rich amongst all the elements, pick up any organic chemistry book that also deals with other elements and you will quickly see that carbon chemistry simply dwarfs all others. @@420Khatz
@@EddyA1337 My understanding of the matter is that it’s bonds are to strong to allow the kind of necessary chemistry. Perhaps a real chemist will comment…
I really enjoyed listening to Dr Ranjan -- such a fasinating topic. The whole process must be exceedingly difficult, otherwise people would be posting RUclips videos with titles like, "Family visit to beach get's interrupted by new life form emerging from ocean!" Or rather than "Beware of Sharks" we'd have signs reading "Beware of new life forms!"🙄 ...Or just think of what we'd find between our toes after walking on the beach?? You might find a whole future civilization right between your toes!?!?
I love this thought, but one pushback concept I have is that life that has evolved for longer will tend to be more efficient and be consuming the resources necessary for abiogenesis. Now that we have tons of life around deep sea vents, perhaps it's unlikely for new life to abiogenerate or if it did to just be eaten as nutrients. Same goes for the bacteria on your skin I suppose lol. From the perspective of astrobiology (and panspermia) I'm hoping we continue to get more info on the difficulty and probability of life's initial emergence. Nowadays with sterile clean rooms and such, we could replicate those conditions in a lab and I've heard of various experiments trying to. The "RNA world" hypothesis is also a fascinating one to me personally.
@@revenevan11I guess we can not reproduce such condition. The requirements are just too harsh. The germ count not only has to be zero, a condition we fail to archive, there has to be zero organic contamination and maybe even our inorganic chemistry will change the outcome.
@@revenevan11 I 100% agree. The thought just made me laugh, which why I had to share. Yes, the RNA World hypothesis is compelling. Vs metabolic, it makes sense. ...this is a topic I cannot wait to look back on in 50 years!
This was one of the best guests you’ve ever had. He was very insightful, extremely articulate, and provided thought provoking answers that were simultaneously specific and broad.
And, judged from comments when this is the topic, some people really need to go a couple of rounds with themselves, because, even if they have seen "aliens" on star trek, they can not conclude they exist independent of ideas they have up in their head
Quite a stimulating interview, Fraser! I thoroughly enjoyed it. 😊 Unlike the rude person complaining about a little extra sound behind him, LOL! I had zero issues with it, personally. 👍🏼
That was a marvelous episode. Dr Ranjens really put everything right into perspective regarding the search for the origin of life. AND, quickly brought us up to speed on current thinking. I thhiiink I understood. We space junkies love to endlessly speculate and go off onto flights of fancy about aliens utilising black holes etc blah blah. Which is a good thing and very human. But as Dr Ranijens said- we should temper our expectations in line with real science. I suggest that such is not a limitation on our imaginations. That is where the ACTUAL thrills really lie. Thank you Fraser Cain. An exceptional quest who is an exceptional communicator. I hope he reads these comments.
A catalyst is a chemical (bunch of molecules) that facilitates a chemical reaction but is not used up in said reaction. The first step of a-biogenesis would have to be a chemical that is a catalyst for the chemical reaction that produced it. In reality, that is what our DNA is. A catalyst for many proteins while it is joined together. Once it's forced to divide, it's a catalyst for itself!
not really, DNA and RNA are more correctly thought of information storage. But the mechanism of taking that data and doing anything with it requires other proteins, the genetic material by itself is inert and useless. A Ribosome in a soup of amino acids is required to "read" the data and assemble copies, the copies are called the primary structure, then through electronic fields interacting the shape changes coupled with other reactions the secondary and tertiary 3D structures are revealed, the data becomes for example a protein with specific properties.
@@ashleyobrien4937 precisely what I said. It facilities the reaction without being used in the reaction. In other words, it tells the reaction how to proceed.
@@ashleyobrien4937 You're being stuck in classical thinking and only repeating what you've been taught, while he is changing perspectives, if not thinking outside the box
This dude was a great interviewee. He has his stuff down and is really prompt to answer. Nasa needs 3 or 4 scientists like him designing planetary exobiology experiments and cranking out the science. Get this man some time on the JWST now!!
Very interesting interview with Dr. Ranian. Double interesting with chemist rna findings using natural planetary science over pure refined chemical compounds. This video is packed with wow!
One major part is often overlooked. At the beginning of life, there was no life. Nothing could rot or eat all the nutrients. Early life would not need those strong barriers and defence mechanisms. It could be basically a soup of cell stuff, that would spoil in minutes these days, but be totally fine for eons back then.
cell walls would still be a feature that would probably be selected for quite early on. You still have things like dilution and osmotic pressure to deal with.
@@MusikCassette A small enough microfissure would limit those problems. Maybe add a little bit of gunk (clay, mineral deposits, lipids, whatever) to limit it further, even seal it up. Besides, in the middle of a big hunk of bedrock, it's not like the ocean will come sweeping in and wash the experiment away. Whatever the magic mix of temperature and minerals was where life began, you can find that somewhere in Earth's large crust. Nice, quiet, stable environments. Surely better than black smokers, no?
@@bozo5632 Cell walls are still quite useful. and also, there is the question at what point you call something life. definable individuals is on the list of features.
45:15 but that assumes they developed way before us, so their "loud" period ended long long time ago and their radio waves from that loud period passed us so we can not detect them any more. But then we have way to predict where they are, at least how far away, kind of sphere of where quiet advanced civilizations begin to be possible or are.
The comment about having less TV signals coming from our planet because everyone uses cable does not fly. Statistics are that the number of on air TV/radio stations has continued to rise until frequency use has become pretty much fully used and the number of TV/radio transmitters has plateaued at that point. So even though there are less people consuming per transmitter, the number of transmitters has continued to rise until the band use is full. This information is readily available because the area is heavily regulated. Someone who was using 100kw (ERP) FM/TV signals 50 years ago is not now using reduced power. They are still using the maximum power they are licensed to use. AM are still 50k (well more actually). People still tend to go to the channel that gives the "loudest" signal. So while the point makes sense, broadcast was a bad place to choose as an example.
Question: If big bang was expansion of singularity how do we determine the direction of observation? As i understand it, everything we are able to observe was at some point part of that singularity, and if we are able to see that far back, we should be able to observe direction of expansion and our position in relation to point of origin. if we are not able to see any of these, is it possible that our universe is much bigger and much older than what we believe it to be, thus implying that big bang may be an incorrect or incomplete theory? are there any competing theories to big bang, that may be gaining attention?
Wasn't there a fresh volcanic island that formed a while back near Iceland and researchers went there to study the place...and one went number 2 and inadvertently deposited excrement containing tomato seeds.
I think there seems to be dishonesty among the academics. The fossil record going back perhaps 4.2 BILLION years indicates that photosynthetic organisms existed on Earth -- enough to saturate water and create hematite (iron rust) in the oldest rocks. By 3.7 billion years ago the fossil rocks indicate the existence of stromatolites which imply that cyanobacteria existed and other living organisms to be able to form these stromatolite mound formations. I find this troubling.
I found myself wondering a what point in earth's evolution could life on this planet have been detected from another star if they had our current level of technology?
None. With today's technology and all potential technologies dreamed about in the next century. Biosignatures and technosignatures are not actual things.
I find this a good question. I assume you'd want an answer like 1/ directly after the GOE or the NOE with oxygen spiking above curren 21% troposphere concentration. (Bio-signature) 2/ introduction of global radiowave emissions is a well documented tech signature. 3/ Personally, I would like to be able to distinguish planetary scale vulcanism from plate tectonics! As Ranjan mentioned, co-cycling is important for bio (phosphorus), technosignatures (nuclear isotope, CFC) and geosignatures (Nikkel, molybdenum, iron etc as cofactors)
@@doncarlodivargas5497 Survival of the fittest is a long abandoned simplification of evolution. As long as something makes non-perfect copies of itself its evolution. Language evolves, for example.
Recently, super-advanced aliens in the Andromeda galaxy turned their most advanced instruments towards Earth. They detected multiple signs of intelligent life! Clearly, they need to fix their telescopes.
I'm thinking we're probably currently experiencing a galaxy/universe at maximum capacity because if life gets started everywhere it can whenever it can... this is where it is... in 10 billion years, who knows.
I guess it's because it marks a transition from non-living material to living material. In that sense, any occasion of live reproducing could be termed 'biogenesis'.
QUESTION: will we ever see the opposite of a super nova, the moment of ignition of a star? Would it just take luck, or are there tell tale signs? Are we watching any places right now expecting a star to be be "born"?
So I'm not going woo woo or anything but based upon his comment of a 'bunch of ways to generate small amounts of methane', what 'is' the explanation for Titan? Or Uranus or Neptune for that matter?
When stars go supernova a whole range of elements are created and thrown out into space. Just like when hypergolic rocket fuels instantly react and burn on contact so too can many elements, hydrogen can react with many elements even in it's molecular state, H2, nascent hydrogen or simply just H is even more reactive. Surface chemistry also enables elements to react together, as does a little activation energy in various forms like U.V. light, other ionizing radiation in space and so on, these are the ways that we get massive clouds of alcohols, hydrocarbons etc. found floating inside nebulae and so on. Cold planets will collect large quantities of low molecular weight substances like methane, ethane, propane and so on purely by natural forces, life too, is a natural force but it's not needed to explain the abundance/absence of anything.
Frasier….do you think that organisms could have evolved to be able to live in the vacuum of space? maybe attaining sustenance from solar particles or dark matter? remember the tether incident with the space shuttle? i would love for them to be UAPs, but i feel my hypothesis may have some credence! all we know is the life here on earth and that is steadily expanding….. humor me and think about the possibilities of such! you’re the most brilliant astro journalist i know and surely have someone on your rolodex that may be able to shed some light. just keep being you my man!
Of course, Evolution by Natural Selection is ONLY A THEORY. And by that I mean, the explanation of the principles of evolutionary processes through peer review verification by repeatable testing using the scientific method, and abductive reasoning are shown to agree with the facts observed about evolution. In short, evolution by natural selection is an undisputable fact, and the theory explains this fact. Only a theory.
@fraisercain Thank you so much ❤ I'd love to hear both of you elaborate your ideas about discovering exo-planets with atmospheres around brown dwarfs. JWST could take high resolution spectral images IF it knew where to look. ❤
If it is possible for us to eventually create life, do we let it know we exist? How far do we go, we already know we can clone, but life from an assortment of molecules I'm guessing.
You can create life or at least will be able to in less than 18 years. And if you do I really hope you let it know you exist. Otherwise you would be a bad parent.
Hey Fraser, I really love the way you always say "yeah.. yeah.." whenever your guest drops some new fascinating information. You sound like a drug addict who just got his daily dose. I guess we are all passionate science junkies here.
no, because laser output is inherently inefficient, for example, it is far easier to generate a one Gigawatt radio source than a one Gigawatt laser source, also, radio waves are far more transparent through interstellar space than laser light. Tight beam laser transmission might be a good idea for future data transfer between moons and planets etc. but not until the power/cost of the laser technology has improved considerably.
Clearly, there is only one way to get life on a planet: Intelligent influence. God said, "Let there be light," and BOOM! The universe started. Step by step. He set the various finely tuned Cosmological Constants, and built a universe that allowed the possibility of Life. Finally, He got a decent planet, performed a dozen impossible feats simultaneously, and VOILA! He got a living creature! And eventually He created us in his own image and likeness. The rest is history, just like the whole thing is His Story. Don't get me wrong. This is fascinating. I'd love to understand how life got started. What are the mechanisms that God used to create life? And how likely is it that there are other planets out there where He did this? Did He make other kinds of life that don't use carbon and DNA, or is that an essential pathway? Abiogenesis is necessarily miraculous, but how many times did He do it?
You are life. You are the same as you were 4.5 billion years ago. You are the same as you will be in another 4.5 billion. You have done a nice job with the universe, it is fun to play in, these opposable thumbs and all. Don't get too attached. It's just for $hit$ and giggles. What is important is you. Develop the best you. That's a good goal. Cause you ain't goin anywhere.
The only problem with creating life in a lab is twofold. One: Even if we can do it, that doesn't mean that that process is how life started on Earth or anywhere else. And two: It's still intelligent life forms directing or creating life. Even the process of this should go with that, and, based on what we know, it is problematic because we (at this point) are still assuming too much. Take, the idea that life needs to form on a watery rocky planet. Does it? Have a nice day.
well, you can only go with what you know, and sure there are certain conditions where you can say with some certainty that life will not develop, it may get to some point in the starting process but is then stopped. For example, planets like say Jupiter or Mercury would be bad places to look for life, life is susceptible to temperature extremes, radiation, pH, lack of liquid water and so on. Life can evolve to thrive in some very inhospitable places for us, bacteria can be found living in the cooling water of nuclear reactors, at 95 degrees Celsius in pH 1 hot pools, in tiny water droplets in Diesel fuel, in the Mariana trench with zero oxygen and so on but these are NOT the places where it could start, obviously. Life is tenacious and opportunistic, but I doubt the conditions for it's abiogenesis are plentiful.
This has reminded me of a question I haven’t heard an answer to. Early Earth would have had our Sun, being less bright than it is now. How did the Earth stay warm enough, for life to evolve?
@@yourguard4It’s been getting 10% brighter every billion years, according to what I have read and heard. So it should have been quite a lot less bright four billion years ago.
Back then, the Earth's atmosphere was much more massive than today and contained greenhouse gasses in much higher quantities, to a point that global temperatures were likely consistent from pole to pole and warmer than today, despite the Sun's lower luminosity at that time. Since forming, the Earth has lost most of its air and water via sputtering into space and sequestration into rocks. Fortunately, this has been mostly balanced by the increasing luminosity of the Sun, although the overall trend has been for the Earth to cool over time. Carbon dioxide, in particular, is so effectively removed from the atmosphere by Life that, despite its importance, it's been reduced to being a trace gas in the atmosphere today, having been almost entirely turned into carbonate rocks and hydrocarbon deposits. What little CO₂ naturally exists in the atmosphere today is the result of sequestered carbon leaking back into the atmosphere, forming an equilibrium as life continuously removes it. Life makes its living off a leak. Valid fears regarding CO₂ emissions aren't so much about climate change or sea level rise. Climates and sea levels have always been changing, regardless of human involvement. Yes, humans are causing changes to climates and sea levels, but they're happening on such long timescales that significant changes require decades to notice. Humans have dealt with worse on much shorter timescales. CO₂ emissions are *not* an existential threat to humankind. Our present ways of life, perhaps, but not the survival of humankind, much less Life itself. Habitat destruction, soil degradation, and overgrazing, for example, are much bigger issues. The real problem with CO₂ emissions is that burning fossil fuels _en_ _masse_ has disrupted the carbon equilibrium of the planet in ways that, as far as we can tell, have never happened so quickly before. Specifically: • ocean acidification • faster plant growth • plants that use C4-type (more efficient) photosynthesis losing competitive advantages over plants that use C3 (less efficient) photosynthesis We don't know if ecosystems, upon which humans rely for quality of life, can respond to these changes quickly enough to avoid collapse, nor how any given set of permanent changes to surviving ecosystems would affect human prosperity. Ocean ecosystems, in particular, are extremely sensitive to CO₂ levels. We need a lot more research before we can start to draw conclusions, make predictions, and form plans.
Yet another video where the Fermi Paradox should have been central to the discussion but never got mentioned. You don't seem to want to face reality on the overwhelming evidence that we are alone. It might be that the great barrier is going from Ape to Man, in other words the step to true sapience. Chimps and Bonobos have now gone six to eight million years without taking another step in that direction. But still planets have had billions of years head start so it's hard to believe that. Very likely the great barrier is abiogenesis itself. In any case, Fermi has to be part of your discussion on these matters.
What do you think of kurzgesagt video of how life came ,when universe temperature was universal for hospitalable to life ,those initial life become hibernate and then land on earth
Wasn´t it bad enough, that creationists asked how we explain life coming "from a rock"? You did it! You made it worse! Now they will ask, how life could come from a brick wall. 🙂
@40:43, an island in the south pacific, freshly pushed up out of the water? hmmm, not Aotearoa we were pushed up long time ago, wasn't there personally, but I heard stories.
jack safartti said that the crafts are alive and can travel space time. there are many crafts in earth. anyone with money can start a space program and change history. uri was able to communicate with the crafts and anyone with such abilities has been highly rewarded.
I really wanted to see the whole entire interview, but there was a terrible background noise like construction from whoever Fraser was interviewing that was just this consistent noise like writing on a chalkboard that just drove me. Crazy surprised I made it halfway through before I just had to go.
Haha I usually can put up with background noises but I have to agree I had a hard time listening while that was going on. Interesting discussion anyway.
@@cosmicwolf7101 because there are many options these days to watch on RUclips on this topic and yes it was a good discussion but the hammering was annoying. If it was in control of the doctor then I think it is worth mentioning. I now think that probably the hammering was outside of his abode. It was a good discussion.
@@cosmicwolf7101 I’ve never heard an interview like that in my life which has nothing to do with focusing, so don’t be a dumb ass. Why can’t people today learn to call people out on distractions such as in this interview which normally is not a problem because Fraser is always very good with his guests. I love his channel.
Something I just heard online made me wonder about dark matter. Wouldn’t it be cool if once we found out what dark matter is we might then have a dark matter periodic table full of a whole new set of ingredients for the universe. What might some of those new dark elements be like? What properties does dark matter have and how could some of them be comparable to what we know about our own chemistry? Thanks!
@@replica1052thats dark energy, not dark matter. those are 2 entirely different concepts with entirely different observations about them. they share nothing but a name
Please tell Dr Ranjan to work on his delivery. He gabbles so fast that whole words get swallowed - not good for comprehension. We don't all have lightning-fast brains.
Yeah, it's awesome, since he's the 1 conducting the interview and it's his channel... either adjust the speed so you can comprehend, address the Communicator himself or 👋
Hope he writes a book soon. I knew phosphorus was a critical element for life but didn't know that it was a constraint on the efficiency of life on Earth. Hope you interview him again a year or two down the road. Thanks.
It was a really interesting idea. It's been stuck in my head since I did that interview. :-)
Dr. Ranjans Is an absolute joy to listen to In no small part because he is challenging to listen to. Rarely have I heard anyone that knows their subject matter as well or addresses it so Concisely, I look forward to you having him back..
This is a really cool subject and I really enjoy Dr. Ranjans enthusiasm and excellent way of explaining things. Thanks for this Fraser!
I loved when dr Ranjan's eyes shined when you asked about the techno signatures. Fraser you are magical with your questions. That's why I love to watch your programs😊
This is my favorite interview on the channel so far. I love his brilliance and also how well read he is across so many disciplines. This guy is next level!
What a great guest and interview.
Couldn’t his wife wait with putting that IKEA desk together?
I don't know how he is able to keep his concentration!
Furniture waits for no one.
(Except for reception desks)
If you are not able to ignore the background noise, you are not really listening to him😏
People got ADHD bro
@@goiterlanternbasehe speaks ultra fast!! Also my Main language is spanish. This is killing meee😂
This really benefits from playing at .75 speed :)
lol
At first I didn’t get it, but then I did😂
I watch these on 1.25 to get through them faster
@@THIS---GUY that's GENIUS!
I've been watching videos at 1.05 for like a year to try to speed myself up, I'd like to go to 1.1 and so on and see if I can trick my brain into thinking faster or maybe just being a better listener lol
He's only an assistant professor? Dude is like a robot genius. Very interesting take on the subject.
Who is the professor he assist 🤯
Abiogenesis is my favorite subject in science, even more so than astronomy. I've watched every lecture and read every book I've been able to get my hands on. While I still find the possibility of life-as-we-don't-known-it exciting and interesting, I have to admit that it's very unlikely. Carbon and water are not only good at what they do, they're so much better at it than _everything_ else. Especially carbon. An alternative solvent would be much easier to get away with than an alternative base element.
My gut feeling is that, if we had a database of all life-bearing planets in our universe, instances of life would be something like:
• 97% carbon in water
• 1% carbon in ammonia
• 1% carbon in all other solvents
• 1% not carbon-based
Agreed, however I'd estimate non-carbon based life to be less than 1%.
👍🏻👍🏻
totally agree, non organic chemist's (almost everyone) do not appreciate the massive richness of carbon chemistry, carbon is a magic element, in that it can form up to four strong stable bonds with many other elements but also the bonds can be broken without needing massive energy which makes it a very versatile starting point for small, larger and truly massive molecules. Carbon chemistry also happens to be the most diverse and rich amongst all the elements, pick up any organic chemistry book that also deals with other elements and you will quickly see that carbon chemistry simply dwarfs all others. @@420Khatz
Hypothetically shouldn't silicon be just as likely since it has the same number of valence electrons?
@@EddyA1337 My understanding of the matter is that it’s bonds are to strong to allow the kind of necessary chemistry. Perhaps a real chemist will comment…
I really enjoyed listening to Dr Ranjan -- such a fasinating topic. The whole process must be exceedingly difficult, otherwise people would be posting RUclips videos with titles like, "Family visit to beach get's interrupted by new life form emerging from ocean!" Or rather than "Beware of Sharks" we'd have signs reading "Beware of new life forms!"🙄 ...Or just think of what we'd find between our toes after walking on the beach?? You might find a whole future civilization right between your toes!?!?
I love this thought, but one pushback concept I have is that life that has evolved for longer will tend to be more efficient and be consuming the resources necessary for abiogenesis. Now that we have tons of life around deep sea vents, perhaps it's unlikely for new life to abiogenerate or if it did to just be eaten as nutrients. Same goes for the bacteria on your skin I suppose lol. From the perspective of astrobiology (and panspermia) I'm hoping we continue to get more info on the difficulty and probability of life's initial emergence. Nowadays with sterile clean rooms and such, we could replicate those conditions in a lab and I've heard of various experiments trying to. The "RNA world" hypothesis is also a fascinating one to me personally.
@@revenevan11I guess we can not reproduce such condition. The requirements are just too harsh. The germ count not only has to be zero, a condition we fail to archive, there has to be zero organic contamination and maybe even our inorganic chemistry will change the outcome.
@@revenevan11 I 100% agree. The thought just made me laugh, which why I had to share. Yes, the RNA World hypothesis is compelling. Vs metabolic, it makes sense. ...this is a topic I cannot wait to look back on in 50 years!
the "where to look part" of the interview was definately the most interesting imo. Thanks Fraser
these are the best science interviews ive ever seen. varied and always interesting topics. the whole stealth biosphere thing is mind blowing.
This was one of the best guests you’ve ever had. He was very insightful, extremely articulate, and provided thought provoking answers that were simultaneously specific and broad.
I love these video's thank you for putting this together !!!
What an amazing interview! Thanks Fraser and dr. Sukrit!❤
And, judged from comments when this is the topic, some people really need to go a couple of rounds with themselves, because, even if they have seen "aliens" on star trek, they can not conclude they exist independent of ideas they have up in their head
Long story short: Finding life in the universe is hard... really really hard.
Quite a stimulating interview, Fraser! I thoroughly enjoyed it. 😊 Unlike the rude person complaining about a little extra sound behind him, LOL! I had zero issues with it, personally. 👍🏼
That was a marvelous episode. Dr Ranjens really put everything right into perspective regarding the search for the origin of life. AND, quickly brought us up to speed on current thinking. I thhiiink I understood. We space junkies love to endlessly speculate and go off onto flights of fancy about aliens utilising black holes etc blah blah. Which is a good thing and very human. But as Dr Ranijens said- we should temper our expectations in line with real science. I suggest that such is not a limitation on our imaginations. That is where the ACTUAL thrills really lie. Thank you Fraser Cain. An exceptional quest who is an exceptional communicator. I hope he reads these comments.
45:21 I guess the biggest signal were the atmospheric tests and especially the Starfish series. They should had given a good "wow" signal.
Thanks, Sukrit, for a terrific talk! I listened to the whole talk.
A catalyst is a chemical (bunch of molecules) that facilitates a chemical reaction but is not used up in said reaction.
The first step of a-biogenesis would have to be a chemical that is a catalyst for the chemical reaction that produced it.
In reality, that is what our DNA is. A catalyst for many proteins while it is joined together. Once it's forced to divide, it's a catalyst for itself!
not really, DNA and RNA are more correctly thought of information storage. But the mechanism of taking that data and doing anything with it requires other proteins, the genetic material by itself is inert and useless. A Ribosome in a soup of amino acids is required to "read" the data and assemble copies, the copies are called the primary structure, then through electronic fields interacting the shape changes coupled with other reactions the secondary and tertiary 3D structures are revealed, the data becomes for example a protein with specific properties.
@@ashleyobrien4937 precisely what I said. It facilities the reaction without being used in the reaction. In other words, it tells the reaction how to proceed.
@@ashleyobrien4937 You're being stuck in classical thinking and only repeating what you've been taught, while he is changing perspectives, if not thinking outside the box
This dude was a great interviewee. He has his stuff down and is really prompt to answer. Nasa needs 3 or 4 scientists like him designing planetary exobiology experiments and cranking out the science. Get this man some time on the JWST now!!
Very interesting interview with Dr. Ranian. Double interesting with chemist rna findings using natural planetary science over pure refined chemical compounds.
This video is packed with wow!
come on algorithm! spread!
Cool topic. Very Knowledgeable. I would ask that they slow down and use plain language for more effective communication with broad audiences
One major part is often overlooked. At the beginning of life, there was no life. Nothing could rot or eat all the nutrients. Early life would not need those strong barriers and defence mechanisms. It could be basically a soup of cell stuff, that would spoil in minutes these days, but be totally fine for eons back then.
A microfissure in the bedrock could keep that soup gathered together without needing cell walls.
Interesting point.
cell walls would still be a feature that would probably be selected for quite early on. You still have things like dilution and osmotic pressure to deal with.
@@MusikCassette A small enough microfissure would limit those problems. Maybe add a little bit of gunk (clay, mineral deposits, lipids, whatever) to limit it further, even seal it up.
Besides, in the middle of a big hunk of bedrock, it's not like the ocean will come sweeping in and wash the experiment away.
Whatever the magic mix of temperature and minerals was where life began, you can find that somewhere in Earth's large crust. Nice, quiet, stable environments. Surely better than black smokers, no?
@@bozo5632 Cell walls are still quite useful. and also, there is the question at what point you call something life. definable individuals is on the list of features.
awesome guest with really awesome ideas
45:15 but that assumes they developed way before us, so their "loud" period ended long long time ago and their radio waves from that loud period passed us so we can not detect them any more. But then we have way to predict where they are, at least how far away, kind of sphere of where quiet advanced civilizations begin to be possible or are.
The comment about having less TV signals coming from our planet because everyone uses cable does not fly. Statistics are that the number of on air TV/radio stations has continued to rise until frequency use has become pretty much fully used and the number of TV/radio transmitters has plateaued at that point. So even though there are less people consuming per transmitter, the number of transmitters has continued to rise until the band use is full. This information is readily available because the area is heavily regulated. Someone who was using 100kw (ERP) FM/TV signals 50 years ago is not now using reduced power. They are still using the maximum power they are licensed to use. AM are still 50k (well more actually). People still tend to go to the channel that gives the "loudest" signal. So while the point makes sense, broadcast was a bad place to choose as an example.
Question: If big bang was expansion of singularity how do we determine the direction of observation? As i understand it, everything we are able to observe was at some point part of that singularity, and if we are able to see that far back, we should be able to observe direction of expansion and our position in relation to point of origin. if we are not able to see any of these, is it possible that our universe is much bigger and much older than what we believe it to be, thus implying that big bang may be an incorrect or incomplete theory? are there any competing theories to big bang, that may be gaining attention?
Wasn't there a fresh volcanic island that formed a while back near Iceland and researchers went there to study the place...and one went number 2 and inadvertently deposited excrement containing tomato seeds.
Thr quiet until verse because efficiency makes extremely high tech civilizations undetectable is interesting idea.
Great topic ❤
Assistant professor... 👌 wow! Genius.
Very interesting. Thanks a lot.
I think there seems to be dishonesty among the academics. The fossil record going back perhaps 4.2 BILLION years indicates that photosynthetic organisms existed on Earth -- enough to saturate water and create hematite (iron rust) in the oldest rocks. By 3.7 billion years ago the fossil rocks indicate the existence of stromatolites which imply that cyanobacteria existed and other living organisms to be able to form these stromatolite mound formations. I find this troubling.
I found myself wondering a what point in earth's evolution could life on this planet have been detected from another star if they had our current level of technology?
None. With today's technology and all potential technologies dreamed about in the next century. Biosignatures and technosignatures are not actual things.
I find this a good question. I assume you'd want an answer like 1/ directly after the GOE or the NOE with oxygen spiking above curren 21% troposphere concentration. (Bio-signature) 2/ introduction of global radiowave emissions is a well documented tech signature. 3/ Personally, I would like to be able to distinguish planetary scale vulcanism from plate tectonics! As Ranjan mentioned, co-cycling is important for bio (phosphorus), technosignatures (nuclear isotope, CFC) and geosignatures (Nikkel, molybdenum, iron etc as cofactors)
evolution begann before life began. the really hard question is: at what point do you call the thing that is happening life.
If evolution are "survival of the fittest" to populate the surroundings, how do "non-life" populate? How does it replicate its characteristics?
@@doncarlodivargas5497 Survival of the fittest is a long abandoned simplification of evolution. As long as something makes non-perfect copies of itself its evolution. Language evolves, for example.
@@Aledahal - so, in that case, why do we not have Raphus cucullatus, the Dodo, for dinner today?
@@doncarlodivargas5497 Rust is populating the surroundings :P
@@yourguard4 - when mister and missis rust find each other,
they populate, that's true, but there is not much evolution kind of
5% to 10% is hopelessly optimistic.
We're at less than 0.1%
The technology of the cell is way beyond us. Way way way beyond us for now...
Wow, this was really enlightening.Thanks to both of you!
Recently, super-advanced aliens in the Andromeda galaxy turned their most advanced instruments towards Earth.
They detected multiple signs of intelligent life!
Clearly, they need to fix their telescopes.
Good interview, strong ending
Agreed.
Great episode!
Thanks!
what can foresee movement is intelligence -as in from where brains origin
(infinite acceleration eliminates time --> time is inertia )
I'm thinking we're probably currently experiencing a galaxy/universe at maximum capacity because if life gets started everywhere it can whenever it can... this is where it is... in 10 billion years, who knows.
human talents are infinite
Why is it called abiogenesis, and not just biogenesis?
I guess it's because it marks a transition from non-living material to living material. In that sense, any occasion of live reproducing could be termed 'biogenesis'.
QUESTION: will we ever see the opposite of a super nova, the moment of ignition of a star? Would it just take luck, or are there tell tale signs? Are we watching any places right now expecting a star to be be "born"?
So I'm not going woo woo or anything but based upon his comment of a 'bunch of ways to generate small amounts of methane', what 'is' the explanation for Titan? Or Uranus or Neptune for that matter?
When I scientist says - 'this is bonkers' - listen!!! 😂
Wow I'm actually here early Love your videos 😊 and learn so much. Thank you ❤
If abiotic production of methane can only produce traces of methane, how do you explain Titan?
You can get methane when it's cold enough
When stars go supernova a whole range of elements are created and thrown out into space. Just like when hypergolic rocket fuels instantly react and burn on contact so too can many elements, hydrogen can react with many elements even in it's molecular state, H2, nascent hydrogen or simply just H is even more reactive. Surface chemistry also enables elements to react together, as does a little activation energy in various forms like U.V. light, other ionizing radiation in space and so on, these are the ways that we get massive clouds of alcohols, hydrocarbons etc. found floating inside nebulae and so on. Cold planets will collect large quantities of low molecular weight substances like methane, ethane, propane and so on purely by natural forces, life too, is a natural force but it's not needed to explain the abundance/absence of anything.
9:47 ok..who farted 😅 but anyway good interview
Frasier….do you think that organisms could have evolved to be able to live in the vacuum of space? maybe attaining sustenance from solar particles or dark matter? remember the tether incident with the space shuttle? i would love for them to be UAPs, but i feel my hypothesis may have some credence! all we know is the life here on earth and that is steadily expanding….. humor me and think about the possibilities of such! you’re the most brilliant astro journalist i know and surely have someone on your rolodex that may be able to shed some light. just keep being you my man!
Thx man ❤
At the 5:58 mark in this video, a tiny white speck flies straight up and out of screen near Dr. Ranjan's right shoulder. What was that? 🤔
UAP
@@bozo5632 call Avi Loeb!!!
46:30 Couldn’t there be an ocean under Tombaugh Regio, whether it’s very speculative or not? Space whales can’t be excluded.
Is Biological technology Biotechnology or they are different?
Of course, Evolution by Natural Selection is ONLY A THEORY. And by that I mean, the explanation of the principles of evolutionary processes through peer review verification by repeatable testing using the scientific method, and abductive reasoning are shown to agree with the facts observed about evolution. In short, evolution by natural selection is an undisputable fact, and the theory explains this fact. Only a theory.
@fraisercain Thank you so much ❤ I'd love to hear both of you elaborate your ideas about discovering exo-planets with atmospheres around brown dwarfs. JWST could take high resolution spectral images IF it knew where to look. ❤
The Universe is surely full of life but we cannot detect it yet since out technology is not developed enough.
If it is possible for us to eventually create life, do we let it know we exist? How far do we go, we already know we can clone, but life from an assortment of molecules I'm guessing.
You can create life or at least will be able to in less than 18 years. And if you do I really hope you let it know you exist. Otherwise you would be a bad parent.
Can it be possible to build photon rocket from LED?
Hey Fraser, I really love the way you always say "yeah.. yeah.." whenever your guest drops some new fascinating information. You sound like a drug addict who just got his daily dose. I guess we are all passionate science junkies here.
I also believe in this theory because of all types of evidences
Cool 😎 👍 🤘
Your closing question? I say look for laser leakage. Lasers should be detectable at greater distances and lower energies than radio waves.
no, because laser output is inherently inefficient, for example, it is far easier to generate a one Gigawatt radio source than a one Gigawatt laser source, also, radio waves are far more transparent through interstellar space than laser light. Tight beam laser transmission might be a good idea for future data transfer between moons and planets etc. but not until the power/cost of the laser technology has improved considerably.
@@ashleyobrien4937 You're saying ET won't use lasers much. I'm saying lasers would be easier for us to detect.
A lot of good information. SME talked too fast.
Clearly, there is only one way to get life on a planet: Intelligent influence. God said, "Let there be light," and BOOM! The universe started. Step by step. He set the various finely tuned Cosmological Constants, and built a universe that allowed the possibility of Life. Finally, He got a decent planet, performed a dozen impossible feats simultaneously, and VOILA! He got a living creature! And eventually He created us in his own image and likeness. The rest is history, just like the whole thing is His Story.
Don't get me wrong. This is fascinating. I'd love to understand how life got started. What are the mechanisms that God used to create life? And how likely is it that there are other planets out there where He did this? Did He make other kinds of life that don't use carbon and DNA, or is that an essential pathway? Abiogenesis is necessarily miraculous, but how many times did He do it?
This story seems complicated and unnecessary.
You are life. You are the same as you were 4.5 billion years ago. You are the same as you will be in another 4.5 billion. You have done a nice job with the universe, it is fun to play in, these opposable thumbs and all. Don't get too attached. It's just for $hit$ and giggles. What is important is you. Develop the best you. That's a good goal. Cause you ain't goin anywhere.
The only problem with creating life in a lab is twofold. One: Even if we can do it, that doesn't mean that that process is how life started on Earth or anywhere else. And two: It's still intelligent life forms directing or creating life. Even the process of this should go with that, and, based on what we know, it is problematic because we (at this point) are still assuming too much. Take, the idea that life needs to form on a watery rocky planet. Does it? Have a nice day.
well, you can only go with what you know, and sure there are certain conditions where you can say with some certainty that life will not develop, it may get to some point in the starting process but is then stopped. For example, planets like say Jupiter or Mercury would be bad places to look for life, life is susceptible to temperature extremes, radiation, pH, lack of liquid water and so on. Life can evolve to thrive in some very inhospitable places for us, bacteria can be found living in the cooling water of nuclear reactors, at 95 degrees Celsius in pH 1 hot pools, in tiny water droplets in Diesel fuel, in the Mariana trench with zero oxygen and so on but these are NOT the places where it could start, obviously. Life is tenacious and opportunistic, but I doubt the conditions for it's abiogenesis are plentiful.
This has reminded me of a question I haven’t heard an answer to.
Early Earth would have had our Sun, being less bright than it is now. How did the Earth stay warm enough, for life to evolve?
Another atmosphere? Heat from within the earth?
I don't think, that the sun was significantly cooler.
@@yourguard4It’s been getting 10% brighter every billion years, according to what I have read and heard. So it should have been quite a lot less bright four billion years ago.
Young, sun like stars produce lots of X-rays for some reason.
Maybe that contributed?
Back then, the Earth's atmosphere was much more massive than today and contained greenhouse gasses in much higher quantities, to a point that global temperatures were likely consistent from pole to pole and warmer than today, despite the Sun's lower luminosity at that time.
Since forming, the Earth has lost most of its air and water via sputtering into space and sequestration into rocks. Fortunately, this has been mostly balanced by the increasing luminosity of the Sun, although the overall trend has been for the Earth to cool over time.
Carbon dioxide, in particular, is so effectively removed from the atmosphere by Life that, despite its importance, it's been reduced to being a trace gas in the atmosphere today, having been almost entirely turned into carbonate rocks and hydrocarbon deposits.
What little CO₂ naturally exists in the atmosphere today is the result of sequestered carbon leaking back into the atmosphere, forming an equilibrium as life continuously removes it. Life makes its living off a leak.
Valid fears regarding CO₂ emissions aren't so much about climate change or sea level rise. Climates and sea levels have always been changing, regardless of human involvement. Yes, humans are causing changes to climates and sea levels, but they're happening on such long timescales that significant changes require decades to notice. Humans have dealt with worse on much shorter timescales.
CO₂ emissions are *not* an existential threat to humankind. Our present ways of life, perhaps, but not the survival of humankind, much less Life itself. Habitat destruction, soil degradation, and overgrazing, for example, are much bigger issues.
The real problem with CO₂ emissions is that burning fossil fuels _en_ _masse_ has disrupted the carbon equilibrium of the planet in ways that, as far as we can tell, have never happened so quickly before.
Specifically:
• ocean acidification
• faster plant growth
• plants that use C4-type (more efficient) photosynthesis losing competitive advantages over plants that use C3 (less efficient) photosynthesis
We don't know if ecosystems, upon which humans rely for quality of life, can respond to these changes quickly enough to avoid collapse, nor how any given set of permanent changes to surviving ecosystems would affect human prosperity. Ocean ecosystems, in particular, are extremely sensitive to CO₂ levels. We need a lot more research before we can start to draw conclusions, make predictions, and form plans.
35:35 Spielverderber 😒
😂
This guy looks like he said this speech a thousand times
Wow he speaks FAST😅
Normal speed for me!
At last!!!
Yet another video where the Fermi Paradox should have been central to the discussion but never got mentioned. You don't seem to want to face reality on the overwhelming evidence that we are alone.
It might be that the great barrier is going from Ape to Man, in other words the step to true sapience. Chimps and Bonobos have now gone six to eight million years without taking another step in that direction. But still planets have had billions of years head start so it's hard to believe that. Very likely the great barrier is abiogenesis itself. In any case, Fermi has to be part of your discussion on these matters.
I have done so many videos about the Fermi Paradox. Dozens? I personally think we're alone in the Universe, but I think it makes sense to look.
@@frasercain My bad then, it just seemed central to the last two discussions, but I admit I'm new to this channel. Actually big fan of your stuff.
What do you think of kurzgesagt video of how life came ,when universe temperature was universal for hospitalable to life ,those initial life become hibernate and then land on earth
Really good. Thanks... hope his neighbours are not too bad ...
Thou art Holy …Campbell Soup is yer pappy.
Wasn´t it bad enough, that creationists asked how we explain life coming "from a rock"? You did it! You made it worse! Now they will ask, how life could come from a brick wall. 🙂
@40:43, an island in the south pacific, freshly pushed up out of the water?
hmmm, not Aotearoa we were pushed up long time ago, wasn't there personally, but I heard stories.
Thank GAWD for the ability to SLOW the video down so we can follow him. Jayzus, that was unnecessary.
jack safartti said that the crafts are alive and can travel space time. there are many crafts in earth. anyone with money can start a space program and change history. uri was able to communicate with the crafts and anyone with such abilities has been highly rewarded.
I really wanted to see the whole entire interview, but there was a terrible background noise like construction from whoever Fraser was interviewing that was just this consistent noise like writing on a chalkboard that just drove me. Crazy surprised I made it halfway through before I just had to go.
It settled down at about the halfway point
Haha I usually can put up with background noises but I have to agree I had a hard time listening while that was going on. Interesting discussion anyway.
Why can't people focus these days, is there some kind of mental decline? Initially it will catch your attention but wow.... it's not a big deal.
@@cosmicwolf7101 because there are many options these days to watch on RUclips on this topic and yes it was a good discussion but the hammering was annoying. If it was in control of the doctor then I think it is worth mentioning. I now think that probably the hammering was outside of his abode. It was a good discussion.
@@cosmicwolf7101 I’ve never heard an interview like that in my life which has nothing to do with focusing, so don’t be a dumb ass. Why can’t people today learn to call people out on distractions such as in this interview which normally is not a problem because Fraser is always very good with his guests. I love his channel.
we can't even define what life is yet.
Something I just heard online made me wonder about dark matter. Wouldn’t it be cool if once we found out what dark matter is we might then have a dark matter periodic table full of a whole new set of ingredients for the universe. What might some of those new dark elements be like? What properties does dark matter have and how could some of them be comparable to what we know about our own chemistry? Thanks!
where mass is energy dark matter could be acceleration of the observable universe
@@replica1052thats dark energy, not dark matter. those are 2 entirely different concepts with entirely different observations about them. they share nothing but a name
Lol, only dark matter is in your brain.
Science dogma for the gullible.
@@MrMegaMetroid dark matter would be made of energy
No one asks better questions than Fraser.
Sorry couldn't watch. He talks too fast
👍🏻👍🏻
I listen to Ben Shapiro on 1.5x speed and I had to slow this dude down. 🤣🤣
I am no dumbass, but this young man's clockspeed makes me feel like a 486 sometimes. Luckily he slowed down a bit😅
Earth has always been evolving.
Principle of mediocrity ... sounds terrible just in the way of not thinking we are special. We are very special indeed!
Here's the real question. How did stochastic events create self powered nanotechnology. Best wishes
That's the question. It wouldn't be a mystery if we knew how it worked.
He should really let his wife out of the closet.
She's building furniture in there, I'm guessing
we don't know.
At least he's got some really good quality cocaine...
Or rather, it SOUNDS like he's very sated on some very high quality cocaine...
Too jargony.
Please tell Dr Ranjan to work on his delivery. He gabbles so fast that whole words get swallowed - not good for comprehension. We don't all have lightning-fast brains.
You can slow it down on RUclips. I thought it was awesome.
"awesome" @@frasercain
I guess that's all that matters, then.
Yeah, it's awesome, since he's the 1 conducting the interview and it's his channel... either adjust the speed so you can comprehend, address the Communicator himself or 👋