Saying "I don't know" is one of those small pleasures that we take for granted. If you don't know, and you accept that you don't know, then you are free to learn awesome new things! One of the greatest feelings is when you learn something new :)
Yup and GOOD scientists are able to admit "I don't know, yet" when it happens. A theist (any religion) just falls back on "God did it!" and closes their mind to further information
Unfortunately, it's a source of frustration for me when someone's arguing with me and I'm painfully aware that they won't concede not to know something, but outside of that specific circumstance, it's honestly pretty nice, especially when coupled with "let's find out." Even things I once thought I knew, I may have misremembered, or been misinformed, so double-checking can sometimes lead to revelations.
Precisely! Notice that this requires, and fosters, personal honesty. Surely it is revealing that apologists for religions seem to lack this vial trait. As AronRa says, they are deceived and/or deceivers, having had their minds twisted beyond recognition by years of daily or weekly repetition of nonsense, and "everyone says it's true!", peer-pressure, conformity, fear of the object of worship (which is insane, but less insane than a fanatical belief in wooden boats, amongst other things...), fear of the "in-group", fear of the unknown...all the bullshit peddled by professional liars who shall remain nameless ; yes, many factors contribute to a mind that has lost the honesty that seems to be innate. This is worse than tragic ; it is a deeply evil (for want of a better word) process of brainwashing, perpetrated by unfortunate credulous people who, many with their integrity intact, are conned by pulpit-banging fanatics who can be convincing if one knows no better and when one gives an initial "benefit of the doubt" in the assumption that one is dealing with an honest person......except one is not. Please examine the Jesuits ; they may be viewed as a major influence upon the "business" of apologetics. 1 last thing - What sort of a weak-ass god is so utterly inept (and perfect) that he even requires apologists? Why is the bible so unconvincing? How can the "ultimate Truth!!" be decided by a committee? \why are people stupid enough to trade their lives for a chimera, a fantasia, a nonsense...? I guess I just do not understand my fellow apes very well...! :)
"All there are, from back that far, are things so bizarre, we don't know what they are." Aron's a poet for Dr. Seuss, I'm sure of it. Great video sir, keep up the great work.
I am not a scientist by trade. I am a systems engineer. These videos help me a lot in gaining a better understanding of the science behind my belief in Evolution. Thanks for these videos!
Personally, I say "I am convinced by the empirical evidence for evolution". "belief" risks having people say "how it is different from belief in religion" (for which no empirical evidence exists).
Dear Aron, how do you hold all this knowledge in your head and then speak it out so fluently and awe inspiring? You are the greatest contributor to U-tube so far I have had the pleasure to listen to. Thx for everything.
Aron, it's confirmed. I'm an atheist now. After 4 years of being indoctrinated by fundamentalist apologists with fear and pseudoscience I couldn't take it anymore. I watched you videos and also "Why I'm no longer a creationist" by "Atheist coffee". I still have religious trauma of this idea of hell. For example when I touch a hot plate from the microwave it makes me have flashes of hell. Just shows you what religion can do to simple things in life. The more I watch your videos the more this fear goes away. So thank you.
Even as a child, I was skeptical. I couldn't understand how adults went from talking rationally to talking about crazy stuff that made no sense. Like you, the last religious shackle I shook off was the concept of hell. Now, I have absolutely no fear of burning in hell forever. What a horrible idea to push onto a child!
noahthelibertarianatheist I'm a bit older I suppose, Carl Sagan did it for me. "Cosmos " is still the best telling of Cosmic evolution ever done in my view . If you've not seen it I could warmly recommend it.
Atheists: We are merely hairless animals that have randomly evolved in a meaningless and uncaring universe destined to die and decompose into dirt. P.S. Yes, that's very harsh but I'm actually not here to hate on you. The Bible very clearly explains in Romans chapter 1 that there is no such thing as an atheist. The gigantic Planet crammed full of amazing creatures which God has provided us is more than enough evidence to convince anyone. People reject God on a moral basis not for lack of evidence. They would prefer to not exist than to be ruled over by the just and Holy authority of God. How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if you're guilty or not? Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible. Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use God's name as a cuss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty. God can justly punish you and send you to hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died for you. ..........
Someday God will come along, wrinkle his nose, and say "Oh no, another spoiled one! Panets with water always get contaminated with this scum on the surface."..
Aron's videos get better and better all the time, and this series is by far his best work yet. This video is an excellent and carefully detailed introduction to abiogenesis and how life could have formed on the early earth, by physical, chemical and geological processes that are being updated and refined with every discovery. This video, like all Aron's work, is one of the best summaries on RUclips for students wanting to study this topic or people who want to brush up on scientific knowledge.
Aron you are an excellent educator - you deliver information in easy to understand language and explain the harder bits as well. Some science types who make videos use such lofty language that, even though I am interested and have a college education, a lot of it goes over my head. Having someone explain things clearly goes a long way to imparting real scientific information to the general population - especially the young people. Keep up the good work!
Man I wish I'd of had science teachers like you while in school I would of developed a fascination with science much soon than I did. Thanks again for all the work you and your team do
Thanks Aron for putting together this video. I recently shedder my faith(Christianity) and became an atheist. Being that i was raised in a Christian home, I was always being taught biased, well creationist science. The sad part is I believed everything I was being taught. Being that I'm incredibly ignorant to what science actually teaches us and shows us I really hope to start curing that ignorance. You Aron have helped me out.
That's like saying that in the year 1000, they said: "1000 AD and there are still NO flying machines". We have pieces of the puzzle. If RNA can form naturally, that's already a really strong hint that we all formed naturally from chemical reactions. It even self-replicated already lol. Self-replication is THE characteristic of life. I'm not saying one RNA strand replicating itself is already life, but it's a start. It really seems we will figure this one out in the next hundred or so years. We can already explain so many things without invoking God. Now we can even explain RNA without God xD. Soon there will be nothing left to attribute to God.
Yes, Aron! Good job of planting the seed of curiosity into the young minds that will watch this video. As aspiring young scientists they need to see the beauty in discovery, to push the bounds of knowledge and add their contribution to man's continuing search to know the universe around him.
See, this is one of the things I've always wondered about. In science class I was taught "Life came from the ancient seas" and I always asked "Okay, but HOW?" and nobody ever had an answer, not even the textbooks. It's like they just glossed over that question and jumped straight to cells.
That was the best scientific answer at the time. A bit vague but reasonable. We still don't know how but the science is progressing. All the research is figuring out how these bits an pieces came together in a cell. It's complex to be sure but not like there weren't trillions of trillions of possibilities in the universe.
@@lrvogt1257The science has progressed exactly zero over the last half century. When you actually do a deep dive into the topic, each step is more ridiculously impossible than the last.
Great presentation as always. The more I spend time arguing with creationists the more I (a) appreciate being able to refer them to your videos and (b) realize how important and difficult it is to express knowledge as clearly and with as few words as possible. It takes a lot of time to condense what one knows into digestable chunks.
So cool. I just love these videos!! I think the best part is that Aron does not talk down to a person like Creationists do. He just makes things very clear cut, and treats the audience like this is information they just need to know! Fantastic!!
"it was also found to contain more than *80* amino acids"... 0_0. wow, I never even realized there were more than the 20 or so ones that we use. looking it up, there are over five hundred known amino acids. doesn't that mean that the potentential for forms of life is WAY greater than even what we see within eukaryotic lifeforms, which only use 20 something of them?
only if the conditions remain for a duration longer than our own lifespans life is everywhere but the ones we know are incubating in hidden parts of the world many more will live for a second then die or a day experience what we ourselves will experience in our own lifetimes to be gifted with life is the greatest purpose of them all.
What I think I extremely interesting about that is that it shows that life isn't perfect. If life started from only a small select group of amino acids, and none of the others are used, then that pretty much shows that life had to struggle to start. And not only did it struggle to start but it didn't start in a perfect way.
It is a balance between varied enough chemical properties vs similar enough to be processed by a common molecular machinery. Nucleotide bases is also a balance : too few require unlikely bigger codon decoding, too many is unlikely to reunite in a cell's soup. ...makes one wonder what wonders synthetic life could accomplish.
benjovi55 Of course people learn something by saying "God didn't do it", namely that one should stop seeking answers in verifiably wrong religious texts and look instead for answers with investigation and the application of the scientific method. Conversely, saying "God did it", means one accepts something that is verifiably wrong as one believes one has the answer.
mars Cubed , before stating such a thing, there are two things you should consider: A) is the Sacred Text "verifiably wrong"? B) is saying "God did it" searching answers in the sacred text or just agreeing with answers in it OR put in other words: C) are there reasons EXCEPT the Sacred Text to explain something (whether first appearance of biological life or turning of day and night around us) with the answer God did it? Only AFTER fairly and squarely posing such a question, rather than as it seems you did assuming an answer to it could one give what amounts to an answer to it.
Creationism: If you cannot show me in one experiment in a lab how sludge can turn into a human being, then you are wrong and I will continue believing that humans were instantly created from sludge by God.
Hannah Miller and the second human from a metamorphic rib, that magical transforms into a sexy young female upon incantations....it's 2017 how could anyone believe these absurdities in the information age. unreal lol
Winston C Nobody said she was sexy. The Bible certainly doesn't. Oh, and do tell me why that's such a problem? An evolutionist would say that sexy women came from APES. You're an idiot.
Winston C I have studied evolution quote a bit. There's so many holes in it. Answer me this. Where did the matter that created the big bang come from?
Hannah Miller lol....do you want to talk about evolution of the big bang? Biology and cosmology are 2 completely different fields of study. your question about what happened before or what caused the formation of the singularity sparking a giant explosion coined the "big bang".... simply put....are unknown at this point...I know you think this is your "aha I gotchya" moment...but I hate bring you more bad news....it's not. and to say we are not sure at this point is being intellectually honest on my end and you being disengenuous, trying to cherry pick on your end. because we are not sure....at this moment in time....does not mean God done it. Defaulting to God...because science hasn't served you the answer to every question in existence is incredibly fallacious and undeniably ridiculous. First you would have to prove which God done it (over 4500 God's all false). You believe your God, the christian god is our Creator. and the same goes for every other religion; just like the 4499 God's before YHWH (Yahweh)...and they are all false and nothing more than a mental defense mechanism to provide you comfortable and security pertaining to the concept of death. follow the pattern throughout history which repeats itself over and over and over again...man created god, not the other way around. once upon a time god created disease...until germs were discovered...he created the stars and the planets....nope, science shows us the natural laws and events and exactly how celestial bodies were created. and for every claim that "god dun it" turns out...it wasn't god at all. God has been kicked out of every single gap science had yet to fill....except one gap. the one about pre big bang origins as you purposely attack. just like every other instant, there is a natural explanation. 200000 years of homo sapien sapien existence and not once has anything supernatural been shown to exist. it's perfectly OK to say...."we are not sure what caused an infinitely dense singularity, and science is working diligently to solve that puzzle." But defaulting to God, because we don't know is ludicrous and dishonest...and you know that. which is why you ask me the one question science has not answered....yet. As far as evolution, you may have been introduced to the concept, but I am very skeptical about the amount of time you have vested. When someone tells me "evolution is still controversial and too many holes exist"... I can deduce much from your statement that you don't even realize...as could any well informed person on the subject matter...there are no holes in evolution. there remains debate about details of certain mechanisms, indeed - EX - punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism and the rate of evolutionary change, etc....but as for the theory overall, it is iron clad, beyond any sliver of doubt stone cold scientific fact. it I perverse to deny it and only the uneducated and pious would even attempt such foolishness. we are more positive about evolution, than we are gravity. in fact, im not sure science has a more definitive theory than evolution. it is the pinnacle of scientific achievement and the cornerstone of biology; nothing makes sense without it. Unfortunately for you, I've vested over 27 years and further my understanding in a daily basis...I am well informed and I have sooooo much more to learn. it is extremely complex and the fields of study encompassing the subject are vast and almost endless. These so called "holes" in evolution...I regret to tell you...are just "holes" in your comprehension and understanding on the topic...Please list these holes and I will demonstrate and validate exactly what I mean and exactly how irrefutable evolution is. As public educators, we are bound by oath and law to tell the truth. I would never ever knowingly, willingly spread false information in the classroom....or outside of it for that matter. And the more you investigate and remain objective, the faster you will realize that In telling you the truth. I do not believe you are an idiot, or your stupid. I pissed you off because I attacked your beliefs and your really gonna be angry as I continue to decimate them. No arrogance, just have science, psychology, sociology, chemistry, embryology, genetics, history and all the empirical data the world has to offer on my side. It is not a fair fight between us...You lost the battle the second you adopted your world view on faith instead of following the evidence...Has nothing to do with our intelligence levels, do not misunderstand. I think you are young and have a lifetime of learning ahead of you. your parents told you these things about God and you were indoctrinated to some degree and show loyalty to the views the ppl you love hold; which is the case for most people who adopt these primitive views. Your biggest mistake was coming to a conclusion before you ever started investigating, which goes against every premise science operates on. keep your intellectual honesty and virtue (which your holy book promotes) and let your journey of enlightenment begin. or toss it in the rubbish and take the lazy, easy way out. But you give up your credibility, education, good name and common sense for that choice. "god dun it" has never, will never be the answer for anything in the natural world; which is fully concordant with reality. As an educator and an honest individual (an absolute douche bag at many times, indeed. but there is a method behind my madness and the reasons are pure) I could not, would not further the decimation of our countrymen, species and planet by adopting a world view that has already been proven the greatest hoax that every existed. Religion is comfort on the personal level....and arsenic on societal/cultural level. If you want to stick to evolution or scientific topics and leave god out of this. my pleasure, I'll allow you to stay on the offensive just to show you how brutally factual my words are. There is nothing more offensive than the truth....which is why your panties are all knotted up :) We haven't even begun to discuss evolution and when we get into human chromosome num 2, ERVs, and the mountain of evisence, cross checked in summation refuting the entire narrative of Christianity....your really gonna hate me. I'd like to here more about these holes in evolution....plz
@Anthony Maurice Nice positivity there. You obviously think that 'God did it'. After such a wonderful thought out conclusion, you should be awarded a Nobel prize. (sarcasm)
@Anthony Maurice Those scientists are famous or won their Nobel prize because of their scientific achievements, and not because they believe in God. Isaac Newton also believed in God as well as astrology, but that's not what we know him for. Nor were any of those scientist's achievements due to their belief in God. You didn't even write that you are a creationist, but I knew straight away that you are one by your terribly negative comment about science...so your last comment only confirmed it. You think that you have made some kind of point by declaring that science doesn't know how life began. But you haven't made any point at all. Science not knowing how life began doesn't mean that God exists. How could it possibly mean that? The only thing it means is that more research is needed. And such research to find out about the conditions of organic chemistry nearly 4 billion years ago would have to be some of the hardest science that there is. So isn't it just a bit churlish and unfair of you to complain about a lack of results so far? What have you done to help with the research? All you've done is complain. Well done you! Didn't you watch the video? Have you studied any biology at all since school? Because unless you are able to contribute to our search for knowledge in some meaningful way, then your negative complaints and supernatural beliefs are as pointless and irrelevant to the subject as mouse farts in a storm.
@Anthony Maurice Do you have trouble with comprehension? How can I possibly show you one single example of abiogenesis when scientists, this vid and I have already honestly admitted that we don't know how life began? I never claimed that I could. Only YOU seem to be certain of how life began...though I highly doubt that you are a chemist either. So if you are so certain about how life began, then why don't you submit your findings and claim the Nobel I mentioned to you in my first comment?
@Anthony Maurice You seem very sure of yourself. Are you an organic chemist or scientist of any kind? Because regardless of either Aron's or my background, the 'RNA world hypothesis' is actually a real and serious scientific hypothesis that is definitely progress in comparison to what existed before, which means that your statement of 'no progress' is simply wrong. So as I've already said, your negative complaining is just irrelevant hot air, because you offer no solutions of your own, and all your objections are motivated by religion and not by science. You would clearly deny the existence of biological evolution too, which only shows that you are just a silly dunce who everybody can simply ignore...or laugh at.
Hm this is quite interesting. I knew that abiogenesis research existed, and I knew that the building blocks of life have been shown to be capable of building naturally, but this video gave more more information I was not aware of. I think Abiogenesis is a great field. I look forward to the day that we have a conclusive theory on the matter.
***** Well of course it would be in a closed system, that's how science experiments tend to work. but it wouldn't really matter if it's not exactly how it occurred in reality, it's more that we are creating a solid 'proof of concept' so to speak. Besides, we do try to emulate the various possible conditions of the planet at the time, hence the radiation, heating, cooling.
AronRa I'm only discovering your videos now and I really wish that I had found them sooner, because I am really enjoying them and finding them very interesting. Keep up the good work.
We must first define what a living thing is. Most folks would define it as something rather complex, like a bacteria etc. with metabolic pathways, a cell membrane, genetic material etc. But molecular biologists would strip out everything except only the elements essential for self-replication because this is all that is needed for natural selection to operate upon. Once you have a molecule that cam make copies of itself, and there is opportunity for mistakes/changes to be introduced occasionally into the next generation, then you begin to have differences across the population of molecules, some of which might replicate faster or be more stable to degradation, therefore hanging around longer and making more copies of themselves, until they take over the population. That's natural selection....rest is history.... BTW, we have shown experimentally some of these steps already....RNA-like units and assemble into long chains forming polymers which can self-replicate in the absence of protein. Vesicles can self form and grow in size until they split in half forming two new vesicles, with no living systems providing any aid.The RNA-like polymers can pass into such vesicles and continue to replicate within...at a faster rate than those outside the vesicles (selective advantage). All this is running wihtou living systems...just on chemical energetic principles under certain environmental conditions. See ruclips.net/video/PqPGOhXoprU/видео.html for a series show these experiments....
I've gotten a far clearer and concise picture of abiogenesis in the eleven minutes and thirty five seconds of this video than I have from hours of Nova and similar shows.
We can find the chemicals and the right conditions but everyone seems to skip the most important factor. TIME! Lots and lots of time. on the scale of 100 million years complex processes are bound to happen. Things that happened over such large amounts of time cannot be so easily replicated in labs over a few hours or minutes.
I know this was 8 years ago but I love your work Aron! I’m starting to study evolution myself and it’s sad how much the education system has failed us! Thank you!
Aaron, the intro song only is audible in the left channel. I normally would not mind (actually it does not bother me) but your other Living Science Lessons intros do have sound in both channels, so maybe you wanted to know that, to check were the error was. Great Videos by the way. Thanks.
As always, it is a pleasure to hear your presentations Aron Ra. You have a knack for clear concise exposition that shows your command of these complex subjects.
As a pastors kid I remember clearly thinking that NONE OF THIS ADDS UP. I was constantly told: don't think, don't question it, God will judge you, don't risk hellfire. My childhood was like my brain was locked in a box and I was constantly fighting against the confines.
Thanks for the video. YEC's and Apologists are playing games with abiogenesis lately. And I decided to do some research into abiogenesis. I studied history and archeology, so physics, chemistry, biology are not my strong suits. This video is very helpful
Someone forgot to turn the "additional edge radius" down on Key Cleaner. But on a related note, if we could show abiogenesis in a lab, that would be an elbow from the sky for creationist.
You'd think so, but they have proven themselves quite capable of shoving their heads into the ground and completely ignoring any and all evidence that happens to go against their ridiculous claims.
DominusCypher Oh sure, there are many that won’t see anything “man breathed” but the reason why they always try and connect abiogenesis and evolution, is because it’s the only piece of the puzzle still missing, and therefore last rock a god could be hiding under. Once science picks that one up, those that still pretend to value evidence, have to abandon any pretense of evidentiary reasoning. And the intelligent design holdouts that function to give support to the anti-evolutionist in general, will know it’s game set and match without that gap in our knowledge.
When/if it does get demonstrated in a lab, they'll just say: _"See! Those chemicals didn't do that themselves, the scientists designed the experiment to do that! Proof of intelligent design!"_ There is literally nothing that can be done to convince those who have already decided what the conclusion is.
Scott Bowser You hit the nail on the head, i'm afraid. It's like when they argue that the mind can't just be the product of a physical brain, because it has to be more than just matter. When you point to a comparison with software vs. hardware, they often suddenly switch gears with the old "but computers were intelligently designed!" Any god fearing creationist will know how to dodge whatever criticism or counter argument you could possibly imagine.
Geese guys, feeling superior are we? Look, all human minds have the ability to see what they want to see, even the smart one like yours. We evolved to survive long enough to reproduce, not to be perfect reality detectors. Now while this can make us very resistant to acknowledging something that causes us distress or damages our well-being, it doesn't mean we can’t snap out of it. I’m real happy all of you have snapped out of it, but seriously, get over yourselves.
Oh bloody well done Aron, you've opened a channel of discussion about Abiogenesis that the creationists have always torn their hair out about. I'm Polish so it's kinda my evening for eating food and making merry courtesy of various brewers, distillers and vintners so all the very best of the seasons greetings to you en famille.( whilst bearing in mind the 25th is meant for spiritual reflection according to my many years ago terrorists in man dresses )
Thank you very much for this video, it has proved incredibly useful in clarifying much of the information i have on this subject, and putting it into a logical order and perspective, allowing me to write a basic introductory report on the subject for my teacher.
I thoroughly enjoy these videos. I would very much like to get copies for my daughter and my nieces. The material is excellent and well spoken and well presented.
So fascinating. Considering how close we are to figuring out how life originated, it’s baffling that so many people still dismiss it as impossible to occur by natural means.
I really appreciate that you take the time to make these educational video's and hopefully inspire many to go out and do more research on some of these subjects.
AronRa I'm not going to give you the typical 'Merry Christmas' or 'seasons greetings'. Just, have 'a good day'. :) I say that because in life, often the simplest thing is often the strongest and most profound.
+AronRa No disrespect intended. But I assumed that your initials are R.N. Ra I think Ra was one of the mythical deities" of the - greek , norse , or any other cultures. I forget it has been quite a while since I was in school. I may be wrong and if I am ( I was wrong once B4) I apologise, and either way thanx for the videos.
I think the greatest thing I've ever heard from a teacher in terms of my education is "I don't know, but let me research that and I'll get back to you". It proved to me that you don't have to pretend that you know everything, nor should you claim knowledge that you don't have. I think the greatest example of this is when asking the veterinary anatomists at my vet school "if horses can't vomit due primarily to the strength of their Lower Esophageal Sphincter [LES], do they still have an emetic center [the part of your brain that tells you that you need to puke]?". None of them knew, but hey got back to me about a week later with "after consulting with a veterinary neuroscientist, 2 veterinary neurologists, and 5 anatomists, the official answer is probably". Basically, the consensus seems to be that, while there exists no literature on the existence of an equine emetic center, we know that they can get nauseous which would necessitate an emetic center. How did that evolve? absolutely no idea. Was it intelligently designed? nothing in the equine GI tract was "intelligently designed".
Even Charles Darwin admitted that evolution was wrong on his death bed, and if Charles Darwin doesn't believe in evolution, that makes the theory of evolution null and void, since he's the ultimate authority on the subject.
Truly, the Darwin Award should be for badass awesomeness, not for stupid people ^^ (or two category, the one we have currently, for the individuals who spare humanity of their genome, by means of sterilization or death, and a category for the individuals that blessed humanity with their badassness)
I've always found Abiogenesis interesting, how all these base elements mix and change over time and created the first self-reproducing ball of mass on Earth. Great video AronRa.
Spontaneous generations versus Abiogenesis Spontaneous generations: is an incorrect hypothesis that nonliving things are capable of producing life. This premise has been conclusively sacked by an experiment conducted by Louis Pasteur. You would have thought that Louis Pasteur's experiment would have settled the issue that non-living matter cannot generate life, but think again, here comes “Abiogenesis”. What is Abiogenesis? It is the Hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from non-living matter. Sounds familiar? This so called modern Abiogenesis hypothesis is an attempt to resurrect the premise of “Spontaneous generations” because without this the evolutionists have no credible creation narrative. “Spontaneous generations” which Louis Pasteur's experiment has in principal proved to be false, can be understood to a greater degree at the molecular level, by analyzing the chemistry that’s taking place in the Miller-Urey experiment, which undeniably inhibits any “Abiogenesis” from taking place. Here a list of 5 inhibitory factors which proscribe Abiogenesis. 1. Probability calculations for chemical combination sampling will be prohibited within the allotted time scale. I guess that’s why Fred Hoyle said “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ….It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution.”- Hoyle on Evolution- Nature vol. 294, No. 5837 2. In the Miller experiment there is a tendency for the production of L and D amino acids which would have neutralized any further positive reactions, this is technically called racemic mixture, and this Phenomena would have interfered with the necessary chemical pathways for life. 3. Maillard reaction: the cross reaction between amino acids, fatty acids and bases and other random chemical would have inhibited the essential chemical reaction for life. 4. Uncontrolled UV radiation would have disrupted the delicate chemical structures, with the relative energy of a sledgehammer, therefore destroying any progress in the direction of any biochemistry (life). 5. The lack of evidence for a reduced prebiotic atmosphere which is necessary for abiogenesis hypothesis. But a highly reduced atmosphere is now doubted by most scientists for the prebiotic earth. Spontaneous generations failed for the same reasons that Abiogenesis fails. Unfortunately for the evolutionist the necessary step for “Abiogenesis” to be valid never occurs under natural conditions. I suppose, this is the reason why Francis Crick posited "The Directed Panspermia hypothesis", a new “Out of earth Abiogenesis hypothesis” or “De terra hypothesis", but this of course opens up another can of worms.
Nice try creationist .. Why dont you give evidence on creation i.e how this happened by what mechanism and when and by whom and for what purpose ? Oh you can't ? YOu have seen the video havent you so there it was explained how it happened ! Ignorant fool
Spontaneous Generation hypothesized not the advent of life from matter, but of *living beings* from matter. The couple of errors in your assertion of SG show your ignorance, willing or out of own stupidity. Instead of Abiogenesis, which deals with seeking natural means through which RNA, DNA or proto-cells could come to be, Spontaneous Generation dealt with things such as leather cloths giving birth to mice or meat cuts giving birth to maggots. See, as much as you might want to deny it, RNA is *literally* just a molecule. All that the hypothesis of abiogenesis puts forth is that such a molecule could, like literally all other known molecules, have a formula to develop it. So far we have managed to prove that the basal parts of RNA *can* generate spontaneously in environments that require only the most common organic matter in our Solar System, water and sunlight, a few of them require electricity as well. Comparing this to the hypothesis of Spontaneous Generation is borderline insanity. One deals with finding the steps of a chemical formula, the other literally imagined that cedar gave birth to moths.
As for your 5 rebukes of abiogenesis: 1 - You are lying about Fred Hoyle's quote, which in actuality was "the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (...)", not "life". It also never said anything about burying Darwin, instead leaning on the old adage of the tornado on a junkyard. The key mention here is that Fred Hoyle isn't saying that *life* couldn't have possibly have sprouted from natural reactions, but that such reactions wouldn't immediately produce complex beings. He thought so because he was a strong advocate of Panspermia, a hypothesis that I am not even that adverse to but let's be honest, while the proponents of panspermia have done little more than find sugar in asteroids, the proponents of abiogenesis have already proved that all amino-acids can occur naturally, how they can naturally become nucleotides, how said nucleotides can naturally become RNA, how said RNA can naturally reproduce, how said reproducing RNA can naturally create a membrane-like shell for itself... Panspermia needs to get it's shit together if it wants to be proven. Fred Hoyle was a famous advocate of panspermia. I don't know if he was exactly qualified to be making statements on/against abiogenesis in favor of panspermia, since he didn't have any degree in any field of biology. 2 - This *was* a problem, 100 years ago. There are *so many* known ways nowadays by which a small imbalance in chirality can lead to a system becoming entirely of almost entirely homochiral that scientists don't even know how to begin imagining which one actually happened in our history. Damn, could have been a couple dozen of them. The MIller-Urey experiment didn't deal with this, since it's objective was singly to determine that amino-acids could spontaneously generate. Later experiments focused on chirality quickly showed this was a non-issue, so much so that the place this "debate" is still the hottest on the internet is at the misinformation website Answers in Genesis who, like you, to this day pretend we haven't known the answer to this question for decades. 3 - The Maillard reaction takes place between amino-acids and *sugars* , not *acids* , so I have literally no idea what you're grasping at here. 4 - This is surprisingly astute, and the first argument you made that makes slightly any sense. Unfortunately, it is still somewhat flawed: since UV radiation is incapable of ionizing atoms, it'd need to cause damage to the first RNA the same way it does today, however even when directly bombarding cells with concentrated UV rays, it's still mostly common for them to survive and repair their DNA with no issue, even though permanent damage *can* happen. This however does disconsider entirely the idea that life most likely began around volcanic vents in the ocean, where the UV radiation wouldn't be a factor. 5 - Actually, by studying crystals that managed to hold on to just a little bit of that atmosphere, we know that the Earth's atmosphere was *exactly* a reducing one. In fact, there was no traceable amount of oxygen on the atmosphere until nearly a whole billion after the first *fossils* we find nowadays. Note that I am not even saying that the atmosphere was reducing "when we think life began", we *know* it was *still* a reducing atmosphere for *A BILLION YEARS* after *FOSSILS* can be found. So, after 5 points, let's make a rundown... 1 was a quote taken both entirely out of context *and* deeply altered to lie about the author having the same opinion as you, and even then it came from a person with no discernible knowledge on the field at hand. 2 point was a bad copypasta from Answers in Genesis, an argument that was rendered moot by the overwhelming evidence against it that nobody even heeds it any attention anymore, and only gullible drones reading their website would consider "fact". 3 completely nonsensical lack of understanding of highschool chemistry. 4 point was surprisingly interesting, although rendered moot because of the location said reactions would be taking place. 5 factually wrong assertion that also lies about the current status quo of the scientific community. Stay classy, creationist.
And of course, all of this is without mentioning the fact that the Theory of evolution is independent from abiogenesis, so much so that evolutionists don't «need» any step to occur, once life is started, and that disproving abiogenesis, or even better : proving god did it, would not disprove, in any way, the fact that evolution occurred, occurs, and will most probably occur in the future (if we don't blow or planet up and that we aren't on the only planet in the universe that ever and will ever gave birth to life, something most probably... Implausible.).
And after all of this talking by the end of the day abiogenesis STILL hasn't been proven and yet biogenesis happens with unwavering regularity. He is nothing more than a talking face.
Hypotheses have to be testable and potentially falsifiable. There has to be some way of knowing whether you're on the right track or the wrong one. Religion doesn't have that because faith refuses to admit when it's always wrong about everything.
What I reported in this video is accurate. Keep studying, and if you're not reading religious apologetics science-denial sites, you'll see that what I said here is correct, and not at all dishonest the way creationism always has to be.
Transcription begins when an enzyme called RNA polymerase attaches to the DNA template strand and begins assembling a new chain of nucleotides to produce a complementary RNA strand. There are three major types of RNA: 1) mRNA, messenger-RNA, which transfer the information about the aminoacid sequence from the DNA to the protein synthesis. 2) rRNA, ribosomal-RNA, which builds up the ribosome together with proteins. 3) tRNA, transfer-RNA, which transfer aminoacids to the ribosome for protein synthesis. This is how RNA builds DNA. As the video explains, you don't always need something to uncoil or unzip or even "read" RNA. And we've seen that there are natural envromental conditions wherein RNA can spontaneously self-replicate even without any enzyme at all. Once we have RNA and enzymes, which both occur naturally, transcription can follow as merely another chemical process. The way science works is we have an observation that we need to explain. So we come up with hypotheses we can test to see if we're on the right track or do we need to start again. In this case, we know life precedes any notion of humanity by an absurdly long period of time: billions of sunsets seen by eyes without brains sufficient to appreciate them. Such a waste. Worse than that, we know that all life was only single-celled microbes for far longer than there have even been even the simplest multicellular organisms. Again, this is the furthest thing from an intelligent design. So initially life forms were extremely simple, simpler even than most single-celled microbes are today. So how did life come about? Experimental science shows it happened naturally. Religion says it happened magically. Looking at the two options, (pretending for a moment that intelligent design even qualifies as an option) we first have to show whether there is a precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon to show that either one is even possible. Numerous scientific experiments have shown that each of the expected steps of abiogenesis is actually possible, and we now have a dozen or so competing hypotheses which could all be true at the same time. Alternatively, we the imaginative notion of the magic invisible man, which is not remotely possible in any sense. Remember also that the only source for the notion of an intelligent designer is a handful of man-made mythologies dedicated to different religions, where none of them can show there is any truth behind them at all, and all of them have already been disproved on every testable claim that any of them have ever made. The discovery of the city of Troy didn't validate Helenism and not even the discovery of Rama's bridge could validate Hinduism. The notion of an intelligent designer contradicts all the natural processes and evident biological history unveiled so far, literally nothing whatsoever makes sense with that as your starting point. So not only no part of the intelligent designer remotely possible, it's not parsimonious either, and it doesn't even explain anything. There is no experimental means that has ever indicated such a thing and every claim ID proponents have made for it had already been falsified before they ever lost their case in court: though they still refuse to admit that because faith means never admitting when you've been proven wrong. Intelligent Design is a theory in name only. It meets exactly none of the criteria required of a theory. Instead it is just another way to phrase the god-of-the-gaps fallacy; that if someone thinks science hasn't yet or can't ever explain something, that means it happened by magic. So literally the only thing the ID advocate can do is deny everything science has already shown that we really do know about it, and if we don't yet know it all, they pretend that we still don't know ANYthing at all. Of course that's not true, but accuracy and accountability don't matter to religious proponents the way they are both so important to scientists.
great video just what i was looking for its amazing how imformative and succinct you can make a video when it doesnt have to be dumbed down and drug out for tv.
Unless someone can replicate abiogenesis 100% there’s no logical reason to keep up the contempt for religious people. You can believe what you want but grasping at straws like you are is not a reason to think you’ve debunked everything religion says. I’m not religious but militant atheists are an embarrassment with their assertions.
@@williamchamberlain2263 completely different scenario and a straw man. The Bible is against organized religion. The religious establishment have done a well good job butchering hidden wisdom of the Bible and taking everything literally for their own benefit. Unless you can find me a verse in the Bible that says churches are not to be taxed then your argument stands to be nonsensical. Atheism is nothing more than repackaged, regurgitated, ancient Hermetic Qabalah. All your doctrine can be found in the Zohar, there you will find the nonsensical globe earth, evolution, and the Big Bang. Hermetic Qabalah states everything came from nothing, and you think you’re revolutionary when you say atheism is original?All your favorite scientific revolutionaries and the elites today are kabbalists influenced by the Zohar and other occult philosophies. Has nothing to do with unbiased science. If the foundation of your religion is the Zohar then you are in BIG trouble my friend.
The job of science is not to replicate but to understand. The contempt is not for the religious as such but for those who peddle lies and cling to beliefs despite all evidence showing them to be false.
Used to read some research about abiotic hydrocarbons- and the role certain fissile materials have in generating them (for example natural gas and coal deposits are almost always around thorium rich deposits- that also emit radon, which makes nat gas and coal rich in radon typically) anyway a couple years ago I saw a study about mica in the ocean trapping water between the layers- but the constant mechanical oscillation of waves above created vortices which spun hydrocarbons into simple sugar spheres (black sand beaches are highly radioactive), much like a cell wall is composed of- but far more simple in structure and fragile. Wish I remembered to save its DOI has crossed my mind a few times over the years. Nice video by the way
Fantastic work as always, Aron! I would only ask that you add a works cited footnote in the description for the websites and scientific journals from which you get your information.
I've been doing some essential research for a paper i've been recommended to submit. Ran across this video in my web search. You have just about all of what you need to know. Very well and good. I can fill in perhaps a few essential pieces of the puzzle for you when we speak. I'm relieved to that you are so familiar with the material. Saves a lot of explanation. Pencil me in for this upcoming Sunday Sept 1st at 8300 am UTC?
Good stuff. People forget how insanely long it took us to get where we are. As well given the large size of the universe and beyond, the mathematical probability of this type of thing occurring is inevitable.
Aron, great video but I fear this one may go too quickly for your average teenager coming in and watching this first thing on a Monday morning. It's very dense, very quick and packed with terms that even many adults probably have never heard. For complicated theories or subjects like this, I'd suggest breaking it up into multiple parts.
Saying "I don't know" is one of those small pleasures that we take for granted. If you don't know, and you accept that you don't know, then you are free to learn awesome new things! One of the greatest feelings is when you learn something new :)
Yup and GOOD scientists are able to admit "I don't know, yet" when it happens. A theist (any religion) just falls back on "God did it!" and closes their mind to further information
Unfortunately, it's a source of frustration for me when someone's arguing with me and I'm painfully aware that they won't concede not to know something, but outside of that specific circumstance, it's honestly pretty nice, especially when coupled with "let's find out."
Even things I once thought I knew, I may have misremembered, or been misinformed, so double-checking can sometimes lead to revelations.
Exactly well never know everything but fuck it we're humans never just means try harder XD
Precisely! Notice that this requires, and fosters, personal honesty. Surely it is revealing that apologists for religions seem to lack this vial trait. As AronRa says, they are deceived and/or deceivers, having had their minds twisted beyond recognition by years of daily or weekly repetition of nonsense, and "everyone says it's true!", peer-pressure, conformity, fear of the object of worship (which is insane, but less insane than a fanatical belief in wooden boats, amongst other things...), fear of the "in-group", fear of the unknown...all the bullshit peddled by professional liars who shall remain nameless ; yes, many factors contribute to a mind that has lost the honesty that seems to be innate. This is worse than tragic ; it is a deeply evil (for want of a better word) process of brainwashing, perpetrated by unfortunate credulous people who, many with their integrity intact, are conned by pulpit-banging fanatics who can be convincing if one knows no better and when one gives an initial "benefit of the doubt" in the assumption that one is dealing with an honest person......except one is not. Please examine the Jesuits ; they may be viewed as a major influence upon the "business" of apologetics. 1 last thing -
What sort of a weak-ass god is so utterly inept (and perfect) that he even requires apologists? Why is the bible so unconvincing? How can the "ultimate Truth!!" be decided by a committee? \why are people stupid enough to trade their lives for a chimera, a fantasia, a nonsense...?
I guess I just do not understand my fellow apes very well...! :)
Data Banks What if the data suggests that God did do it? You try and re-engineer organic life with the same genome and reproduction capabilities.
"All there are, from back that far, are things so bizarre, we don't know what they are." Aron's a poet for Dr. Seuss, I'm sure of it.
Great video sir, keep up the great work.
@those replying to this are trolls :O
I am not a scientist by trade. I am a systems engineer. These videos help me a lot in gaining a better understanding of the science behind my belief in Evolution. Thanks for these videos!
You can always choose not to believe the science. Not believing in something, won't make the facts any less true than they are. lol
engineering and science go hand in hamd
@@je740 True. But engineers apply physics to design and create objects. Hebis alluding to theoretical science.
Personally, I say "I am convinced by the empirical evidence for evolution". "belief" risks having people say "how it is different from belief in religion" (for which no empirical evidence exists).
Dear Aron, how do you hold all this knowledge in your head and then speak it out so fluently and awe inspiring?
You are the greatest contributor to U-tube so far I have had the pleasure to listen to. Thx for everything.
Aron, it's confirmed. I'm an atheist now. After 4 years of being indoctrinated by fundamentalist apologists with fear and pseudoscience I couldn't take it anymore. I watched you videos and also "Why I'm no longer a creationist" by "Atheist coffee". I still have religious trauma of this idea of hell. For example when I touch a hot plate from the microwave it makes me have flashes of hell. Just shows you what religion can do to simple things in life. The more I watch your videos the more this fear goes away. So thank you.
Even as a child, I was skeptical. I couldn't understand how adults went from talking rationally to talking about crazy stuff that made no sense. Like you, the last religious shackle I shook off was the concept of hell. Now, I have absolutely no fear of burning in hell forever. What a horrible idea to push onto a child!
Nicholas Stroganoff right
noahthelibertarianatheist
I'm a bit older I suppose, Carl Sagan did it for me. "Cosmos " is still the best telling of Cosmic evolution ever done in my view . If you've not seen it I could warmly recommend it.
Hey....high five buddy! I'm a libertarian atheist too!
Mad Scientist 72 hell ye bru
Am I the only one who thinks it's awesome to learn science from Ming The Merciless?
No.
No you are most certainly not. But I do confess it never occurred to me that this is what was happening. XD
Great, now that you said it...
DID YOU REALLY HAVE TO!?
xD
FLASH!
AW WAWW!
Who is Ming the merciless?
Atheists:
We are merely hairless animals that have randomly evolved in a meaningless and uncaring universe destined to die and decompose into dirt.
P.S.
Yes, that's very harsh but I'm actually not here to hate on you.
The Bible very clearly explains in Romans chapter 1 that there is no such thing as an atheist.
The gigantic Planet crammed full of amazing creatures which God has provided us is more than enough evidence to convince anyone. People reject God on a moral basis not for lack of evidence.
They would prefer to not exist than to be ruled over by the just and Holy authority of God.
How do you get to hell?
Very simple: claim that you're innocent.
How do you get to heaven?
Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy.
How to know if you're guilty or not?
Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible.
Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police.
Do not lie.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word.
There are six more but let's just leave it at that.
How many lies have you told in your life?
Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman.
How many times a day do you do that?
Do you use God's name as a cuss word?
Would you do that with your own mother's name?
If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty.
God can justly punish you and send you to hell.
Ask him for mercy.
His name is Jesus.
It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine.
The fine is death.
Ezekiel 18:20 -
"The soul who sins shall die.
That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy.
Option A.
You die for your own sins.
Option B.
Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died for you.
..........
We are just the most recent result of that chemical reaction which began 3.5 billion years ago.
Love, The Cube in the background.
Someday God will come along, wrinkle his nose, and say "Oh no, another spoiled one! Panets with water always get contaminated with this scum on the surface."..
Keep telling yourself that.
People mad lol
Aron's videos get better and better all the time, and this series is by far his best work yet. This video is an excellent and carefully detailed introduction to abiogenesis and how life could have formed on the early earth, by physical, chemical and geological processes that are being updated and refined with every discovery. This video, like all Aron's work, is one of the best summaries on RUclips for students wanting to study this topic or people who want to brush up on scientific knowledge.
Aron you are an excellent educator - you deliver information in easy to understand language and explain the harder bits as well. Some science types who make videos use such lofty language that, even though I am interested and have a college education, a lot of it goes over my head. Having someone explain things clearly goes a long way to imparting real scientific information to the general population - especially the young people. Keep up the good work!
2:29- All there are
From back that far
Are things so bizarre
We don't know what they are
Did he do that on purpose...?
***** haha I noticed that too
+CDenic Sounds like something Edgar A. Poe would write... Lol.
lmao
Or Dr. Suess.
super simple summary of something that is crazy complex 10:10
Man I wish I'd of had science teachers like you while in school I would of developed a fascination with science much soon than I did. Thanks again for all the work you and your team do
"...I'd of..."
You probably could've used an English teacher.
He would not have been able to bs his way through my biology course.
0:33 Aron's British accent gets 10/10 from me!
+Pieh0 I know right!
He sounded like he was reading Jack the Ripper's _Dear Boss_ letter - like in the Macabre song.
I was impressed with it too !
Aron Ra, Voice Artist: "Living Science lessons" (RUclips series) as Charles Darwin
That was not British. It was better.
That was Aron!? That sounded like Richard Dawkins for a second there!
Thanks Aron for putting together this video. I recently shedder my faith(Christianity) and became an atheist. Being that i was raised in a Christian home, I was always being taught biased, well creationist science. The sad part is I believed everything I was being taught. Being that I'm incredibly ignorant to what science actually teaches us and shows us I really hope to start curing that ignorance. You Aron have helped me out.
AronRa is like that charismatic inspirational science teacher you have in senior school. brilliant summery of the abiogenesis process!
Did you even watch/understand the video, tony? Honestly? Or were you mouthbreathing too loudly to concentrate
That's like saying that in the year 1000, they said: "1000 AD and there are still NO flying machines". We have pieces of the puzzle. If RNA can form naturally, that's already a really strong hint that we all formed naturally from chemical reactions. It even self-replicated already lol. Self-replication is THE characteristic of life. I'm not saying one RNA strand replicating itself is already life, but it's a start. It really seems we will figure this one out in the next hundred or so years. We can already explain so many things without invoking God. Now we can even explain RNA without God xD. Soon there will be nothing left to attribute to God.
Single cells, single cells, single all the way!
Oh, what fun it is to split into two and four and eight.
Single cells, single cells...c'mon everybody!
There Probably Is No God😂😂😂
if all cells were single (like I am), how did they produced new cells))
@@smashexentertainment676 It's called mitosis. No need for Tinder. 😉
@@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT lucky cells) I tried to reproduce myself a lot, doesn't work.
@@smashexentertainment676 are you making a joke or do you seriously don't know?
Words can't express how appreciative I am of your videos. Thank you.
Yes, Aron! Good job of planting the seed of curiosity into the young minds that will watch this video. As aspiring young scientists they need to see the beauty in discovery, to push the bounds of knowledge and add their contribution to man's continuing search to know the universe around him.
See, this is one of the things I've always wondered about. In science class I was taught "Life came from the ancient seas" and I always asked "Okay, but HOW?" and nobody ever had an answer, not even the textbooks. It's like they just glossed over that question and jumped straight to cells.
That was the best scientific answer at the time. A bit vague but reasonable. We still don't know how but the science is progressing. All the research is figuring out how these bits an pieces came together in a cell. It's complex to be sure but not like there weren't trillions of trillions of possibilities in the universe.
@@lrvogt1257The science has progressed exactly zero over the last half century. When you actually do a deep dive into the topic, each step is more ridiculously impossible than the last.
@@Shrouded_reaper that’s a ridiculous and unsupportable claim.
Great presentation as always. The more I spend time arguing with creationists the more I (a) appreciate being able to refer them to your videos and (b) realize how important and difficult it is to express knowledge as clearly and with as few words as possible. It takes a lot of time to condense what one knows into digestable chunks.
This is some of the most important work being done on Earth, these videos that dispel ignorance and replace it with understanding.
Totally agree!
The sense of wonder and discovery . The things we dont know are the things we will pursue :)
We want what we don't have, and when we recognize how much we don't know, that arouses curiosity.
Nope gawd did it
@@gmh2374 Current me: Sure. I approve now. since the bottom line is having a peace of mind :)
It takes a special moron to believe abiogenesis happened.
@@davidt8087 what's your theory doctor?
Wow, this is the perfect Christmas present! Thanks, Aron!
So cool. I just love these videos!!
I think the best part is that Aron does not talk down to a person like Creationists do. He just makes things very clear cut, and treats the audience like this is information they just need to know! Fantastic!!
And doesnt sneer and try to mock and laugh it away as they do, but uses facts, as you say.
I just love your use of alliteration and assonance. It makes it amusing as well as interesting and educational.
"it was also found to contain more than *80* amino acids"... 0_0. wow, I never even realized there were more than the 20 or so ones that we use. looking it up, there are over five hundred known amino acids. doesn't that mean that the potentential for forms of life is WAY greater than even what we see within eukaryotic lifeforms, which only use 20 something of them?
only if the conditions remain for a duration longer than our own lifespans
life is everywhere but the ones we know are incubating in hidden parts of the world
many more will live for a second then die or a day experience what we ourselves will experience in our own lifetimes
to be gifted with life is the greatest purpose of them all.
What I think I extremely interesting about that is that it shows that life isn't perfect. If life started from only a small select group of amino acids, and none of the others are used, then that pretty much shows that life had to struggle to start. And not only did it struggle to start but it didn't start in a perfect way.
It is a balance between varied enough chemical properties vs similar enough to be processed by a common molecular machinery.
Nucleotide bases is also a balance : too few require unlikely bigger codon decoding, too many is unlikely to reunite in a cell's soup.
...makes one wonder what wonders synthetic life could accomplish.
One thing is for sure, You can Not learn anything by saying god did it.
True, I just said "God did it", and I learned nothing. There's the proof right there.
Terncote saying "god did it" didn't teach you that. examining the results honestly did that.
You can learn FROM non-identity of phospholipids with amino acids that ... God did it (and not just simple life forms btw).
benjovi55 Of course people learn something by saying "God didn't do it", namely that one should stop seeking answers in verifiably wrong religious texts and look instead for answers with investigation and the application of the scientific method.
Conversely, saying "God did it", means one accepts something that is verifiably wrong as one believes one has the answer.
mars Cubed , before stating such a thing, there are two things you should consider:
A) is the Sacred Text "verifiably wrong"?
B) is saying "God did it" searching answers in the sacred text or just agreeing with answers in it OR put in other words:
C) are there reasons EXCEPT the Sacred Text to explain something (whether first appearance of biological life or turning of day and night around us) with the answer God did it?
Only AFTER fairly and squarely posing such a question, rather than as it seems you did assuming an answer to it could one give what amounts to an answer to it.
2:30 Aron looks pretty satisfied with that rhyme! And rightly so! hahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Fitting since many of those fossils look like something out of Dr. Suess illustration.
Thanks for all the inspiring work Aron. Videos like these are what first sparked the curiosity in me!
Aron you are my new Christopher Hitchens. Different delivery but very well put together. 💙
Creationism: If you cannot show me in one experiment in a lab how sludge can turn into a human being, then you are wrong and I will continue believing that humans were instantly created from sludge by God.
Actually, the Bible says God created the first human from dust.
Hannah Miller and the second human from a metamorphic rib, that magical transforms into a sexy young female upon incantations....it's 2017 how could anyone believe these absurdities in the information age. unreal lol
Winston C Nobody said she was sexy. The Bible certainly doesn't. Oh, and do tell me why that's such a problem? An evolutionist would say that sexy women came from APES. You're an idiot.
Winston C I have studied evolution quote a bit. There's so many holes in it. Answer me this.
Where did the matter that created the big bang come from?
Hannah Miller lol....do you want to talk about evolution of the big bang? Biology and cosmology are 2 completely different fields of study.
your question about what happened before or what caused the formation of the singularity sparking a giant explosion coined the "big bang".... simply put....are unknown at this point...I know you think this is your "aha I gotchya" moment...but I hate bring you more bad news....it's not. and to say we are not sure at this point is being intellectually honest on my end and you being disengenuous, trying to cherry pick on your end. because we are not sure....at this moment in time....does not mean God done it. Defaulting to God...because science hasn't served you the answer to every question in existence is incredibly fallacious and undeniably ridiculous. First you would have to prove which God done it (over 4500 God's all false). You believe your God, the christian god is our Creator. and the same goes for every other religion; just like the 4499 God's before YHWH (Yahweh)...and they are all false and nothing more than a mental defense mechanism to provide you comfortable and security pertaining to the concept of death. follow the pattern throughout history which repeats itself over and over and over again...man created god, not the other way around. once upon a time god created disease...until germs were discovered...he created the stars and the planets....nope, science shows us the natural laws and events and exactly how celestial bodies were created. and for every claim that "god dun it" turns out...it wasn't god at all. God has been kicked out of every single gap science had yet to fill....except one gap. the one about pre big bang origins as you purposely attack. just like every other instant, there is a natural explanation. 200000 years of homo sapien sapien existence and not once has anything supernatural been shown to exist. it's perfectly OK to say...."we are not sure what caused an infinitely dense singularity, and science is working diligently to solve that puzzle." But defaulting to God, because we don't know is ludicrous and dishonest...and you know that. which is why you ask me the one question science has not answered....yet.
As far as evolution, you may have been introduced to the concept, but I am very skeptical about the amount of time you have vested. When someone tells me "evolution is still controversial and too many holes exist"... I can deduce much from your statement that you don't even realize...as could any well informed person on the subject matter...there are no holes in evolution. there remains debate about details of certain mechanisms, indeed - EX - punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism and the rate of evolutionary change, etc....but as for the theory overall, it is iron clad, beyond any sliver of doubt stone cold scientific fact. it I perverse to deny it and only the uneducated and pious would even attempt such foolishness. we are more positive about evolution, than we are gravity. in fact, im not sure science has a more definitive theory than evolution. it is the pinnacle of scientific achievement and the cornerstone of biology; nothing makes sense without it. Unfortunately for you, I've vested over 27 years and further my understanding in a daily basis...I am well informed and I have sooooo much more to learn. it is extremely complex and the fields of study encompassing the subject are vast and almost endless. These so called "holes" in evolution...I regret to tell you...are just "holes" in your comprehension and understanding on the topic...Please list these holes and I will demonstrate and validate exactly what I mean and exactly how irrefutable evolution is. As public educators, we are bound by oath and law to tell the truth. I would never ever knowingly, willingly spread false information in the classroom....or outside of it for that matter. And the more you investigate and remain objective, the faster you will realize that In telling you the truth.
I do not believe you are an idiot, or your stupid. I pissed you off because I attacked your beliefs and your really gonna be angry as I continue to decimate them. No arrogance, just have science, psychology, sociology, chemistry, embryology, genetics, history and all the empirical data the world has to offer on my side. It is not a fair fight between us...You lost the battle the second you adopted your world view on faith instead of following the evidence...Has nothing to do with our intelligence levels, do not misunderstand. I think you are young and have a lifetime of learning ahead of you. your parents told you these things about God and you were indoctrinated to some degree and show loyalty to the views the ppl you love hold; which is the case for most people who adopt these primitive views. Your biggest mistake was coming to a conclusion before you ever started investigating, which goes against every premise science operates on. keep your intellectual honesty and virtue (which your holy book promotes) and let your journey of enlightenment begin. or toss it in the rubbish and take the lazy, easy way out. But you give up your credibility, education, good name and common sense for that choice. "god dun it" has never, will never be the answer for anything in the natural world; which is fully concordant with reality.
As an educator and an honest individual (an absolute douche bag at many times, indeed. but there is a method behind my madness and the reasons are pure) I could not, would not further the decimation of our countrymen, species and planet by adopting a world view that has already been proven the greatest hoax that every existed. Religion is comfort on the personal level....and arsenic on societal/cultural level.
If you want to stick to evolution or scientific topics and leave god out of this. my pleasure, I'll allow you to stay on the offensive just to show you how brutally factual my words are. There is nothing more offensive than the truth....which is why your panties are all knotted up :)
We haven't even begun to discuss evolution and when we get into human chromosome num 2, ERVs, and the mountain of evisence, cross checked in summation refuting the entire narrative of Christianity....your really gonna hate me. I'd like to here more about these holes in evolution....plz
All those things,
from back that far,
are so bizarre,
we don't know what they are.
2:30
"All there are from back that far are things so bizarre we don't know what they are!"
Lol! I caught that too. Excellent rhymes!
@Anthony Maurice Nice positivity there.
You obviously think that 'God did it'.
After such a wonderful thought out conclusion, you should be awarded a Nobel prize.
(sarcasm)
@Anthony Maurice Those scientists are famous or won their Nobel prize because of their scientific achievements, and not because they believe in God.
Isaac Newton also believed in God as well as astrology, but that's not what we know him for.
Nor were any of those scientist's achievements due to their belief in God.
You didn't even write that you are a creationist, but I knew straight away that you are one by your terribly negative comment about science...so your last comment only confirmed it.
You think that you have made some kind of point by declaring that science doesn't know how life began.
But you haven't made any point at all.
Science not knowing how life began doesn't mean that God exists.
How could it possibly mean that?
The only thing it means is that more research is needed.
And such research to find out about the conditions of organic chemistry nearly 4 billion years ago would have to be some of the hardest science that there is.
So isn't it just a bit churlish and unfair of you to complain about a lack of results so far?
What have you done to help with the research?
All you've done is complain.
Well done you!
Didn't you watch the video?
Have you studied any biology at all since school?
Because unless you are able to contribute to our search for knowledge in some meaningful way, then your negative complaints and supernatural beliefs are as pointless and irrelevant to the subject as mouse farts in a storm.
@Anthony Maurice
Do you have trouble with comprehension?
How can I possibly show you one single example of abiogenesis when scientists, this vid and I have already honestly admitted that we don't know how life began?
I never claimed that I could.
Only YOU seem to be certain of how life began...though I highly doubt that you are a chemist either.
So if you are so certain about how life began, then why don't you submit your findings and claim the Nobel I mentioned to you in my first comment?
@Anthony Maurice You seem very sure of yourself.
Are you an organic chemist or scientist of any kind?
Because regardless of either Aron's or my background, the 'RNA world hypothesis' is actually a real and serious scientific hypothesis that is definitely progress in comparison to what existed before, which means that your statement of 'no progress' is simply wrong.
So as I've already said, your negative complaining is just irrelevant hot air, because you offer no solutions of your own, and all your objections are motivated by religion and not by science.
You would clearly deny the existence of biological evolution too, which only shows that you are just a silly dunce who everybody can simply ignore...or laugh at.
Hm this is quite interesting.
I knew that abiogenesis research existed, and I knew that the building blocks of life have been shown to be capable of building naturally, but this video gave more more information I was not aware of.
I think Abiogenesis is a great field. I look forward to the day that we have a conclusive theory on the matter.
If we ever "create" life, it will only be in a closed system, and most likely will not be anything like the original genesis was.
***** Well of course it would be in a closed system, that's how science experiments tend to work.
but it wouldn't really matter if it's not exactly how it occurred in reality, it's more that we are creating a solid 'proof of concept' so to speak.
Besides, we do try to emulate the various possible conditions of the planet at the time, hence the radiation, heating, cooling.
@@MrJoeyWheeler it will never happen. Pure wishful thinking
Please teach this stuff at my university! I have fulfilled my science requirement, but I still would love to watch you speak.
AronRa I'm only discovering your videos now and I really wish that I had found them sooner, because I am really enjoying them and finding them very interesting. Keep up the good work.
We must first define what a living thing is. Most folks would define it as something rather complex, like a bacteria etc. with metabolic pathways, a cell membrane, genetic material etc. But molecular biologists would strip out everything except only the elements essential for self-replication because this is all that is needed for natural selection to operate upon. Once you have a molecule that cam make copies of itself, and there is opportunity for mistakes/changes to be introduced occasionally into the next generation, then you begin to have differences across the population of molecules, some of which might replicate faster or be more stable to degradation, therefore hanging around longer and making more copies of themselves, until they take over the population. That's natural selection....rest is history....
BTW, we have shown experimentally some of these steps already....RNA-like units and assemble into long chains forming polymers which can self-replicate in the absence of protein. Vesicles can self form and grow in size until they split in half forming two new vesicles, with no living systems providing any aid.The RNA-like polymers can pass into such vesicles and continue to replicate within...at a faster rate than those outside the vesicles (selective advantage). All this is running wihtou living systems...just on chemical energetic principles under certain environmental conditions.
See ruclips.net/video/PqPGOhXoprU/видео.html for a series show these experiments....
I've gotten a far clearer and concise picture of abiogenesis in the eleven minutes and thirty five seconds of this video than I have from hours of Nova and similar shows.
We can find the chemicals and the right conditions but everyone seems to skip the most important factor. TIME! Lots and lots of time. on the scale of 100 million years complex processes are bound to happen. Things that happened over such large amounts of time cannot be so easily replicated in labs over a few hours or minutes.
Try 1 000 000 000 years )) That is indeed a shit load of time.
@Joshua Creasey no because chickens and humans shared a common ancestor a long time ago and have since diverged from it.
Time is the God of evolution
dude I love ur learning series ur doing great and very important work
I know this was 8 years ago but I love your work Aron! I’m starting to study evolution myself and it’s sad how much the education system has failed us! Thank you!
Aron, these videos are great!
Aaron, the intro song only is audible in the left channel. I normally would not mind (actually it does not bother me) but your other Living Science Lessons intros do have sound in both channels, so maybe you wanted to know that, to check were the error was.
Great Videos by the way. Thanks.
This by far my most favorite video on RUclips.
Great Job!
Great video! Thank you, AronRa, for all of your hard work over the years!
As always, it is a pleasure to hear your presentations Aron Ra.
You have a knack for clear concise exposition that shows your command of these complex subjects.
Keep it up Aron!
As a pastors kid I remember clearly thinking that NONE OF THIS ADDS UP. I was constantly told: don't think, don't question it, God will judge you, don't risk hellfire. My childhood was like my brain was locked in a box and I was constantly fighting against the confines.
Thanks for the video. YEC's and Apologists are playing games with abiogenesis lately. And I decided to do some research into abiogenesis.
I studied history and archeology, so physics, chemistry, biology are not my strong suits.
This video is very helpful
10/10 would watch again. This whole series is so good!
Such confidence and flow! Superb presentation, good video and final message
Someone forgot to turn the "additional edge radius" down on Key Cleaner. But on a related note, if we could show abiogenesis in a lab, that would be an elbow from the sky for creationist.
You'd think so, but they have proven themselves quite capable of shoving their heads into the ground and completely ignoring any and all evidence that happens to go against their ridiculous claims.
DominusCypher Oh sure, there are many that won’t see anything “man breathed” but the reason why they always try and connect abiogenesis and evolution, is because it’s the only piece of the puzzle still missing, and therefore last rock a god could be hiding under. Once science picks that one up, those that still pretend to value evidence, have to abandon any pretense of evidentiary reasoning. And the intelligent design holdouts that function to give support to the anti-evolutionist in general, will know it’s game set and match without that gap in our knowledge.
When/if it does get demonstrated in a lab, they'll just say: _"See! Those chemicals didn't do that themselves, the scientists designed the experiment to do that! Proof of intelligent design!"_
There is literally nothing that can be done to convince those who have already decided what the conclusion is.
Scott Bowser You hit the nail on the head, i'm afraid. It's like when they argue that the mind can't just be the product of a physical brain, because it has to be more than just matter. When you point to a comparison with software vs. hardware, they often suddenly switch gears with the old "but computers were intelligently designed!"
Any god fearing creationist will know how to dodge whatever criticism or counter argument you could possibly imagine.
Geese guys, feeling superior are we? Look, all human minds have the ability to see what they want to see, even the smart one like yours. We evolved to survive long enough to reproduce, not to be perfect reality detectors. Now while this can make us very resistant to acknowledging something that causes us distress or damages our well-being, it doesn't mean we can’t snap out of it. I’m real happy all of you have snapped out of it, but seriously, get over yourselves.
Oh bloody well done Aron, you've opened a channel of discussion about Abiogenesis that the creationists have always torn their hair out about. I'm Polish so it's kinda my evening for eating food and making merry courtesy of various brewers, distillers and vintners so all the very best of the seasons greetings to you en famille.( whilst bearing in mind the 25th is meant for spiritual reflection according to my many years ago terrorists in man dresses )
Joys midwinter feast to you from Finland.
Men come and go, beer flows eternal!
Them AronRa rhymes.
Thank you very much for this video, it has proved incredibly useful in clarifying much of the information i have on this subject, and putting it into a logical order and perspective, allowing me to write a basic introductory report on the subject for my teacher.
I thoroughly enjoy these videos. I would very much like to get copies for my daughter and my nieces. The material is excellent and well spoken and well presented.
intro music in left channel only?
End music as well
Aron is a commie... and he thinks he's subtle about it!
ExtrackterYT aham....
Also the outro music
"Stromatolites are a notable exception"
So fascinating. Considering how close we are to figuring out how life originated, it’s baffling that so many people still dismiss it as impossible to occur by natural means.
well ask americans where chocolate milk comes from.
I really appreciate that you take the time to make these educational video's and hopefully inspire many to go out and do more research on some of these subjects.
This is the best video in the series so far. Some of the others went on some tangents but this one stayed on track.
If I were a scene girl my name would be Polly Peptide
Wait i just realized Aaron is not the only way to spell Aron. Or is your name really ay ay ron ra :)
Great video though.
My name sounds more like aren't than errand.
AronRa I'm not going to give you the typical 'Merry Christmas' or 'seasons greetings'. Just, have 'a good day'. :)
I say that because in life, often the simplest thing is often the strongest and most profound.
AronRa Have a great day. 1ups are a bitch Yujifanik
DUME85 | Minecraft Mods Indeed.
+AronRa No disrespect intended. But I assumed that your initials are R.N. Ra I think Ra was one of the mythical deities" of the - greek , norse , or any other cultures. I forget it has been quite a while since I was in school. I may be wrong and if I am ( I was wrong once B4) I apologise, and either way thanx for the videos.
happy chri...eh saturn...eh yul...a fuck it.
have a few nice days with your families and dont spent your time on the internet =)
We can still say happy new year!
***** just depends on when to say it ;)
Happy Non-denominational winter celebration!
Happy holidays?
Merry Christmas! IMO no point trying to jump through hoops coming up with other ways to say the same thing.
I think the greatest thing I've ever heard from a teacher in terms of my education is "I don't know, but let me research that and I'll get back to you". It proved to me that you don't have to pretend that you know everything, nor should you claim knowledge that you don't have.
I think the greatest example of this is when asking the veterinary anatomists at my vet school "if horses can't vomit due primarily to the strength of their Lower Esophageal Sphincter [LES], do they still have an emetic center [the part of your brain that tells you that you need to puke]?". None of them knew, but hey got back to me about a week later with "after consulting with a veterinary neuroscientist, 2 veterinary neurologists, and 5 anatomists, the official answer is probably". Basically, the consensus seems to be that, while there exists no literature on the existence of an equine emetic center, we know that they can get nauseous which would necessitate an emetic center.
How did that evolve? absolutely no idea. Was it intelligently designed? nothing in the equine GI tract was "intelligently designed".
You have a good teacher.
An excellent video by AronRa on the science behind abiogensis.
>God of the gaps all over the comment section
Yikes. Fremdschämen, anyone?
Machi Fremdschämen much....
Phouse1512 Are you high or something?
Machi Nah, I just saw a German word and I thought it's my duty to reply.
Happy Saturnalia everyone!
Even Charles Darwin admitted that evolution was wrong on his death bed, and if Charles Darwin doesn't believe in evolution, that makes the theory of evolution null and void, since he's the ultimate authority on the subject.
Oooh.. you almost got me there :P Don't feed the creatrolls, lol...
Geez you poes are amazing
Tarfiel Archelone I like his kind of Poe, where it's easy to get tricked but there's also a very obvious clue that he's a poe.
answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/darwins-deathbed-conversion-a-legend/
Even Answers in Genesis disagrees with you.
+ MPythonGirl It's a Poe look at that last part
Impressive as always. I wasn't aware that Darwin himself refuted (in passing) the creationist "why doesn't new life keep arising" argument.
Truly, the Darwin Award should be for badass awesomeness, not for stupid people ^^
(or two category, the one we have currently, for the individuals who spare humanity of their genome, by means of sterilization or death, and a category for the individuals that blessed humanity with their badassness)
I've always found Abiogenesis interesting, how all these base elements mix and change over time and created the first self-reproducing ball of mass on Earth. Great video AronRa.
Spontaneous generations versus Abiogenesis
Spontaneous generations: is an incorrect hypothesis that nonliving things are capable of producing life. This premise has been conclusively sacked by an experiment conducted by Louis Pasteur. You would have thought that Louis Pasteur's experiment would have settled the issue that non-living matter cannot generate life, but think again, here comes “Abiogenesis”. What is Abiogenesis? It is the Hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from non-living matter. Sounds familiar?
This so called modern Abiogenesis hypothesis is an attempt to resurrect the premise of “Spontaneous generations” because without this the evolutionists have no credible creation narrative.
“Spontaneous generations” which Louis Pasteur's experiment has in principal proved to be false, can be understood to a greater degree at the molecular level, by analyzing the chemistry that’s taking place in the Miller-Urey experiment, which undeniably inhibits any “Abiogenesis” from taking place.
Here a list of 5 inhibitory factors which proscribe Abiogenesis.
1. Probability calculations for chemical combination sampling will be prohibited within the allotted time scale. I guess that’s why Fred Hoyle said “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ….It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution.”- Hoyle on Evolution- Nature vol. 294, No. 5837
2. In the Miller experiment there is a tendency for the production of L and D amino acids which would have neutralized any further positive reactions, this is technically called racemic mixture, and this Phenomena would have interfered with the necessary chemical pathways for life.
3. Maillard reaction: the cross reaction between amino acids, fatty acids and bases and other random chemical would have inhibited the essential chemical reaction for life.
4. Uncontrolled UV radiation would have disrupted the delicate chemical structures, with the relative energy of a sledgehammer, therefore destroying any progress in the direction of any biochemistry (life).
5. The lack of evidence for a reduced prebiotic atmosphere which is necessary for abiogenesis hypothesis. But a highly reduced atmosphere is now doubted by most scientists for the prebiotic earth.
Spontaneous generations failed for the same reasons that Abiogenesis fails.
Unfortunately for the evolutionist the necessary step for “Abiogenesis” to be valid never occurs under natural conditions. I suppose, this is the reason why Francis Crick posited "The Directed Panspermia hypothesis", a new “Out of earth Abiogenesis hypothesis” or “De terra hypothesis", but this of course opens up another can of worms.
Cymoon RBACpro terrific
Nice try creationist .. Why dont you give evidence on creation i.e how this happened by what mechanism and when and by whom and for what purpose ? Oh you can't ? YOu have seen the video havent you so there it was explained how it happened ! Ignorant fool
Spontaneous Generation hypothesized not the advent of life from matter, but of *living beings* from matter.
The couple of errors in your assertion of SG show your ignorance, willing or out of own stupidity.
Instead of Abiogenesis, which deals with seeking natural means through which RNA, DNA or proto-cells could come to be, Spontaneous Generation dealt with things such as leather cloths giving birth to mice or meat cuts giving birth to maggots.
See, as much as you might want to deny it, RNA is *literally* just a molecule. All that the hypothesis of abiogenesis puts forth is that such a molecule could, like literally all other known molecules, have a formula to develop it.
So far we have managed to prove that the basal parts of RNA *can* generate spontaneously in environments that require only the most common organic matter in our Solar System, water and sunlight, a few of them require electricity as well.
Comparing this to the hypothesis of Spontaneous Generation is borderline insanity. One deals with finding the steps of a chemical formula, the other literally imagined that cedar gave birth to moths.
As for your 5 rebukes of abiogenesis:
1 - You are lying about Fred Hoyle's quote, which in actuality was "the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (...)", not "life". It also never said anything about burying Darwin, instead leaning on the old adage of the tornado on a junkyard.
The key mention here is that Fred Hoyle isn't saying that *life* couldn't have possibly have sprouted from natural reactions, but that such reactions wouldn't immediately produce complex beings. He thought so because he was a strong advocate of Panspermia, a hypothesis that I am not even that adverse to but let's be honest, while the proponents of panspermia have done little more than find sugar in asteroids, the proponents of abiogenesis have already proved that all amino-acids can occur naturally, how they can naturally become nucleotides, how said nucleotides can naturally become RNA, how said RNA can naturally reproduce, how said reproducing RNA can naturally create a membrane-like shell for itself... Panspermia needs to get it's shit together if it wants to be proven.
Fred Hoyle was a famous advocate of panspermia. I don't know if he was exactly qualified to be making statements on/against abiogenesis in favor of panspermia, since he didn't have any degree in any field of biology.
2 - This *was* a problem, 100 years ago. There are *so many* known ways nowadays by which a small imbalance in chirality can lead to a system becoming entirely of almost entirely homochiral that scientists don't even know how to begin imagining which one actually happened in our history. Damn, could have been a couple dozen of them.
The MIller-Urey experiment didn't deal with this, since it's objective was singly to determine that amino-acids could spontaneously generate. Later experiments focused on chirality quickly showed this was a non-issue, so much so that the place this "debate" is still the hottest on the internet is at the misinformation website Answers in Genesis who, like you, to this day pretend we haven't known the answer to this question for decades.
3 - The Maillard reaction takes place between amino-acids and *sugars* , not *acids* , so I have literally no idea what you're grasping at here.
4 - This is surprisingly astute, and the first argument you made that makes slightly any sense.
Unfortunately, it is still somewhat flawed: since UV radiation is incapable of ionizing atoms, it'd need to cause damage to the first RNA the same way it does today, however even when directly bombarding cells with concentrated UV rays, it's still mostly common for them to survive and repair their DNA with no issue, even though permanent damage *can* happen.
This however does disconsider entirely the idea that life most likely began around volcanic vents in the ocean, where the UV radiation wouldn't be a factor.
5 - Actually, by studying crystals that managed to hold on to just a little bit of that atmosphere, we know that the Earth's atmosphere was *exactly* a reducing one. In fact, there was no traceable amount of oxygen on the atmosphere until nearly a whole billion after the first *fossils* we find nowadays. Note that I am not even saying that the atmosphere was reducing "when we think life began", we *know* it was *still* a reducing atmosphere for *A BILLION YEARS* after *FOSSILS* can be found.
So, after 5 points, let's make a rundown...
1 was a quote taken both entirely out of context *and* deeply altered to lie about the author having the same opinion as you, and even then it came from a person with no discernible knowledge on the field at hand.
2 point was a bad copypasta from Answers in Genesis, an argument that was rendered moot by the overwhelming evidence against it that nobody even heeds it any attention anymore, and only gullible drones reading their website would consider "fact".
3 completely nonsensical lack of understanding of highschool chemistry.
4 point was surprisingly interesting, although rendered moot because of the location said reactions would be taking place.
5 factually wrong assertion that also lies about the current status quo of the scientific community.
Stay classy, creationist.
And of course, all of this is without mentioning the fact that the Theory of evolution is independent from abiogenesis, so much so that evolutionists don't «need» any step to occur, once life is started, and that disproving abiogenesis, or even better : proving god did it, would not disprove, in any way, the fact that evolution occurred, occurs, and will most probably occur in the future (if we don't blow or planet up and that we aren't on the only planet in the universe that ever and will ever gave birth to life, something most probably... Implausible.).
And after all of this talking by the end of the day abiogenesis STILL hasn't been proven and yet biogenesis happens with unwavering regularity.
He is nothing more than a talking face.
I guess you didn't watch the video then.
Hypotheses have to be testable and potentially falsifiable. There has to be some way of knowing whether you're on the right track or the wrong one. Religion doesn't have that because faith refuses to admit when it's always wrong about everything.
What I reported in this video is accurate. Keep studying, and if you're not reading religious apologetics science-denial sites, you'll see that what I said here is correct, and not at all dishonest the way creationism always has to be.
Transcription begins when an enzyme called RNA polymerase attaches to the DNA template strand and begins assembling a new chain of nucleotides to produce a complementary RNA strand. There are three major types of RNA: 1) mRNA, messenger-RNA, which transfer the information about the aminoacid sequence from the DNA to the protein synthesis. 2) rRNA, ribosomal-RNA, which builds up the ribosome together with proteins. 3) tRNA, transfer-RNA, which transfer aminoacids to the ribosome for protein synthesis. This is how RNA builds DNA. As the video explains, you don't always need something to uncoil or unzip or even "read" RNA. And we've seen that there are natural envromental conditions wherein RNA can spontaneously self-replicate even without any enzyme at all. Once we have RNA and enzymes, which both occur naturally, transcription can follow as merely another chemical process.
The way science works is we have an observation that we need to explain. So we come up with hypotheses we can test to see if we're on the right track or do we need to start again. In this case, we know life precedes any notion of humanity by an absurdly long period of time: billions of sunsets seen by eyes without brains sufficient to appreciate them. Such a waste. Worse than that, we know that all life was only single-celled microbes for far longer than there have even been even the simplest multicellular organisms. Again, this is the furthest thing from an intelligent design.
So initially life forms were extremely simple, simpler even than most single-celled microbes are today. So how did life come about? Experimental science shows it happened naturally. Religion says it happened magically.
Looking at the two options, (pretending for a moment that intelligent design even qualifies as an option) we first have to show whether there is a precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon to show that either one is even possible. Numerous scientific experiments have shown that each of the expected steps of abiogenesis is actually possible, and we now have a dozen or so competing hypotheses which could all be true at the same time.
Alternatively, we the imaginative notion of the magic invisible man, which is not remotely possible in any sense.
Remember also that the only source for the notion of an intelligent designer is a handful of man-made mythologies dedicated to different religions, where none of them can show there is any truth behind them at all, and all of them have already been disproved on every testable claim that any of them have ever made. The discovery of the city of Troy didn't validate Helenism and not even the discovery of Rama's bridge could validate Hinduism.
The notion of an intelligent designer contradicts all the natural processes and evident biological history unveiled so far, literally nothing whatsoever makes sense with that as your starting point. So not only no part of the intelligent designer remotely possible, it's not parsimonious either, and it doesn't even explain anything. There is no experimental means that has ever indicated such a thing and every claim ID proponents have made for it had already been falsified before they ever lost their case in court: though they still refuse to admit that because faith means never admitting when you've been proven wrong.
Intelligent Design is a theory in name only. It meets exactly none of the criteria required of a theory. Instead it is just another way to phrase the god-of-the-gaps fallacy; that if someone thinks science hasn't yet or can't ever explain something, that means it happened by magic. So literally the only thing the ID advocate can do is deny everything science has already shown that we really do know about it, and if we don't yet know it all, they pretend that we still don't know ANYthing at all. Of course that's not true, but accuracy and accountability don't matter to religious proponents the way they are both so important to scientists.
Mutations have very little to do with such early biology. There were instead a number of different processes in play, like endosymbiosis for example.
This is my favourite Aron Re video
great video just what i was looking for its amazing how imformative and succinct you can make a video when it doesnt have to be dumbed down and drug out for tv.
Unless someone can replicate abiogenesis 100% there’s no logical reason to keep up the contempt for religious people. You can believe what you want but grasping at straws like you are is not a reason to think you’ve debunked everything religion says. I’m not religious but militant atheists are an embarrassment with their assertions.
Unless someone can replicate the Resurrection 100% there's no logical reason to tax-exempt churches
@@williamchamberlain2263 completely different scenario and a straw man. The Bible is against organized religion. The religious establishment have done a well good job butchering hidden wisdom of the Bible and taking everything literally for their own benefit. Unless you can find me a verse in the Bible that says churches are not to be taxed then your argument stands to be nonsensical. Atheism is nothing more than repackaged, regurgitated, ancient Hermetic Qabalah. All your doctrine can be found in the Zohar, there you will find the nonsensical globe earth, evolution, and the Big Bang. Hermetic Qabalah states everything came from nothing, and you think you’re revolutionary when you say atheism is original?All your favorite scientific revolutionaries and the elites today are kabbalists influenced by the Zohar and other occult philosophies. Has nothing to do with unbiased science. If the foundation of your religion is the Zohar then you are in BIG trouble my friend.
@@voiceinthewild8385 you missed my point. Which is not surprising; you're fixed in an authoritarian view of knowledge
The job of science is not to replicate but to understand. The contempt is not for the religious as such but for those who peddle lies and cling to beliefs despite all evidence showing them to be false.
Why do you have to lie about you not being religious?
Thank you for this video. Love your work, Aron, especially the debates.
So many times I said the word 'wow' in this video that I lost count. Thanks AronRa, you rock!!!
I am glad to see you are doing some teaching, and not merely pointing out that They are wrong. :)
Used to read some research about abiotic hydrocarbons- and the role certain fissile materials have in generating them (for example natural gas and coal deposits are almost always around thorium rich deposits- that also emit radon, which makes nat gas and coal rich in radon typically) anyway a couple years ago I saw a study about mica in the ocean trapping water between the layers- but the constant mechanical oscillation of waves above created vortices which spun hydrocarbons into simple sugar spheres (black sand beaches are highly radioactive), much like a cell wall is composed of- but far more simple in structure and fragile. Wish I remembered to save its DOI has crossed my mind a few times over the years.
Nice video by the way
I could listen to you all day, so I do.
Fantastic work as always, Aron! I would only ask that you add a works cited footnote in the description for the websites and scientific journals from which you get your information.
Love your work Aron, and as is typical with a lot of your works, one of my ears periodically feels lonely.
I've been doing some essential research for a paper i've been recommended to submit.
Ran across this video in my web search.
You have just about all of what you need to know. Very well and good.
I can fill in perhaps a few essential pieces of the puzzle for you when we speak.
I'm relieved to that you are so familiar with the material.
Saves a lot of explanation.
Pencil me in for this upcoming Sunday Sept 1st at 8300 am UTC?
8:30 am UTC would be 3:30 am my time.
@@AronRa Argh. Danged typo. I meant 3:00 am utc.
@@empurress77 Did we have a prior arrangement? Perhaps in email? Because I'm not sure what we are scheduling.
@@AronRa so are we confirmed for Sunday?
@@empurress77 I don't have anything scheduled yet. As I said above, I'm not sure what we are scheduling.
This is such a great series. I'm very happy whenever I see one of your Living Science videos pop up in my subs. Keep up the good work.
Well done!! BRAVO!! Fightin' the good fight. 👍
Good video. Always wanted to see what we know about abiogenesis but it was quite hard to collect. Thank you
Thank's Aron, it is always a pleasure watching your videos.
Holy shit, you're not only wearing a bolo but you're actually pulling it off. Most impressive.
Good stuff. People forget how insanely long it took us to get where we are. As well given the large size of the universe and beyond, the mathematical probability of this type of thing occurring is inevitable.
Great video! Very well illustrated!
Beautiful video Aron
This just became one of my all time favorite videos!
Thanks 👍 😎
I learned a whole lot about abiogenesis from this. Thanks Aron!
Please fix the audio - i'm mostly watching YT with my headset and the music only coming from the left channel is rather unpleasant.
Very cool summary of some of the research going on. I hope the rapid name-dropping of many technical chemistry terms doesn't put-off young viewers.
Aron, great video but I fear this one may go too quickly for your average teenager coming in and watching this first thing on a Monday morning. It's very dense, very quick and packed with terms that even many adults probably have never heard.
For complicated theories or subjects like this, I'd suggest breaking it up into multiple parts.
Thank you for this clear summation of abiogenesis. I appreciate it.
Another brilliant video, thanks for creating it!
I wish I had these when I was in school. You make learning fun Aron.
My favorite video of yours so far. Keep up the good work!