A new model for the origin of life - Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer (SETITalks)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 янв 2015
- Full Title: A new model for the origin of life: Coupled phases and combinatorial selection in fluctuating hydrothermal pools
Hydrothermal fields on the prebiotic Earth are candidate environments for biogenesis. We propose a model in which molecular systems driven by cycles of hydration and dehydration in such sites undergo chemical evolution and selection in a dehydrated surface phase followed by encapsulation and combinatorial selection in a hydrated phase. This model is partly supported by recent science, and lies partly in the realm of speculation including a hypothesized pathway for the parallel evolution of the functional machinery of life. Complex models like this present challenges for science in the 21st century and we will describe a new technology to enable the simulation of such models. 
Наука
Not enough people subscribed to this channel. I love it. Thanks for the vids
Nice effort, and great talk. Thanks
Complexity science should be applied to this. That would also advance this research. Collaborate with people in the field of complex systems. Get involved with the Santa Fe Institute.
True that. Go have a radical discussion with Dr. Eric Smith right now.
Yes. The kind of work Dr. Eric Smith is doing id important in these matters. What do you mean have a discussion with him?
Danny Voight
Apologies for not being very clear, I was implying that these guys should have a discussion with him for exactly the reason you just stated. The key element being, we want to see the results of that discussion!
Oh. Indeed!
Danny Voight
medium.com/sfi-30-foundations-frontiers/biology-thirty-years-of-research-on-the-origin-of-life-9f5cc1420e87
Utterly fascinating. Apart from that bit about the Murchison meteorite (which I'm guessing was just one possible source of the fatty acid) doesn't this do away with the requirement for a panspermia component in such theories and suggest it could be far more common on Earth-like bodies? (Assuming a similar Earth-Moon type relationship of comparable mass ratio, the uniqueness of which may temper the possibility of evolution into more complex forms of life).
PS. No audio problem when using headphones.
Fascinating. This information should be better circulated.
love these talks too..... again though, SORT your poor sound/
First, I am curious about how they are doing this.
I mean, it's way easier when you have a picture, then try to draw it.
Second, how they are starting what they call "life" with NO living parts from a living thing or just chemical elements are spontaneously becoming alive?
Third, if there are living things at the end, what kind of thing is that?
I want to see that, for sure...
Answer is simple. It never can go alive. They are wrong. Even, if you would put every molecule on same place, like it is in the cell, it would only look like cell replica, but it would never come alive. But chances, that something so complex as living cell would be made out of molecules without any intelligent creating force, just lets say, it would "occur" are NIL. In science there is NIL term for it. The chances are non-zero, but they are like 1/(10^250) or even less. These chances are called NIL, because they will not occur even through whole history of universe, they are so small.
EVER HEARD OF A VIRUS?
I was going to ask why he hadn't tried adding amino acids to help make the monomers...thankfully someone in the real audience asked that and the answer was that the paper i got the idea from wasn't published when this talk happened :P
In other words, thermal pools on the prebiotic earth rolled a pair of dice and came up with the number 11 10^79,000,000,000 times in row!
you're not very good at this,
@@mcmanustony
Can you tell me your idea of "being good" at "this"?
@@cd1857 not you.
We are not even close to understanding the complexity of one living cell,much less how non living material with undirected processes put itself together. Man knows zero how this happened, and will always know less,and less.
@Mitch Goodfellow Bravo👏
Ignoring the 1 km+ tides, huh? - and lack of continents
but where does the energy come from to sustain the protocell?
Radiation is one possibility?
I think the energy or "nutrients" was explained to be carbon dioxide.
@@RyantheComm Nothing was established as fact. But they push it off as facts to ears eager to hear life started by accident.
@@thomashess6211 You can say similar things about religion. Nothing described is established as fact. It's only pushed to ears eager to hear that life was designed.
It's a two way street, dude. Try again.
@@RyantheComm What do you know about chemistry? You dont have to be honest. I can tell.
never thought the undersea hydrothermal environment hypothesis, absent the sortation possibilities of dehydration/hydration, made sense. this hypothesis makes sense.
Due to the fact that under certain well known and common conditions liposomes and micelles form themselves SPONTANEOUSLY, this origins hypothesis is by way and far the very best on offer. Thank you.
Neither DNA or RNA form themselves spontaneously without any outside assistance...
Two considerations: ‘Replication/reproduction’ is/are neither necessary nor sufficient properties/conditions of life; metabolism is. We - most Earthly life forms - just happen to be able to do both.
Much of the ‘dirt’ & ‘junk’ that inevitably becomes trapped inside any ‘little bag (micelle, liposome) of garbage’ would be disruptive/destructive, therefore another logical step in the evolution of life was almost undoubtedly the evolution of a range of abilities to leave this garbage in situ but somehow ‘defang’ these toxic intruders - somehow render them harmless - even while they remained inside any of these ‘little bags‘ of nascent life.
Any early life forms that became invaded by/hosts to some nucleic acids may well have not been bothered by them due to the latter’s penchant for zipping matching strands of themselves together and sulking quietly in the corner .......
Eventually via a very perspicacious use of enzymes and ligases etc life learned how to use this junk as a means to engineer a number of vital processes ......
Given that we live in a 10,000 year long patriarchy, plus the fact that the only thing males contribute to the ‘higher’ forms of life is a less than half complement of DNA, perhaps it is not surprising that these otherwise wonderful chaps put so much store on showing how replicating molecules must have been there at the start.
Nanobes apparently have no DNA and yet are considered by some to be the smallest forms of life .......?
Starts at 3:32
Thx
Would love to listen to this but put off by the awful sound quality.
I have minor hearing loss and I can hear the speaker just fine. So what if the sound quality doesn't compare to listening to your favorite Justine Bibler songs.
Theological chemistry is too hard for me.
Dont worry, this is not chemistry, its fantasy.
@@thomashess6211 and you would know this how?
Is it really necessary to find a process which combines cell walls, active peptides and active RNA at the same time? I believe RNA came much later as an energy deposit. Whereby evolution sorted the different nucleic acids into more advantageous ways. The sugar stores fulfilled more and more functions, building up more and more complex supporting structures in the process. So here my view of how life started: Random amino acids formed "soft crystal" structures which grew randomly - like crystals, but with more variety. Eventually, peptides of 5-10 amino acids had the ability to catalyse faster growth of amino acid chains. Every once in a while, one of those catalysed amino acid chains had the same ability as the one catalysing it. This increased odds for more complex molecules to come up which would do a better job at producing chains, at producing more similar chains, at letting them break apart at the right spot and so on. A big step forward would also be chains of amino acids which are able to catalyse amino acids from simpler molecules, thus increasing supply of those dramatically. At the beginning confined to where they come up randomly, later in forms which would spread easily to other places. Amino acid chains became more and more complex, and at 20 or so amino acids, the first ones self-replicated. They became even more complex and would eventually not just have self-replication, but also incorporate chains of amino acids which make other useful processes more likely. This lead to peptides not just reproducing themselves, but also producing and releasing more and more different materials, which having around would have advantages in some cases, like energy storing sugars. So we get peptides able to produce sugars when there is a lot of energy, and to absorb sugars when energy is low. This turned into complex machines processing sugars, whereby the sugars also interacted with the amino acids and the most advantageous combinations of sugars survived. At the beginning, sugar-chains (primitive rna) probably only helped catalyse useful changes in the peptides. Only after some further growth in complexity did a co-evolution of rna and peptides happen. More and more parts were controlled by rna. At the same time, 'cells' evolved from whole pools with a variety of favorable processes going on (similar to crystal growth) to lipid bubbles which would split apart randomly - maybe with the processes mentioned here in the video. Eventually, cell structures came about which favoured a more controlled division: The first real cells were born.
How did these reactions catalyze themselves when the enzymes necessary for the required reactions are more complex than the structures that need catalyzing? Nobody argues that we don't have life on Earth so it obviously came about...the question is how; is it really so painful for scientists to admit it had to be a directed process?
@@cd1857 Where in my proposal is anything requiring outside direction? If you look up CGN4, you will see that very simple peptides can already assemble themselves from even simpler peptides - without needing any complex enzymes. And science is about finding out things, not saying that a gap-filler god did it. And where would an intelligent 'director' come from if it did not evolve from something simpler?
@@carldombrowski8719 you can't bring enzymes into the mix, this is pre biotic, enzymes didn't exist. Any chemist will also tell you that time is the enemy in organic synthesis. As far as a 'replicating process', it require vast regulatory systems in order to manufacture or replicate in the same order. Take any chemical synthesis. Detailed notes are taken in order to duplicate the rxn. Let's say it did happen once which is impossible, massive regulatory information is needed to do it again. In a lab, the chemist is the regulatory system. But you think that in 'nature' somehow one just throws it all in a lake with alternating cycles is all that's needed to account for the complexity of life? That's utter nonsense. If you want to listen to a serious purely scientific lecture on the origin of life, watch the most important chemist on the planet describe the impossibilities of randomness to life ab initio. Dr. James Tour. Origin of Life.
Where did I bring enzymes into the mix? All we need for proto-life is peptides growing similar to crystals, which they do under many natural circumstances. And even very short peptides catalyse different reactions in other prptides, like merging them. As amino acids are variable, unlike single atoms, their "crystals" can grow faster or slower with the right combinations of amino acids, thus we get evolution to create more and more complexity all from nothing but a bunch of amino acids.
@@carldombrowski8719 then you have to explain why the amino acid production we witness now is undertaken by a massive code in regulatory systems. Crystal structures have no relevance to complex systems and are subject to physical laws not code as we would observe in DNA replication process. Your argument is very common but this is its fatal flaw. Just because two trees fall down and form an 'x' doesn't mean we should extrapolate and find that this is the mechanism by which all the words of the english language and subsequent meanings were brought forth. And about "Where did I bring enzymes into the mix?" . I'm not quite sure lol. perhaps i was reading another response . In any case, thanks for the response.
.......lol. so he's trying to create life? First then "What IS life?" Is it Tangible....literally tangible??
They need a paper to be approved to answer a serious question from the public, no way....
Sorry, but not ready to entirely discount hydrothermal vents just yet.
To produce a strand of RNA in a laboratory there needs to be wet and dry cycles. This doesn't fit with the hydrothermal theory.
Nor I, but Damer and Deamer make a good case. Environments around deep sea hydrothermal vents do however harbor regions where monomer reactants could concentrate and also offer temperature gradients, as well as chemical and mineral.
I don't know shit about chemistry, so why do the polymers need dehydration to synthesize? Is it because of the reaction where an OH on one end and an H on another are released for the molecules to bond? And how do you know life was formed from one pathway and not many? Maybe all of your models are right? Just as there are many ways to obtain energy in living things. Interesting and creative theory!
Because in water degradation occurs. Hence any suggestion that life started in any primordial soup is fallacious at best. P.H.D. James Tour provides a much better lecture. He uses no hypothesis just FACTS of the Molecular Bio-Chemistry. This guy still goes into fantacy land, he is using assumptions,conjecture ect. He say we think it happened like this or that. He is being disingenuous by saying that. I was hoping for just the facts oh well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensation_reaction
Not conjecture. Their model is supported by a variety of experiments in the lab and the field.
lets hope the aliens have better sound engineering skills than seti do
and their fans' apostrophe knowledge
...than SETI does. You're welcome.
If they are correct we should expect life on Mars but not on Europa i guess?
Life might be yet on Europa, but it may not have originated there.
The problem with millions of years is fundamental. Organic synthesis cannot happen without oxygen. Also it cannot happen with oxygen, or at least wait millions of years for something to happen as the rxn would simply oxidize.
YOUR MOMMY MUST HAVE TOLD YOU THAT YOU ARE SO SMART AND SPECIAL! YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE AND DON'T EVEN LISTEN TO THE VIDEO BEFORE RUNNING YOU MOUTH WITH BLABBERING NONSENSE!
I hope you’ll tell us how you get PROTEINS from these polymers.
They magically joined, no enzymes needed. What we need to ask is how did the amino acids stay unreacted in water. In the lab we have to buy them in their pure state and take care to keep them fresh.
@@thomashess6211 "We have to buy them" "WE"? Which lab do you work in?
@@mcmanustony I worked for the fed govt veterans admin hospital westwood los angeles.
@@thomashess6211 and you worked on abiogenesis?
@@mcmanustony No work on abiogenesis. We do purchase matrials in semi to pure form for research. I was not involved in the research lab but we all knew what the deal was. Because i was not involved in the research doesnt mean i dont know how they did business. I was in diagnostics. But anyway, these precursor molecules in the primordial soup is one of the biggest fish stories of mankind. Its a suckers game. One could argue that anything is possible i guess. Pure and appiled chemistry rules out these flights of fantasy. RNA somehow evolving to DNA. Where did the freakin RNA come from and who kept lab books on how to make more, and how did code come about with stops and repeats. Thats asking too much of blind random chance. Thats a suckers game.
This guy still goes into fallacious land and deep into the hypothetical. P.H.D. James Tour gives a true 100% factual brake down of the synthesis. Molecular Bio-Chemistry and Synthetic Bio-Chemistry are his fields of expertise, having over 115 inventions dealing with Nano structures ect. I want the scientific FACTS only, of which these men do NOT give. James Tour seems to be the only honest Molecular Bio-Chemist and Synthetic Chemist out there today. Truly unnoteworthy this lecture is. Just a shame that most of these scientist delve into dreamland ending with being disingenuous.
Can you imagine what progress real science could make with the billions of wasted dollars chasing a dream, if all these high paid liars had the honesty and integrity of Tour.
Barbra McClintock discovered transposons (TEs) in the 1927, but "scientists" disregarded the finding as challenging the cornerstone of evolution (junk DNA), setting genetic research back almost 60 years. She was finally recognized for her work with a Nobel prize in 1983.
I think about this quite often. All the wasted money chasing OOL. Not that we shouldn't research it but we do need novel, feasible, and plausible new approaches. Not this rehash of lipids first that magically form into the most complex software known to man, i.e. a cell. More than likely if we're truely trying to solve OOL, and if it's even solvable, we'll need to start with the information problem first. I'm not sure that's solvable either but let's be real at each at every step.
I do like Sarah Walker and her boldness to say "causal efficacy". I'm sure she, along with Paul Davies, receive quite the frowns among their peers.
Sparkyyooo7 I'm sry iv'e over looked you posting. Please accept my invite also at www.evolutionfairytale.com
James Tour is a fascinating man. It kills evolutionists to hear the reality that time is the ENEMY in organic synthesis, not the hero.
@@rayertman Tour is an unethical fanatic.
He's published 700 papers in synthetic organic chemistry. How many have you read?
Ha ha. As someone mentioned before. The sound sucks. My first thought/feeling when listen to this, was me sitting on an airplane listening to the safety instruction,"safetymumble" understanding jack shit, foreign-accent-english, but mainly because of the bad speekers in the plane :) interresting topic tho. Ive always wanted to know my heritage :) im suspecting grand grandpa is a virus :)
The faith of the faithless in an unguided rise of life is sidesplitting theater.
"i don't have to know the right reason in order to exclude wrong ones"
@kim burley He's flipped his wig for lipids!
Seems like nervous laughter on your part, or you wouldn't be here in the comments watching these videos
@@stevencoardvenice Or maybe it's just schadenfreude, User.
@@ConservativeAnthem
Lol whatever you say, buddy. You dont see me on your wacky creationist and flat earth channels.
When you try to explain something that you don't understand.
It's hypothetical. He's discussing possibilities without sounding or being arrogant.
@@jonstfrancis Hes discussing pipe dreams. Nothing but a bunch of "maybes"
You need information blocks to build an information storage center. Information is useless without a machine to use existing materials to produce a product
Hmm that's funny: Cigany VeronIKa. Oxygen. I'm trying to evolve guys.
Nothing intelligent can be built without intelligence with a goal in mind
@Mitch Goodfellow Youre not making sense. You told Richard he was wrong but you admit advances in science was from human endeavor. Typical evo double talk.
But it really was! It is not amazing?
@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 can you give an example of any part of life that is not created?
Intro needs work
I got a question
Have you been able to create life using your model??
If the answer is yes congratulations
If the answer is not
Your model is bs
Life emerged 700,000,000 years after the formation of the earth. Origin of Life research has been going on for ONE TEN MILLIOINTH of that time.
Take a seat, shut the fuck up and try to learn some of the science....
NOPE. Semoitic information characterizes life. Semiosis means symbols are arranged as a code which requires a decoding system, that the code specifies something to which it has no connection.
The symbols for, "My dog has fleas," has no connection between the shapes and my dog and it's fleas.
The code which specifies topoisomerase has zero connection to what that enzyme does, until a connection is made using a translating system which links 1 of 20 amino acids , each of which has no connection physically, to the base triplets, and has no function until 90% or more of the whole structure is created.
And, no topoisomerase, no DNA replication.
Only an intelligence so advanced as to imagine how the code produces the function of >300 unique enzymes.
Mitochondria started out free living,, but now are "dumbed down" as they no longer need to synthesize all they need to. Each have DNA which encodes over 1000 different unique proteins.
Several hundred "mers" 58:00 says nothing about the single strand of RNA which specifies the pore which is blocked. RNA is meaningless unless it it's bases are in semiotic sequence.
What force creates identical molecules over and over again for a million yrs? Identical lipids and carbohydrates. Sure, happens everyday all over the place.
?
When I look at a building long after it's been built , I understand that the building had a designer. Ya I'm pretty smart that way. One would look preeeettttty dumb if he asserted the building kinda......fell together by accident, randomly, by chance. If you realize where I'm going from here,....you're pretty smart too. Oh, and that building that fell together in a storm...it's also smart. So smart it can rebuild itself. Would you think I was stupid if i told you such a thing?
IDIOT RAINS SUPREME! GET AN EDUCATION MORON!
Your designer needed to build you a better brain.
@@RyantheComm well at least we can agree my brain was designed. I will also concede yours probably, as you suggest, fell together randomly with no particular goal in mind.
@@rayertman buildings don't reproduce. don't compete for limited resources, don't inherit features from parent buildings.....other than that, your analogy is spot off.
@@mcmanustony you are missing the point completely. We are talking about the assembly of complex living systems from non living things. Completely incoherent.
No matter how it's described it's still spontaneous generation, which is not happening. Too bad, nice try.
Do you know how books work?
@@mcmanustony do you know how science works?
@@jeremynolan852 Yes. I was on a Science and Engineering Research Council doctoral programme. My research at the University of Exeter was in mathematics. I studied physics at the University of Glasgow.
@@mcmanustony sure you did mate 😂 so am a doctor because I studied medicine is that how it works now lol
@@jeremynolan852 What a fucking stupid comment.
I know how science works because I studied science to the level of doing research in it.
Try to keep up Sparky.
He doesn't know much about modern computers. Heehee.
all fairy tales here , nothing else
YOUR DESERT MYTH BOOK THE BIBLE IS NOT A FAIRY TALE?LOL.
You cannot create life from nonlife by intelligent design, can you?
But you talk that it was generated spontanously by chance! NONSENS!
It a religion of self realization ,it is hoped that on day science will show a path to life inherently coming from basic materials ,little science but lots of hopes .Many find comfort in it mostly for the story .
@@obiecanobie919 This is utter drivel. You haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about and neither does the OP.
@@mcmanustony The only time one will have a clue is when that person can repeat all they say in their own lab ,between religions and scientific theories no on has a clue .It is so easy to be mistaken even if genuine , liars and story tellers wont be in short supply either .It is a pleasurable business in playing God and show everyone how it is done .God has likely imposed a moratorium on life ,and braking it is all but impossible .
@@obiecanobie919 Can you list the last 5 books written by biologists that you've actually read?
@@mcmanustony Can you name someone that created or copied the simples ever living cell ? All liars no doers ...written books ..
No one has the minimum idea how life originated. To prove that is the fact that it is accepted that all life on earth evolved from a the same type of a simple cell. And apparently it only happened once on Earth. Why? Furthermore, to talk about evolution you must have before anything, self replication code (DNA, RNA) which is statistical impossible to have formed accidentaly. So we have a problem, and this vídeo only speculates about things that we really dont know. The explanation is just for a good laugh...
"No one has the minimum idea how life originated"- speak for yourself. There is a lot known- not the whole picture.
" And apparently it only happened once on Earth. Why?"- perhaps because the conditions for life to begin only occurred once.
Selection has been observed acting on replicating precursors to RNA, DNA. "statistical impossible to have formed accidentaly"- this is a false dichotomy. You seem only to consider two possibilities- "accident" or "magic". Researchers have never argued for "accident" and "magic" is the realm of religion rather than science. The laws of physics and chemistry are not "accident". Nor is the video merely "speculation"- it is informed inference.
keep laughing.....
@@mcmanustony In fact, at this moment I'm not laughing but regreting the wide spread ignorance that your comment shows. In fact Paul Davies (for example) and other wise people working across domains ( From Astronomy, to Quantum mechanics, Biology, Chemistry, etc) call Life MAGIC! Only ignorants ( even specialized ones) havent realized it yet! The deeper we go into the complexity of a living cell, the further we are from understanding how Life could have emerged! Your statement that " life as only originated once, because perhaps the conditions ocurred only once" shows terrrible IGNORANCE! Conditions for Life exist on Earth, since 3 billion years ago at least! The rest you wrote is just garbage. Before writing anything the first thing you should know is that DNA/RNA is INFORMATION which is IMMATERIAL! In our realm, INFORMATION ONLY COMES FROM A MIND! It does come from chance! But probably this assertion is well above your head... if you take a computer with no Software and wait for the software to emerge on the computer, you can wait for all the eternity that the software will never arise! First you need a MIND to built the computer ( Matter-Physics) and the then the Software (INFORMATION- immaterial), to have data processing. The rest is the materialist scientist MUMBO JUMBO THAT HAS ASSAULTED THE ACADEMY 150 YEARS AGO AND HIT THE WALL by mid XX century. At the moment this shamefull dominant pseudoscientific doctrine is preventing science from evolving. This is the bare truth! It lives from " THE MAKE BELIEVE" and from IGNORANCE that starts at SCHOOL! The school that they founded!
@@InfinityBlue4321
" DNA/RNA is INFORMATION which is IMMATERIAL! "- this is just creationist woo. Meaningless word salad.
" INFORMATION ONLY COMES FROM A MIND! "- Your caps lock seems to be stuck. This isn't a deduction or a conclusion or an observation- it's just a slogan.
Your computer analogy is as much use as a cast iron cabbage.
I wish you all the best with your ongoing battle with reality.
@@mcmanustony Once in a while I take a couple of minutes to expose pompous ignorance ( to say the least) surfing on the WWW...
I'm laughing loudly now, with the bunch of nonsense phrases that make up your comment hehehe...
You cant even understand simple concepts, therefore you respond with garbage.
In fact, OBSERVATION of REALITY ( Our reality) dictates 3 INDISPUTABLE prepositions :
1- INFORMATION ONLY COMES FROM A MIND;
2- INFORMATION IS IMMATERIAL;
3- lIFE IS INFORMATION.
These are 3 indisputable prepositions that the Devil materialist hates the most. Nevertheless, they started including INFORMATION on their speech, simply because they cant fight the REALITY of our space-time-INFORMATION dimension.
These 3 prepositions will be the demise of the ludicrous materialist scientism, that has been deluding and fooling humanity for more than 100 years.
Matter is the substrate, where INFORMATION flows. Point.
If by any chance you understand this, dont perform harakiri... get a proper education on REALITY, there are plenty of presentations around to get started...
And allways remember... Even UNESCO created the figure of Immaterial patrimony of humanity!
:))))))
Nothing puts itself together except disorder
In a close or open system?
Oh I see! Life came from outer space 🪐 😂😂. See James Tour comments about this nonsense
James Tour commenting on this is as significant as Richard Dawkins commenting on dentistry. It is not his field. He does not know the literature, is unaware of current work and is motivated by his religious fanaticism to scream idiotic lies about those who work in this area. Tour is a professional disgrace as a scientist.
Why the sneer about outer space. any element above helium was synthesised in stars. What the fuck is wrong with you?
@@mcmanustony another science illiterate atheist I see. Who's science is it jackass 🤣. Can you give one example of dr.tour getting the science wrong? No you because you can't think for yourself 😂😂😂😂
given that any element heavier than helium was synthesised in a star, YES the matter of which you are made is from outer space.
Have you always been this fucking stupid or did you grow into it?
James Tour does not work in this field and never has. His "comments" are as useful as Brittney Spears opinions on quantum physics- except that, unlike the ethically challenged liar James Tour, Ms Spears has the good sense not to babble about things she knows fuck all about.
@@jeremynolan852 " science illiterate" and also " Who's science is it jackass"....."who's"?? Really?? "who is science is it jackass?? "Who's" is a contraction of "who is". You are unsuccessfully groping for "whose" which is the possessive as opposed to the clunker you posted which is indicative.
Take a telling Sparky- when you are trying and failing to insult someone's literacy.....try not to be a fucking illiterate- it's not a good look.
@@mcmanustony is the science illiterate atheist triggered 😂. Yes who's science is it jackass? Not yours 🤣 not biology. Maybe chemistry science illiterate atheist since biogenesis is about chemistry 😂
Everything becomes less complex, that's the law. This guy is not actually understanding that at all
This is just an idiotic slogan. Do you know how books work?
@@mcmanustony Because we are made in the image of God , creators by design .Animals only know how to keep going and being beautiful , no thoughts of the beginnings .
@@obiecanobie919 Grow up and read some books.
@@mcmanustony learn some science 😃
@@jeremynolan852 I did. that's why the UK Science and Engineering Research Council awarded me a doctoral research scholarship.
You're not very good at this. What are you good at?