There is also the membrane-first hypothesis, like Nick Lane's alkaline vent theories. As a physicist, I find the idea very appealing, as unlike the two main contenders (mentioned in the video) it actually takes the bioenergentics and thermodynamics of life seriously.
When you flip a coin you get only two outcomes If you put small magnets in a ball they all will find their respected opposites to bond with and every magnet will organise themselves bond to one another thats how reality works chaos is not the defult for anything for it to require a driving force to be organised
When you have blocks, you have those jagged edges that spread mass rather unevenly; but in space, gravity would presumably spread the gathering mass evenly. What's more even (context-dependent 'even') than a sphere in a three-dimensional universe?
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Cheap as an e book. Krishna Bahadur rules origin of life- jeewhanu.
All cellular processes required for life are dependent on energy supplied by ATP, Moreover, this energy is released from ATP and directed to do useful work by specialized functional enzymes. How did the first protocell get useful energy to power essential processes for life since ATP could not have been available, nor the essential functional enzymes?
Naturally a cell has no reason or purpose to exist so would simply take the path of least resistance and perish. The formation of the survival mechanism in cells was clearly done by design, by the creator of heaven and earth.
A got a better one for you. If a cell did arise on its own what gave it consciousness and the instinct to survive? How did it beat the odds of survival when it didnt know it had to survive for some purpose?
@@gregoryfenn1462 so where did consciousness arise from? If the first cell wasn't aware then how did it know what to do? You might say an auto process based on chemical reactions but then you would need to explain what or who pre programmed it? And then eventually explain how a self aware conscious rose from dead chemicals.
@@TheKingcougar what gives a coin the consciousness to only have two outcomes What give a magnet the consciousness to be attracted to metals and only the opposite sides of other magnets What gives atoms the consciousness to bond to some atoms and not others The simple answer is they dont have a consciousness they dont require a mind they just have properties that favor some outcomes over others the same way a coin wont land upright or diagonally the same way incompatible atoms wont bond the same way a magnet wont attract plastic
The creator who apparently hasn't been demonstrated and has basically has zero accounts on how he begun life from simple RNA what do we have? He created man
How about life just doesn't exist? And it really doesn't, when you consider that we define life not by what it is but by what it does. Therefore asking "what is the origin of life" is like asking what is the origin of chemical reactions. Life is just chemical reactions based on interactive properties of matter. And consciousness is an emergent property of matter.
Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis there are still mega gaps on how life may have sprang up Im content with "i don't know how life begun " Your god hypothesis rather has its own account on how creation happened i have never seen any religion at all that claims that god created simple Cells and let them evolve into more complex organisms If no religion claims such a creator you are basically making it up
****This reminds me of flat Earther defense lol. It isn't even necessary for you to explain this much to me all I'm really trying to point out is that there are way too many similarities between humans and primates. The main thing that always makes me realize this is simply the anatomy we share with primates and you can definitely tell that there is origin, your making it seem like we came from somewhere else or something. Your also making it seem as if religion and science can't coexist which is archaic. Science should be respected as well Religion. **** My reply is that everybody on earth has the same exact anatomy with zero evolutionary difference while other primates have a totally different anatomy, such as many different kinds of proteins, enzymes. bones, muscles, parts, micro systems, body systems and especially different interactomes, none of which could originate by any naturalism. Similarities have been greatly exaggerated and all actual similarities are because of design constraints required for perfect design. The differences prevent any taxon to "evolve" into a different taxon. The story of evolutionism is only an invented illusion for the gullible.
No evolution is fact like gravity and germs theory of disease,we have an enormous amount of proof,and until proven otherwise using evidence not what you just said which is "evolution is wrong because I say so" no proof whatsoever, evolution have only become stronger after two centuries,and if it's ever disproven science will disprove it,and do not compare science and religion,science is fact it actually explains the world,religion feeds the soul and gives meaning that's it,the only way for them to coexist is to reinterpret religion.Evolution is fact,we can do nothing about it.
Ok, 1. its not an atheist position 2. Its not a faith based position. Its based on evidence. Also its based on what we know and doesnt require an unjustified agent to the mix. 3. The god of the bible cannot possibly exist. The bibles claims do not match with reality, and the god concept has characteristics that are selfcontradicting.
Im an atheist and I have no position for the origin of life i know abiogenesis is probable but its is just a hypothesis Im content with i dont know Show me a single religion that claims that god created a cell that he laid of and let it evolve i might rethink my position
Protocells are synthetic man-made cells that have been engineered and designed using sequencing machines and information from pre-existing donor cells, protocells are not an example of Life arising from non-life.
Do you believe rocks form naturally? If yes, do you know how hard it is to replicate a specific rock's exact shape volume celluler structure and mass involving a mind? Do you know how hard it is for an artist to draw a mountain? Even if you just decide to scrible lines aimlessly it will require a lot of work for someone to replicate your scribbles Replicating something is always hard it doesnt mean it required the same effort when it formed originally
@@rickojay7536 you cant show abiogenesis happening anywhere!! You have nothing but wishful thinking..chemists start with pure chemicals, designed equipment, designed pipettes, etc. because they can't produce those yields under any natural environments! And they use sequencing machines and templates to achieve their goals! Chemists control the environments and manipulate the Variables using intelligence! It bears no relevance to any natural environment.
@@Xaphan01: Science observe what’s already here. Time, space and matter all have a beginning point. If not God, explain how and why time, space and matter all have a beginning point?
At the same time you have other disciplines such as Geography that say, "well, this rock formation has been there for *X* billion of years. Something definitely engineered us. And when I say us, I mean all organic and inorganic lifeforms. You don't have to get far to look for clues. Just study human anatomy and see how there are so many complex organic structures in your body that do just specific things. Now, why we were engineered I have no idea. What you call this engineer or engineers is none of my business but certainly something with all that knowledge is out there. Hell, we might have been created just to be a resource of some kind.
+Jabberwocky But where did that knowledge of selecting a fit partner come from? It's like computer code, we do the same thing when writing artificial intelligence programs. We have to tell neural network population where to go and what to do. Hence the idea of an engineer. Without code/instructions, a computer is useless. The same applies here. The autonomous nature of natural selection must have been *coded* (if you will) in living things so we can multiply. We can't just think of that by yourselves.
You just haven't looked deep enough. It seems to be mega complex, but when you look into the nitty gritty details - and I'm talking about the level of enzymes and RNA mechanics - you'll see all the little flaws, weird solutions and lots of minor stupidities no sane engineer would do. A good example on the anatomy level is the mammalian eye. Fail! The retina is constructed the wrong way around. Just ... fail. So it's clearly not engineered. Look deep - very deep - you'll find out. Trust me.
+MrTridac OK. I'll try. I'm not going to dismiss what you say neither am I going to accept it. I just got into anatomy and I'm finding all these things interesting because I work in the Computer Science field and I've been doing some low key research on the topic. My main area is artificial intelligence so it's crucial that I know these things if I have to model the human body.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
There is also the membrane-first hypothesis, like Nick Lane's alkaline vent theories. As a physicist, I find the idea very appealing, as unlike the two main contenders (mentioned in the video) it actually takes the bioenergentics and thermodynamics of life seriously.
David Deamer theory on cycling ponds and lipids also.
To go from Proton to human brain is quite a giant leap. Wish i could understand what force drives these particules to such complexity.
Physics.. chemistry.
When you flip a coin you get only two outcomes
If you put small magnets in a ball they all will find their respected opposites to bond with and every magnet will organise themselves bond to one another thats how reality works
chaos is not the defult for anything for it to require a driving force to be organised
Thats why it didnt go from proton to human brain and no one other than you is claiming that
It's called natural selection. And it didn't go from proton to human brain, there were a few steps in between.
Did he actually say "compared to very simple, non-living organisms"???
Yup. "Non-living organism" hmmmmm
@@jimcasey3480 visible confusion
Humans are complex like RNA . Don’t judge him
+Khanacademy A note, tRNA isn't an enzyme.
Simple,we just don't know...
Is there a explanation why it is al round, from molecules to planets why are they not just blocks?
cuz gravity
When you have blocks, you have those jagged edges that spread mass rather unevenly; but in space, gravity would presumably spread the gathering mass evenly. What's more even (context-dependent 'even') than a sphere in a three-dimensional universe?
Creatus takes less energy
Its called gravity
Why did you get rid of your profile picture?
I thought that I was the only one who had noticed....
Those who enjoyed this video might like the popular science book, Spontaneous Order and the Origin of Life.
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Cheap as an e book.
Krishna Bahadur rules origin of life- jeewhanu.
All cellular processes required for life are dependent on energy supplied by ATP, Moreover, this energy is released from ATP and directed to do useful work by specialized functional enzymes. How did the first protocell get useful energy to power essential processes for life since ATP could not have been available, nor the essential functional enzymes?
BYA? Doesnt that mean "Bring your assumptions"?
What a pathetic comment. Grow up.
Naturally a cell has no reason or purpose to exist so would simply take the path of least resistance and perish. The formation of the survival mechanism in cells was clearly done by design, by the creator of heaven and earth.
Oh my Darwin! Fock your god myth in the 💩 hole.
Wow. Another idiot that thinks life has always existed 🤦
I think the biggest question is how did the particle that eventually originated life originate
A got a better one for you. If a cell did arise on its own what gave it consciousness and the instinct to survive? How did it beat the odds of survival when it didnt know it had to survive for some purpose?
@@TheKingcougar cell’s aren’t conscious, so it’s a misleading question!
@@gregoryfenn1462 so where did consciousness arise from? If the first cell wasn't aware then how did it know what to do?
You might say an auto process based on chemical reactions but then you would need to explain what or who pre programmed it? And then eventually explain how a self aware conscious rose from dead chemicals.
@@TheKingcougar what gives a coin the consciousness to only have two outcomes
What give a magnet the consciousness to be attracted to metals and only the opposite sides of other magnets
What gives atoms the consciousness to bond to some atoms and not others
The simple answer is they dont have a consciousness they dont require a mind they just have properties that favor some outcomes over others the same way a coin wont land upright or diagonally
the same way incompatible atoms wont bond the same way a magnet wont attract plastic
@@freeyourmind7538 begging the question after begging the question
Who says cells are programed?
When u just need to know to excel in exams and don't really care if it's true or not😌😎
And then there's the creator hypothesis.
@doctordeduction maybe my english very bad, but I understood everything you write. Basically, respect to you.
There is no creator hypothesis. At best there is a faith based unjustied assumption.
The creator who apparently hasn't been demonstrated and has basically has zero accounts on how he begun life from simple RNA
what do we have? He created man
The Origin of Life is Chemical Synthesis.Marine algae(green seaweed):Cellulose is a cell
So we basically start life without life ¿😅
Funny enough you also believe in life from non life just in a more ridiculous way
How about life just doesn't exist? And it really doesn't, when you consider that we define life not by what it is but by what it does. Therefore asking "what is the origin of life" is like asking what is the origin of chemical reactions. Life is just chemical reactions based on interactive properties of matter. And consciousness is an emergent property of matter.
Maybe, could be, some say, is not science.
true, those people who say that generally believe in a skywizard and claim magic happened.
Or maybe just maybe you do not understand what science means
So the life was born from a lightning strike.
And that is know as a strawman fallacy
yes.
its Zeus created us
Give me your BEST evidence for the origin of life apart from GOD
Give us ANY evidence for a god.
Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis there are still mega gaps on how life may have sprang up
Im content with "i don't know how life begun "
Your god hypothesis rather has its own account on how creation happened
i have never seen any religion at all that claims that god created simple Cells and let them evolve into more complex organisms
If no religion claims such a creator you are basically making it up
@@rickojay7536 Who said anything about simple cells evolving into humans?
@@shihyuchu6753 basically anyone making an intelligent design argument
Basically we know a cell can evolve into more complex organisms
@@rickojay7536 We do? Test it ...observe it...repeat it. Your Nobel Prize awaits
****This reminds me of flat Earther defense lol. It isn't even necessary for you to explain this much to me all I'm really trying to point out is that there are way too many similarities between humans and primates. The main thing that always makes me realize this is simply the anatomy we share with primates and you can definitely tell that there is origin, your making it seem like we came from somewhere else or something. Your also making it seem as if religion and science can't coexist which is archaic. Science should be respected as well Religion. ****
My reply is that everybody on earth has the same exact anatomy with zero evolutionary difference while other primates have a totally different anatomy, such as many different kinds of proteins, enzymes. bones, muscles, parts, micro systems, body systems and especially different interactomes, none of which could originate by any naturalism. Similarities have been greatly exaggerated and all actual similarities are because of design constraints required for perfect design. The differences prevent any taxon to "evolve" into a different taxon. The story of evolutionism is only an invented illusion for the gullible.
Stop using Drugs
@@BEENIECRIS - I'm not an evolutionist, I am a believer in all honest science who rejects quackery evolutionism that is not science.
The first paragraph was not written by Dan Miner,l but falsely inserted by someone else.
No evolution is fact like gravity and germs theory of disease,we have an enormous amount of proof,and until proven otherwise using evidence not what you just said which is "evolution is wrong because I say so" no proof whatsoever, evolution have only become stronger after two centuries,and if it's ever disproven science will disprove it,and do not compare science and religion,science is fact it actually explains the world,religion feeds the soul and gives meaning that's it,the only way for them to coexist is to reinterpret religion.Evolution is fact,we can do nothing about it.
Origins of Life believed by Atheist position is as faith based as my faith in God of the Bible...prove me wrong...
Ok,
1. its not an atheist position
2. Its not a faith based position. Its based on evidence. Also its based on what we know and doesnt require an unjustified agent to the mix.
3. The god of the bible cannot possibly exist. The bibles claims do not match with reality, and the god concept has characteristics that are selfcontradicting.
Im an atheist
and I have no position for the origin of life i know abiogenesis is probable but its is just a hypothesis
Im content with i dont know
Show me a single religion that claims that god created a cell that he laid of and let it evolve i might rethink my position
Atheism is a position on one claim, the claim that gods exist.
I believe that life does not exist but that it is merely chemical reactions.
Protocells are synthetic man-made cells that have been engineered and designed using sequencing machines and information from pre-existing donor cells, protocells are not an example of Life arising from non-life.
Do you believe rocks form naturally?
If yes, do you know how hard it is to replicate a specific rock's exact shape volume celluler structure and mass involving a mind?
Do you know how hard it is for an artist to draw a mountain?
Even if you just decide to scrible lines aimlessly it will require a lot of work for someone to replicate your scribbles
Replicating something is always hard it doesnt mean it required the same effort when it formed originally
@@rickojay7536 you cant show abiogenesis happening anywhere!! You have nothing but wishful thinking..chemists start with pure chemicals, designed equipment, designed pipettes, etc. because they can't produce those yields under any natural environments! And they use sequencing machines and templates to achieve their goals! Chemists control the environments and manipulate the Variables using intelligence!
It bears no relevance to any natural environment.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning the writers of the Bible plagiarized ancient Sumerian myths.
In the beginning god jerked to create life
Please see yourself out. There's no existence of god in science so better not bring that up here
@@Xaphan01: Science observe what’s already here. Time, space and matter all have a beginning point. If not God, explain how and why time, space and matter all have a beginning point?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 sooo dumb!
Life is too complex for there not to be a God
No because natural selection explains it.
Ignorant people made from dirt are too S T U P I D for them not to believe in invisible beings.
Thinking apes laugh at your ignorance.
At the same time you have other disciplines such as Geography that say, "well, this rock formation has been there for *X* billion of years.
Something definitely engineered us. And when I say us, I mean all organic and inorganic lifeforms.
You don't have to get far to look for clues. Just study human anatomy and see how there are so many complex organic structures in your body that do just specific things.
Now, why we were engineered I have no idea. What you call this engineer or engineers is none of my business but certainly something with all that knowledge is out there.
Hell, we might have been created just to be a resource of some kind.
There's no such thing as an inorganic life form
+Allan Bartlett True. That was my mistake. The point was to include the non-living things as well.
+Jabberwocky But where did that knowledge of selecting a fit partner come from?
It's like computer code, we do the same thing when writing artificial intelligence programs. We have to tell neural network population where to go and what to do. Hence the idea of an engineer. Without code/instructions, a computer is useless.
The same applies here. The autonomous nature of natural selection must have been *coded* (if you will) in living things so we can multiply.
We can't just think of that by yourselves.
You just haven't looked deep enough. It seems to be mega complex, but when you look into the nitty gritty details - and I'm talking about the level of enzymes and RNA mechanics - you'll see all the little flaws, weird solutions and lots of minor stupidities no sane engineer would do. A good example on the anatomy level is the mammalian eye. Fail! The retina is constructed the wrong way around. Just ... fail. So it's clearly not engineered. Look deep - very deep - you'll find out. Trust me.
+MrTridac OK. I'll try. I'm not going to dismiss what you say neither am I going to accept it.
I just got into anatomy and I'm finding all these things interesting because I work in the Computer Science field and I've been doing some low key research on the topic.
My main area is artificial intelligence so it's crucial that I know these things if I have to model the human body.
Absoloute poppycock - "the universe was formed 4.6B years ago" LOL
The blind do indeed lead the blind.
he said the Earth formed 4.6 bya. the universe is 13+ billion years old.
If he's blind, you must be deaf. Sal was referring to Earth, not the universe.
Aplogies for typo. Meanty to wuote the original "universe". This is equally nonsense by someone how has not got a clue about science.
sa
all good. we talk about these astronomical numbers like they are nothing. That's how our minds work.
Such a brilliant counterargument. You should go and convince all of the cosmologists with your amazing thoughts and collect your Nobel Prize.