The interesting question to me is "How does the universe possess such qualities?" This research is finding out what happens when you mix this and that, but I'd like to know how this happens, how these qualities exist in our universe. Where is the energy that is required for this to happen coming from? How is consciousness possible in this universe? How is thinking possible? If better thinking has evolved over time, when was the point when thinking began?
Also, my Pastor was a badass. He used Simpsons episodes to get principles across. He played games where you go and shoot everyone's left leg off. He was a man of good health that could read German, Hebrew, and some other historical languages. He explained the real reasons behind the "rules". Don't eat pork because you'll get worms. Don't covet what your neighbor has because the only way to get those items before mass manufacturing was to take it from him. Lying leads to mistrust.
in 2011 the distinguished scientist predicted that in about two years they will have it all figured out... well, it's 2022, roughly 11 years later... 9 years after the self-predicted deadline... there yet? In russian language his talk qualifies as "yerunda" (baloney in some English-speaking countries). It reminds of a song by the italian singer Mina: Parole, parole, parole.
A lot of researchers are over - optimistic. Abiogenesis research has, despite your complaints, continued on and produced banger after banger. What does creationism have to show for itself, though?
@@antonivanov1351If creationism produces no results, it is not a practical theory, and should be disregarded. Here's a tiny sample of results we have: Geochemically produced nucleotides. Geochemically produced sugars. Geochemically produced amino acids. Geochemically produced lipids. Geochmically produced ATP and ATP analogues. Various kinds of protocells with lifelike behavior, including protocells that can move up a maze towards resources. Oh, and uhh... evolvable matter. Depending on your definition, that matter might even be alive. We made self replicating RNA molecules that then proceeded to evolve, when left alone, into some 7, interdependent strains, forming an entire ecosystem. Meanwhile, creationists can't even solve the heat problem. Or even find oil! _Evolutionary_ theory, which abiogenesis depends on, can find oil and is used for just that all the time, meaning _it_ puts food on your plate.
@rkyeun The probabilities I was referring to when it comes to quantum operations is not knowing the outcome of the system. There are many possible end-scenarios for a set of particles interacting, but there is no way to know the outcome in advance, we can only surmise the probability of it coming out in a certain state. On a plank's length- There are still conceptual ideas that have dimensions smaller than a plank's length, such as the de Broglie wavelength of a macroscopic object.
So, it’s not been done yet…That however does not add credibility to the position of the scientifically illiterate faith-based-cult members who think that there is a credible alternative to abiogenesis. Neither has anyone demonstrated that the supernatural exists, nor that is interferes with reality. Whilst abiogenesis research has made a lot of progress over the last decade..…theists seem to be stuck at the same place ever since somebody invented the God…sorry, “intelligence” they happen to believe in.
@@derhafi yes, there is. intelligence is capable of creating blueprints, information transmission systems, and upon these, machines, assembly lines, energy turbines, and chemical factories. We know this, because , humans with intelligence, have created all these things. They exist on a molecular level, in each cell. Chance has never been demonstrated to have such capabilities. Therefore, it is rational to infer, that design is the more case-adequate explanation.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom All systems contain information. Let's say you have a flood break out because a natural reservoir up in a mountain eroded its way into a new valley, producing a new river flow. Let's say the flood waters are rushing towards a juncture. Down one channel, the water is destined to meet a sinkhole deep in the earth that leads to the ocean via underground pathways. Down the other is a dead-end, a valley that is surrounded on every other side by hills the water won't be able to climb over. In this scenario, there's no way for the "water circuit" to know from the get go which way down the juncture the water should keep flowing. This information can't reach it from the destinations faster than light speed according to general relativity, and in fact, we can guess it won't reach any faster than the speed of waves in the water. And as a matter of fact, the destination must first _recieve_ information, in the form of the arrival of water, in order for a signal to be sent from there back to the juncture! So what happens is, when the water collides with the walls at the end of the second channel, it builds up momentarily, (because water is still being pushed in by the juncture,) and this produces a backup, (literally water seems to go "back up" the channel. Now, no individual molecule necessarily goes far, but there is a sort of reverse wave that goes up the channel.) That backup eventually reaches the juncture, and soon after, the "circuit" of water stabilizes --- the water in the second channel ceases flowing, and the juncture largely supplies water only to the first channel. Now, should we say that some kind of river God must have broken the reservoir to create this river, simply because the entire system calculates a stable flow rate for both channels, solving a mathemagical formula in the process? No, that'd be silly, right? The fact is, information is entropy. The amount of information necessary to describe the universe is constantly growing. That's because the universe is expanding, partly, but also because individual parts of it are growing more complex. This is a derivation of basic facts of statistics and the laws of large numbers. If every possible "microstate" (a state where nothing is unknown or unspecified, aka a state that is not vaguely described, but as specific as possible,) of the universe is almost equally likely, (and while I have no idea if they are, it's safe to say that any individual state should, not knowing anything of the universe beforehand, be roughly so,) then the most likely "macrostates" will be _large._ This means more metrics would be necessary to fill out the macrostate and give us a microstate. Those metrics are information. _Information is entropy!_ For more, I suggest reading up on Shannon Information Theory.
@@ZebecZT No, it's terribly said, lol. All things have mathematically definable metrics that apply to them, and ergo, contain information. Whether it's a river, or a flow of electrons through a lightning bolt, or a hurricane, or a star, whatever it is, it's state changes perform mathematical calculations. There is a reason people doubt that black holes are well described by our current theories, its because mathematically, singularities destroy information, and that seems like it should be impossible.
@MarkoKraguljac agreed, the use of the word "want" in reference to molecules is unfortunate. There was a talk some time ago about genes, memes, and temes that had a much better description of life: Self replecating information. (imperfect replication of information then leads to evolution). The speaker had organized it into tiers where genes (biologic entities) were the first replicator, memes (ideas) were the second, and temes (technologies) were the third. First tier could be other "hardware".
You do not need a container for something to compete, you need instability. The most stable RNA molecule would be the more fittest information carrier for example. Then when the strain of the ultimate stable RNA molecule would have been created one can then imagine that the competition amongst these strains to adapt even further stability by adding proteins, lipids and whatnot to available as a sort of skeleton to prevent the molecule from deteriorating before it could be replicated.
@TheYgds As a physicist considering a course in biocybernetics I've been awaiting this for some time now.... It seems to me that a life spent researching carbon structures is about to be demonstrated to me as a bad call...lol I take the point about the timeframe...I mean seriously how is he going to research, produce and write this up in such a narrow window...unless he's already more than 50% there....and I haven't read a single thing about this in Nature recently... have you?
Interesting, I was thinking something similar a while back. I was thinking that sand could be evolutionary matter or other forms of grains as they join up to make different matter or bigger matter.
@MarkoKraguljac nah, it's common for scientists to speak of atoms/molecules/etc as having "wants" and so on. it makes it easier to understand what they do if you antropomorphize a little bit. and of course everyone knows atoms or molecules don't have personalities so it's a harmless way to describe things. don't be so jaded.
@GronTheMighty Never would I say that we shouldn't research more. I only state that we have found physical limitations in many areas(plank's length, observable/non-observable universe, quantum entanglement), and there are still very many unanswered questions, like this recent neutrino velocity problem. Physics is an amazing field of study, but the question that drives me to belief isn't "how", but "Why?". Why do all of these constants line up to form the universe that operates and led to us?
more than 10 years had passed and we're still waiting for the first "evolvable matter" that this babbler was talking about let alone an artificial cell.
Yeah we can look for "change over time," which is evolution in matter. But how do we know the difference between change that is evolution and change that isnt evolution? ALSO consider this. Evolution has no "goal." Evolution includes the survival of some properties while the elimination and change of others. So let me ask you this. How much of one thing is to survive and how much of one thing is to change for it to be considered evolution? What ratio? Evolution is just a colloquial term.
@GronTheMighty Because we're remarkably unique and interesting. We exist. If the universal constants were any different, we wouldn't. This machine consisting of all matter and energy managed to spit out something that could objectively view it. Something that could think and respond. We're pretty damn neat, and I like that we are here.
Unfortunately, the way in which this talk is presented can easily lead to fundamental misunderstanding. I presume this is the fault of those who produced the talk rather than of the speaker himself. Analysing carefully, all that Lee Cronin seems claiming is not that any other element than carbon is capable of allowing the very extensive and complex manifestations of biology that we observe, but rather that much simpler systems using other elements may prove to be evolvable.
I fail to see how by this guy's defenition biological cells and genes are somehow not matter. Also, great to see he's able to use inorganic components to build cells without carbon, but should he succeed in generating something that can replicate and evolve, the structures within it that hold and replicate information, the stuff that's actually evolving, could and should still be regarded as genes, Would be great to see what those would look like though :)
Given all the current theories on abiogenesis, and what we understand about the physics of the cosmos getting us from quarks to the periodic table and complex inorganic chemistry, is it not possible that the underlying driving forces of the Universe are not Evolution; but rather: Energy capture and utilization, ever-increasing complexity and differentiation, localized reduction of entropy.
Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”
How could ammonia (NH3), the precursor for amino acid synthesis, have accumulated on prebiotic earth, if the lifetime of ammonia would be short because of its photochemical dissociation? How could prebiotic events have delivered organosulfur compounds required in a few amino acids used in life, if in nature sulfur exists only in its most oxidized form (sulfate or SO4), and only some unique groups of procaryotes mediate the reduction of SO4 to its most reduced state (sulfide or H2S)? How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth? How was the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products avoided? Etc etc
@itsasin1969 I agree but your statement isn't sound. You said we can be certain that a X doesn't exist but I am certain that this particular X doesn't exist. If your premise is correct there is no way you can know if an X doesn't exist.
So, it’s not been done yet…That however does not add credibility to the position of the scientifically illiterate faith-based-cult members who think that there is a credible alternative to abiogenesis. Neither has anyone demonstrated that the supernatural exists, nor that is interferes with reality. Whilst abiogenesis research has made a lot of progress over the last decade..…theists seem to be stuck at the same place ever since somebody invented the God…sorry, “intelligence” they happen to believe in.
@wachi03 The way he talks about it, he makes it sound like there is that stuff out there (carbon) that is inherently alive, but now he makes 'ordinary matter' alive as well. There is an interesting (and important) talk to be given about how self-replicating molecules kick-started life, and one about how life might not need carbon, but this isn't it.
What about viruses? Wouldn't they be the smallest evolvable unit? They don't fall within the definition of "life" because they don't have cell membranes and require the use of living cells to replicate. They are made of DNA or RNA housed inside a protein coat and they compete with other viruses and other lifeforms. Maybe you should try to spontaneously generate new viruses, though you'd need to be careful about containment to avoid an outbreak.
@MumblingMickey, Geez I feel kind of sheepish by not putting in the rejoinder that I am an undergrad biochemist, I should not be so generous to myself with that. with that said to answer your question I have only read his paper on iCHELLS which is published in Angerwandte Chemie. So far he has only demostrated that be can form compartments. He has not yet published anything (to my knowledge) that could fill the role of instruction. As for metabolism, depends on what kind of metabolism is there.
@MarkoKraguljac He's just being metaphorical, it's an anthropomorphic simplification so the audience can understand. No different than saying that magnets "want" to stick together, it's just how you express the nature of a force to lay people. Besides, although we are intelligent our own selfishness, our "want" for survival doesn't come from that, rather it is our genes which are not self aware which are selfish, so it's perfectly valid to refer to genes as matter that wants its shape to win.
@@The_CrackedPot_Christian that’s one way to avoid answering. We’ve observed organic chemistry occurring naturally on dust particles in space. In fact everything we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces. Not once have we found a divine or supernatural cause for anything, ever. Based on these facts the logical default for the things we don’t yet completely understand is that they were likely formed by the same natural forces we observe creating complexity everywhere there is energy, at least until some evidence for an act of divine creation is found. Got any?
'organic chemistry ': were not talking about chemicals that fit a laboratory labelling system that includes cyanide, tar or other poisonous deleterious disastrously bad for life chemicals, that would be anywhere equivalent to the building blocks of life; but rather highly specific, unstable, short 'life', chiral, complex, functional, large scale molecules that are the known , necessary building blocks for life. Its like finding lumps of iron ore in an geometrical arrangement and concluding that's how the Eiffel tower developed. Where did the energy, precision, foreknowledge, complexity come from: heat and random movement, or intelligent work in a specific non natural environment with careful arrangement of the parts? I have to deal with facts. Going from non chiral to chiral to obtain life is just a basic 'who dunnit question' that the very best OOL researchers cannot demonstrate with all the sophisticated tools or computing power. The creative power of a divine being is not going to be proven under laboratory conditions. God isnt subject to our whims and standards of proof. It would be crazy to think the divine has to be proven to have knowledge that it is more likely than a big bang being the source of all life. Just one lipid, one RNA, one oligonucleotide or oligosaccharide, please, from scratch and you might have grounds for your beliefs.
@@The_CrackedPot_Christian no my friend, sorry but you aren’t dealing with facts. The fact remains that materialism is the only creative force we have ever found operating in nature. The building blocks for life have been found to form naturally, we can observe this. Complex, stable organic chemistry. We have learned so much in recent years, making it look like you aren’t keeping up. We have never found anything created by a god, ever. Why should we think a god is doing any creating? Since we see complexity arise naturally everywhere there is energy why should we think that a god is needed in the first place?
Smallest evolvable unit is not bacteria, it is simply a molecule made of several interconnected molecules that can spontaneously be copied by using the surrounding matter, id est self-replicating. To take a few examples from the organisms in existens, there are many self-replicating molecules but the most famous of them are DNA. However other kinds of molecules like RNA and protein can also make copies of itself and I am sure there are other molecules.
the general rule is love, the inclination to keep on experiencing interactions forever. Life came about because its could contribute to love, because without life static stuff might be unsupportive of each other.
This man absolutely nuked religious fanaticism on ool. Completely made Dr J Tour, the frontman of christopseudoscientism, act like a lost small child without ad hominem statements. Such a smart man.
@TheFounderUtopia Adequate use of language and thought process are most important in science. Saying that magnets or genes "want" something is inexcusable distortion of reality and a great disservice to the though process of young people. Our human world consists of words and thoughts; the more they resemble relations from reality the more there will be traction for future discoveries. Saying things differently is not harder to understand but describes them better. Its a Mickey Mouse world now.
@AleXGT7 a lot of laws in this world, I say all of persistant laws that matter, are laws that initiate interactions after interactions or the exercising of laws over and over again. Our emotion follow this, to keep on experiencing interactions after interactions forever... so interactions that are not lovely is ruled out. So its not competition that preserve life or existence, its love. If living beings don't love, they'd stop creating laws, they'd die. What do you think? :)
Evolution is indeed a process always in motion. The price equation is indeed applied to more than evolution...its applied to meme theory, economics, engineering and design etc. So its not confined to biology. Cronins idea is basically a study of Catalysis. I think you could easily apply the price equation to that if you mapped the properties of chemicals. Although I accept it was not designed for that task.
@osemudiame123 you obviously didnt get the point of my comment. If i wanted to get specific i would've said that he thinks matter can replicate without nucleic acids. the point is that he thinks non organic molecules can carry replicable information and succeed in life in a stable way, which isn't true. proteins can't be made without carbon.
@potaschlor Some people extend the definition of life to accommodate them, but I think this in turn makes it all more murky. We thing we'd know life if we saw it, but would we?
We've made autocatalytic RNA that formed an entire ecosystem of interdependent strains in its own. It's debatable whether that constitutes life, sure, but it's definitely evolvable matter lol.
the absurd idea brought to the table in this lecture is that any single molecule, organic or non, is fighting to replicate, if you even watched the lecture.. This chemist just wants attention, he's trying to lift some scientific heavy weights in front of a popular audience for attention. Anyone who's studied chemistry knows why molecules react and that isn't their end. Chemicals dont have minds, they have stabilities.
For a very broad interpretation of evolutionary processes which do indeed extend beyond biology, check out "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)
@MarkoKraguljac I do see your point and I understand to a degree, but I think you are reading too much into it. I think it's an acceptable compromise to use anthropomorphizing as a tool to present a very simplistic overview of something you are mentioning in passing. One could say "compelled" rather than "want", but this begs the question of "how" which sidetracks the discussion and derails the original lecture. To not simplify is to be forced to address everything, there's a time and a place.
The line between alive and non alive is very blurry, so the fire would be pretty much alive if it had a concrete body, for example he mentioned that he believes that alive things are "fires in a container"
I disagree and agree, matters such as air, rocks, are not slaves or dead, they are free beings keeping their discipline to support love, to have interactions to keep on happening. They are not dead things they are lovely beings, that had supported our existence and the growing of our way of thinking since our very beginnings. They are like our parents, sacrificed for us even when we are childish, selfish, cocky. Our source of expertise is from respecting them.
I admit that he might have oversimplified some 'stuff' but if you wanna read about the real deal you should probably go to 'his' website: /chem.gla.ac.uk/cronin/
Oh Tony...Did anone come up with a credible alternative to abiogenesis yet? Neither has anyone demonstrated that the supernatural exists, nor that is interferes with reality. Sorry but fictional scenarios are not an alternative to actual existing processes.
@@derhafi abiogenesis Chemical fantasy has nothing! and you have nothing but wishful thinking for it! Experiments to produce the building blocks of life always begin with unnaturally pure, concentrated reagents. These are purchased from laboratory supply shops and produced through sophisticated, intelligently designed processes. Where on a prebiotic Earth could you find high Concentrations of nucleotides? And all left handed Amino acids primed and ready to bond? Templates and designed pipettes to sequence exactly what is needed? chemical suppliers from which the researchers obtained their materials, which was not around prebiotically!! Chemists achieve success by using manipulations and intelligence in their carefully guided experiments!
@@tonymaurice4157 You'll find a wide array of complex organic chemistry anywhere you find tar. Like, say, an acidic ocean with hydrothermal vents. Such vents produce mineral chimneys that will begin to catalyze acid-base reactions that will produce an enormous diversity of organic molecules. Not only that, but the nature of the system will produce a kind of chemical analogue to a "convection current," as the hydrothermal fluid will blast "spent" neutral chemicals out of the environment, allowing any cyclical chemical pattern to continue as it will allow the protons from the acidic ocean to continue flowing through, just as your mitochondria remove spent hydrogens by catalyzing the production of water.
I'm thrilled to live in a time where science is breaching the frontiers into the unimaginable! Maybe we should pause arguing about the religious consequences for a while. Just go blank and hear these nerds out first
@S0up3rD0up3r Makes them feel better about not being able to comprehend that things change. Over a long period of time, big changes happen, resulting in offshoots of a specific organism. It's that simple, yet they refuse to believe it.
@Melki Except love is a human defined unique emotion. It really has no relation to even other animals on this planet let alone what inanimate objects that could come "alive".
Very cool story! So the conclusion of finding life is related to only 3 things: 1. "evolvable stuff" (any matter in my opinion) 2. an energy source 3. and a liquid (to be able for matter to 'meet' and compete)
@GuyTM Its our lack of ability to discover lovely solutions that causes the tendency towards selfish solutions, and by classifying all lies as lies for everybody, we will get there.
As a Biochemist I am very impressed by this. I don't know how he will pull it off in 2 years, but I sure hope he does. The implications would be staggering.
Yet another case of Philosophy preceding Science in it's discoveries. Though this development is still very exciting because it moves the revelations of the illusion of life and of evolution (process of elimination) dictating all of existence from the realm of metaphysics and conjecture into the light of empirical fact.
@DukeTwicep Well the equation that governs this is not Drakes equation, simplistic though it is but rather Prices equation. Prices equation explains evolution by selective processes mathematically. It does not require the advent of 'organic' building blocks....just building blocks. However Prices equations are extremely complex and its only now with cloud computing and extremely powerful processors and GPU's that we could embark on emulating the procedure in software. I'd give it 6 months.
Evolution doesn't run on competition, Darwin's theory has been largely evolved itself beyond neodarwinian selfish genes, he should really take this more seriously. There are also considerations about what is life and is not that other scientists has already considered in larger contexts, as the Gaia theory. The most important seams to be the consequences of such technology can, an "intelligent", no-organic life friendly competitor? scary!
@Not1delusion I think without the dichotomies it would've been a really complicated lecture to follow. Narrowing the scope to "evolution could go either this way or that" helps to enrich the content since it's more focused. That being said he does use too many words like 'stuff' though.
@PoeticJustice05 The strongest, fastest, most intelligent cheetah will drop like a rock in the desert, and the most adaptable and resilient plants have none of those three characteristics. Fittest, in this context, means most suited; the sloth or snail is well suited to it's niche in the biosphere, regardless of weakness, lack of relative intelligence, and lack of speed.
Oh come one... When would people get a joke? :) Besides, I'm not saying that Dawkins is at a fault here. I just wanted to point out that inorganic abiogenesis is not THAT novel an idea. Regardless, the results shown in the talk are phenomenal to the advancement of the subject...
That, of course, is a far more plausible hypothesis. Furthermore, it may even be that such systems may have already have arisen. Unlike carbon based biology, however, they could not have progressed very far, the configurational options being very limited.
The advance of scientific research makes me positive about the future. And if it wasn't for the ignorant dogma we would know much more about the natural world by now.
@xjaskix c> It might sound petty and jaded as you say but this deformed and unscientific approach is all around us. It is damaging and does not promote true understanding. People should not be constantly fed with ideas that in science everything is under control. It is not. Allowing people to see how little we know and understand could motivate them better to take part in it. We still school legions of "experts" in economy, a "science" whose conclusion ends with "invisible hand". Not benign.
@AshrielDrummer I'm afraid you need to look up the word's definition in a dictionary if you find the inability to picture a universe without the gods unimaginative.
@tky011 You can also recognize that ideas matter. They give people comfort/guidance/perspective. The mere existence of the idea creates changes in mentality and behavioral patterns. Do you prove everything that you use in life? Is that actually a requirement before it becomes useful? How I came to my belief, I started trimming away from religion everything that already has an explanation. I'm left with only universal constants and a couple of other physics terms left. It seems created.
@kid29a That's why it's called a theory and he's working on proving it... These talks are not about facts that we already know, they are about thinking outside the box. You are not going to get a definitive answer or convincing argument in a 15 min clip.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The interesting question to me is "How does the universe possess such qualities?" This research is finding out what happens when you mix this and that, but I'd like to know how this happens, how these qualities exist in our universe. Where is the energy that is required for this to happen coming from? How is consciousness possible in this universe? How is thinking possible? If better thinking has evolved over time, when was the point when thinking began?
Also, my Pastor was a badass. He used Simpsons episodes to get principles across. He played games where you go and shoot everyone's left leg off. He was a man of good health that could read German, Hebrew, and some other historical languages. He explained the real reasons behind the "rules". Don't eat pork because you'll get worms. Don't covet what your neighbor has because the only way to get those items before mass manufacturing was to take it from him. Lying leads to mistrust.
in 2011 the distinguished scientist predicted that in about two years they will have it all figured out... well, it's 2022, roughly 11 years later... 9 years after the self-predicted deadline... there yet?
In russian language his talk qualifies as "yerunda" (baloney in some English-speaking countries). It reminds of a song by the italian singer Mina: Parole, parole, parole.
A lot of researchers are over - optimistic. Abiogenesis research has, despite your complaints, continued on and produced banger after banger. What does creationism have to show for itself, though?
@@peppermintgal4302 "continued on and produced banger after banger" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're hilarious
2024 and counting.Poor unfortunate souls 🔱
@@sharpie6888 you forgot to answer the question
@@rickdelatour5355 what question did I forget to answer?
Still waiting............ it's 2022
So, 11 years have passed and he's still giving promises he'll do it in 2 years...
This is something researchers in every field say. So what? Great strides are still being made by abiogenesis, none have EVER been made by creationism.
@@peppermintgal4302 creationists never claimed they would, lol. Btw, what strides specifically are u talking about?
@@antonivanov1351If creationism produces no results, it is not a practical theory, and should be disregarded.
Here's a tiny sample of results we have:
Geochemically produced nucleotides.
Geochemically produced sugars.
Geochemically produced amino acids.
Geochemically produced lipids.
Geochmically produced ATP and ATP analogues.
Various kinds of protocells with lifelike behavior, including protocells that can move up a maze towards resources.
Oh, and uhh... evolvable matter. Depending on your definition, that matter might even be alive. We made self replicating RNA molecules that then proceeded to evolve, when left alone, into some 7, interdependent strains, forming an entire ecosystem.
Meanwhile, creationists can't even solve the heat problem. Or even find oil! _Evolutionary_ theory, which abiogenesis depends on, can find oil and is used for just that all the time, meaning _it_ puts food on your plate.
@peppermintgal4302 and when they say and dont meet their target it is called FAILURE
@rkyeun
The probabilities I was referring to when it comes to quantum operations is not knowing the outcome of the system. There are many possible end-scenarios for a set of particles interacting, but there is no way to know the outcome in advance, we can only surmise the probability of it coming out in a certain state. On a plank's length- There are still conceptual ideas that have dimensions smaller than a plank's length, such as the de Broglie wavelength of a macroscopic object.
Mr. Bean at 13:31
We are in 2022. Still waiting....
So, it’s not been done yet…That however does not add credibility to the position of the scientifically illiterate faith-based-cult members who think that there is a credible alternative to abiogenesis.
Neither has anyone demonstrated that the supernatural exists, nor that is interferes with reality.
Whilst abiogenesis research has made a lot of progress over the last decade..…theists seem to be stuck at the same place ever since somebody invented the God…sorry, “intelligence” they happen to believe in.
@@derhafi yes, there is. intelligence is capable of creating blueprints, information transmission systems, and upon these, machines, assembly lines, energy turbines, and chemical factories. We know this, because , humans with intelligence, have created all these things. They exist on a molecular level, in each cell. Chance has never been demonstrated to have such capabilities. Therefore, it is rational to infer, that design is the more case-adequate explanation.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcomwell said
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom All systems contain information.
Let's say you have a flood break out because a natural reservoir up in a mountain eroded its way into a new valley, producing a new river flow. Let's say the flood waters are rushing towards a juncture. Down one channel, the water is destined to meet a sinkhole deep in the earth that leads to the ocean via underground pathways. Down the other is a dead-end, a valley that is surrounded on every other side by hills the water won't be able to climb over.
In this scenario, there's no way for the "water circuit" to know from the get go which way down the juncture the water should keep flowing. This information can't reach it from the destinations faster than light speed according to general relativity, and in fact, we can guess it won't reach any faster than the speed of waves in the water. And as a matter of fact, the destination must first _recieve_ information, in the form of the arrival of water, in order for a signal to be sent from there back to the juncture!
So what happens is, when the water collides with the walls at the end of the second channel, it builds up momentarily, (because water is still being pushed in by the juncture,) and this produces a backup, (literally water seems to go "back up" the channel. Now, no individual molecule necessarily goes far, but there is a sort of reverse wave that goes up the channel.) That backup eventually reaches the juncture, and soon after, the "circuit" of water stabilizes --- the water in the second channel ceases flowing, and the juncture largely supplies water only to the first channel.
Now, should we say that some kind of river God must have broken the reservoir to create this river, simply because the entire system calculates a stable flow rate for both channels, solving a mathemagical formula in the process?
No, that'd be silly, right?
The fact is, information is entropy. The amount of information necessary to describe the universe is constantly growing. That's because the universe is expanding, partly, but also because individual parts of it are growing more complex. This is a derivation of basic facts of statistics and the laws of large numbers. If every possible "microstate" (a state where nothing is unknown or unspecified, aka a state that is not vaguely described, but as specific as possible,) of the universe is almost equally likely, (and while I have no idea if they are, it's safe to say that any individual state should, not knowing anything of the universe beforehand, be roughly so,) then the most likely "macrostates" will be _large._ This means more metrics would be necessary to fill out the macrostate and give us a microstate. Those metrics are information. _Information is entropy!_
For more, I suggest reading up on Shannon Information Theory.
@@ZebecZT No, it's terribly said, lol. All things have mathematically definable metrics that apply to them, and ergo, contain information. Whether it's a river, or a flow of electrons through a lightning bolt, or a hurricane, or a star, whatever it is, it's state changes perform mathematical calculations. There is a reason people doubt that black holes are well described by our current theories, its because mathematically, singularities destroy information, and that seems like it should be impossible.
@MarkoKraguljac agreed, the use of the word "want" in reference to molecules is unfortunate.
There was a talk some time ago about genes, memes, and temes that had a much better description of life: Self replecating information. (imperfect replication of information then leads to evolution).
The speaker had organized it into tiers where genes (biologic entities) were the first replicator, memes (ideas) were the second, and temes (technologies) were the third. First tier could be other "hardware".
You do not need a container for something to compete, you need instability. The most stable RNA molecule would be the more fittest information carrier for example.
Then when the strain of the ultimate stable RNA molecule would have been created one can then imagine that the competition amongst these strains to adapt even further stability by adding proteins, lipids and whatnot to available as a sort of skeleton to prevent the molecule from deteriorating before it could be replicated.
Where did the rna came from? 😂😂
A Star is the most simpliest form of matter evolviing , it is the cells of the organism known as the galaxy
@TheYgds As a physicist considering a course in biocybernetics I've been awaiting this for some time now.... It seems to me that a life spent researching carbon structures is about to be demonstrated to me as a bad call...lol
I take the point about the timeframe...I mean seriously how is he going to research, produce and write this up in such a narrow window...unless he's already more than 50% there....and I haven't read a single thing about this in Nature recently... have you?
Interesting, I was thinking something similar a while back. I was thinking that sand could be evolutionary matter or other forms of grains as they join up to make different matter or bigger matter.
Another thing is I forgot what's it called but when the land changes due to continuous water fall.
@@proskillz2337
Sounds like emergence properties
I love it I have been studying evolution all my life on 76 and I just learned some very valuable information intelligent man
Matter already evolves. It is our perceptions that need to catch up.
WHY DON'T LET HIM TO THINK ABOUT HE DOES,,, HIS THOUGHTS ARE RESPECFULL
@MarkoKraguljac nah, it's common for scientists to speak of atoms/molecules/etc as having "wants" and so on. it makes it easier to understand what they do if you antropomorphize a little bit. and of course everyone knows atoms or molecules don't have personalities so it's a harmless way to describe things.
don't be so jaded.
Can you please make your videos 720P? Thanks
Excellent talk.
@GronTheMighty
Never would I say that we shouldn't research more. I only state that we have found physical limitations in many areas(plank's length, observable/non-observable universe, quantum entanglement), and there are still very many unanswered questions, like this recent neutrino velocity problem. Physics is an amazing field of study, but the question that drives me to belief isn't "how", but "Why?". Why do all of these constants line up to form the universe that operates and led to us?
more than 10 years had passed and we're still waiting for the first "evolvable matter" that this babbler was talking about let alone an artificial cell.
Lol
We made self replicating RNA molecules that do evolve, and in fact, evolved into an entire ecosystem. What is that but "evolvable matter"?
Yeah we can look for "change over time," which is evolution in matter. But how do we know the difference between change that is evolution and change that isnt evolution?
ALSO consider this. Evolution has no "goal." Evolution includes the survival of some properties while the elimination and change of others. So let me ask you this. How much of one thing is to survive and how much of one thing is to change for it to be considered evolution? What ratio?
Evolution is just a colloquial term.
@GronTheMighty
Because we're remarkably unique and interesting. We exist. If the universal constants were any different, we wouldn't. This machine consisting of all matter and energy managed to spit out something that could objectively view it. Something that could think and respond. We're pretty damn neat, and I like that we are here.
Unfortunately, the way in which this talk is presented can easily lead to fundamental misunderstanding.
I presume this is the fault of those who produced the talk rather than of the speaker himself.
Analysing carefully, all that Lee Cronin seems claiming is not that any other element than carbon is capable of allowing the very extensive and complex manifestations of biology that we observe, but rather that much simpler systems using other elements may prove to be evolvable.
I fail to see how by this guy's defenition biological cells and genes are somehow not matter. Also, great to see he's able to use inorganic components to build cells without carbon, but should he succeed in generating something that can replicate and evolve, the structures within it that hold and replicate information, the stuff that's actually evolving, could and should still be regarded as genes, Would be great to see what those would look like though :)
also, if you're planning on "setting things up" over the next two years, who or what set the unaccounted for soup?
"No soup for you", specifically,
until you take the next leap.
Given all the current theories on abiogenesis, and what we understand about the physics of the cosmos getting us from quarks to the periodic table and complex inorganic chemistry, is it not possible that the underlying driving forces of the Universe are not Evolution; but rather: Energy capture and utilization, ever-increasing complexity and differentiation, localized reduction of entropy.
Nobody ever laimed that the "underlying driving forces of the Universe" are "Evolution"
What are you even talking about?
Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”
Well...Dean Kenyon is also a young Earth creationist.
NObody should give a damn about whatever his opinion is.
How could ammonia (NH3), the precursor for amino acid synthesis, have accumulated on prebiotic earth, if the lifetime of ammonia would be short because of its photochemical dissociation?
How could prebiotic events have delivered organosulfur compounds required in a few amino acids used in life, if in nature sulfur exists only in its most oxidized form (sulfate or SO4), and only some unique groups of procaryotes mediate the reduction of SO4 to its most reduced state (sulfide or H2S)?
How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth?
How was the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products avoided? Etc etc
@@derhafi
Well I don’t think you know better.
@@michaelkuhn6195 yes its way to complex. All those questions are not addressed by fantasy science.
@@Esico6 You don't think I don't know the age of the earth better than an "young Earth creationist" ? Adorable!
@itsasin1969 I agree but your statement isn't sound. You said we can be certain that a X doesn't exist but I am certain that this particular X doesn't exist. If your premise is correct there is no way you can know if an X doesn't exist.
So in 2011 He said he's gonna make life in His lab in 4 years. it's 2022 still dead stuff in His lab.
So, it’s not been done yet…That however does not add credibility to the position of the scientifically illiterate faith-based-cult members who think that there is a credible alternative to abiogenesis.
Neither has anyone demonstrated that the supernatural exists, nor that is interferes with reality.
Whilst abiogenesis research has made a lot of progress over the last decade..…theists seem to be stuck at the same place ever since somebody invented the God…sorry, “intelligence” they happen to believe in.
We've made self reproducing RNA molecules, which have grown in complexity since then without intervention to form ecosystems.
@wachi03 The way he talks about it, he makes it sound like there is that stuff out there (carbon) that is inherently alive, but now he makes 'ordinary matter' alive as well.
There is an interesting (and important) talk to be given about how self-replicating molecules kick-started life, and one about how life might not need carbon, but this isn't it.
What about viruses? Wouldn't they be the smallest evolvable unit? They don't fall within the definition of "life" because they don't have cell membranes and require the use of living cells to replicate. They are made of DNA or RNA housed inside a protein coat and they compete with other viruses and other lifeforms. Maybe you should try to spontaneously generate new viruses, though you'd need to be careful about containment to avoid an outbreak.
@MumblingMickey, Geez I feel kind of sheepish by not putting in the rejoinder that I am an undergrad biochemist, I should not be so generous to myself with that. with that said to answer your question I have only read his paper on iCHELLS which is published in Angerwandte Chemie. So far he has only demostrated that be can form compartments. He has not yet published anything (to my knowledge) that could fill the role of instruction. As for metabolism, depends on what kind of metabolism is there.
@MarkoKraguljac
He's just being metaphorical, it's an anthropomorphic simplification so the audience can understand. No different than saying that magnets "want" to stick together, it's just how you express the nature of a force to lay people.
Besides, although we are intelligent our own selfishness, our "want" for survival doesn't come from that, rather it is our genes which are not self aware which are selfish, so it's perfectly valid to refer to genes as matter that wants its shape to win.
Make polysaccharide from scratch.
Make RNA from scratch.
Make a protein fron scratch.
Make a lipd from scratch.
Then we'll believe you.
Demonstrate something created by a divine or supernatural creator. Anything?
Anything at all?
@@rickdelatour5355 not equivalent
@@The_CrackedPot_Christian that’s one way to avoid answering. We’ve observed organic chemistry occurring naturally on dust particles in space. In fact everything we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces. Not once have we found a divine or supernatural cause for anything, ever. Based on these facts the logical default for the things we don’t yet completely understand is that they were likely formed by the same natural forces we observe creating complexity everywhere there is energy, at least until some evidence for an act of divine creation is found.
Got any?
'organic chemistry ': were not talking about chemicals that fit a laboratory labelling system that includes cyanide, tar or other poisonous deleterious disastrously bad for life chemicals, that would be anywhere equivalent to the building blocks of life; but rather highly specific, unstable, short 'life', chiral, complex, functional, large scale molecules that are the known , necessary building blocks for life.
Its like finding lumps of iron ore in an geometrical arrangement and concluding that's how the Eiffel tower developed. Where did the energy, precision, foreknowledge, complexity come from: heat and random movement, or intelligent work in a specific non natural environment with careful arrangement of the parts?
I have to deal with facts. Going from non chiral to chiral to obtain life is just a basic 'who dunnit question' that the very best OOL researchers cannot demonstrate with all the sophisticated tools or computing power.
The creative power of a divine being is not going to be proven under laboratory conditions. God isnt subject to our whims and standards of proof. It would be crazy to think the divine has to be proven to have knowledge that it is more likely than a big bang being the source of all life.
Just one lipid, one RNA, one oligonucleotide or oligosaccharide, please, from scratch and you might have grounds for your beliefs.
@@The_CrackedPot_Christian no my friend, sorry but you aren’t dealing with facts. The fact remains that materialism is the only creative force we have ever found operating in nature.
The building blocks for life have been found to form naturally, we can observe this. Complex, stable organic chemistry. We have learned so much in recent years, making it look like you aren’t keeping up. We have never found anything created by a god, ever. Why should we think a god is doing any creating? Since we see complexity arise naturally everywhere there is energy why should we think that a god is needed in the first place?
Smallest evolvable unit is not bacteria, it is simply a molecule made of several interconnected molecules that can spontaneously be copied by using the surrounding matter, id est self-replicating.
To take a few examples from the organisms in existens, there are many self-replicating molecules but the most famous of them are DNA. However other kinds of molecules like RNA and protein can also make copies of itself and I am sure there are other molecules.
the general rule is love, the inclination to keep on experiencing interactions forever. Life came about because its could contribute to love, because without life static stuff might be unsupportive of each other.
This man absolutely nuked religious fanaticism on ool. Completely made Dr J Tour, the frontman of christopseudoscientism, act like a lost small child without ad hominem statements. Such a smart man.
was absolutely the opposite 😂
@@gonzalo1465 You're wrong. Watch the Harvard event.
Tour is a discredited and disgraced scientist- and an utter embarrassment to academia.
how many atoms an average molecule has?
@TheFounderUtopia Adequate use of language and thought process are most important in science. Saying that magnets or genes "want" something is inexcusable distortion of reality and a great disservice to the though process of young people. Our human world consists of words and thoughts; the more they resemble relations from reality the more there will be traction for future discoveries. Saying things differently is not harder to understand but describes them better. Its a Mickey Mouse world now.
Well best of luck to him, but I fear none of us are going to live to see where this can go.
12 years and still nothing.
@AleXGT7 a lot of laws in this world, I say all of persistant laws that matter, are laws that initiate interactions after interactions or the exercising of laws over and over again. Our emotion follow this, to keep on experiencing interactions after interactions forever... so interactions that are not lovely is ruled out. So its not competition that preserve life or existence, its love. If living beings don't love, they'd stop creating laws, they'd die. What do you think? :)
Id go with the "Campbells soup theory!"...but I have a hunch it had something to do with lightning hitting that 'tide pool'
Evolution is indeed a process always in motion.
The price equation is indeed applied to more than evolution...its applied to meme theory, economics, engineering and design etc. So its not confined to biology.
Cronins idea is basically a study of Catalysis. I think you could easily apply the price equation to that if you mapped the properties of chemicals.
Although I accept it was not designed for that task.
@osemudiame123 you obviously didnt get the point of my comment. If i wanted to get specific i would've said that he thinks matter can replicate without nucleic acids. the point is that he thinks non organic molecules can carry replicable information and succeed in life in a stable way, which isn't true. proteins can't be made without carbon.
so you are saying that we're gonna mimik situations to grow life like we once had for ourselves?
where did the "soup" come from in the first place?
Result of random chemical combination
It's Campbell soup
They should try to make it able to do photosynsis like plants
@potaschlor
Some people extend the definition of life to accommodate them, but I think this in turn makes it all more murky. We thing we'd know life if we saw it, but would we?
@ehpl It's how nature works, it doesn't have to be how society works... and it isn't.
2011 he says he will make life in 2 years. Today is 2019, he makes elementary chemical computers
Yeah I think he got side tracked :P
We've made autocatalytic RNA that formed an entire ecosystem of interdependent strains in its own. It's debatable whether that constitutes life, sure, but it's definitely evolvable matter lol.
2:20 ball is life
the absurd idea brought to the table in this lecture is that any single molecule, organic or non, is fighting to replicate, if you even watched the lecture.. This chemist just wants attention, he's trying to lift some scientific heavy weights in front of a popular audience for attention. Anyone who's studied chemistry knows why molecules react and that isn't their end. Chemicals dont have minds, they have stabilities.
For a very broad interpretation of evolutionary processes which do indeed extend beyond biology, check out "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)
@MarkoKraguljac
I do see your point and I understand to a degree, but I think you are reading too much into it. I think it's an acceptable compromise to use anthropomorphizing as a tool to present a very simplistic overview of something you are mentioning in passing. One could say "compelled" rather than "want", but this begs the question of "how" which sidetracks the discussion and derails the original lecture. To not simplify is to be forced to address everything, there's a time and a place.
"The emergence of the first cells is as probably as the emergence of the stars."
Great observation!
The line between alive and non alive is very blurry, so the fire would be pretty much alive if it had a concrete body, for example he mentioned that he believes that alive things are "fires in a container"
I disagree and agree, matters such as air, rocks, are not slaves or dead, they are free beings keeping their discipline to support love, to have interactions to keep on happening. They are not dead things they are lovely beings, that had supported our existence and the growing of our way of thinking since our very beginnings. They are like our parents, sacrificed for us even when we are childish, selfish, cocky. Our source of expertise is from respecting them.
Jeez, this guy just basically rambled for 15 minutes.
@AshrielDrummer I hope to see more people like you around here.
I admit that he might have oversimplified some 'stuff' but if you wanna read about the real deal you should probably go to 'his' website: /chem.gla.ac.uk/cronin/
@gaiagale virtual things cannot control the universe you are saying?
Abiogenesis fails
Oh Tony...Did anone come up with a credible alternative to abiogenesis yet?
Neither has anyone demonstrated that the supernatural exists, nor that is interferes with reality.
Sorry but fictional scenarios are not an alternative to actual existing processes.
@@derhafi abiogenesis Chemical fantasy has nothing! and you have nothing but wishful thinking for it!
Experiments to produce the building blocks of life always begin with unnaturally pure, concentrated reagents. These are purchased from laboratory supply shops and produced through sophisticated, intelligently designed processes.
Where on a prebiotic Earth could you find high Concentrations of nucleotides? And all left handed Amino acids primed and ready to bond? Templates and designed pipettes to sequence exactly what is needed? chemical suppliers from which the researchers obtained their materials, which was not around prebiotically!!
Chemists achieve success by using manipulations and intelligence in their carefully guided experiments!
@@tonymaurice4157 You'll find a wide array of complex organic chemistry anywhere you find tar.
Like, say, an acidic ocean with hydrothermal vents. Such vents produce mineral chimneys that will begin to catalyze acid-base reactions that will produce an enormous diversity of organic molecules.
Not only that, but the nature of the system will produce a kind of chemical analogue to a "convection current," as the hydrothermal fluid will blast "spent" neutral chemicals out of the environment, allowing any cyclical chemical pattern to continue as it will allow the protons from the acidic ocean to continue flowing through, just as your mitochondria remove spent hydrogens by catalyzing the production of water.
I'm thrilled to live in a time where science is breaching the frontiers into the unimaginable!
Maybe we should pause arguing about the religious consequences for a while. Just go blank and hear these nerds out first
@xSilverPhinxx : what makes more sense that everything is created or that is just random and change :-) ????
@killer2111994 the front of the shot.
the rather suave and subtly irritated gentleman of arab extraction, with the goatee.
@S0up3rD0up3r Makes them feel better about not being able to comprehend that things change. Over a long period of time, big changes happen, resulting in offshoots of a specific organism. It's that simple, yet they refuse to believe it.
@Melki
Except love is a human defined unique emotion. It really has no relation to even other animals on this planet let alone what inanimate objects that could come "alive".
Love is produced by physiological processes that we share with a number of other animals. I take it you've never owned a pet?
Very cool story! So the conclusion of finding life is related to only 3 things:
1. "evolvable stuff" (any matter in my opinion)
2. an energy source
3. and a liquid (to be able for matter to 'meet' and compete)
@Melki get to have a peaceful sustaining and satisfying world
@GuyTM Its our lack of ability to discover lovely solutions that causes the tendency towards selfish solutions, and by classifying all lies as lies for everybody, we will get there.
As a Biochemist I am very impressed by this. I don't know how he will pull it off in 2 years, but I sure hope he does. The implications would be staggering.
Did he pull it off?
@@franciscopinto6394 still working on it, some great interviews very recently on Lex fridmans channel
@@issyjas3309 Thanks, just checked them.
@@franciscopinto6394 Probably won't. Life is clearly designed, evident by the genetic code.
@@franciscopinto6394 No he hasn’t. Look up James Tour for the truth about the complexity of the cell and life.
Yet another case of Philosophy preceding Science in it's discoveries. Though this development is still very exciting because it moves the revelations of the illusion of life and of evolution (process of elimination) dictating all of existence from the realm of metaphysics and conjecture into the light of empirical fact.
@DukeTwicep Well the equation that governs this is not Drakes equation, simplistic though it is but rather Prices equation. Prices equation explains evolution by selective processes mathematically. It does not require the advent of 'organic' building blocks....just building blocks.
However Prices equations are extremely complex and its only now with cloud computing and extremely powerful processors and GPU's that we could embark on emulating the procedure in software.
I'd give it 6 months.
@happinessfaction Im sure that's what he meant, it's well known even outside scientific circles thats it's adaptability what matters.
Evolution doesn't run on competition, Darwin's theory has been largely evolved itself beyond neodarwinian selfish genes, he should really take this more seriously.
There are also considerations about what is life and is not that other scientists has already considered in larger contexts, as the Gaia theory. The most important seams to be the consequences of such technology can, an "intelligent", no-organic life friendly competitor? scary!
@Not1delusion I think without the dichotomies it would've been a really complicated lecture to follow. Narrowing the scope to "evolution could go either this way or that" helps to enrich the content since it's more focused. That being said he does use too many words like 'stuff' though.
@xjaskix I think it's more of a language thing than actually ascribing personality to matter, though the two are linked.
@PoeticJustice05 The strongest, fastest, most intelligent cheetah will drop like a rock in the desert, and the most adaptable and resilient plants have none of those three characteristics. Fittest, in this context, means most suited; the sloth or snail is well suited to it's niche in the biosphere, regardless of weakness, lack of relative intelligence, and lack of speed.
@xSilverPhinxx : WHERE THE EGG CAME FROM :-) ????
I agree. I assume that it is because they will end up with organic life instead of inorganic, while mixing carbon and water will make it organic
2013 here we come
Oh come one... When would people get a joke? :) Besides, I'm not saying that Dawkins is at a fault here. I just wanted to point out that inorganic abiogenesis is not THAT novel an idea. Regardless, the results shown in the talk are phenomenal to the advancement of the subject...
That, of course, is a far more plausible hypothesis. Furthermore, it may even be that such systems may have already have arisen. Unlike carbon based biology, however, they could not have progressed very far, the configurational options being very limited.
The advance of scientific research makes me positive about the future. And if it wasn't for the ignorant dogma we would know much more about the natural world by now.
does anyone else see a zombie apocalypse coming from this?
@xjaskix c> It might sound petty and jaded as you say but this deformed and unscientific approach is all around us. It is damaging and does not promote true understanding. People should not be constantly fed with ideas that in science everything is under control. It is not. Allowing people to see how little we know and understand could motivate them better to take part in it. We still school legions of "experts" in economy, a "science" whose conclusion ends with "invisible hand". Not benign.
This is "the thing" that was discovered this month in the 🐍
iCHELLS
@AshrielDrummer
I'm afraid you need to look up the word's definition in a dictionary if you find the inability to picture a universe without the gods unimaginative.
@itsasin1969 I can't believe your comment got so many up votes.... awesome.
@tky011
You can also recognize that ideas matter. They give people comfort/guidance/perspective. The mere existence of the idea creates changes in mentality and behavioral patterns.
Do you prove everything that you use in life? Is that actually a requirement before it becomes useful?
How I came to my belief, I started trimming away from religion everything that already has an explanation. I'm left with only universal constants and a couple of other physics terms left. It seems created.
@killer2111994 the front of the shot.
the rather suave and subtly irritated gentleman of arab extraction.
@gaiagale although we are now here today because it did. That is what many theorists are basing their life work off of.
@kid29a
That's why it's called a theory and he's working on proving it... These talks are not about facts that we already know, they are about thinking outside the box. You are not going to get a definitive answer or convincing argument in a 15 min clip.
The closet thing to life he ever synthesized was snake-oil.
"A bacteria" I think you mean a bacterium, bacteria is the plural form of the word.
Thank God!
He doesn't know that we "came from stuff on planet Earth." We could have come from some sort of cosmic life...
@billyg89 what's your point? most living things don't have minds
@AustralianAllTheWay In that case, they should have considered inviting someone fully capable of speech to talk about it.