@@TheBiggreenpig *"This is more like the basement near a hot pipe."* ... Many have claimed the same, ... and after that, you don't ask why. You just don't argue anymore.
"I find this incredibly interesting because it supports my confirmation bias" -- Great line! I'm curious if you do all of your own script writing, or have some staff to write part of it. In either case, bravo! It reminds me of a line about astrology, "I'm a Virgo, but because Virgos tend to be the more logical sort, I don't believe in astrology."
I remember Sabine being asked this question years ago, and she said her staff helps write the scripts but she writes all the jokes. However my memory is so poor these days that may or may not be true. I guess the joke may be on me.
I’m working on research to build on this paper!! I’ve been spending a lot of time with their supplementary data. Super exciting to see a mention Moody et. al. in your channel! Great work breaking it down
Here’s a research idea to build off of this: genetically modify the closest living relative to luca to create luca that has the genes and metabolic pathways discussed.
@ Unfortunately almost all organisms have a very distant taxonomic (phylogenetic) relation to the LUCA. There are additional complications that make it not super feasible… HOWEVER, there is a project similar to your idea, but not exactly the same, if you wanna check it out. It’s called the minimal genome project and it is a long running project by the JC Venter Institute to determine the minimal genome required for an organism to operate. It has been published on fairly recently and it certainly gets at the origin of life question, albeit a little orthogonally
@@hover-eb1hx Extremophiles would be a good taxa to do this research on. Many are prokaryotic. Plus some of the alga forms are single cellular even though they are quite visible.
Sabine, please make more of bio related content (only if you can). Really love stuff from bio field which are a hot topic atm, but I still need to find channels like yours who cover new studies in the field of biology.
If you haven't seen it yet, AronRa has a 50 episodes series retracing the phylogeny of humans all the way from LUCA, it's fascinating (even though some of the information has become a bit outdated).
We seem to forget the massive amount of parallel processing that took place by trillions and trillions of (pre-)organisms trying different things over millions of years and combining their results.
Early Earth didn't have any oceans besides lava ones. Even lakes took a while to form. There also was no reliable exchange of properties before sexual reproduction, which can only occur in already very developed organisms.
Doesn't horizontal gene transfer mean that there might not have been one common ancestor? Instead different ancestor microorganisms might have shared many genes, making it look like one common ancestor.
This story is about the common ancestor that everything currently living shares. Naturally, that common ancestor would've had other ancestors, but those wouldn't be common to us.
(I am not a biologist) With horizontal gene transfer, and recent discoveries how virus-like forms can transfer genetic material between species, I would have thought that some genes could have developed later and eventually spread through the entire population of living organisms - how unlikely is that? Then LUCA could have been much simpler than what this paper suggests, as certain genes would appear and spread later
You are correct. Just like every human alive today doesn't just descend from a single ancestor (or though many ancestors are the ancestors of all humans alive today) because of genetic recombination, some kind of reproductive process like bacterial conjugation would mean there wouldn't be a single common ancestor.
I’m sure you have often been complimented on your excellent English and - my personal delight - your dry sense of humour, Sabine. But for a ‘foreigner’ to be au fait with the ‘Oxford comma’? Now that IS special.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
This is a topic near and dear to me, thanks for covering it. I've always found it fascinating that life happened so early, however multicellular creatures took billions of year, probably waiting for Oxygen to build up in the atmosphere.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Thank you, Sabine. You seem to enjoy entertaining others very much. I much appreciate your sly sense of humor. Oh yeah, and I also appreciate the things I learn from you.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Dr James Tour states the origin of life cannot have taken a long time, it had to happen within hours or days to survive, and the more we discover concerning complexity the less likely we evolved in that manner.
@@davidutullakatos637 Dr Tour's point is that if DNA and RNA were formed abiogenetically, they would quickly be decomposed by water. Therefore - he would say - if life formed in this way, it would have had to have happened very quickly, before the molecules fell apart. And if that seems impossible, then abiogenesis is impossible.
@davidutullakatos637 time is the enemy in any of the proposed processes in Abiogenesis. For example, the process that leads to carbohydrate synthesis also leads to the destruction of the same molecules unless the process (the (cannizaro reaction) is stopped, which nature doesn't know how to do. If you've ever made caramelized onions and forgot to get them out of the pan or if you've ever burnt a batch of cookies you've seen the result. Nature has no way of terminating the reaction. In OoL research. only the intervention of a chemist stops the reaction if timed correctly. If not the reaction continues producing garbage, which, by the way, is what the Urrey Millar experiment produced. Time is the enemy. The current favored model is the RNA World hypothesis. RNA is a very fragile molecule. When you purchase RNA from a chemical company, unless you store it at subarctic temperatures (-70° C), it won't last long. In a pristine lab environment, at room temperatures, RNA might last as long as 2 days.
That's a good point. There may have been million/billions of possible combinations that were not stable enough to persist, but once a stable combination occurred to persist it would have just continued and pushed through quickly. . Underlying explanation is far more complex than a YT comment though :)
@ Because the components for life break down in a matter of hours. The theory that evolution took millions of years fails because what is necessary is hours/days.
This situation reminds me of the fact that freshwater fish originally colonized freshwater, developed the ability to osmoregulate (control the amount of water compared to solute in their tissues compared to the surrounding water) then recolonized the ocean, and now almost all ocean-going fish are descended from freshwater ancestors that could osmoregulate, so LUCA was likely not the only life system present during the time when DNA and RNA competed with who knows what else
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Molecular self-assembly started life on earth, with 1) modular and scalable ingredients, 2) conditions, 3) massive parallelism, 4) deep time, and 5) mutation and adaptation (and obviously only what works survives). Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, in that order. Now a bunch of us languaged primates wonder "What the hell happened ?". Good thing we have alot more 'puzzle pieces' collected now to begin seeing the picture.
"and obviously only what works survives" Tingles at my biology level in that order somewhat :) . Do you see some form of emergence of complexity where "stability" persists? Do you have a view on the balance of order and disorder (chaos) from which and how that stability emerges? Do you think stability always contains some small amount of uncertainty in that stability? (Although stable and persistent, not 100% guaranteed to remain stable or persist.)
It's fun to realize that in the end we are all family.... I wonder how a family reunion would look like if all of us went to Germany to visit our cousin, Sabine... 😂
I agree, great joke. Also leads to an observation about the seeding hypothesis. It would be quite the thing if they made it here to see us. Their civilization would now be 4.2 billion years older now.
the 00:03:26 type "vvvx vx d aa" shakes head, then adjusts microscope by 50,000 microns and proceeds to "fcxz c sadagds" just makes my brain hurt hahaha
Life began so fast that there’s no calculable beginning and no predictable end. It can be considered an undisturbable cycle that has differentiation incorporated within but ultimately results in the same outcome.
This is great. Just makes me to continue to think that there's a continuous abiogenesis process that occurs. The reason we don't see these early proto-life systems around the place is because they're consistently outcompeted by more sophisticated living systems now. Once more sophisticated mechanisms are in place, they rule the roost. The idea of abiogenesis as a single event seems so much more implausible in the face of the continuous idea. Especially when you consider environments like hydrothermal vents or deep underground where the right chemistry could still be present, the evolving complexity chain still active (albeit outcompeted once that becomes a factor). It makes me wonder: what actually marks the point where competition becomes a factor? Maybe that’s the real divide between life and non-life. Systems that actively compete for "evolutionary space" might effectively cut off new generations from forming within the same "process lineage", creating a kind of bottleneck for abiogenesis in an established biosphere. In that sense, the emergence of competition might define the transition from mere complexity to what we consider life.
It has proven impossible to demonstrate abiogenesis in pristine laboratory conditions. What makes you think that life "just happens" in hostile environments? I suggest you look up Professor James Tour for his take on OOL research.
"The idea of abiogenesis as a single event seems so much more implausible in the face of the continuous idea". Correct, but this absurdity is the credo and main dogma of all materialists and neo-darwinists.Nowadays they even blindly accept the notion of "self-organization" without realizing that the very word "self" destroys their belief.
The early atmosphere and sea was quite different though, and not only would novel life be outcompeted I would be eaten before it would even be able to properly live. If you are interested I could explain the argument more.
The issue is how evolved LUCA seems to be. An organism that complex would exist in an ecosystem with many other different species but all life on Earth descends from only one. You would expect some other species to survive in specific niches, It is like if all animals on Earth were descendants from rats. You would expect the common ancestor of all animals to be some simple organism with simpler organs and tissues but then finding out it is actually an already complex organism turn that notion through the window.
There's a lot of assumptions we cannot overlook in this methodology. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) for instance can never be ruled out. This hypothesis basically assumes vertical gene transfer alone. Genes themselves can jump around the genome in real time; these are called transposons. For me, it's less about finding some common ancestor than asking why genes form out of base elements at all. What as yet undiscovered *force of nature* is causing this to happen?
Gene transfer is only likely if the organisms are closely related. Nucleic acids being quite complex, even if proto-life happened easily (an unlikely assumption), it is unlikely to have evolved the same structure. Even less likely is the same 3-base codon transcription. Which means, the organisms which swapped genes very likely had the same ancestor.
Denis Noble makes a lot more sense. Bottom-up intelligent design is the missing link. Societies of farmers / scientists at the inter and intra cellular level speeds things up compared to pure natural selection (like how our immune system works).
Fred hoyle and chandra wickramasinghe wrote a very interesting book decades ago but no one liked the idea that life might have come from space rather than be: (A) due to unique evolution or, (B) God. Another interesting video and I'll share! Thank you.
If you believe in math, I'm afraid you owe me a banana. 2.75 million base pairs in a structured fashion, with complexity doubling every 400 million years or so, require 4 billion years to come about from a 2.7k complexity precursor. Considering the simpler beginnings, that's a low estimate.
There's the belief that the universe is alive. Not that science could prove it with its mechanical viewpoint. Fun fact, scientists are sending probes throughout the solar system in order to find life, while science hasn't been able to scientifically prove that there's life on earth. 😉
Thank you for the link. I am reading the paper while I play your video in another tab with the sound off. Better to just study the original research, but you deserve algorithm credit.
Because so far all the faces and buildings and canals on Mars have, on closer inspection with much more detailed photography, turned out to be natural geological formations, not faces, buildings and canals.
One of my questions about biology is: Why was there such a wide gap of time between the origin of living cells, and the Cambrian explosion? My current best guess is that cells were locked in a sort of stale-mate killing field between left handed amino acids, and right handed. If cells attempt to make use of amino acids that are the opposite hand to themselves, it will disrupt the protein folding, and the cell stops working. It would have been an evolutionary coin flip on whether the amino acids were left handed or right handed for a very long time until left handed won out just through chance.
I think the journey to Luca was 100x more tricky than from Luca to Sabine. Yet people regard Luca as origin? No way. Once we have Luca the whole question of origin has already been solved.
Not necessarily, it is completely conceivable that it happened in just a few years although more likely it took a couple of thousand but that is still just a blip in geological time.
@@peters972 nope, before 4.4 billion years ago life on earth almost certainly was impossible and by 3.5 billion years we already have fossils. Most models assume life to be properly going by 3.8 billion years ago. The study Sabine here discusses, calculates about 4.2 billion year. All current science estimates Origin to LUCA took less then a billion year, quite a bit less in fact, maybe as little as 1 million year.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Fascinating. I find the statement "If something can happen then it will if given enough time." Perhaps this is true but I wonder if it is true in our universe where events and things tend to repeat events over and over instead of trying every possibility.
Thanks Sabine. I do find the level of complexity quite interesting :) > I don't really find the complexity surprising, but interesting that they have found more confirmation of it. I suspect complexity emerges far more readily/easily than some would expect. Random is not as random as we may think. And infinite possibility not as large as we may thing (with regards to the chance of emergence of stability).
"Random is not as random as we may think". Randomness has never been an issue outside the belief of the materialists and Neo-darwinists. It is simplicity that emerges from a universe that is complex at its quantum level through its natural laws and constants.
something no one ever said to me: if we're made of "deoxyribonucleic acid" then we are acid. WE ARE ACID." the point of life is to dissolve stuff 🤔🤷♂️
You do not understand acids, apparently. OR cellular mechanisms. We have both acids and bases within us, in different places performing different functions. There are about a million different chemical reactions going on in each of your cells at any one instant.
This brings to mind the possibility that four billion years ago there were multiple branches of life with different structures and biochemistries and only the LUCA organism succeeded in populating the world.
It's possible that once life appears somewhere, it rapidly takes over the environment, monopolizing the available resources and precluding further abiogenetic events. If this is true, it means that life starts (relatively) easily, but it only starts once in any given location.
@@eljcd No, because then all life would not have a common ancestor - there would be other ancestors that died off. The implication is that the first organism had no competition and eventually deprived all environments of conditions that could *one day*, have lead to competitive organisms. Another way to look at it is: If the 'first ever organism' was a rare event, the 'second ever organism' would have to deal with the same conditions PLUS a competitor with a head start. Imagine starting a game of monopoly after 1 player got tens of thousands of years going around the board.
AFAIK the leading theorem is that at some point between the big bang and now, for a long while, the whole universe was a perfect place for life to thrive and probably that was when the evolution started. When the liquid water filling the universe cooled and evaporated, the whole process froze for billions of years and basically just continued from that ancient game save, not from scratch, when finally starts and planets had a chance to from.
A lot of ppl here are suggesting that life evolved in different locations across earth and thrived or that it ate the competition...but the hard and inconvenient truth is that at this point we are stuck with a single moment...a single origin of all life and that it has never been replicated anywhere over hundreds of millions of years... Not a single new event in a lab or nature....ever
Good vid, MD for 30 years, undergrad Biochemistry (now called Molecular Biology) at MIT and University of Texas, Austin. I know this is out of your area of expertise but well done.
Weather scientists can’t even predict the weather in a day or two and now you expect us to believe that you are able to reliably tell us what happened as several “billion years ago”. And then you throw in alien life forms. Sounds quite miraculous and fantastic
@@Aanthanur these days scientific theories sound about as fantastic as the Bible. And trying to talk to a scientific zealot is about as pointless as trying to talk to a religious zealot so yeah 🤷🏻♀️ I studied process control, applied science and mathematical modeling so not exactly sure what you are trying to imply there or who’s battle you are fighting. Defending the Gods of Science maybe 😂😂
Using hydrogen is just a simple principle that it's much easier to build something from elementary building blocks than to use more complex structures as building blocks. Think of it as you had to build house and you could use bricks or parts of broken wall
@@ListenToMcMuck Extremophiles live also in environments highly unlikely to support any lifeform. Yet, here they are, to the shock of orthodox biologists of that time ( a few decades ago). Like the shock geologists got when they realized that "crazy" (and extremely bullied) Wegener was right all along.
The mention of auto catalytic cycles rand true with me. I've often felt that everything has natural selection properties and that complexity grew continuously before RNA by means of autocatalysis within pockets of organic chemicals associating with minerals.
Fascinating to say the least! The fact that these early lifeforms resemble prokaryotes alone is outstanding and surprising. It also confirms my bias that life is some sort of inevitable part of the chemical makeup of the universe -- that there is "intelligence" of some form in almost every aspect of our universe to some degree. Michael Levin's work on this field in particular seems to be a bounty of new insights into the electrical intelligence of molecules in general.
I wish I could remember where/when I read this: as a mixture of water and organic compounds freeze, the organic compounds are concentrated down into small, stable pockets. These small pockets are like cells with ice walls. Even at super cold temperatures, there remains liquid water in the pockets due to the high concentration of organic compounds. These pockets help drive the organic chemistry. Think comets, which could be stable environments for billions of years of evolution.
A lot of the biogenesis theories sound plausible until you dig deeper and find again that it's mathematically impossible no matter how you look at it and it's not even close.
@@jankram9408 mathmatically impossible lol??? Its impossible to calculate all the possible chemical interactions. sounds like you dont actually know anything about this subject🤣
@@jankram9408 I don't think any mathematician would even know where to start in the analysis ? Mathematicians don't believe in quantum mechanics for starters.
There are lots of ways of concentrating compounds and diluting them again and cycling things. Like a fresh water pond that dries up and then floods from rain and then floods from an ocean tide at a different time etc. Since there is no other life, this new startup life has no competitors or predators. It wouldn't even need a cell membrane. This is something I notice about all these hypothesis and ideas floating around, they want to create a cell membrane and feel it must be necessary. But why , if you have no competition ? A whole swamp could be like one cell with RNA floating around autocatalyzing itself ? There has to be a way for this to start up that is not that complicated. There was no very complicated processes going on , on the earth just simple processes but lots of them. The task is now to figure out which combination of them were the magical combination. I think it is just a matter of time until someone or AI figures it out. Just far too many combinations to figure this out in a short time. This magical combination must have also been wide spread to allow lots of time for initial evolution and it was probably the only way to start things up.
Thomas Gold wrote the deep hot biosphere: H2 gets eaten by some archai bacteria and converted to oil, but also the origin of life is beneath the surface (surface life might be rare in the universe), panspermea is likely, and rocketships might be meteorites. Like your video's (on quantum and academia ;)
Thank you for this video Sabine! I spat my coffee several times at your witty commentary! This is a fascinating subject that you have made very entertaining- thank you Ma’am 😂👏👏👏👏
Kurzgesagt-In a Nutshell has a nice video called Ancient Life as Old as the Universe, explaining the hypothesis that life was not created on Earth but somewhere else. That would explain why life appears so complex so early on. Mindblowing!
As always, very interesting. So thanks, Sabine. Two things: 1. Bravo for mentioning "auto-catalytic molecular cycles." I think that's a key point for abiogenesis. 2. You said 0.5 billion years is not a long time for LUCA to develop. Really? 0.5 billion years is a loooong time, I think.
Hi @carl4543. Perhaps. But if LUCA was present at 0.5m yr, then there must have been at least some water by then, which increases the possibility that there must have some water long before then. And anyway, 250m yr, say, is also still a loooong time.
These "open problems" in biology always seem to be "Things that aren't humans are more complex than we assumed." They don't seem like actual problems, because they don't actually contradict any of our theories, just our unjustified assumptions.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. Problem, reaction, solution -- the Hegelian dialectic.
Life has to be common throughout the universe in either case. Either life formed very quickly after earth cooled down, meaning it would be quick to form elsewhere, too. Or it was seeded here from the outside, meaning life would have to be plentiful elsewhere for it to arrive here so quickly after the cooling.
The third option is some alien intelligence (possibly from a much older planet), was involved - it might make sense for them to wait just long enough for the planet to be viable, but not any longer, if their plan was to "seed" the planet, or something along those lines. No idea why they would but oh well.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Or maybe there is only one planet with life and we were extremely lucky, or it was no luck at all and god made the impossible happen.
@@justaguy3518 We haven't really looked very hard so far. And the Viking Mission on Mars in the 70s actually found evidence for life, but NASA decided to play it safe and ascribe it to measurement errors. J.M. Godier did a video on it just recently.
The obvious limitation here is that all sorts of subsystems would have already had to be operational for “Luca” to exist. Where did all that sub-assembly stuff come from? Unless you postulate an extra-terrestrial origin you have a lot more to discover.
My confirmation BIAS is that life actually sprouted twice here. We had simple organisms that resembled Archea with self-catalytic reactions and enough of a protomenbrane. But the Bacteria arrived from Theia's impact creating the moon. Meaning that life would have found a way to survive despite complete planetary destruction and the very very early formation of Earth and the planets.
If the Big Bang was 13.8 billion years ago and Luca is estimated at 4 billion years ago … there really isn’t much time for alien life to evolve, travel the vastness of space and seed itself here. If aliens exist, it is probably more likely that we evolved independently.
Star systems get close all the time. Things crash into one another all the time. It's well possible that a water moon/planet with life could have existed in another star system and spread life to Earth when the two systems came too close.
One way to get a common ancestor this complex is if it's the lone survivor of a mass extinction event. Life may well have originated around deep ocean vents, but that same life would have had the best chance to survive a massive asteroid collision.
Might life have formed in the huge water chambers that exist below us, and percolated up, rather than falling from the sky? I saw on Anton's wonderful channel that there is a huge bunch of caverns and underground spaces that holds more water than exists on the surface combined.
@bozo5632 Yes sir, the majority of sources before 2024 will tell you what the percentages of total water on Earth are, and the in the soil portion is very low. However, new studies have resulted in a reformulation of the ratios, and shockingly, about three times as much water as we thought existed on Earth exists under the ground. Brighter Side News had an article by Paul Shavit that synopsised the new findings so that even a non-scientist like me could wrap my head around the new facts.
@bozo5632 New studies indicate that we only knew about one fourth of the water that Earth contains. There is three times as much as we thought there was total underground. These results have only been available short time, so resources that list water distribution on and in the Earth still list the pre-discovery ratios.
Hydro Thermal vents are not likely when they are underwater. No protein can form in water from amino acids as the lifespan is less than 36 hours so complex proteins could never fold and become useful. Plus the amino acids have to be all left handed and the chance of any amino acid chain connecting all being left handed in the numbers needed is not possible as the chances are astronomical against that happening by chance.
Only the amino acids and proteins formed by DNA have that property. They may have replaced more chaotic earlier life forms bit by bit over billions of years, after DNA came about. Clay, lipids etc. seem to be friendlier to amino acids. A mud lake with thermal vents, lots of different deposits on the shores etc. might be what we are looking for.
@@carl4543 The entire LUCA premise does not allow billions of years of development. The LUCA ancestor idea has this complex life form after only a couple of hundred millions of years. This is the major reason ardent evolutionists hate the LUCA idea because the evolutionists do not want to give away the billions of years to evolve premise.
(2:25) *_"LUCA might have lived there."_* ... According to Suzanne Vega, LUCA lived on the second floor.
This is more like the basement near a hot pipe.
:D :D :D
@@TheBiggreenpig *"This is more like the basement near a hot pipe."*
... Many have claimed the same, ... and after that, you don't ask why. You just don't argue anymore.
It was young. Getting up stairs was easier.
And no, she's never seen us before.
"I find this incredibly interesting because it supports my confirmation bias" -- Great line! I'm curious if you do all of your own script writing, or have some staff to write part of it. In either case, bravo!
It reminds me of a line about astrology, "I'm a Virgo, but because Virgos tend to be the more logical sort, I don't believe in astrology."
I remember Sabine being asked this question years ago, and she said her staff helps write the scripts but she writes all the jokes. However my memory is so poor these days that may or may not be true. I guess the joke may be on me.
Hey, I appreciate honesty lol
It's bad luck to be superstitious.
Came to the comments specifically to applaud that line but you beat me to it. 👏
Confirms my idea about how pernicious confirmation bias is.
As a member of astrobiology society i appreciate this video as very informative and friendly to people not from the topic. GJ Sabine, as usuall :)
I’m working on research to build on this paper!! I’ve been spending a lot of time with their supplementary data. Super exciting to see a mention Moody et. al. in your channel! Great work breaking it down
Here’s a research idea to build off of this: genetically modify the closest living relative to luca to create luca that has the genes and metabolic pathways discussed.
@ Unfortunately almost all organisms have a very distant taxonomic (phylogenetic) relation to the LUCA. There are additional complications that make it not super feasible… HOWEVER, there is a project similar to your idea, but not exactly the same, if you wanna check it out. It’s called the minimal genome project and it is a long running project by the JC Venter Institute to determine the minimal genome required for an organism to operate. It has been published on fairly recently and it certainly gets at the origin of life question, albeit a little orthogonally
@@hover-eb1hx Have you tried looking into extremophiles?
@@hover-eb1hx Extremophiles would be a good taxa to do this research on. Many are prokaryotic. Plus some of the alga forms are single cellular even though they are quite visible.
Sabine, please make more of bio related content (only if you can). Really love stuff from bio field which are a hot topic atm, but I still need to find channels like yours who cover new studies in the field of biology.
Ditto, or talk to a like minded bio-related scientist. ☺️
Even you played the non scientist member of public asking questions.
My name is Luca. I live on the second floor.
But do you smell like the funky monkey?
OK, GenXer. 😂
Why do do you live on the second floor?
@@emmapeel4259 The bartender does.
😂😂😂😂
I remember this screensaver. Brings back memories of simpler, better times
"It supports my confirmation bias" lol I love your sense of humor @Sabine
The beginning of this video Is no shock. Every living thing you look at can inspire insight of yourself in one way or another.
Ah yes
The ressemblance with virus is striking
If you haven't seen it yet, AronRa has a 50 episodes series retracing the phylogeny of humans all the way from LUCA, it's fascinating (even though some of the information has become a bit outdated).
We seem to forget the massive amount of parallel processing that took place by trillions and trillions of (pre-)organisms trying different things over millions of years and combining their results.
Large numbers of extinction with that, too.
Early Earth didn't have any oceans besides lava ones. Even lakes took a while to form. There also was no reliable exchange of properties before sexual reproduction, which can only occur in already very developed organisms.
Do you have references to support such a theory? How do you get from zero to 2.75mb functional inter working information with such a mechanism?
@@PrairieChristianOutreach No, it will need someone much smarter than me to work it out.
@@bignicebear2428 That’s where I stand on this issue. I think we are so far from an answer. Fascinating search however.
I don’t feel so special anymore 😢 Danke Sabine.
Doesn't horizontal gene transfer mean that there might not have been one common ancestor? Instead different ancestor microorganisms might have shared many genes, making it look like one common ancestor.
This story is about the common ancestor that everything currently living shares.
Naturally, that common ancestor would've had other ancestors, but those wouldn't be common to us.
Wouldn’t that imply that multiple appeared in a very short window to each other? It seems less likely, idk
(I am not a biologist) With horizontal gene transfer, and recent discoveries how virus-like forms can transfer genetic material between species, I would have thought that some genes could have developed later and eventually spread through the entire population of living organisms - how unlikely is that?
Then LUCA could have been much simpler than what this paper suggests, as certain genes would appear and spread later
You are correct. Just like every human alive today doesn't just descend from a single ancestor (or though many ancestors are the ancestors of all humans alive today) because of genetic recombination, some kind of reproductive process like bacterial conjugation would mean there wouldn't be a single common ancestor.
Yes of course, no one is saying there was ONE universal common ancestor, we are specifically talking about the LAST universal common ancestor.
Thanks for your program. Appears to get better over time.
I’m sure you have often been complimented on your excellent English and - my personal delight - your dry sense of humour, Sabine. But for a ‘foreigner’ to be au fait with the ‘Oxford comma’? Now that IS special.
Agreed!!
This is where life began! "shows post-apocalyotic hellscape"
LOL!!!
If we came from hell, what does that say about us? 😂😂
@@elfeiin This is still hell.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle).
Bi-stability implies duality.
Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle.
Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring.
The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
This is a topic near and dear to me, thanks for covering it. I've always found it fascinating that life happened so early, however multicellular creatures took billions of year, probably waiting for Oxygen to build up in the atmosphere.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle).
Bi-stability implies duality.
Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle.
Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring.
The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
"Using the Oxford comma is more common in US English than UK English."
I might have known 🏴 Colour me surprised.
There is no gravitational lensing around Cygnus X-1, and, nobody peer reviewed Einstein.
It works.
Best science communication with German humor and genuine information in a short amount of time is Sabine. Thanks
💯
We Germans are well known for not having any humour.
The issue is that Sabine's humour is English, not German.
German humor is turning off 25% of electric power at nuclear plants. Hilarious practical joke. So "green." Get it?
@@tomhejda6450 She´s an international treasure
1:05 "they only hit until you cry, after that you don't ask why..."
Ms. H is a hoot. Funny and clever. Most of her dummied down presentations go over my head, but I still go through the videos for good laughing.
Thank you, Sabine. You seem to enjoy entertaining others very much. I much appreciate your sly sense of humor. Oh yeah, and I also appreciate the things I learn from you.
Aliens: we sent our best bacterium & all we get in return is a bunch of bickering monkeys, demanding more bananas & trying to kill us....
Greetings from Zeta Reticuli 👽
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle).
Bi-stability implies duality.
Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle.
Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring.
The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Good vid & discussion
"We all descended from LUCA." Not me. I sprung forth, fully formed, from the head of Zeus.
You hope. lol
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle).
Bi-stability implies duality.
Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle.
Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring.
The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
In Oxford comma spirit: @1:44 "2657 of them, much more than any previous study". The Oxford alumni would be much more pleased with "many more". ;-)
Dr James Tour states the origin of life cannot have taken a long time, it had to happen within hours or days to survive, and the more we discover concerning complexity the less likely we evolved in that manner.
And why would it need to take specifically a short time
@@davidutullakatos637 Dr Tour's point is that if DNA and RNA were formed abiogenetically, they would quickly be decomposed by water. Therefore - he would say - if life formed in this way, it would have had to have happened very quickly, before the molecules fell apart. And if that seems impossible, then abiogenesis is impossible.
@davidutullakatos637 time is the enemy in any of the proposed processes in Abiogenesis. For example, the process that leads to carbohydrate synthesis also leads to the destruction of the same molecules unless the process (the (cannizaro reaction) is stopped, which nature doesn't know how to do. If you've ever made caramelized onions and forgot to get them out of the pan or if you've ever burnt a batch of cookies you've seen the result.
Nature has no way of terminating the reaction. In OoL research. only the intervention of a chemist stops the reaction if timed correctly. If not the reaction continues producing garbage, which, by the way, is what the Urrey Millar experiment produced.
Time is the enemy. The current favored model is the RNA World hypothesis. RNA is a very fragile molecule. When you purchase RNA from a chemical company, unless you store it at subarctic temperatures (-70° C), it won't last long. In a pristine lab environment, at room temperatures, RNA might last as long as 2 days.
That's a good point. There may have been million/billions of possible combinations that were not stable enough to persist, but once a stable combination occurred to persist it would have just continued and pushed through quickly.
.
Underlying explanation is far more complex than a YT comment though :)
@ Because the components for life break down in a matter of hours. The theory that evolution took millions of years fails because what is necessary is hours/days.
This situation reminds me of the fact that freshwater fish originally colonized freshwater, developed the ability to osmoregulate (control the amount of water compared to solute in their tissues compared to the surrounding water) then recolonized the ocean, and now almost all ocean-going fish are descended from freshwater ancestors that could osmoregulate, so LUCA was likely not the only life system present during the time when DNA and RNA competed with who knows what else
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle).
Bi-stability implies duality.
Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle.
Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring.
The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Molecular self-assembly started life on earth, with 1) modular and scalable ingredients, 2) conditions, 3) massive parallelism, 4) deep time, and 5) mutation and adaptation (and obviously only what works survives). Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, in that order. Now a bunch of us languaged primates wonder "What the hell happened ?". Good thing we have alot more 'puzzle pieces' collected now to begin seeing the picture.
"and obviously only what works survives" Tingles at my biology level in that order somewhat :)
.
Do you see some form of emergence of complexity where "stability" persists?
Do you have a view on the balance of order and disorder (chaos) from which and how that stability emerges?
Do you think stability always contains some small amount of uncertainty in that stability? (Although stable and persistent, not 100% guaranteed to remain stable or persist.)
Pandas.
@@ravenmad9225 A bit Vague lol
Such a helpful video. Thanks for the description of LUCA and the biochemistry / genomics / geochemistry intersection!
I didn't know Luca Modric was that old, what a legend
Perhaps he was named after his grand grand grand .... grandfather.
It's fun to realize that in the end we are all family.... I wonder how a family reunion would look like if all of us went to Germany to visit our cousin, Sabine... 😂
«We sent them our best microbe and all we got was this lousy RUclips video» is probably your best joke yet 😆 a bit meta
I agree, great joke.
Also leads to an observation about the seeding hypothesis. It would be quite the thing if they made it here to see us. Their civilization would now be 4.2 billion years older now.
the 00:03:26 type "vvvx vx d aa" shakes head, then adjusts microscope by 50,000 microns and proceeds to "fcxz c sadagds" just makes my brain hurt hahaha
AND WHAT IS SHE VIEWING? A LEAF??
It's the vanishing apostrophe I mourn for.
Or the apostrophe used incorrectly. It's nearly impossible to read some things with apostrophes randomly scattered about.
@@billstevens3796 'I don't know wha't your talking about.'
@@billstevens3796 I ain't so sure 'bou' tha'
Life began so fast that there’s no calculable beginning and no predictable end. It can be considered an undisturbable cycle that has differentiation incorporated within but ultimately results in the same outcome.
This is great. Just makes me to continue to think that there's a continuous abiogenesis process that occurs. The reason we don't see these early proto-life systems around the place is because they're consistently outcompeted by more sophisticated living systems now. Once more sophisticated mechanisms are in place, they rule the roost. The idea of abiogenesis as a single event seems so much more implausible in the face of the continuous idea.
Especially when you consider environments like hydrothermal vents or deep underground where the right chemistry could still be present, the evolving complexity chain still active (albeit outcompeted once that becomes a factor). It makes me wonder: what actually marks the point where competition becomes a factor? Maybe that’s the real divide between life and non-life. Systems that actively compete for "evolutionary space" might effectively cut off new generations from forming within the same "process lineage", creating a kind of bottleneck for abiogenesis in an established biosphere. In that sense, the emergence of competition might define the transition from mere complexity to what we consider life.
It has proven impossible to demonstrate abiogenesis in pristine laboratory conditions. What makes you think that life "just happens" in hostile environments? I suggest you look up Professor James Tour for his take on OOL research.
"The idea of abiogenesis as a single event seems so much more implausible in the face of the continuous idea". Correct, but this absurdity is the credo and main dogma of all materialists and neo-darwinists.Nowadays they even blindly accept the notion of "self-organization" without realizing that the very word "self" destroys their belief.
The early atmosphere and sea was quite different though, and not only would novel life be outcompeted I would be eaten before it would even be able to properly live. If you are interested I could explain the argument more.
The issue is how evolved LUCA seems to be. An organism that complex would exist in an ecosystem with many other different species but all life on Earth descends from only one. You would expect some other species to survive in specific niches, It is like if all animals on Earth were descendants from rats. You would expect the common ancestor of all animals to be some simple organism with simpler organs and tissues but then finding out it is actually an already complex organism turn that notion through the window.
There's a lot of assumptions we cannot overlook in this methodology. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) for instance can never be ruled out. This hypothesis basically assumes vertical gene transfer alone.
Genes themselves can jump around the genome in real time; these are called transposons.
For me, it's less about finding some common ancestor than asking why genes form out of base elements at all. What as yet undiscovered *force of nature* is causing this to happen?
Opportunity.
Over time, we are left with only the end result you and me.
Gene transfer is only likely if the organisms are closely related. Nucleic acids being quite complex, even if proto-life happened easily (an unlikely assumption), it is unlikely to have evolved the same structure. Even less likely is the same 3-base codon transcription. Which means, the organisms which swapped genes very likely had the same ancestor.
Denis Noble makes a lot more sense. Bottom-up intelligent design is the missing link. Societies of farmers / scientists at the inter and intra cellular level speeds things up compared to pure natural selection (like how our immune system works).
@@carl4543 Tht's not true. Gene transfer can happen between any two organism by some virus. There are other means of horizontal gene transfer.
@@PrivateSi Sounds like explaining a mystery by positing an even greater mystery.
Fred hoyle and chandra wickramasinghe wrote a very interesting book decades ago but no one liked the idea that life might have come from space rather than be: (A) due to unique evolution or, (B) God. Another interesting video and I'll share! Thank you.
I bet a banana that life originated on Earth. The outer space conjecture is a bit far fetched.
Is the second sentence a pun? :D
Ba dum tsk🥁
If you believe in math, I'm afraid you owe me a banana. 2.75 million base pairs in a structured fashion, with complexity doubling every 400 million years or so, require 4 billion years to come about from a 2.7k complexity precursor. Considering the simpler beginnings, that's a low estimate.
Completely agree. The outer space idea is an excuse for those who have no good ideas how to solve the problems with abiogenesis.
There's the belief that the universe is alive. Not that science could prove it with its mechanical viewpoint.
Fun fact, scientists are sending probes throughout the solar system in order to find life, while science hasn't been able to scientifically prove that there's life on earth.
😉
Thank you for the link. I am reading the paper while I play your video in another tab with the sound off. Better to just study the original research, but you deserve algorithm credit.
If we don't know how fast Life can develop and advance how can assume observations on Mars are all paradolia because they don't fit assumptions
We roughly know how fast life should be able to progress.
because we know about the effect of paradolia and the effect of erosion.
Because so far all the faces and buildings and canals on Mars have, on closer inspection with much more detailed photography, turned out to be natural geological formations, not faces, buildings and canals.
@@nycbearff its finally completed: ruclips.net/video/s769tVsu_FY/видео.html
One of my questions about biology is: Why was there such a wide gap of time between the origin of living cells, and the Cambrian explosion? My current best guess is that cells were locked in a sort of stale-mate killing field between left handed amino acids, and right handed. If cells attempt to make use of amino acids that are the opposite hand to themselves, it will disrupt the protein folding, and the cell stops working. It would have been an evolutionary coin flip on whether the amino acids were left handed or right handed for a very long time until left handed won out just through chance.
I think the journey to Luca was 100x more tricky than from Luca to Sabine. Yet people regard Luca as origin? No way. Once we have Luca the whole question of origin has already been solved.
Not necessarily, it is completely conceivable that it happened in just a few years although more likely it took a couple of thousand but that is still just a blip in geological time.
@ lol, it would take a billion years to get any where near Luca complexity
@@peters972 nope, before 4.4 billion years ago life on earth almost certainly was impossible and by 3.5 billion years we already have fossils. Most models assume life to be properly going by 3.8 billion years ago. The study Sabine here discusses, calculates about 4.2 billion year. All current science estimates Origin to LUCA took less then a billion year, quite a bit less in fact, maybe as little as 1 million year.
@maybe not! Luca is fantastically complicated my friend
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle).
Bi-stability implies duality.
Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle.
Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring.
The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Fascinating. I find the statement "If something can happen then it will if given enough time." Perhaps this is true but I wonder if it is true in our universe where events and things tend to repeat events over and over instead of trying every possibility.
4:40 pm Sabine is the only person I can think of who could come up with that line and deliver it straight faced too.
Thanks Sabine. I do find the level of complexity quite interesting :)
>
I don't really find the complexity surprising, but interesting that they have found more confirmation of it.
I suspect complexity emerges far more readily/easily than some would expect. Random is not as random as we may think. And infinite possibility not as large as we may thing (with regards to the chance of emergence of stability).
More likely that life evolved on another planet and only the sturdiest bacteria survived when the planet crashed into our young solar system.
"Random is not as random as we may think". Randomness has never been an issue outside the belief of the materialists and Neo-darwinists. It is simplicity that emerges from a universe that is complex at its quantum level through its natural laws and constants.
@@edus9636 Where is this fundamental complexity that you speak of?
How does this complexity emerge from low entropy?
@@axle.student The (complex) natural laws and constants are independent of (and before!) entropy and where already there at t = 0.
something no one ever said to me: if we're made of "deoxyribonucleic acid" then we are acid. WE ARE ACID." the point of life is to dissolve stuff 🤔🤷♂️
We're not made of it, we just contain it as a key ingredient.
My God were made of Stars.....therefore shine baby shine on
@@TooSlowTube : and 1-3% of human body mass is microbes.
You do not understand acids, apparently. OR cellular mechanisms. We have both acids and bases within us, in different places performing different functions. There are about a million different chemical reactions going on in each of your cells at any one instant.
This brings to mind the possibility that four billion years ago there were multiple branches of life with different structures and biochemistries and only the LUCA organism succeeded in populating the world.
Doesn't a single line of ancestry imply that life does NOT start easily?
It ate all the other lines.
It's possible that once life appears somewhere, it rapidly takes over the environment, monopolizing the available resources and precluding further abiogenetic events. If this is true, it means that life starts (relatively) easily, but it only starts once in any given location.
@helloiamchuck
Yeah, that's what I said.
It implies that the winner ate all the competition, probably
@@eljcd No, because then all life would not have a common ancestor - there would be other ancestors that died off. The implication is that the first organism had no competition and eventually deprived all environments of conditions that could *one day*, have lead to competitive organisms.
Another way to look at it is: If the 'first ever organism' was a rare event, the 'second ever organism' would have to deal with the same conditions PLUS a competitor with a head start. Imagine starting a game of monopoly after 1 player got tens of thousands of years going around the board.
AFAIK the leading theorem is that at some point between the big bang and now, for a long while, the whole universe was a perfect place for life to thrive and probably that was when the evolution started. When the liquid water filling the universe cooled and evaporated, the whole process froze for billions of years and basically just continued from that ancient game save, not from scratch, when finally starts and planets had a chance to from.
If you ever sell merchandise, "I gave them my best microbe and all I got was this lousy youtube video" on a shirt would be pretty up there.
"I gave them my best microbe, and all I got was this lousy shirt"
"I gave them my best DNA..." is much sexier, imo.
A lot of ppl here are suggesting that life evolved in different locations across earth and thrived or that it ate the competition...but the hard and inconvenient truth is that at this point we are stuck with a single moment...a single origin of all life and that it has never been replicated anywhere over hundreds of millions of years...
Not a single new event in a lab or nature....ever
Fascinating! Thanks for all the info, Sabine! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
5:31 And now the Aliens are sitting there thinking, who the hell suggested humans? The dolphins would’ve been better.
Panspermia. seems inevitable! For instance, if were advanced enough we would seed other pristine planetary environments as well.
Assuming we survive long enough.
Seed? or add seed?
Or just a water planet/moon coming too close to an object in our solar system during a close encounter with another star system.
Panspermia or simply transgermia.
Aliens - "We sent them our best microbe and all we got was this lousy t-shirt with Sabine on it!" 🤣🤣
Good vid, MD for 30 years, undergrad Biochemistry (now called Molecular Biology) at MIT and University of Texas, Austin. I know this is out of your area of expertise but well done.
Do we know which exothermic chemical reaction(s) results in 37C of our body temperature?
I agree that life is probably quite common in the universe.
Agreed! And I'm sure we are within decades of confirming this!!
If life was seeded here from outer space, I would think that we would still find microbes on meteors, asteroids, and comets.
Or at least, we should found other but also younger "startups" here on our planet.
Molecular building blocks of DNA and RNA have been found on meteorites.
@@heisag That does not follow. A full biosphere is likely to eat the new material before it can begin to adapt to Earth's environment.
Nucleotides, precursors of life, have been found in space and produced by experimental collisions.
Probably, unless the seeding was precise and deliberate.
Ich wünsche Ihnen ein fantastisches Wochenende und eine produktive Woche, eine sichere Reise und ewige Gesundheit im Jahr des Drachen 🐉 🐲💋💞👍🤓
2 words missing from the title... we believe
I accept Sabine as my personal savior and I never even needed any scripture
Like so much of scientific investigation, fun though.
Weather scientists can’t even predict the weather in a day or two and now you expect us to believe that you are able to reliably tell us what happened as several “billion years ago”. And then you throw in alien life forms. Sounds quite miraculous and fantastic
nobody expects you to believe a meteorologists explenation of what happened billions of years ago. you should actually not unless he has evidence.
@ you missed the point
@@rosalindcameron-dow9332 you missed the point of science.
@@Aanthanur these days scientific theories sound about as fantastic as the Bible. And trying to talk to a scientific zealot is about as pointless as trying to talk to a religious zealot so yeah 🤷🏻♀️ I studied process control, applied science and mathematical modeling so not exactly sure what you are trying to imply there or who’s battle you are fighting. Defending the Gods of Science maybe 😂😂
@@rosalindcameron-dow9332 there are no gods in science, you are just jealouse
NICE side-reference to the oxford comma! You inspire curiosity in all areas of knowledge, not just physics!
Great summary - thank you!
Space-seeding of earth only pushes the question one step back: how did the elements of life get started elsewhere?
The hydrogen fueling aspect of LUCA is fascinating- perhaps cellular life existed in the gas cloud formation stage of the solar system?
If someone applies enough sun cream against the uv light and hard radiation. So we finally figured out what gods job in the creation of life was.
Using hydrogen is just a simple principle that it's much easier to build something from elementary building blocks than to use more complex structures as building blocks. Think of it as you had to build house and you could use bricks or parts of broken wall
@@Techmagus76 or perhaps some of those characteristics were lost when life got comfy enough down the gravity well… I mean… tardigrades and all…
No... simply: "No."
That idea seems to be so highly unlikely,
that for my understanding,
it borders the absurd.
@@ListenToMcMuck Extremophiles live also in environments highly unlikely to support any lifeform. Yet, here they are, to the shock of orthodox biologists of that time ( a few decades ago). Like the shock geologists got when they realized that "crazy" (and extremely bullied) Wegener was right all along.
The mention of auto catalytic cycles rand true with me. I've often felt that everything has natural selection properties and that complexity grew continuously before RNA by means of autocatalysis within pockets of organic chemicals associating with minerals.
Fascinating to say the least!
The fact that these early lifeforms resemble prokaryotes alone is outstanding and surprising. It also confirms my bias that life is some sort of inevitable part of the chemical makeup of the universe -- that there is "intelligence" of some form in almost every aspect of our universe to some degree.
Michael Levin's work on this field in particular seems to be a bounty of new insights into the electrical intelligence of molecules in general.
So that was what the Suzanne Vega song was about! Edit: Everyone got the same flashback here!
I have Leukoplakia😢
Thank you for the video.
“Life began faster than we think…. and ended before you can count it”
I wish I could remember where/when I read this: as a mixture of water and organic compounds freeze, the organic compounds are concentrated down into small, stable pockets. These small pockets are like cells with ice walls. Even at super cold temperatures, there remains liquid water in the pockets due to the high concentration of organic compounds. These pockets help drive the organic chemistry. Think comets, which could be stable environments for billions of years of evolution.
Hmmmm that is very interesting!!!!!
A lot of the biogenesis theories sound plausible until you dig deeper and find again that it's mathematically impossible no matter how you look at it and it's not even close.
@@jankram9408 mathmatically impossible lol??? Its impossible to calculate all the possible chemical interactions.
sounds like you dont actually know anything about this subject🤣
@@jankram9408 I don't think any mathematician would even know where to start in the analysis ? Mathematicians don't believe in quantum mechanics for starters.
There are lots of ways of concentrating compounds and diluting them again and cycling things. Like a fresh water pond that dries up and then floods from rain and then floods from an ocean tide at a different time etc. Since there is no other life, this new startup life has no competitors or predators. It wouldn't even need a cell membrane. This is something I notice about all these hypothesis and ideas floating around, they want to create a cell membrane and feel it must be necessary. But why , if you have no competition ? A whole swamp could be like one cell with RNA floating around autocatalyzing itself ? There has to be a way for this to start up that is not that complicated. There was no very complicated processes going on , on the earth just simple processes but lots of them. The task is now to figure out which combination of them were the magical combination. I think it is just a matter of time until someone or AI figures it out. Just far too many combinations to figure this out in a short time. This magical combination must have also been wide spread to allow lots of time for initial evolution and it was probably the only way to start things up.
Thomas Gold wrote the deep hot biosphere: H2 gets eaten by some archai bacteria and converted to oil, but also the origin of life is beneath the surface (surface life might be rare in the universe), panspermea is likely, and rocketships might be meteorites. Like your video's (on quantum and academia ;)
It's a nice youtube video (5:36)
Indeed!
This is blowing my mind. Here I always thought the movie Prometheus was a documentary on the origins of human life. (removing tongue from cheek)
Thank you for this video Sabine! I spat my coffee several times at your witty commentary! This is a fascinating subject that you have made very entertaining- thank you Ma’am 😂👏👏👏👏
Kurzgesagt-In a Nutshell has a nice video called Ancient Life as Old as the Universe, explaining the hypothesis that life was not created on Earth but somewhere else. That would explain why life appears so complex so early on. Mindblowing!
An alien sneezed on a random asteroid while it was mining it and that asteroid made its way here. That's my hypothesis anyway.
I.e. we're all descendants of alien snot. It would be rather hilarious if this was the case.
Chicken and egg paradox. Where the alien comes from in the first place?🤔
@@Bob-1802from the snot of another alien, of course. It's sneezes all the way down
@@justaguy3518 🤗
@@Bob-1802 I don't know. That's not my department. Try Steve down in Neuroscience. Maybe he's got something.
As always, very interesting. So thanks, Sabine. Two things:
1. Bravo for mentioning "auto-catalytic molecular cycles." I think that's a key point for abiogenesis.
2. You said 0.5 billion years is not a long time for LUCA to develop. Really? 0.5 billion years is a loooong time, I think.
Just enough for one doubling of complexity. Also, Earth probably had no water the first few 100 million years.
Hi @carl4543. Perhaps. But if LUCA was present at 0.5m yr, then there must have been at least some water by then, which increases the possibility that there must have some water long before then. And anyway, 250m yr, say, is also still a loooong time.
These "open problems" in biology always seem to be "Things that aren't humans are more complex than we assumed." They don't seem like actual problems, because they don't actually contradict any of our theories, just our unjustified assumptions.
Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle).
Bi-stability implies duality.
Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle.
Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring.
The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
DNA the double helix should be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
Problem, reaction, solution -- the Hegelian dialectic.
Life is complicated and unpredictable.
Compared to what?
Life has to be common throughout the universe in either case.
Either life formed very quickly after earth cooled down, meaning it would be quick to form elsewhere, too.
Or it was seeded here from the outside, meaning life would have to be plentiful elsewhere for it to arrive here so quickly after the cooling.
The third option is some alien intelligence (possibly from a much older planet), was involved - it might make sense for them to wait just long enough for the planet to be viable, but not any longer, if their plan was to "seed" the planet, or something along those lines. No idea why they would but oh well.
but since we don't see life everywhere, maybe life WAS common throughout the universe
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Or maybe there is only one planet with life and we were extremely lucky, or it was no luck at all and god made the impossible happen.
Aren't you assuming Earth isn't a very rare kind of planet?
@@justaguy3518 We haven't really looked very hard so far. And the Viking Mission on Mars in the 70s actually found evidence for life, but NASA decided to play it safe and ascribe it to measurement errors. J.M. Godier did a video on it just recently.
The obvious limitation here is that all sorts of subsystems would have already had to be operational for “Luca” to exist. Where did all that sub-assembly stuff come from? Unless you postulate an extra-terrestrial origin you have a lot more to discover.
It's an odd hill to end on, but I like the Oxford comma.
My confirmation BIAS is that life actually sprouted twice here. We had simple organisms that resembled Archea with self-catalytic reactions and enough of a protomenbrane.
But the Bacteria arrived from Theia's impact creating the moon. Meaning that life would have found a way to survive despite complete planetary destruction and the very very early formation of Earth and the planets.
Life also ends far faster than we thought
Expedited return to sender
If life was seeded from outer space, that still doesn't explain the origin of life.
Yes, who created these flying spaghetti aliens? The genome SCREAMS intelligent design!
If the Big Bang was 13.8 billion years ago and Luca is estimated at 4 billion years ago … there really isn’t much time for alien life to evolve, travel the vastness of space and seed itself here.
If aliens exist, it is probably more likely that we evolved independently.
Star systems get close all the time. Things crash into one another all the time. It's well possible that a water moon/planet with life could have existed in another star system and spread life to Earth when the two systems came too close.
9.8 billion years isn't much time to you? Sounds like a lot to me
Just like to comment that animal cells do not have a cell wall, but only a cell membrane. Plants also have a cell wall (cellulose).
One way to get a common ancestor this complex is if it's the lone survivor of a mass extinction event. Life may well have originated around deep ocean vents, but that same life would have had the best chance to survive a massive asteroid collision.
How many times did life start up before it finally took hold?
The fact that we expect life to be something of a consistent phenomenon throughout the universe says that it must be an emergent potential of physics.
Might life have formed in the huge water chambers that exist below us, and percolated up, rather than falling from the sky? I saw on Anton's wonderful channel that there is a huge bunch of caverns and underground spaces that holds more water than exists on the surface combined.
Tiny fissures, imho
@bozo5632 Yes sir, the majority of sources before 2024 will tell you what the percentages of total water on Earth are, and the in the soil portion is very low. However, new studies have resulted in a reformulation of the ratios, and shockingly, about three times as much water as we thought existed on Earth exists under the ground. Brighter Side News had an article by Paul Shavit that synopsised the new findings so that even a non-scientist like me could wrap my head around the new facts.
@bozo5632 New studies indicate that we only knew about one fourth of the water that Earth contains. There is three times as much as we thought there was total underground. These results have only been available short time, so resources that list water distribution on and in the Earth still list the pre-discovery ratios.
I'm very proud to have an unbroken ancestral lineage from the very first living thing on this planet. Now how many people can say that!?
The amount of assumptions involved in the assertions made here make them meaningless.
Thank you. Great video, as many of your videos.
And life ended much faster after getting married than I thought.
Facts.
Facts: Married men and unmarried women live longer.
@@brothermine2292Hahaha, nicely put
Loved this article.
Hydro Thermal vents are not likely when they are underwater. No protein can form in water from amino acids as the lifespan is less than 36 hours so complex proteins could never fold and become useful. Plus the amino acids have to be all left handed and the chance of any amino acid chain connecting all being left handed in the numbers needed is not possible as the chances are astronomical against that happening by chance.
Left handers are only about 10% of the population.
Only the amino acids and proteins formed by DNA have that property. They may have replaced more chaotic earlier life forms bit by bit over billions of years, after DNA came about.
Clay, lipids etc. seem to be friendlier to amino acids. A mud lake with thermal vents, lots of different deposits on the shores etc. might be what we are looking for.
@@carl4543 The entire LUCA premise does not allow billions of years of development. The LUCA ancestor idea has this complex life form after only a couple of hundred millions of years. This is the major reason ardent evolutionists hate the LUCA idea because the evolutionists do not want to give away the billions of years to evolve premise.
@anthonycarbone3826 And what's the point of this comment?