Abiogenesis

010 - Abiogenesis
Paul Andersen describes how life could have formed on our planet through natural processes. The progression from monomers, to polymers, to protocells and finally to cells is described. The Miller-Urey experiment is described in detail as well as characteristics of the latest universal ancestor.
Do you speak another language? Help me translate my videos:
www.bozemanscie...
All of the images are licensed under creative commons and public domain licensing:
Darwin, Francis. English: A Photographic Portrait of Darwin Standing Next to a Pillar in the Book Charles Darwin Published in 1908, Edited by His Son Francis Darwin. Photo Was Taken c. 1881 by Messers. Elliot and Fry. Signature of Darwin Is Below the Photograph., April 16, 2013. Charles Darwin. commons.wikimed....
File: Harold Urey.jpg, n.d. commons.wikimed....
"File:Citric Acid Cycle with Aconitate 2.svg." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, May 7, 2013. en.wikipedia.or....
"File:Full Length Hammerhead Ribozyme.png." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed November 10, 2013. en.wikipedia.or....
"File:Louis Pasteur, Foto Av Félix Nadar Crisco Edit.jpg." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, October 26, 2013. en.wikipedia.or....
"File:Miller-Urey Experiment-en.svg." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed November 10, 2013. en.wikipedia.or....
"File:Stromatolites in Shark Bay.jpg." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed November 10, 2013. en.wikipedia.or....
"File:Stromatolites.jpg." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed November 10, 2013. en.wikipedia.or....
Netherlands, FotoosVanRobin from. English: Reindeer Steaks from the Lidl, Sold for € 39,50 P/kg. I Dediced to Smoke Them in My Stovetop Smoker and Quickly Grill Them. As They Were Quite Thin I Was Afraid to Overcook Them, but They Turn Out Nice and Rare. Very Tender Meat, with a Slight Gamy Taste. A Bit Like Springbok, I Think., February 23, 2010. Reindeer steak. commons.wikimed....
Unknown. Stanley Miller, [object HTMLTableCellElement]. web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/Miller/photo.html. commons.wikimed....
User:Img. This File Has No Description, and May Be Lacking Other Information., Unknown date. Self-photographed. commons.wikimed....

[@LetsGoHelio]

I've been watching your channel and it is amazing how well you teach. Best I've seen. thank you

[@businesswalks8301]

pretending you know something you don't is that impressive to you?

[@GuardianSoulkeeper]

​@@businesswalks8301 He didn't say god did it lol

[@danielle9803]

It's so weird to see that the line between life and no life is blurred like this. Is the actual value of being alive being conscious?

[@clickpause8732]

The real question is "is value necessary?". Humans have evolved to give meaning to things. It's how we so effectively make tools and expand. However, when we apply these same mental standards to science, we appropriate meaning where there is none. There doesn't really have to be a meaning to life.

[@danielle9803]

joey obyrne What subjective value do you give to life to keep going?

[@qwaeszrdxtfcgvbqwaeszrdxtf5733]

@@danielle9803 absolutely nothing my friend

[@aldoushuxley5953]

Interesting question: all life on earth is coded in DNA/RNA. So either: a) Abiogenesis happened only once (interesting, what made it so rare?) b) Abiogenesis happened multiple times, we have not recognized other life yet (extreme environment, nothing like us, interesting and useful for eventually finding aliens) c) Life created by abiogenesis always follows a similar path (DNA, Amino acids, proteis etc instead of other building blocks. Why would that be? Why not different amino acid for coding genetic material?) Which do you think is the correct one?

[@qwaeszrdxtfcgvbqwaeszrdxtf5733]

Prob the first one

[@qwaeszrdxtfcgvbqwaeszrdxtf5733]

Cuz any life that evolves would prohibit the abiogenesis to occur ever again since they would just consume any organics that got syntesised abiotically.

[@aldoushuxley5953]

@@qwaeszrdxtfcgvbqwaeszrdxtf5733 I agree with it being a), but I think the reason is different. I think that, if you have a massive headstart already, especially in terms of complexity, you will basically always outcompete the new life and choke it out. Though that would leave open the possibility for extreme life. Carbon based life is highly unlikely to adapt to very high and very low temperatures for example. Silicon based life could exist in these environments. So if we want to find other abogenesis events, we have to look into these extreme environments.

[@qwaeszrdxtfcgvbqwaeszrdxtf5733]

@@aldoushuxley5953 but those envoronment should be so inhospitble that no living being (including the most extreme bacteria) can ever survive.So yeah it's very hard to find it on earth

[@qwaeszrdxtfcgvbqwaeszrdxtf5733]

@@aldoushuxley5953 yeah it's also a factor but the building blocks of any secondary abiogenesis being a food for already living being is also significant sinse they cant build up

[@bongmanding]

Thnak you for making these videos and sharing them with us. I love to learn things like this.

[@wafikiri_]

It is a pity this video is called "Abiogenesis" when it is just a slight "Introduction to abiogenesis." There is so much more work done, so much more success already got than that Miller-Urey experiment....

[@blancaroca8786]

Hey great. Please give some good links if you know any

[@hoid6126]

Mr Anderson, welcome back! We missed you.

[@isaacleer3487]

POV: you’re watching this before a test in a pandemic

[@_justsomestranger4599]

POV: You''re wasting hours of your life just to find a few reliable resources to use in an argument you had over discord lmao what am i doing with my life

[@qwaeszrdxtfcgvbqwaeszrdxtf5733]

@@_justsomestranger4599 you are gaining knowlege my friend , so i dont think this is wasting your life or anything wrong

[@pmmeyourdadjokes9811]

Makes you think. If it is a simple process to go from chemistry -> monomers -> polymers, then why is it seemingly so absent in the universe other than on earth? There must be some barrier that is usually working to prevent life from developing, or it would be more common in the universe

[@justtheaverageone3840]

We don't really know whats happenening on other planets because we can't investigate; our methods are still in their babyshoes and very limited. Just because we found anything yet is a testemony to our own limitations, sadly that is of course

[@ungmd21]

From non life to life is a HUGE IMPROBABLE event. Even if if you get polymers, how do the survive? They can't last long even on today's favorable earth. How do they replicate? He is trying to put 2 or 3 chemical steps together when you need about 1000 steps all coming together at the same time. The Miller-Urey experiments is like imagining LEGOS can form a working space shuttle.

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

that's how statistics works. if you take a big enough sample size there will be few cases of extreme behaviour. a monkey with a typewriter will eventually write harry potter. earth was big enough sample size to generate life, it may have been improbable for a specific lake, but it was almost guaranteed to spawn in at least one lake

[@iamBlackGambit]

Cause it didn't happen! Life comes from life!! PERIOD!!!

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

@@iamBlackGambit so you're saying aliens created us?

[@iamBlackGambit]

@@MorbiusBlueBalls nope

[@anidanga]

one of the best channels, thank you

[@mighty_monkey_7347]

James Tour “Origin of Life” covers this material in much more detail... and he comes up with a different conclusion.

[@WillzMaster85]

Yea I came to this video from a James Tour video... my mans James said that shit was impossible lol tbh I never even thought about this abiogenesis thing... making life from non life materials is simply mind boggling to me. If we can make life from simple elements, thats a game changer but I believe in James Tour more I don't think that shit possible dude haha

[@MadScientist72]

Sure, James Tour came up with the conclusion that he "saw Jesus standing in his room" therefore abiogenesis is impossible.

[@jarrygarry5316]

@@WillzMaster85 See Professor Dave's response to his video.Google "A defence of abiogenesis"

[@jamesmiller7457]

​@jarrygarry5316 u might as well believe in Adam and Eve if u watch Professor Dave

[@GuardianSoulkeeper]

Yeah, it's weird how making shit up leads to erroneous conclusions.

[@babywhale-eq9xk]

this guy is an expert artist

[@ShawFujikawa]

Being honest here, I've read through a lot of comments from critics of abiogenesis and a rather large number of them comment that the chances of random molecules coming together to form a self-replicating biological construct is so improbable that it cannot have happened even within the lifetime of the entire universe. I always found that argument rather strange, because if one of two possible outcomes of a process precludes our very ability to make observations of it, then it simply has to have happened, somewhere, and some time. Otherwise, there would be nobody around to realise it.

[@FelipeV3444]

Religion is the problem my friend. But don't worry; science is incompetent free and nothing that hasn't been backed up with evidence has a word on it. I assure you no person studying evolution or abiogenesis believes that crap anymore.

[@thebullybuffalo]

***** Ignoring everything you said except that scientISTS are not incompetent free

[@FelipeV3444]

Science doesn't, the idea of the existence of any deity isn't gonna be taken seriously unless there's real, observable, measurable, testable evidence.

[@ShawFujikawa]

***** I think calling science 'incompetence-free' is a bit silly. We are humans, after all. We can make mistakes, whether that's by misreading our instruments or setting up our experiments incorrectly and introducing systematic errors. Also, as a Christian, I can pretty safely say that religious dogmatics would not be a significant problem in internet discussions on the topic if it weren't also for a sect of hardcore anti-religionists flaming back and making it worse. :P

[@FelipeV3444]

Let's say then science is self correcting, and it is, when an error (small as it is) is spotted, scientists have to go back and start again avoiding the error. Religious dogmas are a significant problem in internet discussions because some religious people simply deny what science has shown us. Science is usually fine with religious dogmas (except when religious ignorants still claim things like the biblical creation was right or the age of the Earth is less than 10000 years old), but when a scientific discovery happens to go against a religious belief, you people become problematic, like a little kid who doesn't wanna accept the fact that their parents don't have the money for his toy. Most of you were raised thinking you have to convince others and turn them to your faith, and honestly: it's getting very annoying.

[@fieryrocket3555]

wow! This is informative and presented in a non boring manner.

[@businesswalks8301]

ur kidding right. I could have made this video as long as it takes anyone to say "we don't know"

[@moses777exodus]

Abiogenesis Hypothesis may be seen as a modern derivative of the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis (i.e. life arising from non-living matter), one of the main differences being the supposed timeframes of each experimentally unproven process. Generally, the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis speculated that living organisms spontaneously emerged from non-living matter. And, Abiogenesis hypothesizes that undirected random natural processes caused molecules to form into biological life by random chance over the span of millions / billions of years. Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis was believed to be ‘fact’ for almost 2000 years, until it was scientifically disproved by experiments from such scientists as Louis Pasteur in the 1800's. From Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event ... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred." One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

[@williamgreen1432]

Even Miller and Urey wouldn't say they "simply created the conditions", they were in a controlled laboratory, adding exact amounts of precisely the right chemicals, under exacting conditions of pressures, heat, electricity, etc., to succeed, and dude didn't say how many time they did it to get it right. By virtue of the fact that they did this in CONTROLLED CONDITIONS it is safe to say they did not just "let things happen naturally, Thyey observes, not intervene. Dude..." Read my post again!

[@ineskucharz1990]

I agree. The Miller/Urey experiment has been shown to be too ´controlled´, plus the atmosphere of early earth was not reducing, as shown by other research. So basing your argument on this experiment does not make scientific sense anymore.

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

you're idiot I'm not even gonna argue with you, you apparently lack the ability to listen

[@seankouznetsov2398]

0:16 spontanious genration diffres from abiogensis

[@acompletelynormalhuman6392]

Yes but it is important to explain the difference because maybe you are talking about abiogenesis they might think you're talkin about spontaneous generation

[@tonymaurice4157]

"The so-called RNA world theory falls into this category, though these studies are instructive they are very CONTRIVED and require carefully managed human intervention to prepare materials to do the selecting to accomplish ANYTHING. Relevance to the natural world is far from obvious"- Paul Davies the demon in the machine

[@acompletelynormalhuman6392]

@@tonymaurice4157 3:12 I think he was talking about this basically saying to having success we have to to make environments that would stimulate old Earth

[@tonymaurice4157]

@@acompletelynormalhuman6392 Whatever the conditions were it did not consist of a pristine laboratory environment. There were NO discernible sources of naturally occurring homochiral amino acids to polymerize into proteins. No place to buy purified nucleotides, nowhere to order homochiral sugars, no stores that sell phospholipids. NO human-designed coupling agents or protecting groups, NO human-designed pipettes to sequence very specific purified bases. No pristine glass vessels, no purified solvents. NO degassing steps, no vacuum pumps, no ability to conveniently turn reactions on and off. NO highly calibrated designed sequencing machines. No simple method to transfer chemicals from one reaction vessel to the next, and eliminate toxic tars and other poisonous byproducts. Origin of Life chemistry (Abiogenesis) is a failure!

[@acompletelynormalhuman6392]

@@tonymaurice4157 yes there were no vacuum pumps on Earth back then guess what the chemicals don't really care why there's low pressure. it's just more convenient and actually possible with current technology to use vacuum pumps then creating entire planet with the same circumstances as of Earth at that period of time. the point is it's the same gases temperature pressure and chemical composition of the soil regardless of how we made it it's a accurate Recreation though small of what Earth would look like at this period of time

[@heaven3706]

Best channel on yt 🙌🏽

[@kevinchamberlain7928]

Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.

[@kevinchamberlain7928]

***** But they are not "life" by definition, so moot point.

[@kevinchamberlain7928]

***** Show me proof it happened or are you theorizing? Also explain how these "abiogenesis cells" fit the definition of "alive" because that is the discussion after all.

[@kevinchamberlain7928]

***** Abiogenesis teaches that these "cells" came about over billions of years. Did they become increasingly "alive" over this period or "alive" when action potential kicked in? If you can't explain this simply, you do not understand it well enough:

[@kevinchamberlain7928]

***** Protocells are proposed as a stepping stone to life but they do not constitute life, as many unreasonable people try to say they do. Protocells are indeed an attempt to show how life began but it is an unproven theory!! Why would you knowingly tell others it IS life? This is a LIE!!!!!

[@kevinchamberlain7928]

***** No I do not and neither does anyone else on earth. What I believe is utterly irrelevant anyhow. Like you, I used to vehemently defend what I had been spoon-fed (Freemason invented theory of evolution - Erasmus Darwin). Upon thoroughly studying it (and abiogenesis) I discovered it could not stand up to schoolboy questioning. I am not a Christian or even religious and the only thing I would advise is to heed Arthur Conan Doyle's words, and think clearly, test with definitions everything, and trust NO RELIGION INCLUDING/ESPECIALLY FREEMASONRY!!! “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Arthur Conan Doyle

[@markchampmd]

It was a presentation at his book-signing. I could respond at length about the corrupt peer-review system, but we are veering off topic. You simply dismissed the substance of the point, which is this: it has now become widely understood that junk DNA is not junk at all. We are only beginning to learn what all this information does, but it is definitely functional. The top people acknowledge this now.

[@catsopolis21]

12:44 am and still doing hw

[@Daisy-nd7iw]

Cathy Nguyen been 7 years, where did you end up now?

[@catsopolis21]

Still doing hw but in PA school now 😂

[@ChiefBigNut]

@@catsopolis21 the madlad answered what a god

[@ahmadbelfki1395]

@@ChiefBigNut ikr after 7 years

[@Risha-Rene]

Since they have the answers, why can't they create life in their lab from no life to prove and show what they're talking about? It takes too long?

[@MrBasisGuy]

Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine. Creationism is first and foremost a matter of faith, evidence is of secondary importance.

[@texashoosier7318]

What evidence do you have that life arose without God?

[@Strade8]

@@texashoosier7318 what evidence you have that life arose without "random word"? example of random words: - music - stones - ideas - feelings - your mother - spaghetti - rage do you get my point?

[@texashoosier7318]

@@Strade8 So you believe music or stones created life? Life origins is not, and cannot be, an issue of science. Observation and repeatability - the foundation of the scientific method - are not applicable to historic events.

[@Strade8]

@@texashoosier7318 I pointed out that the question had a very limited meaning because it could have been asked about everything else with the same answer. If the scientific method couldn't been applied to historic event we would know nothing apart form from what is happening now. There are techniques and combinations of knowledge which let you derive conclusions on the probability of certain past events. Exemple: Isotope dating let you understand the age of a stone, if that stone is a pillow basalt you know there must have been water on the same time on Earth even if you have no direct observation of it. Does this mean that we know how life arose on Earth? Not by a long stretch... Does this mean that we will never know using science? Not by a long stretch.. In the past they thought that you could not tell how bolts are made without a God throwing them. We prove them wrong. And history repeats itself.

[@texashoosier7318]

@@Strade8 We can never know how life arose on Earth by science since the origin of life is not an issue that can be established by observation and repeatability. Science is awesome, but that would be trying to apply the wrong tool for the job. Life origins is a historic issue, not a scientific one.

[@njigyfd]

That wasn't just helpful - that was great

[@pre-jordanbasketballfan7429]

The odds for abiogenesis makes it mathematically impossible. Check the odds

[@wafikiri_]

You really do not know much about abiogenesis theories. Check them. The odds for abiogenesis make it really plausible! You only need auto-replicating chains of nucleotides, with no functional meaning and thus no problem with mutations -- and some of the possbile nuclear chains tested have really fast rates of replication. With zillions of them, random mutations would bring up functionality, and some functionality brings the benefit of Darwinian natural selection. The good thing about natural selection is that it is cumulative! Perhaps you were fed odds on having a full, modern cell built from naught in just one step? That really would be mathematically impossible!

[@louistournas120]

Justin Beck: the odds of godoiosis makes it mathematically impossible. The chances of assembling an infinitely complex mind (a god) is 0. In the case of abiogenesis, a few simple molecules can form and has already been demonstrated.

[@kallistiX1]

No, it isn't mathematically *impossible* at all. This is a common myth among creationists but it isn't actually based in mathematics. What you have understand is that everything which happens or ever happened has an extremely low probability of happening if and only if you look at the end result in the vastness of all time. For instance, human sperm is wildly inefficient and *half* of all fertilized cells fail to mature. So, I could say you are mathematically impossible but that isn't the case. There were other factors at play at the time of your conception which greatly increase the odds of you. Likewise, abiogensis relies on factors which were extremely likely at the time and factors which very likely contemporaneous.

[@thebullybuffalo]

kallistiX1 Actually it's a fact among physicists. No it's not impossible it's ridiculously IMprobable. You know it's possible the 2nd law of thermodynamics could change tomorrow? Some physicists are now finding that not only have we not even had enough time but that there aren't even enough atoms in the universe (for enough failed trials to occur before a successful one) to make it probable enough. I'm not kidding.

[@kallistiX1]

thebullybuffalo It most certainly is *not* fact among physicists. Again, Ridiculously improbable applies to you, me, every molecule of every substance and every atom of those molecules *IF* you take those events out of context and average them all out. The Universe doesn't work like that. There are forces at play that make that lead to interactions, which lead to conditions that mitigate chance. Incidentally, those same force and their interactions make all chemistry possible to being with.

[@logicalnotes5007]

How does “natural selection” decide which complex DNA will be in each living cell?

[@gargola1887]

It can't, because the process starts before natural selection takes place.. evolution is only possible thru an intelligent design

[@dougwalker3472]

@@gargola1887 that's a mighty big lie of yours there. That would make your intelligent designer rather pathetic and an almost complete failure since 99% of all life is extinct. *Get an education* .... it's called natural selection.

[@gargola1887]

@@dougwalker3472 i just destroyed that argument idiot

[@bengun6768]

@@gargola1887 Covid 19 - I rest my case.

[@gargola1887]

@@bengun6768 what about that man-made virus?

[@KINGKAYLEB-vq2tb]

Well we know it wasnt god 😂

[@stephentranquilla7785]

Nope it was god. It was HARRY POTTER. In the beginning at time (0) and space (0) where the laws of physics and science do not work and cannot explain anything, there existed Quantum fluctuations in a quantum vacuum. Stephen Hawkings proposed philosophically (not scientifically) that because there is the law of gravity, it can and did act upon (nothingness) to produce everything we know and see today.. Pop the magic dragon 1 (gravity). Pop the magic dragon 2 (the Law of Gravity) that created everything. Now since the universe is known to be so finely tuned on 7 critical parameters the only way to explain the phenomenon of LIFE is to postulate an infinite number of universes that came from this initial expansion. Pop the Magic Dragon 3 (The multiverse). Stephen Hawkins last contribution was an infinite number of these universes to explain the overwhelming obvious statistic that Life could not arise out of a single universe. POOF! Harry Potter stuff.

[@MadScientist72]

@@stephentranquilla7785 But wait! I thought that the Tooth Fairy created the universe from nothing! Wasn't it the Tooth Fairy? And, the Easter Bunny created the laws of logic! RIGHT??? LOL

[@christianbravo505]

Where did the Monomers come from? Does not the fact that this theory requires material building blocks in Monomers negate it even being true abiogenesis in the first place?

[@cmdaniels1986]

As a creationist, I'm going to make a prediction I predict that a scientist will NEVER create life in a laboratory from non-living matter. Why? Psalm 36:9 You are the giver of life. Your light lets us enjoy life God is the giver of life. Genesis described God breathing into man the breath of life. The Bible is clear that only God can create life in this universe. If man can ever create life from non-living material, the Bible will be proven wrong, and God proven a liar.... which will never happen.

[@dait1986]

Psalm 36:9 could refer to a number of things, the sun for example would fit in nicely there, and to be honest it would make a lot more sense. Man has been able to engineer life in the lab for quite sometime now proving "god" is not the only one that can do this. Also, there's evidence (from your reference frame) that "god" is a liar, incompetent and a hypocrite the bible is littered with examples.

[@cmdaniels1986]

dait1986 man had produced life from non living material? Can you back up that claim?

[@cmdaniels1986]

dait1986 give me an example of a problem in the Bible.

[@cmdaniels1986]

dait1986 I see you are terrified to answer my question. .. ;)

[@dait1986]

Chad Daniels I've answered both your questions, just scroll up a little.

[@seamus9305]

Good work, but you skipped over the vast sequential information necessary for abiogenesis.

[@lucianmacandrew1001]

There is no information in DNA, that is a metaphor. A code, by the strictest definition, is in fact something designed by intelligent beings. This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code. The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code. DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. The nucleotides in DNA are often said to be the “blueprints” or “code” which define a sequence of messenger RNA which in turn defines at least one protein. In a sense, these proteins are the building blocks of life, and DNA is the “code” which determines the qualities of the life that will be built. The problem with the theist argument, however, is that the DNA code is not arbitrary, and it does not rely at all on the agreement of sentient beings. In fact, it is exactly the same in nature as any other dynamic chemical process. When you see an explosion on TV, you’re watching a chemical reaction that was controlled by the same kind of “code.” Crystals grow based on such a code. Stars give off light and energy from the same kind of code. If DNA is a code, then so is every other molecule in the universe. It’s just the consistency of the laws of nature. This, in the presence of that, will do the other. So no, DNA is not a code. It is analogous to a code in enough ways that it makes sense for us to refer to things like the “genetic code,” but in the end, we’re just not talking about the kind of code that would make the theist argument valid.

[@seamus9305]

This is the "Gap of the Atheist" which is denial because of implications. Of course there is code in DNA/RNA. It is sequential code of representative codons. Arranged one way and it is represents an amino acid. Arranged another it represents a different amino acid. Then there is the non-protein coding that used to be called junk. This is found nowhere else in nature. I'm afraid even atheist call it code.

[@lucianmacandrew1001]

You really have to choose if you don't wanna break the rules of logic and commit "the fallacy of evocation". EITHER a code means something that needs to be created, like computer code, arbitrary. But then DNA is not a code. OR DNA is a code, but in that case codes do not need intelligence or a creator. In that case codes are not arbitrary. IF DNA is a code, so is crystal growth and explosions. They are the same kind of code. You cannot have it both ways. It is one OR the other.If you claim they are both, "the fallacy of evocation". is committed. Also, atheism makes no claims, and can therefore not have gaps. Atheism is simply the failure of the religious to convince everyone. The people that the theist failed to convince, are who we call atheists.

[@seamus9305]

That last part is an atheist cop-out. Atheism is full of implication. Books are written on the subject. Bottom line, either the universe is intelligent or it isn't , the rest is philosophy. You also left out agnostics. There is no doubt, DNA is a code. The intelligence comes from sequential arrangement of information. Randomness does not have the mathematical capability of high complexity. There is a cause for sequential arrangement of complex code- intelligence. If you have another cause I'd like to hear it.

[@lucianmacandrew1001]

"That last part is an atheist cop-out. Atheism is full of implication. Books are written on the subject." Atheism, by DEFINITION, cannot have implications. The word can be compared to "non-smoker". That you are not a smoker really says nothing about you, it just says what you are not. In some cases, that is actually more specific than saying what is. In the case of "atheism", meaning "lack of theism", it actually says more than the word "theism" even if it describes a "not-state". Besides not believing in god, an atheist can believe in anything, like alien creationism. "Bottom line, either the universe is intelligent or it isn't , the rest is philosophy. " Well, yes, one of those two have to be true. But we do not ASSUME that it is intelligent, unless we have EVIDENCE that it is. And we lack that evidence. You also left out agnostics. " Agnosticism is a stance on KNOWLEDGE, atheism is a stance of BELIEF. You can be both. Almost all atheists are agnostics. I actually have never ever heard of an atheist that is not agnostic also, trough the history of time. MAAAYBE Freud. "There is no doubt, DNA is a code" OK, but then codes do not need a creator. You CHOSE that it is a code, then you also chose it does not need a creator, you cannot have it both ways, then it becomes the fallacy of evocation. That is, IF a code needs a creator, DNA does not fit the description of a code as far as evidence goes. " The intelligence comes from sequential arrangement of information. " No, sequential arrangement IS what is DEFINED as INFORMATION in itself. "Randomness does not have the mathematical capability of high complexity. " So? Evolution is not considered random, abiogenesis is not considered random, and the big bang is not considered random, in scientific terms that is. When we talk about "random" in science, we of course use the scientific definition of the word "random".

[@khuramhafeez2084]

Once a person told me that life can come from non life. I asked him to go to laboratory and conduct an experiment and make a life from non life. That is the easiest way to prove otherwise dont eat my brain with your sluggish arguments.

[@Crystallinesonic]

+Khuram Hafeez Were you even paying attention, Khuram? Non-life can only turn into life after a lengthy series of modifications. It would take literally billions of years for this transformation to take place because of how slow-going the process is. If you have billions of years to wait for your friend to conduct that experiment in a laboratory, then me may very well come out with the life he couldn't come out with in your extremely short lifetime. It's not his arguments that are "sluggish" but your dogmatic "objections." Why do I even waste my breath?

[@khuramhafeez2084]

+Daniel D Actually you yourself dont know the exact procedure of life. You are just making assumption and if you exactly know that life take billions of years to come from no life than write a book which tell us at least the procedure and If you cant do this than dont make false assumptions.

[@Crystallinesonic]

+Khuram Hafeez One doesn't have to know the "exact" procedure through which living matter derived from non-living matter in order to make a claim about the KIND of procedure that could theoretically have produced "life." Scientific knowledge is a work in progress, and scientists are currently working to unravel the precise mechanisms through which abiogenesis took place (there's too much research on this subject to list here). It's hard to be "exact" because the processes we're examining took place an extremely long time ago. You're the one making "false assumptions" by claiming that, if you're friend can't come back with "life" from a lab in a few hours, it necessarily follows that life can not come from non life. Please don't waste my time, buddy. I DON'T know the precise mechanisms through which abiogenesis took place, but there is an EXTRAORDINARY amount of evidence that some kind of abiogenetic process did take place.

[@khuramhafeez2084]

+Daniel D Can you give me even a single clue that this is the point which shows that life can come from no life. Which Point insist you to accept this theory. Please tell me so it become clear to me.

[@Crystallinesonic]

+Khuram Hafeez Stop being lazy, and read some of the relevant literature on the topic. It's hard to explain these extremely subtle biological processes on a youtube thread. You have this I-want-my-answer-and-I-want-it-now attitude that is unbearable. If you're truly interested in this subject, read some books. Do your research. Goodbye forever.

[@SaikeeKonosukeLuc]

The thing is that maggots are formed from the presence of bacteria that come in contact with the meat surface. The other hypothesis is LUCA and that LUCA may be an alien cell that started it all.

[@karmasutra4774]

But then what started the alien and all of the universe even come from? Ugh I just wish I was around longer to see the answers we have over the years.

[@businesswalks8301]

if alien gave life to earth, isn't that spontaneous generation? and if so, isn't that creationism?

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@karmasutra4774 it’s going to be god in the end

[@Thefamiliaguy]

Building blocks are just that building blocks... They hold no function let alone complex function needed for life. Chemistry and chance don't ever equal something with any functional quality., abiogenesis is an obvious fantasy.

[@MastrM14]

Instead of blindly bashing a hypothesis simply because A: Your small mind cannot fathom it B: You already have a pre-supposed god conclusion and this doesn't fit that... Try using some of that small brain to come up with a good argument that may refute this claim of Abiogenesis... or GTFO.... Kthxbye.

[@Thefamiliaguy]

I am a senior engineering consultant for over 22 years. Corporations pay large sums of money for my expert opinion. I don't blindly bash. I am highly knowledgeable in engineering, biology and chemistry. Building blocks never turn into coded machinery on their own. I don't dream but live in reality. What you suggest I "cannot fathom" is statistically impossible. I speak from facts not wishful imaginative fantasies.

[@MastrM14]

Clyde Ssites Well I feel sorry for them whom pay you so much... Under the proper conditions, such as the atmosphere in primordial Earth, which was vastly different than now, this IS possible. You do not speak from facts, you speak from ignorance.

[@Thefamiliaguy]

Plausible only to create the building blocks of life once again. And even in this experiment it did not even create all the same amino acids found in life. Though I won't argue you on that point. What matters is that the amino acids/building blocks are a trillion light years away from them turning into functional coded mechanical biological life. .......... This is my last time responding to you unless you actually have something worthy of responding to. Saying something IS possible just because you say it is does not merit anymore of my responses.

[@Thefamiliaguy]

I won't argue with chance that maybe you could get amino acids to get stuck inside some kind of crude or even sophisticated membrane. And inside that membrane it creates a kind of micro environment. Those are all fine thoughts. I won't argue with any of that. The part I have a problem with is the line that says "It opens up the gates for Variation, Selection and Reproduction(of sort). Those 3 constitute an evolutionary process" the part of the line I have a problem with is really just reproduction. Real reproduction requires near exact copies of the original or some type of stable copies that maintains the majority beneficial results of the crude selection process. That kind of replication is complex functionality and nature never creates complex function. Seeing some guy in the lab execute a process that makes a molecule replicate is not reproduction. The molecule did not replicate without the hand of the scientist adding the needed ingredients though they falsely describe the molecule as self-replicating but in fact it was scientist driven replication because he kept adding the perfect ingredients for it to happen. In nature you won't have these ingredients controlled and governed. So at best you might get a scenario of a single replication on occasion in nature under this example but this will not ever result in consistent replication in the way needed for evolution. But let’s say for the sake of argument that all those things were possible and they could happen. Taking that crude blob and turning it into a complex living cell through an evolutionary process is pure fantasy. Getting to a crude blob replicating is extremely simple in comparison to the complexity that is found in any living cell. It is like comparing the complexity of a walking stick to an Apollo space rocket. I can walk though woods and easily find a broken branch that will work like a walking stick and serve that function but that is the limit of nature to create function. If I even found a small model toy rocket in the woods I would instantly know that it was created by someone and left there. When you see the living cell you should instantly know that is made by a creator. Just like all the matter/energy in the universe is a fixed amount. No one can create new additional matter/energy into our universe. What we see is what you get. So for matter/energy to have existed it took something to create it in the first place. That once again was the creator because the laws of physics proves nature can't make new additional matter/energy either. If nature can't then who did? If you don't want to believe in God fine but don't give nature the credit either. You will need to come up with something else. Good luck finding that third alternative!

[@kevinfeng6700]

iDubbbzTV: Can I get a McGangBang? Mr. Andersen: Big Bang Theory BozemanTV: can I get an Big gGangBang b0śs?)$

[@timreagan777]

Great video, thank you.

[@nolielhaven]

You say it is completely imaginary. You seem to be so sure about things you can't possibly now, yet assume right from the start that it is impossible, even when all we know points towards this being the most rational explanation. Increasing the number of possible 'molecular dances' only makes the event of one emerging with the ability of self replication more probable. The question stands, if everything was created by an intelligent mind, where did that mind come from?

[@katedrew8859]

exciting stuff !

[@hihihidddd]

My teachers didn't know what abiogenesis was. I was so disappointed.

[@markchampmd]

Bingo. I think you are starting to get my point.

[@sranjesuper]

So who wrote the programming, for the genetic mutations to be ABLE to take place? You can't explain everything, step by step, when you don't mention how it is even possible, for these steps to have come into existence to take place? These steps work together, to create life, so how did that form in the natural process ?

[@Barcs]

Why would anybody need to write programming for genetic mutations??? They are mostly copy errors, I fail to see how a copy error would be programmed ahead of time. All that shows is that the genetic replication process is not perfect, which is understandable considering it copies billions of base pairs per replication. You don't seem to grasp how science tests things at all. Each step has it's own explanation, they aren't one process. We know how amino acids can be generated, we know how dna can self assemble from RNA, we know how ribonucleotides can assemble, we know how organic molecules can increase complexity over time. Likewise, there is a bunch we don't know. That's why it's a hypothesis and not yet a theory.

[@darthj3d]

that is exactly why radiocarbon dating is not used in samples known to be over the maximum threshold of 62,000 years which is exactly why diamonds, coal and crude oil are not dated using C-14. rather they are dated using methods like uranium/lead dating, which can be used to determine the age of something 3.2 billion years old without a problem. the half life for U-238 (the most common isotope) is about 4.468 billion years which is just a little less than 1,000,000 times the half life of C-14

[@mathew3267]

Those arrows are massive assumptions. When you look at the arrows in depth the assumptions are so absurd and unbelievable that it becomes not a viable solution.

[@darthj3d]

while it is true that natural selection requires reproduction,it is also true that nothing can live before reproduction. Webster defines life as "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction" therefore if the population does not have the ability to reproduce, then it is not alive. to clarify "will continue to live and reproduce" was intended to be part of a description of natural selection which is only found in living things.

[@kevinchamberlain7928]

Action potential is instantaneous when electrolytes are present in a cell. Therefore, without electrolytes or action potential, a fully assembled "dry" cell would certainly not be a life-form. The only logical conclusion we can draw is, abiogenesis is spontaneous and therefore a fallacy.

[@mustanglp50]

i hope i get the chance to meet paul anderson in real life and tell him thank you for doing so much to help me learn this shit

[@Hippie7733]

He presents himself as Mister Anderson. Who does that?

[@nolielhaven]

The truth behind science is not consensus, it is acceptance of evidence. Please present yours.

[@danielcalisto686]

Excellent video. Congratz

[@businesswalks8301]

ur kidding right? why can't these idiots say "we don't know"? he admitted to not having evidence to work with, he came close to saying it. but no, he wasted ur time anyway

[@JuansTheName]

Bozeman is the GOAT

[@perspective8944]

Judas committed suicide by hanging. (Matt 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.) Judas did not hang himself, but died when he tripped and fell in the potters field bursting his guts all over the field? Must have been some sharp dirt. :p (Acts 1:16-18 ) There are litterally over 1,000 of these contradictions. Would you like me to go on or is this enough?

[@markchampmd]

Telling me I'm stupid is not an argument. DNA is openly referred to as a code and a language in biology textbooks. Indeed, information scientists are astonished at its programming sophistication. I go into this in my video posted on KZbin under "evolution demolition." You might want to take a look. DNA is symbolic. It represents something other than itself. It must be coded and decoded to mean anything. Symbols always originate from a mind--no exception.

[@RebornLevi]

I would, if on an AP test, mention natural selection of the protocells because the protocells though are not life, but were most fit for the primitive earth environment. Not my opinion, but from Campbell's insight.

[@kristofiyas]

My question is how did the universe , the very first gas or light or what ever else it was come into existence

[@WilliamDeanIII]

"In science we don't assume anything as impossible." "Just running around assuming things doesn't enlighten anyone." You assume some things are possible, yet you think assumptions do not enlighten people. Could you clarify this for me.

[@darthj3d]

you are not taking into account binary fission. while true that asexual reproduction is complex in itself, bacteria and other prokaryotes are simply dividing in half, splitting all their DNA in half. because of this simplicity, it is widely accepted that this was the first form of reproduction.

[@pauljessicadavis3717]

Normally, I like your stuff...good teacher. However, there is a huge hole here in this teaching. Where did all the original components to form life come from? That question is often disregarded, yet it is foundational to all of this. It is often just presented as, "here is what was here, so all must come from this." However, we must know where all the building blocks also originated from. Would be great to spend more time talking about that.

[@ahmadbelfki1395]

You’ve got a point

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Nucleobases, sugars - including ribose, and amino acids have been found in meteorites. Exactly what "original components" are you referring to?

[@ahmadbelfki1395]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger I think he’s asking where the components that made those macromolecules came from. If you say atoms then what things made those and so on until it comes to a foundational “entity i guess” but then did it just make it self???

[@ahmadbelfki1395]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Saying that they’ve already been found on meteorites doesn’t really answer his question. All your trying to argue which most keep doing is that it’s life happens spontaneously else where and it’s not so much of a rare occurrence.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@ahmadbelfki1395 Explaining the ultimate origin of everything is not needed to explain the origin of life. The main building blocks of life are amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and lipids. Amino acids form naturally, as do sugars, as do nucleobases (as well as the other 2 components of nucleotides, ribose/deoxyribose and phosphorus). For lipids, I don't remember, but fatty acid vesicles may be prebiotically plausible even if lipids are not.

[@markchampmd]

DNA is "more complex than anything we could ever imagine" yet you think you think it is more scientific to suggest a random source than to suggest an extraordinarily intelligent source? What are you thinking? DNA is a code, a message, a language, that tells us that there is someone out there who is much more intelligent than we are.

[@trinitygodsaint]

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't water/ocean have oxygen (2) in it? How can you pull oxygen out and yet have water? Two Hydrogen, one Oxygen?

[@drvir]

He only meant molecular oxygen, which is O2 Oxygen atoms are a part of many molecules, even DNA and amino acids

[@moses777exodus]

Natural selection and evolution cannot exist in a Darwinian ideology / worldview without the hypothetical Abiogenesis process. A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS. Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred."_* One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

[@itapinfomaps6233]

Evolution is a fool's thesis, couched in the shadows of convoluted words, and ideas laden with circular reasoning and untenable theories. Dr. Colin Patterson Romans 1:19-20: Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

[@perspective8944]

If you had watched the Abiogenesis video posted above you would have realized that no one in the scientific community is arguing that minerals, molecules and matter have minds. And for crying out loud man, spell Zeus and ridiculous correctly if you want to accuse others of being ignorant. The reason for the Zeus example should be quit clear. Because you cannot disprove something like Zeus or God, does not make their existence the slightest bit likely. The absence of evidence is not evidence.

[@amv062184]

it is impossible for polymer to progress to protocells, because they r 1000 times more complex than polymers

[@markchampmd]

Even dividing DNA in half is not simple. What mechanism would do such a thing? We don't have the slightest idea how to make such a mechanism. But regardless--even if it was simple--there would have to have been a time before the dividing mechanism was not yet operating. How did the dividing mechanism come to exist before natural selection was could possibly be functioning? Do you see the conundrum?

[@markchampmd]

The notion of self-replicating molecules is completely imaginary. If you're ever able to define what it is specifically, then you can think about calculating the odds. But even the simplest such idea would not be feasible with trillions of universe lifetimes when you actually crunch the numbers. You speak of "millions" when the numbers are far, far greater, and hence the odds so much more remote than you can imagine. The alternative, Design by an intelligent Mind, makes so much more sense.

[@galegregory341]

I think the chicken got here first so we talked about that egg

[@brainwashedbyevidence948]

5:12 selenocystiene ... There are 21 amino acids

[@TheBeatKeeper]

"I gave a synopsis of what the video stated" No. You did not. That's the point.

[@darthj3d]

lets look at the "hard" questions: "How could a reproductive system evolve, when a reproductive system is a prerequisite for the concept of natural selection?" in asexual reproduction, one organism either copies its DNA and forms another cell around that copy (mitosis), or splits itself directly in half (binary fission). neither of these asexual methods require a reproductive system and both are found in nature. evolution is most common in mitosis where mutations are inevitable.

[@iain5615]

The simplest argument for intelligent design is the need for abiogenesis. His argument that evolution naturally shows that abiogenesis is believable is pure fallacy. He talks about Monomers somehow (completely unknown to us) forms Polymers and then goes straight to life. He fails to talk about how they then form into even more complex molecules and come together with special feeding tubes that only allow specific chemicals to enter, scrubbers to purify the cell, waste tubes, assembly lines to produce new monomers, polymers, etc. with RNA to control each process precisely and build a duplicate cell as it splits (reproduces). This is the same fallacy that biochemists and biologists fall for. They see how simple life is within a living organism and how it so efficiently reproduces and in the process creates amino acids, which are then strung together into a protein string which is then transported to another section that folds the protein string precisely into a workable protein, etc.. It all seems so simple and evolution shows it is all natural - so therefore abiogenesis must be a given. The problem is that abiogenesis whether starting purely on earth, or having essential building blocks (such as amino acids, proteins, left-hand nucleotides, etc.) all being seeded by comets from space rely on pure random luck. That is no natural evolution as it relies on dead chemicals and so it is pure random luck of chemical synthesis. If you talk to any chemist (not a biochemist) who specialises in chemical synthesis, the creation of nano-molecular technology, etc. they will all state that it is not inevitable but flat out impossible. If you brought all the top experts required, provided all the latest and best information, gave the best labs possible, with the best equipment, provided super-computers for any possible data analysis, provided unlimited funds, etc. we would still fail to produce a living cell. We wouldn't even be able to get close. This is despite knowing how to deconstruct each and every part of a cell into its base molecules, being able to target specific molecule, and having the ability to conjecture how to develop specific molecules and how to try to arrange them. This is because whenever a molecule becomes more complex (monomers) and then joins other molecules forming polymers it will along the way form into a chemical that is not wanted, unless the solutions are purified where all unwanted chemicals and molecules are excluded, the perfect environment is maintained and changes exactly when and how is needed along the process, and that new purified solutions are added at the exact time. Any change in the perfect chemicals, the perfect environment control (type of light, vibration, heat, radiation, etc.), the perfect solution (water is very poor), etc. will ruin the next stage. Even when chemists follow these processes perfectly they still have failed batches. When a molecule goes down the wrong route it is not like there are 1000s of others waiting to take its place or for that molecule to revert back to its original form again, in reality once a molecule forms incorrectly, one goes straight back to the very beginning having wasted key precious molecules in the process. It is for this reason that Biochemists have been unable to get beyond the simplest of simple molecules and can only replicate amino acids within a 'natural' environment. Even for left-hand nucleotides, they have to first construct special frameworks for the molecules to form into the nucleotide. They therefore postulate seeding from outerspace, but all that does is move the process up the line a little with failure still inevitable and success impossible. Have you ever wondered why no expert chemist or professor has stood up to provide theories for abiogenesis or supported abiogenesis in anyway. It is professional suicide to go publicly against naturalism, but it is also 'peer' suicide to support and state your belief in a fallacy.

[@kristofiyas]

anyone now how monomers suddenly turn up out of nothing ?

[@wbiro]

Well presented. I was searching for how to present my new Philosophy of Survival in the Space Age (or Philosophy for Higher Consciousness) (or A New World Philosophy) (you can see that a good title is critical in a short-attention span era), and this method (small window for one's face) is a good candidate (though I think using good-looking actor and actress to do the presentation is the best way to attract viewers - though the viewers would not absorb any of the extended reasoning, instead fantasizing having sex with the actor/actress instead - there are just too many distractions with a video presentation, though it may be a necessary evil in today's increasingly bookless world, though the written word is still the best medium for extended reasoning)...

[@moses777exodus]

A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS. Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred."_* One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

[@seanmcdonaugh6289]

Can't we just say God did it. PLEASE!!!!

[@Spiritdove64]

you dont get life from nothing. he made an error on that statement . always something there be it light space heat or cold ect no one has shown a "nothing" to exist and if you do then its something

[@nolielhaven]

And what does that have to do with anything? No one is saying to take evolution and play it's principles to society, in fact that would be a harsh mistake. Does that make evolution wrong? Of course not, because how we got here has nothing to do with how to best promote human society. Economical problems, racism, fanaticism - religious or otherwise, are issues that can't be addressed by applying natural selection to it. Neither can it be solved by using laws written in a 2000 year old book.

[@rendavis4945]

The people below me need to shut up. Take your argument elsewhere - students are actually trying to learn something here.

[@mr.disorganized6287]

Here is something for people to think about, What if God used these natural prosses to create us.

[@nicolasmendoza7669]

delusional idiot

[@UN1VERS3S]

Then Great!

[@williamgreen1432]

OK, first I am not religious. I gave a synopsis of what the video stated, is the dude in the video a liar too? Granted the proteins were to be added to the monomers, but these super smart guys MAY have got the very first step, from chemicals to monomers, but they still need to get polymers, protocells, cellular structures, organisms to reproduce, gain hearing, sight, etc, and that is using the stuff they didn't create, but gathered and added just like a list on a box to bake a cake...

[@tomgreene1843]

Materials needed to build a car do not imply a car.

[@rickyshort3919]

Isn't it still all like the chicken and the egg? Even non-living materials had to come from somewhere. right?

[@markpanbecker9042]

I agree! That's what I hoped to be conveying in my message.

[@maxdoubt5219]

WTF is this? Rational justification for the belief that no magic was required. What many don't realize is that even without the supernatural, life is a miracle.

[@lrvogt1257]

Miracle is not a scientific term but if you mean it's good for us; sure. The fact is that even in the harshest environments on Earth there is life, organic molecules exist in space. and magic isn't real.

[@markchampmd]

I hope you'll take a look at evolutiondemolition dot info as my rebuttal. The only thing you forgot was the fairy dust.

[@nolielhaven]

Well then let us hear your theory! If you think that among the millions of possible dances between molecules, not one could have developed the trait of self replication, just this single trait, by accident, tell us the alternative? How do you think it happened?

[@nolielhaven]

Links please.

[@JDAWGstone]

I see comments fighting about religion and science. It pains me to see that you people fight over subjects that ultimately lead nowhere. You want to know the truth of all this?? Well I'll tell you one thing. Have you ever thought about beings other than yourself. Because what you all are fighting about are ideas and beliefs you are born and raised into. If you can't understand why people are so 'stupid' or 'ignorant', maybe you should try looking at yourself before you decide on what you are saying and how to take situations. An example of this is, when we were raised, we ALL saw fire as fire. You know that hot red thing that you see and could seriously be hurt by but could enjoy on a cold day? Yeah, that thing. We all have this similar idea. NOW, think about point of views. One person could seriously believe in something that YOU may think is wrong. You may not understand that our thoughts and beliefs build EVERYONE from a child, cementing in your conscious and subconscious mind. AND THAT EVERYONE IS NO GREATER NOR LESS THAN ANOTHER. This means that we have the same capability to hold onto an idea or way of thinking as closely as possible. This creates diversity in which two or more people have different views. You know the saying that we stand on the shoulders of giants? When we first look to an idea we grab previous information gained from it and stuff it into our head and our mind THINKS it's ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Your objective mind or subconscious might think right now, "This guy is questioning me on what I've learned and knowledge I've had for this long and how much I've lived believing this idea!" What you don't see is that you yourself are narrow minded. Not the other person. I guess I'm trying to help people stop this madness of endless debate. Try to open yourself and widen your AWARENESS to other point of views to at least UNDERSTAND. But you have to fix yourself seeing as it is that most of the commenters here already have corrupted minds of there own close mindedness they can't even see. I actually THINK (opinion) that the human psyche is one of the most important aspect to keep in mind at our rate of development. Doing so can help the WHOLE HUMAN RACE in that it will help us all reconnect as loving creatures and that we might, just might help our selves to get rid of all this irrelevant fighting and strive for what really matters. This post is hard to put into words that you can understand. Some may not just because of how unconscious they are. When I say that, I don't mean literally. I mean, you may not understand due to the fact your mind is brain washed, NOT TO A CERTAIN IDEA. But the idea that YOU MUST BE RIGHT. Some of you might read this and have feelings that are I guess could be described as going from narrow sighted to confused as to what is really true. That is what YOU must find for yourself. But you can't do that without equalizing your mind and way of thinking. In other words, improving yourself mentally which in turn will lead to positive actions which will lead to positive reactions in other people, maybe making someone's day. If only all people had this insight on what improving yourself meant, this world would be a better place.

[@brainwashedbyevidence948]

Its obvious that we started out in the form of a hydrothermal vent organism

[@stephentranquilla7785]

I think we must be venting our desperation

[@brainwashedbyevidence948]

@@stephentranquilla7785 ahaa...I get it.

[@redbaron1139]

Random pfft! doesn't work for gamblers doesn't work for life, doesn't work for anything sustainable. dreamers.. the odds are so so unbelievable..takes so much faith..more than I've got!

[@lrvogt1257]

No faith is required to see we got here somehow. Either it was through natural processes which we are learning more about every day... or it was by magic... and magic isn't real.

[@nolielhaven]

Yet we are to believe an intelligent mind, more complex than anything we could ever imagine, was right there, making a universe spanning beyond what our minds can even grasp, create with a % of matter that is so insignificant that we could remove all of it and our universe wouldn't even notice, just so that he could create cells that would eventually evolve over billions of years into a form of intelligent primate. All so god could sacrifice god to god to save god's creations from god. Brilliant

[@amv062184]

u know that evolution actually exists, right? well it just doesnt pertain to mankind or the origin of life... there is a rift in both the christian world AND the scientific world individually in the christain world one side is accurate... the other is not in the scientific world one side is accurate... the other is not and what ppl dont want to understand is that both factions that r accurate, r completely the same and totally agree with each other 100% confusion has ingulfed the world

[@jsplicer9]

@Chad Daniels As Andy Dufresne once said, "how can you be so obtuse?" By all means I am religious, I acolyte at my church and I attend regularly, and I have no problem with creationists or scientists. I will admit, I have my doubts, and I do tend to favor science's explanation for things, but I do not go to religious videos and post about how they are falsified. Please try not to take everything so literally, and just because you think god would never be disproved does not mean that it is fact.

[@markchampmd]

Information science delineates between a symbol and a pattern. A snowflake is a pattern resulting from its geometric molecular structure. A symbol is something that represents something other than itself. A symbol, by its nature, carries thoughts. The C,A,T,&G nucleobases have equal molecular bonds, which means that arrangements must be specified. They do not fall into place like a pattern. Programming requires a programmer. Likewise the DNA strand must be decoded to have meaning. See my video.

[@nolielhaven]

Newton's theory of gravity has been debated for far longer yet no one seems to want to disprove that. Wanna know why? because it doesn't contradict religious believes. Science is providing answers that make people see the flaws in religion, and it's normal it makes people afraid. But that does not change the truth. Time itself will destroy the antiquate notions of god, the more we come to understand. If religion wants to survive, it better adapt and fast ;) But I guess that's impossible.

[@markchampmd]

I'm waiting. Go ahead, dispel something. Are you willing to have an actual conversation about this?

[@nolielhaven]

Everything in science is theoretical. No hard evidence? Evolution clearly shows us complexity arising from simple beginnings. A bio-genesis is the most plausible answer we have that applies in context to what we know. It is consistent with what we know about the development of life. Anything else is just claims grasped out of thin air. Religion might have held answer for people when they could barely read, but times are changing.

[@markpanbecker9042]

Nonsense.A bacterial trait such as resistance to an antibiotic is nothing more than vertical evolution.You are implying a new species develops by developing new traits? The best and easiest way to prove or disprove evolution is simply measure the life span of the species. We dont then rely on wild assed speculation as you mentioned but a READILY PROVABLE(or not) measurement of the species lifespan. Ever hear of anyone stalling aging? Yah me neither..Sorry , I dont see the beneficial (cont)

[@carogame]

The original atmosphere did not have oxygen? How come some of the earliest rocks show an oxygen atmosphere?

[@wbiro]

They don't.

[@carogame]

Would you care to share evidence of no oxygen in early rocks?

[@timeformegaman]

www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Perry_Samson_lectures/evolution_atm/ The evidence is in something called banded iron formations. This webpage goes into some detail about it, but google has much more regarding it. There is very strong geological evidence that oxygen did not exist in it's current o2 state in our early atmosphere.

[@carogame]

I'm not sure what the date was of that weblink you sent me. But, from what I've seen, banded iron formations (bif) also provide evidence for plenty of oxygen before what the evolutionists call the great oxidation event (goe). These bif are found in precambrian and phanerozoic rock layers. Geologists note that the oxygen found in the iron oxides of bif is about 20 times that of the current atmosphere. Since the bifs were deposited in water, the implication is that the atmosphere contained plenty of oxygen. I get this from the "Geological Society of America" 2006.

[@sudesenaozcan4519]

I wish it had turkish subtitles but thank you

[@businesswalks8301]

I'll explain it in 3 words "we don't know"

[@markchampmd]

I demolish it with much less than that--a few unanswerable questions--any one of which crushes evolution by itself. Take a look. I am not impressed with resumes. Content is what matters.

[@nolielhaven]

I didn't say you are stupid, just uninformed. You say symbols don't originate from a mind, yet snowflakes can be interpreted as a symbols. That is the issue. Symbols don't need a mind to originate, they need a mind which interprets them as such. Saying there are no exceptions ones more shows your total confidence and absolutist mindset. You are set on your belief, unwilling to change it no matter what anyone tells you. However wanting something to be true, and something being true isn't the same

[@whatabouttheearth]

....."Mr. Anderson"