Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?

[@tadashimori]

Gosh... I wanted to read the comments to enlighten a little bit more, but it's filled with Atheist x Religion discuss...

[@tadashimori]

rushy scoper After studying astronomy, my conclusions where a little bit different than yours, and maybe more depressing... There are several cases in the universe where something looks to be in perfect balance, but the truth is something called "survival bias". It was not in balance in the beginning, but it just happened that the universe got rid of everything else. If I apply it to humans and evolution, I do believe we just survived according to evolution, but this still doesn't explain the origin of life. The wish to live has to come from somewhere. After reading a little about the chemical evolution, it looks possible for cells to start randomly, but what would make it have the wish to survive? That's where I associated with the survival bias in the universe. If billions of random "fat blobs" were created, and a few of them just randomly had something inside that made them survive, or even divide for random reasons, after some time (aka million years) it could possibly have had one key mutation, making it stay existing. If all the billions of blobs died, then I'd say the "key mutation" is what we call the will to survive. I mean, even unicellular bacterias seems to have the will to survive without having a single brain cell.

[@rushyscoper1651]

Tadashi Mori yeah i have thought about it once. i have to say your answer is very logical we have a very similar pattern of thinking. to some level i am with u in your conclusions in why life have survival bias to add to that its even explain one of my oldest question (if survival is the key why speics fight each other instead to survival as a whole). in another hand i would say that this is my final answer but i still have one question that it don't explain why we don't live for ever like Turritopsis dohrnii instead we design to die. anyway i really like your way of thinking if u have any idea about my question feel free to share

[@tadashimori]

rushy scoper Sorry, I didn't see that you replied my answer earlier. Giving a thought about the question about dying x surviving forever, indeed this question can lead to so many other questions... It's kind of a key to understand how evolution works. I was trying to find out an answer, but there's no obvious answer. Of course the general idea would be that mutations are good to experiment different patterns and find the best genetic code for the ever changing environment, one "imortal" being would not have the same capabilities to adapt. Still.. this answer is so vague I can't even consider it an answer. What lead the living beings to divide in male/female? Even more, there are living being that didn't divide at all and are still living today, so it's not a key mutation. Man... this is really interesting. I'll research more about it!

[@diceman199]

+rushy scoper As Tadashi said, if an organism doesn't die it also doesn't change. If you look at complex life (non singled celled forms) you'll find that they normally live long enough to reproduce and then it starts to die off. In some species that produce many young in one go (salmon for instance) it reproduces just once and dies. In other extremes where it's normal for a single offspring then the organism will normally live long enough to reproduce 4 or 5 times, possibly more, ie enough to ensure the continuation of the species. This means a shorter life span gives a more rapid "turnover" in evolutionary possibilities if you will. So any organism that does not reproduce will be out competed for resources....maybe not by it's generation but by it's competitors a few generations down the line......this is why nothing lives for ever.

[@tadashimori]

They actually do. Some bacterias kind of "run away" from while cells inside our bodies. I'm aware that it's some sort of simple water concentration difference, but it clearly selected the right things to "run away" from.

[@snpio2811]

I like him honestly stating that 'science has not explained the origin of life in full detail'. It is important, as a scientist, to clarify and understand what can be explained and what cannot be explained yet. Also summarized well about the findings so far.

[@MikkoRantalainen]

I think the two most important differences between religion and science is that: 1. It's okay to say "we don't yet know" in science. Religions are about using once guessed explanations as "knowledge". 2. When measurements show that the written "knowledge" doesn't match with the reality, the "knowledge" is fixed.

[@closrod335]

"The more I study science," he remarked, "the more I believe in God." -Albert Einstein “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” -Isaac Newton “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” -Bill Gates “With odds standing at 1 chance in 10164 of finding a functional protein among the possible 150-amino-acid compounds, the probability is 84 orders of magnitude (or powers of ten) smaller than the probability of finding the marked particle in the whole universe. Another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specified particle among all the particles in the universe.” --Stephen C. Meyer. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” -Charles Darwin

[@theincarnationofboredom207]

"i made pee without peeing" that made me laugh

[@simonelampertico121]

????? Ajahqjqqhqq good one

[@Danquebec01]

Especially the applauding. :D

[@ianmiao3788]

You spoiled it!

[@seanandrews5329]

ahghaghghgahgahgahagahaghhga ok boomer

[@tuschman168]

I lost it at "foot molecules". That really tickled me.

[@seanandrews5329]

your mother tickled me

[@niftytheundying]

Sean Andrews ha ha ha you got the whole squad laughing

[@oradoughball]

"I made pee without peeing" got me.🤣

[@joannaconde5764]

@@seanandrews5329 LMFAOO PLSS

[@aue82a]

that one knocked my socks off.

[@jayyemm69]

Imagine if all of life was just a game show and once we figured out the origin of life, space opens up like giant curtains and there’s just giant alien/cosmic beings clapping for us 👏🏼

[@dembears95]

I think you just broke me

[@jayyemm69]

@@dembears95 just something to think about 😂

[@jam9235]

ok, r u ready, where did the aliens come from ? thx for nothing... lol

[@jayyemm69]

@Richard Fox exactly 😂

[@jayyemm69]

@@jam9235 they were always there O_o

[@braydenbuhler4682]

I just watched an extremely well made, enjoyable and educational video. It stimulated my mind and made me think. Then I read the comments and I cried.

[@LosloTypical]

I love how all the people who support the fact of evolution comment show proof to hold up their statesment, while the creationist just say say, "God made the earth." Or they try to prove God exists... By using the Bible as their evidence... Seriously? Why use the Bible to show a person who doesn't believe in the Bible that the Bible is truth.

[@lionelmessi8380]

Bible is JUST A FUCKING BOOK THATS A FAIRY TALE. CREATIONIST FUCK OFF

[@TimberWulfIsHere]

Its like us christains pointing a sword at you, you by saying that you dont believe in our sword doesnt stop us from stabbing you with it. The bible is a historical document, not a book of science

[@LosloTypical]

Jake Forster the bible is a fairy tale, written by 40 different, racist, sexist, and homophobic men.

[@TimberWulfIsHere]

Nebiru next joke please, you just sound like a butthurt atheist with no evidence to support, since when was moses scared of gay men

[@TimberWulfIsHere]

Self Fulfilling Prophet you also forgot the 10 commandments were not even written by a human hand, its god's law on stone

[@marvinkitfox3386]

Extremely simplified, but containing absolutely no falsehoods or misleading pseudo-facts. i like!

[@rayboish]

What do you mean no falsehoods, he completely ignores the Cambrian explosion, and where the genetic information came from for species changing ie fish to mammal. Darwins theory only explains Micro evolution which we see in Natural selection . For example different types of cats, from a domestic cat to a Lion. What Darwin did say in his work The Origin of species in 1859 that eventually the fossil record will show the transition species . Here we are 160 yrs later and no transition species and we have millions of fossils. Like gives birth to like, the genetic information is just NOT THERE to jump from one species to another. If Darwin was around now he would refute his own theory.

[@pbaylis1]

You hit the nail on the head with "extremely simplified". Simplification allows you to omit vital details, like why we have found half a million fish fossils but not one single transitional form, why there are no transitional forms for plants, or why DNA cannot produce any usable new information. Why do you think Gould & Eldridge have been pulling their hair out over this for decades.

[@lfidarraga]

Theres a lot of pseudo facts. There's no evidence of spontaneous creation of self replicating molecules. The assembly of molecules like ARN are impossible to happen spontaneously.

[@lfidarraga]

@@edit8826 it's ARN in my native language

[@lfidarraga]

@@edit8826 hear*

[@leot7]

Thank you very much for your videos. You explain concepts very well so that they can be easily understood by everyone, yet you don't sacrifice depth when covering these topics.

[@CFB6855]

Nice video, simple and easy to understand. But of course one still needs and open mind to comprehend it.

[@gunterra1]

Agreed.

[@aweiss5206]

An open what?

[@ashtonmmton1554]

Simple and easy to understand because it's a bunch of garbage lol

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@ashtonmmton1554 Do you have a better suggestion?

[@ashtonmmton1554]

@@VaughanMcCue yes a creator

[@Thrall079]

"Science can't explain it _yet_ so it must've been *magic*!"

[@tjhookit]

+Thrall079 Meanwhile the evolutionists believe it is logical to believe that we literally came from a rock.....because the universe suddenly banged into existence, it rained heavily on the rock surface of the earth, and the chemicals leaked from the rock into the waters.....and bodabing bodaboom....life starts!

[@Thrall079]

+Todd Johnson Obviously we don't have a sufficient explanation for abiogenesis... but magic is what you're going with to explain it? A being that is all-powerful, knows everything, and is capable of conscious thought and decision making? And this being cares whether you masturbate or not?

[@tjhookit]

Thrall079 So you have zero idea how life started, or what MY beliefs are....but you call me "fucking retarded"? That tells me all I need to know about you.

[@tjhookit]

***** Yeah you are right, waste of time.

[@giveitarub7215]

+Todd Johnson And you believe a magical man in the sky "created himself from nothing" and spontaneously made, over 100 different standalone chemicals, millions of species, and trillions of stars in an entire universe spanning over a million light years wide, that watches EVERY persons moves all at once, and if you don't bow down to him and live by him your "soul" (somehow magically created through sexual reproduction) will suffer an eternity in a firey place and burn for all eternity. All documented in a book written and edited by Kings to their liking nearly two thousand years before science started becoming extremely advanced? Yet our heads are stuck in a ostrich's behind. Ok.

[@Yam-jt3vw]

reading the comment section is giving me more of a headache than taking my science quiz tomorrow.

[@billy9144]

Yeah so many retards here.

[@studygodsword5937]

@@billy9144 can you believe how many people actually believe the evolution garbage ?

[@billy9144]

@@studygodsword5937 Evolution is a fact. LOL. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Imagine being this stupid that you deny science by default in favor of unfalsifiable myth supported by no evidence whatsoever. LMFAO!!!!

[@studygodsword5937]

@@billy9144 *5 undeniable facts* Abiogenesis is totally impossible ! Life is far to complicated to be formed by accident ! even if it did form "accidentally" what would it eat, how would it know it needed to eat, how would it have the ability to eat ! it would be the first life form ever ! How would it have developed those properties ! Please don't wast my time with that franken-life altering existing life, and calling it new life ! Or that dead stuff experiment, forming lifeless amino acids ! *your theory can't even get to evolution ! *continued !*

[@studygodsword5937]

@@billy9144 undeniable facts #s 2,3 & 4 : *3 bridges evolution can not cross :* The first life form ever, knowing how to reproduce it's self, when it has never been done before ! going from a single cell to a complex life form that absolutely requires more than 5 organs just to survive ! going from a single sex to male and female, with all the reproductive parts working that first generation !

[@wooe]

It amazes me how some religious people almost shit their pants on the idea that there is things that we yet don't know. There is a lot of things that we don't know but when it comes to the origin of life they are so freaked out that they rather oppress and ignore what we actually know and put some sort of vague place holder deity in that spot instead. They seems to feel so much better when they don't have to think about this at all. The fact that they perhaps wasn't created specificity for some glorious purpose obviously make some people very uncomfortable, it makes them loose all that can be called being rational and logic. You are OK as you are. It's OK for you not to know everything because we have all resources to find out more about the world we live in, we have done so for a really long time now and it's working out fine. You are fully capable about making your own future and find out what suits you and what makes you happy, you don't need anyone else to do this for you.

[@Mexitian]

wooe true, we can't go past what happened before the big bang or what really caused it, there are many questions about our bodies, atoms, space, etc but since we can't give proper evidence, and this is all just theory they go with some fairytale concerning someone named 'god' but yet god is also a theory and there is no evidence at all he is real, what if the bible was written to be a children's boom?

[@tonydavis6151]

Wooe i have no problem with science, i view it as a handy tool to find the true nature of the universe. Science tells me that there are laws in nature, laws of attraction and replusion, laws of motion, laws of gravity and many many others. We are told that if any of these laws had any different values than the ones they have that galaxies, stars, planets and even matter would not have formed. All of nature exists in harmony from the smallest quark to entire universe itself and if you can't see the intelligent design in it your faith in chance is much bigger than mine is in God. The video says they can form RNA in the lab and can coax a reaction from it with iron. But they then tell you that RNA can't even live without DNA to give it instructions. When you consider the incredibly large amount of information stored in even the smallest forms of DNA, how can you believe hundreds of thousands of molecules, consisting of trillions and trillions of atoms, all came together at one instant of time by chance and in just the right order? Again, your faith has to be stronger than mine, scientifically speaking.

[@edmorel134]

To sum up the video: Science doesnt know how life began. Athiests have my permission to shit themselves.

[@AvatarEnd777]

We are not shitting our pants. Just calling out bullshit as is our right and our responsibility. :)

[@b.jamminmusic3885]

We do know, or we wouldn't make such a fuss

[@zombieslayer4415]

Why isn't this stuff on Discovery Channel prime time? Oh because Amish Mafia is on then. Nevermind

[@AzureFides]

I miss old Discovery channel so much ... same as "History" channel.

[@ceecee685]

+fides5566 don't forget "MTV!" remember the days when they used to play music videos and have news about the music industry? yeah, me neither... ok, well barely. :/

[@simoprdev3517]

because those claims are not proven, so they can't be said to be science. and they are not religious either. So!

[@FabricioSilva-ij8iz]

Science "proves" nothing. It gives theoretical models to explain facts observed in natural world. The best model to explain biology is the Theory of Evolution.

[@meis]

It's part of the evolution. From without internet to having internet access for the masses. So those Discovery Channel, History Channel, and MTV (aka traditional TV) will or have to be phased out to some degrees. It's more convenient for the internet and smartphones. It's almost "natural selection". You discard useless "traits" to survive and adapt useful "traits" to survive. Discovery Channel, History Channel, and MTV had to change in order to adapt as well, or they will die out. Evolution and natural selection are everywhere.

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

Not sure how I got to this channel, but I'm glad I found it! Simple explanations and really cool animations, well done

[@primedust1]

ArchetypeGotoh yeah that’s right

[@Nicky-cc2tr]

shutup

[@corruptneedles3384]

@@Nicky-cc2tr you too

[@jam9235]

Yep, incredibly complex structures are explained so simply. Wow and they call Christians simple minded ?

[@jhmejia]

Short answer: not yet! But that doesn’t mean we know nothing, we know a lot actually.

[@dave1370]

Right, we know enough to know that the more we learn the less we actually know, and the more unlikely naturalistic abiogenesis looks.

[@chikkipop]

@@dave1370 Therefore Jeebus Saves! Uh-huh. Sure.

[@redsusas00]

@@chikkipopsounds like ur coping lol

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@dave1370 That comment is the logic of a grade school child. If you try with a better syllogism, you might make sense.

[@iloveparadise]

The usual empty smugness of an atheist. You people can speculate all​ you want about how life cane about, but we believers already know that "God is the source of life" @@VaughanMcCue

[@martynjones8560]

Excellent as always. Should have a follow-up showing the progression of prokaryotes to eukaryotes possibly via endosymbiosis. Mitochondria from heterotrophic prokaryotes and chloroplasts from autotrophic prokaryotes.

[@mark41776]

So those two created the eukaryote?

[@martynjones8560]

Marcus Moody It has been observed that larger prokaryotes engulf smaller unicells and instead of "digesting" them, use them for other metabolic functions. The same with plastids or small cyanobacteria. This endosymbiosis is thought to be the start of early eukaryotes. There's a lot of geological time involved here and not enough space to detail the rise of endoplastistic reticullem, ribosomes, various vesicles etc. - Find a university level text-book to argue against (Campbell's "Biology" would be my choice). There are many gradual steps on the emergence of 'true cells', but we have very good evidence of how prokaryotes became the cells that all multicellular life arose from.

[@mark41776]

Martyn Jones I know that they would engulf mitochondria, but an entire class of cell entirely? Interesting.

[@martynjones8560]

Marcus Moody They weren't mitochondria at that stage, just an engulfed smaller prokaryote that eventually served an energy process within the cell. Similar were indentations of the cellular membrane to give rise to other organelles, also initially redundant, but eventually useful.

[@DonaldKronos]

The answer is yes. Science CAN EXPLAIN the origin of life. Of course, scientists are still working on details of explanations of various possible origins of life, and its possible that we may never know for sure which possible origin of life was THE origin of life that actually allowed the beginnings of the evolutionary path that produced us, but whatever it was, given enough time and effort, and a sufficient opportunity to work out an explanation, science most certainly is capable of being used as a tool to do so successfully... so, yes. Science can.

[@gunterra1]

You sound like a true believer. What branch of science? And who is going to do that? I have my doubts. All subjects have as their basis a point of first assumption. In man's technology this is usually weak and nonfactual. So it would be very interesting to know what that point exactly is in this case. Since you are so convinced, any idea?

[@DonaldKronos]

Gunter Raffel Science is a process. The process is not restricted to functioning within branches.

[@DonaldKronos]

Gunter Raffel It may be that science already has explained the origin of life here on Earth, as there are theories of abiogenesis which explain quite well how life could have gotten started on a planet like this one, and very likely how life did start on many planets much like this one, but since we can't travel back in time to see exactly how life on this planet started, we wouldn't necessarily recognize an explanation of how life on this planet started if he had one. That does not mean we can't come up with an explanation. It simply means we may not know for certain exactly when we have done so. It's a bit like if I were to foll a six sided dice a million times, and then ask you to theorize what numbers came up on the first three rolls. You know they were each in the range of one through six, so you have one chance in six of getting any one of them right in a single try, and if you guess each of those possible values once as the first number that came up, you are certain to have gotten that first number right... but on which guess? Of course, the kind of life we have on this planet tells us quite a bit about the possibilities for its origin, as do other factors such as the chemicals available on our planet to work with, the size of the planet, the distance from our local star, details about the Earth's moon, and so on. However, if life on this planet was planted here by life from somewhere else, instead of happening through abiogenesis, how would we know that? The answer is that we wouldn't know for sure unless sufficient evidence had been left behind, and that does not appear to be the case. If life had been brought here from another planet, for example, we would not expect to find something like the Cambrian explosion, UNLESS the life brought here had been si simple that the evidence left behind would likely give us no clue that life had not formed here on its own, while we would definitely expect an event of that type with abiogenesis forming primitive life, because random changes would at first have little or no distinct advantages or disadvantages, and the early structured multi-cellular life forms would have likely had too much simpler life around it to consume as food for any meaningful competition to begin. If the origin of life matched any religion's creation story, since all such stories (at least that I'm aware of) involve higher order life forms being made at about the same time which were quite different from each other, rather than evolving out of more primitive forms, we should see evidence as such in the fossil records, which we do not. Of course, it is possible that some such story is true but does not go into enough detail, for example leaving out any mention of evolution being used in the process over long time scales, but if that were the case then we should see evidence in the fossil records of life having come about in the order mentioned in such a story. Again.... we do not.

[@gunterra1]

You have added nothing meaningful or new. The video presentation already said it all that is to be said. So why repeat it?

[@DonaldKronos]

Gunter Raffel I wasn't repeating. I was answering the question. And no, the video did not say it all, nor did it actually answer the question.... so I did.

[@WhiskersMctabby]

Watching this video should be mandatory if you are alive right now. I find stuff like this awesome. Every day we get closer to answering those questions about the universe and how life began. Science will someday provide us with all the answers that are out there.

[@baraskparas]

A new book published by Austin Macauley publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail including a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general.

[@baasmans]

Hell yes to this video!! The issue could be explored in more depth with hot vs cold beginning, anaerobic environment, clay matrix, the RNA world etc. but it's perfect for the intended audience. My hat off to you sir.

[@__RD14533]

I think this was a very well made video. I do think you should put links to the experiments and papers you've sited! You may have excited people's interest in this topic. You should give them credible resources to explore it on their own.

[@albertmarti2718]

I'm rewatching this after many years since I am now taking a course on Energy and Evolution at university. After restlessly digging through the literature, I'd conclude that we will never really know for sure what the origin of life was, but I believe that we're pretty good at coming up with ideas and testing them, and that we already have quite a good idea of how it may have been, regardless of the fact that there are different schools of thought.

[@Glocky131]

Holy shit, that is some really groundbreaking stuff.

[@massey904]

Stubborn people don't really want to know the origin of life.

[@SiSCrafting]

There is an explanation of the origin of life. Some just choose not to accept it. What I don’t understand is if evolution is true, why are humans still humans?

[@debildebilov7504]

@@SiSCrafting You do realize that evolution is slow and gradual process right ? right now there is no evolutionary pressure for our species to change, although small changes do occur people before weren't able to digest milk but now most people can digest it , and that is all of the result of random mutations, when creatures reproduce they don't make a perfect copy of themselves something always is changed

[@studygodsword5937]

@@debildebilov7504 evolution is an impossible process, with numerous obstacles it cannot cross !

[@eshkeitt8523]

Human: how did life started? *doing research to find out how* Alien/higher being: look at these chunks of atoms trying to understand how it came to be. Pathetic, complex chunks of atoms trying to understand itself, hysterical.smh

[@vee9066]

Lol.

[@alexy.9306]

They speak English?

[@BigHeretic]

*cellphone bwahahaha* Hilarious! look at that chunk of atoms trying to assert how it came to be and how it didn't come to be.

[@callumosullivan7546]

I thought that but how did the aliens come to be

[@Normalguy21]

Why aliens always think about us not about themself that how the hell the came into existence.

[@BarbarosaAlexander]

I watch this channel with my five year old. She LOVES it. Keep up the excellent work.

[@Wolfhammered]

BarbarosaAlexander Indoctrination starts young.

[@chikkipop]

@@Wolfhammered Warning: Idiot on the scene

[@airfun5001]

@@Wolfhammeredthat would be religion, this is education

[@stxrfire4781]

Wow....I really love science! Evolution sounds very interesting!!!

[@earthernut4073]

Evolution indeed is very interesting! In fact, it's one of the topic containing diverse arena of subtopics which intertwine together to reveal mystery behind our existence in the universe.

[@bfnv9972]

Just a question crossed on my mind. I know that life could emerge from non-living material. And I know that free will is an illusion because my decision is based on the chemical reactions happening inside my brain. But can anybody please explain to me how can life have consciousness? Where do our mind reside? How can I experience and perceive the world as it is? I don't know if other life form beside me have consciousness at all, but can science at some point explain this to me? I'm really curious about it.

[@freeyourmind7538]

Damn! Probably the most interesting comment and nobody commented back. You sir/madaam/chemicals/meaningless being/ have legit questions that actually need answering.

[@vivusen6547]

Advaita Vedanta 😪

[@Alphafoxx1]

How can life come from material that’s not alive

[@Alphafoxx1]

How does organization come from chaos

[@Alphafoxx1]

How does the earth we live on have everything it needs to support life

[@1946kp]

Which came first? The cell membrane with its complex ability to let in nutrients and let out waste products, or the complex protein machinery to be found within the cell that allows for cell replication, including the DNA molecule containing all that highly structured information needed to construct creatures? Bill Gates has described the structured information inside DNA molecules as being like computer software but much more complex than anything ever created by humans. And he is right. If the reproducing mechanism came first, it would not survive without the cell membrane being there to protect it. If the cell membrane came first without any contents, what would be the point? Or maybe the cell membrane and the contents were created simultaneously, as in the 'irreducible complexity' outlined by Professor Behe. But that possibility lets in the notion of Intelligent Design, which is anathema to materialist scientists who will not even consider the idea, or its details, because materialism is a religion as well as a science, as illustrated by this video. The facts are that despite scientists' efforts to create life by chemical reactions, this process has been a complete failure over decades and will continue to be so. With respect, I think this video is completely erroneous. There is no evidence whatsoever for a single universal common ancestor for all of life at the base of the so-called Tree of Life. Indeed, there is no Tree of Life; it is a fiction. There is also no evidence whatsoever for a primordial soup in the early years of the earth which thus allowed the development of the first cells. I have no doubt it is time for a fundamental rethink on the whole issue, and many Darwinists are now coming to that conclusion too.

[@jesushad12gayfriendwhoallb50]

Simple the cell membrane came first. See how easy it is to just make up shit when you don’t know the answers😁

[@templarseries]

No Darwinist is reaching any conclusion which negates physics and chemistry. Only absurd theists who don't understand real science think nature needs a helping hand. You just need more science lessons. Try reading ilya prigogine and emergent complexity.

[@yunusycle1961]

Love your vids, they are really simple and easy to understand

[@funkymonkey1958]

My man could only get 7 likes in 7 years

[@noobgamers69]

this channel needs more subs

[@hisham031170]

+stated clearly can you post a video describing the life cycle of butterfly and explain each stage in evolutionary perspective?

[@StatedClearly]

That's not on our current list of projects but it is a good idea for an article at least. I'll see if one of my entomologist friends would have time to do a breakdown of the evolution of metamorphosis.

[@ONFIREYO]

+Stated Clearly you should explain how the caterpillar knows how and when to build a cocoon and stay in it for a certain amount of time without ever being instructed how to do so? "the memories came in it's DNA from its parents" then why don't we get memories passed to us from our parents? and why would its ancestors ever start making cocoons? or how do birds know where to go when they migrate? how were flowers pollinated before bees existed? how did snakes spiders and other organisms that use venom randomly develop it? how does an animal randomly start producing deadly acid that it then knows how to use?

[@RajSeelam]

+Arthur Oberemok (somebodyepik) we have memories passed on to us. drop a baby in the water for example. How dose it know to hold it's breath in water. There are many more like that if u do some research.

[@hisham031170]

***** So what, are we once upon a time aquatic apes or something?

[@martinlag1]

+Arthur Oberemok (somebodyepik) Butterfly metamorphosis is quite well studied and understood. The cells that become wings are not fully activated until the penultimate instar (chrysalis), similar to a human chin not growing a beard until nearly two decades of life, (and never in females). Metamorphosis is explained by delayed timing of gene expression especially in climates with marked seasonal changes. There is little qualitative difference in metamorphosis and the complex mechanisms of development in embryology.

[@jIMwILLIAMS-im7kk]

9 years later and the more science reveals the complexity of a living cell the more confounding the question becomes...darwin would have straight up thrown his random luck scenario of life into the trash bin 150 years ago had he partially comprehended the sheer complexity of the simplest living sysyem..

[@claudiaquat]

The major take away here is when you have energy being pushed into a chemical system, that system will tend to greater complexity over time. On Earth, the energy source is the sun and the heat of the earth itself.

[@carrisglen123]

energy randomly distributed will destroy unless it has a receiver

[@DonaldKronos]

sammy strain What? How in the world would you expect energy to destroy anything without being received?

[@carrisglen123]

Donald Kronos it needs a mechanism to utilise the energy or the mass release of energy will only be destructive . The recipient needs to be in place before the energy is released

[@DonaldKronos]

sammy strain Absolutely not true. Just because humans have learned to take advantage of the ability to arrange things to behave in ways that we can predict, does not mean that nature needs to behave like we do in order to do anything non-destructive. You're jumping to a false conclusion. Not bad for an understanding of macroscopic mechanics as utilized by humans, but not an accurate overall picture.

[@carrisglen123]

Donald Kronos the second law of thermodynamics

[@drvinson8947]

You answered the question at 0:18.

[@lukeabs9333]

true

[@choeungul]

@@lukeabs9333 Yes, sir

[@carlboi5652]

And it will never exist because the idea that non-living, non-conscience atom molecules managed to form living cells and DNA, and somehow these cells managed to change the DNA to evolve into complex conscious multicellular organism like humans is just so unthinkable

[@yeahkeen2905]

Great Value Bleach we have observed rna molecules spontaneously forming on their own, we have observed lipids spontaneously forming on their own as well as forming lipid membranes, and we have observed amino acids forming on their own. The only people who think it’s unthinkable are ignorant people.

[@heath6969]

@@carlboi5652 your vision is so narrow so of course someone like you would never be able to think it

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

_"At the molecular level, geochemistry is indistinguishable from biochemistry. Life is just ions cascading across membranes due to their electromagnetic potential._ _It really is as simple as that."_ - Professor Brian Cox

[@MarboBeatz]

You did an excellent job of simplifying

[@tompalmer5986]

It would be a productive line of research to actually investigate if life has originated from a single source, or if life began in different environments on earth.

[@39401JLB]

Unfortunately, the evidence seems to indicate that life arose very quickly -- early in the geological history of Earth. That was a very, very long time ago, and much of what happened then is absolutely lost forever; even many of the rocks are gone or inaccessible.

[@WCephei77HD]

This is awesome, I'm learning fantastic thanks to your videos, sharing them around too!

[@MrGreen-fi5sg]

No! Follow Christ!

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

​@@MrGreen-fi5sg Jesus is a fictional character.

[@MrGreen-fi5sg]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS How. Their is literally historical records of him. You people really have no argument. 😒

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

@@MrGreen-fi5sg 😄 Lots of claims. But claims are not "historical records". You failed.

[@MrGreen-fi5sg]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS If it's recorded then YES it's historical. That's what historical literally means. 😒 I failed nothing for we are close to the end times!

[@TruthSurge]

Why have you uploaded the same video with a different title?

[@psyekl]

please post a link to the other video.

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

Excellent video. I’m going to use it in my biology class.

[@dave1370]

That's pretty sad. You're a teacher, and you're showing this massive speculation as science?

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

@@dave1370 I’m going to teach that humans and chimps share more than 95% of their DNA, show me that this is a “massive” speculation

[@mcmanustony]

@@dave1370 it’s science. The full answer isn’t known and no one claims it is. Throwing your imaginary friends into the equation explains precisely nothing

[@SamJac55]

Love the video. This was an area I knew little about. I've always likened the origins of life to something akin to Conway's Game of Life or some other type of cellular automate.

[@jcurtis8121]

My 7-year-old said, "play it again."

[@stevenleibo9953]

This is really helpful.. especially for those who are interested, as I am in developing more scientific literacy among people who do not formally study science. Thanks

[@paigea4745]

This video rocks!

[@ateam02]

"I don't understand and I don't like it so it can't be true."

[@giveitarub7215]

+Clorox Bleach Where's your proof to show that evolution isnt possible? Because you havnt been able to witness a multi-million year change in the course of your pitiful lifetime? Get the fuck out of here.

[@giveitarub7215]

***** Show it to me please?

[@giveitarub7215]

***** Wow that's really good evidence!! By the way that isn't evidence, it's a claim.

[@anthonyrymer4391]

+Clorox Bleach If you learn about the world a little bit and all its different cultures and then also learn about the past civilizations that predate the bible and quran. You would see that humans are just gullible and ignorant creatures that'll believe in anything they been taught since a young age to explain the unexplained. There's is no designer, life just happens naturally. Scientist even proved they gotten the simplest forms of life from chemical reactions from non-living compounds.

[@giveitarub7215]

***** Well what you said literally is no where near evidence whatsoever. "Things are sophisticated so it must be a magical invisible man who did it" Like yeah ok.

[@davidbbeattie]

Riiiiight. Some dude recreates pee 200 years ago and starts a scientific revolution. I mean you couldn’t make that shit up could you (pardon the pun) 😂

[@StatedClearly]

Truth is stranger than fiction.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@Winston Grettum Why assume he didn't?

[@edit8826]

BlacksmithTWD -because this video doesn’t comport to his bible magic worldview...

[@stephenmcguire7342]

@@edit8826 but is does conform with your science fiction world view, right? Well there you go your emotions say it's true therefore it must be so, right? Hope you enjoyed the cartoon.

[@stephenmcguire7342]

@@edit8826 Worshipping ones Creator is not a waste of one's life. Worshipping the false gods of science fiction, which you do, and being a proud member of the Church of Scientism, which you are, that qualifies! And I'll remain angry at the lies of modern science as long as I wish, without apology!

[@maxbrown1990]

What an awesome voice!

[@jackierawl6955]

First word you don’t know , but more are less you don’t believe, That’s that truth

[@bentonquest6567]

faith is not a way of knowing any thing. If a "god" exists, then where did the god come from?

[@damiandziedzic23]

God is infinite and eternal and He is beyond time and space. A Creator / Designer can't be limited to his creation, He needs to be outside of it, just like a man who made a watch needs to be outside his design and way smarter, greater than his watch.

[@bentonquest6567]

Faith is not a way of knowing anything, your claims are empty.

[@damiandziedzic23]

John Boles Faith is not a way of knowing everything, but the thing is that there is no "real" evidence for evolution...

[@bentonquest6567]

what would you consider "real" evidence?

[@damiandziedzic23]

Real evidences come from real science, which means something can be observed, examined, tested. And the origin of live from the evolutionary point of view are just pure speculations. For example what will happen with a body of a death animal left on a ground in our times ? It will decompose and after more then few tears even bones will vanish... Than why we have fossils? They shouldn't be found nowhere, because when you look on the geological column, those layers have millions and millions years and we are told that those bones were there for such as long time with dust and ground slowly covering them. To have fossils you need to have something that will rapidly bury those bodies to not be exposed to oxygen and other factors which will speed up the decomposing process. And a global flood is a solution to that, you can easily explain everything with a flood.. To add something to that, people were finding standing, vertical trees in those layers ( the geologic column is horizontal :P ) , which would suggest that they were staying there for millions and millions of years, while dust and ground slowly were covering them. Again flood is and explanation to that. You can find thousands of things like that.

[@Reach41]

Science is working on explanations, all based on observations, experiments, and logic. People interested in science find these explanations fascinating, others find them as threats to their own message. The latter claim to have the actual facts all presented in one book, with only a few internal contradictions, and requiring no knowledge of science to understand. Science, on the other hand, is explained spread out over thousands of texts and published reports, is not understood in detail without advanced university degrees, and makes no claims to absolute facts. The previously noted book hasn't changed for thousands of years, while science changes daily. The one book people like to argue against the theories of science by claiming the theories of science aren't provable fact, while putting forth their own claims as seminal facts beyond reproach. Science readily accepts that their conclusions are subject to review and revision as observations advance; that is the basic premise of all science. Science, as a discipline, has no interest in religion, and ignores it in its work. If you want to have eternal life with a god or gods, latch onto the one book people, get them to arrange the forgiveness or your sins to facilitate matters, and die. If you want to go to Mars, see the science people, but keep in mind that it won't happen anytime soon, and they can't guarantee you won't be killed by some accident in the process.

[@AvatarEnd777]

What is so fun as as there are no answers currently in science, they must place their faith in science for eventual answers, yet this is exactly what they criticize believers for. Science is limited to the created universe and thus they will be forever searching for answers (and ultimately frustrated) on answers regarding the creator.

[@dirtyharold7164]

@@AvatarEnd777 You are correct, atheists believe that life just randomly formed out of non living matter. This hasn't been proven by science but they still believe it's "just a matter of time" before its proven by science. That's called faith, just as a Christian believes it's "just a matter of time" before Jesus comes back to rapture all the good Christians up to heaven. Atheists are more toxic than Theists and I have had my fair share of arguments with both. I found myself being forced to take and agnostic approach because to believe that the whole universe including space and time just came out of nothing is no different than believing in a god. Believing that life just sprung into being despite the complexity of the living cell is insanity and probably takes more faith than believing in a creator.

[@luckychucky3426]

I really got to say you guys do a great job thank you for the information I so appreciate it

[@senghkumnhkum5207]

We are living, therefore there is living divine.

[@krishiyer3990]

A bag of chemicals experiencing itself, studying itself and growing. This chemical bag has desires, it explores art, speaks about heart, entertains itself with stories. Amazing. 😉

[@toyosioyejobi309]

😭😭😅😂

[@Mark-Wilson]

@@toyosioyejobi309 laughing at your own ignorance?

[@toyosioyejobi309]

@@Mark-Wilson No at you!

[@Mark-Wilson]

@@toyosioyejobi309 cus of your ignorance?

[@toyosioyejobi309]

@@Mark-Wilson.

[@freedomofchoice460]

@Dirk Remmelzwaal That sequence would yield 20^150 combinatorial possibilities (base 10 +1*10^195). Of course, this is assuming that all 20 amino acids and the RNA pre-exist and have some way to assemble. Now, for comparison, google QI Card Shuffleing - 52 Factorial (52!) 52!=8.06*10^67 combinatorial possibilities. The example given is if all of the stars of our galaxy (1*10^11 +~-) had 1*10^12 planets, and each planet had 1*10^12 inhabitants, and each inhabitant had 1*10^12 decks of cards and each could shuffle 1*10^3 times/second, it would take the age of the universe (13.7BY) to complete the combinatorial possibilities. So, for a short protein of 150 amino acids the combinatorial possibilities are approximately 3X that of 52!.

[@sparky5584]

You are assuming that the protein that you have chosen needs to be in a prespecified order and that it needs to use all 20 different amino acids. Who told you this? Did a Origins of Life researcher make this claim? You might first try understanding that abiogenesis claims things were simpler near the beginnings of 'Life'- not the same complexity we see today. Maybe there were only two amino acids and the chain was only 10 units long and in no particular order. What does your creationist math say the probabilities are for that occurrence?

[@freedomofchoice460]

@Dirk Remmelzwaal Most proteins are then assembled into complex molecular machines such as the polymerase and the ribosome that, in combination, perform specific tasks within the cell. This is still a loooooooooong way from a living cell. So, you see the magnitude of your faith in chance. Perhaps you should read the "old book" and see what it says before you place your faith in chance. And you might also consider which is the pseudoscience here: Intelligent Design or Random Chance. Good Luck!

[@katiekat4457]

Geez you get some big time sponsors. I’ve seen on other videos that you have a lot of the ones that make PSB NOVA. Good for you. You must be ambitious

[@clearbrain]

Very good video and explained.. Appreciated

[@BoxOfCurryos]

My theory on how life forms (I'm a freshman I'm highschool so I may have a lot of errors) I think that I call this the momentum theory. Maybe long time ago certain molecules accidentally just slippef into each other and bonded. This set of a butterfly effect of chemical reactions. I think what life is is just a domino effect of chemical reactions reacting witch each other. After all we are made up of atoms so everything is reacting with itself. And I think that the soul is simply an effect caused by these reactions. That maybe our conscious is only the product of millions of chemical reactions. I DONT WANT A FUCKING RELEGIOUS DEBATE IN THE REPLY SECTION

[@timspangler8440]

You are free to believe that which is impossible (abiogenesis). You can refuse to believe the obvious if you like also. But yes, God is the answer.

[@someone5801]

Tim Spangler Is it really impossible?

[@timspangler8440]

Manard Is it possible that it is really impossible?

[@someone5801]

Tim Spangler I wouldn't say so.

[@mikstratok]

It's not billions of chemical reactions, its trillions of them. =)

[@johntaylor625]

Everything is chemistry. that makes me think mushrooms hold more answers then we know. Since it just alters our chemistry

[@andycopeland7051]

Yeahhhh magic mushrooooooms maaaannn

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

The principal gap in most concepts of the origin of life is the issue of the equilibrium between polymers and monomers. Under standard conditions, the equilibrium between proteins and amino acids moves toward complete depolyermization. The same is true of DNA and nucleotides. In other words, it is impossible for biological polymers to form without some outside source of energy. So, we must look a little further to see the key to this mystery. The key is polyphosphate. We know that, today, polymerization reactions are driven by ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate), often referred to as the "energy currency of the cell". There are three important facts concerning polyphosphate and protein or DNA synthesis: 1. Ordinary soluble phosphate is polymerized by ultraviolet light into soluble poly-phosphate. This is easily demonstrated in the laboratory. 2. When soluble poly-phosphate is added to mixtures of amino acids, the poly-phosphate forces them to combine to form the peptide bond, releasing mono-phosphate as a product for re-use. 3. This is STILL the way in which organisms create polymers of amino acids and nucleotides. The only difference is that the poly-phosphate is attached to an adenosine "handle" that permits the poly-phosphate group to be moved to the right place at the right time. In short, in the pre-biological ocean, UV radiation from sunlight (which was available in huge quantities) drove polymerization of phosphate into poly-phosphate which then drove polymerization, producing mono-phosphate to begin the cycle again.

[@MiguelRodriguez-zd6tq]

This is true! My mother-in-law proves fast evolution is right! She was born a boar, lived her life as a porcupine, and is now an old cow. By the time she kicks the bucket, she's gonna mutate into a buffalo. I can't explain how she had such a beautiful daughter (my wife, ) but my mom in law is definitely proving how a species changes over short time periods.

[@akoskormendi9711]

That's metamorphosis, not evolution. Real life isn't like Pokemon, evolution happens through generations and sperm only carries information you are born with, unless you are hit with radiation.

[@zachtastic625]

Haha that's a good one!

[@email9731]

Assuming that life developed entirely on Earth (i.e. didn't get kick-started by arriving on an asteroid or anything), there's a statement / series of statements that you make, which is confusing, starting around 1:25: (1) "But how did those first reproducing creatures come about?" and then a few seconds later, (2) "Furthermore, the first reproducing creature could not have developed through biological evolution, because biological evolution requires reproduction in order to work". In (2) you say "the first _creature_ ", not "creatures", which (assuming that life didn't arrive on an asteroid or something) is in vast vast likelihood nonsense - in such likelihood there _was_ no _first_ reproducing creature (given any reasonable definition of "reproducing"). (Having a first one, under the assumptions, would require some ridiculous random event of all the molecules purely randomly lining up to produce some highly complex structure, without any clear reason for it.) I think it would also be good to add a brief definition of what you mean by "biological evolution" at the beginning. For otherwise, for me, I just interpret "biological evolution" to mean what you end up meaning by "biological and chemical evolution", which makes the statement (2) confusing, until one sees that you're actually distinguishing between these things.

[@adixhvv3006]

still more likely than a invisble man in the sky ^^

[@kornbread5359]

Science and “god” are deeply connected, but it seems nobody sees that, most people in this society are 1 or the other, but they are both one. Why does everybody reject the idea when they both support eachother?

[@janiveija5040]

Elaborate how do they support each others.

[@Inertia888]

I love science. And I love God. But Richard Dawkins claims that evolution proves the non existence of God. I say, than where did the seed of life come from? What caused the Universe to happen? The forces? It seems to me that either the forces are God. Or more likely, the forces are God's actions. God in action. In other words, we can never see God but we can see what God does. Science is beautiful. God allowed us to understand science.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@Inertia888 Richard Dawkins is a great biologist, but a crappy theologian.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@janiveija5040 Think of what Galileo said : "the bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" If you want to learn about both you need both.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Play Geetar I'd rather assert that at least the people believing in a god who developed science did.

[@ec6211]

Thank you for making this video. I was looking for a video like this.

[@dizzychineseman7445]

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you

[@dizzychineseman7445]

@sbmphr i know

[@TheMaggsy1]

the universe is not a person,so you want me to believe something that doesn't make sense to me,that is called faith.

[@TheHomelessDreamer]

@sbmphr Be sure to attribute that quote to Neil deGrasse Tyson, something the original poster forgot to do.

[@brokencookie1]

The universe owes nothing to anybody

[@doctorwebman]

Of all the methods known to mankind, scientific methods are the most reliable, and if the origin of life is to ever be explained, science is most likely what will do so.

[@doctorwebman]

@Radu Slav You are talking about absolute nothing, which cannot exist by definition, and is therefore irrelevant to reality and discussions about origins. Scientists study the kind of nothing that can exist, which is 'empty space' that turns out to be far from empty.

[@doctorwebman]

@Radu Slav I used to think similarly, but now my morality, philosophy, and psychology makes far more sense.

[@doctorwebman]

@Radu Slav " used to be an atheist and thought of myself as a good person." In my worldview, you are a good person until you begin to do unnecessary harm to others as a habit. I assume you are a good person. "After my conversion i realised i was walking after my own lusts trying to satisfy the flesh constantly." That sounds like religious brainwashing to me, and it seems designed to make you think you are somehow evil. "he peculiar thing is that I'm still carnal, my body rules over me and I find myself in situations where the desires of my body overwhelms my knowledge of good and evil." Perhaps some medication will help with that problem. "But now there is something that makes all the diference in the world for me, this time I actually feel guilt. I had delusions of grandeour and was ready to give up on my morals for money and power (delusional but still real). Constantly lying on the job, on my friends, on my relatives, massive racist." These are things that atheists can overcome without a religion to help them. "Then something sparked, i managed to become a little bit better, guilt is consuming me so I try to avoid what Christians call sin." I became a whole lot better after I left Christianity behind. I find that Christians think that perfectly harmless activities are sins, and I disagree with them on what sin is. For me, sin is when you do unnecessary harm to others.

[@buckbuchanan4902]

@@doctorwebman So your version of science believes in a nothing, which is empty space that turns out to be far from empty? In other words, it believes in something that has something.

[@buckbuchanan4902]

@@doctorwebman creation.com/has-the-dark-matter-mystery-been-solved creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing

[@karaokeduncan]

I love these videos. Though in this one- the sound added alongside the dolphin is a kookaburra bird. The sound was used in the tv series and movie Flipper- and is commonly associated, incorrectly, with dolphins.

[@ThisIsWEB]

This could be the most important thing I have ever learned

[@aphiwentando710]

YES YES YES!!!!!! THE FUTURE IS NOW THANKS TO SCIENCE

[@alecbernal3824]

This effort seems to be monumental, even more so than projects in current physics. A comprehensive theory of biological evolution would have to seamlessly merge hypotheses explaining the origin of the first cells with the origin of the first cell code (RNA). The latter would have to contain the sense and layout of the former while being developed independently and at random. If the information contained in the RNA structure doesn't model the emergent cell's structure, then it is worthless. This task seems insurmountable...

[@StatedClearly]

+Alec Bernal the first cells were probably RNA (or some other similar molecule) trapped inside micells. See our RNA video, chemical evolution video, and major transitions video for more on that.

[@ablebaker8664]

Alec Bernal But modeling the cell's structure isn't at all necessary. Lipid vacuoles, can form spontaneously under the same conditions that amino acids, sugars, and nucleotides form. Formed together by the same approximate process demonstrated by Miller - Urey the vacuoles only need to include a strand of self replicating RNA. The strand doesn't need to be perfect and doesn't even have to be efficient at self replication. As the chain replicates the osmotic pressure increases due to the chains accumulating. This causes the vacuole to absorb water and grow larger. At the point that the surface tension of the membrane decreases the vacuole becomes unstable and cleaves to form two vacuoles each with copies of the self replicating RNA strand included. The process repeats and continues while the RNA produces errors and the number of species of RNA strands accumulates inside the vacuoles. Since the vacuole contains many many copies of the same RNA strands the only time both child cells will not inherit multiple copies of mutated strands is when a strand stops self replicating due to the mutation... leaving a piece of junk but also many working copies of self catalytic species. The first cells probably weren't alive in the sense that they maintained homeostasis... They had oceans full of parts and all they had to do was absorb them by chemical diffusion and divide when the osmotic pressure exceeded the surface tension of the membrane. Entirely a chemo-mechanical process, but with the ability to acquire mutant copies of the original RNA strand. Eventually the mutant copies would provide utility to the not quite living cell that would inefficiently perform metabolic processes like making more lipids for the membrane so it didn't have to wait to scavenge them. Chemosynthesis, leads to photo synthesis and the energy available to promote metabolic functions increases... The cell begins to maintain homeostasis... No sudden jumps in information required. Complexity emerges as it becomes conserved in replication. Baby steps.

[@fishermanoflight]

Hmmm... All animals have a similar bone and organ design, but all serve a different purpose.... All plants have a similar built design but all serve a different purpose. All life has DNA and here is some evidence of design from someone who was an Atheist for 35years. You have to see to believe. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2XYg4qhZZuKpZI All the planets, moons, stars and galaxies in our universe have a similar built design, but they also serve different purposes in this category... We can see similar designs at all levels of material objects designed in this universe, even at the sub atomic level. So what your trying to tell me right now, if I look at a vehicle.. Am I suppose to figure out the Prius evolved into a bicycle or a semi truck first? Or maybe.. just maybe.. since the prius and semi have a similar design but one serves an entirely different purpose... they also have the same designer. Human Well I'll continue to thank God for all he designed for us. I'll thank Jesus for all he sacrificed! To all those who want what he designed in the next life, it's a free gift. Seek Jesus and you will find eternal life.

[@studygodsword5937]

@@ablebaker8664 sorry, I didn't know this was a comedy channel !

[@ablebaker8664]

@@studygodsword5937 Of course it is... it even has Sunday Funnys reprints from 2000 year old comedians who thought that magic and invisible wizards had something to do with the inevitable emergence of life by chemistry and thermodynamic processes. To fully appreciate the irony though, requires a modest investment in science and history education.

[@109Rage]

I find it amazing when people say that this is just "random chance". But Quantum Mechanics *is only random chance.* Yes, there is a chance that a random electron from half-way across the galaxy might randomly end up inside your brain, for no other reason than to be there, before suddenly popping out. THAT is random chance, and THAT is a real phenomena. This however is not random chance. It's a set of circumstances that our world was in, where life was simply an inevitability of the environment. The theory implies that early Earth was perfect for early cells to form. You don't call it "random chance" when you plant a seed in the ground, and expect it to sprout into a plant, after you water it properly. Religious people hate this theory, because it implies that humans are not special, unlike what their religion says. First they denied the Earth was not at the center of everything, and now they deny that humans aren't special.

[@tangiiaunu2767]

Only Goku can evolve into Monkey and Ascend to Saiyan God! ULTIMATE COMBO!!! A good example of Evolution! YF KRAZY !

[@NoshadCE]

Tangiia Unu lOl Good one 😀😀

[@shroomoid9403]

This is satire, right?

[@luizpalombini3425]

Science can explain anything if you are patient enough.

[@dave1370]

THAT'S not true.

[@luizpalombini3425]

@@dave1370 why?

[@martinparkyn2206]

Check out Dr James Tour, synth organic prof.

[@jokerxxx354]

Mike Bready the more we learn, more absurd the idea of something coming by accident becomes.

[@lindseycorum9591]

He tells the truth and evolutionists hate it. Tour is the best.

[@studygodsword5937]

@Juno Donat both abiogenesis and evolution fail when it comes to science !

[@studygodsword5937]

@Juno Donat *5 undeniable facts* Abiogenesis is totally impossible ! Life is far to complicated to be formed by accident ! even if it did form "accidentally" what would it eat, how would it know it needed to eat, how would it have the ability to eat ! it would be the first life form ever ! How would it have developed those properties ! Please don't wast my time with that franken-life altering existing life, and calling it new life ! Or that dead stuff experiment, forming lifeless amino acids ! *your theory can't even get to evolution ! *continued !*

[@studygodsword5937]

@Juno Donat undeniable facts #s 2,3 & 4 : ***3 bridges evolution can not cross : The first life form ever, knowing how to reproduce it's self, when it has never been done before ! going from a single cell to a complex life form that absolutely requires more than 5 organs just to survive ! going from a single sex to male and female, with all the reproductive parts working that first generation !

[@thekwjiboo]

Religion can't explain the origin of life either. "God did it" isn't an actual explanation in the same way that sitting down at a chessboard and saying "checkmate" isn't actually winning.

[@fishermanoflight]

Hmmm... All animals have a similar bone and organ design, but all serve a different purpose.... All plants have a similar built design but all serve a different purpose..... All the planets, moons, stars and galaxies in our universe have a similar built design, but they also serve different purposes in this category... We can see similar designs at all levels of material objects designed in this universe, even at the sub atomic level. So what your trying to tell me right now, if I look at a vehicle.. Am I suppose to figure out the Prius evolved into a bicycle or a semi truck first? Or maybe.. just maybe.. since the prius and semi have a similar design but one serves an entirely different purpose... they also have the same designer. Human Well I'll continue to thank God for all he designed for us. I'll thank Jesus for all he sacrificed! To all those who want what he designed in the next life, it's a free gift. Seek Jesus and you will find eternal life. All life has DNA, Some Evidence from a former Atheist. You have to see to believe. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2XYg4qhZZuKpZI

[@aaronbrown8377]

@@fishermanoflight Are there car fossils? The things you have described are very different in nature but we can explain why they are similar for a multitude of reasons. Q: why are all planets in the shape of a deformed sphere? A: The force of gravity attracts all matter in the universe together. This can be observed simply by dropping a few crumbs into a water bottle. The irregularities in shape are due to the spin of the planet along its axis. Q:Why are cells all roughly the same size and shape? A: Spheres have the highest volume to surface area ratio. When a sphere increases in volume, the surface area increases at a slower rate. A larger cell would require more organelles to fill it and therefore materials will back up while entering and leaving the cell. Q: What are atoms made of? A: Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. The number of Protons equal the number of Electrons due to their opposite charges. Neutrons are neutral. Protons and Neutrons themselves are Hadrons, made of quarks. These things are determined by predictable laws of nature, not pixie dust and dreams. Science is based on expanding the wealth of human knowledge using as little personal bias as possible. It is not my golden cow; science is not an idle. The general scientific consensus can and will be wrong from time to time. It is a fluid, ever-changing understanding of the universe. Our position on the issue is based on research. You're blindly trusting a 2000 year old book.

[@fishermanoflight]

@@aaronbrown8377 Where did the laws and the forces of gravity come from? Where did these very detailed designs of atoms and the forces that hold them together come from? The true unbiased science you speak of is amazing and only shows us what our wonderful Creator has designed for us. But science theory is mostly based on one mans biased idea and pick up by like minded biased individuals. Just like false religions there are also false science theories that will be debunked, if it doesn't line up with that well over 2000 year old book that has stood the test of time. My response to anyone.. The rest of eternity on will be determined in this life you're given. Science is great, but hasn't even began to scratch the surface in this material universe much less the Unforeseen force that created it all and holds it all together. You may see a glass half full, and I may see a glass half empty. But True science will only prove that the glass(like our universe) had a beginning and something or someone put it there.

[@aaronbrown8377]

@@fishermanoflight well you did make it sound as if we're dealing with things we have no knowledge of. Of course it doesn't hold up to your book. Your perception of the world filters out any decent argument against the book. Honestly, the real reason it survived as long as it did is because it once appealed to a massive peasantry. Have you considered, that world is much wider than you know? That maybe, it is a crutch. That it stifles true development for the sake of a massive game of make believe. You won't accept this, you cannot.

[@fishermanoflight]

@@aaronbrown8377 sorry for originally making it sound that way and yes I have thought at one point my beliefs were just a crutch. My father literally worshipped the Satan because he hated the idea of God so much, my mom worshipped drugs and alcohol. The only truth I had growing up was my grandmother from time to time and I did accept Jesus for who he was, he filled my heart with unspeakable joy when I believed and asked him into my life at that very moment. Later, when I joined the military and saw the world, I drifted away and stopped believing. I remember the day I stopped. The emptiness, loneliness, anger, took place of what use to be peace. I started searching, not in what just Jesus taught, but I wanted to know the true religion or God, if it really did exsist. Satan has layers of deception. First one, is there really a God? Next, he confuses us with false religions and all religions man made have a common theme. They believe if you're a good person God will grant you access to heaven. The problem with this is that everyone, Hitler, muslims and even deceived Christians believe they are good. But Jesus said all have fallen short and no one is good. That's why his sacrifice was needed, so no man could boast and because eternal life has been given to all who believe and accept it. From the beginning what Jesus taught, he himself was persecuted for. Even to this day, anyone who speaks about what Jesus has done for them, they are also persecuted. The Jews and Romans in Jesus time.(crucifixion, set on fire as roman torches, eating alive by animals to name a few) Today North Korea, China, all throughout the middle east. Even today in western culture it's not easy to tell people for fear of losing your job, family or prison and not to mention the hate one can spew at you with words. Just for teaching about Jesus, a man who only taught about love and eternal happiness in the next life.

[@lucyzombek736]

Thank you it helped me with a project and made learning about life so much simpler!

[@atikurpranto3190]

Read quran

[@Rryan8065]

@@atikurpranto3190 No it’s fake.

[@atikurpranto3190]

@@Rryan8065 u can read my brother

[@lichking0664]

my teacher loves you

[@popcornunicorn4012]

Question on my friends test: Explain how planets are formed or create: "God made it"

[@atheist535]

@jia khan What made god and where is this magically enchanted beast?

[@jamesbaxterfirst]

Flat earthers live all across the globe.

[@kinglyzard]

Flat Earthers from the four corners of the globe all agree the world is SQUARE

[@carcinogenicthalidomide3057]

It's actually a toroid.

[@TeiStacja]

To believe that life self-assembled itself = belief in flat earth

[@cameronscott9248]

say that again, but slowly......

[@notallopinionswerecreatede4465]

@Mike Bready Any chemist would argue otherwise; I'd rather take the word of an expert, than that of a crazy nutjob that denies reality to get attention.

[@deepanshug5727]

3:47 *"I made pee without peeing!"* 😂😂😂😂😂

[@atheistmommy3710]

Very nicely done.

[@kingspamaccount]

If you want some real science and not pretty pictures, watch this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lau0iZqAYsmLg5Y

[@Yui714]

Intellectually advanced apes discuss not knowing the origin of life. Take themselves far too seriously in petty matters and not serious enough in serious matters. Life is about nothing and there's no time to learn skills, but a missing plane is the most important thing.

[@carrisglen123]

what?

[@deepspacemachines]

That is haow a human do.

[@The_Unexplainer]

riding a spinning rock around a tiny star in a vast empty cosmos ..

[@gunterra1]

HENNI Mohamed Just curious. What kind of rock in what universe are you riding on? My universe is not so vast really and definitely not empty. Come over and have a look.

[@deepspacemachines]

Gunter Raffel After thorough inspection I have come to conclude that I reside in what consists of but endless stretches of nothingness, albeit the odd collection of mere particles held together by the weakest, though most unresistable force. This universe can be described as vast in a way that is barely accessible to our understanding. Furthermore its emptyness may be reckoned as the physical quality that made it possible for such a consciousness too evolve without being wiped out by a collision between any two objects in said universe. In a more philosophical manner, it can be defined by the inability of this consciousness to find other beings apart from those in its immediate surroundings. Sincerely Marrus Quinn

[@Guywithcrazyideas]

I would love to see what Humans will look like in a billion years, assuming our race won't die off.

[@seanarmstrong1156]

Guywithcrazyideas hopefully not like your neck!

[@interstellar1309]

Humans stopped evolving because natural selection works to benefit a species in its environment when it is necessitated. Since, humans can live comfortably and not die off, we will not undergo any changes. Take a yellow colored moth for example. If a bird keeps hunting and killing the moths because they don't blend in with their background, the moth species will fall in population. Eventually random mutations occur that make a moth, say brown and it happens to blend in with the bark of a tree. The brown moth will be more likely to survive and pass on its genes while the yellow moth will eventually become extinct over time. Eventually, you will only have brown moths. This is a BASIC understanding of how natural selection works.

[@kinglyzard]

Interstellar I disagree. Humans can still continue to evolve along cultural and behavioral lines. Alcoholism is a gene caused by a behavior. Also, factors like lack of food, overcrowding and global warming may cause us to evolve smaller bodies. Cultures and religions which exclude various foods from their diets and abstain wholly from drinking and smoking may lose the ability to assimilate these items. People who do smoke, drink and eat fatty foods in the future may evolve ways of coping with these toxins. Smoking may even become necessary to a future Human! Plus, technology itself may influence subtle to moderate differences in our hands, brains, eyes and hairline.

[@interstellar1309]

Danaus plexippus I don't disagree that small changes might happen. But humans minds aren't going to evolve into something drastic. We won't evolve into anything too different until we need too.

[@maynsantos]

If humans will remain alive, they get to invent a hightech mothership that supports life. in a billion years the sun will be 15% hotter, the earth will have 0 life in it. We will need to migrate away from the sun before it becomes red giant.

[@cjhepburn7406]

Sugar in Space? Sweet!

[@paigea4745]

I read this as "sugar and spice" at first haha

[@siiroblank2854]

How is self-assembly possible? Specially the cell membrane?

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

Nltvp - bubbles self- assemble. It’s just chemistry.

[@Sid-md5en]

That's the mystery of life

[@lokustic]

TLDR: Can science explain the origin of life? Not yet.

[@MrMollusk7]

+lokustic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

[@dontask8998]

Nope, but that's no reason to stop trying

[@sbellaharris]

+lokustic No. Of course that science/reality always need more and more evidence, except those ridiculous religious fairy tales.

[@edwinmyrick4571]

+GG2K7AU05 give me one peice of evidence AGAINST creation Side note not for evolution but against creation

[@sbellaharris]

edwin myrick give me one piece of evidence against my claim that you have been killing people & making them look like accidents(e.g car crash, avalanche, earth quake, etc) with your supernatural power.

[@maisaroozie3591]

How chemistry can create the mind

[@davidpsenko3554]

we are limited for a reason, therefore theories are here for us.

[@merellemacario3594]

I just got here because my teacher told me to make a reaction paper about this so☹

[@franzliszt8957]

Who cares?

[@IronFreee]

Yes, understanding where we come from and learning things is so overrated... Who needs it when they when you can be a flathearther creationist or a stripper?

[@AspiePilo82]

I do believe in God and there are plenty of reasons why we should. For starters DNA is encoded, kinda like programming, I mean to think that everything happened coincidentally is outrageous. 2nd, if we pay attention to our bodies and organs it is evidently clear that we were engineered. Everything has it's purpose and function. Life is created because life has its own laws and rules.

[@WhiteShadow565]

Everything has its purpose and function? Then explain to be how goosebumps have a purpose and function for us modern humans please? Explain to me the purpose and function of male nipples? Explain to me the purpose and function of the tailbone? Explain to me the purpose and function of wisdom teeth? Theres so much useless shit in the human body and evolution perfectly explains why we have them. WITH EVIDENCE. And you still come on here and preach your bullshit. Religion and god is just a stupid excuse to not learn and stay stupid forever.

[@mikstratok]

The main problem with that way of thinking is that you are not evaluating just how much time it takes for organisms to evolve and how simple the first instances of self replicating molecules were. It took billions of years, and it starts with relatively simple self replicating molecules, that is really all it takes. It is even possible to use mathematical models and simulations to predict how complexity would escalate to the scale that we have now.

[@HoD999x]

the only theory that makes sense is that god designed the universe in such a way so that life would be possible and therefore occur if the universe was just big enough for the lottery to be won. complexity etc. isn't an argument because we can run simulations that prove that complex systems can evolve out of a set of very simple rules.

[@AspiePilo82]

Vzsasz All those things you mentioned are disappearing with evolution. We probably used to have tails and now we dont. But again, DNA is engineered. And that doesnt happened coincidentally

[@AspiePilo82]

Mik Wind Diabetes? Well instead of whining why dont you take care of your self 1st? You want things to be handled to you? You want God to handle all of your problems?

[@mudball47]

You took a long time to say "NO".

[@dioc8699]

That's because it's important to show how its most likely chemical interactions than Hocus Pocus.

[@jokerxxx354]

Blitz B these people here are stupid as fuck and have no understanding at all.

[@readchp]

Well done video. Very clear and informative. Many thanks. From Tampa, Florida.

[@howtodoit4204]

Well consciousness, gravity and energy are mysterious.

[@BFizzi719]

1) Consciousness is a function of brains. 2) Gravity is a property of matter interacting with space/time 3) Energy is the capacity to do work

[@howtodoit4204]

@@BFizzi719 knowing how something works doesn’t mean you know what it is. Gravity is invisible but it’s stronger than everything in known universe. I don’t believe that consciousness is just brain activity lmao. And energy is the same. Energy is something not just capacity to do work.

[@BFizzi719]

@@howtodoit4204 The gravitational force is actually weak compared to other fundamental forces. The strong nuclear force is about 6 thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity(6 followed by 36 zeros).

[@thanushan3981]

@@howtodoit4204 consciousness is brain activity because we observe and study the brain while its active and when there is brain damage, consciousness is affected such as a coma.

[@thanushan3981]

@@howtodoit4204 I dont what point u r trying to make by saying gravity is invisible but gravity is the deformation of spacetime and is stronger on bodies with more mass and we see it

[@SCWoodbury2009]

This makes more sense to me than a male conservative "creator" who doesn't want us to masturbate.

[@trustedlogamers]

he isnt male

[@gunterra1]

trustedlogamers Good point. I personally prefer God to be a women. And who is to say that there is only one God. Some tell us that there are many, and even gods above the gods of universes. This makes more sense and for a much better game, for sure. If there would only be one then he/she would certainly go mad quite soon. Just imagine being The Only One. No game at all. Wouldn't that drive anyone crazy, goods included. I don't know about you guys, but I have no doubt about that. And as far as the universe (physical) is concerned, built on nothing but destructive force, I think that it is a dope head's universe. If I were to be God I and together with a few other decent fellows could have build a much better one. Don't be shy. Think about it.

[@gunterra1]

***** Not really. Those men tried to explain things the best they knew then. And, quite frankly, I would also not put it past them to also be politically motivated by the 'need' to control people. As to male of female, I propose we put it to a vote. :)

[@heatblaze123]

So a process with no will or reason to create life out of no where makes more sense? Whats the origin of the meteorite? How does it come into existence?

[@heatblaze123]

***** I'm just saying we may never truly know or at least not yet.

[@ShadowZZZ]

what ever it is, I am convinced that bio-chemistry will find the answer and god is not an answer. that argument shoots itself in the foot because then you have to explain how an intelligent being like a creator came about and have fun explaining a being who supposedly knows *all* of physics, chemistry and biology. a hypothesis that attempts to answer everything, explains nothing in the end.

[@ShadowZZZ]

@sbmphr thats a bad analogy, you dont yet realize that these ideas about god and religion are just ridiculous manmade superstitions/ fairytales. read books or watch videos from dawkins, hitchens and harrs, these have more to say than me and are undoubedly 100x smarter than both of us.

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

The first word in a sentence is always capitalized. Are you dumb, lazy or do you have a broken keyboard.

[@darthvader1597]

Educational shows and great accompanying graphics.

[@DTK5689]

All i am hearing is a lot of proclamations and projection.

[@alfernand1401]

Could have stopped it at 0:18 when you admitted you do not know. After that is just speculation.

[@Rationalist101]

Yep 🤣

[@JC-wc9lk]

Or you could have stopped watching then, he just wanted to give us more information...

[@alfernand1401]

I did moron

[@hugothedog5258]

People say evolution is wrong because where would the first animal come from. Well if god is real where did he come from?

[@billy9144]

It's funny they always say it's either god or pure random chance, yet the idea of god JUST BEING THERE is complete random luck.

[@MichaelGrbg]

well, God came from a cunt. a bigger one than what God is.

[@fishermanoflight]

@@MichaelGrbg I'm so sorry

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

I think many people fail to understand that life is not some special essence or essentially different from all other processes of matter. It's just that it is a process that matters more to most of us than water evaporating or the flow lava. It's more like if you organise matter in a certain way you get the expression of matter that we call life. There is no special "life quality" that exists unto itself on top of matter or flows through everything. In the sense that most people tend to think of it we are no more "alive" than rocks. It's all just complex processes of matter. Of course there is something unique to the phenomenon that we observe as life, in the sense that it appears to be rare - like diamonds are rare. But the things that make up you and your "life" are just stuff in flux and at some point the organisation of you begins to change and stop supporting the expression and qualities we recognise as life. The brain and body stops working in that way. But all the stuff changes and moves on and energy is transformed, contributing to the eventual heat death of the universe. I don't think anyone should feel lessened or diminished by this in any way. It is a marvelous thing - at least to us - that we exist and should exist in the way that we do and feel and think and do the things we do. It's all there. You are all there. It's just that its a all a product of prior physical processes. And when the card house falls - you fall. But there are still cards. The card house-ness of the card house was descriptive of it's organisation and experienced meaningfully as such only by you or things like you. Because in that sense we are things. Just really interesting and original and complex things, exhibiting particular qualities for a while and then others later on. At least from a human perspective.