Challenge to Origin of Life: Replication (Long Story Short, Ep. 8)

What is life and how did it originate? Many origin of life researchers claim that life started as a primitive self-replicating molecule, and evolved from there into all the complex forms of life we observe. But does the evidence support this? This video reviews obstacles to forming a self-replicating system, challenging the “RNA World” and “RNA-Peptide World” hypotheses and other supposed examples of self-replicating molecules.
This is the fifth of several episodes about the origin of life presented as part of the Long Story Short series. For more episodes of Long Story Short, see: • Long Story Short
For complete references go to: www.discovery....
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official KZbin channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery....
www.evolutionne...
www.intelligent...
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter:
Twitter: / discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Instagram: / discoverycsc
Visit other KZbin channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer

[@getayalewe1009]

Most secular-atheist and agnostics Scientists know all the facts about the process, but they don't want to talk about it in the public media. They deny the truth only to outsiders, but they know it inside. Thank you for the discovery of science. “The Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” ( 1 Samuel 16:7)

[@tonymaurice4157]

The experiment show intelligent manipulations and lots of human intervention!

[@mattk6719]

Respect for God is the beginning of knowledge.

[@MultiSky7]

@@tonymaurice4157 Name one.

[@truthbebold4009]

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. Psalm 2:4

[@truthbebold4009]

They'll never learn. "Hey! I don't know what this part of the DNA does... Let's call it junk" 🤤

[@h077ings3ad]

These scientists are providing a mountain of evidence that the origin of life needed a massive intellectual mind and intelligence to make the components of life assemble and replicate! Thank you for proving God’s existence!

[@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640]

No it didn’t, thinking is a chemical process, we only have evidence of thought being chemical, it’s nothing more than that. It doesn’t exist outside of that

[@jameslay1489]

who designed the massive intellectual mind? If we are to complex to have evolved naturally, it's therefor logical to conclude that your god needed a designer because your god is far more complex.

[@MultiSky7]

@@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640 Brain and mind are not the same, nihilistic idiots.

[@Melkor3001]

Brilliant summary of the problems concerning the RNA world! Anyone who understands these problems surely knows the theory is not feasible

[@tonymaurice4157]

The experiment show intelligent manipulations and lots of human intervention!

[@CellCODE]

Till this second, we know of no rational explanation other than Intelligent design as the plausible answer for the origin of life. Years of research have shown that the Abiogenesis hypothesis is implausible.

[@smithkarine9678]

thank you.

[@johnshumate8112]

Do you have evidence for intelligent design? Intelligent design is not the default position, “I don’t know” is.

[@neomagnon]

@@johnshumate8112 Circumstantial evidence is acceptable even in the absence of material, physical evidence. Designs and information are abundant in the universe - laws of physics, fine-tuning theory, cosmological constants enabling order. A design is thought out by an intelligent designer with a mind for a specific purpose. We see countless products of designs all around us even if we don't see/know who the designers are - buildings, cars, electronics, skyscrapers, etc. Is it plausible to think these are products of blind chance, out of nothing and no one thought out and supervised them?

[@laosi4278]

@@johnshumate8112 did you watching the videos? All the videos in this channel are dedicated to shown how life emerging from non intelligent evolution processes were not possible, so the default answer will fall to Intelligent design untill there's more plausible one outside Intelligent design

[@tlewis84able]

@@johnshumate8112 if the Mars rover came across a beautiful crystal vase like something you’d see at Tiffany’s, symmetrical and perfectly proportioned, would you assume a life-form created it or default to “I don’t know”?

[@kpballa1009]

12:50 - I think this is the overall summary and most important part of the video: "The truth is, whenever you see a paper or a popular article about the origin of life, you can pretty well bet that they're cheating in a number of different ways and that the headlines bear no relationship to reality." Yet when a student in a classroom brings up to their professor (or an intelligent design believer to an evolution believing atheist) the impossibility of life just starting randomly (by evolution), the professors/atheists get all bold and loudly (13:47) proclaim there having been many many proofs of these going on backing it up with science vocabs and phrases and these (false/misleading) researches... (and some already know there's cheating in the research but are so devoted to Evolution they still do this shoving down their conscience that pops up) Don't let them fool you! And don't back down with timidity. KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that any supposed "research", "proof" that evolution is responsible for life is false/misleading and there can never be any proof of such a thing that's impossible! The idea that life just randomly happened by chance is an absolutely absurd idea. The Intelligent Designer didn't let there be any possibility of that.

[@simonbaush6200]

Yet another hilarious and very well researched blow to origin of life theories. Keep up the good work!

[@mikebellamy]

LUCA Falsifies Abiogenesis: 1) The minimum DNA for life is a precise string of 63 base pairs *conserved across all of biology* 2) That string must be present in LUCA complete for cellular life to begin 3) That string therefore cannot evolve by natural selection because the cell cannot reproduce without it 4) The improbability of a string of 63 RH base pairs is (2 x 4)^63 = 8^63 = average entropy cost of 63 all at once 5) Thus average number of point mutations by the second law = 63 x 8^63 = 4.9e58 6) Time for chemical change per BP substitution is about one second and there are ~1e17 seconds in 4.5 Ga 7) Not enough time in 4.5 Ga to perform 4.9e58 BP mutations presents a second law violation problem 8) 36 throws of two dice equates to the entropy cost of double six (average periodicity in infinite throws) 9) Means the earth system needs 4.9e58 seconds to pay the entropy cost for that state by the second law *Theory of chemical origin of life is falsified as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics! Q.E.D*

[@geobla6600]

The difficulty of life forming out of inanimate molecules is well beyond any explanations offered by supporters as you've noted.

[@cptrikester2671]

The world is filled with intelligent people in all scientific fields. I find it interesting that very elaborate models and/or experiments are performed to supposedly demonstrate a natural event. At best, the 'sciences' can only reverse engineer and try to explain how the Designer did it.

[@truenorth0457]

Man. Love these videos. It would be nice if the world just decided it was ok to follow evidence to where it would lead us. Thank you for producing these. You're able to explain these concepts to someone like me in a way I understand. No small task.

[@djgfdGG7967]

Scientist do follow evidence and it leads them to a conclusion of no intelligent design or no young earth or anything religious

[@iggyg1370]

Pretty soon they are going to redefine life, and than claim to have created life in the lab, based on their new definition.

[@guyevans3224]

Thats been Lee cronins tactic, redefine it and claim you’ve done it.

[@TifleTifle-xd2pf]

So true. They can’t even define a woman.

[@A_Stereotypical_Heretic]

They did that with vaccines so I'm sure it's coming

[@TrueSaint916]

If you can do that for sex->gender, why not life?

[@tonymaurice4157]

The experiment show intelligent manipulations and lots of human intervention!

[@IntoAllTruth.]

Didn't we prove spontaneous generation to be impossible a long time ago?

[@charliegranberry2594]

Yes, it just has been renamed and given an intellectual spin, like when the geocentric added extra orbitals to get their modal to fit, and to avoid the simple answer heliocentrism.

[@justaguy328]

On a fundmental level abiogenesis seems beyond the scope of empirical science entirely. The hypothesis is "life started through unguided processes", not "life started through unguideed processes with a little bit of help from an intelligent agent". How does a scientist setting up and guiding an experiment in any way prove abiogenesis?]

[@geobla6600]

Well , for many scientists that recognize that very problem, they give an intelligent creator a miniscule amount of credit to explain the origins of live and then jump upon the equally poor evolutionary band wagon to explain the rest.

[@user-qs7vl3zi7o]

"Hands off" would be the rule.

[@lukemullisen7252]

Can't wait to show this in my biology class!

[@malerics3210]

I find it ironic that the evolutionists will ardently defend their stance no matter what and especially in the face of creationism. Creationists are labelled as ignorant, pariahs because they haven't applied the scientific method. Thy will cite all number of proofs, none of which they can prove. They think because they read it, studied it, were told it etc, it must be true and even more so if they have a degree or higher in that field. It would appear these people are not only ignorant but fail the basic scientific premise that all theories are fair game......as long as it does not go against what they believe. I have witnessed many such conversations and it appears they need to cling to this fairy tale no matter what. I reckon it takes more faith to be an evolutionist given the lack of evidence.

[@nwaikikai]

I've watched every "Origin of Life" video with smiles and laughter, appreciating enormously the effort that's been made in them to make a very complex subject accessible (from a 30,000-foot level) to science ignoramuses (ignoramii?) like me. Thanks!

[@ammarhaider6531]

This chennal deserves Million Subscribers...

[@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640]

No it doesn’t, I deserves none

[@Im_Sanenough]

​​@@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640yea your'e right, you deserve none.

[@tlewis84able]

It seems scientists really, really, REALLY want there not to be a Creator. Just comment on how the universe was most likely Created and watch the vitriol roll in.

[@sbgtrading]

They have rejected God...and therefore they have nothing to cling to, except for boneheaded naturalistic speculations like the RNA world speculation. Their position is bigoted... it's a foregone conclusion (to them) that life developed without intelligence...so they carry on, and ignore all that we know about organic chemistry.

[@bobdalton2062]

No Creator = no Social/MORAL LAWS that we need to follow. So then we can be a god and do whatever we wish - and THAT is why the idea of a Creator is so Abhorrent to so many. It hs nothing to do with Science or the observed data.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

You mean Professor Dave Explains (Dave Farina) is Wrong?

[@restorationacresfarm8537]

Absolutely love these videos keep it up!

[@deepgreenbear62]

The devil is in the details.... but, a lack of details never stopped anyone from having faith in what they want to believe...

[@erathor9120]

The ten dislikes were from those not able to evolve from RNA based cells.

[@samuellowekey9271]

You can see the dislikes? I understood that KZbin turned off the dislikes feature so that we can't see how many dislikes there are, because most of the general public was down voting the media's left wing lies.

[@austin3789]

How do you see the dislikes?

[@tonymaurice4157]

@Austin The experiment show intelligent manipulations and lots of human intervention!

[@erathor9120]

​@@austin3789 browser addon

[@adamlang3185]

Awesome! Just in time to talk about Abiogenesis and Evolution with my students!

[@smithkarine9678]

welll you should study more before to teach to anyone,your not quiet there if you think one minute that life originates from abiogenesis and in that stupid video.

[@tonymaurice4157]

The experiments show intelligent manipulations and lots of human intervention!

[@philosophicallogic]

This was absolutely great! Thank you Discovery Science for teaching us the truth about abiogenesis, or rather, the lack of it.

[@guyevans3224]

brilliant, as always! I liken these videos to that footage of the guy dancing on his own, wildly, in the middle of a field at a music festival. Most people look at him with a mixture of curiosity and disdain it seems, however, eventually, another chap joins in and they dance wildly for a while, then another joins, then another. All of a sudden it seems the entire festival has shed its inhibitions and are dancing wildly together. At the moment, we in the intelligent design community are dancing alone, but eventually EVERYONE will be dancing with us!

[@user-qs7vl3zi7o]

Given enough TIME of course.

[@Echodonut]

For in-depth scientific research on the origins of life, I recommend watching videos of the Origins Institute at McMaster University.

[@bernardodf9746]

Extraordinary series!

[@michaelbryanlaodvm4344]

these videos are very well explained on the broader scope of biological concepts that makes people interested in learning more about how biological systems really work and that they require intelligence.

[@williambillycraig1057]

Keep these videos coming.

[@timhowell6929]

Great video! Thanks!

[@daddada2984]

To God be the glory

[@msvh-l9616]

What will the next video be about? Thank you for these videos btw 🙂

[@grikalanovv]

Next, I would say, major problem, is why protocell dies at all. Achieving complexity is not stability. The smallest stable complex unit with RNA transmitting function is a virus. But it's not alive, right? So, life is a certain, definite number of functional complexity. Doesn't really matters if it's happened in a hole in the ground, lake or geyser. I'm quite sure if we had a billion years to shake the "soup" with our present knowledge, we are definitely going to succeed in synthesizing 300 aminoacid protein...

[@20july1944]

Wonderful series!

[@geobla6600]

It's astounding how chronic failures are endlessly manipulated as plausible hypothesis for origins of life. Loss of information just doesn't cut it , but that doesn't seem to stop their bias uncritical speculations.

Thanks for the work!

[@Rakscha-Sun]

I somehow have the feelings that all that is discovered in biochemistry is that life has the ability to survive under current physics. It't must been technically possible and in chemistry there must hence be rules how chemicals interact to give some stability. This discovery of how it is able to survive are than hyped up as an explanation on how it came into being in the first place.

[@nolanburton7985]

Love the power strip plugged into itself. Sadly there are those who don't get the comparison.🤓Genius.

[@markoconnell804]

These are just amazing videos.

[@DianeLi-xh2vo]

God is our creator!!!

[@alexstramp7688]

Loved it

[@garry3289]

"The very concept of a self-replicating molecule that chemically evolves into life contradicts many very well-understood laws and processes of chemistry." Could you elaborate on these contradictions please.

[@Christian_Prepper]

8:33 *Uh-oh. I'm confused about one thing. Adenine, Guanin, Cytosine, "Uracil"??? Hmm. What happened to the name "Thymine"?*

[@SahilShaikh-ex2rx]

You lacking knowledge of basic molecular biology is what happened.

[@ferrisbeuler8657]

Great work!

[@mikecorns]

Thoughtfully done.

[@sbgtrading]

The only argument from ignorance here is the materialist who doesn't yet know how natural laws were superseded. He doesn't know how a miracle occurred.

[@nulusiii480]

Awesome

[@rubiks6]

The first forms of life? Do you mean swimming and flying creatures and creatures that live on land? There is no "first replicating molecule." The swimming creatures reproduced. The flying creatures reproduced. The land creatures reproduced. Even the plants reproduced. Abiogenesis does not happen. Life only ever comes from life. Kindergarteners know that elephants only make baby elephants and turtles only make baby turtles and starfish only come from mommy and daddy starfish. (Actually starfish can reproduce by dividing but still, starfish only ever come from starfish.) Seriously - how many sigmas confirmation do you need to believe that each of the different kinds of creatures only ever reproduce more of their own kind? It's all you ever see. It's all anyone has ever seen. 5 sigma? How about 5 _million_ sigma? It has never, ever, ever, ever been observed life arising from non-life. It has has never, ever, ever, ever been observed one kind of creature becoming an entirely novel kind of creature. Fish don't become lizards. Lizards don't become birds. Dogs don't become whales. And especially, pond scum doesn't become people (though I do wonder about that, sometimes).

[@amongthethorns8788]

I feel like Dr. James Tour would approve of these hilarious videos.

[@theLECox]

This video discusses biological life forms, not life itself. Though we are familiar with sexual reproduction where life enters a zygote and builds an organism, that is not the only way biology creates new organisms (there is also simple cell division). Further, we have the problem of how life enters the zygote, and what other possible forms life can take. So, this is the fundamental problem with this whole line of reasoning. You have not separated out the problem of consciousness, which is the "hard problem."

[@JacksonCampbell]

Life enters a zygote? Life begins at conception. Life doesn't enter a zygote.

[@tonymaurice4157]

The experiments show intelligent manipulations and lots of human intervention!

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

Great video, thanks. ....from Ireland. "just give me one miracle and I can explain all the rest"

[@ndsuusa9787]

I laughed now on the Darwinsts and will do so in the other life 🤣 😂 😅

[@effectingcause5484]

The idea of abiogenesis, flies in the face of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The idea of random collisions of swirling amino acids in some primordial pond or soup, coming together by accident and forming a highly organized super-informational strand of RNA which can replicate itself, should be considered by physicists worldwide to be a practical impossibility, just solely based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Also allow me to mention the fact that there isn't even an RNA molecule alive right now today, after billions of years of evolution, which can replicate itself. All enzymes (which are RNA molecules by definition) can only perform one single task, depending on its sequence of amino acids which delegates it's shape and folds. Each enzyme acts as a catalyst to speed up only one very specific chemical reaction or metabolic function and they cannot carry out multiple functions. There is no multitasking for an enzyme or RNA molecule. So it is already obvious just there, that an RNA molecule can never replicate itself without the presence of many, many other helper RNA molecules to perform each step along the way of replication. All of the enzymes must work in coordination to replicate all of the other enzymes. It is a dance floor of activity, and no enzyme or rna molecule could have had this dance all by itself during the creation of life... And even for a single dancing self replicating enzyme to form spontaneously in our universe, is impossible, as disorderly systems like that primordial pond, cannot accidentally and spontaneously produce a more orderly system than what was already there. There must be purposeful intention in the arrangement of molecules before we can get a self replicating molecule. Origin-of-life researchers need a Maxwell's sorting demon in order to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics.. Or perhaps God

[@danstinson7687]

Reproduction itself establishes design.

[@follower4219]

Man, I want this in German to share it with my friends.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Does the fact that Earth has a different climate than billions of year ago mean that the chemical processes that (supposedly) took place cannot take place now? In other words, might there be a place on Earth where we can look and see something happening?

[@JacksonCampbell]

Where did you get the idea that the earth is billions of years old?

[@flatulentdragon]

The prebiotic Earth had little to no oxygen in its atmosphere. So, no. There's no naturally occurring places on the surface of the Earth where the same processes could be at work.

[@eswn1816]

​@@JacksonCampbell Radiocarbon dating... but you probably don't believe that is scientifically reliable. "If you look up the age of Earth on science websites and in publications, you'll generally find an estimate of 4.54 billion years, plus or minus 50 million years. What you may be surprised to discover is the accepted estimate dates back to the 1950s and has remained pretty much the same since then, even though scientific knowledge has progressed so dramatically since then in other areas."

[@abraao2213]

Amazing video

[@EyeToob]

Where is the money coming from for the scientists to keep presenting falsehoods?

[@SebastianTorres22]

What about human retroviruses vestiges in the same places of dna code in humans and chimps? I've seen a video of Jon Perry on this, hard to refute for me. Sorry my bad english, best regards.

[@houstandy1009]

What about them? They are evidence of common ancestry not origin of life

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Carbon not what already exist sulpher

[@TexasHoosier3118]

Is there solid evidence that RNA is the mechanism of early life, or is that conjecture? Does science run on conjecture or facts?

[@masterxofficiel]

Conjecture of evolutionnists

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

By want of multiple thought

[@jIMwILLIAMS-im7kk]

The first livibg cell no matter how simple they wish had to have metabolism and self replication which is the exact 2 requirements which makes a cells complexity beyond mankinds engineering capabilities so ....

[@KenJackson_US]

Yes! And at least one more--it had to have a membrane to protect it from its harsh environment.

[@markoconnell804]

12:21 sounds like plagiarism at this point. Using somebody else’s work.

[@TMack1024]

Now do mRNA! We could REALLY use a good explanation for THAT!

[@jannyjt2034]

Is scientific research really this fragile? Loose terms, faulty assumptions, and missing information. As an educator, I have seen many education papers with this same problem but I didn't know it was a common phenomenon among all research. God help us.

[@nobody-tw3zs]

Dang

[@MonteVanNortwick]

The can never let a divine foot in the door. Fantasy is preferable. Sad. They end up lying to themselves.

[@smithkarine9678]

well pal,do vidoes on cooking ,you don t have anything right there when it come to these topics......

[@boldasalion6436]

Buttttt.... they have to replicate life, so they can continue living in sin so they can deny an intelligent God.

[@yec4life78]

victory

[@sienielain9222]

Could it be possible that life originated as something VERY simple, like self-replicating carbon-based crystal crowths??

[@viktoriaschiller1522]

No.

[@tlewis84able]

Could it be that the universe exploded into being 13.8 billion years ago from nothing with elegantly planned forces of gravity, nuclear forces, space-time and hydrogen that then combine into the processes that build stars and explode them into the elements that make life possible without a creator? If you answered yes, you have a much more active imagination than I.

[@eswn1816]

​@@tlewis84able Imagination and faith (in "something from nothing."

[@jpneiswi]

Growth on crystals would only make repeating subunits (like ABABABABABABABAB) since that's what the laws of physics/chemistry would dictate. That's not the kind of thing that generates life though. It has to be decidedly NOT repeating in order to be able to be useful. If when writing a sentence, every time we came upon a G, we'd have to immediately follow it with an O, we'd get nothing but GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO...can't really do much with that...

[@masterxofficiel]

Is this an ad hoc hypothesis ? No until scientific proof.

[@KenJackson_US]

But those who have faith that life popped into existence really really *want* it to have happened. So if you cast shade on their party by saying the RNA world couldn't have happened, they'll call you stupid.

[@mchooksis]

Ken Jackson. And how is that different from those who say that God is real?

[@us3rG]

​@@mchooksisour human nature is created in God's image Human nature doesn't change Human nature has been the same in all recorded history, human nature is the same in all eight billion of us and human nature will naver evolve to something else. And here is the funny part This origin story is taken from the Bible, they just removed the human nature, brain and reduced everything to cells Here God created Adam(dirt or earth) and from Adam created Eve(life) Chance created matter and from matter created a cell.

[@lordzombie]

you dont have an answer! so all life is designed by "intelligence". ok, WHO DESIGNED THE INTELLIGENCE? you arent answering the question, you're just kicking the ball

[@bobdalton2062]

No, "Natural Law" - all the laws of physics, chemistry, etc need not apply to the entity that created those laws. Logically, it is not Subject to our known laws that It created. It necessarily exists OUTSIDE ALL KNOWN LAWS that Something (ID) created. Hope this helps. It puzzled me when I was younger until I realized this axiom

[@jameslay1489]

@@bobdalton2062 special pleading. You haven't demonstrated an entity created those laws, you just assert it. It seems more like you really don't like logic because you don't want a creator to be subject to them because it make said creator look more and more ridiculous.

[@allisontowell7177]

@@jameslay1489well considering the creator would have made said laws of physics, He could exist outside of it. Science believes in always existing energy.. what caused the energy? Nothing. It just was there. Okay so that’s more plausible than an always existing creator? No they both are the same in terms of “improbability” but one of them is true. It always was and will be. So now it’s a question of chance that time allowed the right components to come together to form what we have that also shows intelligent design… or it was an intelligent mind that created all that we have that shows intelligent design.

[@mchooksis]

You are just making things up as you go along.

[@x1nightskyx]

No one knows how life started but we know it isn't god because we know that the bible is a lie.

[@masterxofficiel]

Proofs ?

[@jameslay1489]

@@masterxofficiel Exodus didn't happen and neither did the flood. Jesus makes claims about events in the bible we know from archeology didn't happen, like the Exodus and Noah's Flood.

[@allisontowell7177]

@@jameslay1489actually we don’t know that for a fact. Things are always needing to be discovered. People didn’t think the city of Nineveh from Jonah existed until they actually went out and searched for it and realized it was true… it was a Bible influenced search by the way because you only read about it in the Bible. On the walls of some temple there, there was a mention of the now Assyrian king named Sennacherib who mentioned the seize of Lachish from Judea which was being ruled by the Jewish king, Hezekiah, which is conveniently also found in the Bible. 2 Kings 18:13-16 Interesting 🤔

[@PATRICKJLM]

As I can see, you believe in the evolution by natural selection. But natural selection on Earth gave dinosaurs, and they would have been still the rulers of Earth if it wasn't for a cosmic coincidence - yes, we are here because of a cosmic coincidence. And I ask you who believe in God and in the intelligent design, did the Project Humans 1.0 didn't go well and God had to reset it with a comet?

[@20july1944]

"Natural selection" working on what "gave us dinosaurs"?

[@gaborjuracsik4847]

LOL, you really want to believe in evolution.

[@smithkarine9678]

are you ok???you just blabber non sens....

[@gussalazar449]

There's plenty to read about this subject. Look it up and be surprised. have-dinosaur-and-human-fossils-been-found-together-

[@grahamguest6506]

Maybe it did go well and the comet was well planned, so well planned that you get to live.