Debunking RNA world: Replication & Chemical Evolution

Help us make more videos! / @longstoryshortvideos
Defining things is hard and when it comes to defining “life”... it’s not much easier. But at minimum, we’re pretty sure that to get to where we are today, life needed to replicate.
Every known cell, including all the cells in your body, came about through replication of a preceding cell, but cellular replication is waaaay too complicated. When scientists talk about how the first forms of life replicated, they have to think simpler, far simpler. Like at the molecular level (DNA).
All living things have DNA and have to copy it in order to reproduce. Problem is, copying the DNA molecule is also difficult, why start there? Let’s go even simpler! Scientists figure that RNA is a better candidate for the first replicating molecule. RNA is also found in all of life and is likewise capable of storing the instructions needed to build things, and it’s a bit simpler than DNA.
So, in 1962 MIT professor Alexander Rich first put forth the “RNA world” hypothesis that all of life we see in the world today started from RNA...

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

REFERENCES (1) Note: Replicating DNA is a very complex process. This paper shows that it takes a minimum of 14 different enzymes (made of 25 proteins) to replicate DNA. Su’etsugu, M.; Takada, H.; Katayama, T.; Tsujimoto, H. Exponential propagation of large circular DNA by reconstitution of a chromosome-replication cycle. Nucleic Acids Research 2017, 45 (20), 11525-11534. (2) Note: The name was coined by Walter Gilbert later, in 1986. (3) Lincoln, T. A.; Joyce, G. F. Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme. Science 2009, 323 (5918), 1229-1232. (4) Adamala, K.; Engelhart, A. E.; Szostak, J. W. Generation of functional RNAs from inactive oligonucleotide complexes by non-enzymatic primer extension. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2015, 137 (1), 483-489. (5) Robertson, M. P.; Joyce, G. F. Highly efficient self-replicating RNA enzymes. Chemistry & Biology 2014, 21 (2), 238-245. (6) Mizuuchi, R.; Furubayashi, T.; Ichihashi, N. Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network. Nature Communications 2022, 13 (1), 1-10. (7) Vaidya, N.; Manapat, M. L.; Chen, I. A.; Xulvi-Brunet, R.; Hayden, E. J.; Lehman, N. Spontaneous network formation among cooperative RNA replicators. Nature 2012, 491 (7422), 72-77. (8) Jeancolas, C.; Matsubara, Y. J.; Vybornyi, M.; Lambert, C. N.; Blokhuis, A.; Alline, T.; Griffiths, A. D.; Ameta, S.; Krishna, S.; Nghe, P. RNA diversification by a self-reproducing ribozyme revealed by deep sequencing and kinetic modelling. Chemical Communications 2021, 57 (61), 7517-7520. (9) www.science.org/content/article/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum scitechdaily.com/researchers-solve-puzzle-of-origin-of-life-on-earth/ www.rutgers.edu/news/new-study-sheds-light-origins-life-earth bme.gatech.edu/bme/news/new-study-brings-scientists-closer-origin-rna www.science.org/content/article/newly-made-rna-strand-bolsters-ideas-about-how-life-earth-began (accessed December 2022). (10) lifescience.roche.com/en_us/articles/precautions-for-handling-of-rna.html (accessed December 2022). (11) Mills, D. R.; Peterson, R.; Spiegelman, S. An extracellular Darwinian experiment with a self-duplicating nucleic acid molecule. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1967, 58 (1), 217-224. (12) Joyce, G. F. Forty years of in vitro evolution. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2007, 46 (34), 6420-6436. (13) Note: This isn't some inherently unique capacity of RNA, as it is often assumed. Because life uses RNA both to carry information (such as mRNA during protein synthesis) and for enzymatic activity, there is an impression that RNA is some special case of an object that can both perform physical functions and store information. However, any physical object with at least 2 conformational states can serve as an information storage device (including sticks and stones). Therefore, practically any object that performs a physical function can also be used to store information. The reverse is also true, and there is evidence that the cell's main information storage medium, DNA, could also perform certain enzymatic functions, although that is not how DNA is currently used in life. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9131619/]. (14) Note: "If ribozyme-catalysed metabolic reactions exist at all, they account for only a marginal fraction of cellular metabolism." Ralser, M. An appeal to magic? The discovery of a non-enzymatic metabolism and its role in the origins of life. Biochemical Journal 2018, 475 (16), 2577-2592. Benner, S. A.; Burgstaller, P.; Battersby, T. R.; Jurczyk, S. Did the RNA world exploit an expanded genetic alphabet? Cold Spring Harbor Monograph Series 1999, 37, 163-182. Wilson, T. J.; Lilley, D. M. RNA catalysis--is that it? RNA 2015, 21 (4), 534-537. (15) Note: Stealing, really? Yes, they are taking things they ought not. That’s stealing. (16) Deck, C.; Jauker, M.; Richert, C. Efficient enzyme-free copying of all four nucleobases templated by immobilized RNA. Nature chemistry 2011, 3 (8), 603-608. Adamala, K.; Szostak, J. W. Nonenzymatic template-directed RNA synthesis inside model protocells. Science 2013, 342 (6162), 1098-1100. (17) Szostak, J. W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. Journal of Systems Chemistry 2012, 3 (1), 1-14. (18) Engelhart, A. E.; Powner, M. W.; Szostak, J. W. Functional RNAs exhibit tolerance for non-heritable 2′-5′ versus 3′-5′ backbone heterogeneity. Nature Chemistry 2013, 5 (5), 390-394. (19) Note: Engelhart, Powner, and Szostak took a relatively simple ribozyme that could break bonds. The correct linkage (3'-5') made a ribozyme that could break 80% of bonds in 48 hrs (Figure 3b). Then they tried a ribozyme with 10% of the wrong linkage (2'-5'). That one could break 60% of bonds in 48 hours. With 25% of the wrong linkage, it broke about 25% of the bonds in 48 hours. With 50% of the wrong linkage, it broke only a few % of the bonds in 48 hours. (20) Note: A second major problem with the chemical replication of RNA is that RNA duplexes >20- 30 nucleotides in length are difficult or impossible to thermally denature under template copying conditions. Engelhart, A., Powner, M. & Szostak, J. Functional RNAs exhibit tolerance for non-heritable 2′-5′ versus 3′-5′ backbone heterogeneity. (21) Eigen, M. Self organization of matter and the evolution of biological macromolecules. Naturwissenschaften 1971, 58 (10), 465-523. (21A) Note: Although metal ions are important to many of life’s reactions, they are also very problematic for OOL research. Magnesium ions accelerate the degradation of RNA via metal-ion catalyzed phosphodiester transesterification. Also, lead ions bind to short stretches of RNA at numerous common sequence motifs, forming "leadzymes" that can chop other RNAs to pieces. Furthermore, the ionic forms of several metals such as iron, aluminum, magnesium, and calcium-found abundantly in seawater and geothermal pools-can turn membrane lipid components into unsuitable "soap scum" that would interfere with protocell formation and growth. Fedor, M. J. The role of metal ions in RNA catalysis. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2002, 12 (3), 289-295. Barciszewska, M. Z.; Szymanski, M.; Wyszko, E.; Pas, J.; Rychlewski, L.; Barciszewski, J. Lead toxicity through the leadzyme. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research 2005, 589 (2), 103-110. Deamer, D. First life: Discovering the connections between stars, cells, and how life began; Univ of California Press, 2012. Schirber, M. (2012). "A salt-free primordial soup?". Retrieved January 6, 2023, from phys.org/news/2012-01-salt-free-primordial-soup.html. (22) Note: Ref #7 above. Quote "To create a cooperative network, we fragmented the Azoarcus ribozyme into two pieces in three different ways with the intent of observing how they could spontaneously reassemble via intermolecular cooperation (Fig. 1a, b). We manipulated the IGS (canonically GUG) and its target triplet to generate both matched and mismatched partners." (23) Note: Ref #8 above. Quote: "First, we show that RNA1 is elongated by multiple additions of small fragments in the presence of the ribozyme." (24) Note: Ref #6 above. Quote: "Long-term evolution of an RNA replicator. The RNA replication system (Fig. 1a) consists of a single-stranded RNA (host RNA) that encodes the catalytic subunit of Qβ replicase (an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase) and a reconstituted Escherichia coli.” (25) Di Giulio, M. On the RNA world: evidence in favor of an early ribonucleopeptide world. Journal of molecular evolution 1997, 45 (6), 571-578. Piette, B. M.; Heddle, J. G. A peptide-nucleic acid replicator origin for life. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2020, 35 (5), 397-406. Müller, F.; Escobar, L.; Xu, F.; Węgrzyn, E.; Nainytė, M.; Amatov, T.; Chan, C. Y.; Pichler, A.; Carell, T. A prebiotically plausible scenario of an RNA-peptide world. Nature 2022, 605 (7909), 279-284. (26) Bernhardt, H. S. The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others). Biology Direct 2012, 7 (1), 1-10. (27) Note: Something like Le Chatelier's Principle - where, if a chemical reaction would have happened naturally, increasing the concentration of those chemicals would speed it up. For instance, if nature could produce a chemical and make a reaction happen over the course of 100 years, we could artificially increase the concentration to decrease the time needed for that same reaction to happen. Assuming, of course, that the reactants have very long shelf-lives, and the reaction could occur at all with such a low concentration. Frequently the concentrations of available reactants use in the putative origin of life conditions were so low as to not allow the desired reactions to happen at all. So even this could be cheating if the reaction is not merely sped up but enabled to happen when it otherwise wouldn’t. (28) Jia, T. Z.; Fahrenbach, A. C.; Kamat, N. P.; Adamala, K. P.; Szostak, J. W. Oligoarginine peptides slow strand annealing and assist non-enzymatic RNA replication. Nature Chemistry 2016, 8 (10), 915-921. (29) Jia, T. Z.; Fahrenbach, A. C.; Kamat, N. P.; Adamala, K. P.; Szostak, J. W. Retraction Note: Oligoarginine peptides slow strand annealing and assist non-enzymatic RNA replication. Nature Chemistry 2017, 9 (12), 1286-1286. (30) Note: Though some believe DNA arose simultaneously with RNA, which has its own problems and is beyond the scope of this video.

[@pigzcanfly444]

BTW watching the RNA turn into Spiegelman's monster on here was like watching togepi evolve into muk. perfect description of the hype they are using in this field.

[@JessicaSunlight]

You know what's funee while I love good questions and well done research by you but, I'm more in love with your silly art lol, what software you are using to draw and animate? :D yes Im asking this, don't laugh ♥

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@@JessicaSunlight drawing with an ipad & procreate/photoshop and animating in after effects!

[@JessicaSunlight]

@@LongStoryShortVideos haha I thought so word to word🤭 Thank YOU for sharing and indulging my curiosity, love your animation, silly cartoon and humor ♥ and I know how much work it takes to put those things to gather, you or if you have a team, have to check a lot of papers and materials just to put one statement on the screen - so cordially thank you for your work, here is a flower for you 🌹( your team of elf helpers ? ) 🙂 Take care and see you around!

[@julissaguerrero8596]

1:35

[@halocemagnum8351]

There’s a reason the rna world hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a theory. I think most scientists who do research in A-biogenesis probably would acknowledge most of the challenges to the RNA world hypothesis offered in this video. The hypothesis remains very much unproven, and this video does a decent job explaining why, although it seems rather dismissive of the work of researchers in this area (probably because the maker of this video already has their own conclusions about the origin of life).

[@pigzcanfly444]

There's nothing wrong with trying to check possible routes but have you considered that if the research was actually valid that the people conducting it would not have to hype their work to promote it? Also why not actually start from prebiotic conditions instead of simply assuming much of the steps involved and pretending they have all been solved? This should be obvious to anyone reading through their literature.Just some food for thought.

[@halocemagnum8351]

​@@pigzcanfly444 I think hype is an issue in all scientific fields, even the ones we'd both agree are legitimate. In order to get published, you have to have publish worthy results, and so people tend to play things up. But other scientists will often nock them back down a peg or two (as we saw in this video, with the one scientist saying the early abiogenesis experiment couldn't be called "self replicating"?) The reason they don't start with prebiotic conditions is actualyl outlined in this video. If Abiogenesis did occur, it likely took millions of years, so we need to alter the conditions of the experiment in order to speed things up into a human observable timerframe. However, as this video describes in detail, the line between "speeding things up" and "cheating" is a very blurry one, and is a place where hype can definitely seep in. Thank you for your well thought out reply.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@Halo CE Magnum believe me I understand what you're saying with the notion that it would have taken "millions of years" but the reason this is assumed is that the scientists In question are hoping specific methods of transport without destroying the molecules in question managed to get them into the same molecular space at the same time. The irony is that they already have this with biology and cannot get a resurrection of dead cells let alone a working thriving evolution-driving cell that led to what we see on earth today. It would have to be very particular to assume even such a progression at all. This is why starting at the base level with chemicals that they know existed under prebiotic conditions is the only way to hold such assumptions. If you don't have even the basic components like ribose or phosphates then you really don't have a working theory and you need to consider other alternatives. There is nothing wrong with checking all available avenues but the way this is being done is not just slightly cheating to get a bit of credibility. It's blatant fraud at this point. There are many chemists speaking out about it lately and asking for a moratorium on OoL research because of its malpractice. The field is so small that practically no one can get a word in about its problems because the people that would be critiqued will outright reject the papers written. Why accept criticism when you don't have to and have the public think that your work is impeccable? I detest the things shown to have come through this type of hype and overextrapolation like the fact that many people believe that scientists believe that life has been made in a lab or that simple life like frogs have been made de novo through synthetic means. It starts at the top and though I appreciate the comment about scientists knocking others down a peg or two the field of Origin of life is simply put not doing legitimate science apart from showing how life never could have come about. None of this is directed at you personally and are just my thoughts on the matter. I hope that you continue to investigate to your hearts content.

[@kinetic7609]

Haha, yeah, every intellectually honest person should have come to a conclusion about the OoL by now. If not I can only conclude that you're motivated by something other than the intellectual parameters, perhaps an emotional desire for a Godless world?

[@halocemagnum8351]

@@kinetic7609 the RNA world hypothesis is testable in a lab. The reason this channel can even make video talking about its failings is because the hypothesis made testable predictions that scientists actually investigated and published on. And after this investigation, the hypothesis remains unproven (in fact, it's certainly the case that there are clearly more barriers to the hypothesis' validity than those who proposed it likely anticipated). That's how science works. Any alternative OoL hypothesis ought to be able to undergo the same scrutiny, and still hold up under the light of truth, before I 'believe' it. That's my intellectual parameter.

[@J56609]

I’m a retired project engineer from a 27 year career in human space flight. I have no background in biology but I do care to ponder about many of the great scientific mysteries of our time like the actual origin of life. It seems strange that with all the computing and chemistry capabilities people have created that scientists still haven’t created a brand spanking new form of life in the lab. I ponder how the lowest forms of cells (but still amazingly complex) could just spontaneously come together by chance and become life. That would be like, over eons, earth’s winds, waves and tectonic movements that would lead to a Ford Model T carburetor spontaneously springing into existence. Just a thought.

[@caryfrancis7412]

I'm a "make your arguement of authority here", for one million years. The stuff that science hasnt done yet, isnt an aguemnt against science. All carburators ar manmade, dont use manmade things as comparison to naturally occuring , You have three "named" fallasies here. Did you know that and can you name them ?

[@catpoke9557]

They didn't. The original 'cells' were nothing like modern cells. They evolved from non-living collections of lipids and such. The simplest modern cells are significantly more complex than the first protocells, which were basically just floating globs of chemicals.

[@jkorling]

One should also look into nonequilibrium thermodynamics to show how it's mathematically inevitable for complexity to arise from the chemical/molecular world.

[@jkorling]

"It seems strange that with all the computing and chemistry capabilities people have created that scientists still haven’t created a brand spanking new form of life in the lab." Well, that presumes two things: That we're now at the scientific pinnacle in human history where that should be a given (no reason to believe that), and the second is that creating a living cell is the primary objective of abiogenesis research (which it's not). To expect scientists to cobble together a living cell from its base parts like assembling a car is not realistic, because for one thing, that's not how abiogenesis nor evolution works, and it was a process that involved millions of years.

[@marcossidoruk8033]

As a retired project engineer with 10000 years of experience, you are not qualified at all in molecular biology and have 0 idea on how hard the problem actually is. Manipulating things on that scale to create machinery resembling life is far, far harder than making a two way trip to mars. If we could do that then curing cancer and basically all diseases known to mankind would be an utter triviality.

[@PloverTechOfficial]

I’m back here, thanks to the magic of the algorithm. I seriously don’t know how I didn’t subscribe after the previous amazing video. Well I’m glad I’m back, I love these videos.

[@msvh-l9616]

Can one RNA strand (folded) act as a function performer for an unfolded RNA for replication etc?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

A properly folded and functional RNA (ribozyme) could perform only very basic chemistry on another strand of RNA, such as cutting it into fragments. Even modern ribozymes are not known to perform complex feats like replication (polymerase activity) or annealing of phosphodiester bonds (ligase activity). It takes numerous stable proteins and a steady source of abundant energy to accomplish replication. Also, the natural conditions that would cause one strand of RNA to unfold (denature), such as high temperature, would also cause the nearby ribozyme to unfold, thereby deactivating it. In a prebiotic scenario where one RNA is folded and functional (helping another unfolded RNA to be replicated), is not sustainable. The folded and functional RNA will naturally degrade over time and needs to be replaced or repaired. If it's not replicating *itself*, its own functional capability will therefore disappear. *But*, to replicate itself, it would need to be both folded and unfolded.

[@msvh-l9616]

@@LongStoryShortVideos Ah, I see - now it makes sense. I love your videos on abiogenesis. Can we get a hint on what your next video will be about?

[@Ac1dSQUAREgg]

I fundamentally like the video but it seems a bit incomplete. IMO criticism should include constructive pointers, otherwise it tends to feel more like venting. I would have loved to hear your own propositions. Deconstructing the work of others is just way too easy and always leaves me hungry for more. Nonetheless, thank you and gj!

[@gaberocca9580]

I was just curious if you feel there's another more viable mechanism for the earliest forms of life than an RNA or an RNA peptide world, or if you were just pointing out some potential flaws in the theory. I just wanted to know your personal thoughts on the origins of life on earth! Thanks

[@jessebrady2614]

Why do you need him to do the thinking for you? This isn't that type of video. He just systematically showed how the currently proposed theories on the origin of life are not viable. Now freed from the burden of accepting these theories, you're free to adopt whatever other viable theory you want. Just do your homework... you'd hate to jump into another one that makes the same types of mistakes.

[@gaberocca9580]

@@jessebrady2614 Don't worry, I am doing plenty of my own research. I just fail to see a more plausible mechanism for the start of life on earth. I figured it wouldn't hurt to talk to other people who have done research on the topic to better understand a variety of views. Discussion is the basis of knowledge!

[@mihailmilev9909]

Good question. Let's hope his answer is as rational and scientific as these videos seem to try to look like (aside from whether they actually are).

[@mihailmilev9909]

@@jessebrady2614 well, not exactly. You're free to experiment with any theories MORE viable or probably then this one (in its complete form which usually these videos leave out), which I haven't heard of so far but I'm just saying.

[@gaberocca9580]

@@mihailmilev9909 Yeah, this was the first video of his I saw and I thought it was just genuinely trying to show that there was still room to learn and grow for these theories. Watching the rest was disappointing, to say the least.

[@Spoutinwyze]

was hoping to hear the clay hypothesis , where rna uses an imprint of an rna string, to essentially replicate

[@bradleywaddell6605]

Would pulling rna down spiegleman’s monster be similar to what we could have expected is pre bio earth? What happens to spiegleman’s monster if we push it through more generations?

[@peppermintgal4302]

I don't recall if it was Spiegelman's monster that did this, but one variant of RNA replicator we made diverged into some 7, interdependent kinds. We thought some 5 or so were parasitic at first, but when removing even one variant, all the others stopped reproducing. So they formed a super complex ecosystem of sorts, with evolved "irreducible complexity." I think the environment we were keeping it in wasn't conducive to developing cellular traits, I don't think it comtained lipids or amino acids or anything, I think the lab just kept feeding it RNA. I'm curious what you would get putting it in a Martin Hanczyc style environment.

[@accabb2487]

Theory: I can jump to the moon. Proof of concept: Me jumping over a bucket.

[@ulture]

Not even close to what’s going on. It’s more like “Theory: with rocket science and modern engineering, humans can walk on the moon. Here is the mathematics behind it.” Proof of concept: Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon.” (Though I’m guessing a few of you don’t believe in that either)

[@kinetic7609]

​@@ulture Nothing like that at all. For starters, a man landing on the moon was an accomplishment of the goal and the end result of the mathematics. You haven't reached the conclusion of abiogenesis, and the "math" for it is well...non-existent and or flimsy.

[@stephenfennell]

​@@kinetic7609But nothing in the prebiotic world had a desire to replicate, or the intellect to think through what chemicals it would need in order to do something it was not already doing. The prebiotic world had no brain to either think of a goal, or to work out how to accomplish a goal.

[@accabb2487]

@@ulture "Proof of concept" is not the same thing as "Proving" a concept. You should probably know that before making passive insults at others.

[@dbneptune]

theory: you don’t know what you’re talking about it proof of concept: this comment

[@ulture]

Bit weird to have a creationist channel propagating purely creationist arguments but without mentioning that it’s a creationist channel anywhere in new name, video descriptions, or videos. Pretty dishonest really. I’m sure you wouldn’t think it was ok for a channel to be called “The Gospels Explained” and the videos to be full of unfounded assertions that run directly counter to what the Gospels say, and accusations that anyone who disagrees is just lying and cheating (with no explanation of why their work is cheating or how they justify that ‘cheating’ in order to pass peer review.)

[@mrnobodytheuser2950]

Instead of whingeing you should should show where the video is wrong, if you can.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

No explanation of how they're cheating? Lol, "tell me you didn't watch the videos without telling me you didn't watch the videos."

[@adrianthom2073]

, what do you expect from a channel that rejects science for ID?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@adrianthom2073 lol you can try to define the arguments away or you can answer them... 🙃

[@adrianthom2073]

@@LongStoryShortVideos , I’m not making any claim, just pointing out the fact your channel promotes ID.

[@tymekploszaj8134]

Great job, I don't understand everything well in English but I like the form. Greetings from Poland.

[@o_o-037]

Is this a reupload?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

There was a sneak preview of the beginning of the video before - now the entire video is live!

[@ryanmcguire4243]

Keep up the great work! My whole family loves your videos!

[@colethompson8665]

I just want to ask one thing. If the leading hypothesis for the origin of life is absolutely impossible, then what would you suggest is the actual origin of life? Do you have something that you think fits better with what is observed in chemistry or biology? Im curious about your thoughts on this.

[@mousasaab2652]

That’s for you to decide. Since science (known laws of chemistry and physics) cannot explain the origin of life it means we do not know. There is no scientific explanation. That doesn’t mean there’s no theistic solution. I attribute the origin of life as a miracle of God, but if someone can find a scientific explanation I’m all ears.

[@bootyclap69k]

@@mousasaab2652 there is a scientific explanation, you just probably ignore it

[@colethompson8665]

@@mousasaab2652 🙄

[@pigzcanfly444]

Have you looked into engineering principles?

[@colethompson8665]

@@pigzcanfly444 I’m an engineering student getting my degree in a month and a half. If this is going where I think it is, then I suggest you rethink what you are about to say.

[@azeemsythe8064]

Hi, first of all your videos are pretty good. I have a question, can you answer it? Do these self replicating RNAs need energy to self replicate? If yes then where do they get them? Because RNAs in our cell use ATPs in order to replicate.

[@robstadler927]

Yes, joining nucleotides together requires energy. Typically the nucleotides are "activated", that is, placed in an energized triphosphate state, which makes them more likely to join together. Laboratories used activated, homochiral, and unnaturally pure nucleotides when they try to demonstrate self-replication. Despite this cheating, it doesn't work in the lab. The activated state also degrades over time, as mentioned in this video.

[@msvh-l9616]

​@@robstadler927 does this activated state become deactivated after X number of replications? Because I don't think these energised states can have unlimited energy. If they become deactivated then what happens to the "last RNA" that has enough energy to replicate again? What happens after that?

[@robstadler927]

@@msvh-l9616 It is the individual nucleotide "building blocks" that are activated. They must be activated in order to get them to join with others to make a new RNA. The activated state naturally degrades over time, depending on temperature, pH, other contaminants, etc. Once deactivated, a new RNA cannot be assembled.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@robstadler927 , do you thill think the Hypothesis of Abiogenesis has no plausibility? And what hypothesis do you think is best for the beginning of life on this planet?

[@robstadler927]

@@adrianthom2073 I think the evidence (as presented in this series of videos) is strongly opposed to the plausibility of abiogenesis. This is not “God of the Gaps”, it is from an abundance of understanding of what natural processes do (and do not do).

[@santaexplains]

Beautiful animations and great explanations. 👍 Thank you for sharing content like this.

[@alddav181]

Very interesting video, I think you did a great job explaining the different processes and their problems in an easy to understand manner. I don't understand the subject well enough to tell if there were any inaccuracies or oversimplifications, but from my perspective the video was informative and engaging. You raise a lot of interesting points RNA is the kind of theory I usually just accept as most plausible and move on, and it's nice to have a video explaining how it fails in a simple manner. I'm not really convinced RNA is debunked, just that the theory is flawed, as are most scientific theories. But it is refreshing to see an approachable discourse on a topic that I usually never think about. I appreciate all the references you provide, even if I don't have the energy to check them all out. Your art style is really fun too.

[@wujuntanktips]

I just found your channel today, and just wanted to say great job! I appreciate the open, logical, honest approach to the science. Subscribed and sharing, hoping your channel grows soon! Your videos are absolutely deserving of a larger audience. Also...I wonder how a conversation with Professor Dave would go😂

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks and welcome!

[@lovewillbeourhome]

Is what happened on the paper, "RNA world hypothesis...worst theory...except for all others)." On note 38 in that paper where 95 nucleotides were synthesized out of 190 what is being mentioned on 6:30 of this video? I read that the actual synthesis is only 10% best.

[@robstadler927]

I think you are referring to Wochner et al. Science 2011; 332: 209-212, where a designed ribozyme composed of 190 nucleotides was capable of building an RNA (according to a template and requiring a primer), up to 95 nucleotides in length. This was a “particularly favorable repetitive template”. So, in the best case scenario, it could replicate something about 48% of its own length. This video (at 6:30) discusses different results - the work of Michael Robertson and Gerald Joyce, and of Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce. Their ribozyme only connected two halves of itself - providing only one ligation to connect two halves to make one whole ribosome. This, so far, has been the only demonstration of a ribozyme that can “replicate itself”, although it does so by only one ligation. These papers are good marketing material, claiming milestone results that are rather meager upon close inspection.

[@lovewillbeourhome]

Thanks again!

[@msvh-l9616]

One question: if DNA/RNA codes for proteins only. How do carbohydrates, lipids and other things replicate during cellular replication? Is this a problem for abiogenesis? I hope this question doesn't come out to be silly to you, I'm really looking for an answer.

[@jimjimmington9220]

Only DNA/RNA is complex enough to need replicating because that's the only way you can create more of it. Everything else either exists already or is built by proteins. So a modern cell will collect all the other stuff needed to make two cells beforehand from the outside, or build them using its existing proteins, before replicating. The first life probably just evolved in an environment where those things were naturally there so it didn't need to make/ replicate/ collect them, or they could be built with very early proteins.

[@msvh-l9616]

@@jimjimmington9220 lipids and especially carbohydrates are quite complex. I don't think it should "just be naturally there" on early earth.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@MSVH - L yeah they can barely get pentoses under any relevant conditions let alone ribose to begin attempting to make RNA which needs the ribose, phosphate and amino acid. In order to produce a single codon you need 3 of these in the proper linkage of 3'(prime) and 5' and this starts part of the sequencing for protein synthesis which requires already existing mRNA and tRNA to transmit the information and express. Also the proteins do all of the heavy lifting and primary functions which are usually interdependent and already require their strictures to be coded/embedded in the DNA sequence. There is so much more to this but I digress. We are only scratching the surface of this stuff.

[@jimjimmington9220]

@@msvh-l9616 You don't need to think or bother forming an opinion of if that stuff should and shouldn't occur naturally. Scientists have probably already found IRL or lab evidence for what can and cannot occur naturally for probably anything you can think of that early life could need. This is not something you need to have an opinion or argue over because you can find a definitive, factual answer with enough time researching it on the internet. But, we both know you won't bother doing that so I'm leaving it there.

[@DugaldKerr]

DNA/RNA are used to code for much more than just proteins and enzymes. They include the instructions on how to make the machines that are used to transcribe the DNA, the instructions for the proteins used to create the machines used to assemble the proteins and used to fold the proteins (yes I am mentioning multiple steps and machines in 1 sentence for brevity). Let's not also forget that there's the information of how to make the machines that charge up ADP into ATP. Which is considered the energy powerhouse of the cell. So yes all of that is a major problem for abiogenesis. They start with DNA/RNA as they need the instructions on making everything else before they can make anything else. Yes there's lipids that form a bubble that has been considered as being an early cellular wall. Long Story Short has a video on that already too and it's quite accurate when viewed scientifically.

[@lukasbryant9881]

"We'll turn your money into tacos" 🤣

[@he1zenberg_exe216]

Thank you for making this

[@trippwhitener9498]

Abiogenesis is the direction I would focus on if I had a phd. There is so much money in this previously disproven area of science, one could really get rich without proving any accomplishment.

[@tedkrasicki3857]

The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer kzbin.info/www/bejne/kH3dqpalaLaSiMk Energy and Matter at the Origin of Life kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHa9e5eBas2brNE How Life Evolves with Professor Nick Lane kzbin.info/www/bejne/hnvMnpxupMiaa7M The Whole History of the Earth and Life 【Finished Edition】 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIKXdIitbreWq6M

[@PhilosophyGuy841]

Love your content bro!

[@debravictoria7452]

Especially the jeans posing as genes. 🤣

[@ChainsawDunDeez]

While I believe in chemical evolution turning into biological evolution….over the other options like mythical mystical magic….I do appreciate the effort , humour and explanation of your presentation on these experiments that provided interesting insights into the properties of RNA…while also explaining the problems with these results when applying them to abiogenesis….I’m interested in your thoughts the recent discovery of how volcanic glass (something undoubtedly common on early earth) helps organise RNA into chains… Which could have kick started chemical evolution to biological evolution….

[@mousasaab2652]

Do you mean volcanic glass as a means to induce chirality in organic molecules?

[@pigzcanfly444]

Well there are several problems to start. For instance the basaltic glass that was used in the Biondi and Benner synthesis required 3% hydrogen peroxide applied several times and highly purified water specifically. Then the researchers started out using an oligomer chain of over 50mer which has not been shown to be prebiotically repeatable and thus should not warrant their use of it. Moving past this problem the RNA itself assumed synthesis of ribose prebiotically and the paper referenced for prebiotic synthesis of ribose was shown not too be prebiotically relevant and involved much human involvement to get. This doesn't count the fact that even with the human involvement of that synthesis the ribose was already coupled with other compounds and would have degraded much faster while in the presence of magnesium which was a key component of the Benner and Biondi work. I could go further into this but there is a lot of assumption and very little actual support for this claim made by the group that conducted this research.

[@otiswright2893]

Even if a " miracle " living cell did appear...mutations to it don't add functionality and the additional dna code blueprints to build proteins at a rate that overcomes the mutations negative harmful outcomes

[@ronysmith1]

Where do you stand on dark matter, dark energy, the creation of matter/time/space, the 'edge' of the universe, and the multiverse? Are these also in the category of 'mythical mystical magic'? Since they are outside of the physical, observable world and are not explained by the physical laws as we know them. I'm sure you've looked into it, right? I wouldn't be asking unless, for the most part, it has been touted by mainstream science.

[@ronysmith1]

(BTW if the universe has no edge, then do other universes in the multiverse overlap ours in some weird, dimensional way? Or is the universe expanding into 'nothing'? The same 'nothing' where the big bang came from and where time does not exist until a universe 'pops' into existence? How did Stephen Hawking extrapolate that particles like muons, pop in and out of existence, and compared that to the big bang? (See: Quantum fluctuation) Muons, and subatomic particles don't create a universal time nor do they create universes, especially ones with 10^90 atomic particles. I'm sure it all depends on *who* is preaching the 'mythical mystical magic', right? 😆) Hint: keep being skeptical of everything, because most ideas, including widely-accepted 'scientific' theories, may end up being mythical mystical magic. That's why many science textbooks are re-written every 10 years; they were wrong the first time, and probably still wrong now 🤣

[@synapsomorphy]

To say and imply that a lot of the referenced papers contribute absolutely nothing to the understanding of a/biogenesis is so dumb and insidious. So is highlighting the title of a paper and framing it in a light it was clearly not intended to be - pretending like there's ANY scientists who have unwavering confidence in any single origin of life hypothesis (there aren't). What a dangerously and purposefully misleading video, especially at the end, pretending to be an authority on the subject and framing ideas and opinions that are not even commonly held as facts. This is coming from the same channel that basically denies the existence of evolution at all, just look at their whale videos spouting young earth creationist garbage. I guess they've just learned that they need to be more subtle about things if they want people to give them a chance, because the ideas in the start of this video before it goes off the deep end are only misleading and not commonly believed, instead of universally agreed to be untrue (denying evolution).

[@JesusCreatedAllThings]

There is nothing to understand about abiogenesis except that it did not, and could not, happen. Abiogenesis would have to be insanely simple to happen by accident, on a dead planet, in a hostile environment. If abiogenesis were insanely simple, modern scientists would have duplicated the process by now, even without supercomputers and AIs. But they haven’t because it’s insanely complex and can’t happen by accident. Wake up! God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them. Repent of your sins and follow Jesus and you will be saved. The only alternative is eternity in Hell.

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

​@@JesusCreatedAllThings And how do you prove it was God?

[@JesusCreatedAllThings]

@@matteomastrodomenico1231 Dear Matteo, Abiogenesis posits that life arose from non-living matter, a proposition not yet fully supported by empirical evidence. On the other hand, the belief that God created life is indeed a matter of faith. This faith, however, isn't blind but based on a reasonable examination of both the physical world and personal experiences. The intricate complexity and orderliness of life, from the microcosm of DNA to the macrocosm of ecosystems, hint towards a thoughtful Designer rather than random chance. For Christians, this Designer is the God revealed in the Bible. Moreover, many have personal experiences of God's transformative work in their lives which affirm their faith in Him. It's important to note that faith in God and appreciation of science aren't mutually exclusive. Many scientists hold a belief in God, and their faith inspires rather than inhibits their scientific work. In summary, while Christians can't "prove" God's existence in a scientific sense, they find both the physical world and their personal experiences strongly indicative of His reality. May your journey of exploration bring clarity and peace, Matteo. Yours in truth… Sources: Norman L. Geisler's works on theology and apologetics The Holy Bible Jesus Christ, Creator & Sustainer of all things ChatGPT's synthesis and communication.

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

@@JesusCreatedAllThings You don't have explain God to a christian like me, but it's insane to consider something that has no evidence in a scientific discussion.

[@lastchance8142]

Whether or not any prebiotic RNA could somehow form or "replicate" is inmaterial to generating life, just as showing that certain amino acids could form in solution. These molecules, and all the other molecules of life are tantamount to bricks on a jobsite. Without machines to assemble the bricks, and a "program" to direct the assembly, there is nothing but a pile of bricks. The machines which accomplish these tasks in cells are highly complex and specific. There are thousands of them, even in the simplest conceivable cell. And every one was designed and assembled by other, prexisting machines. Its the machines that matter most in living systems, not the bricks.

[@magshdz]

Okay if abiogenesis is not the answer then what is if you took away something from the table you have to add one of your own Edit: also why couldn't one set of RNA be th,e blueprint and the other the tool set that would solve one of the problems :)

[@VietReze]

No even as an atheist no. If in a case were the person was murdered and all the suspects we have aren't the killer it doesn't mean there's no killer but the killer is unknowns

[@magshdz]

O_O

[@derhafi]

@AleksandrGrankin "a Creator" And how did you reach this conclusion, that some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power, not subject to the known laws of physics that interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science had a hand in the origin of life....? Did you make this appeal to magic before or after you listened to this misrepresentation of ool research by the ill-named Discovery Institute where they do no research at all, where they employ several demonstrable liars with a degree and of which one of it’s founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy?

[@magshdz]

I have no clue what your saying

[@twbascom]

You do an amazing job with your videos. Thanks for all the hard work. I'd love to see you continue your creations! Thanks again!

[@wleizero]

Wow, what a gem of a channel. Well researched, with actual papers in the video, and references too ... BRILLIANT!

[@jeffburke5666]

The problem is that if you are a Darwinist, you know that you have to have a fully functional toolbox, else there will be no selection of anything because you have to reproduce fairly consistently this toolbox before AND there’s no MEANING to until the information correlates with amino acids (the meaning). The system itself requires complex proteins, but you cannot consistently make functional proteins when there is no correlation.

[@jonnawyatt]

Is this a Discovery Institute video?

[@javid62663]

Fantastic series. Can tell there is a lot of effort put into the research. Although, I really wish the ideas were not dumbed down as much as they are. Studying biology, I never really "bought" darwanism, though I never believed in intelligent design either. You do a great job highlighting the many inconsistencies in the evidence, but you're not really proving the theory wrong nor are you proving a different theory correct. I am a bit confused what is the goal or "thesis" of these videos. It seems you are trying to assess the "truth" of these statements and studies on scientific grounds. Though you're points a more philosophical in nature even though you are careful about what you say. Also, truth and falsehood have very difficult epistemological implications. A video that talks about practicality, usefulness and predictive power would be very interesting to see. These are the main things we care about it science. So long as a theory or model is useful, it gets used.

[@ZacharyCath]

Wonderful work! Highly informative presentation with skilled and entertaining visuals. Really impressive. You have earned a sub!

[@michaelhughes6634]

You got to wonder if there is a molecule out there that stores information. But has either not been discovered or has gone extinct. I wonder we should just scrape rna and maybe have a bigger look at the complement system for simpler molecules.

[@peppermintgal4302]

There are! Proto nucleotides, PNAs, appear to have all the general abilities, including information storage, that RNA has, and are simpler, and its nit the only such RNA analogue. PNA World hypothesis has been proposed, and has a few benefits over RNA world, (I hear it can explain codon association, something RNA world has been unable to do so far, don't know how it does that, though.)

[@LarghettoCantabile]

I didn't quite get the part about the expiration date of RNA. I hope it's much better for the DNA (as opposed to the strands of RNA) in our cells. But if the nucleotides themselves decay, are we talking about time scales that are irrelevant to our physiology?

[@LarghettoCantabile]

Just found the answer. Repair enzymes, in the video on polymerization (Eigen's paradox).

[@TUFF93ryley]

Your target audience is too small. Anyone who could understand these videos isn’t as easily mislead by the emotive language you use (stealing, cheating ect), while those who share your preconceived conclusion aren’t going to understand what your saying even though you do a relatively good job of breaking down concepts. This explains why your view count is so low compared to other videos, especially other advertised videos.

[@Jay_in_Japan]

Well said

[@mouhaahaahaa]

You are clearly a smart man, so if possible, i'd love to have your opinion on "Endogenous Retroviruses" and if it can prove anything at all. Thank you!

[@OneEyedJack1970]

I've read something about problems with retroviral infection on germ cell lines, which would be necessary to pass them on. It's been a while since I read it, and that's all I can remember. But it was something along those lines.

[@UnquenchableHarvest]

Endogenous retroviruses are a headshot for creationism and other nonsense, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that reply...

[@pigzcanfly444]

Viruses in general are actually symbiotic. The reason we view them as harmful is because of the hype over ones that have known mutations which lead to problems with the way they interact with us now. If you look into it there are many specific functions of viruses that we know cannot take place without them like placenta growth while in the embryonic stage of development. Also all known viruses that are patented are actually engineered rather than naturally occurring. This means that many viral agents that are harmful have actually been accidentally introduced while testing on the. And trying to perform gain of function research.

[@truthbebold4009]

I'll share some channels that discuss ERV's but I have to remember their names. If you want to send me a reply so I can find this easier.

[@mouhaahaahaa]

@@truthbebold4009 thank you

[@ahmadmuhdi190]

Thank you for making this video. I've always been skeptical about the RNA world when I am learning this abiogenesis thing out of curiosity. Thanks for raising this more than I could. Hehe.

[@michaelgallup5041]

So what is the origin of life?

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Animals being popped into existence by an unobservable genius.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Aliens 👽 taking a break and random bacteria from their discarded skin cells falling to the ground?

[@stephenborgelt998]

A magician we can't see and have no proof of snapped his fingers.

[@JonathanOelkers]

You are awesome!

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

You are!

[@effectingcause5484]

I think it's interesting that many-a-scientist will refuse to consider any conscious entity behind the creation of life. They demand that life must have began spontaneously and against all odds, without willful intent, bcus they think that the willful and conscious creation of biochemistry equates to supernatural nonsense, or magic... But a lot of them do easily accept that human beings have willful intent and/or consciousness, yet they don't see anything supernatural or magical about that.

[@lereff1382]

You make it sound like nature of human consciousness is something that no research is being done on. Why would you assume that something is supernatural or magical, when the very real and likely possibility exists that you simply haven't fully understood it yet? Also, even if you do assume that there was a conscious entity behind the creation of life, that doesn't actually answer the question as to where life came from, because it introduces another question of "where did the conscious entity that made life" come from.

[@effectingcause5484]

@@lereff1382 All i'm saying is that consciousness is a phenomenon which exists in our universe. It is a phenomenon which is possible we know with certainty. So i say, it may be possible for consciousness to exist in other forms and under different physics, under different parameters within our universe, forms which are not bound by the physics of biochemistry for instance. We know that we can use our own consciousness to manipulate matter and make creations, even make high technologies against the will of regular physics and it is not magic when we make willful choices or intentional inventions... So then, I think it's reasonable to at least consider that a conscious entity, something with awareness, has manipulated matter in such a fascinating manner to make life, a high technology, a true nanotechnology by all accounts, in what we call biochemistry. Something so extraordinary which almost proves that it cannot arise spontaneously, we shouldn't have such a hard time considering that an intentional creation event could be the case for biochemistry.

[@us3rG]

​The All Knowing All Creator God Everything changes but the human nature​ which is made in HIS image @@lereff1382

[@marcossidoruk8033]

The thing is that scientifically speaking that would be a non explanation. If you can't empirically prove or disprove intelligent design then intelligent design isn't even worthy of being a scientific hypothesis. You can believe whatever you want yourself, but leave science alone, science doesn't care about beliefs, just experiments.

[@effectingcause5484]

@@marcossidoruk8033 Sir, if you can't empirically prove or disprove spontaneous assembly of the first hypothetical replicator, then spontaneous assembly of the first hypothetical replicator is equally not worthy of being a scientific hypothesis. Science indeed cares very much so, on the belief that such incredibly prohibitive probabilities could actually pan out in this universe, so as to force the acceptance of something that is impossible to ever really occur in this universe - that being abiogenesis rather than intentional biogenesis.

[@Tall-Cool-Drink]

How did RNA become a thing?

[@stephenborgelt998]

a sugar molecule ribose attached to a phosphate group and a nitrogen-containing base.

[@oystercatcher943]

So I don’t exist then? Prompty disappears in a puff of logic

[@jmaniak1]

Presupposition much? Because we don’t know and therefore can’t duplicate pre life conditions doesn’t mean you’ve debunked anything. When we don’t know the solution to something he only honest answer is “I don’t know” and we keep looking.

[@robstadler5043]

Are you still spending your time trying to build a perpetual motion machine?

[@Capachinno]

Exactly i didnt know there was an offficial concences for abiogenesis yet. Just a bunch of experiments with good hypothesis which they are putting to the test. No dishonesty going on. Magazines may jump the gun for a story but that is no fault if the scientists conducting the ongoing research.

[@squidward2092]

Nah bro you believe you came from a fish.

[@accidiaet]

​@@squidward2092 nah bro you think the world is 6000 years old

[@keyan1219]

@@squidward2092 yes 🗿

[@shazibjehangir]

Amazing content, if there is anything I could do to help you put out more of these videos please let me know.

[@richardfynn4711]

To me the biggest problem for replication is that it requires directed energy from ATP. Where did the energy (and enzymes) for RNA replication and cellular processes come from before it could be stored in a functional molecule such as ATP? Energy that can do useful work requires enzymes to direct it.

[@AMC2283]

is this problem mentioned in your bible as the way you can be sure your god did it?

[@lennysmileyface]

As far as we know that's the point of experiments.

[@Jehad_alsajadia]

Next is multicellularity?

[@colonelcorn9500]

You always seem to “debunk” all the widely accepted theories of evolution, yet never seem to give an alternative method. So please tell me what you believe actually happened.

[@waspanimations7037]

He's the opposite of how science works

[@jessebrady2614]

Why does he need to do the thinking for you? He just made a very conscientiously thorough presentation outlining the reasons why science's currently proposed theories on the origin of life are not viable. Freed from the burden of accepting these theories, you're now able to accept any of the other explanations available to you. He doesn't need to hold your hand towards a conclusion. Since it's now more crucial than ever for the idea of an infinite multiverse to be true in order to account for the unreasonably fine-tuned physical constants and molecular forces, I'm sure whatever theory you go with is bound to be true SOMEWHERE.

[@waspanimations7037]

@@jessebrady2614 Really shows how much you know about RNA world

[@jessebrady2614]

@@waspanimations7037 Sure, I'm no expert. The guy who made this video made some very compelling assertions, backed up with data that appears to be from reliable sources. If the RNA World theory is worth defending, then point me in the right direction...because the evidence presented here seems to be very pertinent, relevant, and presented in good faith.

[@waspanimations7037]

@@jessebrady2614 RNA world is actually just a hypothesis

[@inukithesavage828]

This is a good demystification of the topic

[@isakrynell8771]

The argument is not that the early rna would self replicate it. Self in stead it would creat the kind of environment that would be more like to produce the kind of rna that would make more of that good environment.

[@vitola1111]

These videos spark interest in the science better than anything in the schools. Very well done. The information, the creativity, the humor and the well reasoned conclusions. I'm not only going to subscribe, I'm going to join the membership. Keep up the good work! There is a such an untapped hunger for sound science out there.

[@asd35918]

It’s anti-science. It’s desperately hoping we will never understand a certain subject (abiogenesis) despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

[@vitola1111]

@@asd35918 Yeah trust the "science" that can't even tell the truth about gender or where Covid originated from. The ones hoping we never understand real science are people like you which is why they dumb down the schools and don't take time to explain or challenge their own assumptions.

[@houstandy1009]

@@asd35918 In what way is it anti-science? since when is pointing out flaws and problems in a hypothesis be they right or wrong anti-science? This is what science is, someone comes up with a hypothesis and others scrutinise it and see if it holds up. What you're doing is anti-science, closing your eyes and ears to problems with a hypothesis because you want it to be true.

[@desuvult15]

@@houstandy1009If only you knew how dishonest this video is.

[@houstandy1009]

@@desuvult15 If you think it’s dishonest then point out the dishonesty, if you are unable to do so then you’re the one being dishonest. He’s clearly against the idea of abiogenesis but as far as I can tell he isn’t telling any lies. That said it’s been a while since I left the comment and can’t remember what was said in the video. Had I of noticed anything I felt was untrue I would of said though

[@Thebossatmserfgsd]

If it wasn’t for your ad I wouldn’t have found you. Love your videos and I have almost finished watching them all hope more people find you and I hope you’ll post more 👌

[@user-uh6wd1wx6h]

Thanks!

[@forall1984]

Good luck mate

[@gidjabolgo]

Hmmmmm. “Devolution”, misrepresenting papers, special pleading, feigned shock at the progress of science. I smell a creationist apologist.

[@reaperking2172]

Same it stinks of creationism

[@mytestimonytojesuschrist]

Yeah, you got it bro. Some pond created life through blind processes billions of years ago but the brightest scientists today working together with cutting-edge technology can’t do it. Very logical!

[@gidjabolgo]

@@mytestimonytojesuschrist That’s it? A lame strawman and a lamer joke? Whatever happened to not sitting in the seat of the scornful?

[@mytestimonytojesuschrist]

@@gidjabolgo Which part did I say that was a strawman? Has life or even a cell been created from scratch from any scientist? No. Do we have superior technology and minds today than ever before? Yes. Do scientists posit (without evidence) that life began through natural means, without a guiding hand, a mind, or any form of intelligence? Yes. So which part is a strawman? I’d love to hear you elaborate.

[@gianlucazanga8432]

If you want to point out any specific error in this video you can, and you can also explain why that would be an error. Why don't you?

[@sorrygobbler32]

This is an amazing presentation with awesome sources. You seemed to have done a ton of research, which is why I'll say it's sad you didn't give any explanations to the much more knowledgeable of us. Of course your examples are amazing for a kid or a high school graduate. However, I imagine you understand a whole lot of stuff which would be extremely valuable when explained to the level some of us are on. I found myself sometimes sad you didn't give any explanation to the real knowledgeable ones of us. I'm just kinda frustrated to try and interpolate your simple explanations to what it might mean on a detailed basis. However, I understand it would almost be impossible to do both in a video without pissing off or scaring off the people who are more knowledgeable in another field. I'd bet you could have added a few quips for the knowledgeable ones out here without pissing anyone off, but overall this video is amazing. I'm hoping in the future too can add just small asides or notes on screen for the people who could understand. We definitely need more videos like this versus the jargon and lies in newspapers we see now. Amazing job, you are really talented. I'd wish you could make content for the kids of our world. They'd come out with such a better understanding with something like this to open their mind.

[@rosemadder5547]

😂😂😂 “the more knowledgeable among us” 😂 I imagine you are referring to yourself here 😂😂 Knowledge is relative.

[@pigzcanfly444]

A more comprehensive detailed explanation of this content can be found in the book "Stairway to Life:An abiogenesis reality check" by Ph.D medical engineer and biochemist Rob Stadler and Ph.D microbiologist and biochemist Change Laura Tan.

[@smilefaxxe2557]

Great video, thank you!! ❤

[@Ms-Fortune]

Thank you.

[@zyleafpunch5684]

What an explendid job and excellent video, the animations but mainly the organization and the research, very eloquent and scientific. I LOVED EVERY SECOND OF IT. Thank you so much and keep up the incredible work

[@WaxPaper]

Hey, do you also happen to believe the world was created a few thousand years ago?

[@goodmaro]

I don't see this as problematic. What we're seeing are lesioning experiments in reverse. In lesioning, we destroy parts to see what makes the machine tick, and then we restore them until it works again. Here, since we're so far from the functioning machine, the best we can do is the complement of lesioning, taking one putatively working part and seeing if it works with all the other parts in place. I don't see this as an invalid way to investigate.

[@rs72098]

Yeah, but the problem is that *"claims"* are being made based on these experiments. The hypothesis of evolution is already being made into a "fact" despite all the failed experiments. You would never do that with the scientific method. Clearly there is an agenda pushing a hypothesis into a fact prior to all the research.

[@albertmilliken-young826]

I searched for how tardigrades evolved and tgis was the top video. WTF

[@pigzcanfly444]

Hey if you get a chance another couple of interesting points to make would also be potassium ion channels, Chiral induced spin selectivity and the Leventhal paradox 1.0 and 2.0.

[@danielboone8256]

I wish I understood all the arguments on both sides so I could more fairly evaluate what’s true or not.

[@derhafi]

There are noboth sides...there is science trying to figure out what happened and there is this pseudoscientific ilk of the ill-named Discovery Institute who lie about research...conduct none of it by their own, employ demonstrable liars and of which one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.

[@lennysmileyface]

Calling chemical evolution impossible is pretty short sighted and unscientific. You can that as it stands that it is improbable based on current evidence. That doesn't prevent new evidence in future. Or do you think abiogenesis should be abandoned?

[@user-tr1mf5qb1i]

I think it’s interesting how people will always believe what they want to believe. Everyone does it.

[@tomwaldenofficial]

Excellent video. THANKS for making and posting - much appreciated.

[@karlralph2003]

such an amazing video! thank you :) God bless you

[@mobbydysk]

Hi someone told me that this paper shows that RNA can appear naturally. Catalytic Synthesis of Polyribonucleic Acid on Prebiotic Rock Glasses Can anyone comment on that. I don't understand academic language

[@AMC2283]

yes, I can comment on that. magic isn't real and it never was.

[@effectingcause5484]

Imagine you are a potato shaped asteroid 🥔 and all you ever see are other asteroids and rocks and planets and stars... Then all the sudden an army of grandfather clocks float by! Not one single gear is out of place! They are all ticking flawlessly and repetitively. Some have batteries, some have wind-up mechanisms, some are equipped with solar panels even. They seem to serve a purpose, perhaps that purpose is just to keep ticking, as if the ticking has some kind of purpose! But that's not possible the potato asteroid assumes, of course there can't be any reason why these clocks are ticking. What in the world is this chemistry!? The potato asteroid might assume the grandfather clock has evolved from many generations of simpler clocks, which would be correct, but the asteroid would miss that there could be no modern-day grandfather clock here now if there had been no intelligent inventor of the very first clock. The very first clock, such as a Sumerian calendar, or Stonehenge, or Mayan calendar etched in stone, or some original clock of this nature, still must incorporate a LOT of information just to exist, and could never happen by accident. The Sumerian calendar on cuneiform might be comparable to the abiogenesis of modern day clocks. It requires a concept and willful intent in order for the first clock to exist. But it's not crazy for us as the creators of clocks, to think that there is a purpose for these clocks. Thats because we created them, you see? The clock cannot understand it's own creation however, of course! Thats what i say, just notice how these clocks could never in a billion years of ticking, ever possibly even begin to fathom what the purpose of the ticking is, and certainly could never comprehend what human intelligence is - the magic hand behind the creation of clocks.

[@rafetizer]

"The worst theory...except for all the others" so... the best theory then.

[@DugaldKerr]

Greetings LongStoryShort. I have been fascinated by your videos and the way you are able to break down complex scientific theories and processes into easier to understand segments. I have watched videos from other PHD scientists like Dr. James Tour and those help corroborate the information that you have given too. His videos just take a LOT longer to view and a bit more patience to understand correctly. I have also been sharing your videos with many other people and I make sure to let them know the link to your video channel. Please keep up the great work and please never stop helping the general populace understand the science without fear of reprisal. The more people who understand that science is not some arcane mystery that only the elite are allowed to know the better we all will be and the easier it will be to hold scientists more accountable for their theories and statements. I have also been sharing your information with our church so the kids and young adults can see that what they are told by science classes and mainstream media is not necessarily the whole story. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your persistence. Thank you for all of your great work. 🙂

[@mihailmilev9909]

I agree with the sentiment of this comment very much, except for one thing u've missed, this channels videos seem to be often the one presenting an incomplete story that's misleading away from actually more complete and proven science then is perhaps dishonestly idk being presented on this channel.

[@adrianthom2073]

Why wouldn’t this channel misrepresent science when it’s believes in intelligent Design. And this designer is the God of Abraham. Of course they are going to misrepresent science because science proves that the claims of the Bible are false.

[@DugaldKerr]

@@mihailmilev9909 You might want to review the videos from Dr. James Tour. He is a synthetic chemist who is in the top of his field. The majority of what is said on this video has been completely corroborated by Dr. Tour and several other PH.D. scientists. Long Story Short may make the information simpler to understand, but that in no way takes away from their tested and evaluated validity. If you wish to "prove" the science that you follow, then you may need to actually review what has been found vs. what has been said.

[@DugaldKerr]

@@adrianthom2073 You may also wish to review the information that you are saying as there has been no empirical evidence that has proven the Bible false. As for this channel, Long Story Short has not stated in any way what he believes for religion. His videos have all been based on logical review of scientific evidence only. If anything, I would say he has been more honest about the findings and deliberately avoiding the puffed up hype. None of this can be used to "infer" what his religious views are. Besides, trying to attack a person based on their "religious views" is only avoiding the actual subject and attempting to discredit the messenger, not the message. You may want to take some time to actually critically review what your "science" actually proves vs. what it says it has done. You may find there's a rather large difference that shouldn't be ignored.

[@GingeryGinger]

What do you mean scientists need to be held accountable?! They are…

[@DiedraGoodwin]

The RNA world hypothesis is so incomplete that it isn't very interesting to me. Not that the researchers working on it aren't doing valuable work, because we know so little of biochemistry to this point and RNA must have come along fairly early. Another origin idea that does interest me has come along: the alkaline vent theory, which is much more complete and not so easily disparaged. I think that interest is shifting toward a long period of prebiotic development before life. Obviously that had to be, and now I have a great place to visualize it: a spongelike maze of channels lined with mineral catalysts, continuously supplied with the raw materials and energy necessary for life as waste products are removed. And it's big. Vents were active on a planetary scale.

[@tylergust8881]

Isn't the current leading theory that life started before RNA? As just replicating bubbles of fat?

[@mrnobodytheuser2950]

This channel is great and clearly well researched but what's even greater is the Atheist tears in the comments.

[@derhafi]

HOw about this....His reference to Spiegelman’s experiments is just a strawman. They were part of elucidating the mechanisms behind nucleic acid replication, and nobody cites them as support for an RNA world. It’s interesting that he cites the Szostak paper to list the problems with the RNA world hypothesis listed, but DOESN’T MENTION THAT THE SAME PAPER IDENTIFIES SOLUTIONS OR POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO TO THOSE PROBLEMS What a surprise...a clear misrepresentation what a surprise!! Presented by the ill-named Discovery Institute, where no research at all is done, none. They employ several demonstrable liars with a degree and no scientific integrity to misrepresent scientific research. Not to mention that one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. They specialise in intellectual vandalism, which is predominantly based on the deceptive lie that discrediting scientific research would add credibility to their ancient mythology. Nothing about debunking any scientific hypothesis or theory automatically equals or even remotely alludes to “God did it”. As if an appeal so some random deity constitutes an explanation, as if “divine powers did it” is the default position for anything.

[@jeremyhennessee6604]

Interesting video. I don't really have any firm religious beliefs or engage in religion versus science debates because I think it's often irresolvable between opposing persons,..but you did a good job getting your point across intelligently and were informative. It's made me curious to look deeper into the topic. Bravo man

[@Skyfoogle]

don't fall into the religious trap. ive seen people go from misinformed science denial to believing the earth is 6k years old. they all have an agenda, it isnt just trying to correct science.

[@norrisforce5018]

What is cancer.

[@TheDjnatronic]

love your videos, there are so many issues with creating life from scratch, God is the only explanation

[@AMC2283]

this video confirmed that for you?

[@JessicaSunlight]

I'm still waiting for explanation how mindless process that has no goal, keeps no ledger of its past actions and future direction, makes imbedded information into rna or dna - why and how... I can answer from the point of mind, information, consciousness and blueprint at the quantum level but how do you answer from denying all of this? How do you do this in mindless random goalless process? Insanity to me but some people think its how it happened and they keep researching this but still to this day they find no answer. To replicate you must know what you are replicating, why are you doing this and HOW are you going to do it... Remember, materialistic ideology claims there is no goal to move towards anything not even SURVIVAL of the organism, even though we can observe this that there is once complex life forms it seeks to grow and survive. There is also another staggering fact, chemical elements do not care about forming life, forming biological chemistry, they just don't care, they are not naturally moving towards anything. Origin of life reaserchers HAVE to guide the process to achieve some result.

[@dbneptune]

its because if it works, more of it exists. the better it works, the better it gets. it doesnt need to “want” to work or keep track of its past. things that dont work die, or dont make more of themself. things that do, do.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@DBNeptune you clearly didn't watch this video. Read up on Spieglemans monster and what happens when you attempt to get long strands of RNA that "self duplicate". Then ask yourself how it ever came to be if the natural tendency is obviously to use all available resources and degrade the information content of the RNA instead of what you're hoping happens?

[@dbneptune]

@@pigzcanfly444 Spiegelman’s monster doesn’t prove your point. First, it actually shows that things can evolve on a molecular level. Second, the experiment was done in an artificial environment (this is noted on the experiment’s government-made page profiles.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight/px/feature/monster). Third, the “degrading” strand was not the only type that evolved in the experiment. Other strands evolved to “[resist] a variety of inhibitors of RNA synthesis”. Also, you spelled his name wrong, and i’m not hoping for anything. Just facts.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@DBNeptune no its quite the opposite. It shows that even if you manage to somehow get random RNA oligomer chains of greater than 250 which also code for the ribozyme or other sufficient portions which can assist in replication that the RNA will always produce that RNA template which is more easily produced unless coerced by an intelligence to do otherwise. Also if you think that prior to a fully formed cell that you get molecular evolution then you have been lied to. There is no selection in molecules and they tend towards racemization and for biologically relevant compounds tend toward asphalt or TAR. You need to pay attention to the use of language provided by the researchers as they often try to speculate into existence hypothetical which are not backed by the data in their papers.

[@dbneptune]

@@pigzcanfly444 Why would they? Thats my question for you. What do scientists gain from supporting a false hypothesis? Also, I explained that the experiment that you said proves your point proves the opposite, and you just said “nuh-uh”.

[@AndyCampbellMusic]

So you are saying in short, that an imagined creator/designer is self evidently impossible, because it would of necessity, have to be MORE complex than anything it created or designed. Therefore it could not have designed/created itself. How did it create/design itself out of nothing, of what is it composed and formed? Where was this imagined designer before it created the first thing? Where did the imagined creator/designer get the stuff it made everything else from? How did it make the first thing? (Step by step detail as creationism demands of science). Why are you attempting to use things that actually exist, to prove the existence of something that is only an imaginary concept? Do you have an example of a universe designer/creator which can be examined? For all your convoluted sophistry, you are basically saying.. Bugs Bunny is real and attempting to use as proof, the atomic structure of a real carrot. Bugs created the universe and everything in it because Bugs loves carrots and needed a place for them to grow. Is that your claim? A real thing existing, is not proof or evidence that an imaginary thing exists You sir are are a charlatan.

[@mytestimonytojesuschrist]

The creator is eternal, so all of this word vomit is irrelevant.

[@finnthechao]

thanks for reminding me how stupid and braindead atheists really are under all that sophistry and jargon

[@derhafi]

@@mytestimonytojesuschrist "The creator is eternal" How is this not a special pleeding fallacy? NOt to mention that you pretend to know specific characteristics of an ill-defined God... , not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. How did you manage that without pulling it out of your posterior?

[@mytestimonytojesuschrist]

@@derhafi It’s not special pleading whatsoever, God created the universe, so the laws of the universe are subjected to Him, not Him to the laws.

[@derhafi]

@@mytestimonytojesuschrist You are right, it is not special pleeding...but is is, as "God created the universe" an assumtion. One that you make despite having literally zero good reasons to do so.

[@BoyKagome]

You won a subscriber.

[@deefromott]

great vid

[@sorrygobbler32]

I also think it's important to say about the papers you said "cheated" by picking a big RNA and rearranging it and the others in that group that they were huge growths in scientific knowledge and that they were not made to prove RNA as the origin of life. I still need to read them but I am guessing they weren't trying to make huge claims regarding life. The idea for lots of those is to understand RNA and the possibilities we have in biotech. I understand some of them have misleading titles and may not be explainable to modern needs, but there is definitely an argument that the knowledge they produced may help bioscience in the future.

[@nadermilite5652]

Some scientists and atheists use these papers as a prove for the fiction of evolution that's why he's addressing it

[@peppermintgal4302]

Yeah, he misrepresented these papers, in my opinion, but... most critics of abiogenesis are dishonest.

[@peppermintgal4302]

​@@nadermilite5652Well, they are proof of abiogenesis, (*not* evolution, which can be trivially demonstrated by the simple topology of life's categories, and how consistently all traits follow this topology,) just not necessarily in the ways that the vid's creator interpreted them to be lol.

[@absquereligione5409]

Don’t let these dishonest creationists confuse you. Life exists and every step for abiogenesis has been demonstrated.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

lol

[@shaunmeyer8822]

All you did was insult him for no good reason... why not try to prove him wrong? it should be easy since you are SOOOO confident you are wrong...?

[@absquereligione5409]

@@shaunmeyer8822 These arguments have been proven wrong so many times, it’s just not funny anymore. Only if you deliberately lie about it can you make these videos. Creationists have been called out on these BS fallacious arguments for decades and still they keep repeating hem. They clearly don’t care what you say about their arguments. It is time we stop reacting to their debunked arguments and call them out for the liars that they are. It’s not an insult. It’s pointing out their dishonesty.

[@pigzcanfly444]

​@Absque Religione no the arguments have not been shown or proven wrong at all. Try dealing with one of them here.

[@absquereligione5409]

@@pigzcanfly444 The whole premise of this video is just a rehash of the same dishonest misrepresentation that creationists have been peddling for decades now. “We can’t recreate abiogenesis (in the science lab) without helping it, therefore abiogenesis did not happen without help. Gawd must have done it” There is no relation between ‘what we can do’ and ‘what nature can do’. Our inability to to demonstrate something does not demonstrate that ‘gawd did it!’ It’s dishonest, misleading apologetics to fool gullible believers

[@iamalittler]

Brave of you to think anyone would ever listen to anything a creationist says about anything

[@TheHistoryguy10]

Great video and valuable information. Thank you for making it and please make more.

[@lukasbryant9881]

🌮

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

TACO MONEY! Thanks @lukasbryant9881

[@st.isaacofniniveh9909]

Fascinating. This channel does not lead me to think that evolution is false, but that our claims about it should be way more modest, since we don't yet have a precise working theory which would answer all of the various objections from hard sciences like chemistry.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Yes, at minimum origin of life scientists and biologists should be more modest in their claims.

[@st.isaacofniniveh9909]

@@LongStoryShortVideos Having a predictive mathematical model of evolution would certainly help. Apart from that, I don't see evolutionary biology rising above the level of making educated guesses. And not to mention that, as you claim, abiogenesis has not been demonstrated empirically, and we currently have no good reason that it could even plausibly happen in principle.

[@matthiascalderon8733]

​@St. Isaac of Niniveh Except we can observe evolution in real time...

[@adrianthom2073]

The channel is meant to lead you to the conclusion that Evolution is false because the channel promotes Intelligent Design. The channel misrepresents Science to promotes its already made conclusion that the God of Abraham created everything. Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and has not been proven. Evolution however has been proven.

[@mrteacup8781]

Would love to see you cover the molecular machines of the cell, I remember watching CGI video years ago, and trying to wrap your head around such microscopic 'machines' is impossible. And how did nature evolve a rotating motor for bacterial tails.

[@peppermintgal4302]

Depends on the flagellar motor, but none act as tails. They face forwards in the direction of movement. Eukaryotic flagella thrash side to side. Bacterial and archaeal flagella are similar in their rotary movement, turning the strand like a propellar, but they are non homologous. How these structures evolved can be shown by 1) looking at different variants between related organisms, seeing what synapomorphic qualities what variants of flagellar motors have, 2) observing what protein families are in play and what other jobs related proteins do, 3) observing related non flagellar structures, (which may contain members of these protein families --- such as ATP Synthase, who has a relative in some flagella that serves as a rotary motor,) and 4) observing how a new flagella is built, (generally, older parts of the structure are added first.) The typical flagellar system seen in bacteria is related to the type 3 secretion system --- which evolved first is hard to tell, and it may be that they coevolved, sharing "moonlighting" proteins with eachother. Its more likely that the flagellar system evolved from T3SS, that fits with the "topology" of phylogenetic trees. We can't rely on the fossil record as subcellular forms very rarely make it in there, usually being washed out and replaced with minerals during the fossilization process. Some have argued that the bacterial flagella is "irreducibly" complex, but this is flat out wrong. You can remove any part and it still functions, and almost any protein found inside comes from some kind of protein family with some diversity of roles, especially core proteins. Most are there only to provide increased efficiency or to regulate the system for more precise movement, (and indeed, bacteria don't move SUPER precisely, they usually use a "biased random walk," with periods of tumbling used to randomly reorient the bacteria, which the bacteria will do until it faces a desirable direction.) Eukaryotic flagella and cilia are a different beast, and while they come in a great deal of varieties, almost all eukaryotes (the main exception being diatoms,) have the same general core structures, and this strongly implies they all inherited it from their shared ancestor. As these vary so much, a general description of their evolution is hard to sum up. Similar logic applies: the more central the part, the older it likely is. Convergent evolution is rare, so the more organisms share it, the more likely its older. The core structures of a eukaryotic cilium/flagellum are the CBB and the axoneme, both found in all eukaryotic groups, so these likely go back to LECA, (the last eukaryotic common ancestor.) The CBB is bound in all eukaryotes to cytoskeletal elements in the cytoplasm, which ensure its placed properly according to overall cell geometry. This likely comes from LECA as well. Cytoskeletal elements are found in all eukaryotes. Many of the components are shared by a superphyla of bacteria believed to be closely related to eukaryotes, which includes Chlamydiae, Planctomycetes, and Verucomicrobia. As for the evolution of individual proteins, there are a lot involved, not all are fully understood, but some of the greatest hits include: dynein, copies of which were made again and again, each then evolving greater specialization and "subfunctionalization" so that some would form the outer dynein arms and some would form the inner dynein arms, and which all work together go thrash the flagella back and forth. They use an ATPase, but not to make ATP, but rather, to generate the motion --- it works, iirc, on a similar principle to using a generator as a motor, (motors and generators are the same thing, you turn the axle mechanically to generate energy in the coils, and you feed energy into the coils to turn the axle) --- instead of feeding ions and electrons through the ATPase to produce ATP, you feed ATP to the ATPase to perform its mechanical motion to aid the dynein in moving the flagella. "Tracing the Origins of Centrioles, Cilia, and Flagella" on JCB might be a good start to learn more. Thats where I got a lot of the information on eukaryotic flagella.

[@peterdore2572]

There are a lot of Assumptions in this video. RNA doesnt split cuz it would just stick right back together like spaghetti. ok... hmm.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

There ARE RNA mollecules that can replicate themselves indefinitely.

[@mouhaahaahaa]

you are a treasure. Your videos truly helped me fight my way out of doubt. I do however, have a small question. why do whales have some segments of hind legs? or what would you imagine is going on? it's literally the only thing I can personally think of that you have not covered to completely nail this door shut. I understand this does not actually prove anything, but it is a curious of why it exists. Again, thank you for your great videos, I will share them!

[@mouhaahaahaa]

I should have checked first... apparently, it still helps with "anchoring muscles of the sex organs" Again, thank you for great videos!

[@mellowfellow14]

This is all bullshit- you can literally find videos of evolution happening on KZbin.

[@dominicshtylla9652]

Absolutely, and keep in mind that just because an organism has a similar anatomical structure to its proposed "ansestor" doesnt mean it's derived from it.

[@jaredf6205]

Whales legs are vestigial from when they walked on land.

[@jeffthomson4223]

@@dominicshtylla9652 - If it were as simple as some outside source granting wings, it then makes no sense that there's such a wide variety of wings out there. Bird wings are very different to bat wings which are very different to pterosaur wings- and don't even get started on insect wings. Mechanisms of gliding are also very diverse. If there is a 'best' way to do things, which of the above are doing it the 'wrong' way, and why? ​ @skog mose - The above also leans into the retained whale hind limbs. Why are whales that way, when you'd have so many other ways of addressing the issue? Why does it scream of a retained feature?

[@neurolancer81]

Lots of words to say we dont yet but God did it. Your preconception are clear in the words you use in describing the ideas. Every single objection you bring up is one that has been actually published. Even if the RNA world hypothesis is invalidated, it does not bring down all the OoL work and does not prove a designer was involved.

[@moldychez5429]

A few things: the criticisms they're bringing up in the video and unfortunately annoyingly valid. Also, they never claimed this proves god. That being said, it is annoying when creationists use the challenges with origins of life to prove that their god exists. Disproving evolution or abiogenesis does not inherently prove god exists, especially if we're talking about a specific god. In fact, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence disproving that god too.

[@raueugen9047]

why you speak so fast, where you hurry ?

[@markthomas9769]

Entropy wins again...

[@joshuapatrick682]

your videos are criminally undersubscribed, and I can't help but wonder why. The questions raised are important because it reminds the scientific community to be scientific instead of the dogmatic mess of intellectual gatekeeping it has sense become.

[@damieno3470]

I've had to re subscribe again because you tube had silently unsubscribed me at some point. I love these videos and I think you tube feels threatened that very valid points are raised and fraudulent studies are dragged into the light to be exposed so they must keep his views down and quietly unsub where possible

[@shaunmeyer8822]

It is because KZbin is paid to keep channels that are trying to spread the truth as small as possible. just like chatgpt doesn't have access to any evidence against evolution.

[@dbneptune]

its because they’re misleading 🥰 hope this helps

[@EdmundSkye]

me after 14 minutes: where is the debunking part ? 🤨

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Got to unmute the video. Welcome 💪

[@YenNguyen-mg5ty]

It start at 14:01

[@nanomachines2985]

It started at the beginning of the video when he first pointed out the glaring issues with artificial RNA replication. Was it really that much over your head?

[@paddydiddles4415]

There are most likely some hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis, that are on the right track. If you don’t think so, please explain

[@pigzcanfly444]

Considering that none of them start from the bottom up and never try to isolate specific paths which are viable to get something like ribose I would wager that they do not have anything close. So far their attempts have been dismal and they try their best to hype their work in order to get more funding under the guise that progress has been made. It does not help to suggest something which is unsupported by the data.

[@paddydiddles4415]

@@pigzcanfly444 do you have some specific bottom-up hypothesis that has been missed by all the researchers ? And how would you propose going about researching into this new hypothesis?

[@pigzcanfly444]

@paddy Diddles no and that's the very reason why I believe in the engineering behind all of life. If it doesn't happen in nature people like Elon Musk and Michio Kaku are likely correct about us living in a particularly optimized virtual reality or shadow of reality. If you take time to look into engineering principles and how applicable they are across the board with biology and even the chemistry behind atomic structures and how they operate in tandem you may stop thinking about everything with a bottom up assumption. As far as proposals to research it's the same as the methods used for forensics, SETI and archeology. You look for structures that are not obviously found to be the products of erosion and decay on molecules and try to reverse engineer them. For instance there is a whole field of study called biomimicry where we are attempting to match the optimized biological versions of specific technology. I hope that you start looking into it.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Even they weren't where the Hell 🔥🔥🔥 is God 💃🤖 made bacteria/bacteria were transported to Earth supposed to go? It is a minor detail by itself, not a paradigm altering detail like it is being made out to be.

[@theonetruebean8800]

@ Long Story Short I honestly don't understand why you would believe that most of the information out there about the topics you talk about is false, but you do you I guess

[@robstadler927]

This is about pointing out the differences between what science actually tells us vs what the origin of life community has claimed. The motivation is simply sticking to the facts.