George Whitesides - The Origin of Life

Public lecture delivered by Professor George Whitesides (Harvard University) at UNSW Sydney discussing one of the most interesting questions in science, and one unlikely ever to be answered unambiguously. It is also one that provides the basis for a broad range of questions about chemistry, dynamic systems, dissipation, information, and emergence, both in the peribiotic world and in general.

[@pb4520]

wow! thankyou for this.

[@bimmjim]

Try this instead :: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qHK9hZyNj7ppecU

[@davidwilkie9551]

"What it "is", is what it does" , applies to eternity-now, "smeared out" probability in infinite potentials of possibility, in the form of superimposed pulses of resonance. Draw your own conclusions, (=think for yourself). Each of us is a unique composition in uniqueness. What you see is wave-package pulses in a temporal superposition substantiation, a "vertically integrated" arrangement of related infinities, so you get a blurry context of local "inevitabilities" in a single branch of the common Multiverse. Local existence is complicated and messy, but it's naturally occurring circumstances of a degree of local certainty that has a "lifetime" time-duration. "All things are connected", but "simplicity" isn't at all easy to understand in infinity. Excellent lecture.

[@vermouth310]

Early in this video, Dr. Whitesides (I understood) said that a primordial "soup" has a high entropy and by some "incredible way it" becomes life. That is, it goes from a material of high entropy to one of very low entropy.

[@marquisdemoo1792]

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases over time. It is not an isolated system.

[@Psalm1101]

Life does the opposite

[@GreatUncleBuck]

Why is the speaker that walks off the stage a different guy right at the end? Is that perhaps how life came about? Suddenly?

[@dontcare397]

appears to be a different audience too

[@drdrwoland1975]

you can certainly ask what an electron is

[@drdrwoland1975]

not set by diffusion

[@GreatUncleBuck]

We have to look for the primary mover that kick-start the basic processes as soon as a tipping point is reached when the correct molecule combination exists. A combination of magnetism, cosmic radiation and atomic pulse must be included in the thinking process.

[@Psalm1101]

Make rna in the lab and im with you otherwise hi miller eury 70yrs later oh we do have supercomputers

[@marc-andrebrunet5386]

I'm I wrong?.. Life is s big help to transform solid stuff to become dust very rapidly... so I think life is really a disorder state because at the end, life get back to dust.. just like all the minerals they separate from other ? I'm just thinking, I'm far from being an expert. Sorry for my English.

[@drdrwoland1975]

alive is reactive, reacts with surroundings; dead is unreactive, is the surroundings

[@bouncycastle955]

So cyanide is alive?

[@drdrwoland1975]

@@bouncycastle955 Only if its reaction product could continue to react with molecules in its environment. For that to happen, there would have to be a source of CN frequency infra red radiation, I think that is about 2200 wavenumbers. That would be a primitive cyanide rock. There is no such rock.

[@bouncycastle955]

@@drdrwoland1975 I'm not talking about a source of cyanide, I'm talking about an individual molecule. It's highly reactive and will react with its surroundings as soon as its given the opportunity. It fits your criteria.

[@drdrwoland1975]

@@bouncycastle955 You have missed my point. Read the paper. In the paper I discuss diazomethane, much more reactive than cyanide. You can say it is alive but has a very short lifespan. There is no energy to regenerate the resulting product of its reaction. In my suggested scheme, the sun heats up a phosphate rock which then emits phosphate radiation which is absorbed by phosphates in solution and makes them hotter than the non phosphate surrounding molecules in solution since they dont absorb the 1000wavenumber phosphate radiation.

[@bouncycastle955]

@@drdrwoland1975 ironically, you've missed my point. You say that life is anything that is reactive and reacts with its environment. Cyanide fits these criteria like a glove. When it reacts, that would be the death of the cyanide based on what you've said, either that or you need a new definition. P.s. I have no idea who you are or what paper you're referring to.

[@firstal3799]

Life is struggle

[@ajrutherford600]

Why is he wearing a Mao suit?

[@michaelvickers8691]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to wonder why he was attired like the chairman.

[@jarofclay7695]

he was fishing for shallow. water fish he caught you.shallow......

[@bimmjim]

.. Whitesides lectures as if his purpose is to impress the audience with his vast memory. (I had Profs like him) This leads away from problem solving and the scientific method. He avoids some vital concepts as if he wants to. At 1:00:00 he makes a crucial mistake when he discounts Sutherland's work by saying that he only made 1 RNA nucleotide base. But wait, Sutherland's reaction vessels were ~1 cubic meter. :: How many cubic meters are contained in the Global Ocean? .. Come on Whitesides, you can do better than that. [5. X 10^8 m^2 X 4 X 10^3 m X 0.7 =] 14 X 10^11 m^3. .. That's a lot of nucleotide bases. .. In addition, Sutherland did his experiment over 1 year and the Ocean had ~300,000,000 years. .. Hmmm .. :: There are other key concepts that Whitesides dismisses. .. He misses concepts like "Self-replicating" and "Selection" .. Whitesides' method is the discredited, disproved "Critical Theory," not the functional Scientific Method. .. I am disappointed. .. I am disappointed that people like Whitesides, who are all memory and no problem solving ability, are promoted up through the education system. ::: ACADEMIA has gone off the rails, IMO. ! ! !

[@bimmjim]

AND, I am only a lowly engineer with a minor in Organic Chem. The difference is that I worked successfully as a materials engineer and an environmental engineer. I had to provide solutions that didn't kill anybody AND made a profit. Real engineers are selected for these abilities. (Remember selection? I mentioned it above.) IMO, academia has gone off the rails. .. At 71 and retired, I've gone back into academia to study and work in Climate Science. I'm finding problems with people who don't apply the METHOD. STEAM, blowing off :: The IPCC has existed for ~30 years and has presided over a doubling of the emissions of GHGs. The useless IPCC is run by politicians and those Scientists who will submit to them. AND, again it's about "Method." The Political method is trash, is at the bottom in methodology. :: Real engineers don't give a shit about impressing anybody, punctuation, spelling or swearing. We "get 'er done." .. :: Put the engineers in charge or go extinct. .. Choose now. .. "We'll fix this shit real quick," is my personal slogan. PS. HEY ACADEMIA - GFY.

[@bimmjim]

And then, there is this point of view :: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qHK9hZyNj7ppecU

[@SolaceEasy]

This presentation is an example of why Plato argued against rhetoric.

[@redbaroniii]

These guys are proving design with each of there unbelievably complex experiments that just could not happen by itself in nature. It takes a mind to do it.

[@redbaroniii]

Nenad Cotic Thank you for your observant comment. Actually, you simply cannot deny that a mind created the experiments, and their results. As to the universe, well that is a question best put to theologians, preists, or atheists. None the less the thoery of Design is now gaining ground because of the "information problem" that has underminded the vary basis of Neo-Darwinian thinking. There is a mountain of scientific evidence that the first life, had been infused with information. Better put; from the First DNA it is apperant that life was engineered. By whom, or by what is unknown. Thus all we can know via science is that life is a product of mind, (not a mind, but rather mind) or a product of a material means yet totally unknown.

[@redbaroniii]

+Nenad Cotic Thank you for another great comment. I see you are using Dawlkins' notion of "designoids." That is the idea that even if something gives every scientific indication of being designed, it can not be. This is due to "the wide spread agreement that only random events answers are the only answers allowed." That is not scientific. I too hope someday you will learn more about science so you too will see and understand the missing gap in claims that random events must be assumed prior to any thinking, and all contrary scientific evidence must be denied. it is just bad science to make prior assumptions, is it not? Further, you have also assumed, incorrectly that Design involves a Designer. That is simply not true at all. Design theory does not involve a "Designer" just as the Big Bang theory does not involve a "Big Banger." Additionally you have proposed the argument concerning a prime mover. The argument that there must be an ... "Ad infinitum"... of prime movers, this is a theological argument. It has been raging in monasteries, seminaries, and the Vatican for many centuries, however, it is not a scientific argument. The issue is: "how did the information/code in DNA come to be?"

[@redbaroniii]

+Nenad Cotic Excellent observations. Yes there are several Quantum Mechanics solutions to describe the big bang, however none of them can describe the situation prior to the application of quantum theory. The major reason why is because quantum mechanics did not exist prior to space time. But I am not into Cosmology. However, neither the RNA world, or alternative theories address the information problem. None of them. I have no doubt that if enough effort is made by the minds of scientists they could create RNA, even DNA in their labs and by use of highly technical designed machinery, and processes. They may even produce life given a hundred years of peace and designing. However these efforts prove the point, life cannot come into being in nature, and only when it is engineered. Yet, given that you could produce DNA one must correctly code the nucleotides by use of their minds. There is no known chemical, or physical force known to mankind that could correctly arrange the code in DNA. Their is not even a hypothetical theory that can account for this information appearing in the Nucleotides. I am not a theologian, I don't even go to church, or belong to any church. I too am not here to convince, or win some contest, but to see if my thinking is correct. I like the design theory because it does not rely on any spiritual concept what so ever. it relies on science, and it is this massive amount of evidence that points to life being a product of mind. Even the work of Sunderland conforms to the theory of Design. However I can see your mind is made up and refuses to even contemplate the obvious, and avoid the information problem.

[@redbaroniii]

+Nenad Cotic Thank you again for your comment. The Big Bang, is as many claim, a "science stopper." It is as if Materialistic inquiry just stops. At the time the theory was first proposed, it was attacked on the same grounds as design. Many saw it as a means to prove God and therefore it must be wrong. The alternative theories, like bouncing universe, and steady state universe, just died the more it was studied. It is a valid statement that it appears that everything came from nothing, though many speculate that it did not. BTW, there was no planck length before Dr. Planck. I too am open for everything that is supported by the evidence. Nope we do not know how life began, it has yet to be observed. There are a lot of theories, however each experiment reveals what is predicted by Design. From the experiments from Miller Urey to the present give credence to the proposition that life could not start except by means of an infusion of information. I am open to the concept that the source of that information could be some unknown materialistic source, though I think that is highly improbable. Truth is that there is no theory of origin that could possibly arise from nature. Yes that sure looks like a "Science Stopper," but it is none the less just as valid as the "Big Bang." I can see that you are resisting the design theory because you think it involves a Designer, or intuitive thinking. I have told you there is no such Designer within the theory, but you persist, in spite of the fact that it may very well be a materialistic means. Further, my original intuition (if you wish such a term) was that chemistry created life. Now, because of the evidence I am compelled by science to reject that claim. What fires your pre-conceived notion? Don't you think a scientific mind should not have pre existing prejudice?

[@redbaroniii]

+Nenad Cotic Thank you for your comment. Your are correct; life on this planet is very beautiful. In my youth, I thumbed my way around the whole thing, (still have my Circumnavigator T shirt) so I have seen the whole ball of wax and it is a wonderful world we live in. However there was no Planck before the big bang. It is a truthful statement that Scientific evidence leads one to the conclusion that all matter came from nothing. This is because all objective, reductionist thinking does not exist prior to the big bang. I do reject the notion that life came about via random means. At one time I had assumed it was correct, however, so far I see there is no empirical evidence for an all natural (materialistic) explanation. Further, the Design theory has some basic appeal because it has no reliance on supernatural, or existence of any sort of mythical being. I have said this many times but you simply ignore it. Why do you ignore me, and continue to bring up this nonsense? I notice you have a hang up about thinking that Design somehow is connected to a "Designer." This is an old lie told by some loony Atheists. Design theory is a scientific theory of the origin of life and the history of its development (Evolution) on this planet. Design is not about anything unseen, or supernatural, it has a lot to do with science, and especially information. Often Materialists, reductionists, seem to think that RNA world defeats design, it does not. Often they think Design is about supernatural, it is not. However they will with an abundance of faith, deny all sorts of scientific evidence in order to ignore the "information problem." No serious scientist will deny that there is a code (similar to a computer code) in DNA that could not have arisen via random means. I have asked many, and I now ask you: How do you get around the problem of this information? What chemical, or physical mechanism arranged the nucliotides into a correct sequence for life. Not one single Materialist has answered this question, or could they back up their faith, and devout belief with any supporting evidence. They normally bring up the diversion of the "designer", or supernatural nonsense. Neither is a scientific response. These arguments are the tired mantra of folks that are ignorant of the Design theory, and thus deny science itself. BTW the laws of thermodynamics are well within Design theory, and do not conflict wit it at all.

[@Dan.50]

The first life had to be either instantly self replicating, or nearly immortal so that it could live long enough to learn to self replicate.

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis is a total failure

[@bouncycastle955]

That's simply not true, use your noggin before you speak, this is public.

[@objective_psychology]

Yes the chemical systems that produced life were probably "immortal" in that they would have just kept on going for many billions of years until the earth itself either ran out of geothermal heat or got destroyed. That's not that difficult to imagine; many processes of nature last billions of years with little change.

[@Dandylion1001]

Why do creationists watch lectures such as this, those few who are equipped to understand have already decided belief in an all powerful magician is far more reasonable than any evidence provided

[@AmericanBrain]

because there are so many "glaring holes" in the above explanation and this very senior Harvard Professor even admits that after a whole lifetime of expertise studying this very subject.

[@stevehall1218]

Some of us are just curious and we are tired of being labeled as hard-headed not willing to learn about evolution theory. Is that so bad?

[@olegryskin]

Dandylion 1001 this is horrible simplification! I am not creationist by any meaning yet, modern perception (specifically public perception) is full of undeniable huge holes and terrible misunderstandings of how possibly life get formed and which processes (or “creator” whatever sense you put into this - nature, God) are responsible. Children books full of idiotic pictures of how molecules clamped together into creatures - while nobody has even a distant clue rather all chemistry pointing to different/opposite direction. So then in fact creationists are doing huge favour to public and us all by uncovering this belief system. Which is in fact remarkable and funny, but most of atheistic scientists and just well educated people believe that life was formed by some chemical/physical processes - it reminds me religion:) they believe as they have no valid proof or even described mechanism... forget re-producing this in lab.

[@olegryskin]

kim burley Kim, I don’t see this professor refuses anything or mystifying or “pushing” his way I don’t even know if he is atheist or not but I do see - he is very intelligently and quite charismatically describing complexity and highlighting those obvious holes. What I am trying to say is that lots of scientists regardless of their belief system are being honest and truthful. Sure enough there are another half that chooses yours (or anyway else’s) belief system as their target instead of doing actual science.

[@47f0]

@kim burley - Nonsense. Please justify your belief that we should all fall on our knees to worship your God every time our understanding of some aspect of the universe is not complete. The following- A: You don't understand that? B: So therefore my God is the answer. Is completely foolish, a logical leap over a chasm Patton could drive a tank brigade through. 2500 years ago, we knew what caused lightning. It was mighty Zeus, hurling bolts from Mount Olympus. No further inquiry needed - we had an explanation. But... we didn't. Not really. Even then, Thales of Miletus was noticing that amber behaved oddly when rubbed with different materials - it would attract small bits of dirt and dust. 2500 years later, and a lot of work by folks like Volta, Galvani, Faraday and Franklin and things changed. We understand the accumulation of charge in water droplets in a rising atmospheric thermal column, the opposing ground charge of the Earth, the dielectric breakdown voltage of moist air... we understand lightning, and Zeus has filed for unemployment. And that is the danger any time people of faith attempt to squeeze their particular imaginary friend into the nooks and crannies and dark corners that human inquiry has yet to Illuminate - inevitably, your God finds he's been squeezed into fewer and tinier pockets of ignorance, until finally, he's forced into the old gods retirement home, where he can commiserate bitterly with his fellow deities about the good old days, when they threw lightning and made snakes talk. Now... you seem like a pretty sharp organic chemist - precisely which "chemical laws are being broken here? Hmmm?

[@fcapio]

He asks a lot of questions for which he has no answers. Waste of time….

[@musakhanmedicalenginee890]

Yes ,he created confusion ,

[@JCAH1]

This lecture was not very helpful. What we really need is a molecular biologist/organic chemist to look into this. Two of the hardest questions in all of science: how did abiogenetic RNA form, and how did biologically useful information become encoded in that RNA? Szostak is a lot further along than Whitesides, but even Szostak only has partial answers to a few of the many, many tough questions.

[@pharmagator]

This man is a very highly educated fool....

[@mcmanustony]

Why?

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis fails!

[@mcmanustony]

every fucking video.....too thick to learn, to dense to engage....you just prattle your stupid little slogan and succeed only in making an utter fool of yourself.

[@spatrk6634]

"Just by you saying its "wrong" Is not proving anything you clown!" Tony Maurice

[@tonymaurice4157]

@S Patrk You say I'm wrong and you prove nothing for your abiogenesis chemical fantasy.. Clueless buffoon! Artificial Environments, Designed sequencing machines, with lots of human intervention that have no prebiotic relevance!

[@mcmanustony]

@@tonymaurice4157 "lots of human intervention"- what the fuck is wrong with you? Are results only valid if the experiments conduct themselves? There are carefully constructed hypotheses. Not fantasies- that's your department.

[@objective_psychology]

Not quite, but your brain does

[@tomcata1467]

You can be grateful that the Grand Creator and Designer of all the diversity of life created all life for a grand purpose and that purpose is explained in detail in the Bible. You can also thank God, for putting the Natural Law in motion too, as that law is not man-made and is binding and immutable (not changeable). It is inherent, and has a basis in true reality and all creation is subject to this Law that only a Supreme Being could put in place and keep it in place through eons of time.

[@tomcata1467]

Nenad Cotic: I used to feel as you do about the Bible, but, no longer after I actually studied for myself, what it had to say on the "big questions" of life, why do we grow old and die? Why does God permit suffering? Why are we here? Where are the dead?....and so forth...... and only the Bible provides solid answers to life big questions and more importantly, what the future for humankind holds. It provides a solid hope for a much better future for planet Earth. All that and more is found only in the Bible, and Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled and confirmed by secular history, gives us the confidence of knowing that the Creator God, directed some forty men over a period of 1,600 years to compile the 66 books of the Bible. Human philosophy based on human reasoning and wisdom on the other hand, has just led humankind, down the primrose path to nowhere with no solid hope for a better future or addressing, the big questions of life, common to all humanity. Men and devils have tried to suppress and destroy the Bible and it's message for humankind, for thousands of years, unsuccessfully, which also proves that the Word of God endures forever.

[@tomcata1467]

Nenad Cotic: Read the account of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, found in the first book of the Bible, Genesis. They were created, perfect, without a flaw physically and mentally, were placed in a beautiful paradise and were told by God to "multiply and fill the earth and to subdue it", meaning, to extend the paradise to the entire earth, and having the animals under their kind, management or subjection, living in peace and harmony with all creation. The Creator, lovingly and kindly warned them not to eat the fruit only from one certain tree in the Garden, and he warned them that if they chose to disobey and eat of the fruit of that tree, they would die as a consequence of willful disobedience to his direction, and they would return to the dust of the ground, from which the first man was created . They were created with free will and when they used their free will to disobey their Creator, and they ate from from the fruit of that certain tree, they sinned against God, by their disobedience, and in effect, told their Creator, by their actions, that they would decide for themselves, without interference from God, how to live their lives, independent of their Creator, and they would eat and do whatever they wanted, anytime they wanted. It was a rebellion against God's legitimate authority as the Creator. True to God's warning, after they sinned, the first humans, started to age, and grow old and finally , in Adam's case, he died at 930 years of age, and returned to the dust of the ground, just, as God had stated would be the consequence of willful, disobedience. Thus, Adam and Eve, could then only pass on sin and imperfection to all their unborn offspring, just like they passed on heredity traits, like eye and hair color. Thus, we all became infected with sin and death, as a consequence of their actions. However, God, did not leave the yet unborn generations of offspring to come, without a hope. He gave the first prophecy in the Bible, found, at Genesis 3:15, which called attention to a future "seed", which would undo all the bad consequences of Adam's rebellion in the future. That promised Seed proved to be Jesus Christ, who was born thousands of years later and he would be the means by which sin and death would be brought to nothing and his perfect ransom sacrifice of his own perfect human life would be the means to restore to perfection in mind and body, humans in the future, and to bring about the Paradise on Earth, which would become a realty, just as God had purposed, so long ago. So, we currently grow old and die because of the rebellion of our first human parents.

[@tomcata1467]

Nenad Cotic: Logically, there can only be one True God, and logically, one true religion, as there can only be one central truth, the rest would have to be false. It serves Satan the Devil's purpose to have many false religions to confuse humankind and to keep them blinded from truth, through, false beliefs and doctrines. In the beginning, the first humans only rendered worship to God, in the right way. After humankind's fall from perfection, when sin and death came about, did false religion come into being. The Bible tells us truthfully, that one must worship God with "spirit and truth", (John 4:23), or in a way that is acceptable to God, that,is in a way which please him, not what may please the one who worship. Jesus told us that "you will know the TRUTH and the TRUTH will set you free", (John 8:32), meaning that the true doctrine or Bible teaching, would free on who was previously enslaved by superstition or false religious teaching,. Jesus Christ, through his own conduct and teachings truly reflected his heavenly father's personality, perfectly and he taught nothing, but, truth to humans, and fulfilled, Bible prophecies, which spoke of him, long before, he was born, here on Earth, some 2,000 years ago. And Jesus' own name Yeshua, means "Jehovah (or Yahweh), is Salvation", thus, his name in Hebrew, incorporated his own Father's name, which is Jehovah. So, Jehovah is the only one and true God. And again, look at the fulfilled Bible prophecies to show you that his Word always comes true, as that is concrete proof of his being the true God, whose word will endure forever, long after false religion is destroyed in the near future. It's all in the Bible, but, you have to study it to learn all these things for yourself. So, to illustrate: just as there can only be one central truth, in math, such, as one plus one equals two, at all times, and in all cultures, there can only be one true religion, which pleases the true God.

[@tomcata1467]

Nenad Cotic: You are welcome.

[@IIrandhandleII]

tomcata1467 yes it is explained perfectly with noahs ark and Samsons magical hair. God the ultimate designer wants you to stone homosexuals and not eat pork.

[@kevinsmith-qj1bz]

It seems to me like the 'chicken soup' professor spent more time picking out his wardrobe than he devoted to his topic. It is one thing to deliver a talk this long asking questions on a topic, but it is not enough- I am assuming he spent a career studying this otherwise very fascinating topic- and not able to come up with a simple working hypothesis on the matter. Even when eventually he stumbles upon an issue, the case of dissipative systems being one of them, he goes on to fumble the whole thing. Life is over 99% water molecules. You cannot study life without knowing anything about water. Water, especially the paradoxical properties of water hold the key to a lot of the questions that appeared to elude this Harvard professor. I cannot help but feel sorry for his students.

[@Vogda]

So, another useless lecture. nothing strategy no idea or clue what is important.