Jack Szostak: Origin of life on earth and design of alternatives

Dr Jack Szostak's lecture at the Molecular Frontiers Symposium at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden, May 2017. The topic of the symposium was "Tailored Biology". Check our KZbin channel for more exciting science videos! For more information, visit www.molecularfrontiers.org

[@davidgurarie6712]

Fascinating ideas, and great work

[@travellingonuptozion5658]

Thanks for sharing the details

[@carryall69]

Those solvent insights or fluidity tests with liquid methane as on saturns moon titan near the end of the lecture were incredibly faszinating. thanx a lot for the upload

[@bandogbone3265]

Ah, the irony of playing God while proving that God does not exist. Perfect!

[@carryall69]

@@bandogbone3265 i'd say it's more about what's out there to expect. say on titan, europa and enceladus. how high would be the probability to encounter bacteria, eucayota and multicellularity. it would be a huge relief to know that we're not alone.

[@roqsteady5290]

@@carryall69 Depends who we are not alone with.

[@drdrwoland1975]

In the presence of phosphate, or at a different temperature, the diameter of the vesicle will change.

[@ianhopcraft9894]

Wonderful, didn't understand all the terminology but I've been hunting for a lecture on this corner of biology for months, Thanks for uploading it.

[@ciprianpopa1503]

As W. W. Rubey said time ago about the Urey choice of gasses in the Earth's early atmosphere and other wild guesses. Does the geologic record backup these hypotheses? Especially the ferric cyanide one?

[@bimmjim]

The primordial soup experiment was done in 1 liter of water. Now calculate the number of liters in the global ocean. There was a large range of conditions in the ocean. There was 100s of milliopns of years. Don't forget all this.

[@MadScientist72]

I have been following Dr. Szostak's research since January. I have made my own KZbin channel based on what he is doing. I'm sorry to say that I haven't included any of his videos on my channel until now. However, my channel has only been up since the end of May.

[@mwils51]

You follow this bozos phony science? LOL Ignorant sucker!

[@tothesciencemobile4707]

@@mwils51 oh yay, another creationist truther. You guys are worse than the flat earthers!

[@patldennis]

@@mwils51 bozo with a Nobel prize...lol. and all you got is a Cracker Jack prize

[@mwils51]

@@patldennis No Nobel Prize for this work. This paper was withdrawn after it was falsified. Dr James Tour completely destroys this total nonsense. Keep your head in the sand loser. The creation makes the creator just as obvious as a building makes a builder.

[@patldennis]

@@mwils51 Sztostak is indeed a Nobel laureate. Check facts so you don't look idiotic. Tour issued sn apology for going off the rails

[@johntillman6068]

Since processes akin to the Krebs cycle naturally occur abiotically, nonbiological "metabolism" could have been an early energy source, then incorporated into protocells en route to becoming modern-style prokaryotic cells.

[@redbaroniii]

+John Tillman You have just stated a true pipe dream. Read Dr. Sutherland's work to create RNA, kind of explodes this theory.

[@TeiStacja]

@@redbaroniii I agree. It is so naive to assume that in non-laboratory environment we will have proper amounts in proper concentration of substrates for desired chain of reactions with catalysts present WITHOUT chemicals which would ruin any of these reactions. This was the lament of Leslie Orgel when he worked on "first metabolic cycle" scenario of abiogenesis before he switched to belief in panspermia. Now he passed away and he knows the truth about special creation!

[@patldennis]

There is a reason replication and metabolism are derived from ATP and ATP like molecules. It acts as a conduit for positive feedback

[@tedkrasicki3857]

Molecules combine to make new molecules. In the very distant past there would have been many interesting molecules that were recombining. The source of the 'interesting' molecules may have been the breakup of larger molecules caused by the much more prevalent (earlier in the half-life process) radioactive elements in the environment.

[@Constantinesis]

Watching this i just realize that geometry plays a fundamental role in the evolution of matter. 3D geometry allows for atoms to group into molecules and for molecules to bind into compounds.

[@KrisMayeaux]

Jack Szostak said in this video that his non enzymatic RNA replication "was the _ONLY_ reaction that works really well" but unfortunately for him, a few months later, a very embarrassed Dr. Szostak withdrew the research paper on this replication due to its being flawed. This was discovered when a member of his research team, Tivoli Olsen, could not replicate the same results. Dr. Szostak said, *“In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…[W]e were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments.”* Tivoli Olsen admitted, *“As a scientist the job is to troubleshoot. You can’t help nor can you ignore where that takes you. I fulfilled my obligation to ensure that no one after me would waste their time on this.”* And as Dr. Szostak admitted, this was the only reaction that worked well. Dr. Szostak also retracted a 2009 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for the same reason. At least he is honest.

[@sharpie6888]

Kristen Michelle are you trying to undermine his credibility?

[@NorthForkFisherman]

Sharpie: Why would you say that? It seems that such an event only boosts his credibility. He made a mistake. It was discovered. He admitted he was wrong. Think you'll ever see that from a politician or creationist?

[@sharpie6888]

NorthForkFisherman Kristen is trying to say that since he had his paper retracted, he's no longer credible. But we know that that's completely wrong

[@NorthForkFisherman]

Sharpie: Agreed. But I also think that good dose of humility is always a good thing in the realm of science. It's so easy to get off line following what you think is right rather than what the data says. In the end, we're all still human. I'm not published yet, but I can see how easy that would be to make a mistake like that.

[@ttecnotut]

Kristen Michelle retracting a paper isn’t the same as retracting a theory, and they achieved more milestones since that retraction

[@andreybogoslowsky]

When Newton, you know the guy the British guy Isaac newton when he said, I stand on the shoulders of giants, what she really meant is that it takes many generations, and sometimes hundreds of years to figure out the truth and even after we figure out the truth it might change on a snap of a finger

[@hainetkorea]

The Origin of Life is Chemical Synthesis.Marine algae(green seaweed):Cellulose is a cell

[@chasingamurderer]

Okay so let me tell you. Every cell in your body minus a handful are connected as one. They are constantly switching all their innards including organelles Etc and so on with each other. Cytoplasm flows from one to another on a constant basis and that includes filaments. From what I have observed. And the question is how are they able to do this because this is a big? Never explored really

[@wolfgangouille]

Wut

[@patldennis]

I'm sure this is possible and even probable, but it can't be widespread, otherwise tissue identity would be homogenized

[@drdrwoland1975]

Only locally out to tissue specific levels.

[@patldennis]

@@drdrwoland1975 thanks

[@drdrwoland1975]

@@patldennis it is when the signalling fails that cancer starts

[@andreybogoslowsky]

If I was trying to explain to Archimedes quantum biology, he would probably say oh geez things got complicated in your times and probably the same will say Giordano Bruno, but I look at them and I’ll say yes things got more complicated, but we have many more answers than we had 500 years ago or 2000 years ago and I have a strange feeling he’s gonna get more complicated but at the same time we will come to a very, very simple mathematical conclusions like 2+2 = 5 or six

[@stellank450]

i read another article supporting the deep ocean volcanic theory . It would be intrresting to hear Szostak thoughts about Rauchfuß ocean based theory as I write about in www.kinberg.net/2018/01/03/search-luca-makes-progresses-2/#Rauchfuss

[@JCAH1]

This is good work, but the hard questions are not even mentioned here. How could the primitive RNA self-replicate, and how did the RNA nucleotides get in a biologically useful order, and how did the hundreds of thousands of proteins, enzymes and other large, complex molecules come about, and what natural forces made them come about? He and his team seem to be focused like a laser on the simplest, easiest aspect of abiogenesis. We also need experts to work on the hard questions.

[@gwkdad]

James Tour videos has chemistry answers. This guy will waste your time saying "we don't know".

[@patldennis]

@@gwkdad 😅😅😅😅😅

[@patldennis]

Ohh... this is "easy" to you? Why don't you start a lab?

[@jasonwiley798]

It's a start. More to come give science 2000 years.

[@jasonwiley798]

You have to start simple.

[@platzhirsch4275]

Fact remains either life emerged by a fortuitous accident, spontaneously through self-organization by unguided stochastic coincidence, natural events that turned into self-organization in an orderly manner without external direction, chemical non-biological, purely physico-dynamic kinetic processes and reactions influenced by environmental parameters, or through the direct intervention, creative force and activity of an intelligent cognitive agency, a powerful creator. What natural mechanisms lack, is goal-directedness. And that's a big problem for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. There was a potentially unlimited variety of molecules on the prebiotic earth. Why should competition and selection among them have occurred at all, to promote a separation of those molecules that are used in life, from those that are useless? Selection is a scope and powerless mechanism to explain all of the living order, and even the ability to maintain order in the short term, and to explain the emergence, overall organization, and long-term persistence of life from non-living precursors. It is an error of false conceptual reduction to suppose that competition and selection will thereby be the source of explanation for all relevant forms of order. The properties of stone blocks do not determine their arrangement in the construction of buildings. Similarly, the properties of biological building blocks do not determine the arrangement of monomers in functional information-bearing DNA and RNA polypeptides, nor protein strands. DNA base sequencing cannot be explained by chance nor physical necessity any more than the information in a newspaper headline can be explained by reference to the chemical properties of ink. Nor can the conventions of the genetic code that determine the assignments between nucleotide triplets and amino acids during translation be explained in this manner. The genetic code functions as a grammatical convention in a human language. Michael Denton, The miracle of the Cell: Where the cosmos feels infinitely large and the atomic realm infinitely small, the cell feels infinitely complex. They appear in so many ways supremely fit to fulfill their role as the basic unit of biological life. Atoms and molecules are just as happy to be as they are. They don't NEED schooling, don't need Families. Higher levels of structures for SURVIVAL are never needed. Atoms never need DNA programming to function. They don't need Molecular machinery to exist. Life is not even supposed to be here. There is no NEED for it to exist. It is not natural, and would of itself with high probability never came about. No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life, and reproduce a self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization. The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview of who wants naturalism to be true. Denton: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, page 249 We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive. Re-conceptualizing the origins of life 2017 Dec 28 The origin of life is widely regarded as one of the most important open problems in science. It is also notorious for being one of the most difficult. It is now almost 100 years since scientific efforts to solve the problem began in earnest, with the work of Oparin and Haldane. ‘Bottom-up’ approaches have not yet generated anything nearly as complex as a living cell. At most, we are lucky to generate short polypeptides or polynucleotides or simple vesicles-a far cry from the complexity of anything living.

[@bouncycastle955]

Yeah, but what creation lacks is a creator. So the solution is pretty obvious.

[@jasonwiley798]

I wouldn't call it an embarrassment, but rather an ongoing challenge on the frontiers of biology. It's exciting, not embarrassing. My goodness it has been over 2000 years that the god hypothesis has been around., And still hasn't progress d very far in explaining these phenomena either.

[@platzhirsch4275]

@@jasonwiley798 because: there can't be an explanation in the apparent will of some super- intelligence to create life on earth but: the more abiogenesis progresses and all research into "evolution" and biochemistry advances, plus understanding of the Cell and its molecular machines ( just check on the animation of Cell mitosis, Protein synthesis, DNA, ribosomes, ATP SYNTHASE, mitochondrial biochemistry etc, these processes are so mind blowing that it's actually getting clear anyone must be out of his mind to assume such highly advanced biochemical engineering processes could ever advance by purely naturalistic means, without any intelligence involved, through self assembly. Understanding this I am very sure all scientists claiming this today shall one day be laughed at and go down as history as professional deceivers plus a laughing stock in Science to have believed this....

[@drlindberg1]

@@platzhirsch4275 the fallacy of personal incredulity.

[@platzhirsch4275]

@@drlindberg1 the fallacy of personal incredulity....

[@iain5615]

Yet nobody really knows how life began but intend to achieve this in the coming years through highly controlled laboratory processes that build on the knowledge they have already achieved and will improve on. So in other words - intelligent design.

[@kyjo72682]

in this case, yes. but it's more about finding the conceptual pathways how this could have happened naturally, not about making it happen again in some specific way

[@patldennis]

Just like natural selection is actually intelligent design bc people breed and select for traits in domestic organisms... derp. You're dumb

[@KS-tf6nw]

James Tour : mystery of the Origin of life @ 40:00Jack is mentioned, it is very funny.

[@northernshark1579]

I would love to see them both debate one day. That would be a real debate of the decade.

[@mcmanustony]

Tour's antics are a professional disgrace.

[@patldennis]

Tour had to apologize when video of his antics fot leaked

[@mcmanustony]

James Tour: The Mystery of a Religious Fanatic Screaming About Science He's Never Studied......there, I fixed it for you.

[@edenrosest]

@@mcmanustony Tour talks on the basis of scientific logic and scientific probability and this man talks on the basis of scenario by imagination. And you say exactly the opposite. That clearly means you are the very religious fanatic.

[@chasingamurderer]

I love this guy but I don't absolutely believe in everything he does

[@joem1201]

Chasing A Murderer Murdered As you shouldn’t. Science isn’t about absolutely believing in “everything someone does”. It’s about looking at the current evidence and trying to make conclusions based on it. Skepticism is what drives further discovery.

[@patldennis]

Belief is for religion. What can be demonstrated doesn't require belief. Moreover anything that requires belief should be rejected for that reason.

[@pteronarcyscalifornica694]

If chemical abiogenesis were this easy the galaxy would be teeming with life, including intelligent life. SETI hints that this is not so.

[@dangthatscool1]

The idea that intelligent life should be abundant and easy to find assumes that ALL the steps in the process from chemical abiogenesis all the way up to detection of intelligent life are (relatively) easy. We don't know nearly enough to make reasonable assumptions about any of the steps in the process. I believe that the lack of results from SETI does not imply anything whatever about the odds of any of the steps in this chain. If we look at Drake's Equation, how many of those variables do we really know with any reasonable degree of certainty? A few relating to the astronomical conditions. In my opinion, beyond those details, what it takes to generate (and then to detect) intelligent life remains a mystery.

[@mafarmerga]

Life has been on this planet for 3.8 BY. In that time there has been a life form that can communicate with radio waves for about 100 years. So to assume that a) intelligent life is inevitable, b) that it has evolved radio communication and c) that they are sending out signals for us to hear (after all we are not intentionally doing this) does not make sense. Thus it is not surprising that SETI has heard nothing.

[@kyjo72682]

There are a lot of steps between abiogenesis and us. Protocellular or simple bacterial life might be relatively common but for example the occurence of eukaryotic endosymbiosis might be extremely rare.

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis is a failure

[@platzhirsch4275]

One of the aspects that have to be explained in regards to the origin of life is the origin of the enormous amounts of data necessary from the set go. The smallest free-living bacteria, the representative for the minimal complexity which would have been the threshold of transition from non-life to life ( below that threshold, self-replicating free-living cells could not be alive) requires 1,3 million nucleotides. Chance to get a functional instructional complex codified sequence of nucleotides of that magnitude, randomly on early earth is over 10^700,000 ( there are 10^80 atoms in the universe). That is far beyond what is possible. Instructions, complex codified specifications, INFORMATION. Algorithms encoded in genetic and epigenetic languages and communication channels and networks. Genes, and epigenetic signaling through various signaling networks provide cues and instruct molecules and macromolecule complexes, and scaffold networks interpret and react in a variety of ways upon decoding and data processing of those instructions. Since signaling pathways work synergetically integrated with a complex short and long-range cross-talk between intracellular macromolecules, these instructions could not be the result of a random gradual increase of information. These information networks only operate and work in an integrated fashion, and had to be fully set up right from the beginning. Conveying codes, a system of rules to convert information, such as letters and words, into another form, and translation ciphers of one language to another are always sourced back to intelligent set-up. What we see in biochemistry is complex instructional codified information being stored through the genetic code ( codons) in a storage medium (DNA), encoded ( DNA polymerase), sent (mRNA), and decoded ( Ribosome). Life is an all or nothing business. The stories of protocells and a gradual emergence of those by chemical evolution are pseudo-science. chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity Eliminative inductions prove that natural origins of cells merely by chemical reactions are false, and the only alternative, design is true. And abductive reasoning to the best explanation lead unambiguously to intelligent design as the best explanation. To the origin of life by the input of information, energy, and directed energy by an intelligent designer.

[@patldennis]

No one cares, go back to being a sycophant on Turd's videos

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

Comparing a modern bacterium to the first protocell is illogical.

[@SolaceEasy]

I am bookmarking this for the AI singularity. AI will be able to make completely different forms of life that are more efficient. Our Doom is eminent.

[@SolaceEasy]

The presentation was very engaging at first. And then at the end you could see the impishness in him as he began to discuss the future of his and others work. After I knew I would have bad dreams for the rest of my life.

[@tsvetansirmanov7773]

You cannot resist this iron logic: The Solar system, this magnificent planet Earth, every plant, animal and human has a well-considered / thoughtful structure. That means an Intelligent Being created them all, not blind nature. For the building particles - atoms and molecules COULD NOT organize themselves in such a way to cause a rose to form, or a deer, or a girl - with all the complex organs and systems they have. Even in a billion years! Therefore , a Creator, a Designer, an Architect really exists. There is no other way. (Evolution is NOT confirmed by the fossils)(Radiocarbon dating is NOT reliable)(Cosmic panspermia just shift the problem).

[@steaminglobster]

Yep, it is a from top to bottom designed system, not a system evolved in a sequence with time. It is kind of like integrated circuit, very very complicated beyond our imagination because timewise we are too far away from the creation happened, hierarchically, we are at the bottom level, so we do not see the upper level except some really special persons...

[@mcmanustony]

Ask your doctor if reading books might be right for you.....

[@tsvetansirmanov7773]

@@mcmanustony shut up Satan - you are defeated !

[@jasonwiley798]

Or the laws of physics caused it all

[@drdrwoland1975]

You have no explanation for the energy source for all this. The Schrodinger question.

[@patldennis]

😅😅😅😅

[@Rypaul5217]

Well we have to think through all this,..piece by piece...... if such robust amino acids can be created by "minerals" somewhere somehow is possible....then how is it that we don't see such making of these 20 odd left handed life amino acid groups being made at present day? if they are claiming it happen long long ago why not be happening now. Especially by heat by water, by cyclic flow scenarios? Then comes the leap, "that nucleotides could form" how so?...This flies into the face of reality we don't see happening today...anywhere in nature.....begs the question if this sort of thing was that "natural" then why don't see evidence of this sort of nucleotide put together business going on today? Should there be such present day cell like making activity? and if you even have something with a membrane how long should that object last before being destroyed by sunlight or by oxygen? yes bubble making on top of fluids is expected to spread outward. in a simple soap dish, question is how long can a so called protocell membrane last without reproduction? long time? would it not simply go pop% like a soup bubble? and what about low length ultraviolet light? which divides any organic matter in a rather short amount of time? "that kind of cell life" what? a membrane bubble is nothing like cell life, so why call it that? and it is not dividing, but spreading about from the laws of chemical water physics. "physical forces" is .far from doing what real cell life does. what is interesting is that the laboratory scientist is the agent of manipulation creating by force the action upon making such things happen ...nothing here is shown from a pure natural processes. 30:26 at present day.....there are NO primitive RNA being made NOW in the yellowstone park. any sort of membrane cannot be simple as to be enclosed film so as not to allow input of new materials through...or out....so non organic material cannot pass as being applicable for the theory for the first abiogenic life of the primitive non regenerating cell. controlled lab chemical polymer making.....is not natural processes. note how the evolutionists scientists says..."makes us think how totally amazing DNA is, and how hard it is to DESIGN something different that has the same properties" and yet nature through so called "natural processes" found it rather easy to out wit these highly educated human genius...lol oh well. : /

[@dr.ahmedjebara3400]

Rypaul5217 nice comment thanks.

[@maxrod98]

Have you seen a star? Do you think someone designed that star? No, its the millions of years and millions of random chances that forged that star. There are some things we can't comprehend and we should not just refute them because we do not think they could happen.

[@jaredh9912]

@@maxrod98 not saying your wrong, but i hope you realize those kind of statements come out if intelligent designer believers as well

[@Nidair]

I've yet to hear the first one to have the humility of considering the possibility of being wrong. It's a constant noise of arrogance, thinking they know actual science better than scientists who actually consider testable, verifiable, and falsifiable alternatives. Unfortunately for "intelligent design" it's none of those, so it's not science.

[@fado792]

God designed a useless tail bone at the end of your spine, consisting of seven merged tail vertebra. Jesus had a tail-bone too.

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis failure!

[@mcmanustony]

Any chance you could post a complete sentence?

[@tonymaurice4157]

@@mcmanustony Any chance you could show any evidence for your Abiogenesis fantasy? You can't even do it in a pristine laboratory with the most advanced designed equipment, sequencing machines and pure chemicals 👍 Total embarrassment as usual!

[@mcmanustony]

@@tonymaurice4157 Abiogenesis occurred. Either it was by natural processes or it was by magic. You position is "magic". Science won't go there. "You can't even do it in a pristine laboratory"- do what? Synthesis RNA? examine the formation growth and division of bilipid membranes? establish energy gradients across such membranes to study their permeability......there are thousands more steps that are understood...and many that aren't. Creationists have contributed ......[checks notes].....precisely fuck all to understanding any of them. Embarrassment? Grow up for fuck sake....

[@spatrk6634]

@@tonymaurice4157 neither can you pray hard enough for god to create something to prove abiogenesis is false. thats not how it works does it? but its easier to attack your opponent position then to prove yours or understand your opponents position. thats why in science, you dont try to prove your theory, you try to disprove it. have you ever tried to disprove god to see how good he holds up under scrutiny?

[@tonymaurice4157]

@@spatrk6634 You have nothing but hope and wishful thinking for your rock soup chemical fantasy! Your hypothesis has never had any evidence whatsoever not even in the best of highly manipulated lab environments! And Experiments to produce the building blocks of life always begin with unnaturally pure, concentrated reagents. These are purchased from laboratory supply shops and produced through sophisticated, intelligently designed processes. Where on a prebiotic Earth could you find high Concentrations of nucleotides? And all left handed Amino acids primed and ready to bond? Templates and designed pipettes to sequence exactly what is needed? chemical suppliers from which the researchers obtained their materials, which was not around prebiotically!! Chemists achieve Minimal success by using manipulations and intelligence in their carefully guided experiments!

[@dontaylor9527]

He can't synthesize life in a lab at Harvard on purpose with any amount of funding. And we are expected to believe it generated in some sterile mud puddle then evolved into what we are? What a joke.

[@younanm]

not to mention a fool's errand, waste of tax payor's money, ...

[@user-xv4gu9eb2p]

You can't recreate the early earth with any amount of money because it was a giant ball of plasma before it cooled and a crust was formed. Money doesn't make everything and anything happen. Evolution is a fact, kangaroos only exist in Australia because they evolved. They didn't just pop into existence in current form like some magic trick. Chemical life evolves as well. In a billion years you can absolutely get from a single self replicating cell to a complex living thing. If you can't understand how, it's not likely that stuff popped into existence it's more likely you aren't smart enough to grasp the concept.... If those are the two choices.

[@younanm]

@@user-xv4gu9eb2p hi fu2 i guess if u say it it must be so... it's your story and you can say as you want

[@user-xv4gu9eb2p]

@@younanm it's my story kangaroos didn't just pop into existence in current form in australia? Ok....

[@younanm]

@@user-xv4gu9eb2p relax dude use a glycerine suppository

[@Dan.50]

You could literally say "fairies did it all!" and you would be just as correct as this guy. Not only is life arising from non living material a statistical impossibility, but even if it could happen, how would the first living thing live long enough to learn to evolve and self replicate?

[@joem1201]

D. J. Life arises from non-living material every single day. Before conception of a human embryo - the sperm cell and oocyte are made of individual non-living molecules - such as DNA and amino acids. You could put each of these individual molecules in a test tube and they’d just sit there with no more “life” to them than a rock. However, these non-living molecules come together briefly to create a sperm cell and oocyte that when combined in the right environment lead to the creation of a human embryo then a baby. Your “fairies did it all” example is a vast mischaracterization. Because Dr. Szosteck is basing his ideas off our current scientific understanding of things. He might be wrong - and I’m sure even Szosteck himself would admit that. But his theories are not in any way comparable to saying “fairies did it”. The processes he talks about took place over a billion years. Then it took another billion years to get from a nuclei acid world to a cellular world. These things didnt “learn” how to do anything. Moreso these processes were acquired in an environment where individual entities (molecules of RNA) were competing for limited resources - and the ones that were best at utilizing resources and procreating survived.

[@iain5615]

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

[@iain5615]

IThinkWithMy Dick Thanks for your comment, it's fantastic with your name, nice and sarcastic! Funny.

[@redbaroniii]

As they say, RNA world is the worst theory of origin, except for all the rest.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

*" If you brought all the top experts required, provided all the latest and best information, gave the best labs possible, with the best equipment, provided super-computers for any possible data analysis, provided unlimited funds, etc. we would still fail to produce a living cell. "* Equating a couple of years & a beaker of sludge in a lab to the billions of years & quadrillions of galaxies with billions of planets each & each of those with billions of unique complex & dynamic micro environments is such a slap in the face to what you call god that I'm surprised it doesn't strike you dead. *" whenever a molecule becomes a more complex monomer and then joins other molecules forming polymers, it will along the way form into a chemical that is not wanted"* You talk like a copy & paste machine rather than someone who knows what he is talking about. *"Any change in the perfect chemicals, the perfect environment control (type of light, vibration, heat, radiation, etc.), the perfect solution (water is very poor), etc. will ruin the next stage."* Well, by that measure it's not only abiogenesis that is impossible but all life of any kind EVER. *" Biochemists have been unable to get beyond the simplest of simple molecules"* Yup, you definitely have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even check to see if what you state is true. Not good form man.

[@redbaroniii]

May I quote you in my other comments?

[@ExtantFrodo2]

It's the wild wild internet. Knock yourself out. :-)

[@TeiStacja]

It is so amusing to see respectful scientist so blinded with his naturalistic/evolutionistic presuppositions that he even can't see futility of hopes tied to all of these experiments that they supposedly may lead to the explanation of the phenomenon of life. Even if one can recreate an information template which can replicate its content it is begging the question where did all needed information for the design of a cell came from! Besides. RNA world seems to be passing fad in abiogenesis. Even if something like RNA world could work (although without preprogrammed information and lack of efficiency of rybozymes it will not work at all) but even if it could work than how in the world it switched into DNA based organism?! It is sheer wishful thinking.

[@kyjo72682]

You accuse someone of making presuppositions yet in the same comment you manage to assert that a cell was designed. What actually is amusing is reading these ignorant creationist comments.. I would however much rather be reading comments from people who actually have something interesting to add to the topic.