Jack Szostak: Physics and the Origin of Life, from Chirality to Membranes to Information

[@quantumcat7673]

This scientist is brilliant. Thank you for your video!

[@l.m.892]

A setup if I have ever seen one.

[@johnnisshansen]

why do we se faces of only the non speakers ?

[@l.m.892]

Good question. The speaker could not possibly have anything to hide.

[@vittorio4866]

Beautiful, but the problem is only one, and it seems nobody understands: entropy in chemistry produces organisation and complexity.

[@l.m.892]

Szostak missed that one.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

For the creationists out there. Tell you what. I will show you a peer-reviewed scientific paper, in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, explaining an experiment that demonstrates some step that would be required for a purely natural origin of life, and you show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper, in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, explaining an experiment that demonstrates your invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard created life magically. And we go back and forth, and whoever runs out of scientific experimental evidence first loses. Deal?

[@Billy-u8s]

That means nothing, nothing at all. Big whoop!!!

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@Billy-u8s Yes, what you say mean nothing. Nothing at all.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@Billy-u8s It means I win and you lose.

[@Billy-u8s]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Oh go back to your mom's basement and have another hit dude.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@Billy-u8sOh, go back to school and learn something worthwhile for once.

[@MS-od7je]

Interesting.

[@l.m.892]

How a scientist can get so wrapped up in supposition that they get lost in reality.

[@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425]

This video attempt to address some of the problems and paradoxes of the initial naturalistic occurrences leading to the forming of a first self-replicating proto-biological systems, extremely simplified precursors to the development of prokaryotic organisms. And yet it is still so forlorn, even with the formation of à most uncomplicated prototype cell, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[@joehinojosa24]

I tried to FOLLOW THIS ,but my membrane Collapsed.

[@l.m.892]

"There has been a lot of progress in that area recently" Translation: "We don't know." Q: Why don't you know? A: God is a lot smarter than we are. The Szostak answer: Nature is a lot smarter than we are.

[@mcmanustony]

@@l.m.892 maybe you should try a lot more reading and a lot less sneering in ignorance

[@mcmanustony]

That comes nowhere near a translation of what Szostak is saying. Why are you so dishonest and lazy?

[@l.m.892]

@@mcmanustony Actually Szostak said "Nature is a lot smarter than we are" ... Typical atheist cowardice. Worshiping the creation is easier than worshiping the Creator.

[@mcmanustony]

@@l.m.892 Wrong, you bigoted simpleton. Pointing out your dishonesty has no dependence on anyone's beliefs regarding a god. You simply are one gratuitous, pig ignorant liar incapable of responding to science that doesn't conform to your book.

[@mcmanustony]

@@l.m.892 You are a bold faced liar. Shame on you.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Also to the creationists. What is your better explanation than abiogenesis? It needs to be at least as plausible, at least as testable, and have at least as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it. So what is it? PS: And no, “The invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard poofed life into existence!” is not more plausible, is not as testable, and does not have as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

“Better explanation” is an anti science standard. Any hypothesis has to stand on its own merits, and abiogenesis has failed in totality

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@hosoiarchives4858 So you don't have a better alternative. Which makes abiogenesis the best one. Thanks.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger abiogenesis is the worst one

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@hosoiarchives4858 Funny, you keep failing to provide a better one. You lose.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger any theory is better than abiogenesis. It’s the worst one I’ve ever heard of

[@bungeebones]

He starts with an assumption that RNA just appeared from no where to be used by the first life form. Unfortunately for him he has totally ignored the fact that RNA is information/code and he totally ignores the more important question of where the information came from? he is like a guy who copied a pop rivet from an aircraft carrier and claims, therefore, he knows how to build an aircraft carrier. First answer where the information came from and I might start listening to your yarn.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

the "information" is only a functional arrangement of peptides. Once this occurs, selection can take place.

[@bungeebones]

@@hammalammadingdong6244 Thank you for your information (which is, of course, just a functional arrangement of peptides). I learned along time ago not to trust those "peptides" as they are usually fools.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@bungeebones - that’s too bad because every cell in your body depends of them.

[@bungeebones]

@@hammalammadingdong6244 You don't even see the foolishness of your comment. Saying they are just "functional arrangements" begs the same question. Arranged by what/whom? An "arrangement" requires an intelligence so you are simply trying to avoid the issue with semantic bull. To believe your story would require a belief that chemicals are able to organize themselves into a pre-historic A.I. There's absolutely ZERO evidence of that and you are just spewing fanciful hogwash.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@bungeebones no, look at tree rings, for instance. They form as a result of natural processes. We can read the “information” in them, but nothing intelligent needed to create them. It does need humans to interpret them. So, to ask “who did it” is begging the question. Can you Demonstrate a “who” and the plausibility of it doing what you claim?

[@l.m.892]

Szostak should wake up to reality and be brave. The longer he avoids the truth, the longer it will not be available to him. Once he reaches the limit of a range, it may become his domain. A life without truth is no life at all.

[@mcmanustony]

@@l.m.892 what the chicken fried fuck are you babbling about?

[@soulcells]

Good luck with that! Please forward your address as it's apparent you are in need of more straws!

[@charlesmiller6281]

So let me see if I got this right. Life happens very easily and spontaneously. We just can't quite figure out how to do it. This is like one of those infomercials where if you persevere to the end you can't believe you just wasted all that time there must have been something worthwhile in there somewhere. Only guess what? There wasn't.

[@simonmasters3295]

How did you conclude there is nothing there by way of explanation?

[@l.m.892]

@@simonmasters3295 Well, there was plenty of supposition.

[@l.m.892]

@@simonmasters3295 "How did you conclude there is nothing there by way of explanation?" You really need to watch the video again, and again, and again, ...

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@l.m.892 Because ....

[@RD2564]

Why is the bald dude who never says anything always on screen? lol.

[@l.m.892]

Emotional support.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

I was just asked: "why shouldn't Abiogenesis happen today?" Darwin gave one answer: because life exists today. There are other reasons given after a short discussion of Darwin's answer. 1) Darwin addressed this general topic more than 150 years ago. "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." (Darwin, C., 1871, Letter to [Sir Joseph] Hooker. Reproduced in Calvin, M. (1969). Chemical Evolution pp 1-8. Oxford University Press, London: as quoted in "Did minerals perform prebiotic combinatorial chemistry?", Alan W. Schwartz, Chemistry & Biology 1996, 3:515-518). In the above quote, pay attention to the last part: "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." Now that life is ubiquitous, organic molecules would not accumulate in large amounts and complexify over long periods of time, because bacteria or some other living organisms would consume/incorporate them. 2) Another reason we should not expect life to be arising today is that conditions are different today than they were some 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. a. Back then, the atmosphere was largely devoid of molecular oxygen (it is not anymore). b. Back then, the atmosphere is thought to have had a lot more carbon dioxide than is present today. c. Back then, the oceans are thought to have been more acidic than they are today (for example, due to more CO2 in the atmosphere). d. Back then, the oceans are thought to have had much more ferrous iron dissolved throughout them than today. e. Back then, there was more metal adsorbed to clay minerals in the oceans than there is today [3] (metal doped clays can select ribose from a mixture of sugars and can also stabilize ribose). f. There could be other differences (perhaps, as some OoL researchers propose, life arose at alkaline hydrothermal vents, and today there are far fewer than the were back then). If any one or more of those conditions would have been important for the origin of life (for example, for the formation of a self-replicating RNA), then we shouldn't expect life to be originating today.

[@simonmasters3295]

I think you are elevating Darwin's genius and the "warm little pond" is much less likely to persist for sufficient time when compared to the 30,000 years of a mid-ocean alkaline vent (exhausting to an acidic ocean) arising from a serpentinization reaction and planetary convection currents. But then I am watching this video for the first time...

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@simonmasters3295 You might have missed the point I was making by quoting Darwin. --------------------------- In the above quote, pay attention to the last part: "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." Now that life is ubiquitous, organic molecules would not accumulate in large amounts and complexify over long periods of time, because bacteria or some other living organisms would consume/incorporate them. ---------------------------

[@l.m.892]

I was just asked: "why shouldn't Abiogenesis happen today?" I don't believe you.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@l.m.892 I don't care. Run along and imagine your invisible friend.

[@l.m.892]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger "I don't care. Run along and imagine your invisible friend." God is real, and Jesus is not invisible.

[@invent183]

Read about Origin of Life in the NCMR Inventing method book Discovery chapter.

[@Billy-u8s]

Believing themselves wise thay became fools.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Believing themselves to be wise, they believe in ancient mythology about fantastical beings, from a book that is scientifically refuted, morally refuted, historically refuted, archaeologically refuted, and logically refuted.

[@mcmanustony]

Why is sitting on your backside regurgitating Bronze Age bigotry preferable to getting off your duff and actually putting some effort into learning.

[@Billy-u8s]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger And you have proven that you don't know crap about anything! Peace out dude!!!🤣

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@Billy-u8s A Christian quoting the bible is as meaningless as a Muslim quoting the Qu'ran or a Hindu quoting the Vedas.

[@l.m.892]

@@Billy-u8s "And you have proven that you don't know crap about anything!" I'm quite tempted to say that about you, but you do know how to type on a keyboard. That may be excused away in view of the crap you post.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

There is no abiogenesis

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

There is no god

[@mcmanustony]

evidently there is. the planet was dead for 700,000,000 years before life emerged. Either that process was by natural means that science can investigate ....or it was magic! good luck with magic. here's a comprehensive list of all natural observed phenomena successfully explained by an appeal to the supernatural> ready? 1. .

[@l.m.892]

It is obvious.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@l.m.892 What is obvious? That an invisible sky wizard goes POOF! 🤣

[@invent183]

Consciousness is the origin of life and has been experimentally verified.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Eventually they'll make a cell and we can congratulate them on their effort to intelligent design.

[@mcmanustony]

@@ronaldmorgan7632 What does this mean, if anything?

[@l.m.892]

@@mcmanustony You still having trouble understanding people?

[@mcmanustony]

@ no.

[@l.m.892]

@@mcmanustony Can you explain what the poster is saying?

[@hosoiarchives4858]

3:55 is a lie

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Don't just claim it, demonstrate it.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@TonyTigerTonyTigerhe claimed it and did not demonstrate it. It’s a lie

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@hosoiarchives4858 As part of an hour lecture. He had a lot to say. You vomited out a dozen characters. Worthtless.

[@l.m.892]

Dude kind of overlooked the fact that DNA replication requires a number of operative helper and motor proteins - helicase, to name one. You also need a properly handed matrix of monomers. What can you expect from someone dedicated to barking up the wrong tree?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@l.m.892 The topic is the origin of life, not evolved cells.

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

ah chirality, the missing link in nearly all discussion of abiogenesis - James M. Tour is quite good on this

[@spatrk6634]

tour is quite bad at misinterpreting science. professor dave is quite good at demonstrating that

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

@@spatrk6634 - LOL

[@mcmanustony]

@@MyMy-tv7fd What are you LOLing about? Tour is an unhinged, ethically challenged fanatic who does not work in this field.

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

@@mcmanustony the whole of OOL is worthless, except for pointing out what an excellent proof of their know-nothing progress it all is

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@MyMy-tv7fd You don't know that Mr. Tour is completely clueless about the origin of life? Tour is so clueless he talks about YEAST INTERACTOMES when talking about the origin of life. Tour is so cluelss he shows images of, and discusses, EUKARYOTIC CELLS when talking about the origin of life.

[@platzhirsch4275]

The main issue in all OOL research is the origin of all programmed information. To understand what that means understandthat YOU where initially just one cell. That cell started dividing, thousand, million and billion times until YOU where there! So how did all billion subsequent cells "know" exactly where to go in your body, how to differentiate, what function to fulfill, and how to look like? Where did the information come from to exactly build up your brain, nerve system, eyes, liver, kidney etc by the process of cell division and build up? It means the initial cell had all this information stored in it an gave the information to all subsequent cells to control the complete build up of YOU!!!!! That kind of information is so astronomical in density, quantity and quality that our intelligence will even fail to understand the complete implication of such an ingenious biochemical information and control process and it shows especially intelligent people that only a super- intelligence could design and create such a system.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"To understand what that means understandthat YOU where initially just one cell" Human cells are completely irrelevant to the origin of life. The first human was born some 3.5 BILLION YEARS after life already existed on Earth. I've told you this a dozen times. Even something as unintelligent as a rat can learn from its mistakes, so why can't you?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"only a super- intelligence could ..." Explain the origin of this alleged super-intelligence. Your explanation needs to be plausible and testable.

[@l.m.892]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Explain the origin of your nonsensical response.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@l.m.892 Which part were you not smart enough to understand?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@l.m.892 You have failed to provide a plausible, testable explanation.

[@Billy-u8s]

Per reviewed really means nothing now days. It's all political!!!

[@mcmanustony]

And your evidence for this? That's right: you're sitting on it.

[@Billy-u8s]

@@mcmanustony Multiple people have submitted crap studied for review and had them published. It is meaningless!!!

[@mcmanustony]

@@Billy-u8s The obvious example being Sokal's paper on "Transformative Hermenuetics of Quantum Gravity". The aim was to critique pseudo intellectual nonsense in "culture studies"- not peer review itself. Let's hear you critique some of Szostak"s work. I'll wait.....

[@Billy-u8s]

@@mcmanustony I wouldn't hold your breath. You will not change my mind that being published does not mean you are right about anything.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@Billy-u8s " I wouldn't hold your breath." Because you won't be supporting your claims?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

To the troll hosoiarchives ... What is your better explanation than abiogenesis? It needs to be at least as plausible, at least as testable, and have at least as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it. So what is it? PS: And no, “The invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard poofed life into existence!” is not more plausible, is not as testable, and does not have as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it.

[@l.m.892]

"What is your better explanation than abiogenesis? It needs to be at least as plausible, at least as testable, and have at least as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it." Abiogenesis has none of the above, so a single bit of evidence will do. Existence is that evidence.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@l.m.892 That's not a better explanation.

[@l.m.892]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger "That's not a better explanation." Existence is the best possible evidence (not explanation, as you strawmanned). Without it, there is no you.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@l.m.892 I asked for a better explanation. You can't provide one. Oh well.

[@l.m.892]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger " ... and have at least as much scientific/experimental [evidence] supporting it." I gave you the evidence. You are in denial.

[@Billy-u8s]

Dream on sweet potatoes!!!

[@mcmanustony]

Did that sound good in your head?

[@danchokonstantinov6735]

I am always amused that universally pro-entropic processes are completely ignored when trying to persuade the audience of informatics self assembly, in other words 'self assebled' systems, if ever occured, are permanently subject to degradation at any point of progression .

[@spatrk6634]

entropy affects closed system life is not closed system life formation going against entropy in the same way that ice crystals form. or micelles. it all goes against entropy. because entropy doesnt apply to open systems

[@l.m.892]

@@spatrk6634 Closure can be a function of the cell wall. There is no such thing as a completely closed system in purely scientific terms. The cell wall defines a cell boundary. Entropy can be beaten by selective allowance of flow in and out. Closure is not absolute, so it must be relative. Degradation is real, exemplified by the issue of trying to polymerize amino acids in an aqueous solution - among other things. You really should study chemistry before making an attempt to sound authoritative when speaking of biochemistry.

[@spatrk6634]

@@l.m.892 you are willfully ignorant entropy affects closed systems. cell is not closed system. it needs to exchange matter and energy with its environment you should attempt to not be ignorant.

[@l.m.892]

@@spatrk6634 Dude or dudette. You're reiterating what I already said. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

[@spatrk6634]

@@l.m.892 no you said bunch of nonsense. trying to sound authoritative

[@CandidDate]

When a scientist goes to prove life formed by abiogenesis, he is right. When someone claims Jesus saves, they are right. How can this be? Two opposing beliefs, yet they both are true? That is the one takeaway, you are here for to make your dreams come true!

[@l.m.892]

"When a scientist goes to prove life formed by abiogenesis, he is right." That doesn't make sense.