Lee Cronin: Making matter come alive

[@pv6830]

in 2011 the distinguished scientist predicted that in about two years they will have it all figured out... well, it's 2022, roughly 11 years later... 9 years after the self-predicted deadline... there yet? In russian language his talk qualifies as "yerunda" (baloney in some English-speaking countries). It reminds of a song by the italian singer Mina: Parole, parole, parole.

[@peppermintgal4302]

A lot of researchers are over - optimistic. Abiogenesis research has, despite your complaints, continued on and produced banger after banger. What does creationism have to show for itself, though?

[@sharpie6888]

@@peppermintgal4302 "continued on and produced banger after banger" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're hilarious

[@MagnusGalactusOG]

2024 and counting.Poor unfortunate souls 🔱

[@rickdelatour5355]

@@sharpie6888 you forgot to answer the question

[@sharpie6888]

@@rickdelatour5355 what question did I forget to answer?

[@vivekteega]

Mr. Bean at 13:31

[@shaccooper]

This didn’t age well, no pun intended

[@matthewvandenelzen2337]

Yep, we are just twiddling our thumbs, while his only nucleotides catabolize in just a few minutes🙈. But not after there is an insane amount of human engineering before. As well as lab conditions that do NOT reflect a prebiotic Earth🤷‍♂️

[@Cognosium]

Unfortunately, the way in which this talk is presented can easily lead to fundamental misunderstanding. I presume this is the fault of those who produced the talk rather than of the speaker himself. Analysing carefully, all that Lee Cronin seems claiming is not that any other element than carbon is capable of allowing the very extensive and complex manifestations of biology that we observe, but rather that much simpler systems using other elements may prove to be evolvable.

[@antonivanov1351]

So, 11 years have passed and he's still giving promises he'll do it in 2 years...

[@peppermintgal4302]

This is something researchers in every field say. So what? Great strides are still being made by abiogenesis, none have EVER been made by creationism.

[@antonivanov1351]

@@peppermintgal4302 creationists never claimed they would, lol. Btw, what strides specifically are u talking about?

[@peppermintgal4302]

​@@antonivanov1351If creationism produces no results, it is not a practical theory, and should be disregarded. Here's a tiny sample of results we have: Geochemically produced nucleotides. Geochemically produced sugars. Geochemically produced amino acids. Geochemically produced lipids. Geochmically produced ATP and ATP analogues. Various kinds of protocells with lifelike behavior, including protocells that can move up a maze towards resources. Oh, and uhh... evolvable matter. Depending on your definition, that matter might even be alive. We made self replicating RNA molecules that then proceeded to evolve, when left alone, into some 7, interdependent strains, forming an entire ecosystem. Meanwhile, creationists can't even solve the heat problem. Or even find oil! _Evolutionary_ theory, which abiogenesis depends on, can find oil and is used for just that all the time, meaning _it_ puts food on your plate.

[@Melki]

@AleXGT7 a lot of laws in this world, I say all of persistant laws that matter, are laws that initiate interactions after interactions or the exercising of laws over and over again. Our emotion follow this, to keep on experiencing interactions after interactions forever... so interactions that are not lovely is ruled out. So its not competition that preserve life or existence, its love. If living beings don't love, they'd stop creating laws, they'd die. What do you think? :)

[@MumblingMickey]

@TheYgds As a physicist considering a course in biocybernetics I've been awaiting this for some time now.... It seems to me that a life spent researching carbon structures is about to be demonstrated to me as a bad call...lol I take the point about the timeframe...I mean seriously how is he going to research, produce and write this up in such a narrow window...unless he's already more than 50% there....and I haven't read a single thing about this in Nature recently... have you?

[@TopGunYesTopGun]

@wachi03 The way he talks about it, he makes it sound like there is that stuff out there (carbon) that is inherently alive, but now he makes 'ordinary matter' alive as well. There is an interesting (and important) talk to be given about how self-replicating molecules kick-started life, and one about how life might not need carbon, but this isn't it.

[@axelasdf]

@GronTheMighty Never would I say that we shouldn't research more. I only state that we have found physical limitations in many areas(plank's length, observable/non-observable universe, quantum entanglement), and there are still very many unanswered questions, like this recent neutrino velocity problem. Physics is an amazing field of study, but the question that drives me to belief isn't "how", but "Why?". Why do all of these constants line up to form the universe that operates and led to us?

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

We are in 2022. Still waiting....

[@derhafi]

So, it’s not been done yet…That however does not add credibility to the position of the scientifically illiterate faith-based-cult members who think that there is a credible alternative to abiogenesis. Neither has anyone demonstrated that the supernatural exists, nor that is interferes with reality. Whilst abiogenesis research has made a lot of progress over the last decade..…theists seem to be stuck at the same place ever since somebody invented the God…sorry, “intelligence” they happen to believe in.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@derhafi yes, there is. intelligence is capable of creating blueprints, information transmission systems, and upon these, machines, assembly lines, energy turbines, and chemical factories. We know this, because , humans with intelligence, have created all these things. They exist on a molecular level, in each cell. Chance has never been demonstrated to have such capabilities. Therefore, it is rational to infer, that design is the more case-adequate explanation.

[@ZebecZT]

@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcomwell said

[@peppermintgal4302]

​@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom All systems contain information. Let's say you have a flood break out because a natural reservoir up in a mountain eroded its way into a new valley, producing a new river flow. Let's say the flood waters are rushing towards a juncture. Down one channel, the water is destined to meet a sinkhole deep in the earth that leads to the ocean via underground pathways. Down the other is a dead-end, a valley that is surrounded on every other side by hills the water won't be able to climb over. In this scenario, there's no way for the "water circuit" to know from the get go which way down the juncture the water should keep flowing. This information can't reach it from the destinations faster than light speed according to general relativity, and in fact, we can guess it won't reach any faster than the speed of waves in the water. And as a matter of fact, the destination must first _recieve_ information, in the form of the arrival of water, in order for a signal to be sent from there back to the juncture! So what happens is, when the water collides with the walls at the end of the second channel, it builds up momentarily, (because water is still being pushed in by the juncture,) and this produces a backup, (literally water seems to go "back up" the channel. Now, no individual molecule necessarily goes far, but there is a sort of reverse wave that goes up the channel.) That backup eventually reaches the juncture, and soon after, the "circuit" of water stabilizes --- the water in the second channel ceases flowing, and the juncture largely supplies water only to the first channel. Now, should we say that some kind of river God must have broken the reservoir to create this river, simply because the entire system calculates a stable flow rate for both channels, solving a mathemagical formula in the process? No, that'd be silly, right? The fact is, information is entropy. The amount of information necessary to describe the universe is constantly growing. That's because the universe is expanding, partly, but also because individual parts of it are growing more complex. This is a derivation of basic facts of statistics and the laws of large numbers. If every possible "microstate" (a state where nothing is unknown or unspecified, aka a state that is not vaguely described, but as specific as possible,) of the universe is almost equally likely, (and while I have no idea if they are, it's safe to say that any individual state should, not knowing anything of the universe beforehand, be roughly so,) then the most likely "macrostates" will be _large._ This means more metrics would be necessary to fill out the macrostate and give us a microstate. Those metrics are information. _Information is entropy!_ For more, I suggest reading up on Shannon Information Theory.

[@peppermintgal4302]

​@@ZebecZT No, it's terribly said, lol. All things have mathematically definable metrics that apply to them, and ergo, contain information. Whether it's a river, or a flow of electrons through a lightning bolt, or a hurricane, or a star, whatever it is, it's state changes perform mathematical calculations. There is a reason people doubt that black holes are well described by our current theories, its because mathematically, singularities destroy information, and that seems like it should be impossible.

[@charlesdrury9712]

I love it I have been studying evolution all my life on 76 and I just learned some very valuable information intelligent man

[@lordmetroid]

You do not need a container for something to compete, you need instability. The most stable RNA molecule would be the more fittest information carrier for example. Then when the strain of the ultimate stable RNA molecule would have been created one can then imagine that the competition amongst these strains to adapt even further stability by adding proteins, lipids and whatnot to available as a sort of skeleton to prevent the molecule from deteriorating before it could be replicated.

[@Esico6]

Where did the rna came from? 😂😂

[@stinkyboy111]

2:20 ball is life

[@toutagamon]

Can you please make your videos 720P? Thanks

[@Ryan44567]

@itsasin1969 I agree but your statement isn't sound. You said we can be certain that a X doesn't exist but I am certain that this particular X doesn't exist. If your premise is correct there is no way you can know if an X doesn't exist.

[@duydatyds]

more than 10 years had passed and we're still waiting for the first "evolvable matter" that this babbler was talking about let alone an artificial cell.

[@kinetic7609]

Lol

[@peppermintgal4302]

We made self replicating RNA molecules that do evolve, and in fact, evolved into an entire ecosystem. What is that but "evolvable matter"?

[@P1ranh4]

@ehpl It's how nature works, it doesn't have to be how society works... and it isn't.

[@redsbr]

Yeah we can look for "change over time," which is evolution in matter. But how do we know the difference between change that is evolution and change that isnt evolution? ALSO consider this. Evolution has no "goal." Evolution includes the survival of some properties while the elimination and change of others. So let me ask you this. How much of one thing is to survive and how much of one thing is to change for it to be considered evolution? What ratio? Evolution is just a colloquial term.

[@tcorp]

Excellent talk.

[@lordmetroid]

Smallest evolvable unit is not bacteria, it is simply a molecule made of several interconnected molecules that can spontaneously be copied by using the surrounding matter, id est self-replicating. To take a few examples from the organisms in existens, there are many self-replicating molecules but the most famous of them are DNA. However other kinds of molecules like RNA and protein can also make copies of itself and I am sure there are other molecules.

[@Melki]

the general rule is love, the inclination to keep on experiencing interactions forever. Life came about because its could contribute to love, because without life static stuff might be unsupportive of each other.

[@potaschlor]

What about viruses? Wouldn't they be the smallest evolvable unit? They don't fall within the definition of "life" because they don't have cell membranes and require the use of living cells to replicate. They are made of DNA or RNA housed inside a protein coat and they compete with other viruses and other lifeforms. Maybe you should try to spontaneously generate new viruses, though you'd need to be careful about containment to avoid an outbreak.

[@gregorysagegreene]

Given all the current theories on abiogenesis, and what we understand about the physics of the cosmos getting us from quarks to the periodic table and complex inorganic chemistry, is it not possible that the underlying driving forces of the Universe are not Evolution; but rather: Energy capture and utilization, ever-increasing complexity and differentiation, localized reduction of entropy.

[@derhafi]

Nobody ever laimed that the "underlying driving forces of the Universe" are "Evolution" What are you even talking about?

[@DaBamBamMan]

@S0up3rD0up3r Makes them feel better about not being able to comprehend that things change. Over a long period of time, big changes happen, resulting in offshoots of a specific organism. It's that simple, yet they refuse to believe it.

[@AleXGT7]

@Melki Except love is a human defined unique emotion. It really has no relation to even other animals on this planet let alone what inanimate objects that could come "alive".

[@peppermintgal4302]

Love is produced by physiological processes that we share with a number of other animals. I take it you've never owned a pet?

[@MumblingMickey]

Evolution is indeed a process always in motion. The price equation is indeed applied to more than evolution...its applied to meme theory, economics, engineering and design etc. So its not confined to biology. Cronins idea is basically a study of Catalysis. I think you could easily apply the price equation to that if you mapped the properties of chemicals. Although I accept it was not designed for that task.

[@axelasdf]

@GronTheMighty Because we're remarkably unique and interesting. We exist. If the universal constants were any different, we wouldn't. This machine consisting of all matter and energy managed to spit out something that could objectively view it. Something that could think and respond. We're pretty damn neat, and I like that we are here.

[@turoni314]

I admit that he might have oversimplified some 'stuff' but if you wanna read about the real deal you should probably go to 'his' website: /chem.gla.ac.uk/cronin/

[@triforcelink]

Matter already evolves. It is our perceptions that need to catch up.

[@2bsirius]

"The emergence of the first cells is as probably as the emergence of the stars." Great observation!

[@TheFounderUtopia]

@MarkoKraguljac I do see your point and I understand to a degree, but I think you are reading too much into it. I think it's an acceptable compromise to use anthropomorphizing as a tool to present a very simplistic overview of something you are mentioning in passing. One could say "compelled" rather than "want", but this begs the question of "how" which sidetracks the discussion and derails the original lecture. To not simplify is to be forced to address everything, there's a time and a place.

[@Zicid]

WHY DON'T LET HIM TO THINK ABOUT HE DOES,,, HIS THOUGHTS ARE RESPECFULL

[@billyg89]

@osemudiame123 you obviously didnt get the point of my comment. If i wanted to get specific i would've said that he thinks matter can replicate without nucleic acids. the point is that he thinks non organic molecules can carry replicable information and succeed in life in a stable way, which isn't true. proteins can't be made without carbon.

[@xSilverPhinxx]

@potaschlor Some people extend the definition of life to accommodate them, but I think this in turn makes it all more murky. We thing we'd know life if we saw it, but would we?

[@Classic_H_Radio]

where did the "soup" come from in the first place?

[@fakeshadowhunter2064]

Result of random chemical combination

[@Volound]

@killer2111994 the front of the shot. the rather suave and subtly irritated gentleman of arab extraction, with the goatee.

[@NarekAvetisyan]

how many atoms an average molecule has?

[@Melki]

@GuyTM Its our lack of ability to discover lovely solutions that causes the tendency towards selfish solutions, and by classifying all lies as lies for everybody, we will get there.

@Truthiness231 you understood me

[@yurikolovsky]

I agree. I assume that it is because they will end up with organic life instead of inorganic, while mixing carbon and water will make it organic

[@billyg89]

the absurd idea brought to the table in this lecture is that any single molecule, organic or non, is fighting to replicate, if you even watched the lecture.. This chemist just wants attention, he's trying to lift some scientific heavy weights in front of a popular audience for attention. Anyone who's studied chemistry knows why molecules react and that isn't their end. Chemicals dont have minds, they have stabilities.

[@LunarFuror]

@AshrielDrummer I hope to see more people like you around here.

[@melinatrix]

Evolution doesn't run on competition, Darwin's theory has been largely evolved itself beyond neodarwinian selfish genes, he should really take this more seriously. There are also considerations about what is life and is not that other scientists has already considered in larger contexts, as the Gaia theory. The most important seams to be the consequences of such technology can, an "intelligent", no-organic life friendly competitor? scary!

[@Jotto999]

@TahaNasserTV No no no, I'm talking about much more basic things than what was added in the bible here or there in history. Stuff like how omniscience is incompatible with reactive emotions, or that living after the death of the brain is impossible, etc. I don't need to know much about a squircle other than the fact that it has the properties of both a square and a circle in order know that it doesn't exist, because it has contradictory attributes. Most gods are that way (save for deism).

[@chriscross4004]

This didn't age very well for him.

[@rowshambow]

Why? What happened?

[@ZebecZT]

@@rowshambowdid you not hear what he said? in two years he’ll make life in a lab. that’s a massive claim, even the interviewer said that would be a story. 12 years later, nothing and now he says “origin of life research is a scam”

[@rowshambow]

@zebec9117 other people are working on it though in different countries. Also, decades ago people said we'd have flying cars, they never appeared in the way we thought they would, but now with drone technology we are seeing things like ehang and xpeng making it real

[@peppermintgal4302]

​@@ZebecZT He also stated that his tweet was a joke, and that no, origin of life research is not a scam. And depending on how you define life, we have made it synthetically. But yes, Lee was being overoptimistic... commonly observed in many fields of research. Reproducing life in the same way geochemistry did will require simulating hydrothermal vents, which is...to say its a challenge is an understatement.

[@peppermintgal4302]

​@@rowshambowZebec is misinformed, just a heads up. Lee has clarified the tweet was facetious, and did so... during a discussion with James Tour. Literally called him out right to his face for misrepresenting him.

[@txdmsk]

@AshrielDrummer I'm afraid you need to look up the word's definition in a dictionary if you find the inability to picture a universe without the gods unimaginative.

[@Melki]

I disagree and agree, matters such as air, rocks, are not slaves or dead, they are free beings keeping their discipline to support love, to have interactions to keep on happening. They are not dead things they are lovely beings, that had supported our existence and the growing of our way of thinking since our very beginnings. They are like our parents, sacrificed for us even when we are childish, selfish, cocky. Our source of expertise is from respecting them.

[@rwwanon]

Jeez, this guy just basically rambled for 15 minutes.

[@Kojak7snap]

@PoeticJustice05 The strongest, fastest, most intelligent cheetah will drop like a rock in the desert, and the most adaptable and resilient plants have none of those three characteristics. Fittest, in this context, means most suited; the sloth or snail is well suited to it's niche in the biosphere, regardless of weakness, lack of relative intelligence, and lack of speed.

[@RoboticusMusic]

@gaiagale although we are now here today because it did. That is what many theorists are basing their life work off of.

[@HamsterPants522]

@invinciblemode Your solid argument wouldn't happen to completely ignore Jesus' supposed immortal resurrection, would it? Not trying to turn this into an argument about religion, just saying I disagree.

[@Damazigh]

@kid29a That's why it's called a theory and he's working on proving it... These talks are not about facts that we already know, they are about thinking outside the box. You are not going to get a definitive answer or convincing argument in a 15 min clip.

[@xinlo]

@TahaNasserTV He's not saying that he's judging the nature of God. In fact, he's making quite a bit of room for it. The only one he has ruled out is the Bible/Quran God, and I suppose this is on the basis that it carries the characteristics of Anselm's God, which is logically impossible. Sure, you can argue that we know so little that the laws of logic aren't actually as we see it, but we can still say all this in perspective of what we understand. This statement does not deserve your attacks.

[@yurikolovsky]

The line between alive and non alive is very blurry, so the fire would be pretty much alive if it had a concrete body, for example he mentioned that he believes that alive things are "fires in a container"

[@DreamsCatcher101]

I love the end where he says the chances are 100%, my thoughts exactly. I have thought since a child that the universe is so huge and so ancient that the chances of something happening only once is statistically impossible. And if it has happened, then it can happen. So the only once stat applies. I bet we have had millions of neighbours at one time of other. Same as right now we have millions of neighbours in different galaxies. And made from matter we cant even contemplate.

[@osemudiame123]

@mitkoogrozev that would work but must people would disagree with it because they want to feel special

[@MarkoKraguljac]

@xjaskix c> It might sound petty and jaded as you say but this deformed and unscientific approach is all around us. It is damaging and does not promote true understanding. People should not be constantly fed with ideas that in science everything is under control. It is not. Allowing people to see how little we know and understand could motivate them better to take part in it. We still school legions of "experts" in economy, a "science" whose conclusion ends with "invisible hand". Not benign.

[@Melki]

@Melki get to have a peaceful sustaining and satisfying world

@GrudgyDiablo whatever...you understood me

[@axelasdf]

@tky011 Yeah, I don't believe any of that either. I was brought up in a ridiculously small town with a small church (only 15 or so people in regular service, maybe 50 at Christmas/Easter) and outside of the ceremony these people created a community. We ran the food shelter and organized funding for well drilling and introducing agriculture. We helped people out when misfortune struck. When I went to youth group, we learned REAL reasons why we shouldn't do certain things.

[@Melki]

@bindlessMoredom well scientist explained that state of materials are governed by fields in the universe. So what we could touch and feel is like tip of the iceberg of existence. Water, air, rocks took their state by following laws, that's my conclusion.

[@TopGunYesTopGun]

@wachi03 Yeah and he is using really confusing language that obscures the interesting points he should be making. What now, carbon doesn't count as 'matter'? And he seems to identify 'organic' (as in, organic chemistry) with being alive. Organic chemistry just means carbon based. Not everything that is carbon based is alive, and whether on the other hand life needs carbon based chemistry is an interesting question, but the answer wouldn't radically change our understanding of what life 'means'.

[@StopFear]

Thank God!

[@Cognosium]

That, of course, is a far more plausible hypothesis. Furthermore, it may even be that such systems may have already have arisen. Unlike carbon based biology, however, they could not have progressed very far, the configurational options being very limited.

[@TahaNasser]

@xinlo He is saying, categorically, judging the nature of God by saying that God of the Abrahamic Religions cannot exist. That sounds like a fairly concrete judgement to me. I read and hear comments like this all the time, every day - the vast majority are made by people who haven't studied comparative religion. Most of them have read very little of the bible and even less of the Quran (most people who have an issue with Islam have never read the Quran or have some orientalist translation of it)

[@MOADAM2010]

@BlizBob : YES SORRY THNX MATE :-)

[@MumblingMickey]

@eduTouY Its a 10 minute lecture? less than 1/6th the time any student would sit through in a single lecture.... What exactly would you like to walk away with after 10 minutes....? I think he's presuming the audience would be familiar with basic chemistry, biocybernetics and biology.... and where he didn't demonstrate anything other than the basic premise he doesn't have to, its already out there...why would he need to go over everything in the public domain all over again?

[@osemudiame123]

@billyg89 what's your point? most living things don't have minds

[@ratje67]

I'm thrilled to live in a time where science is breaching the frontiers into the unimaginable! Maybe we should pause arguing about the religious consequences for a while. Just go blank and hear these nerds out first

[@DeoMachina]

Well best of luck to him, but I fear none of us are going to live to see where this can go.

[@ZebecZT]

12 years and still nothing.

[@TahaNasser]

@Jotto999 you dont realise that the original teachings of Jesus were exactly in accordance with the teachings of the Quran, the unity of God, the judgement of the hereafter and the development of spirituality in this life. All the stuff now associated with Christianity was introduced by Paul and Peter, who rejected the beliefs of the Ebionites (the original Christians who basically believed in a simplified form of what the Quran teaches). There is no contradiction if you have a little knowledge.

[@vinny184]

This man absolutely nuked religious fanaticism on ool. Completely made Dr J Tour, the frontman of christopseudoscientism, act like a lost small child without ad hominem statements. Such a smart man.

[@gonzalo1465]

was absolutely the opposite 😂

[@Not1delusion]

I usually love TED talks. But this one seems to have a few too many incorrect statements and false dichotomies for me. I'm not sure if it's because he's trying to be entertaining, but it's not the accuracy I'm used to.

[@madreamer]

So in 2011 He said he's gonna make life in His lab in 4 years. it's 2022 still dead stuff in His lab.

[@derhafi]

So, it’s not been done yet…That however does not add credibility to the position of the scientifically illiterate faith-based-cult members who think that there is a credible alternative to abiogenesis. Neither has anyone demonstrated that the supernatural exists, nor that is interferes with reality. Whilst abiogenesis research has made a lot of progress over the last decade..…theists seem to be stuck at the same place ever since somebody invented the God…sorry, “intelligence” they happen to believe in.

[@peppermintgal4302]

We've made self reproducing RNA molecules, which have grown in complexity since then without intervention to form ecosystems.

[@damith219]

Oh come one... When would people get a joke? :) Besides, I'm not saying that Dawkins is at a fault here. I just wanted to point out that inorganic abiogenesis is not THAT novel an idea. Regardless, the results shown in the talk are phenomenal to the advancement of the subject...

[@Iker888]

@happinessfaction It's an understandable point. Cheers.

[@MOADAM2010]

@LondonIrishRover : ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO CREATED IT :-) ??? DON'T TURN AROUND !!!

[@eschersky]

@wachi03 You're right. He however don't seem to think in a way an ''every grad student in biological sciences'' would.

[@LexoG33]

@jackooboy1 That is true, but life had to have originated somewhere and there is evidence it has been here on Earth for most of its existence. Life may have not originated here on Earth but wherever it did had to have allowed nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids to come together in an aqueous solution.

[@rwwanon]

@AustralianAllTheWay In that case, they should have considered inviting someone fully capable of speech to talk about it.

[@AnirbanBandyopadhyay]

2011 he says he will make life in 2 years. Today is 2019, he makes elementary chemical computers

[@AvNotasian]

Yeah I think he got side tracked :P

[@peppermintgal4302]

We've made autocatalytic RNA that formed an entire ecosystem of interdependent strains in its own. It's debatable whether that constitutes life, sure, but it's definitely evolvable matter lol.

[@snylekkie]

3:31 spot the massive yawn to the left!! hahaha

[@michaelkuhn6195]

Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”

[@derhafi]

Well...Dean Kenyon is also a young Earth creationist. NObody should give a damn about whatever his opinion is.

[@michaelkuhn6195]

How could ammonia (NH3), the precursor for amino acid synthesis, have accumulated on prebiotic earth, if the lifetime of ammonia would be short because of its photochemical dissociation? How could prebiotic events have delivered organosulfur compounds required in a few amino acids used in life, if in nature sulfur exists only in its most oxidized form (sulfate or SO4), and only some unique groups of procaryotes mediate the reduction of SO4 to its most reduced state (sulfide or H2S)? How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth? How was the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products avoided? Etc etc

[@Esico6]

@@derhafi Well I don’t think you know better.

[@Esico6]

@@michaelkuhn6195 yes its way to complex. All those questions are not addressed by fantasy science.

[@derhafi]

@@Esico6 You don't think I don't know the age of the earth better than an "young Earth creationist" ? Adorable!

[@Volound]

13:28 muslim is obviously not amused by all this heathen talk.

[@Elephantintheroom01]

@Jeffersonwazright Britian had many chances to oust its loyals, in the same way France did. But we chose not to. When we passed the magna carta, we still only forced the king to sign it. When we amended it with the bill of rights, which curtailed the powers of the king, we also curtailed the powers of the Vatican, who claimed he could be killed. And yes, none of the poleticians since the founders have shown so much dicipline. Except perhapse Lincoln.

[@AtheistKharm]

@itsasin1969 I can't believe your comment got so many up votes.... awesome.

[@ZZzzzzzWhat]

The advance of scientific research makes me positive about the future. And if it wasn't for the ignorant dogma we would know much more about the natural world by now.

[@KimoLovesJesusLoves]

@TahaNasserTV Also the comming of Christ is salvation. The purity of heart and spirituality and almsgiving are all need for the price to take you to heaven. Unlike your prophet...now dont let me get started on him.

[@jacobreinvented]

Single cell the smallest unit that can evolve? - A virus can evolve. Oh so can RNA, which have been shown to spontaneously polymerize under conditions similar to those thought to have been present on early earth. Where was this guy for the last century or so?

[@RGMadSimon]

Lol @ the guy jumping up and asking about deadlines. After craig venter's exaggerated claims they're getting more critical :)

[@axelasdf]

@marcotmcom If you give them enough time, they will develop their own reactions to interference with their processes, likely.

[@MumblingMickey]

@MOADAM2010 Caps reduce readability by up top 60%, they are a serious turn off... Considering reading from a standard LCD display also reduces readability and comprehension by 30%... this leaves your comments having a total effect of about 12%.... If caps done anything at all to increase readability every book would be printed in upper case. Try that on for knowledge.

EVOLUTION = CRAZYNES

[@archaeopteryxxxx]

Carl Sagan used to say we were "Star 'Stuff,'" - should we fault Dawkins for using it as well?

[@pikkuadi]

2013 here we come

[@AshrielDrummer]

@GuyTM Thanks, I try to be, and I agree, it is counterproductive. I hate being told that if I think God exists, I have to throw science out the window. To reject science is foolishness, but the existence of science is not enough for me to disregard the possibility of a divine hand. I've drawn my own conclusions about the universe we live in, but in today's society where Christianity seems so looked down upon, it's mostly pointless arguing with people who think their thoughts are so "special."

[@TheHitlister]

This is "the thing" that was discovered this month in the 🐍

[@TheHitlister]

iCHELLS

[@violet101]

this guy sounds a bit lik ricky gervais

[@Iker888]

@happinessfaction Look, this guy is not an orator, much less a politicitan who is contantly aware of what to say and what not to. TED talks are meant for educated people and it is implied, if you know anything about Darwinism, that the word "fittest" should not be interpreted as "strongest", or "most intelligent", or "fastest". And while I agree that Social Darwinism is dangerous, I don't think most people take it into consideration when talking about the science of evolution itself.

[@Ko252]

@sdrawkcabgnipytmi It entitles your genetical makeup, your previous experience, your undestanding of the situation (which is made up by the two former parameters), your wanted result (based on the previous), etc. There is no choice. All these affects the sensation of any given situation, your understanding of it and your wished result. I have read about the same study too. And regarding your last question; let me put it this way. Lets say you was thought that taking money from other would put