Michael Russel: On the Emergence of Life Through "Negative" Entropy Trapping

[@MrKmanthie]

This isn't a simple "public lecture"-type talk, meant for a "general" audience. Russell isn't expecting to have to explain all the things about which people are complaining in comments. This is most definitely not a "science for kids" talk or for the average guy off the street. This seems to be part of a larger conference dealing with origins of life, paleogeology, chemistry; separate talks that should, after all are put together, put together a mosaic of sorts that, to interested parties, may be quite fascinating.

[@ryansteve2893]

I just wish he wasn't a nervous wreck giving this lecture.

[@DiedraGoodwin]

This is great stuff. I've been interested in the alkaline vent theory of the origin of life for a few years but this is the first time I've found this presentation by Russel himself, the originator of the idea. It wouldn't be going too far to say that there now is an origin theory for life for the first time, as none of the others come close to being this complete.

[@A3Kr0n]

Apparently I've watched this because it's already got a thumbs up. I'll put this here so I can see when I saw it this time.

[@williamjackson4470]

At the beginning. He mentioned two books. The first one he commented on he did not give the title for. Anyone can help be to locate the book? O r know what the title is.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

can you spell his last name correctly in the vid title? It's Michael Russell with a 2nd "L" at the end of his last name. Would you change that? thanks

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

A.G. Cairns-Smith approves of this video

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

generating vinegar?

[@zagyex]

Could someone help in explaining the process at 15:32 to a layman ? How is that uphill path completed, how does such a reaction take place? Is the mechanism known, and just rare? Or would some other factor needed to be involved in jumping that uphill "barrier" ? IS that something unique to this hypothesis on life? I would like to understand the causality of that reaction - what facilitates it? Is it randomly initiated and then somehow self-feeding? It could be illustrated with a hose that can pull down petrol from your car tank after giving it a bit of vacuum? Is the mechnism somehow similar to that?

[@00febiva]

You need an input of free energy (dG = +ve) to go from CO2 to formate and therefore the reaction is thermodynamically unfavourable (an uphill reaction). In methanogens, a process called flavin-based electron bifurcation is used to produce ferredoxin - a carrier of low-potential electrons. The low-potential electrons can then be used to reduce CO2, which is essentially a downhill reaction (dG = -ve). During carbon metabolism, a proton gradient is also formed. The dissipation of the proton gradient via an energy converting hydrogenase (Ech) then releases free energy to generate more reduced ferredoxin, which once again enters the CO2 metabolic pathway. This forms the carbon metabolism pathway in methanogens. However, in the alkaline hydrothermal vents, the natural proton gradient (pH unit difference between the compartment is ~ 5 units) is the driving force that performs the first step of hydrogenation of CO2 (uphill reaction). At neutral pH, the redox potential of H2/2H+ couple is ~415mV, whereas the redox potential of CO2/CH2O is ~600 mV. Inside the alkaline hydrothermal vents, the pH of the solution is around 11, which lowers the redox potential of the H2/H+ couple to around -650 mV (worked out using the nernst equation). At this pH inside the vents, the hydrogenation of CO2 is a downhill reaction since the redox potential of H2/2H+ couple if more negative than the CO2/CH2O and as you know electrons flow from -ve to +ve. [Check reference: ‘An Origin-of-Life Reactor to Simulate Alkaline Hydrothermal Vents’ - Figure 1 shows what I said above in picture and the detail is easier to follow on the picture. f you read any of Nick Lane’s papers, you’ll understand more about how it may have all come together. He’s published some amazing papers on the origin of life! Hope this helps :)

[@zagyex]

@@00febiva Thanks a lot, this really helps !!

[@kennethbransford820]

@@00febiva Isn't this noting but energy usage and where it came from and how much is used? Chemical reaction needing inputs of energy for cause and effect? ==== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ======

[@patldennis]

@@kennethbransford820 the energy for chemical reactions is in the bonds that electrons form and the positive negative attraction between nuclei and electrons

[@johnandrew2711]

NCMR Inventing Method book Discovery chapter CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE and has been experimentally verified.

[@TheSunRevolvesAroundMe]

The protons called, They want their nickleback.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

The microtubules called...it doesn't matter, you're their best-seller!

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@19:55 I don't think acidulous is the correct term.

[@okfanriffic3632]

it is a word. . . . . . . . adjective sharp-tasting; sour. (of a person's remarks or tone) bitter; cutting.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

I didn't say it wasn't a word, I said I don't think it is the correct term. Try reading before replying.

[@robjames4160]

DNAunion - Acidulous is a correctly used term in its description of the conditions and this is not the only instance of its use in describing those conditions. Granted, it is no longer a commonly used word outside of this context, so the standard dictionary meaning lacks the descriptive essence necessary for its contextual application in this instance. However, it is not being used incorrectly. I hope this helps.

[@MrKmanthie]

Rob James ...LOL in other words, just because youngsters can't or won't speak proper English words and/or idioms doesn't mean they're not correct. I, for one, refuse to bow to mass idiocy & lower myself to speaking incorrectly just because "everyone else is" speaking that way.

[@robjames4160]

Je M'EnFous - "Youngsters"? LOL! On the contrary - language is designed to convey meaning, with increasing semantic resolution denoting an increase in the specificity of the idea or meaning being conveyed. One cannot simply use broad strokes with language and expect the communication to maintain the requisite granularity. Long story short - not using proper English words and/or idioms DOES, in fact, mean they're not correct. Correctness requires accuracy. I'll put it this way - hitting a dartboard with a bus doesn't mean someone has good aim, does it? "...but dude, I like, TOTALLY hit the bullseye though - that's gotta count for SOMETHING..." Lolz. Oh, youngsters...

[@jerubaal3333]

Peptide takeover??! :D))) By power of predestination and good teleonomic intention?

[@teefkay2]

_”… a pretty oxidized surface.”_ ??? This guy really sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, & I’m an engineering amateur, but … Perhaps I’m not understanding what he’s saying, but everything I’ve read says “there was no free oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere until “the great oxidation”, which is CLEARLY visible in the geological record, as happening 3+ billion years after life begins, & photosynthesis evolves & starts pumping oxygen into the atmosphere. According to every paleogeologist I’ve ever heard talk about the early earth (the best being Dr. Robert Hazen of Carnegie institute, there was NO oxygen available to “oxidize the surface of the earth”who describes the evolution of earth’s minerals in great detail, and further that this great oxidation was the cause of the greatest extinction of life in earth’s history, as oxygen poisoned the 99% of life that was anaerobic bacteria. I agree completely with what he is trying to accomplish, abiogenesis thru purely natural chemistry.

[@ChrisJohnsonHome]

When scientists talk about lots of "oxygenation" happening in hydrothermal vents, they're not talking about a world full of oxygen. This is redox chemistry (reduction - oxidation) which is terrible terminology in my opinion since it often has less to do with oxygen, and more to do with electrons. Even worse: in a reduction reaction there is no reduction in the quantities of electrons, reduction actually means the opposite: "gaining electrons". Whoever invented these terms should be taken to court for the millions of human hours wasted on learning these terrible choice of words 😅

[@isharafat]

I am amazed he talked for over half an hour without connecting the dots and making the point at the end! What a waste of time.

[@bobhicks1696]

Did you notice too, that at the end, he introduces RNA "wherever it comes from", and says "we don't know much about it"... and that clears up everything.

[@Clearbluejay]

Imran Sharafat I actually got a lot from that!

[@alexmijo]

Definitely not a waste of time at all

[@donfox1036]

Ironic that CO2 and methane may have been involved for the beginning of the emergence of life, and maybe important t it’s end.

[@elfootman]

a rather anthropocentric view...

[@zagyex]

end? you mean it gets a bit warmer...right.

[@patldennis]

Well... all of the carbon in your body was once CO2

[@esrefcelikcelik8789]

There is absolutely nothing proving this claims.

[@mcmanustony]

empirical science doesn't deal with proof. Do you know how books work.

[@esrefcelikcelik8789]

@@mcmanustony you are bullshitting. Emprical means based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

[@mcmanustony]

@@esrefcelikcelik8789 Exactly: logic and mathematics generally deal with proof- empirical science does not. All theories are open to new data.....unlike yourself, it seems.