New Origin of Life Research Shows Alien Life may be Common with Dr. Steven Benner

Use EV55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3NocbT0
A breakthrough in RNA research has been found, life may be far easier to get started than we previously thought possible.
www.liebertpub...
Steven Benner heads the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, which he founded after serving on faculty at Harvard, ETH Zurich, and University of Florida. His research combines two traditions in science, one from natural history, the other from the physical sciences. His laboratory has been a leader in the field of synthetic biology, where it has redesigned DNA to better understand how these molecules work, generate new classes of diagnostics tools, and to open new avenues to disease therapy. Separately, he also created the field of paleogenetics, his work also guides NASA missions to search for alien life and how life originated. His most recent book is: "Life, the Universe, and the Scientific Method."
Steven Benner links:
primordialscoo...
www.ffame.org/
amzn.to/3aPTfQ0
KZbin Membership: / @eventhorizonshow
Podcast: anchor.fm/john...
Apple: apple.co/3CS7rjT
More JMG
/ johnmichaelgodier
Want to support the channel?
Patreon: / eventhorizonshow
Follow us at other places!
@JMGEventHorizon
Music:
stellardrone.b...
migueljohnson....
leerosevere.ba...
aeriumambient....
FOOTAGE:
NASA
ESA/Hubble
ESO - M.Kornmesser
ESO - L.Calcada
ESO - Jose Francisco Salgado (josefrancisco.org)
NAOJ
University of Warwick
Goddard Visualization Studio
Langley Research Center
Pixabay

[@EventHorizonShow]

Do you think life is everywhere? Use EV55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3NocbT0

[@modyshapel3158]

I would hope so, what would fascinates me is their culture>technology. Yeah the technology would without a doubt be interesting, with culture on the other hand. I feel we may learn far more than we can currently comprehend especially if they have become a society with the means of intergalactic travel. Idk just my thoughts ahah.

[@spindoctor6385]

I think life will be common, possibly tens of millions of instances in our galaxy. I do not think that will produce many advanced technological species. It would be lucky to have 1 per galaxy at any given time. I don't believe a great filter prevents it, just many smaller filters.

[@RAPsubliminalz]

Yes. We can go prove it right now. In fact, we slowly are. Once we go through the plumes of the ice moons of Saturn and Jupiter, you will find life in the collection of elements in those plumes. We should have already done this. Europa has thought to harbor life for 40 years in its oceans that are many times more vast than our oceans. For some reason we keep talking about Mars?!? Why? Not sure….. Mars probably had evidence of past life somewhere in its crust. We can’t even get the soil sample. We keep F’n that up. Meanwhile, we’ve discovered life in the atmosphere of Venus. We are just going to take our time with announcing the evidence of the chemicals in the atmosphere even though we only know the combination to be created by life. We thought Venus’s extreme green house runaway affect would have killed all life, but in the upper atmosphere you have temps of 70 degrees F. That is San Diego weather. Why wouldn’t there be life in that P

[@headcultee]

I wrote a paper called chemistry of life from the perspective of Earth being a cooling star on vixra Author:ivo van der rijt. I expect life to form on the bottom of an ocean world in cavities (protection of rocks,glasses). Stromatolites are a great example of early life.

[@nicholasmills6489]

I think that rna is a major precursor for the existence of life. It was implied that the starting rna was a simple process. Obviously each stage of evolution is a barrier but just maybe life is easier than we thought. If it is then our universe turns on its head. Todays programme and discussion has brought us one step closer to understanding the degree of life in our universe. We still think we’re unique. I don’t believe we are. It’s actually frightening. We really need to grow up as a species and maybe understanding the level of evolution in the universe will truly push humanity in the right direction.

[@Brownkid422]

I like this guy. The depth and diversity of characters you interview is unparalleled, truly an underrated channel, kudos.

[@ssgssbeet4133]

It doent hurt that john is a fantastic interviewer… he asks good questions and never interrupts.. this man can shine as much as any star out there.. ha

[@derp195]

"The mistake was that they were too invested in the idea of *not* finding life" This kind of thing is one of the most frustrating things with the larger scientific community. You test for life, get a positive result, then accept whatever rationalization you can think of to say that the result was a mistake. That's not science - that's bias.

[@ominous-omnipresent-they]

Not only is that science; it's responsible science.

[@waynebimmel6784]

@@ominous-omnipresent-they No its not. If the general consensus would be positive on life on Mars it would be actually good science to doubt that. They were just holding up their bias to keep their funding. I remember a time when it was considered lunacy to look for exoplanets and the thought of their existence was crackpot territory. It's the same with most sciences, wrong theories only die out when their proponents have died.

[@Crabfather]

EXACTLY! Who knows how many instances of proof we have found, and cast aside due to that bias.

[@ominous-omnipresent-they]

@@Crabfather Bias, why because it's not done the way you'd like?

[@Crabfather]

@@ominous-omnipresent-they no, I'd really like to know one way or the other but the method they use seems to come from a standpoint that anything they investigate won't be life before they even start.

[@SilentThespian]

I think interviewing Robin Hanson about his Grabby Aliens theory would be a good idea.

[@landgsmith]

Great interview with Lex Fridman recently.

[@DodgeThis]

Isaac Arthur spoke of this before.

[@ringberar]

Please please please interview Robin Hanson about Grabby Aliens. PLEASE @eventhorizon

[@lukecarter9287]

Agree he is an interesting mind… definitely think it would make a great episode for event horizon!

[@aetheronautsomnid5261]

You mean the clingy aliens? As in CLINGONS!?!?!

[@Tomwesstein]

Nice timing, I’ll be taking a 10h flight in a few hours so I’m downloading this one!

[@PrincipalSkinner3190]

Safe travels!

[@nyax129]

I wish I was going on a 10 hrs flight! Have fun!

[@Ronaldo-vs3uh]

Enjoy your flight

[@MCsCreations]

Safe travel! And have fun! 🖖😊

[@NetanyahooWarCriminal]

Hawaii?

[@RealBelisariusCawl]

This man sounds like Jeff Goldblum without the uhs. I mean that in the most complimentary possible sense. I love listening to this man talk. Good choice of guest, John!

[@awaitingaliens7664]

Yes, finally more discussion/ confirmation that the labelled release experiment worked and was positive. I'm a retired clinical microbiologist. I also concur that life was found in 1976.

[@ericvosselmans5657]

Agreed. A lot of Mainstream scientists go out of their way to easily dismiss or provide ever more unlikely non-biological explanations to explain the results of these kinds of experiments or phenomena. Take the the cyanide mystery on Titan. While ubiquitous higher up, on the surface there is a depletion of cyanide. Apparently some sort of process uses the cyanide. A non-biological, geological explanation is more unlikely (implying some sort of unknown class of out-of-this-world catalysts with some extremely unlikely properties) than a biological one. However, Mainstream science does prefer the geological explanation. The existence of Thermococcus gammatolerans is another. It seems likely, to uneducated me, that it evolved in some high gamma-ray environment, which puts it's evolutionary origins outside of earth's atmosphere. My guess is that at least some sort of rock-eating and/or radiation resistant life is abundant almost everywhere in the solar system. Buried deep in rocks, they wouldn't even notice an asteroid impact that slings a rock from here to Mars or beyond.

[@coolguydoc1]

Can you go into more detail about this 76 experiment . Was it found in space ?

[@edgarcastrobathen8094]

I admire your ability to make good questions . Signed. Edgar Castro. Astronomy, Galileo University, Guatemala.

[@madmattdigs9518]

Great guest. Very good at explaining his work in a way we can understand. Mostly…

[@tescomaniac]

this one is one of the toughest and most technical episode you've done Michael, albeit fascinating....must watch again thank you

[@stevencoardvenice]

The idea is that RNA might form spontaneously if certain chemicals are in contact with volcanic rock. The early earth was covered in fresh volcanic rock. If you can make RNA, you're already half way to DNA

[@surgeonslices9543]

I think this has to be one of the best episodes yet, thank you.

[@OShackHennessy]

This should be the biggest channel on KZbin

[@ourcommonancestry6025]

Great post. I wish you would explore the Silurian Hypothesis more so people may distinguish between Terrestrially organic, Non Terrestrial in Origin (NTO), and truly alien.

[@RoissyAngel]

Doctor!

[@joskomaslina1662]

"When you look out into the skies above you at night and you imagine how vast it is, it is important to understand that this universe is full of life." _Preparing for the Greater Community - Chapter 1: What is the Greater Community?_

[@oldschoolman1444]

Yup! Lot's of life out there, just to far away to communicate. It's probably best that way because humans have some funny beliefs! 😄

[@himynameis3664]

@@oldschoolman1444 I'm pretty sure if we contacted E.T life right at this moment in time that the aliens would just be embarrassed for us. Like you said strange beliefs, all our trivial arguments, denying absolute facts and murdering each other by the millions. How we've even managed to get an object up into orbit is actually amazing when you think of all the dumb stuff people think and do

[@9thebear]

@@himynameis3664 Any life form that got to the top of its food chain will be hyper competitive, ruthless and warlike, or it simply won’t make it to the top. I think we need some caution.

[@himynameis3664]

@@9thebear Ya truth is if there was a lack of understanding in our communication they may simply decide to destroy us as a precautionary measure. Not knowing whether we're hostile could be plenty of reason for them to make the first moce

[@joskomaslina1662]

@@9thebear I think the book quoted would be pretty interesting to you. You are kinda half correct because it talks about how these competitive races have evolved beyond physical warfare and now use the power of persuasion and manipulation in the mental environment.

[@jamielondon6436]

When I hear discussions like this, I can't help but wonder whether we haven't found alien life yet *because* we're so fascinated with it - as paradoxical as that may sound! We're fascinated with the idea, so it became a large part of our (pop) culture, which means that any scientists seriously trying to dig into the question risks being painted into that corner. There are a few courageous ones, like Avi Loeb, but that might not be enough … Ironically, many scientists are probably science fiction nerds, as well, and might even have gone into science because of that. :-/

[@Ronaldo-vs3uh]

Love the topics as always

[@robertpickles1858]

John that was a brilliant episode knocked it out the park again. Please please tell me that it wasn't just me who thought he sounded a bit like Jeff Goldblum.....was desperate for him to say life finds a way....would have been perfect

[@potatoeater]

I came down here to the comments to see if anyone else heard it.

[@lorddoinkus9912]

Thank you for amazing interview. I've personally been looking forward to this interview. Seriously thank you for everything you do and for being an inspiration to people getting into the fields of science or just interested in science in general.

[@LukeLightbringer]

Love this but at the end did he confirm Covid 19 was a result of human gain of function research?

[@stephendownie1405]

I heard the same thing...

[@revan3841]

Nice of him to drop a truth bomb there. Been clear from the beginning based on the early evidence.

[@LukeLightbringer]

@@revan3841 yea but it’s odd that it was like, how it was, just said and not awknoleged

[@revan3841]

@@LukeLightbringer yeah, that's fair. wonder if John decided to just let it ride.

[@venerablearcanum]

Yes. I noticed that, too. Better tell Susan and get the channel canceled!

[@markxxx21]

The 2021 NTP experiment started with nucleoside concentrations corresponding to quadrillions (thousands of trillions) of nucleoside molecules in a volume smaller than a drop of water. Such large concentrations were essential for sufficient NTPs to be generated that could link into RNA molecules at a rate that would outpace RNA degradation. The chance of even a few hundred nucleobases emerging on the early earth at the same time in the same location is beyond remote. In addition, the 2021 study required concentrations of CTMP that could never have occurred naturally. Even if one granted high concentrations of NTPs, the recent study still offers meager support for the RNA World hypothesis. RNA consists of nucleotides joined by what are termed 3’-5’ linkages. But the chains generated in the study also included 2’-5’ linkages as well as additional branching.

[@AmericanPatriot1776AP]

We all are naive to think the entire universe was created just for life on planet earth. " The little blue dot" I believe basic life is everywhere, while intelligent life is also throughout the universe as well.

[@omgmoreheals]

I follow all your work with great interest. Criminally under-rated and very much shared and appreciated. Patreon time..

[@EventHorizonShow]

Appreciate it!

[@K1lostream]

I don't know if life is 'everywhere' but this kind of thought is one of the things that help me in my attempts to comprehend the sheer mind-buggering scale of the universe..... It's like Supernovae - they're RARE - so much so, in our galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars, we might expect one per century or so, yet there are so many galaxies out there, we can observe several every night if we look in the right places. Similarly if life is so rare only one star per galaxy hosts it (at odds of hundreds of billions-to-one against) there will still be hundreds of billions of examples of life within our observable universe.... I still know I can't intuit the scale of the universe, but thoughts like that help me grasp it just a little.

[@tommyroche9142]

Mind-buggering ? 😲

[@K1lostream]

@@tommyroche9142 Yes, perhaps it is a phrase peculiar to where I live, but surely you catch my drift? Look at the vast expanses of the sahara, or the Canadian tundra, or Antarctica, and realise the whole lot together is a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot compared to the distance to even the nearest star…. When you start to get a feel for it (and even that feeling will still be wholly inadequate) it’ll make your brain turn somersaults!

[@oldebookandoddshop1510]

We really just know so little and have such miniscule capabilities.

[@coolguydoc1]

It’s little but more than you think . Once space production starts we can expand unlimited . Space is the new usa

[@alexanderwhyte5316]

This was a good guest. He seemed very engaged with the interview.

[@ringberar]

What a fantastic and INTERESTING interview. Wow!

[@samdog8087]

Somebody fire Noory and give Mr. Godier a call.

[@cytron5000]

The guest provides an RNA-centric view. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. I think this assumes that there is a general molecular fitness landscape across different prebiotic environments and RNA represents some robust global optimum. I think RNA was likely tuned to Earth's specific prebiotic condition, based on available substrate, solvent, temp, raw materials, and input energy stream. If these conditions change does RNA win the Darwinian selection as the champion replicator?

[@The_SOB_II]

Yeah honestly shrimp aren't even that cold anymore on a Kelvin scale

[@markjones336]

To be even asking that question is to show we have a lot to learn!We are really quite stupid!

[@v.prestorpnrcrtlcrt2096]

@11:00 the picture made me think Chromecast dropped the feed. At that moment there was a pause in audio as well. Glad you started talking again.

[@jwhitely7]

Commenting to help with KZbin's algorithm 🙂

[@sneffels_]

Great discussion. Too bad it comes with those contemptible ads.

[@michaelleblanc7283]

If not everywhere, most certainly all over the place.

[@jesnoggle13]

I was at a Star Trek convention in San Antonio in 1976 when the results of the labeled release experiment was announced. The place went wild!

[@noodles169]

Gotta be other life forms out there. Even if the universe is finite, the odds against there not being other life would be unimaginably small

[@09Ateam]

Rare Earth Hypothesis is supported by facts. The supposed odds are irrelevant.

[@fugeefaceentropy7008]

Assumptions, no evidence.

[@russellmillar7132]

I agree with what appears to be your assertion. Given the estimated number of planets in our universe that could possibly host life ( Goldilocks zone, liquid water, breathable atmosphere, etc.), the likelihood that a percentage of them would have life seems quite high. In order to be able to actually compute that number, though, we would need to have known values to plug in to the variables in the Drake Equation. However, the number of these that would have intelligent life capable of, or interested in, interacting with creatures from other planets, plunges the seeming likelihood back to the single digits. The 3.8 billion years since the time that theorists believe life may have began on our lovely planet, has seen mass extinctions, environmental upheavals, asymmetrical heating and cooling, during which time life on Earth was reduced numerous times by factors of 90-96%. The fact that mammals (us) exist today is owing the fact that one group of ratty ancestors to all mammals (Ikaria Wariootia ) survived the impact event that spelled the doom of all non-avian dinosaurs with sufficient population to continue the evolutionary path that led to US.

[@coolguydoc1]

Out of trillions everything exists . Only dumb people think that isn’t true . It’s equivalent to thinking earth is square the center of the universe

[@deusexaethera]

Explain to me how a supercomputer AI, presumably without a nose, can possibly have preferences regarding perfumes?

[@westsaxon]

Fantastic! Thank you so very much.

[@stricknine6130]

Another great interview! Thanks!

[@Pandoracasting]

You deserve more followers.

[@nicholasmills6489]

Absolutely life all around us. Oxygen, obviously hydrogen and carbon was it noted in early galaxy 350m to 800m years old. The existence of life in our universe came forward by half billion years. At 13.8bn years we’re late to the party. IMO. Keep up the good work. Excellent channel.

[@ericvosselmans5657]

yes definitely. The stuff to create Life was present in large enough amounts billions of years before the creation of our planet.

[@nicholasfullerton238]

Great listen thanks again John.

[@Aginor88]

Great interview.

[@awaitingaliens7664]

Yes, life is everywhere.

[@jamescollier3]

yes, of course

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

Mules CAN reproduce, contrary to popular belief. It doesn't happen often, but it certainly does happen.

[@stringbean1511]

I love this channel. I look forward to getting the notification of a new video. for both channels

[@davidbailey453]

Another great episode. I agree we missed a trick with that "false" I.D. of life

[@Synathidy]

He sure was casual when he pointed out that coronavirus is human-engineered. I would've asked a ton more about how he knows that.

[@atrayser]

He brought up the most difficult question very late - that it is hard to imagine how rna learned to duplicate - assuming that is how life began, because it did happen, the fist step would be to imagine how that happened the only time at least we know it did ? One discussion another KZbin video had a lecture by a scientists trying to determine this and he said that the structure in the most primitive cells that does this in its most elemental form is so complex and it is essential to any life, that in his mind it could only be a random chance combination of all of these that would be so unlikely that the only way it could have happened is if the universe is infinite, that infinity would mean that it would happen eventually but would take essentially infinity for it to occur - thus life is only possible if the universe is infinite - That is depressing - but in any case trying to figure out some way it happened in some sequence that is not so unlikely would be a first step and that thought experiment seems perhaps the only way to solve this riddle - if it can be solved in some way other than by invoking infinity ?

[@davidking4672]

We aren’t thinking of it in terms of when. That’s the issue. Life may not be every where. But it’s certainly everywhen…

[@Makabert.Abylon]

Not enough talked about when. I believe that is the issue

[@jediwarlock1]

Oh we are both thinking and talking about this all the time, that is not the issue.

[@fugeefaceentropy7008]

Jesus wept.

[@nichpaen]

I really like his idea of distributing these to high schools. Thats a awesome science experiment for kids.

[@jmtsurprise]

Dr Steve Benner is great but when you gonna have Dr Steve Brule on the show

[@amangogna68]

Great video and information !

[@jluke168]

I really liked the different perspective from someone with a different specialism to the normal physics or astronomy viewpoint.

[@DeBanked]

If you live in Texas, most definately

[@jopwarmy]

If the environment is unchanged then the volcanic rock will favor the constructive RNA and the destructive ones will just make more building blocks for the environment to “try again”. The only statistical outcome would be constructive RNA

[@Chrisspru]

on the flooded earth critique: the ocean is not a perfect stirred tank. it has gradients. and in basaltic rock cracks there is interaction that limits difusion too.

[@robdela3632]

This guy specializes in chaos theory.

[@JeffPopplewell]

Truly interesting and most enjoyable!

[@clintford1267]

We are a very very small speck. The barrier of time and the narrow window of life between birth and death means that we probably will never know the current status of what we see.

[@MCsCreations]

You know, John, this study raises a really interesting philosophical debate, which can complicate things for us later, scientifically: if things are this easy for RNA, does it mean all life (or at least most life) in the universe is based on RNA and its variations (in which we can include DNA)? If the answer is "yes" and we find life elsewhere (Mars, Europa and so on)... How are we going to be able to definitely say it's new and unknown life, alien life, and not the result of Earth's contamination? 😬 Either way, the next step should be a long term study. Basically a container where you put everything inside and leave for a while, sometimes heating it, sometimes cooling it and so on. And let's say what comes out of it. 😬 Anyway, thanks a LOT for the interview! Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[@MCsCreations]

Oh... You mentioned it! Thanks!!! 😃

[@Chrisspru]

there is a basic set of cell parts in all earth life, which arecsimilar across all earth life. alien life could have a different collection of cell organs that in total do the same job. their rna/dna could also use other bases besides/instead of ATGC. or use fewer. the cell wall material could also be different from our lipophosphates. and the size of cells and connection can varry. a programing language can be used in many ways

[@Chrisspru]

mechanical optimisation is a thing of course too. not every combination is biologicaly efficient. our set of materials is optimized for earth, anothervplanet with other requirements might have a different better adapted set of materials of life vs. retooled earth life.

[@MCsCreations]

@@Chrisspru Excellent points! Thank you!!!

[@waynebimmel6784]

@@Chrisspru If the molecules we find are of different chirality we can be absolutely sure about a second biogenesis.

[@cdk1016]

Finally I found the Dr who Jeff Goldblums character in jurassic park was uh, uh, based on! 😆

[@mrtoughpants]

Great interview as always, thank you

[@player101snoop]

Great conversation and I am now going to read Benner's book.

[@atrayser]

Question: you DR Benner mentioned that there are simulations of alternative life based on different base pairs to DNA - is anyone working on a computer simulation that take a proposed crucible for life, with all the elements including the environment that simulates millions of years of chance occurrences for one time that life might develop randomly in this proposed environment ? As a layman thinking about two conditions based upon what I have heard and what you said also about conditions conducive to life, such as Sam all ponds that concentrate the chemicals necessary and environmental inputs so in this environment where RNA is common, can you add a situation where in some circumstance or randomly membranes develop, that on their own when they grow they tend to split into more spherical membranes, and they will do so generally when they grow a certain percentage, and by chance a rna string gets into one of them, and the membrane protects the rna that by chance also duplicates itself, and it takes elements that the membrane allows through its membrane, and uses them to grow (‘food” in essence) and uses them to replicate, as fuel for replication, and this membrane by allows many such nutrients but prohibits rna molecules from permeating theory the membrane - so it becomes a crucible for the chance development of life - can this be run as a simulation that simulates trillions of chance combinations of rna strings, that after trillions of chances, just once an rna develops that is the starting point for life ?

[@luke3501]

What a brilliant discussion.

[@issyjas3309]

Can you get Nick Lane on the show, fascinating insight into the origins of life

[@complex314i]

"Ribose becomes quite stable in the presence of minerals containing the element boron." That makes sense. As the advertising jingle tells us: "Nobody doesn't like molten boron!"

[@EventHorizonShow]

It's dolomite, baby!

[@lifesajoke6965]

It's fun to think of planets as being some kind of life factories.

[@BitcoinMeister]

ALF name is hilarious! Is it even funnier that the under 30 crowd won't get the joke?

[@StaticBlaster]

I'm 32 and my parents sometimes recorded that show on VHS. And a couple years ago, I bought the first two seasons on iTunes. It's a super funny show.

[@BitcoinMeister]

@@StaticBlaster Mr. Belvedere was better :)

[@MartinCHorowitz]

When did you give ANNA olfactory sensors?

[@chrispfeifer7628]

Great discussion/interview. But, yours always are

[@hyksos74]

The random destructive enzyme thing raises an interesting possibility: is it possible to create an RNA chain that selectively destroys LH RNA?

[@tylerknupp2367]

poor guy tried to make a joke involving the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and ended up falling flat see 49 33. I am also glad that this doctor wasn't afraid to talk about the origins of covid

[@theraygood]

Very interesting! Keep it up !

[@tylerknupp2367]

I think we found Jeff Goldblums side job.

[@stevencoardvenice]

Top level interview, JMG! NOW GET CHRIS MCKAY ON HERE, THE ASTROBIOLOGIST MISSION PLANNER FROM NASA!!! He can talk Enceladus and titan and Mars for hours! He's been on Discovery channel. I want to hear YOU interview him

[@ZangariRC]

Life itself is a mere reflection of chemistry upon which every galaxy is a nursery for life by default.

[@thertcll]

This guest sounds so much like Jeff Goldblum

[@Henrikbuitenhuis]

Home alone...Do I dare listen alone... I take a chance.... Thanks so much for the video and info/Talk

[@tinkerstrade3553]

Having observed life and the Universe for 70 years, there are things I won't bet against. And the big one is that the Cosmos doesn't have a cornucopia of surprises. We humans are not worth a crap at predictions, and I think life will surprise us. Being overly confident is the first phase of tripping.

[@DominicRyanOsborne]

One thing I'm unclear on which was asked, abiogenesis as a continual process even up to today, like any life sim game where life form spawn and generate new materials.. so long as they are hardy, reproductive and use common materials.. the might successfully take over more niches. Wouldn't you need water to achieve global coverage. For less successful life forms as long as their genetic information is useful and compatible it would continue in down the line to their offspring. Can't we tell if certain rocks formed on earth without an atmosphere, of an atmosphere with a different composition. Was the current nitrogen oxygen mix ever something very different because of other dominant respiration processes.

[@Tugela60]

Life is likely very rare, not common. We can't say how frequently it occurrs because we know of only one planet where it has happened. An n of one makes for poor statistics. However, we can draw conclusions based on how often life has evolved on earth, since we know favourable conditions exist here. This can easily be determined by how many different novel biochemistry exist, and it turns out there is only one. Once life stars, it is tenatious, so if life began more than once we should be seeing more than one biochemistry, and we dont. In other words, with over 4 billion years of favorable conditions life began on earth. Once. That means that statistically even under favourable conditions life is extremely unlikely. Just because it happened here does NOT mean that it is likely somewhere else. There may very well be life elsewhere in the universe, but it is probably WAY rarer than what most people assume.

[@AndrewBlucher]

This is really an argument from ignorance. We have a single life data point, on the only planet we have been on. Because of our ignorance we don't know if life is rare or if it is common.

[@pigalow2002]

There’s no doubt life exists elsewhere, the astronomical(literally)numbers insure it. NTM the fact that if it happened here, it can happen elsewhere. For me, the more pertinent question is intelligent life. & I believe that is a much longer shot. The only example we have-us-appears to be an accident, & certainly not the natural culmination of an ecosystem. 2 plus billion species & 1 is intelligent. At least that’s what the evidence suggests to me. I think we are likely precious in the cosmos.

[@Tugela60]

@@pigalow2002 Lol...there is huge doubt. If life was so easy to start, why did it only start on Earth ONCE. In billions of years. Why doesn't it continue to spontaneously start now? After all, conditions are right. But it doesn't. It started once and once only, which means that even with favourable conditions the chances are astranomically low. Forget about inteligent life. The question should be is there any life at all other than on earth. The assumption many make is that if conditions are right life is easy to start. But we know for a fact that is not true, since the conditions have been right on Earth for billions of years and life only happened once (we know this since all life on earth shares the same biochemistry - an independent life form would not). That means life starting is actually an incredibly rare event and the asumption that it is easy to start is just flat out wrong.

[@Tugela60]

@@AndrewBlucher You don't understand. If a separate life form started it would have a different biochemistry. All life on earth shares the same biochemistry, which means life started on Earth only once. N is not the Earth, it is the number of times life started. If it is 1, at best it means life is really rare, at worst it could mean Earth is only place it happened at all. If n is 1, then for most planets it is likely 0, even those that otherwise might be favourable. You can't calculate a probability with n=1, but you can say that it is a highly improbable event when extrapolating to planets in general due to the massive timescales involved. If it was a common event, n would be a large number, not 1.

[@AndrewBlucher]

@@Tugela60 Ah, I'm always amused when someone tells another in chat, after seeing only a few lines of discussion: you don't understand. Of course, you have no idea what I understand 🙂 Let dissect what you have said. "If a separate life form started it would have a different biochemistry." - Why? I agree it *could* have a different biochemistry, or is even likely to have different biochemistry. But would? Better than must, I suppose. "All life on earth shares the same biochemistry, which means life started on Earth only once." - Rubbish. Nobody knows how many times life started on Earth. We don't know if all life shares the same biochemistry; there could well be life that we have not found yet, that is different. More correct is: all life that we know of shares the same biochemistry. It could be that life started multiple times, but the one we are made of *ate* the others. Or at least out-competed them. "If it is 1, at best it means life is really rare, at worst it could mean Earth is only place it happened at all." - And here is where the argument from ignorance come into full bloom. We know it arrose at least once, here on Earth. That tells us *nothing* about how frequently it occurs. Life could be as rare as you say. But recent published works *suggests* that life would pop up on any rocky planet. And plenty of work suggests hydrothermal vents provide different but suitable conditions for life too. My reading of the literature is that microbial life *could* be common. Since we haven't been anywhere much or looked very hard, we just don't know. We are ignorant.

[@capnpicard6146]

"And then you're in the man from mars You go out at night eating cars You eat cadillacs, lincolns too Mercurys and subaru And you dont stop, you keep on eatin' cars."

[@mal2ksc]

It's all fun and games until someone eats a guitar.

[@tbone3291]

These abiogenesis guys crack me up. Always the same thing. It's always simple and easy. Just throw some "RNA" onto a rock with some boron in it.... Where to begin with this charlatan? Lipids, sugars, enzymes, and more are needed (multiple compatible versions of each). Proper ph for each (which conflict with each others requirements). Different temperature and light sensitivity for each (which also conflict). It's all supposed to come together in water--the universal solvent. And it can't just be "RNA"--it must be specifically sequenced or it's meaningless gunk. And no, we have not mastered a process of "evolving DNA" as he claims in the first 15 minutes... Fortunately he was able to get the plug for his book into the first part of the show. Well done.

[@ominous-omnipresent-they]

I hardly see how life's complexity implies an intelligent designer.

[@jacksavage4098]

In my opinion that if NASA found life on Mars they would never admit it. We as a intelligent species of life should be willing accept that, the truth. There are too many concerns about the myriad of religions and how the truth galactic life would affect them and their dogmas.

[@DrMackSplackem]

Well, they kind of already did (tentatively at least) in 1996, so I doubt NASA is overly concerned about possible disruptive effects of such knowledge. Also, every indication is that such a discovery would have little if any disruptive impact on religious hegemony.

[@helloall5369]

I dont know, often seems like people will stick to their beliefs, regardless of what you throw at them. Silly humans...

[@fugeefaceentropy7008]

What are you basing your opinion on, aside from wishful thinking? You want to believe it, but there is nothing to support that belief.

[@jamescollier3]

No. They would love nothing more than combining all the countries into one "Nation" and be the leader. Also, they would create a crisis

[@vicc6790]

@@fugeefaceentropy7008 as far as we've seen, there has never been just one of anything in the universe. Why would you think it's smart to assume that life is a unique occurrence to Earth? You don't have to believe aliens are visiting Earth to be able to logically deduce that in all likelihood, they are out there, and many, many of them at that.

[@kx4532]

What happens when you mix sugars with perchlorate salts and hyperoxides. We know why labeled release tested positive, but it keeps coming back.

[@tleon858]

56:11 the covid comment, is he referring to an article or past podcast?

[@joelcarson4602]

I think life is likely somewhat common, complex life and complex ecospheres less so, and sapient, technologically capable life may be very, very uncommon.

[@buffalofiresidechats]

Great job.

[@thelazydog8374]

Basalt, is what he keeps saying. Iceland, Mars, and . . . early earth? Ok, so i live near los alamos, NM, and we live "atop" enough to make iceland three times over. From a volcano about 4MYs ago. Where did he get his chemistry bona fides? And benzoic acid. Let's see (meh), what of the organics on Titan? I'm a little confused, but I haven't been to Iceland numerous times.

[@Zurround]

Life itself is probably VERY common but... That does NOT mean that life rivaling the intelligence and technology of current era Earth with beings able to send us a radio signal is common. The SETI institute will never find alien life if they are relying on a radio signal.

[@michaelleblanc7283]

Excellent.

[@michaelransom5841]

Yes... Ever since learning there is possible signs of life going back to nearly the birth of the planet, it seemed like the probability that the emergence of life is likely an frequent occurrence throughout the universe was nearly 100%. (the survival of that life is another topic all together) It is a pretty inescapable conclusion if you break it down into a series of postulates. It is possible that these may be false dichotomies, but I have done my best to try and avoid this trap by choosing true dichotomies, ie. one is defined by the other. The most important bit of information in this whole conversation is how quickly life appears to have shown up on earth... the following is taken straight from Wikipedia. "The earliest time for the origin of life on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years, or even 4.41 billion years-not long after the oceans formed 4.5 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago." another important factor to remember is that there also was not a substantial period of time between the initial formation of the solar system and the formation of our planet.. (more on that later) first postulate; it is easy for life to form under the the conditions of early earth, or it is not. Given the early appearance of life on earth, we have to account for this somehow within the framework of the above postulates. Barring any pleading to the supernatural, with that in mind, although there may be less probable explanations, it should be reasonable to conclude that one one of the two is true. 1. The amount of time between the first appearance of stable pockets of liquid water and the first signs of life on earth and the range of available conditions during that time IS SUFFICIENT for the emergence of life. 2. Life COULD NOT HAVE formed in the time frame between the first appearance of stable pockets of liquid water and the first signs of life on earth and the range of available conditions during that time. Interestingly, no matter which is true, when all of the above are taken together, either postulate leads to an EXTEMELY high probability that the "emergence" of "life" on planets and/or moons is common throughout the universe. (this only applies to basic, "single cell" life, not complex life). here's why... Given that statement 1 is true, it can be said that it is relatively easy for life to form under the conditions seen on early earth. Relatively is the key word here, this may have taken millions of years, and only taken place in one or more small pockets where the unique conditions required for the formation of life persisted continuously for these millions of years needed for life to arise.... but, in terms of the scope and scale of the universe and our planet, this was practically overnight. Given the timeframe, if statement 1 is true, life should have formed numerous times in our solar system as nearly these exact same conditions existed on a number of planets and moons across our solar system for lengths of time far longer than was required for life to emerge on earth. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that these conditions would not also exist on at least some number of planets and/or moons for similar lengths of time around other stars that also formed solar systems of their own. The only conditions that could be argued to be unique to earth are distance from the sun, amount of mass (gravity), and the existence of our unusually large moon. Within a certain range, distance from the sun should be mostly irrelevant as the only truly relevant impact would be related to temperature, and during the early history of the solar system, other factors would have had a larger impact on temperatures than distance from the sun, at least for the planets within the inner solar system or large moons around sufficiently large gas giants. Earth's mass is not that unique either as venus has nearly the exact same mass, and if life evolved in water, it's unlikely that there the limits posed by gravity would exclude any of the rocky bodies within our solar system, at least until you get down into some of the smaller moons. This would also be true in other solar systems... This only leaves our unusual moon. Admittedly, if this did play a significant role in the formation of life, it could actually limit it's prevalence, but on the scale of our universe, or even just the scale of our galaxy, it is inevitable that there will be many, many other rocky bodies with similar 2 body orbital dynamics. So, our conclusion would be that if statement 1 is true, we should expect to see the emergence of life pretty much everywhere, unless the existence of a moon like ours is a requirement, but even then, we would still expect the universe to still be full of planets where life still emerges, even if it's not quite ubiquitous. Things actually get even more interesting if statement 2 is true and It is actually quite difficult to for life to emerge. If it requires more time than it took for signs of life to appear on earth after the formation of stable bodies of liquid water, we can only conclude one thing. Panspermia... Life must have already existed in the universe and seeded the planet just about as soon as it was hospitable. Although it may be possible that the seeds for life were created during the formation of the solar system, considering it took less time for our planet to form after the birth of our solar system, and there are no conditions that we are aware of that existed during the solar system's initial formation that could have produced life, the only reasonable conclusion is that it arrived from outside of the solar system, out amongst the stars. (if the seeds of life did somehow initially form during the initial formation of our solar system, we are actually just back to statement 1) Furthermore, given how quickly life arrived on earth, it is almost a certainty that this "seed of life" must be widely distributed. But even if it isn't, it would be inconceivable that life somehow formed out on another planet in some distant solar system, and that life spread from that planet to ours by some mechanism that would allow it to do so without also spreading to other planets and solar systems as well. No matter how you cut it, provided you are looking to natural mechanisms, there is quite close to a 100% probability that the emergence of life of rocky bodies across the universe is common, at least in any galaxy with similar conditions to our own and where that the laws of physics and chemistry work the same as they do here. All that said, it should be noted that this is not the same as currently living life being common, only tha the "emergence" of life would be common, and it definitely doesn't say anything about the existence of complex life, let alone civilizations. (which, if we take our planet as the example would mean both are rare, with "complex life" taking nearly 4 billion years to emerge out of the 4.5 billion years the earth has been around, and then civilization took 4.5 billion years of the 4.5 billion years!!... the amount of S#*t that had to go right for the possibility for that planet to still be hospitable to life after 4.5 billion years in a universe full of things that want to wipe us from existence is mind boggling! and that's just to be hospitable to life, but to be hospitable after all that time, AND have all the right conditions for civilization (like just think where we would be if we had to much or too little oxygen in our atmosphere and couldn't have harnessed fire! and even that would never be possible if we couldn't get out of the water, which would have basically been impossible without a crazy stable magnetosphere and an ozone layer!.. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if civilizations with our modern degree of complexity almost never arise. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if we were the first one.... (not saying that we are, just saying it wouldn't surprise me that much, I think the statistics do still lean towards at least a few advanced civilizations per similar galaxy, but probably not that distant in development and emergence from each other.. likely less than a few million years, tops, a few thousand might even be more probable, but that is totally just speculation based on lack of observable evidence of civilizations with the type of tech that I would expect to see us wielding in a few thousand years, let alone a few million) The entire universe is only 3 times the length of our solar system old... So we are surprisingly close to the start of the whole history of the universe (or at least this iteration, depending on which school of thought you prescribe to) And considering the ridiculous number of hurdles it took for us to get here.. I'm pretty sure our existence borders on the impossible. (but obviously not totally impossible since... well... we exist...lol) Well that got longer than intended... damn OCD!!!... lmfao

[@thewhiteknight6736]

What an odd random Ad, but pleasant ;)

[@AppiusOS]

I hope you try to do the experiment when you get your kit from Dr. Brenner. Within a few years you could grow your very own co-host! On a more serious note - what does he mean by basaltic glass? I'd love to grab a chunk of it one day, just to see what it's like, but when I think of volcanic glass, I think of obsidian

[@kroey221]

Fantastic

[@regisphilbinsscrotum6631]

This guy sounds like Jeff goldblum😁

[@michaelransom5841]

Just wanted to throw out a conversation point... I personally lean towards a multi genesis model, at least in the sense that there was/is a specific, or a few specific chemical pathways to a singular proto cell.. that proto cell would be the same "molecule" wherever it formed as it involves the same chemistry... As far as a biologist would be concerned, they would be "clones" of each other, at least in terms of similarity, even if they aren't directly descended from each other. They are functionally identical... as these proto organisms evolved, it would certainly look like common ancestry, depending on when they are complex enough to start diverging in their chemistry while still retaining the original aspects required for minimal viability... This may, or may not be after the formation of DNA... but this is just speculation on my part. the part that I thought worth commenting on is this idea that we fail to see abiogenesis in our current environment because these early precursor "proto organisms" get eaten as fast as they form is a bit of a flawed concept... there are plenty of molecules (and life forms) that are food for other organisms that form all around us daily, yet nothing on the planet gets consumed with 100% efficiency such that the instant it forms it's eaten. Yes overhunting can lead to extinction, but if we are talking about a chemical reaction, as so long as the conditions exist the reaction will occur... The point I'm making is that it is far more likely that the conditions for abiogenesis no longer exist on earth for one reason or another. Likely the process involves several steps and some limiting resource, for example freely available dissolved phosphorous. If the reaction requires large amounts of some rate limiting reagent that is also in high demand by current living organisms, those living organisms will likely have evolved better and more efficient harvesting mechanisms that allow them to extract that rate limiting resource from the environment even when it is scarce and accumulate it to the levels required for biological reactions. This effectively scrubs the resource from the environment which never lets it climb high enough to create the right conditions for the formation of more "proto organisms"... Phosphorus is a good candidate for this, as is boron and nitrogen.... basically, it's just too difficult to accumulate enough of the right resources in sufficient quantities for abiogenesis to take place because that accumulating resource will attract some resource seeking organism that ends up nipping the process in the butt before anything can take place.

[@kestrelwalls3278]

On the point about a random assortment of RNA being more likely to produce sequences that catalyze the destruction of RNA than sequences that self replicate, is it possible to have one that does both at the same time? A sequence that will replicate itself while also destroying anything too different from itself?