New Theories on the Origin of Life with Dr. Eric Smith

[@victorjcano]

This fellow is one of the most articulate people I’ve ever listen to. He is so precise with both his thoughts and his words.

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis fails

[@chinvunloong448]

Nick Lane on the origins of life is educational and incomparably Nick Lane

[@kofipapa2886]

I love Nick too but Eric Smith is Ed Witten/ Feymann level brilliant. Nick is a little not on that level

[@katiekat4457]

He is flawless when it comes to explaining things and giving his lecture. Clear voice with no “em” or “ah”s. No studdering or stamping. Perfect paces so you have a moment to think about and absorb what he is saying. But, also not to slow. It’s never boring. Very organized. Not once did I feel completely lost. What a great speaker! And his does a great jog of relying his information and point so you can understand and agree that what he is saying makes perfect sense. Bravo Eric Smith PhD.

[@blu3_enjoy]

He explained nothing

[@bobdobbs943]

@@blu3_enjoy He cant explain anything, because he doesnt know. All he wants is for complex life to have no mind behind it.

[@cebro648]

I have to agree with Bob and Blu. This guy explained nothing. He talked around the subject. But you seemed so impressed with his tone and his form. So much so , that you didn't notice that his argument had no substance. It's like preparing the drumroll for some fantastic event . Then realizing that the drumroll was the actual star. But you missed that . You was so mesmerized by his tone and his delivery style. You missed the fact that he delivered nothing. It is apparent that you are someone who desperately want to believe in any " No God Hypothesis " So much to a point that you would accept this garbage presentation as something that deserves a prestigious award. Wake up my friend , life did not come about by natural chance because it fits your worldview. And certainly not because this Joker said so.

[@bobdobbs943]

@@cebro648 rite. he said nothing because there is nothing to say.People who think this vid is great most likely have no more than 5th grade science or less

[@cebro648]

@@bobdobbs943 True, and they also would accept any evidence for abiogenesis. This speech was nothing short fantasy story . He even admits they they are no where near vlose for solving abiogenesis. So much to a point to where he needed to completely backup and look at abiogenesis through fresh new glasses . His speech is basically a start fresh scratch philosophy.

[@myopenmind527]

I could listen to Eric talk on this subject all day. As someone who has studied Chemistry, Biology and Biochemistry I just think Eric deserves a bigger platform and and should be more widely accessible on the net. Whoever put this talk together should be inviting him back for talk 2, Talk 3 and Talk 4 etc I have a copy that f his book “the origin and nature of life on earth: the 4th geosphere”. It’s a heavy read but superbly done. Nick lane is another scientist to watch on this subject and Robert M Hazen.

[@wooddoc5956]

Thanks for introducing this fellow to me!

[@myopenmind527]

@@wooddoc5956 he dives in deep. He was a physicist who went on to study geology , chemistry and biochemistry. This talk is a little heavy for some but he’s got a great way of looking at life and it’s origins. I’d love to see both him and Nick lane interviewed by Sean Carroll (physicist). Btw are you on @twitter?

[@wooddoc5956]

@@myopenmind527 I love this stuff and one of my papers was on Palladium catalyzed reactions with indole. Now I'm pushing seventy and spend most of my time in the garage woodworking. Twitter, no. Heck, I just got my first cellphone two months ago. I like Carroll's stuff as well as Sean B Carroll, the geneticist. If you're still in the field, I'm jealous.

[@myopenmind527]

@@wooddoc5956 Sean B Carroll is a great writer. I recently came across David Quammen with his book the Tangled tree. He’s one of the few people to write about Carl Woese, one of my heroes. Take good care my friend. I’m somewhat jealous of your free time. A good few years off for me yet.

[@teonaantonescu7586]

Have you seen “Unlocking the mystery of life”?

[@alittleofeverything4190]

Love this dude. I have a biology degree and have been studying this stuff for years and this was so on point. Energetics, metabolism, emergent properties of geology, and the part about vent communities following the path of least resistance regarding the citric acid cycle was awesome. Some of those questions were painful. Some people just miss it in context, most likely because they don't have a proper basic understanding of the topic in the first place.

[@bobdobbs943]

What basic understanding do you have of biochem?

[@teonaantonescu7586]

Oh! So you must have seen “Unlocking the mystery of life”!

[@tonymaurice4157]

Abiogenesis fails

[@andytyler6252]

​@tonymaurice4157 jessus is lord an savor! i ain't no monkey ether. was he there. no!!! jessus wuz. better get rite with lord wile you can!

[@robbie_]

I think this must be one of the most concise, clear and understandable lectures I've ever seen. Dr Smith seems to have a talent for communication. I wish he would write some books and maybe record some audiobooks.

[@tylermoore4429]

I have been reading in and around this topic for decades, but somehow missed this theory until now. I thank the youtube algorithm for sending this video my way. The idea of the entire planet being a giant battery that generates life is stunning and suddenly makes integrative sense of all the disparate phenomena of our planet, subduction, continental drift, constant renewal of the surface and so on and so on.

[@dorfmanjones]

I love how this thread fills up with holy rollers.

[@Knaeben]

That picture of the hematite at 17:05 was taken by me back in 2005. Lol I loaded it to Wikipedia but it disappeared from the article. I still have that very piece of hematite on my shelf. It's a small world, isn't it?

[@jon1rene]

Cool story

[@e555t66]

nice

[@KipIngram]

What a wonderfully calm and serene voice Dr. Smith has. Very easy to listen to.

[@andrewgroves8611]

Don't be lulled to sleep

[@DavidErdody]

This is the finest presentation on any science topic I have ever seen. Not only is it fascinating and clearly explained with just the right graphics and animations (and personal emotion) but never does he "uumm"...'"uhhh"..."uumm"...'"uhh". Well done Eric!

[@helen4997]

You know what is the best thing about this guy? the tone of voice to hypnotize all of the people.If, he would write a test and you were there, I am pretty sure you would not pass.

[@ConservativeAnthem]

David Erdody -- You must be dating him! LOL

[@flymasterA]

ConservativeAnthem , They hire friends to write glowing reviews. All of them do it. Hey, I should be a professional review writer. Don't need to know the subject matter, just glowing remarks. Sign on under one false name, and write the glowing stuff. Then sign in under another name and tell the truth.

[@ConservativeAnthem]

@@flymasterA Blessed are the Truth Tellers!!

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

@@ConservativeAnthem Blessing is easy. All you need is a thumb and a wee bit of oil. Knowing who's telling the truth is a little bit more difficult. My problem with the slick Eric Smith is not that he's wrong, particularly, but that he's so cringe-making, self-satisfied, greezy. Um. Rather like you.

[@vezquex]

Here are my notes with time codes: 7:00 - Life in context of a planet in disequilibrium 7:20 - Geospheres: Earth comprises a lithosphere (rock), hydrosphere (ocean), atmosphere, and biosphere (life). Connecting these concepts, Dr. Eric Smith outlines how the biosphere derives energy and building blocks. 14:00 - Ultraviolet radiation from the sun breaks water molecules, causing atmospheric escape of hydrogen, leaving a higher concentration of oxygen. 16:00 - The iron lithosphere rusts on the outside in contact with oxygen. This frees electrons, acting as a battery. 18:00 - Instead of rusting over and stopping, heat from the planet core forms currents in the mantle and breaks the crust to bring unoxidized iron to the surface. 23:45 - Hydrothermal vents form black smokers, hosting life fueled by the dissolved chemicals. 26:55 - Types of life, depending on source of energy (reductive vs. oxidative reactions), and ecosystem dependence 31:00 - Organisms and chemical reactions alike divide up contributions to ecosystemic metabolism. 32:30 - Citric acid cycle, a path of least resistance for energy 39:00 - Energy flow channels 41:20 - Citric acid cycle makes all of the initial components of the biosphere. 42:45 - Closing thoughts 47:10 - Questions

[@ThekiBoran]

I watched every second of this talk. Definitely some interesting facts but not much meat as far as origins is concerned. For a scientific explanation of the problems of a materialist beginning to life watch this video of Dr. James Tour. The problems of a materialist beginning to life are monumental. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk

[@dancingnature]

Tour did a Gish gallop and made arguments from ignorance the first time I watched him . Not interested

[@nabokkills5435]

@@dancingnature, you might not be interested, but there's a lot of videos challenging evolution theory, if you care to watch them.... oh, right... you're not interested.... 😁 (Phillips E. Johnson, search if you ever are interested )...

[@dancingnature]

I’ve actually got a biology degree , I occasionally teach science classes and I’ve been familiar with creationist pseudoscience explanations for at least the last 30 years . They’re all PRATTs . They also deliberately change scientific terminology to confuse laymen. If they had a point why would they do that? Controversial ideas in science are accepted by coming up with evidence, not twisting words. Remember that in the last 50 years, plate tectonics plastid endosymbiosis, global warming, punk eek, and archaean bacteria, were all once controversial but the scientists involved came up with the evidence. There’s no reason for me to rehash a fact that has been well documented for over 160 years . Evolution isn’t even controversial It’s just that fundies don’t like it!

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

Thanks so much for your notes and giving the info at top of your comment! I have copied the time codes in my own notes.

[@seamus9898]

46:52 him tearing up talking about Santa Fe Institute was so damn heartwarming

[@101xaplax101]

this guy is so brilliant it is staggering. his lecture at the santa fe institute is on the same topic but with different details. understanding the early origins of life requires a degree of multidisciplinary mastery that few people are capable of. i hope people realize what a pioneer this guy is as are the people that support this kind of research.

[@waltermendoza2141]

ted When we know all of the materials that houses are made from, why can't we figure out how they make themselves? It's SUCH a MYSTERY!!!! This guy is so brilliant he's an imbecile! Go idiots and the people that support them!

[@paulcollins2289]

Agreed.

[@paulcollins2289]

That is agreed to the top response; this is brilliant. The latter response is of no significance.

[@Max-nc4zn]

Collectivism is only ever valid in the natural sciences, never in the social sciences. All macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones are invalid.

[@iain5615]

@Doctor Drywell not quite. He presents an interesting idea but that is all it is - an idea. There is nothing to support it. As with all origin of life statements, they are purely hypothetical without any evidence to support them. Based on all evidence it will probably be a dead end like most research in this area. A person can be great but if the ideas lead to dead-ends then at best one can state at least they were investigated but at worst it wasted a lot of effort for no benefit, if other people join the research (current state with standard abiogenesis research). Until he can answer the chemical synthesis problem it is purely hypothetical.

[@GaryKatch]

The most diplomatic dismissal of new age nonsense ("non-physical energies") I've ever heard at 51:03: "That's not a language I have the ability to use in any comfortable way..." 54:20 "energy is energy."

[@314Pluto]

Gary! It is all about non-physical energies. The Higgs is what makes this all so, in material expression. The Lady asked a reasonable question, though it was broader than the relationship of geological relationship to life.

[@chasr1843]

I totally agree Gary and I agree with Ted too. This guy is staggeringly brilliant. He reminds me of somebody who's work I read some years ago, Ilya Prigogine.

[@47f0]

I don't think it was at all new age (although the response was perfect). I think this woman was trying to drag her god into the party. Unfortunately, he had no invitation.

[@vinm300]

@@chasr1843 , Prigogine is best known for his definition of dissipative structures and their role in thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium, a discovery that won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977. In summary, Ilya Prigogine discovered that importation and dissipation of energy into chemical systems could result in the emergence of new structures (hence dissipative structures) due to internal self reorganization.[18] In his 1955 text, Prigogine drew connections between dissipative structures and the Rayleigh-Bénard instability and the Turing mechanism.[19]

[@seabud6408]

Gary Katch Just because the woman asked a question about consciousness, which cannot be computed/processed by the belief system of scientific materialism (SM) doesn’t make it irrelevant. It doesn’t compute because that belief system (which is patterned and operating within consciousness .... irrefutably) does not have consciousness as a given as a quality of the Universe. SM only has energy ( which .... ask any scientist .... no one can define, other than to say it is what it is) A growing number of physicists “believe” that the Universe is eternal (out of time) has always existed and bangs forever ( Prof Roger Penrose) Endless cycling. Mathematics transcends the bangs waiting to be discovered anew around 14 billion years in after each Bang. The bang and the integral Universe which constitutes it with its shaping force fields ( there are no particles only fields) of electromagnetism and strong nuclear/ gravity etc constitute a kind of womb .... Tbe Wombiverse. The mistake is to think that the whole shebang .... the infinitely banging/ birthing and dying Universes aren’t alive as a whole system .... I mean the infinitely rebanging system. A Universe cannot “ come alive” after 14 billion years if that potential was not there in the Bang and the inherent forces and the mathematical territory/ geometry which permeates it like a skeleton. If life is intrinsic to each Universe in the ( infinite) series ( and this is what SM has a hard time with) consciousness is intrinsic to the Universe because it is integral to life. Matter = energy = information. Information has no meaning without consciousness. Intelligence/awareness ( consciousness) reads thought .... it’s not the other way around. If you have seen the film 2001 a space Odyssey and like me as a 13 year old were awestruck by its truth telling about consciousness and it’s relationship to the so called material Universe you will, after many years, as I have ... have realised that the author/director was pointing to what I’ve outlined above (not my invention.... these are perspectives held by scientists of the non SM type) The star child at the end of the film , I believe, is hinting at the reality of the WOMBIVERSE Science copes with its impotence in the face of the hard problem of consciousness ( how does hydrogen plasma given enough time come up with Shakespeare/ Mickey Mouse and appreciate beauty, feel love ... and develop a sense of humour) BY IGNORING IT Any educated person knows that the ancient Hindus and other mystics from other cultures knew these basic truths about the universe. ......It’s cyclic extremely old and is alive and conscious at a system as well as individual level ( animals/us) Mystic ... a person who experiences the Universe as him/ herself. Hogwash say the SM’s who have no direct experience such as this. Some have .... late prof’ David Bohm ( who dialogued with the mystic Jiddu Krishnamurti for practically his whole late adulthood) Aldous Huxley .... no fool or intellectual slouch himself, was a close friend of Krishnamurti and also had direct experience that there is a state of consciousness which is more fundamental than ego consciousness. This talk was great I haven’t had time to watch it all. He will come up against the fact of a whole system living conscious growing and dying Universe .... which does not contradict true science ..... at some point. He will not be able to compute it in SM’s limited conceptual framework. Other physicists ... klee Irwin ( quantum gravity research) include consciousness in their research into finding a bridge for the gap between Quantum and relativity theory. Humility is utterly lacking in SM with regard to the discipline of “consciousness studies”. How does Dan Dennett deal with consciousness ?? “ it’s an illusion” Dan .... illusions only exist IN consciousness Hallucinations.... same.

[@D-Cameron]

I love the tactful way that Eric dismisses the woo-woo question about cosmic consciousness from someone in the audience with something like, "I love that you ask the question but I'm not really equipped to answer it".

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

istoppedthecar He is not equipped to answer stupid question. And that was a really, really stupid question

[@KipIngram]

The thing about that stuff is that we may eventually discover there are germs of truth in it (or we may not). But from where we sit today those are just not the places for serious scientists to be focusing their attention.

[@raincheck5892]

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 There are no stupid questions, only stupid people… you’re proof of that

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

It is even possible to achive Cosmic Consciousness, theoreticly, but You are the Only one to really confirm it.

[@o2807]

@@holgerjrgensen2166 ah! "But that is only for the Elects" - the sufis say.

[@dirkbertels3872]

Great Lecture. Funny how Tolstoy's "happy families" quotation at 29:52 went over everybody's head (including mine). After looking it up, I read that the first sentence of Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina is: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." - which is in itself a great quotation.

[@spacelemur7955]

I got lucky on this, as _Anna Karenina_ is one if my favorite books.

[@TimmyBlumberg]

This was a wonderful presentation that despite its highly technical nature is very accessible. Thank you for your clear and insightful communication.

[@glenliesegang233]

Information, and complex information is the hurdle from mere metabolism to LUCA. He explains the chemical energies which permit compound generation far from equilibrium. But the difference between cake ingredients and final product is where the input of information directing sequence is required.

[@spacelemur7955]

As a fan of Nick Lane's KZbin lectures, this talk fit like a glove.

[@colin2709]

I like the way this guy seeks to re-address the qualities that we address when considering life and non-life. We have been left with a mystical legacy that imbues life with mystical properties and defines life as an absolute term; but maybe at its inception it is barely distinguishable from non-life. There may well be a continuum from life's origins to something we can clearly label as life which make it difficult to say precisely when life began. We tend to consider life based upon quite late stages of it's development, cellular organisms for example, which make it quite difficult, in the absence of antecedent forms in the fossil record, to explain how life came about.

[@thomasschwarz1973]

I totally agree about the need to investigate the boundary between the living and the dead. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

[@allanlees299]

This entire lecture seems to be a very convoluted way to say that basic thermodynamics, under certain conditions, favors self-organization by means of utilizing exogenous energy source(s) and if you leave that kind of system running for long enough with the right precursor molecules, you get (sometimes) life.

[@bobdobbs943]

Yeah, everything just evolved. Some how , we arent sure, but it must have.

[@mylittleelectron6606]

What an incredible notion! Put very simply, the earth acts like both a membrane and a pump that is constantly moving protons across itself, producing an electrostatic gradient. The same mechanism powering cellular life!

[@WarrenPeace007]

Great speaker on a fascinating subject. Loved the way he answers questions. Perfect

[@JayBobJayBob]

sgriffiths8888 - Yes, if perfect is defined by being limited, exclusive and as a result admittedly confused by his field of study. In the end his entire life’s work by his own admission yields no answer to the origins of life, only an explanation of the of how complicated his line of reasoning makes the problem. He admits he is approaching this from a material and mechanical point of you only by the way he denied the woman who asked you if he had considered consciousness the inciting cause of all matter and biological mechanics. Perhaps he should try to get a handle on what consciousness is and then study that and see if her question will ease his confusion in the process.

[@AllieDurell]

Perceptive comment; perceptive talk.

[@hugopristauz3620]

Incredible Contribution

[@kymvanderkaag1474]

Dr James Tour is a brilliant synthetic organic chemist has a number of lectures on abiogenesis, photosynthesis, and nanotechnology on KZbin that are accessible and professional lectures that are an outstanding resource for someone interested in the actual science. Cheers!

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

Kym van der Kaag. Are you kidding me? Dr Smith is a scientist! Turn is an idiot

[@drshajigeorge8815]

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 Do you understand a percentage of what Tour is doing? Please google, you will get the answer

[@Raydensheraj]

@@drshajigeorge8815 Yes he us hired by the Religious hustlers called Discovery Institute who try to make money of individuals with the Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design which after almost 20 years hasn't presented a working theory, can't be used for Scientific predictions and has not made one contribution to the field of Science.

[@sanjosemike3137]

Raydensheraj Actually, you are wrong. ID theory made the prediction that the so-called junk DNA was not “junk” at all but was necessary and performed a number of very important cellular protein synthesis functions. Turned out that the ID people were correct. Douglas Axe, PH.D has performed a number of far-reaching experiments on the abilities of proteins to self-assemble. Turns out it is heinously difficult and unlikely for that to occur. Look. I was once an atheist too. I UNDERSTAND how painful it is to give up something that has been a part of you for most of your life. It was actually painful to REALIZE that the fine tuning of the Universe pointed inexorably to a conscious Universe. Who knows what God it is? I’m not smart enough to know. But atheist/materialism no longer answers the questions. I almost wish it did. It was easier to be a nihilist. But it was wrong. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@daphneszeles28]

I PLAYED IT BACK AT HALF SPEED AND FINALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE

[@DoctaOsiris]

Stop shouting at me! 🙃

[@kofipapa2886]

I listen to everything twice as fast. I am now used to it. I can listen to more in less time. It can be uncomfortable in the beginning but beneficial in the end

[@jansegal6687]

brilliant lecture, and i realized there is no gap between biology and chemistry

[@obiecanobie919]

Why not back engineer one cell and start from there ?

[@psycronizer]

I was almost tempted to call this talk new age clap trap for the first few minutes, but the way he finally answered the audience members question on a virus being alive or not was by far the best answer I have ever heard on this issue, and I absolutely agree with it.

[@lgiccambodia]

Bullshit he didn't answer anything.

[@markrutledge5855]

@@lgiccambodia I didn't think so either.

[@jon1rene]

Just because folks didn’t understand his answer, doesn’t mean he didn’t answer it.

[@logic8673]

Explain if you understand@@jon1rene

[@jamesdolan4042]

Fascinating emphases on the biosphere and then in particular the creb cycle as integrated into the origin of life. Well done Eric.

[@CraigLedgerwood-o3k]

Great lecture and highly insightful. Really tied together several disparate topics that never seem to gel across disciplines. Thanks!

[@brigham2250]

That was a great talk. Around the 52:00 minute mark a woman tried to get him to say "Yes, all this comes from God," but he couldn't give her what she wanted to hear.

[@NewsforthePoor]

I could listen to this gentleman all day. I'm a voiceover actor and he's speaking in a symposium paradigm flawlessly.

[@thomascorbett2936]

Wow this guy is brilliant .

[@bernardliu8526]

Illuminating lecture by a handsome, genteel, and eloquent scholar. Thank you.

[@thomashess6211]

Except he still doesnt know how the first life started. Neither do we.

[@RonJohn63]

Lecture starts at 4:30.

[@michaelportaloo1981]

That's a shame. I was already asleep by then

[@Dadecorban]

It always amazes me how many people out there are consuming this content for the purposes of trying to connect it to their new age beliefs. Reminds me of the lyrics of Sound of Silence "People talking without speaking , People hearing without listening"

[@rubiks6]

Can you clarify your remarks and indicate how they relate to the video and the topic of discussion? The topic is "abiogenesis."

[@PifflePrattle]

Brilliant talk. Off to see if there is any more by eric smith on the tubes.

[@BROWNDIRTWARRIOR]

When you break all this stuff down you still have to ask why does life make beautiful things. This work may help illuminate the catalysts of life being formed but never the deeper mysteries and causes.

[@MrBorceivanovski]

Great lecture! I am impressed #

[@debdoyle7762]

Up to 3k! Way to go humanity!

[@medicinaevolutivalasaludye6914]

Sencillamente excelente. Una presentación depurada, elegante , trabajada por mucho tiempo,cientifica , simplificada sin banalizar, con los detalles precisos para fundamentar e ilustrar , honesto en transparentar estructura y alcance argumental, fascinante por las implicancias . Gracias por subirlo a youtube.

[@rtmcdge]

No. No te dice nada. Esta diciendo mentidas, por dejando fuera lo que realmente debes saber. Esta kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk esta much mejor.

[@SolaceEasy]

Brilliant, lucid presentation.

[@markrutledge5855]

I didn't think this talk in anyway addressed the high level of complexity found in even the most rudimentary elements of biological life. How do we propose inorganic material being formed into complex coding patterns in nucleic acid, proteins, carbohydrates? What is the mechanism(s) that gives rise even to the simplest cell or bacteria? I didn't hear anything to helps me understand this.

[@SystemUpdate310]

What is even more baffling for me, is the fact that at the core of life there is symbolism. Codons symbolise amino acids, and there needs to be a system that decodes and connects these symbols with their meanings. How does such abstraction arise in matter? And once again, this is the very basis of life.

[@boxelder9167]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk

[@markrutledge5855]

@@boxelder9167 Watched this several times. I hope others go to your link.

[@bentonpix]

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one... Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success was actually written into the fabric of the universe." - Christian de Duve This needs to really sink in. IMO by pursuing and fully understanding what energy actually is, where it comes from and how it operates, is the key to understanding not only life, but consciousness itself and all of existence. A great lecture by Dr. Eric Smith!

[@ThekiBoran]

Here's a greater talk by Dr. James Tour. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk

[@dragosvirgilmos9926]

Outstanding quality speech and ideas! Thank You!

[@nidamalik147]

A very smooth and precise explanation

[@timdernachn9851]

An extremely content rich lecture. It's hard to imagine a person with more intelligence. Loved the De Duve pointer at the end which I'll now read into. Fascinating 👌

[@mbukukanyau]

Well, smart people don’t speak without answers. Just a lot of speculation here. Moses answered those questions a long time ago, and if you don’t agree, you should read the Genesis account, and don’t be anti semite…

[@robberlin2230]

@@mbukukanyau yea, the qualifications for the first ever life seem to get smaller the higher a person's qualification speaking it seems, so sad

[@bobk1234567890]

I too am very impressed with the response to the 'out-there' questions. I was once asked, after a talk about the relationship between visual attention and visual consciousness, what I had done to control for the effects of psi (mind-reading). Much to my amazement, without much of a pause, I managed to say that every trial in the experiment was controlled by a computer and so I had no knowledge of the outcome. I moved on to the next question very quickly. Much kudos to Dr. Smith!!!

[@trmdtv]

Ah, it's only a speech on one of the biggest mysteries of mankind. 698 views. Good going, humanity :).

[@larsris]

Right now (October 10, 2016, kl 15.40): precisely 10 000 view.

[@behrouzrahdari]

And now , January 2017, 38600 views

[@robbie_]

I was talking to someone about this earlier. If you reset your account/log out of google and open KZbin, you get a wall of X-Factor and Katy Perry videos.

[@fkflfks]

+Behrouz Rahdari October 2018, 33000 views? Still down

[@fkflfks]

That's about 10000 views a year, what a time to be alive.

[@borispetrovchich3141]

His co-authored a magnificent book with legendary Harold Morowitz (with whom collaborated for two decades at same university and who died in old age just after book was published) in 2016

[@314Pluto]

Thank you. I very much enjoyed this. Wonderful lecture. Your consideration of language is also fascinating to me.

[@taaayll]

I love this comment and I couldn't agree more.

[@letucke]

Dr. Eric Smith has definitely insured his next paycheck.

[@billybuenafe7634]

I wonder where Macgyver ended up wondering?

[@stevelenores5637]

I really like this speaker. Simply answers are for politics. Complex answers are hard but closer to the truth. Of course Tau teaches that even complex answers fall short of describing life, intelligence, or wisdom. These are concepts that we all think we understand but non of us really do. They are mysteries that intrigue us and always will.

[@Dan.50]

Okay, so everyone that is droning on and on about how great this talk was, now explain to all of us how life began.

[@iain5615]

I agree. There never is any scientific evidence. Words such as nudge, time, not completely understood (when not understood at all) are used in abiogenesis advocates in a way that would have a scientist in any other field be laughed at and totally discredited.

[@RonJohn63]

Only if you can explain -- in great detail -- how your smartphone works, from mining the metals, silicon, etc to making transistors, milling metal, making glass, batteries, etc, etc. But you can't, can you? Yet you accept them anyway.

[@iain5615]

@@RonJohn63 they came primarily from an understanding of quantum mechanics. Real science and evidence is not in question. Science has no evidence against or for God. There is a lot of scientism though where one's narrative dictates what evidence one uses and how one interprets it. Unfortunately in a few fields, models are perpetually followed despite fundamentally being unable to explain the evidence purely because of narrative. Other fields are fairly free of narrative and all evidence is taken objectively and tried to be encompassed by theories and models.

[@RonJohn63]

@@iain5615 the question required an answer *"in great detail"* and yet you gave me one non-answer sentence about QM and a screed. I completely expected your answer.

[@iain5615]

@@RonJohn63 those inventions have nothing to do with the question at hand and so are irrelevant. If you need to rely on irrelevance to try to make a point then you do not understand what a discussion is.

[@burhan8795]

Very polite. I would have exploded at those questions. This was definitely a lay audience for the most part

[@kofipapa2886]

This is the sort of arrogance that would kill science. What is so difficult about explaining what you know to another human being who isn't familiar with the story or narrative.

[@TheStarflight41]

No matter how far back you regress highly specified information always comes first. Intelligent design is a slam dunk.

[@spatrk6634]

how do we quantify this "highly specified information"?

[@mcmanustony]

You appear not to have the faintest idea what you're talking about. What's that like?

[@markcredit6086]

@@mcmanustony you are not very smart find another topic please

[@mcmanustony]

@@markcredit6086 Who the fuck appointed you as moderator? Take a seat.

[@sparkyy0007]

Bingo. Let's redefine everything to avoid that nasty problem of information and design...the progressive science priests...lol

[@danv8718]

That introduction was 4:16 too long.

[@CFB6855]

Fantastic and detailed talk!

[@aloelcristal5795]

Genious, thank you for posting this presentation!

[@ivtch51]

Interesting. Terrific talk despite the fact that I am not that chemistry literate enough to hold in my head such concepts as reduction etc. None the less I was left with the impression that we need to see our biosphere as embedded in and a continuation of the earth as a whole. Yes I liked the open and receptive way Eric received questions and honestly admitted where such questions were out of his domain or where his understandings and concepts did not fit with the questioner.

[@davidgurarie6712]

Brilliant lecture and ideas.

[@yargoook3802]

Incredibly fascinating... but please take a sip of water

[@raincheck5892]

I like how he uses his hands when he speaks so deaf people can understand him too

[@seabud6408]

Great talk. At last someone talking systems studies sense about “life the Universe and everything else” Just because the woman at 52 mins asked a question about consciousness, which cannot be computed/processed by the belief system of scientific materialism (SM) doesn’t make it irrelevant. It doesn’t compute because that belief system (which is patterned and operating within consciousness .... irrefutably) does not have consciousness as a given as a quality of the Universe. SM only has energy ( which .... ask any scientist .... no one can define, other than to say it is what it is) A growing number of physicists “believe” that the Universe is eternal (out of time) has always existed and bangs forever ( Prof Roger Penrose) Endless cycling. Mathematics transcends the bangs waiting to be discovered anew around 14 billion years in after each Bang. The bang and the integral Universe which constitutes it with its shaping force fields ( there are no particles only fields) of electromagnetism and strong nuclear/ gravity etc constitute a kind of womb .... Tbe Wombiverse. The mistake is to think that the whole shebang .... the infinitely banging/ birthing and dying Universes aren’t alive as a whole system .... I mean the infinitely rebanging system. A Universe cannot “ come alive” after 14 billion years if that potential was not there in the Bang and the inherent forces and the mathematical territory/ geometry which permeates it like a skeleton. If life is intrinsic to each Universe in the ( infinite) series ( and this is what SM has a hard time with) consciousness is intrinsic to the Universe because it is integral to life. Matter = energy = information. Information has no meaning without consciousness. Intelligence/awareness ( consciousness) reads thought .... it’s not the other way around. If you have seen the film 2001 a space Odyssey and like me as a 13 year old were awestruck by its truth telling about consciousness and it’s relationship to the so called material Universe you will, after many years, as I have ... have realised that the author/director was pointing to what I’ve outlined above (not my invention.... these are perspectives held by scientists of the non SM type) The star child at the end of the film , I believe, is hinting at the reality of the WOMBIVERSE Science copes with its impotence in the face of the hard problem of consciousness ( how does hydrogen plasma given enough time come up with Shakespeare/ Mickey Mouse and appreciate beauty, feel love ... and develop a sense of humour) BY IGNORING IT Any educated person knows that the ancient Hindus and other mystics from other cultures knew these basic truths about the universe. ......It’s cyclic extremely old and is alive and conscious at a system as well as individual level ( animals/us) Mystic ... a person who experiences the Universe as him/ herself. Hogwash say the SM’s who have no direct experience such as this. Some have .... late prof’ David Bohm ( who dialogued with the mystic Jiddu Krishnamurti for practically his whole late adulthood) Aldous Huxley .... no fool or intellectual slouch himself, was a close friend of Krishnamurti and also had direct experience that there is a state of consciousness which is more fundamental than ego consciousness. This talk was great I haven’t had time to watch it all. He will come up against the fact of a whole system living conscious growing and dying Universe .... which does not contradict true science ..... at some point. He will not be able to compute it in SM’s limited conceptual framework. Other physicists ... klee Irwin ( quantum gravity research) include consciousness in their research into finding a bridge for the gap between Quantum and relativity theory. Humility is utterly lacking in SM with regard to the discipline of “consciousness studies”. How does Dan Dennett deal with consciousness “ ?? it’s an illusion” Dan .... illusions only exist IN consciousness Hallucinations.... same.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"which cannot be computed/processed by the belief system of scientific materialism" I think scientific materialism encompasses Douglas Hofstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach" which seems to me to be a rather excellent exploration of how the complex dance of matter, the extraordinarily complex dance of matter, is responsible for consciousness. Have you read it?

[@sombodysdad]

Information is neither matter nor energy

[@seabud6408]

REDPUMPERNICKEL Thanks for your reply. Glad you mentioned GEBach. I bought it in 1980 as a student and was fascinated by it. At that stage in my life however I found it very hard going and didn’t get into it. I’ve just brought it out again and will give it another go. I came across the work of plant biologist Dr Rupert Sheldrake at that time ( book - A new science of life) and resonated with his views. The point I was trying to make about scientific materialism is that those trained within its confines ( but don’t agree with its tenets) risk being ostracised from academia/tenure/funding ...if they disclose their interest in consciousness being an all system level quality of the Universe. The prevailing prejudice is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain/neuronal activity. The other prejudice is that life is not an inherent property of energy. No lab has a sample of dead energy. The plasma which cooled ( through symmetry breaking/matter phase transitions) to hydrogen, carbon (produced later in stars) evolved chemically perhaps on asteroids to produce organic molecules. Somehow a major transition to self replication must have occurred. My point is that at no stage in the journey from whole Universe birth (perhaps infinitely cycling births and heat deaths ) through hot plasma to RNA is there a process which is devoid of life and stage specific consciousness ( field). Scientific materialism cannot contemplate an all system level Universe that never truly dies (but goes through transitions which are labelled birth and death) A Universe that at no point is devoid of the shaping fields of forces/fields, consciousness, life, geometry, feedback, complexity from simplicity. The whole is the part. It’s too close to what Richard Dawkins .. as one example ...has a rabid hatred for. A Universe conscious and alive at a whole system level is too close to .... God. I don’t posit God or say .... creation ? ... God did it. What I’m saying has no relation to the God of organised religion, dogma, faith. I’m saying that it is obvious that consciousness/life is a whole system quality of Universe .... at every system level. How else could plasma write war and peace ☮️ left to its own devices for 14 billion years. The conundrum is possibly clarified by the almost certain fact that no volume of computation capacity and software is ever likely to produce consciousness ( UNDER- standing) . Even quantum computing. There are some mathematical problems which are non computable ( Roger Penrose ) Self organising energy which was both the womb and the embryo of what we label Universe (in its initial plasma state) had all the qualities, in potentia and inherent, which “grew”/evolved to chemicals RNA lipid membranes and what we label as life. My point is that it was as alive in its plasma Wombiverse state as what differentiated out later, through inherent (womb/embryo like ) processes on the Earth. Rock pool environments are as much alive as what we label as the proto life which perhaps evolved/grew within them. My point is that if the next generation of children aren’t exposed to the reality ... as I see it ... that they are alive and conscious in an alive conscious and expanding/ growing / conscious process( Universe) , we are doomed as a species ....as will the balance which supports all localised life and consciousness on Earth. The dogma of scientific materialism has objectified and exploited our living planet and inadvertently produced the extinction rebellion movement. There is hope.

[@seabud6408]

sombodysdad Thanks for your comment but you don’t say why you think the equivalence or interrelatedness of energy matter and information is a crazy notion. Seth Lloyd, the Quantum computing pioneer contends that the Universe is information/computation . “atoms flip bits” Max Tegmark the MIT physicist contends that the Universe / consciousness/ life .... all of it ...is mathematics. Black hole physics. Leonard Suskind contends that our 3D reality is a projection of holographic information held in 2D on the event horizon at the edge of our Universe ( I think that’s what he said)

[@sombodysdad]

@@seabud6408 Information is not the paper. Information is not the ink. Information is not the radio waves. Information needs those in order to be transferred in a physical realm.

[@nyoodmono4681]

Great! Again my intuition is supported

[@JayBobJayBob]

I can imagine his love life. A girl says I love you, do you love me? His response would be, that is a language I cannot relate to. I mean it has a subject and a predicate but love has not been proven to exist beyond a chemical saturation of the brain and body. Besides that there is no real evidence that that saturation is actually love. Possibly it is some sort of virus which may or may not be alive but definitely has become part of my biosphere. I hope that answers your question honey.

[@Raydensheraj]

I assume your pissy because he didn't want to talk about your favorite version of an Creator? Why can't Nature itself create - why does it have to be a damn middle Eastern fairytale? Intelligent design? C sections? The design of a man's testicles on the outside of our bodies? Everything concerning Biology can be explained via Evolution which is a Scientific Theory making predictions. Now please, what predictions can I make with Intelligent Design? Please explain how an experiment would look like? Also a funny thing: The creator loves nature and the killing that goes on? When you ever have the chance - visit the Amazon - at nighttime you can't sleep because of the screams of animals killing each other. Plants literally block each other for sunlight... And certain animals and the homo Sapiens show love, which evolution deems beneficial for our species. We are tribal Hunter/gatherers...our survival depended on sticking together... Until we unfortunately or fortunately outgrew natural selection...

[@stevelenores5637]

Believe me there are women who love men that they don't understand. I believe it is called intrigue. Men love women they don't understand even more. The mystery of love is that most of it is unspoken. Also there are women who might see him as a challenge and be attracted to that. Cupid works in mysterious ways.

[@semsoristic2816]

You suck

[@wbiro]

He introduced new terms and concepts, but did not give examples, which are needed, especially when the terms and concepts are broad.

[@benyahudadavidl]

Perhaps some of us are unaware that so-called white people build theories and Black men built everything else. That might be why. Shalom

[@haipengli4769]

Very similar to Jeremy England’s idea of dissipation driven adaptations

[@michaelvickers8691]

I suspect England's ideas factor in with the good professor's thesis. I too thought of England and his early publications on energy flow and its relation to complexity/organization which I came across maybe 10 or 15 years ago.

[@jameshopkins5137]

Eric Smith is extremely articulate. His explanations were outstanding. When answering questions, he showed respect to the questioned and without contradicting, his answers enlightened and motivated someone he showed no attempt to contradict another viewpoint. Nihongo de shaberu setsume kikoaba subarashii ka mo shiranai.

[@ThekiBoran]

But Mr. Smith didn't explain how life began. Dr. James Tour in this video explains in great detail the problems with a chemical or mechanical beginning of life. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk

[@donaldclifford5763]

A big picture understanding and clear explanation.

[@LindaGroenendijk]

Dr. Smith - "In the vent world, you are not building up complexity against the release of energy, you are building up complexity because that is the path of least resistance to release energy." Me, a scientist - *Orgasms

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Linda, Right. Second Law, 101(b). Good solid stuff -- of which Smith has quite a bit. If only he would say something interesting or useful, instead of celebrating this cloying Holy Communion of Smoothtalk.

[@katiekat4457]

Linda Groenendijk “orgasms”?? Maybe organisms instead...lol

[@JeffreyBrooks1]

Standing applauds

[@pteronarcyscalifornica694]

Largely semantic game centered upon redefining life. The talk never addresses the origin of life. Sure, there is a relationship between geochemistry and biochemistry, but that doesn't say anything about how biochemistry came to be.

[@rolo5424]

Exactly.

[@KipIngram]

I think his point was just that it's likely things started here. He was pointing at new questions to ask - not answering them (yet). I think the absolutely fundamental question is the one he did mention - is life on earth an example of a rare, unbelievably fortuitous event, or is it an example of an inevitability. I think in the end we'll find it's the latter, but we haven't shown that yet.

[@rippenburn]

Thanks for the heads up. I was already bored by the time he showed the very deceptive animation of how the mantle is regenerated (we don't know because we've only scratched the surface of the planet) and clicked ahead to see if there was any major revelation regarding the origin of life - no there isn't. I don't know how these guys get away with being paid all their lives to achieve nothing of any value. Next!

[@boxelder9167]

@@rippenburn kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk This is a lot more solid than the flowery talk.

[@rippenburn]

@@boxelder9167 Thanks. I have watched a few by Tour. I'm guessing you have watched Rupert Sheldrake then?

[@cikgunirmell6958]

Brilliant.. thank you

[@rayertman]

The possibility of a random chemical reaction, gathering, formation, evolution, whatever you want to call it, is infinitely impossible. The field of abiogenesis or first life is not closer to understanding the mechanism of how it would go about forming in nature. That statement is a lie, or at least disingenuous. Yes, in fact we have more biological understanding of what the minute components of biological composition entail , but this only brings us to the understanding that we are much much further away from the understanding of the mechanism by which such processes would occur. I also would like to make a comment on this 'common descent' nonsense and what the Human Genome Project actually uncovered insofar as the coding region of our DNA . I agree our DNA protein coding region has been sequenced and combined there are 20,000 base pairs. I agree,(although the % is a bit lower than first believed)that the similarity between man and chimp is about 99%. What they DONT tell you is... THE PROTEIN CODING REGION ONLY REPRESENTS 1.5% OF THE ENTIRE DNA. Also we now know there is no such thing as 'junk dna'. The remainder of the dna is completely functional which is called the intergenic regions and it is in this 98.5% is where the differences are. Back to the point, one should listen to a lecture given by the most qualified organic and syntho-organic chemists on the planet, Dr. James Tour on The Origin of Life at Syracuse University. This is not his opinion. It is a purely scientific demonstration of what chemicals do , and can't do. Max Planck, the grandfather of quantum mechanics understood this and authored this quote."All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. " Since we know that the universe had a beginning, where Einstein's relativity requires that all, space, time , matter , and energy, all had a beginning.. At this point we are forced to dismiss natural processes as a first cause. By definition, this is not natural , so the origins must be 'supernatural'. Simply something that 'natural ' processes can't explain.

[@ThekiBoran]

Here's a great talk by Dr. James Tour. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIaafaqtYth1hsk

[@TrumanGN]

Ray Ertman, I have been saying exactly this for years. I was obsessed with doing thought experiments of natural selection and finally realized that the mutationists have all misunderstand the genetic system. I believe it was created so that natural selection of variant characteristics would never proceed to speciation, which is the antithesis of Darwinism. Species which cannot adapt to massive changes in the environment can only change up to the varietal level as in dogs. Extinction will occur long before speciation which is the real reason the dinosaurs became extinct, mules are infertile and the missing link between apes and humans has never been found. It doesn't exist. Life on earth is therefore experimental with something trying to create something. I don't claim to know the nature of either, but this is my thoroughly researched conclusion.

[@tlw4237]

1. There is no missing link between humans and apes. Humans are, by definition, apes. 2. Please let us know when your “thought experiments” get you the Nobel prize you so obviously deserve. It takes a true genius to overturn 150+ years of science, science that has withstood all tests it has encountered even, by thinking “nu-uh, I don’t understand any of that”.

[@TrumanGN]

@@tlw4237 To whom are you addressing your last comment re. thought experiments and Nobel Prize? The mystery regarding the theory of evolution via natural selection is why so many supposedly intelligent people can't understand that random events will never account for the complexity in living organisms? The existence of the genetic code should have been enough to dissuade evolutionists from the natural selection model because if natural selection accounts for complexity it would also have to have been the designer of the rules by which all the particles present on the helix chain interact. . Which would mean that the apparatus came into existence because each of the particles offered a singular benefit. This is not remotely possible. The only sensible conclusion is that some kind of massive intelligent force has designed the genetic system. The main flaw in the natural selection model is the claim that singular variant coding mistakes can override the existence of trillions of genes which are not aberrant to the degree of resulting in speciation. This is what I refer to as "genetic inertia" which appears to exist so that "natural" or frivolous random accidents won't be able to interfere with the speciation program. Something is experimenting and learning and deciding which species are suitable to continue and which are to become extinct, which has been the fate of 96 percent of all species that have lived on this planet. The reality is clear and obvious. There is intelligence in the world beyond that of humans.

[@martinzitter4725]

@@TrumanGN ~ The Fact of Evolution stands inviolable. Just a few of the details, however, are still being discussed.

[@falstmusic]

Does anyone know where I can find more about this man/theory right now (2020)?

[@bobdobbs943]

yes, look up liars R us

[@ConservativeAnthem]

This is a sleep inducing lecture full of speculative information.

[@77goanywhere]

And your qualifications to allow you to make that statement are...?

[@ConservativeAnthem]

@@martinzitter4725 Your enthymeme suggests self-identity as a conservative.

[@ConservativeAnthem]

@@77goanywhere Probably similar to yours in "rewriting the Gospel." Next, maybe you can boil the ocean.

[@martinzitter4725]

@@ConservativeAnthem ~ I'm a well-trained and heavily-armed radical militant feminist atheist socialist iconoclast.

[@ConservativeAnthem]

@@martinzitter4725 My...don't attempt that with a full mouth!!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

I hate all Q&As. One can never hear the questions. And, when one does hear the questions, they are usually stupid. That is why I never listen to post-talk Q&As.

[@donaldclifford5763]

But has great answers.

[@rubiks6]

If given all the molecules of life - the right lipids, the right carbohydrates, the right proteins, and the nucleic acids - and even the nucleic acid polymers having the right sequence of nucleotides - all in purified, homochiralic form, could scientists put them together in such a way that a new life would emerge from these inert materials? The answer is, no. Nature is incapable of producing most of the molecules necessary for life. Nature is unable to produce them in a purified form or homochiralic. Nature is unable to polymerize most of the polymers needed for life and, especially, nature is unable to produce DNA or RNA with the right non-random encoding necessary for life to operate (the information). How do you expect unguided "nature" to produce life if intelligent men with laboratories cannot do it? Life only comes from life. Most of the molecules of life can only be produced by life. Only life can pass on the information of life on to new life. Only life can put the molecules of life into a configuration that produces new life. Life only comes from life.

[@rubiks6]

@Peeta Bird - "The entire development of complex life is based on repeating patterns - Nucleic acids (as well as proteins) are polymers, or molecules made up of a linking chain of repeating molecules. The repeating components are known as monomers. RNA and DNA are made of monomers. This negates your argument." You are quite mistaken. The DNA found in living organisms is absolutely _not_ repeating patterns. While the nucleic- acid backbone may be repeating, the sequence of purines and pyrimidines (A, C, T, and G, if those letters mean anything to you) on that backbone is definitely non-repeating and carries detailed _information_ about the structure and function of all the various parts of the organism. My niece has a devastating neurological disorder caused by *_one single letter_* in the 3,000,000,000 letter code of her DNA being replaced by the wrong letter. Her acetylcholine receptors are malformed because one single DNA letter is wrong, causing a wrong amino-acid monomer to be incorporated into a protein which cannot then fold correctly. Proteins also are not just repeating patterns of amino-acids. The screen you are looking at is composed of a repeating pattern of pixels, all constructed nearly identically. Yet those pixels are variously turned on or off in a very precise, non-repeating way that allows you to receive very meaningful information from that screen of repeating elements - information that you have clearly received because you act upon the information and respond with your own meaningful information. As for language, skulls and jaws do not make language. They only make sounds. Language is about the information behind the sounds produced by the physical components. This is just like DNA, this is just like your computer screen - this is *_the distinction_* between information and the media that carries the information. Information is the key to the existence of life and information only comes from mind. Information ≠ Information carrying media. I find science very supportive of my beliefs, though I find some "scientists" to be otherwise.

[@flymasterA]

Rubiks, very good points. You left a critical one off- the cell wall, the highly complex 'skin' that is needed first to hold, protect, and allow life processes to happen while being threatened by natural forces.. This is conveniently omitted by these quantum mystery biologists, but this membrane is common to living things and many processes. You can't have a bag of groceries without a bag, which,in the world of cells, is a miracle on its own. These TP's can't explain this, so they leave it out in their short-cuts. 'Which came first- the cell contents or the cell wall?' When a cell dies, the cell wall disintegrates and the contents degrade and disperse into the vast environment. What power is there to reverse this and add life to it just like it was before? Not even an astronomically small chance. It take the creator.

[@rubiks6]

@@flymasterA - After discussing DNA and RNA and proteins and polysaccharides, I did mention the lipids and said I would leave them out of the discussion because enough had been said already. I just finished watching a video (for the hundredth time) about ATP production. It's just too cool. Your mention of the membrane made me think of it because ion pump (right term?) that produces ATP is embedded in a membrane. Blessings to you!

[@flymasterA]

rubiks6 , There are multiple membranes in a single cell aside from the 'skin' membrane. You are much more educated than I am, but logic and wisdom don't come with degrees. I enjoy education, but I enjoy doing and learning much more than learning for the sake of learning. Too many interests and hobbies, 3 businesses that I started and ran 30+ years, a family, God, and a little time on KZbin debates leaves little time to get too deep into ant one thing. I enjoy 'pulling the tiger's tail' of theorists because they all sooner or later admit to the basic problems of theoretical sciences. Besides, I look forward to studying ALL of God's creation with proper training from the creator himself, life eternal, and a space ship to go galavanting around the universe in.

[@rubiks6]

@@flymasterA - You lost me when you got to the space ship.

[@meexplico5069]

An overall conclusion that I can get from this presentation, is that rocks and minerals play a key role in the biosphere creation and sustainability of life on planet earth. We depend on those elements and their chemical and physical interaction to support life. Some bacteria need just rock and oxygen, other primitive forms of life need these primary bacteria and there you go, you have a life chain.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Abraham, I think that's a trope he's picked up from Maynard Smith. Smith's hand-waving starts a bit smaller, from even little ripples caused by water lapping on sand, and that gave the mystical regularity that evolved into information. Or Something. Or Other. Since rocks existed before life, they were more primaryerish, see? I don't know whether rocks come from sand or vice versa. Ask them.

[@andrewgroves8611]

When you need a physicist to explain origins of life cause biologists can't xD

[@ALavin-en1kr]

He is on the right track. Finally someone thinks of life as predating cells and biology. Biology was extrapolated to be the origin of life via Darwin which is ridiculous.

[@christianityandscience5110]

In kindergarten fairy tales seem plausible. Then you start learning things like chilarity, the mallard reaction and information theory. By the time you're a biochemistry professor like me, you put away kindergarten wishful thinking and realize the possibility of life from non life is less than 1 in 10 to the million, optimistically. My specialty is single carbon metabolism, compounds that CANNOT be metabolized through the Krebs cycle. This man is fueled by a need to worship his god, not reason. See Biochemist Dean Kenyon who first published these ideas and has now totally abandoned them. None of this man's ideas are new and none have worked.

[@DaniMartinezM]

It is a really funny thing that you are named as 'Christianity and Science' and talk about fairy tails.

[@JeffreyCVogt-ch9yf]

Christianity and Science piss off "professor". This lecture is based on research and testable evidence, not supernatural myths about magic spirits and gods.

[@P44man]

Maybe you should start by learning the correct spelling of these words before pretending you're a professor in anything, let alone those subjects you cant spell.

[@suelane3628]

What about the methyl-Co Enzyme A cycle? THis is found in nature and living cells. Also there is a simpler version of ATP. Don't listen to me just read Nick LAne's THe VItal Question. (I think he deals with the RNA world & DNA in LIfe Ascending....I need to read that as well.

[@kyjo72682]

The probability is incredibly low, much lower than 1/10m -- however -- it's not zero. So it's not a surprise that in the infinite universe we live in the region that has the exact conditions for our existence including all the necessary chemical steps required for life. Looking at how your body works and what it requires - are you surprised you find yourself living in a house in a city/village instead of living some place in the middle of a desert, in the ocean, or somewhere in the vast vacuum of outer space? No. Yet those places make up the absolute majority of space compared to your habitat.

[@abubakarabdulrehman8348]

Theories not observed or recorded. It is a bunch of ideas without a base. The evidencw presented to support these weird ideas have been interpreted to suit the beliefs of the authors. Otherwise the same evidence proves that these people are lying.

[@curiousshiba]

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

[@mostlynew]

This stunningly beautiful model of Earthly dynamics makes the abandonment of old assumptions welccome. The processes explained seem to make life on this planet inevitable.

[@bobdobbs943]

Its just talk. Every word contradicts pure chemistry.

[@petermiesler9452]

26:15 - Randomness is a very minor player in evolution - The key: "patterns of life are written into the rules of chemistry and planetary energy flows, before there's ever material for evolution to act upon." -

[@petermiesler9452]

28:00 considering the evolutionary tree of life. - 30:30 You cannot understand an organism without understanding its environment! - 31:30 BEHOLD, the key to metabolism and life on Earth: Kreb Cycle - The Citric Acid Cycle. -

[@thomasbriggs4718]

For those who think this guy is skating over the deep questions about abiogenesis I suggest reading his books. They are staggeringly deep and cross disciplines of organic chemistry, geochemistry, physics, math and information theory. I discussed one with a retired professor of organic chemistry, and felt less stupid when she described it as a ‘very tough slog’

[@robberlin2230]

Hmmm, this life defining synopsis doesnt seem to be well recieved it seems

[@kapresovsk]

this is so cool that i'll have to watch it again ;)

[@tamaking7104]

Each time new insights into the origins, processes and complexities of life are made it makes me marvel at the work of our Creator and reminds me of the revelation in John's Gospel and Genesis about the Living Word that underpins, effuses, directs and produces all things, both inanimate and living. The concept that "rocks are alive" and that life was far from a hugely improbable creation and more like a natural outworking of inbuilt properties of geochemistry is exciting indeed. The bible teaches that the universe and life came into being From the Father , Through the Word (who also became Christ when he chose to communicate something specific to us and to create a pathway for restoring relationship with Him) and BY the Spirit of God. When we learn to provide equal respect to the natural world and the spiritual world, to science and to God and we are not frightened to openly explore them both we will come nearer the truth and understanding life. The textbook or story of nature and of Christ and the fundamentals of the bible are all revelations of God, are the "Word" of God, expressions of God, his nature and creative power. When properly understood these 3 revelations will be mutually supportive. Religiously confining ourselves to fixed interpretations of classic Darwinian or religious interpretations of how life originated and diversified lead us to more questions than answers, and to huge brick walls of understanding. It is fun and a God given privilege to search these matters out. That search should ultimately lead us to the Creator and a sense of awe. We need more humility and openness of mind towards the physical and spiritual realities, explanations and perspectives ; towards students and advocates of these disciplines; towards the full revelation of God (not just nature or the bible) if we are to discover and understand the world we live in and life. The most fascinating revelations of science are those of the "language of life (DNA )", the sense of purpose and direction, the extraordinary complexity and design of life, the laws that shape everything. These all speak of the Creator revealed in the bible and the Living Word through whom and by whom are all things. The simple statements of the Word of God creating all matter, all life are among the most profound in the bible that keep being reaffirmed with new milestone scientific discoveries from the Big Bang to DNA and cell biology. Whether we get out our telescopes or microscopes, our observations and questions ultimately lead us to the Creator. We should not be afraid or straight jacketed by populist scientific custom to acknowledge the elephant in every room we enter, our Creator. When we learn to embrace rather than ignore our Creator and keep in mind the fundamentals of that revealed to us in the bible and the life of Christ, this should lead us to a more insightful understanding of nature and of God. I think of John Lennox's observation "Imagine if scientists took Genesis 1 v 1,2 and John 1 more seriously. the Big Bang would have been discovered much earlier than it was". Light reveals. It is refreshing and very enlightening to see a scientist such as Dr Eric Smith approaching and interpreting nature and origins with a fresh perspective.

[@mcmanustony]

Go away and read some books

[@tamaking7104]

@@mcmanustony Yeah I do. Among those I do read the most important are: the bible and nature, God's book of creation.

[@tamaking7104]

@@mcmanustony Sending people away who have different values, beliefs and conclusions from the evidence we see does not erase any truth that we may have. It only preserves your comfortable bubble of beliefs.

[@mcmanustony]

@@tamaking7104 You have a habit of making a nuisance of yourself cluttering up comment boards with your godawful and utterly irrelevant, boring sermons- you have nothing to say about the science so why say anything?

[@tamaking7104]

@@mcmanustony When dealing with forensic science the interpretation of evidence is highly dependent on what philosophies are applied. I can discuss scientific issues, but the underlying beliefs are equally important. When dealing with the origin of life, the Creator of it is highly relevant, just as Beethoven is relevant to his 5th symphony. Why should it be politically incorrect to even mention Beethoven's name when studying or enjoying his music??? This is the absurdity of modern populist science.

[@amitaimedan]

Excellent lecture!

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

To the good...Dr. Smith is well organized and addresses his science and theories directly without casting aspersions to other existing theories that differ. Listened to the end, wondering why his theory and science seemed problematic. The quickest explanation came at 50:00 and 53:00 in the Q&A. Transcription of his answers: "I don’t ever ask the question, 'Is the virus alive or not?' because the virus is part of the biosphere, and it partakes of the character of the living State from the biosphere as a whole. ...I will admit that my view is pretty much a mechanic’s view of a great many things and perhaps that limits the set of things I can say." In the next question, the man asks him to be more specific about "the particular properties that tell us whether or not the energy [Smith's key force that is created chemically] is living or nonliving in that whole origin and metabolism." True to Dr. Smith's assertion that he takes a mechanic's view...he chooses never, in the entire hour, to address what quality/qualities indicate the presence of life. What is life? He use the terms "living/nonliving" easily throughout, but he is unwilling to define it. This is seriously...and fatally...problematic. It is consistent with his mechanic's view. But that flies in the face of the title of the presentation "Origin of Life." How can you explore the origin of something when you cannot make a good case for knowing what that something is when you see it?

[@bobdobbs943]

The guys nothing but a liar

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

@@bobdobbs943 There are many ways to evaluate work and ideas related to origins of life. Calling a person "Liar" is at the bottom of the list...in fact...it doesn't really make the list.

[@bobdobbs943]

@@gardenladyjimenez1257 Maye he wasnt lying. Maybe he believes life evolved. He did lie about this lecture being on the origin of life. He had nothing to say about the origins. He did mention several time that we are nowhere close to figuring out the origins. He should have been honest and called this lecture " We dont know"

[@jacobkain4721]

We complain about anxiety when we're literally bursts of instability, activity and the resulting waves of reactivity. Come on, guys, we need to vibrate HARDER

[@putterschool4514]

A wonderful talk!

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Greatest make-up artist since Edith Head. Academy Award stuff.

[@alexfocus3474]

Great talk!

[@AronAroniteOnlineTV]

Most amazing lecture ever that revolutionizes the way we understand Life- akin to listening to Darwin when he gave his speech.

[@ts8538]

The philosophy that goes with this science: Whitelhead's "philosophy of organism" in "Process and Reality."

[@edsmith9846]

Being an engineer and a criminologist (white-collar crimes), my opinion of this presentation on origins is this. - Excellent speaker, dedicated scientist, difficult topic because of the many unknown variables, and today I am not convinced the subject deserves the large funding it receives because there are much more pressing matters on our planet.

[@spatrk6634]

what funding does it recieves?