Origin of life on Earth: How it happened | Nick Lane and Lex Fridman

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

this channel has all the right questions mankind has wanted and needed the answers to for so long. keep up the great content! its more entertaining than television 💯

[@scottm8914]

Fascinating the concept of these things. Its crazy you can be "alone" in the middle of a forest or desert somewhere but all around you in billions of numbers , you have processes and bacteria microscopic that cant be seen by your eye but are still performing. Makes me think what else is going on that we just dont sense and see

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

there is so much other shit going on that the mind cant possibly process. i think as humans evolve over time.. so will our consciousness. thats when things will start to really get questionable and i think it has already begun to happen

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 I find it amazing how the concept of the human rational brain can pair intent and progress from said rational brain to the concept of evolution which is mindless and claimed to be pure adaptation. It's not a model of advancement to perfection it's a model of good enough to survive. Food for thought. The concept of evolution is nonsensical through and through from every field of science you examine it from.

[@joshuawoolridge8378]

​@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep what is your explanation then?

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@joshuawoolridge8378 Product of a mind requires a mind, it's as simple as that it's the paradigm of reality.

[@joshuawoolridge8378]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep this is not a logical conclusion at all, lack of understanding creates fallacies like this. You act as if it didn't take millions of years of evolution to produce a mind. The power of iteration is incredible.

[@Elephantine999]

Nick Lane is one of the most interesting people alive today. Fascinating stuff.

[@rl7012]

You have lived a sheltered life.

[@amiwho3464]

OK, I understand that self-replicating molecules (e.g. RNA) could possibly emerge by chance. But you are telling me that once these molecules got encased in lipid membranes, again by chance, they managed to also replicate the whole membrane in synchrony with their own replication? Replicating a membrane requires import of material from the outside. Replicating a self-replicating molecule also requires import of material. There is so much more to add here, but can someone explain to me how this makes sense?

[@kethib52154]

he glossesd over the difficulties of problem of the Origin of Life

[@nicholassmith2237]

As soon as he agreed that “it could have happened in more than one place or at more than one time,” he lost all credibility to me.

[@WayneLynch69]

@@nicholassmith2237 Richard Dawkins says, "it only had to happen once". HOW is that distinct from the definition of "miracle"?! Not saying it was, only that his language is typically so ignorant. Below is Dawkins seated with actual, accomplished biologists, two Nobel laureates & Craig Venter. ALL three say that it is "impossible that humans will EVER know life's origin". And Dawkins says NOTHING!! It's his sine qua non; he has no other achievement on his phony CV. ONLY ABIOGENESIS. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rnqrfqF6Z6t3m7s

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@nicholassmith2237 You can't have scientists telling the truth. It would be better if they used the religious apologist method. Pretend to know what they do not know and make unsubstantiated claims as if they are set in concrete.

[@nicholassmith2237]

@@VaughanMcCuedude, one of the most complex and fascinating things on our planet is that all living cells have DNA and that is how they replicate/reproduce. To say DNA is complex is the understatement of a lifetime. You think we just happened to chance into that in two different places on earth or at two different times in history? I’m not sure if you understand the probability of that… but at the same time you are happy to conclude that religion isn’t real because you’ve never seen the miracle of a man being raised from the dead. To me, the chances of both of those things are at least at the same microscopic level.

[@KrisMaertens]

​@@VaughanMcCue😂 and there is a pope reviewed book on it 🤪

[@nicholaspark09]

Nick Lane has some of the best books on the planet. Highly recommend The Vital Question as he goes in depth on possibilities and the most likely path to life and multicellular life.

[@Mr.BVogel]

5:39 “The way you describe it, you make it sound so easy” There lies the problem with all discussion of abiogenesis from any scientist to the layman. There has to be a simple way of discussing it to the public for nice discussion, expression of theory, etc. - so they must express it this way. I don’t necessarily blame them. Followed up with “it’s very hard though” in attempt to admit difficulty. But if it was made clear the profound complexity of chemical processes that need to take place together, and in sequence, while staying stable, and then stable long enough for the next step. If more people understood how chemistry actually works and what is required for possibly starting life. If it was shared how many chicken-or-egg situations there are for starting a single cell of life. If the mathematics were shared to the improbability of that. And how incredibly crazy and exciting that is. Then these discussions would be very deep and intriguing. But they never want to go there. It’s easier to talk in theory.

[@casanico2082]

The vent providence theory is critical to protect early biochemistry (that led to nucleic acids) from solar radiation damage before ozone? Photosynthesis happened in shade? Did life start after water presence on Earth?

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

It's all nonsense and doesn't work. There is no current naturalistic theory to origin of life far less even a clue to how the fundamental molecules could form. Molecules that's a far cry from forming whatever life is.

[@benmilesg]

The stunning mathematical odds against such a scenario should serve as a huge disclaimer. Just because they can put a number on it people do. Then somehow they feel good about the possibilities that are still impossible.

[@ewerwong3624]

Thank you.

[@benmilesg]

@@ThatGuy-kz3fx look at the statistically improbable odds of spontaneous generation of life and consider the odds for that spontaneously generated “life” to progress to the endlessly complex array of current life on the planet (without the answer to “why” being considered, a separate conundrum) We can all look at the same numbers, and come to different conclusions. Some will say that despite those astronomical odds there was a way, it happened, but for that to be true you still have to consider the earth improbably positioned, perfectly adjacent to the sun, and the improbable existence of life forming materials in the right place in the Universe. In the end we’re all still believing in miracles.

[@IIrandhandleII]

@@benmilesg nothing in the natural world has been explained by a miracle, it is always found to be explainable by natural causes.

[@NineInchTyrone]

The number of biochemical experiments conducted in the universe is effectively infinite

[@azducatiramirez5470]

life didn't happen in a trillion other non existent universes that never existed , think of the chain of events from the beginning of the universe till now as a small stream , trickling along a dry river bed, filling up all the cracks and crevices as it goes along, if it can't happen it won't if it can it will,

[@harbourhaven]

As many have said, still all questions around the origin. The incredible amount of precise reactions needed in the creation of proteins and assembling of a cell is far beyond chemistry still.

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

do you think simulation is a possibility?

[@HR-yd5ib]

@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 , how would that solve anything? Its like the old god of gaps. Where would the programmers of the simulation have come from?

[@farrellraafi1301]

@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 most religion's doctrine actually believe that this world is a simulation/test and there's another world beyond this world. And as a software engineer I kinda buy that idea.. the better a VM is the better that it hides the fact that it is virtual (software/code/users doesn't know that they are living in a VM) and this applies to any form of VM wether it is operating system VM or a code execution VM like LLVM (and JVM but you know, Java) as opposed to running it on bare assembly (clang vs gcc).

[@farrellraafi1301]

@@HR-yd5ib what was happening before bigbang?

[@HR-yd5ib]

@@farrellraafi1301 in the context of the big bang, before is ill defined actually.

[@guitarriff123]

What this all seems to start pointing to is not how rare intelligent life is, albeit extremely rare, but just how improbable abiogenesis and single celled life is at all.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

That is the understatement of the century lol. It's been calculated there isn't enough time in the life of multiple universes stacked on top of each other for glucose to even form correctly that it can be used for life... glucose one of the most simple of molecules for life.

[@DipsAndPushups]

Exactly. Single celled life is abnormally, astrononically stasticslly unlikely

[@johnkoay8097]

And that's why the Fermi paradox. Not a paradox after all, life simply can't be form.

[@ProfShibe]

We don’t know if it’s improbable at all. All we can say is it seems improbable that we are immediately surrounded by “intelligent” aliens as we don’t see anything. We are literally clueless otherwise

[@ProfShibe]

Keep in mind single celled life happened nearly immediately as soon as it got the chance, single celled life isn’t the big factor really it’s multicellular life that took a long time

[@phsal5182]

Fascinating topic. Thank you!

[@silvypetrisor6979]

Modern science can’t create a single cell out of thin air, but this is a theory acceptable?

[@cosmodradek]

nobody said anything about thin air

[@whoff59]

and it took probably more than the life time of any scientist or anti-scientist in the beginning.

[@henrysantiago5997]

If what he says is true...why has life not happened again? Why has life only happened once in the history of earth?

[@suelane3628]

The advent of free oxygen which combines with hydrogen instead of carbon-dioxide. What wasn't covered was that the atmosphere on earth at the time was composed of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The oceans had carbon-dioxide making the seas acidic. The gradients of the alkalinity of the vents to an acidic sea is a dis-equilibrium which life's chemistry is based on and would have been important to the hypothesised proto-life within the vents. The hydrogen ions being pumped through the vents is another case of dis-equilibrium. (Life's building blocks are made of CO2, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus....quite a short-list!) Once independent life started, being based on CO2; it would have functioned as a sink for CO2 plus the naturally occurring rare O2 would then be augmented by the evolution of photosynthesis. As Nick says in the interview early cells would relatively quickly colonise other deep sea vents and destroy the chances of any other cells becoming independent of the 'mineral cells' and labyrinths inside the vents. So although we still have alkaline vents there is not enough CO2 in the deep ocean to enable life to independently start again. Also be aware that the first signs of life is from zircon crystals c. 4.1 billion years old. Yet L.U.C.A is only 3.8 billions years old. Each alkaline vents only exists for tens of thousands of years before expiring. There were probably millions of them. This means that between them they could have supported many RNA cell populations, and fewer populations with a more complex metabolism. It appears only one vent did, by chance, evolve independent cellular life forms (Bacteria & Archaea); with-in the constraint of tens of thousands of years. The myriad of other proto-life forms didn't quite make it but had between 4.1 and 3.8 billion years to produce independent cells. "Nice try but no cigar."

[@Edruezzi]

Because any new clade of life couldn't compete with modern clades, which have had nearly 4 billion years to evolve successive adaptations, and because you're a moron, and because any unsolicited comments or likes will elicit the blockage of the commentator and the deletion of the post.

[@ProfShibe]

Bro watch the video lmao they literally talked about that

[@henrysantiago5997]

@@ProfShibe they can talk about it all they want...the truth is nobody knows

[@joshuawoolridge8378]

​@@henrysantiago5997 that's science bud, we get closer and closer to the truth instead of following some book blindly and believing everything it says. If there is new evidence we can change opinion.

[@danielhanawalt4998]

The way I see it is there's far more we don't know than we do know. And much of what we do know we don't really understand. We live in a small box of knowledge and understanding. Some see creation and some see evolution. And we argue whether one is true and the other is not. I don't much care to argue about it. Considering how little we know how is it possible either side can say without doubt it's one way or other? For me creation makes more sense than evolution. When I say that it gets me in discussions I'd just as soon not get in. Some seem to be determined to prove me wrong and I wonder why. If they're 100% certain we've discovered and understand the mystery of life what does it matter to them if someone sees it differently? If they believe evolution is right I don't really have a problem with that. I believed evolution was right at one time myself. Interesting video.

[@michaelharrison622]

It's all guess work people... we're all stuck in an alien Trueman show is my outrageous guess.

[@Mister_Durden]

Yes, you are Michael......enjoy your after lunch bathroom break, we always do......

[@Engenifffo]

truman

[@michaelharrison622]

@@Mister_Durden pmsl

[@scottm8914]

Totally agree, as the most intelligent life on earth i dont believe it was an accident...

[@Mister_Durden]

@@scottm8914 🌍 Earth : episode 63560 - watch the dumb apes murder eachother again! Brought to you by Smorlax, enjoy a crisp refreshing Smorlax with your friends today!

[@BR-kq7kt]

Matter is magic, self-creating fairy dust which can naturally change it’s form from non-living to living under the right conditions. Simple as that.

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

not saying this isn’t possible.. but do you think matter is magical enough to create everything over time that exist today? from humans, animals, plant life, planet alignment, compared to a higher intelligence creating all of this? i just think its far too coincidental for all of this to exist naturally. i dont know maybe im not smart enough to understand the subject but thats just my personal understanding of all this. i hope one day we can truly know the truth

[@BR-kq7kt]

@Baby Fark Matter is absolutely magical enough. In the absence of God, matter is God-like. The unassailable will of the Divine can be easily replaced by the mindless crawl of natural processes. By thermal vents, phosphorus and time. Once it gets rolling, it reproduces, quarrels and eventually thinks itself enlightened. See? Magic. I think it was Chesterton to said that a slow miracle is just as impressive as an instantaneous one. I’ll have to check. Forget the simulation, which implies a designer. Would said designer have a beginning in it’s reality? A thermal vent on an unknown world? Or would it be simply an NPC in yet another simulation, spawned from more magical fairy dust? Well?

[@rl7012]

@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 The truth is that life cannot come from non life. That is the truth. Life has been repeatedly shown and proven that without exception it only comes from other life. Scientists cannot make the simplest cell in a high tech lab from non life. Scientists are clueless how life began. Absolutely clueless.

[@garynumen13]

"All we know is that there's a single common ancestor for all of life." Do we? Do we know that or are you assuming that? Those are not the same thing.

[@joekelly8997]

I didn’t know the villain from The Rocketeer was so smart…

[@VegaPunk1337]

Currently reading signature in the cell by Steven Meyer and he walks through the statistical improbability (putting it mildly) that life originated in the way talked about here. To illustrate some perspective you’re something like a trillion trillion times more likely to find a marked particle (proton, neutron, or electron) in our galaxy than one functional protein arising by chance. That’s just a functional protein not a cell (of which there are all kinds of proteins as well as DNA).

[@kennybobby201]

Nick not narrating his own books is such a bummer, great voice.

[@kyledixon6149]

There is a Common Designer.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Gucci.

[@rl7012]

Nick thinks if you add information to a system that is growing anyway then that it makes life. So what growing systems on a prebiotic earth could there be? Chemistry alone does not make systems. Chemistry only reacts. And where did the RNA come from? Where did the molecules come from and was the RNA strand put together with all the information in it? Random chance? Impossible. How did the RNA not degrade and somehow manage to wiggle through the 'growing system's wall? These are very unsatisfactory arguments Nick.

[@spatrk6634]

your understanding of chemistry is very unsatisfactory

[@rl7012]

@@spatrk6634 Yours is non existent

[@mikev4621]

@@rl7012 You ask "how did the information get into the RNA?" Answer: the RNA IS the information

[@rl7012]

@@mikev4621 No, it is the arrangement of the RNA that contains the information. The. ARRANGEMENT of chemicals not. the chemicals themselves. So I repeat, where did. the information come from? Or do you think dead dumb chemicals on their own formulated the most brilliant coding and information handling ever devised?

[@mikev4621]

@@rl7012 RNA is just a template for manufacturing proteins .Yes they are chemicals .You are a big assemblage of chemicals - I'm sure you don't consider yourself 'dead and dumb"

[@janchmiel7302]

the more I listen to scientists and mathematicians talk about what might be behind everything, the more I think that we have a category error. full respect for the depth of their knowledge, commitment and success at mining logic - but why do we think that will give us access to reality.

[@mikev4621]

need to be more specific

[@andrewdouglas1963]

Where could the code have come from?

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@Edruezzi Cool story. Is there scientific support for this story? Or is it just a story.

[@mikev4621]

the molecule IS the code

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@mikev4621 That's like saying the letter 'A' is the code in a computer programme. The letter 'A' on its own does nothing. The letters need to be arranged in a specific order to create a purposeful code. This is the same in DNA and computer code.

[@mikev4621]

@@andrewdouglas1963 a molecule is a string of atoms, just as a word is a string of letters.I didnt say RNA was like one letter

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@mikev4621 I said it was like a letter as a very basic example. To be more exact, the genetic code is a set of three-letter combinations of nucleotides called codons, each of which corresponds to a specific amino acid or stop signal. They must be in specific order to be a code. Any old random combination doesn't work. So where could the correct code in the correct order come from? Saying the molecule is the code simply isn't a suitable answer.

[@ItsPainnz]

ok but where did it come from, how does it come into existence

[@donthomas4793]

Love James Tour

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

Yes he quickly points out how absurd they are they have zero science to support even the most basic starting point for origin of life the fundamental molecules yet origin of life researchers constantly grift they have almost figured it out and we will produce life in the next few years when they literally haven't the vaguest clue about anything.

[@mcmanustony]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep How much origin of life research have you actually read? Or is regurgitating Tour's slogans and lies as good as it gets?

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@mcmanustony lmao are you the science?

[@mcmanustony]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep not sure what, if anything, that is supposed to mean. I doubt you know either. I asked a simple enough question. The answer is NONE isn't it. You're just another lying smear merchant bellyaching in ignorance aren't you?

[@simontist]

Nick Lane's book "Life Ascending" goes into this, I recommend

[@rl7012]

He doesn't know how life started. Absolutely clueless.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Thanks for your interest and contribution. Your mistake is assuming a reader isn't required to choose wilful ignorance and that they can read. Religion and magical thinking are mind viruses.

[@smalltowninnewmexico]

those eyebrows are soo RAD

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

🥸😂😂 bro has eye carpets

[@avgroupltd3481]

Thermodynamics - it is the process of converting energy from a high state to a low state. Life is not a thing, but a process. The process of life is to take high level energy (photons) and break them down into carbon and others.

[@slackster999]

Just saying the process of evolution is not an explanation. It’s as if people saying that makes it happen. It’s the mechanisms within that process and whether they can account for the changes taking place. What are the exact mechanisms.

[@h077ings3ad]

Dr. Frankenstein said it best: It’s alive! It’s alive!

[@sendri2012]

Let's be honest: the beginning of Universe (including its fine tuning for Life, including the formation of our planet perfectly fit for Life), the beginning of Life, everyone of the so-called transition phases ( from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic; from unicellular to multicellularity, from fish to amphibians and so on , including from monkeys to humans) are and remain misteries. The scientific research went so far that we really reach an epistemologic wall: the mystery of Life requests not to be "scientifically" understood, but revered! Only a mystery can bring us neverending meaning. A meaning and a call, a responsibility to build a fair society! This is all what scientific quest should be about.

[@1000kings1]

Bottom line, he hasn't made life with his hot vent experiments.

[@zuzabarbuscakova2924]

host looks like a very serious profesor examining student

[@kaaaaaaandries]

Are they describing Proof of Work?

[@kickingsaturday]

Oh, there’s a possible fact earth is the vessel for planet Theia 😅

[@Sow777Reap]

*_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857)

[@mikev4621]

He said that in relation to what?

[@TomHendricksMusea]

ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT AND ITS ROLE IN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Paper. Introduction. A number of recent studies suggest that ultraviolet radiation may be a necessary ingredient in the origin of life. Further, one may hypothesize that the daily solar cycle and the Sun's UV radiation were important in all stages of the origin of life on Earth. Moreover, it is suggested that life can be defined as that chemical reaction forced by the energy cycle of the Sun, under very specific circumstances. Evidence. In support of these claims are the following assumptions and lines of evidence: 1. The assumption that all stages of the origin of life took place at or near the surface and close to or on land. 2. The assumption that there was a lower solar luminosity, higher UV flux, and no ozone layer in the period of the origin. 3. The assumption that there was a shorter diurnal, day/night cycle, due to the faster rotation of the Earth following the presumed collision that preceded the formation of the Moon. 4. The assumption that chemical selection was for stability under the Sun heat cycle. 5. The assumption that solar radiation far exceeded all other energy available for organic synthesis, including electrical discharges, shock waves, radioactivity to a depth of 1 km, volcanoes, and cosmic rays. 6. The assumption that there were wet/dry cycles that drove phosphorylation of nucleotides and perhaps other condensation reactions. 7. The assumption that there was at first a primitive, environmentally forced, PCR-like replication process of alternating heat and cold that denatured then annealed RNA paired strands. It is assumed that the Sun cycle (day and night) caused a cycle of primitive denaturing and annealing of paired RNA nucleotide strands [and possibly folded (annealed) and unfolded (denatured) nucleotide strands]. It is assumed that this provided a large number of variations of paired RNA strands with variations of properties, the most stable of which possessed the best Watson-Crick (W-C) pairing. 8. It is assumed that instead of a self replicator, there was at first a primitive, Sun-forced replication process. It is assumed that proof reading would at first have been limited to W-C pairing over non W-C pairing for stability. Note also the assumption that paired bases may have better protected the ribose-phosphate backbones from UV damage. 9. The assumption that the first coded information would have been for that molecule which was most stable in the Sun/heat cycle environment. Note: in Watson-Crick base pairing in RNA there are two sets of nucleotide bases: G bonds to C and A bonds to U. It is assumed that Watson-Crick base pairing is more stable in this environment than non Watson-Crick base pairing. And of the two sets of bases, It is assumed that the G-C bonds would have been more stable than A-U bonds because G-C bonds have 3 hydrogen bonds instead of the 2 of A-U. It is also assumed that A-U would have been more stable than non Watson-Crick base pairing. Further it is assumed that high G-C base pairing would have supported more stability than high A-U base pairing. Additionally it is assumed that A-U base pairing would have supported more stability than non Watson-Crick base pairing, or no base pairing at all. It is also assumed that high A-U base pairing would allow for more variation than G-C base pairing, because A-U bonds are more likely to denature in heat and more likely to denature quicker than G-C bonds and thus more likely to anneal with other RNA strands in cooler temperatures. It is assumed that overall the G-C plus A-U sets of nucleotides would promote both general stability with the G-C set, and variety with the A-U set of nucleotides. 10. The assumption that RNA acted as a receptor and transducer of UV radiation. 11. The assumption that there was a cyanobacteria-like lifestyle for the earliest confirmed true organisms so far, and that this earliest remnant of life is very near the likely origin of life. 12. The assumption that there was a pyrimidine dimer impact on the genetic code. It is assumed that because of the high UV during this period, UV-caused pyrimidine dimers would also be highly likely. This further assumes that this would not favor any code with adjacent pyrimidines that would lead to the likelihood of pyrimidine dimers. This further assumes that the most likely first codons would be either purine / pyrimidine / purine, or pyrimidine / purine / pyrimidine; coding that prevents adjacent pyrimidines and thus pyrimidine dimers. Later it is assumed that this would lead to information coding beginning in the 2nd position, or middle position, the most protected position of the 3 base codon and anticodon. It is assumed that this initial coding may have been limited to 2 classes or sets of amino acids; hydrophilic (XAX with "A" in 2nd protected position) and hydrophobic (XUX with U in 2nd protected position). There is also the assumption that there was a pyrimidine dimer impact on tRNA which, it is further assumed, was one of the earliest forms of RNA. 13. The assumption that the Miller / Urey experiments are seen as an illustration of a heat cycle, "energized by a cyclical electrical discharge apparatus to represent UV radiation from the Sun." 14. The assumption that the first mechanism that used sunlight energy to remove hydrogen from water may have been UV radiation on ferrous ions. Magnetite, a mixed oxide of ferrous and ferric iron found in banded iron formations (BIF) may be remnants of that process. This hypothesis avoids problems in competing theories.

[@andrewthomas8233]

I think there were thousands if not millions of different things that had to happen just right at the right time and sequence to make it possible for us and every form of life to be here and if we keep breaking the sacred hoop of life, I mean like insects are extremely important to our ecosystem it's really amazing we all play a part and as humans it's our jobs to reverse the absolute destruction we've inflicted I mean scientist's have been telling us all the way back to the late 1800's but the dummies we put in charge of the future of the only planet we have care more about their payments from big oil then the future of even their own kids and grandchildren nevermind us we already know they don't give two shits about us it really is Mind boggingly disgusting and really just straight up evil ghouls they are, there is NO planet B and time is running out, first they said they just didn't believe us about climate change because we'll you know it snows in the winter sometimes then it was well ok I guess there is a climate problem after their mansions started gettin flooded every two or more years then it was every year so know they just say well is their really anything we can do about it the planet has always cooled and heated without even mentioning or they probably don't even know not at the rate of time ever in earth's history but then at that point their brains just shut-off or malfunction but hopefully we haven't already passed the threshold. ✊ RISE UP AND VOTE the LIVES OF YOUR KIDS AND GRANDCHILDREN ARE AT STAKE SO PLS HELP US SAVE THE 🌎 and all the beautiful life in all its forms. PS thank you for reading this long message if you did it just really does make me mad how some people can be so stubborn I'm just very passionate when it comes to this topic. PEACE AND LOVE ✌👍👍✊👋

[@matthoward598]

It's possible that it's much simpler. We're in a habitable zone. We have a Moon that is the right size and distance, that formed at the perfect time. It absorbed impacts...Jupiter takes impacts.... We have a star that is the right size and distance. Things evolved at the perfect time... Maybe it was just a small amount of variables that occurred that made us come about. That's actually a bit scary to think about. I get all of the other things that you're saying, but I think I'll comment on that at later time.

[@kayakMike1000]

Ah dude ... Humans make the earth better. Sure, we destroy sometimes, but we build and improve way more than we tear down.

[@kennethbransford820]

== Design and the combinatorial numbers Mr. @@matthoward598and the permutations along with exponential numbers needed for life to exist is proving design. Everything in existence was by design. Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ===

[@edenrosest]

Afred Russel Wallace (1912), co-founder of the theory of evolution, along with Darwin, made the following concise quotation in a reply to Dr. Schafer: "life is the cause, not the consequence, of organisation." Is this quotation not valid at all now? He concluded: "I submit that, in view of the actual facts of growth and organisation as here briefly outlined, and that living protoplasm has never been chemically produced, the assertion that life is due to chemical and mechanical processes alone is quite unjustified. NEITHER THE PROBABILITY OF SUCH AN ORIGIN, NOR EVEN ITS POSSIBILITY, HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING WHICH CAN BE TERMED SCIENTIFIC FACTS OR LOGICAL REASONING."

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

translation: we are living in a simulated reality

[@rl7012]

I would say MIND is the cause not the consequence of organisation.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

Some progress since then.@@rl7012

[@nuckchorris1396]

Fascinating

[@aloneness3506]

The same process happened trillions of times.. All over the planet..

[@francisodonoghue1581]

Look, the truth seems to be, we haven't a clue. Time to listen to Dr James Tour ?

[@anikaiub20]

They wont.

[@spatrk6634]

why james tour? he has nothing to do with origin of life research. he has 10+ hour youtube series on origin of life and he does not mention autocatalysis once. that tells us that he havent got a clue about what he is talking about

[@rizdekd3912]

How does James Tour say life started on earth?

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@spatrk6634 Why because he actually understands chemistry at a level beyond these origin of life researchers and gets to the core of their bs calling out their claims. They have no chemistry to produce anything.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@rizdekd3912 He doesn't he gives commentary on the origin of life researchers chemistry as a highly accredited chemist himself who understands biological chemistry. He calls out their grifting claims and shows they have zero chemistry to produce what they claim and lists all the issues. They literally can't even make the most fundamental molecules MOLECULES for life.

[@squashduos1258]

Interesting. Single origin. Perhaps the split thereafter is contingent upon what the signaling substrate is ie the composition of the available minerals and composition thereof. Fwiw

[@TempleElaine-z4l]

Perez Patricia Gonzalez Jose Rodriguez Sandra

[@jameshale6401]

A cell or a grain of sand cant self create Name one thing that is matter that is not for something else or a result of something else I can not grasp how time or space can need a creator because they are not matter and can not help but to exist

[@TornSoul062473]

I've been wondering if it was something like a combination of things that set things in motion. For instance thermal vents and a limnic eruption. Thermal vents provide the chemistry to begin life, and a limnic eruption ejected the material outward increasing diversity.

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

or we could just be in a simulation created by a higher power. its just really hard to comprehend even the possibility of everything being created from natural evolution. not saying its not possible, but the simulation theory seems much more probable. just my opinion

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

You need trillions and trillions of years multiple universes of time just for the theoretical time need for even the most basic fundamental molecules of life to even be produced. That's without them even doing anything together. Far less a single cell of life. Life is clearly the product of a top down creation from a God, not bottom up from molecules going to a higher state. These molecules are all structured and tent pole components that all are chicken and the egg type issues that need to exist altogether at the same time. Think proteins that have to be folded many times in specific ways yet there are no enzymes coded to do it and the enzymes are made from proteins so... even the most simple molecule glucose has trillions of ways the molecules can be linked yet only one way that is compatible for life. Dr James Tour has gone over these issues extensively. Origin of life research is a scam.

[@joshuawoolridge8378]

​@@BlueDutchCigarillo420 How did the thing running the simulation come to be? This line of thinking just creates more unanswerable questions.

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

@@joshuawoolridge8378 idk you tell me

[@MichaelMcCausland-pg6qs]

Life is the feedback loop of novelty that the universal consciousness enjoys

[@JjDp-m2k]

Universal consciousness is another way to say God by the way. The reason for this is that God is described as something exceeding space and time, and is conscious to create a world. Therefore God is infinite consciousness that birthed many little consciousness's

[@anthonypena4447]

The Shadow Biosphere were life made up of different bonds of chemistry or a different genetic structure could be thriving all over Earth yet we cant detect it or to know what to even look for when it comes to secondary life.

[@rl7012]

3.31 'basically what life is doing it's hydrogenating carbon dioxide, its taking the hydrogen that bubbles out of the Earthi in these hydrothermal events and sticks it on C02 and its as simple as that'. ????? What? Is he supposed to be the expert? If it were that simple then why can't scientists build even the simplest of living cells from non life? In no way shape or form is building life simple. Nick has ignored the incredible chemistry and sequence specificity and engineering building needed to produce even the simplest of cells. It is mathematically impossible to life to have arisen by chance. And NOBODY has made the molecules needed for life on a prebiotic earth in a lab. Our best scientists cannot produce the first building blocks that cells need in homochiral form. Why is Nick pretending this whole thing is easy when he knows full well that origin of life research hasn't made any progress in 70 years???

[@spatrk6634]

origin of life research is progressing each year by leaps and bounds. its just that you have your mind set to not understand it because of religious reasons.

[@rl7012]

@@spatrk6634 Stop making dumb assumptions and cite your evidence for your wild claims. Origin of life has never been further away from making life from non life. So cite your evidence instead of your invalid religious claims.

[@spatrk6634]

@@rl7012 The Sutherland lab experiment: In 2009, the Sutherland lab at the University of Cambridge reported the synthesis of two of the four RNA nucleotides using simple chemical reactions that might have been present on early Earth. The Szostak lab experiments: The Szostak lab at Harvard has conducted several experiments exploring the origins of self-replicating molecules, including the synthesis of small RNA molecules capable of self-replication. The Bada lab experiments: The Bada lab at the University of California, San Diego has conducted experiments exploring the formation of amino acids and other organic compounds in various environments, including on early Earth and on other planets. The discovery of ribozymes: In the 1980s, Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman independently discovered that RNA molecules can act as enzymes, catalyzing chemical reactions in a manner similar to proteins. This discovery provided important support for the RNA World hypothesis, which suggests that early life forms may have relied on RNA molecules for both genetic information and catalysis. These are just a few examples of the many experiments and studies that have been conducted in the field of origin of life research, and the search for the origin of life continues to be an active area of investigation. While you cry about it on youtube.

[@rl7012]

@@spatrk6634 They are all failures. Science has no idea how ribosomes in homochiral form came to be on prebiotic earth. Making experiments and failing and then digging up the non results in order to try and spin it into a success is not the same thing as moving scientifically forward or proving a hypotheses. These people promise the earth moon and stars to the atheist grant givers with an agenda, and the narratives is an atheist one so even when they fail spectacularly which they often do and never publish, the least worst results get published as if they are successes. Learn to read and think for yourself.

[@rl7012]

@@spatrk6634 None of that is evidence. Cite your evidence not the failed experiments or random research.

[@baraskparas]

A new book by Austin Macauley Publishing titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution for the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome. A molecular natural selection formula is proposed.

[@howthecreationworks]

How life originated: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmO1l2eJp6Z6lZo

[@hextoken]

You really need to get Hugh Ross on your show. Vents are BS.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

Hugh Ross isn't fun for the naturalist he goes for the jugular with hard science right away lol.

[@Thesecondcomingpodcast]

We shouldn’t be worried about the origin of life would be worried about the origin of language

[@mcmanustony]

different question. different disciplines What an idiotic comment.

[@weareallanimals]

Aliens where on a vacation and needed a bathroom break. Earth was close. So....

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

That isn't origin of life then. Origin of life is origin of life not transfer of life.

[@weareallanimals]

And here I thought the title of the video was "Origin of live on Earth: How it happened" @@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@weareallanimals As I said that still isn't the ultimate origin of life even if you preface it with earth. Not in the sense of the term "origin of life" with the goal the research is ever done for, which is as in the ultimate origin of life. Even if you want to play games with semantics it's still 50/50 as that still isn't the ultimate origin of the life that came to earth. But I'm sure you realize that lol.

[@weareallanimals]

Uh huh.@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@weareallanimals Glad you see what the phrase origin of life means now. Complicated stuff...

[@slackster999]

What selection is taking place without sexes? What is doing the selecting?

[@spatrk6634]

natural selection.

[@bfinn6160]

Opinions grounded in science=we really have no clue. God's mind is so far beyond ours.

[@arc5015]

It can't really be overstated how unlikely it is for life, or anything to happen. Even you as a person. Brothers and sisters prove you're separate conscious' from your parents eggs/sperm, when a guy ejaculates he gives out between 300m to 1.1bn sperm, and a gal loses 1,000 eggs a month, releasing 1 out of about 2m she was born with into the uterus. It isn't even plausible that you were born, let alone born now in probably one of the most interesting times to be alive as part of the human project, rather than born in, IDK, the 3rd century and died at 6 years old because your village had some bad water. I don't subscribe to a particular religion but I find it indescribably impossible that we're here in any other way than some sort of creator, simulator maybe, something at least.

[@h077ings3ad]

The blind leading the blind! Where did the co2 come from? Where did the oxygen come from? Where did the nitrogen come from to balance the others so life can even exist, let alone create it?

[@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273]

In nature there are more than 400 different types of amino acids: 50% are left-handed and the other 50% are right-handed. These amino acids cannot bind in water. There is no known natural abiotic mechanism in a non-aqueous medium that does the following: (a) select only the 20 amino acids that life uses (discarding the rest), (b) use only left-handed amino acids, (c) that forces amino acids to join only with other amino acids (not with sugars, lipids or other types of organic molecules), (d) that forces the union to always take place between the amino groups (NH2) with the carboxyl groups (COOH) and not with other parts of the molecules, (e) that is capable of always repeating the same complex sequence of amino acids to preserve its structure with an accuracy of 99.999%.

[@mcmanustony]

There are numerous solutions to the chirality issue.

[@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273]

​@@mcmanustony Show me only one natural solution (not biological solution) that is capable of producing proteins only with 100 left-handed amino acids and 99.99% accuracy. The process must only select the 20 amino acids used for life and cannot occur in an aqueous medium due to the problem of hydrolysis of proteins.

[@mcmanustony]

@@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273 it doesn't have to produce ONLY left handed amino acids.....an iterated process that favours one chirality will work.

[@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273]

​@@mcmanustony If you have one right-handed amino acid the protein doesn't work. And show me that natural solution where you repeatedly get the same protein with 100 amino acids. I only see speculation in your comments, nothing proven.

[@mcmanustony]

@@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273 It's a YT comment not a fkg peer reviewed article. Read Robert Hazen.....or if books are a stretch watch his lecture on OoL here. He specifically addresses the homochirality issue. Or you could sit on your duff imagining that Jesus flipped the handedness of amino acids 3.7 billion years ago.

[@abducteeofearth1703]

Code………

[@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273]

There are several undeniable facts: (a) life exists on our planet and the simplest cell is composed of hundreds of thousands of extremely complex systems that interact in a coherent and harmonious way, which contain an enormous amount of functional information stored in DNA. , membranes, proteins, lipids and sugars; (b) the laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics do not allow one of the main complex organic molecules such as proteins to be formed in water (any organic chemist knows that amino acid chains do not join together in water), (c ) it is impossible for the complex and functional information that is stored in the cell to have occurred at random (the probability is less than 1 divided by the number of subatomic particles existing in the entire visible universe and that result divided by a trillion, which in the practice is a non-existent probability).

[@mcmanustony]

no one argues that life emerged "randomly". "complex functional information"....this is just bafflegab.

[@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273]

@@mcmanustony For natural selection to do its job, complex molecules must first be randomly generated, which must necessarily fit perfectly into complex biological systems. This is statistically impossible to achieve. Only after "improvement" occurs, natural selection can operate and choose the fittest system, mechanism, or individual.

[@mcmanustony]

@@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273 selection has been observed at the molecular level. Hence can occur prebiotically. Check the work of Szostak's lab.

[@mcmanustony]

@@tomasgarcia-huidobroarents9273 selection has been seen operating at the molecular level. You people keep throwing “randomly” around ….why?

[@finky555]

When he said there was no oxygen and went on to say the C from CO2 joined with H that that freed up the O2 molecule. Interesting idea till you destroy your own thought with a simple mistake.

[@rizdekd3912]

Obviously he meant there was no free oxygen...O2.

[@finky555]

@@rizdekd3912 Except now he is dealing with twice as much free oxygen as he is Carbon. One C to two O now free. He doesn't explain why the H would prefer to hook to the C as soon as the O2 is free which the H would like a whole lot better.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@finky555 This is a short video and he's touching on several different issues and not going into detail on any. And maybe I'm reading to much into what he's saying. But I took it to mean that when the process he is conjecturing...ie somehow in thermal vents where chemical-spawned precursors to life (as we know it) formed, there wasn't any free oxygen. And I took it to mean that IF there was free oxygen, the process he is conjecturing could not have happened. And to address what I think your point is, even IF some of those reactions started to happen and a little (relatively little) oxygen was released, it wouldn't be enough to consume ALL the hydrogen. IOW the environment would still be essentially without free oxygen.

[@finky555]

@@rizdekd3912 Thanks for the discussion rizdikd but I don't know enough to dispute yay or nay at this point. It just doesn't add up in my mind.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@finky555 To be sure, life either arose naturally or was somehow created by some sort of intelligence. But to me, positing some sort of intelligence is just pushing the problem back a step and not really solving how life can exist since the intelligence is living. And then this intelligence, for some unexplainable reason, both had the wherewithal AND the motivation to a) create a physical world and then b) create life IN that physical world. It seems an unnecessary step to do both if the goal was some sort of life with which it could commune when the existence of this intelligence is proof the physical world isn't needed for life. But, like you, I really don't know much about it but do enjoy discussing it with people. I do appreciate that you aren't (don't seem to be) attaching significance...even moral significance...to what one believes about how life may have gotten started. Thanks.

[@tonyb8660]

"obvious"

[@Theglubster]

oh no

[@atmanbrahman1872]

Can't be done without Intelligent Design.

[@rizdekd3912]

What does intelligent design mean to you? What exactly do you picture happening? Are all chemical reactions in life natural reactions, or does god intervene with each reactions to maintain life? IF the former, then we can't know for sure that it didn't happen (arise) naturally given enough time under the right conditions. If the latter, then it's not really designed at all...a god could make any old material be alive if all life processes are maintained by divine intervention.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@rizdekd3912 It means top down rationality aka mind behind everything, that either directly created or structured by providence the improbable events to occur in the naturalistic setting still akin to a miracle by all intents and purposes for life to begin. All the fundamental molecules are like tent poles and required to exist each on their own at the same time for life and there are countless chicken and egg issues too like folded proteins with no enzymes to do it which enzymes are proteins. Yet same thing with the immaterial information, the coding stored in said enzymes to fold in said structured way and so on and so on. So top down is the only rational sense of anything forming.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep That implies that creation was not just the creation of the materials in the world but also the processes, methods, mechanisms and means by which anything happens...to and including how the corruption of sin could occur. IOW, if part of your worldview is that nature was created whole and good and became corrupted by sin, then something in that creation...some method, some mechanism had to have been designed, created, set in motion and continuously maintained SO THAT if and when one person sinned the entire world including the lineage of man which God designed would be affected by that sin. No process can exist in a world entirely created and designed by such a top down intelligence except that it was intentionally created by God. So something about how genes replicate or are passed on somehow passes on a corrupted nature and/or the means by which human souls are generated has to incorporate some flawed mechanism so that those souls are created sinful/fallen/corrupted. All the above assumes a belief in the fall of creation which you may or may not hold.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@rizdekd3912 That is kinda going off on another tangent now. Sin ultimately requires a moral standard which would be from said creator and requires a mind a will developed enough to grasp it which we don't have at the origin of life as life showed up more and more complex only as the conditions on earth allowed it. I would say that is evidence in itself of top down creation in some regard as there appears to be a foresight in the appearance of the progression of life. Just as it was for the appearance of first life. If you want to talk about a Christian biblical perspective, the bible does state the universe exists within and is sustained by God. That the universe is governed by a law of decay. That sin is ultimately separation from God which is from disobeying him. That man was created to exist in tandem with God, that is why separation from God, is stated as a death, humans are like the living dead they are fish out of water. God is called the Word, the truth truth itself, God created by the transfer of information we are a word based universe if you will an argument could be made. And to tie that in all life is based on this immaterial concept of information stored in DNA. So separation from the Word, God is allowing decay to happen. We do see decay in genomes of species not evolution to a higher state of information like with the famous ecoli citrate experiment and with the spanish flu, and so on. The only evolution we do see is reduction evolution which is a benefit from a decay or removal information in the genome. That is how the ecoli could partially metabolize citrate, that is largely how bacteria gain antibiotic resistance they aren't actually adapting they are losing a function that allowed the drug to be uptaken into the cell as an example. So that is interesting. So I would say there is a case to be made but I or perhaps anyone in general doesn't have right now or will never have the specifics to tie it all together in an exhaustive way. There is appears to be relation to the narrative in many ways though. The bible also states sin was around before man was creation because of the fall of Lucifer and the preAdamic race he turned against God and God destroyed which are only mentioned as demons and why they are stated as earth bound disembodied spirits that seek a body, they aren't stated to be fallen angels in the text which many confuse. This is all really going off on different tangents though and you brought up sin so may as well mention the text states said God does know everything and created the plan for redemption of man before the creation of the universe and one purpose of this universe is the ultimate destruction of sin. So that being said one could argue said God never did setup perfection of biology and naturalistic systems to this end. Another argument would be no system like specifically biology can be perfect anyways so God was actively sustaining it perhaps in perfection for man at least at one point. There are lots of ways one could approach the conversation. But as science has progressed we have gotten more answers like with the discovery of DNA, information theory and the decay of information like in DNA and so on that does tie in so I feel there are more answers to come. We do have mitochondial eve and y chromosome adam data which is interesting too. Perhaps there is more to be said as how many of these things could be tied into a top down argument. I haven't thought about it frankly.

[@mcmanustony]

why is the pseudo scientific babble of "Intelligent design" neccessary?

[@DrJoshman]

The interview was excellent. The comment section is dogshit.

[@DonFrankel]

If this is what happened why can't he recreate that? Shouldn't be all that hard.

[@spatrk6634]

it took millions of years its not single event. its a process.

[@DonFrankel]

@@spatrk6634 How so?

[@janscott602]

Not even close.

[@oscarluisvermat7935]

lots of handwaving pseudo-science at best in this interview. How did we get the complex functionally specified (instructional, prescriptive) information processing in the biological systems? the distinguished guest in this video has no clue but says so much nonsense.

[@eduardx6750]

He did explain things quite well, I'm guessing you're biased because of creationist beliefs. The common theory as of my understanding is that certain molecules under the right circumstances started to multiply. At first there really wasn't any complexity in the rudimentary RNA, which only had the information for duplication. Once the RNA and DNA was there, the process of evolution pushed the simple life forms into more complex ones. For more in depth explanation watch the video

[@oscar3490]

Relax Oscar 🎉

[@rl7012]

@@eduardx6750 RNA and DNA are sequence specific chains in which many thousands of molecules need to be in the exact right order. Explain that.

[@JackLWalsh]

@@rl7012 Actually read the data and evidence of how RNA and DNA arose from geochemical processes into primordial biochemistry before you write such a moronic response you dunce 😂😂

[@rjones2000r]

This was a waste of 14 minutes. The short but correct answer is we are clueless how life began.

[@mcmanustony]

Speak for yourself.

[@AronblocksU]

@@mcmanustony👈This guy cannot speak about science so disregard.

[@mcmanustony]

@@AronblocksU the facts contradict you. Yay! Facts!

[@AronblocksU]

@@mcmanustony 👈Guitar man worthless as usual

[@filmfactsxpress]

so crazy to think that chemical reactions can produce life why ? makes you wonder if there only one way you can produce life

[@theeeway7]

Come on folks. Human cells have DNA. DNA has coding. Coding by accident? from a hydro vent? Coding by design. Admit we are confounded.

[@mchooksis]

Not confounded in the least. We Don't know the complete pathway yet, but we know the destination in detail and we have passed several milestones along the journey. The inescapable fact is that inanimate matter gradually became animate. Why on earth would anyone believe that it just popped into existence because some intelligent entity simply gave the word? There isn't a single piece of evidence for any such entity in the first place. It is pure guess work. And pretty poor guess work at that because there is no similar entity in the whole of creation that gives a clue to what this entity might be. Until some evidence can be produced as to what this entity is, it cannot be included in the list of possible scenarios that caused inanimate matter to become animate. Once the evidence can be produced, then we have a hypothesis as to WHAT happened, but that is only the start. We then have to find evidence as ot HOW it happened,. What the process was. Just saying that this entity just thought it, said the word and "poof" it popped into existence just does not cut it. It is a ridiculous claim as it stands. The natural science explanation is so, so much further along the road to this that the god hypothesis is almost out of sight back in the past.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

​@@mchooksis There is no natural explanation for how life began. The natural explanation is definitely not further along the road than any other explanation as it hasn't even got off the starting blocks. We don't know how ANY of life ls building blocks could arise naturally. We don't know how a cell membrane could arise naturally. We don't know what how DNA information could arise naturally. All we have is speculation with no scientific support.

[@mchooksis]

@andrewdouglas1963 of course there is a natural explanation. You are blind or ignorant of you cannot see that. What you are saying is that if you have a jigsaw picture in front of you, you are incapable of starting the jigsaw to make the pictuure you have in front of you until you know where all the pieces go. At some point you would know what the completed jigsaw looked like even if some of the pieces are missing. Trust me, ool research has a great many of the pieces already. If you are not a scientist you have no way of understanding this.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@mchooksis So you believe there is a natural explanation for the natural universe. That's circular reasoning isn't it? I'm not terribly interested in how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. The bigger question is what caused the jigsaw pieces to exist? The jigsaw pieces can't answer that themselves.

[@mchooksis]

@andrewdouglas1963 circular reasoning? Please explain how that represents circular reasoning? Rr your next point, You are talking about and confusing two different things here. Personally, my interest is in biological OOL. The transition between inanimate matter to inanimate matter How to put the jigsaw together. How the jigsaw pieces got here is a question for cosmologists and physicists. and they have some pretty good ideas about how matter evolved from energy. No supernatural entities required. But that's a different topic. Your interest serms to be related to the cosmological science of creation. Which do you want to talk about?

[@larssonk22]

sounds errily close to what those scientology folks believe lol (without the obvious exceptions)

[@zhamed9587]

Quite ironic isn't it? Scientism should be called out for the cult that it is.

[@honeylove5842]

Did he just say one chuck norris 🤣🤣🤣 could have made it through

[@ampzamp]

How about demonstrating the process, or just piss off.

[@howardjones2021]

The real problem is that he has been trying to synthesize life for his entire professional career with no success.

[@spatrk6634]

Nick Lane has not been trying to synthesize life. While he has not attempted to synthesize life in a laboratory, his research and writings focus on understanding the fundamental processes that underlie the emergence and maintenance of life. Lane has made significant contributions to the field of bioenergetics, particularly in exploring the role of energy generation and utilization in early life forms. His work on the theory of endosymbiosis, which explains the origin of eukaryotic cells through the incorporation of mitochondria, has been influential. Lane's books, such as "The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life" and "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life," delve into topics related to the origin and evolution of life, exploring the connections between energy, evolution, and the emergence of complex organisms. In summary, while Nick Lane's research and writings are focused on understanding the processes that contributed to the origin and evolution of life, he has not attempted to synthesize life in a laboratory.

[@howardjones2021]

@@spatrk6634 you are poorly informed

[@spatrk6634]

@@howardjones2021 Informed about what? He is not trying to make life in a lab. You are misinformed. I'll be here when you are ready to apologize for lying.

[@rizdekd3912]

Well...form what I remember he's been studying it for ten years. Some have studied quantum mechanics for longer and still haven't figured it out. We've been trying to produce nuclear fusion and haven't figured it out and that goes on inside trillions of stars. It would seem synthesizing life would be far more complex than simple nuclear fusion.

[@mcmanustony]

You are a liar.

[@DuctTapenWD]

For "life" to start in a puddle, it would be like every slot machine in a casino to hit a jackpot as a lightning strike on said puddle.

[@rizdekd3912]

He doesn't talk about life starting in a puddle.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

Wow duct... that's an awfully generous probability when mathematicians have calculated it would take multiple ages of universes just for a bio identical molecule of glucose to be formed from nonbiological processes. There are over a trillion ways for the molecules to hook up and only one is what life uses. Glucose just glucose. It's mind boggling how people think a materialistic naturalistic model is the way to do science, all it does is hinder scientific progress. There is a reason intelligent design birthed modern science because it actually works and isn't hollow at it's core with a missing deus ex machina mechanism that magically manifests rationality from irrationality aka magic.

[@mcmanustony]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep "mathematicians have calculated it"- which mathematicians? Published where?

[@Giantmidgetmotochannel]

Something like that, which is why it likely wasn’t a single puddle, but millions of them all over the world over millions of years.

[@gobbyblen]

Once upon a time:

[@deepcosmiclove]

Alternative theory: In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth.

[@spatrk6634]

yea but how. did he just materialize it out of nothing or used known natural laws.

[@deepcosmiclove]

@@spatrk6634 You ask me to understand the mind of God. "Before Abraham was I am." John 8:48-59

[@spatrk6634]

@@deepcosmiclove i assume that is what scientists are doing. trying to figure out how God did it. or you think life does not have natural explanation?

[@deepcosmiclove]

@@spatrk6634 Western science negates any force outside materialism.

[@spatrk6634]

@@deepcosmiclove thats why western science works.

[@Digger927]

"The reaction couldn't happen in the presence of oxygen"... Of course you realize he just completely killed his entire theory in one fell swoop as the thermal vents in the ocean were in water which is H2O...do we completely ignore the "O" part of H2O? Lol

[@John-mf6ky]

He talking about oxygen in the atmosphere. The oxygen in H20 is bonded to hydrogen. There are Trace amounts of oxygen dissolved in water (like how fish breath) but I would imagine long ago those levels would have been a lot different.

[@andrewfrey289]

Q:“How did life begin” A: “Well there’s an environment where life CAN form…” ….. so really just a non answer. No answer at all as to how molecules become living organisms, molecular machines, or even meaningful biological information; let alone self-replicating, increasingly self-complexifying sentience.. how did he get away with that answer and who is this guy?

[@georgegordon2210]

This is the first time that I've heard of Nick Lane and it is an accident that I wish I could have avoided.

[@ironmcole]

What a bunch of bs, think about the odds of this? And then factor in the fine tuning of the universe. Noone can comprehend the mathematical improbability that life just came by chance.

[@keviscool]

We dont need to comprehend it, we are proof it happened

[@andrewdouglas1963]

​@@keviscool The evidence points towards design rather than random chance or freak accident.

[@kmonsense8716]

Life does not emerge out of chemistry because we need energy for chemistry to take place. In physics, we all learn that energy is needed to do work. Without energy, no particle can move to produce a chemical reaction. Thus, energy must come first, and life is energy. Life was there before chemistry took off.

[@johnkoay8097]

Common ancestors is one view point. Another view point is a common designer.

[@ProfShibe]

Flying Spaghetti Monster..you will burn in hell if you deny him as your creator

[@arc5015]

@@ProfShibe A creator of some sort and leaving it at that is not unreasonable to think, but yeah if you then drop from there into "MY creator though, and he says X, Y, Z, without proof but just trust me and my book", that's unreasonable.

[@FERAL-f7f]

Unfortunately a deranged, and cowardly view-point with no factual evidence to back it up - besides an old book filled with people that can split oceans in half with their mind?

[@MichaelMcCausland-pg6qs]

Thermodynamics

[@h077ings3ad]

There’s a lot of could’ve been’s, it could have been, just imagine! Where is the science?

[@GerberdingFamily217]

TLDR... dude has absolutely, unequivocally, no fucking idea whatsoever.

[@1Infeqaul1]

Life did not originate on this earth.

[@Johan-rm6ec]

God created life, no natural process can do that.

[@FERAL-f7f]

Only cowards use God as an excuse for their own shortcomings. Go read your old book, while people actually change the world, and humanity’s future.

[@syberspud]

If we can verify a second biogenesis by finding alien life on other worlds then we will know that the process how life forms must be natural and will form under the right conditions. If not, then we are alone in the universe and the origin of life on earth could only be considered supernatural and we live in Gods simulation.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

According to your logic: if we close our eyes to never find a planet with alien life, then God exists because we are crap at searching for alien life, and the worse we are the more likely God exists?

[@rl7012]

We haven't even found the first abiogenesis. So even if we find a planet with alien life on then who is to say how that life started? It is just kicking the can down the road.

[@AbhishekKumar-db5om]

I love your answer. I think exactly to he same

[@rizdekd3912]

How would that show life will form naturally under the right conditions? Wouldn't the automatic response be that it must have been intelligence that did it there, too?

[@MtheBarbarian]

We've found amino acids on meteorites so we know some of the chemistry works, even in the harshness of space.

[@arlingtonprintco1086]

The confidence of this clown is astounding! An absolutely ridiculous and impossible theory yet he states it so matter-of-factly. Such a lack of humility is hilarious 😂

[@theDNAfactory]

Never heard anyone talking for so long without saying anything in particular.😂

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

That's origin of life researchers for you lol. They all got nothing yet 2-5 years and they will create life they have it almost solved!!!! haha they are the ultimate grifters.

[@mcmanustony]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep You are a lying smear merchant....nothing more.

[@kennethbransford820]

== Never will these pseudoscience evolutionist's priest cause life to happen Mr. @@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep . The ultimate grifters. I like that. They will never tell you about the decaying process at the molecular levels. Nothing would ever happen or turn into anything at the atomic levels. Atoms can not assemble themselves into life. Even the most simplest of all life forms could never self replicate and cause life. Chemistry is an exacting process like the laws of physics. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible === Isaiah 40: 28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is a God for all eternity. He never tires out or grows weary. His understanding is unsearchable. [] Revelation 4 : 11 “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.” ====

[@sendri2012]

It's so funny, but so sad at the same time: Nick Lane - as a biologist - is asking himself why Life is based on Carbon? Why it is powered by electrical charges?These are his main questions?!! I ask myself why Life is about selves with cognition and pasions and desires? Why Life is about agency and intelligence and intentionality and purpose? If you ask yourself my kind of questions, of course you will get a different response to the mystery of Life. You know, Life - obviously - is not about carbon or about electrical charges. And scientific quest should be not primary about explanation at the physical level. Although, thanks to this kind of research (at the material level), we came to understand that Life is way more than physics and chemistry. I trust that the scientific quest will connect eventually the origin of Life with the purpose of Life. So, when we will finally understand the purpose of Life, we will understand its origin too 😊 Simple as that!

[@kofipapa2886]

If we are willing to make sense of all of these impossible things and quite frankly sometimes they sound so out of here or damn right balderdash, why do we not want to hear it when some guy comes along and says that they were all made?😅😅. Let's put some humor into the boring 😅. Do you know what you get? Humbor.. 😂

[@daviddelmundo2187]

He did not prove it. 😅

[@fireinthestone]

Let's talk scale. is Earth a Galaxy Ovum? @elonmusk

[@bongomarvellgmobile8792]

What a lot of BS. The information in the cell just arose by chance