Origin of life research is a scam | Lee Cronin and Lex Fridman

Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Lee Cronin: Origin of ...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Paperspace: gradient.run/lex to get $15 credit
- Athletic Greens: athleticgreens.com/lex and use code LEX to get 1 month of fish oil
- Notion: notion.com/startups to get up to $1000 off team plan
- Blinkist: blinkist.com/lex and use code LEX to get 25% off premium
- Onnit: lexfridman.com/onnit to get up to 10% off
GUEST BIO:
Lee Cronin is a chemist at the University of Glasgow.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman

[@Jim-mn7yq]

Cronin has talked a good game for years . . . and he's got a great British accent. But he's on record on a YT video literally rubbing his hands gleefully and saying he was only a couple years away from collecting the Evolution 2.0 prize -- which he never collected. Before that it was other claims he was only a few years away from reproducing life in his lab (see him with Dr. Tour on YT). Again, never happened. I've come to see Cronin as a kind of science-based carnival barker -- promising amazing things if you only pay your two bits and go behind the curtain. Unfortunately when you look behind the curtain you don't find scientific wonders; only a rehash of promises and excuses.

[@derhafi]

Lee Cronin was wrong with his prediction....buhuuu...Yet he still contributes to solve the mystery regarding the ool by putting in actual research work. He activly investigates the pathways by which abiogenesis may have occurred over millions of years on a prebiotic Earth. The task of origin of life research is to elucidate plausible pathways in which each step can have taken place, and firmly demonstrate their plausibility. That is what Cronin does on a daily basis. Whereas Tour...misrepresents said research and appeals to the God he happens to believe in: "I don't know the details I know what the scriptures say that everything has been created by Him everything and the details of this I don't know.”…..” I don't know enough about an atom to know really what's happening here but there's no doubt that he sets this things up “ Jimmy Tour “If you are a believer and you have never believed really in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ just a spiritual I'm calling you right back to what the scriptures say we must believe in his resurrection and his resurrection was not a spiritual thing it was a physical thing so physical that the disciples died because of this died for this testimony it is physical and if you've drifted away from the Lord I'm calling you back this day the Word of God is true every word in this book is true every word let everything else be a lie this book is true long after you're dead and gone this this word will remain because it's true this book is true this was a prophecy and it's just piled upon fact upon fact evidence upon evidence how much more would you like to understand that this book is true to bow before God and to say Lord thank you for your word oh how I love his word oh how I love the Bible it is true every word in the Bible is true” Jimmy Tour Jet he pretends that it is all about science...when it is demonstrably not. You are ok with this? What exactly is your problem with Cronin that trumps the mendaciousness and infamy of Tour?

[@Jim-mn7yq]

@@derhafi I must have been out of town the day they announced the monumental contributions to science made by Cronin.

[@derhafi]

@@Jim-mn7yq Did I say "monumental contributions" no, I did not. Cronin contributes to solving the actual mystery, whereas Tour managed to provide us with misrepresentations, lies and irrelevanvies in regards to ool research. How is it that you more time and passion for intelectual vandalism than for actual science? How is it that you close your eyes before the mountain of lies Tour told?

[@Jim-mn7yq]

@@derhafi 100 years from now, people such as Cronin will be viewed very much the way we currently view alchemists. And as far as a "mountain of lies" it was Cronin not Tour whose mouth cut a check that his scientific bank account couldn't cover.

[@derhafi]

@@Jim-mn7yq Cronin leaned a bit too far out of the window with his anouncements...Tour is a demonstrable liar. When Tour lies about "peptides can not form in water" and peer-reviewed papers are presented that outline Tours lies, does your brain just shut off? When Tour got asked: "Do you agree that this research shows replicators that evolve by natural selection, because it does?!" and Tour straight out publicly lies, whilst confronted with the research...Do you just doze off? What about the time Tour lied about Lee Cronin's quote? Cronin made a not serious comment "OOL research is a scam" in an article. Reading the article clearly showed the comment wasn't serious. A week later Cronin clarified further in an interview the comment was a humorous "tongue-in-cheek" one. Tour read the original article, saw the interview but still pushed the lie as if Cronin actually thinks OOL research is a scam. Classic lying by Tour. There is really no way for you or Tour to justify such wilful dishonesty. But you found one, didn’t you? When he whines in length about how "we are nowhere close to understanding "because every year we find out the cell is more complex than it was the year before" as if modern cells have anything to do with the topic. What exactly in going ion in your head at this moment? What exactly are you thinking when Jimmy Tour insists that in order to substantiate abiogenesis as a viable process, we need to build a living cell from scratch using exclusively prebiotic chemistry. He likes to show slides with eukaryotic cell in his sermons at this point, something which didn't evolve until at least 2 billion years after live existed on Earth. Are you thinking at all in those moments or what is going on? I'm genuinely asking! When he lied about "not being able to vet" the age of the earth...even though , before he has given himself to the Discovery Institute, he has described that the questioning of radiometric dating as "unscientific" and "unfair". In the same Article btw in which he publicly announced his lack of scientific integrity when it comes to faith. What about when he lied about "red blood cells" found in dinosaur fossils and how the scientific community "wants to keep that a secret" because of its alleged implications? It is a blunt lie again. All those findings are published and up for scrutiny by specialists, as it is custom in a scientific enquiry. These palaeontologists have identified a chemical pathway - well known in food science but not seen before in palaeontology - that may be the key to long-term preservation of soft-tissue structures. He makes it sound as if there was still a juicy steak on the bones. When in reality it was in fact soft tissue structures and some collagen fibres. This is enough for Tour to act, in a clear attempt to misguide his audience, as if this is enough to overturn all dating methods at our disposal. Which is nonsense and not how science works, which he knows. He continues saying that he “hasn’t seen a good explanation for this” Well, that is what happens when you don’t look for one. Are those enough lies or shall I go on. There is plenty more?!! - Why has Tour shown to be incapable of understanding how to read a Ribose-Borate spectrum? - Why does Tour not know how soap works? - Why did Tour continue to insist college level textbooks portray the primordial soup model as a sludge which self assembles into creatures that slither from the prebiotic pool? - Why did Tour call Szostak a liar, misrepresented his nature article, pretend to have apologized, and subsequently call his work nonsense without substantiation? - Why did Tour lie about Donna Blackmond her paper on homochirality? - Why did Tour quotemine Cronin, misrepresented Cronin's use of the classic formose reaction, and utterly lied about his tweet? - Why does Tour pretend to be an open minded scientist when he actively dissuades from going into the field of OoL, calling it nonsense, despite getting everything wrong? Could it be because of his ties to the Discovery Institute: The Christian creationist pseudoscience organization responsible for the wedge strategy? Tour has his own dedicated page there linking to his religious sermons and podcasts whining about abiogenesis and evolution. He signed their pseudoscientific dissent from Darwin. Even in the debate, he deceitfully redefined what constitutes a valid scientific hypothesis by smuggling in gapless proof and DI vocabulary: "Specified Information". Tour thinks God made this universe and life itself, he believes every word in the bible to be true and he publicly said that his faith and belief trump over scientific evidence. If you think this is irrelevant to his demonstrable lies he spills out, over specific fields of science that contradicts his belief...than you are delusional. He is a lying apologetic with a degree practicing intellectual vandalism.

[@moviepracticing]

“i’ve put all my everything on the blackjack table and i can’t be wrong about this.”

[@BernardoBr1982]

I spent 20 years trying to make chemistry works as I wish, trought shortcuts and chesting all the time, shouting to the world that I did everything, that my path is perfect... when I couldn't go any further in my dishonest attempts, I change the narrative and start shouting again to the world that all this stuff is not important, molecules don't matter, we should only envision the future bla bla bla

[@TrevoltIV]

Absolute facts.

[@JiriPrajzner]

he basically described what people do with standard model in physics - we need just one more particle and we're there!

[@derhafi]

As far as the Standard model is concerned, we got there on the 12 of July 2012

[@yassasloan7308]

@@derhafi no, we're still looking for gravitons.... and that might change when we fiy discover unification theory

[@derhafi]

@@yassasloan7308 Yes...however my point stands, besides the many things we don't know, there are some things we do know-and that includes the identity and behaviour of all of the pieces underlying the world of our everyday experience. We don't we need just one more particle and we're there. We are there.

[@TrevoltIV]

Exactly. Wishful thinking.

[@elo3640]

the two felds of study have an origin in their establishment which is that theyre made up for lack of a betteer way of saying it. They try to blend real physics with their metaphysics and thry try to blend abiogenesis with modern biology.

[@victorcebollero1413]

People keep pointing at Henry Ford as the first petrol engine. Actually made patented by one Carl Benz in 1886! Don’t get me wrong, Americans were close on this one, in 1896 he patented his own coach the Quadricycle

[@Cmoss114]

I almost made this exact same comment but decided to check if someone beat me to it. Fun fact: First person to ever drive a car (over a significant distance) was in fact a woman. Carl benz's wife Bertha

[@Cmoss114]

@@CHURINDOK who knew she was part asian

[@user-wq3sy6rk1c]

Did you hear that? He said there's more information in the cell than there is in the DNA. And that's true.

[@PixelsofLight]

Cronin almost sounds like he’s making a strong case for intelligent design.

[@mcmanustony]

He's not. he's a scientist. ID is pseudo scientific nonsense.

[@mcmanustony]

@@magnetar28 There's always science.....there's a case there that doesn't involve presupposing a deity. ID is pseudo science- there is no case to be made.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

lmao watch his debate with James Tour he just had. The guy sends so many mixed messages.

[@alexnik1181]

No, you are just thinking in a fallacious way. Lightnings were once produced by an invisible man in the sky. Now life is?

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@alexnik1181 FICTION: lightning bolts can strike a pool of prebiotic minutiae and manifest a quaternary 4 billion unit self-correcting self-replicating bioinformatic system complete with ribosomes, vesicles, enzymes, proteins, ATP. You probably thought some scientist somewhere has a coherent theory about how biology began! 😂 too much funny

[@ciccaj]

I've watched Dr. Cronin in a number of interviews and he's a good talker but he doesn't really say much that is truly scientific or enlightening. I wish Lex would have a serious interview with someone like Dr. James Tour who can provide some real illumination on this topic. I'm tired of being entertained by people who just like to talk.

[@fatdoctor007]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

[@gardensoundrecords3598]

Chris gordon?

[@johnhopkinson4054]

Guess you missed the bit where he said it was "tongue in cheek"

[@leighneal8989]

If you watched this guy debate Jim Torr you have to wonder why he is anywhere near a university let alone a Professor.

[@claytontucker8179]

Absolutely, finding the true path is very difficult

[@Benjamin-fu5ij]

So glad Lee Cronin has come around to the dark side LOL. World-class scientists have been saying this for a long time. "there is some contingent information embodied outside the genome, in the cell." nail on the head.

[@TaxEvasi0n]

What does that mean? I am new to this subject.

[@desertshadow6098]

So true. Science can be distorted and non symmetrical when forced. Assembly theory is really a glimpse under the hood that gives us the proper understanding to reverse engineer and properly map the complex.

[@evgenyselensky4036]

Yes, but you can reverse engineer stuff that's been engineered. We need to keep that in mind.

[@TrevoltIV]

If you reverse engineer it, who engineered it in the first place?

[@uprisingtv9291]

The chemistry is what will be difficult in searching for the origin

[@666crippled666]

You would think it would be easy to start it since they think it effectively instantly started as soon as water was added to earth. Its fricked up that it only started once......

[@unseen_stranger]

Some interesting quotes from this interview, with timestamps: 0:17 "Umm, OK - it was tongue-in-cheek. But yeah I think - and I meant it as tongue-in-cheek - I'm not doing *the* origin of life research, I'm trying to make artificial life... There are many, many good chemists out there doing origin of life research, but I want to nudge them. And I think they're brilliant. Like, there's no question that the chemistry they're doing is great. ... I think that chemistry and chemists doing origin of life could be nudged into doing something even more profound." 2:22 "And I think that origin of life chemistry is in danger of not making the progress that it deserves, because the chemists who're doing this, the field is exploding right now, there's amazing people out there, young and old, doing this, and there's deservedly so more money going in. Y'know I used to complain there's more money being spent looking for the Higgs boson that we know exists than the origin of life." 3:20 "The scam is 'if we just make this RNA we've got this fluke event, we know how, that's simple. Let's make this phosphodiester, or let's make ATP or ADP - we've got that part nailed. Let's now make this other molecule, another molecule, and how many molecules are gonna be enough?'" 4:21 "...But it's remarkable that he [Ventner] could not make a cell from scratch. And even now today [published on Mar. 15, 2022], synthetic biologists cannot make a cell from scratch, because there's some contingent information embodied outside the genome, in the cell. And that is just incredible."

[@TrevoltIV]

Lee knows they are clueless on the OOL. At this point he just pretends they know more than they actually do because he's too proud to admit that his entire career has been absolutely worthless. I feel for him.

[@junodonatus4906]

@@TrevoltIV We were once clueless on how to do organ transplants. But we kept looking and learning. That's never worthless. There are those, however, that would like any research to stop because their preferred beliefs are threatened.

[@TrevoltIV]

@@junodonatus4906 I never said we should stop looking. In fact I’m a supporter of an origin of life theory, called intelligent design, which postulates that intelligence is the best known cause for the existence of life. We should not stop looking, but we should certainly consider other options besides the quite restricted naturalistic view. Clearly, it’s not working. We are even worse off than we were back in Oparin’s day, in fact exponentially worse off. So yes, we once were clueless on organ transplants, but I don’t understand why that is supposed to mean there will a naturalistic explanation to life rather than what almost everyone thinks intuitively- that life must have been designed.

[@junodonatus4906]

@@TrevoltIV Intelligent Design is not a theory by scientific standards and usage of the term. And, intelligence is not known at all. We don't know of any "creator/intelligence." Remember, the word "knowledge" and how we come about that knowledge. So, no knowledge of a creator. That being said, what restricts the naturalistic view?....we are not restricted in what we can learn other than by not trying. Intuition and instinct lead us down the wrong roads as they exist, not for telling us truth, but for keeping us alive. For example, our ancient humans were selected to assume noises were alive and malicious as doing so kept them alive. That doesn't mean that the noise in the tall grass wasn't the wind, just that assuming a lion kept one safe. Our instinct and intuition didn't lead to truth. Religions (volcano gods, tsunami gods, etc._) are simply by-products of that instinct. No truth there, just the human tendency to imbue a conscious cause.

[@TrevoltIV]

@@junodonatus4906 How can the intelligent postulate that intelligence does not exist? You claim that intelligence is not known but you are using it to come to that very conclusion. Also, I’d love to hear your explanation for why intelligent design is not a theory. There’s plenty of evidence to support it. The naturalistic view is restricted by definition, only allowing natural ideas and labeling anything that posits anything else a “pseudoscience”. When have you ever seen functionally specified information come from non-intelligence? If you’re honest with yourself, never. That’s why intelligent design explains the facts better than naturalism, using the historical scientific method.

[@ThePaully1976]

Mind blowing thanx Lex for being you. love your channel, keep up the good work.

[@lonewanderer6658]

It is very sad that they don’t know what life ether is and keep struggling for answers. You will never observe it in lab

[@inajosmood]

Yes we never ever ever discovered something in the lab.... Oh... wait... 😅

[@CryoftheProphet]

@@inajosmood Life will never be recreated in a lab in the way scientists fantasize about abiogenesis. They arent even close.

[@johndehaan2764]

Brilliant Question, and his reply showed how nervous he was in answering, Nice clip

[@ackbooh9032]

Lol no. He explains why the scam thing is about stimulating research and breaking specific habits of biochemists he otherwise absolutely respects

[@IndoorNewb]

James Tour broke him. Lee gave up on trying to fool people and just accepted it. Love to see it.

[@MR-G-Rod]

I was thinking the same. You know what tho, I respect Lee way more now for taking it on the chin and getting back up.

[@derhafi]

The demonstrable liar James Tour taught us all a lesson....which was: He will stick to his script of lies no matter what. hH is deliberately misleading his audience, and his rhetoric always follows the same pattern. This molecule? Nobody knows how to make it. Oh they made it? Well they can’t make the building blocks. Oh they can? Well they aren’t enantiopure. Oh, homochirality has been explained? Then they bought their starting material. Irrelevant? Well their setup isn’t prebiotic. Oh it is? Then I’ll just baselessly call the study “hype” so that the viewer will reject it on faith without having a clue what it says. Jimmy Tour will always redirect to his desperate script in order to avoid addressing research that is inconvenient for him, just like any other creationist.

[@chbu7081]

James Tour always likes to pretend he wins debates and breaks people. He usually just ends up embarrassing himself.

[@MR-G-Rod]

@@chbu7081 You’re a hater bro! It’s ku tho. We hold these truth to be self evident, that you are made by your creator with certain unalienable rights. No creator, no unalienable rights….you want to live in a world where your rights are a privilege? Tsk talk tsk.

[@inajosmood]

​@@MR-G-Rod hehehe, watch James Tour at Havard. 😂😂😂 Oeffff. That was painful to watch. He really doesn't have a single clue and he doesn't have good intentions.. But he... as long as you can believe in a God that made it all, everything goes.

[@KineHjeldnes]

Lee Cronin needs to talk to Michael Levin, which you also need to have on Lex! His work on the gradients/ fields that works as global guides for cell collectives in space and time during morphogenesis and morphostasis is absolutely mindblowing. I think we are going to see a lot of debate regarding real gauge fields and error correction as ingredients of life. What a time to be alive!

[@johnschuh8616]

And how does that apply to everywhere else. whatever that “else” may be? You assume a uniformity that maybe can’t be provided.

[@jankopandza1072]

i will give you all the ingredients needed to make a cell.. sadly i can not give you the software to run it. that can only be given by God..

[@leighneal8989]

He has been on

[@bradwhelan4466]

@@jankopandza1072 Which God would that be? humans have invented literally thousands up to this point.

[@jankopandza1072]

@@bradwhelan4466 i believe you are talking about deities = those that are part of our material real = those with birth and death trough out many cultures .. God in terms of singular and in terms of genuine God = the creator of material structure by default can not be bound to it.. it would be like saying that when i as human make a TV or a Radio i am bound to it or that the radio can define me or explain me :) i believe you are indeed talking about deities = beings that we humans have made up trough out his story ..i am talking about the spring the source of all not bound by its creation but outside of the creation same like you are out side of everything you create as a human being.. and we have created many many things so far.. are you bound to them ? do they define you ? can they define you ? .. see my point.. its easy..

[@francissynergia7385]

“Origin of life research is a scam.” - this guy (tongue-in-cheek)

[@nikolaiiscoolguyproduction4807]

His point about the Tesla beckons to the clay hypothesis theory. The petrol car being the clay/silicate form and the electric car being true carbon life.

[@glenliesegang233]

Dawkins says DNA stores digitally encoded information. No random process generates kilobytes of information. No chemist will ever show a random process capable of making vast quantities of digital information plus the nanomachines which nmust also coexist at the time the code is made.

[@JohnC-iv8jo]

what he says at the end reminds me of the joke the Rabbi told about a scientist claiming he could build a human or some such from clay, :-)

[@damon5894]

It's good to remind ourselves that we know very little.

[@TrevoltIV]

We can barely even sequence a genome and this dude thinks we're going to create a cell from prebiotic chemicals lol

[@junodonatus4906]

It's also good to keep looking. Should we stop fighting disease and defer to them as an "act of God" ?

[@TrevoltIV]

@@junodonatus4906 We are still looking, what are you talking about? The theory of intelligent design is the best theory when it comes to origins- not only of life, but of essentially everything.

[@junodonatus4906]

@@TrevoltIV ID is not a scientific theory.

[@TrevoltIV]

@@junodonatus4906 Why do you say that?

[@georgbenad4436]

I asked the biochemist Lemken in Germany the following question: "In your opinion, why is it that Lee Cronin's announcement in 2011 to create a living cell in the laboratory by 2013 has still not been realised, even though supercomputers that can perform several quadrillion calculations per second are now available to science? His interesting answer was: "This computing power is nowhere near enough (!!!!)." He then provides me with a detailed scientific explanation... The prebiotic Earth would certainly have been happy if it had had a simulated pocket calculator at its disposal... Greatings for Germ

[@derhafi]

Do you think one failed prediction by one reseracher adds any merit to the idea that some ill-defined mysterious deity had a hand in the origin of life? Seriously?

[@georgbenad4436]

@@derhafi just wanted to emphasise the reliability of statements made by Lee Cronin, see his "assembly theory" which Dr Zanil dismantled a week later, if you see any gods there it's your problem...

[@dosgos]

That is a deep answer.

[@gowengetter4599]

I think we will find how life was made in a similar way how we found penicillin - by accident. It’ll just pop up one day.

[@derhafi]

"I am going after the people that do not read the scientific literature…..It's hard to publish my critiques because of peer review" -An actual thing that James Tour said without irony When Dr. Brian Keating asked Jimmy “faith goes beyond scientific evidence” Tour this: BK: At what level and how can a god entity, you know a theological entity or maybe just an intelligent designer what element can he intervene with nature and how? Tour answered (honestly this time for a change): “I don't know the details I know what the scriptures say that everything has been created by Him everything and the details of this I don't know.”…..” I don't know enough about an atom to know really what's happening here but there's no doubt that he sets this things up “ That’s him. Applying the God of the gaps fallacy…. In a nutshell, that is Tour, being the creationist he is, saying: “The God I happen to believe in, did it, because my Bible says so, no matter what.”

[@HH-ru4bj]

Ive never seen origin of life research that way, as being able to backwards engineer all compinents of life by studying what makes life work now. Acrually i always thought that was a stupid way to intetprwt it, since not even the researchers think that way. What they do is look for inspiration on how different mechanisms can function to try to tease out a likely path for the earliest life on earth. No one in the field thinks they are going to find some primordial self replicating rna just by starring really hard at a flask of nucleotides. Thats only how its chatacterised by science journalism and, and run with by the unfamiliar public.

[@somdattamaiti8941]

Lee didn't say that whole origin of life is a scam .

[@wouldlovemyownname]

It doesnt need to be an outright scam to be a disingenuous enterprise by all its leading figures.

[@CJFCarlsson]

If you are getting paid for idle speculation I would say "go for it!".

[@markoshun]

interesting. I can imagine he’s regretting using the word scam. Either that or he doesn’t really know what a scam is. What he’s describing is not one and pretty much amounts to click bait on his tweet.

[@tedkrasicki3857]

The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer kzbin.info/www/bejne/kH3dqpalaLaSiMk Energy and Matter at the Origin of Life kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHa9e5eBas2brNE How Life Evolves with Professor Nick Lane kzbin.info/www/bejne/hnvMnpxupMiaa7M The Whole History of the Earth and Life 【Finished Edition】 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIKXdIitbreWq6M

[@peters972]

The proto-Tesla is when they learned to drag heavy loads behind them on two sticks, before inventing the wheel, lol. And this speaks to the origin of the domestication of lions which happened automatically, I.e. was autocatalytic.

[@mysterypink824]

Is this the same guy who, 11 years ago, said that in a matter of two years, he will make life in his lab? How is it going Lee? What happened? :)

[@ericchin739]

Almost like Elon Musk with Mars, Hyperloop, solar roofs, Tesla Semi, Cybertruck..... Oh, and full self driving 🤣😂🤣😂

[@jyjjy7]

It was a scam, pay attention

[@jakenbake9878]

A good thinker will respond to the ideas, not the person who gave the ideas. I expect better thinkers from Lex’s community

[@517hectorhernandez]

Now he says “artificial life” using pre-existing life to make life? Even I know, Is not life.

[@ericchin739]

@@517hectorhernandez Artificial life in the market place!

[@TraversingSacred]

Simply only one possible explanation... induction can never answer this, deduction already has.

[@symbiosisai]

Which version of deduction do you subscribe too?

[@hanssobeseir3765]

Thank you for posting this clip. Lee Cronin is quotemined for this by people trying to make abiogenesis look absurd. I hope they google and find this.

[@Chris-qg8ss]

It might not be absurd, but Cronin more or less admits they are nowhere close. That's the jist of his analysis. He said there are so many requirements that haven't been met yet.

[@derhafi]

@@Chris-qg8ss "It might not be absurd, but Cronin more or less admits they are nowhere close" Even if there was no progress for the last 50 years at all in this field...abiogenesis would still have no credible alternative. Chemistry would still be real and the natural world would still be all that has a demonsreable correaltion with reality.

[@tedbundy2379]

@@derhafi Very sad Rob. It’s clear he’s saying abiogenesis has produced nothing because the chemistry doesn’t work. There is no more evidence for life starting on its own then God so you can stop that nonsense. Did you not catch him saying there is a lot more information outside of the genome that is required for life? That’s design more than bling luck. Hate to tell you but creation always is always shown through science not the other way around.

[@spatrk6634]

@@tedbundy2379 well chemicals are real. god is not. so....

[@derhafi]

@@seeya101oliASWHDFIL "when you see things that have this type of complexity, you know it was seeded by intelligence of some kind" Complexity is not the hallmark of design and you are making a textbook arfument from personal incredulity here. "Any other conclusion is ignorance" Adorable, but this is fallacious and simply epistemological garbage. "That's the most rational conclusion until we can gather evidence to prove otherwise." Sure....according to you, some ill-defined God/metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.........is the "most rational conclusion" here....do you sometimes listen to yourself? " until we can gather evidence to prove otherwise" undetectable fantasies with no demonstrable correaltion with reality are not responsible until we have evidence for anything else...sory buddy but that is not how anything works. "Why is it so hard for you folks to admit the obvious?" The only thing obvious here, is that you have a mind severely damage sense of realty.

[@kathrynoneill81]

I think we'd have a better outcome if more of us understood the origin and frequency of the SCAM ARTIST in our social structures.

[@rev.randall2292]

Some things are not , and will not ever be known or produced.

[@derhafi]

Once thought about literally every bit of technology we have today.

[@junodonatus4906]

@@derhafi Thank you! Why is this piece of simple logic so lost on theists? I mean, where would organ transplants be if we deferred every disease to "an act of God" ? Their ignorance has to be deliberate.

[@marbanak]

Thanks! My take: Lee Cronin sees what other researchers have seen. The task of replicating the origin of life as we know it, will be crushing, overwhelming in its difficulty. I see three camps right now. (1) Those, who publish and celebrate teensy-weensy incremental steps in that direction. (2) Those in the first camp, who pretend they are making giant steps and 3) Those, like Cronin, who see the futility of camps 1)and 2), and instead pursue a new interpretation of what life is, and try to create it. I support all these efforts because, while OOL research seeks to do the impossible, they will harvest a ton of knowledge along the way ... just as the alchemists did.

[@miguelatkinson]

Or those in the third camp seem to be supporting intelligent design

[@marbanak]

@@miguelatkinson Good point.

[@bogdanpopescu1401]

in addition, replicating life is not quite the same with replicating the origin of life

[@marbanak]

@@bogdanpopescu1401 Bingo!

[@davidstricklin3267]

Lee really didn’t add much to the discussion “origin of life” nor does his rehash of information theory that he calls assembly theory. Can’t even say mycoplasma (seems only loosely familiar) which clearly gets as close to a hypothetical LUCA. Yet he’s repeatedly touted as a top OOL researcher and Harvard dignitaries went gaga over him when he so-called “debated” James Tour. Obviously, Lee ducked and weaved the whole time and hard to remember him answering even one of seemingly dozens of questions posed by Tour in opening remarks. Why so much hype that we are “closing in” on a convincing theory about how life first originated when all you get is such gibberish?

[@JCTelenio]

This is why I don't believe in parsimony.

[@jasonoliver6170]

So he's a pointless contrarian. Yawn. Move along.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Glad to see somebody see somebody here sees through Mr Cronin's bullshit. Agreed

[@Masteralien186]

James Tour be like

[@Thesecondcomingpodcast]

This is a simple explanation. The egg came before the chicken. All planets are round and all systems are round .cells are round and the reason for this is that it is the most efficient model for housing information. The mind creates the cell so that it can efficiently house information. Much like every planet that revolves around a star or sun is round in the mathematics dictate what information goes to which planet. These are based on Universal Constance.

[@johnkoay8097]

And even so, those horse cars, automobiles didnt cime about by itself. It needed an intelligent mind, an engineer, various schools of disciplines, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, so on and so forth to make it possible.

[@radmcbad1576]

Well, I have respect for Dr Lee Cronin and thinks what he is doing is definitely cool.

[@jankopandza1072]

so cool to hear WE DO NOT KNOW being said straight forward. there are SO MANY out there that think Evolution means origin of life .. sadly that is how dumb we are as a population.. adaptation is a constant process while origin of life is a mystery

[@derhafi]

We do not know the exact chemical pathway...is not the same as: Abiogenesis, the notion that life arose by natural means, has a cedible alternative. Because it has not.

[@bakedwafflesss]

back then we also didnt know what bacteria was, it does no harm to understand the universe and our own existence just bc we dont know smth doesnt mean we shouldnt look into it and make up a fairytell

[@jankopandza1072]

@@derhafi again internet individuals trying to make not understandable things as understandable.. let me destroy your premise with facts. even if we knew and we do not know how.. so even if we knew what CHEMICAL process is needed in order to make the HARDWARE for life.. we have not got a CLUE about what RUNS that hardware.. aka the software behind the hardware.. i do understand that like so many maybe you think that all we need is a hardware :) and that is to some point cute .. but when you pass age of puberty in certain science fields then you understand what exactly do we know and what exactly do we have NO clue about. also here is a fun fact. from 2003 onwards over 83 % of science pier review papers in the world are today proven to be false / falsified aka not repeatable . why is that so ? well when corporate money comes from corporate hands then "scientist" in order to keep getting the founds just use falsified data. That is how the science "world " works mate. All here are written indisputable facts . Easy to check !!

[@jankopandza1072]

@@bakedwafflesss back then we used to think the world was flat.. recently we believed in evolution .. things change the only question is can you handle the new discoveries ore are you stuck in old ideas , theories.. today we understand that theory of evolution is a religion. to be more exact it is by far more hard core religion then most mainstream theological religions . this religion is ready to cancel people to shit their work down to remove intelligent people from speaking... so a very dangerous religion to be honest

[@countryboyred]

@@derhafithat’s simply just your own conjecture. It’s ok to say “we don’t know”.

[@End420Prohibition]

All hail the cosmic mushroom!

[@markauckland666]

Origin of the car as we know it was Daimler, just saying…

[@jozsefnemeth935]

10/10 😅😅😅

[@larrybutler8794]

James Tour

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Professor Dave Farina.

[@derhafi]

Dave Farina and the data gathered by people that have decades of experience in the biology and Nobel Prizes under their belt, you know those who wrote the 30+ peer review papers which, linked to Farinas video which clearly renders Tour as the liar that he is.

[@garybryson1900]

They are not going to discover how life began. Or even when it happened. Those things are not discoverable by research and testing.

[@pauldirc..]

Just wait for next 15 year

[@captainvonkleist8323]

I think Panspermia makes the most sense as an explanation for the emergence of life on Earth, here's why. Timeline (approximately): [0 years] Big Bang ... [10 billion years] Creation of Earth ... [10.5 billion years] First Single Celled Organism ... [13.5 billion years] First Multi Celled Organism It is commonly accepted that the increasing complexity of life from 10.5 billion years to present is due to selection/evolution, and I accept that. The problem I have is the complexity it takes to go from basic molecules to single celled organisms seems to be at least as big a leap as going from single celled to multi celled organisms. Then why did single celled life appear so early in the history of planet Earth? The most beneficial trait for an organism to adopt is the ability to evolve faster. Evolution has been speeding up over time, and modern biology provides many examples of evolutionary enhancements to evolution itself. Given these two observations, it makes MUCH more sense to assume that the leap from basic chemistry to single celled life took longer than the leap from single celled to multi celled organisms. So, I think the most likely explanation is that life took the leap from basic chemistry to either single celled organisms, or at least complex self reproducing molecules, over that first 10 billion year interval. This highly suggests that there should have been an exoplanetary RNA world stage of evolution that took place before Earth even existed. Another strength of this exoplanetary RNA world hypothesis is that it provides an interesting solution to the Fermi Paradox. Life (and intelligent life) just takes way longer to emerge than originally thought, and it requires at least two planetary lifetimes to get from basic molecules to single celled life. It's hard to explain why, if it's easy for life to develop, the universe isn't teeming with intelligent life already. You'd think an intelligent civilization would have colonized the galaxy by now if single celled life had emerged within, say, 1 billion years of the Big Bang. That's the complexity of human civilization plus 9 billion years of additional evolution. That's a lot of evolutionary complexity! An even bigger problem is that it's hard to explain, if there was pre cellular life on Earth, where that pre cellular life is hiding now. If Earth had an RNA world stage, then you'd think it would have survived in some evolutionary niche that cellular life was unable to fill, or metabolically inefficient in filling. For example, fitting in tiny crevices in rocks. If there was pre cellular life on Earth, then where's the evidence for it, and in absence of evidence, where's the evidence for (what seems unlikely to me) the total extermination of pre cellular life? If Earth had an RNA world stage, it seems much more likely that our ecosystem would include pre cellular life. I see single celled life as a molecular ecosystem captured in a membrane. The guest, I think, would do better to consider the development of complex ecosystems, rather than just chains of molecules. It's not enough to have one self reproducing molecule to produce single celled life, instead I expect a large, diverse, mature ecosystem of self reproducing molecules, in order to produce single celled life. One more problem is that if Earth did have an RNA world stage, and single celled life emerged from this ecosystem, then why did this happen exactly once? It seems much more likely that we would have multiple lineages from pre cellular life to cellular life if that leap happened on Earth. This seems especially true if it's easy (evolutionarily fast) to go from basic molecules to single celled life. The Panspermia from exoplanetary RNA world hypothesis is an outgrowth of a confidence in the evolutionary explanation, along with a recognition that the universe is substantially older than early biologists realized, and that there are far more Earth like exoplanets than early biologists realized. This hypothesis couldn't have emerged before the age of the universe was established, and the existence of exoplanets was confirmed, and that only happened relatively recently.

[@lastchance8142]

The standard explanation for your query is that once cellular life emerged, it ate all the precursors. Convenient but plausible.

[@kanishkchaturvedi1745]

Your comments provides several interesting possibilities.

[@raykeller6693]

Gotta be! When its so obvious and no one enunciates it! Daaaaaaa

[@BangMaster96]

Can we all just assume that Science still doesn't have an exact answer as to the origin of this Universe, and Life. We know a lot about how things work in the Universe, from Galaxies, to Stars, to Planets, to all the Elements on the Periodic Table. But, we still don't have that magical "Theory of Everything". And that's the fun and mystery of this Universe, I personally think we will never be able to crack the "Theory of Everything", because it just seems like there are some things about the Universe far from the reach of Humanity.

[@wouldlovemyownname]

No we have to believe in the certainty of science as it pertains to our origins because if it were ever to be shown or even considered that we are wonderfully made by a loving creator, then it might lead to pesky little things such as inalienable rights and our globalist elite cant have that!

[@johnkoay8097]

Lee Cronin now sounds like James Tour, "Origin of live research is a scam".

[@shaunmcinnis566]

If you want to make life then you should really pray about it.

[@Thesecondcomingpodcast]

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room…… Like the fact that science, 100% for sure has re-created human life in the laboratory to see if it can be done and to see what the difference between lab grown humans and organically grown humans would be. Example being the soul or the spirit of the person biological my iPad.

[@krypteral]

You should definitely invite Dr. James Tour to your podcast

[@derhafi]

So that he can run through his script of demonstrable lies?

[@krypteral]

@@derhafi right, so that you'd have the opportunity to ruin his career with an angry comment under the video.

[@derhafi]

@@krypteral Tour has ruined his carreer over the last few years with his unhinged YT videos in which he choose to publicly lie about 2 entire fields of science. This man really did not need anyones help to obliterate his reputation. Religion poisons everything...Tours mind is on that list.

[@junodonatus4906]

In other words, don't research the origin of life because that uncertainty is the last stronghold of my faith in god.

[@FightTheByte_]

The question to ask isn't what caused the origin of life but rather why isn't novel life continuously being created now.

[@MrDreadEnd]

hmmmm, what do you mean by novel life. I'm not sure what the oldest organism is but lets say the first cell/bacteria is the oldest life. do you mean new life with no derivative that isn't a cell or bacteria?

[@FightTheByte_]

@@MrDreadEnd Yes exactly, why aren't new derivatives being created, with no genetic lineage to us. Or even, why isn't the first ever organism being recreated over and over but with slightly different constituents. I'm asking that rhetorically btw, as asking that question should lead to a much more productive framing.

[@MrDreadEnd]

@@FightTheByte_ I think we don't see knew derivatives because they are likely displaced by current derivatives. Like a bacteria optimized for its environment isn't going to give way to a less evolved spontaneous counterpart. I also think Settings for new life to emerge are not accessible

[@genericusername8337]

@@FightTheByte_ All life on earth is related. Evolved life on Earth is always going to be related to us. The first single-celled organism at the bottom of the oceans has long been outcompeted by more viable forms. Life only appears due to reproduction, there's no way for it to be "created", again and again. How was it then "created" the first time? It evolved from a more rudimentary set of self-replicating molecules. Well, that's one of the hypotheses anyway.

[@tradersquarter]

So he admits they never came up with anything, even when they were able to cheat and select all the necessary ingredients to put together and the exact, appropriate conditions, heat, temperature, light....zilch, nada....

[@ragecl4120]

That's not what he said at all...

[@tradersquarter]

Apparently you either didn't actually listen to the video, or you have serious issues with comprehension.😢😅

[@rema_style]

As believer in God and Bible do not see controversy between Theology and science. Bible give answer of questions Why? But science give answer How the creation work. I study in university biotechnology and Theology and never had problem and controversy between them.

[@stemfourvisual]

The Bible tells adults children’s stories to make sense of the sky and death and stuff. Pointless comparison.

[@BluePlaque]

@@stemfourvisual you’ve been hurt, it’s okay. There’s a lot of interesting stories from past religions

[@DL-ng8rf]

Maybe if you were studying geology or evolution this conflict would be more apparent.

[@Cyberspine]

Other religions give other answers to a why question. How do you decide which one is correct?

[@googm]

@@stemfourvisual And what is science? :P

[@sammyking9407]

All this is resolved with one single sentence: In the beginning, God…

[@derhafi]

Do you think one failed prediction by one reseracher adds any merit to the idea that some ill-defined mysterious deity had a hand in the origin of life? Seriously?

[@prschuster]

This should not be approached as a means to prove abiogenesis by natural means, because that will just invite blowback from creationists who know that nothing has been proved. It's still important to understand as much as we can about the chemistry of life.

[@TheFlagInspector]

Considerably different take then he had when talking with Dr. Tour.

[@mcmanustony]

In what way?

[@simplylethul]

Tour is a moron.

[@blengi]

I agree somewhat, however I don't think chemistry is fundamental to nailing down the essence of what causes life's genesis. In fact, I think the nature of life's origin is so generically inevitable, that even neutron stars have some and that it precedes the creation of the universe itself, perhaps even priming the low entropy configuration that resulted in our inflated bubbleverse....

[@derhafi]

" I think the nature of life's origin is so generically inevitable, that even neutron stars have some and that it precedes the creation of the universe itself"And an what exactly do you base this rather bold thought on? Also, what credible alternative do you have to chemistry, when it comes to life?

[@blengi]

​@@derhafi Hi and thankss for calling me out. Needless to say my comment was highly speculative, but it was not completely detached from reality lol. The reason I said the things I said comes down to my attempt to simulate abiogenesis in the abstract ie without some a priori chemical/physical basis. Basically I instantiated a "self evident" general information selection paradigm which I thought imbued information evolution with something similar to natural selection to the point certain domains of information had no choice/upper bound but to entropically trend toward something lifelike. Eliding the details, the abiogenesis sim seem to have aspects of cosmogenesis eg multiverse inflation, dark energy matter, emergent physics, so It seemed fitting to attribute life like potentialities to all orders of information given the same principle was implicit in all too. To show it was not just my imagination - although there is some of that - the various sims made some interesting predictions like fundamental coupling value optimizing inflation is around 1/24, that dark matter is an information relic from inflationary epoch, dark matter and energy are different information phases of the same thing, that cores of black holes are equivalent information wise to information outside of a universe etc Ultimately I'm kind of saying deep down abiogenesis and cosmogenesis are somewhat equivalent at the information level, and I'm still trying to test it computer wise like a lunatic lol...

[@derhafi]

@@blengi "my attempt to simulate abiogenesis in the abstract ie without some a priori chemical/physical basis............" Sounds as if you make things much MUCH more complicated than they need to be.....abiogenesis was a particular set of chemical reactions. That's it and this notion, that only chemistry happened back then, has no credible alternative. Every so called “alternative” to natural causes for the life we see today relies on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. " I'm kind of saying deep down abiogenesis and cosmogenesis are somewhat equivalent at the information level" Why wouild you make such a unfounded claim? No they are not. Well, both are part of the natural world, both are origins of a sort but that's about it. Again, you make things much MUCH more complicated than they need to be...Without knowing exactly what's going on in either, I assure you: Chemical reactions are on a different level than whatever physics happenes when an universe forms. Tell me, you don't have any formal scientific education, do you?

[@blengi]

​@@derhafi Hi again. It's not complicated at all, sim is based on 3 axioms instantiated via a smallish code loop which essentially randomly partitions a generic object abstraction which is an implicitly recursive representation of reality per the axioms. The power of entropic compactification of information naturally sorts things into different domains of complexity some self perpetuating others less so implying darwinian like natural selection over variation before chemistry or physics even come to be in various partitioned domains . Fortunately my "unfounded claims" ie what my sims produces, makes testable predictions per the monte carlo statistics they generate eg the 1/24 fundamental coupling (not dissimilar from some mssm models) which optimizes inflationary rates of cosmogenesis and other information integrations and phase transitions eg dark matter being an information relic from inflationary phase and dark energy phase transitions initiating pre big bang inflationary dynamics... Obviously you don't have to believe me lol, but that won't stop my simulations evolving interesting information configurations from simple first principles on my computer for me to interpret and mathematically analyze....

[@derhafi]

@@blengi "It's not complicated at all" I did not say that it is complicated...I said you make it more complcated that this needs to be and you are still doing it it seems. "Obviously you don't have to believe me lol" Obviously...yes. How about you pack it into a paper and submit it to peer review? I genuinly wish you good luck with that!

[@lilmoneysniperr9325]

"Russia" 🤣

[@tomashultgren4117]

Cronin appears to have matured somewhat, compared the cocky appearance he did in utube talks with Denis Noble and James Tour some years ago. Cudos!

[@davycrockett8886]

What he is saying is correct. The scientists trying to create life in a lab are wasting precious time, energy and money. Our science is currently set up to work with dead matter and not life. The spiritual scientists have known this a long time. The speaker only partially understands how life comes out of the universe. Life is coming from out of the universe, but not as he thinks. The formative forces, for example like the dark energy that shapes our universe is shaped my spiritual forces that can be seen by certain clairvoyants. This may be laughed at by the common materialist and can't be proven in the parameters of current science, but that doesn't stop it being true.

[@derhafi]

"Our science is currently set up to work with dead matter and not life" Finding out how matter managed to become alife is what abiogenesis does. "The spiritual scientists have known this a long time" There is no such thing as a "spiritual scientists "

[@ericlove8716]

​@@derhafi there are many scientists who believe in a creator. If you are saying that a "real" scientist cannot believe in a creator, is that not a dogma? Or a doctrine? Why can you not be both? Unless science in general has become a faith based religion in its own right. This is an actual question. Not a correction. Im just curious what you mean by that.

[@derhafi]

@@ericlove8716 No matter who, or how much somebody believes in a "creator" that does not make this "creator" real. "If you are saying that a "real" scientist cannot believe in a creator" No, I'm saying the moment you appeal to something with no demonstrably correaltion with reality, that is the moment you stop doing science. "Why can you not be both?" Because science does not deal in fantasies...because science is the exact opposite of a " faith based religion " It is a method to seperate truth from fiction based on emperical evidence.

[@chomnansaedan4788]

I'm here commenting after watching the Dave Farina and Dr James Tour Debate 5/19/2023. Tour won because Dave's entire argument was appeal to authority and ad hominem. He was never able to explain any of the necessary components required for life. Instead Dave just said "We have mountains of researchers" (this is appeal to authority) Dave only wrote on the chalk board once and it was shoddy handwriting.

[@Yesunimwokozi1]

Ler Cronin should have tought Dave his nonsense on face

[@JazzyArtKL]

Dave won, you mean. If any of the Tour's critisms had any value scientifically, he should write a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal. He doesn't. You know why? Because he will get trashed by the scientific community. Instead he debates a YT-er (Farina) who just represents the body of work that OOL researchers have already done.

[@spatrk6634]

obviously. winner of the debate was person who write more stuff on the chalk board with prettier handwriting and not the person who showed mountains of evidence that we are not clueless

[@deltafx9462]

@@JazzyArtKLtour already addressed this. He doesn’t write papers on it, because he believes his job is to explain the holes of OoL to the layman. That’s how science works, we have people who argue for a proposition and people who argue against a proposition. This is how we advance science in a safe manner. - sincerely a double major in mathematics and physics.

[@deltafx9462]

@@spatrk6634except Dave admits he didn’t know the contents of specific papers whenever James challenged him on it. Example is the 30-70%, 3-5 vs 2-5 compound claim that Dave tried refuting with his papers but couldn’t.

[@robertlester4569]

Sorry, you don't get to start with cells if you want to recreate the origin of life. You have to create the cells from nothing. Then you may be onto something.

[@derhafi]

Nature did not start with nothing.

[@robertlester4569]

@@derhafi What did nature start with? And where did that come from?

[@derhafi]

@@robertlester4569 Nobody knows in detail...so why are you making things up about it?

[@robertlester4569]

@@derhafi What did I make up about it?

[@derhafi]

@@robertlester4569 You are right, you did not. If you believe in an alternative origin of life, to a naturalistic one, you believe in nonsense other people made up.

[@MrArchy1986]

Ive been debating with my buddies about this. How comes with all our knoladge we cant create life from scratch and how can someone possibly say it actualy happened as accident billion years ago? We are someones robots...artificial life form for them if u will.

[@derhafi]

"How comes with all our knoladge we cant create life from scratch " There are many things we can't do...The fact that we don't know the underlining chemical pathways and processes might be the main reson why. We don't even have a universally agreed upon definition of life yet. Further are we talking about a peocess that most likely took a vast time span....so, how is this puzzeling you? "how can someone possibly say it actualy happened as accident billion years ago?" Because there are things we actually DO know...like the age of the earth, the age of the oldes fossils...literally all the evidence points to life naturally happening billions of years ago.

[@pauldirc..]

​@@derhafi just curious what do you think in approximately how many years scientist will able to recreate first self replicating evolving cell in lab

[@derhafi]

@@pauldirc.. Possibly never. I neither know nore care.

[@dk91750]

Love the comments here. So many creationists and believers with their cute ideas. "I believe what I believe because the book I believe is true because in the book the god I believe in says the book is true." In the end, all religious belief is circular. "I believe it's true because it's true. If it weren't true, I wouldn't believe it. But all the teachers of the book that I believe is true say that the book is true, and I know the book is true because I believe."

[@rainwynia5875]

terrible argument

[@brandoncinpubadj]

Am I the only one slightly scared by the idea of people making life in labs?

[@djclarkcant9880]

Probably. And then it could come to a point where we start thinking we’re also lab made. Just like the simulation theory. If we can make it, we could have been made too. As much as I understand your concern as its kinda scary to artificially produce life in labs, it’s 2022 are we really surprised?

[@brandoncinpubadj]

@@djclarkcant9880 Not surprised, as I remember Dolly the sheep back in the day. Science will give us everything and also inadvertently take it away I fear. Everyone seems to be more worried about "if" we can do something instead of "should" we do it.

[@basedcheese1]

Well, they are trying to make a damn living cell. A lot smaller than what your question might entail.

[@TheFlagInspector]

I think Lee has grown a lot in the past decade since he said, "I will create life in my lab with in the next 10 years". He has gained a lot of wisdom, that life is incredibly more complicated then ever imagine. And information problem is still the biggest challenge.

[@derhafi]

What do you meran by "information problem"? Information is a derived property. Information is what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. Nothing more. In the case of DNA it is a sequence of nucluides which contains the information for protein sequences. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and ribonucleic RNA determines the amino acid sequence of proteins. Proteins are macromolecules made of amino acids. An amino acid is made of even smaller units called codons. Different orders of codons will lead to different amino acids. Different chains of amino acids will form different proteins. That’s it. Seems there is only an "information problem" if you imagine one.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

_"And information problem is still the biggest challenge"_ Why? You don't need to start with 'Information' - just a random sequence of symbols - if they do something useful, they are preserved and *become* Information - otherwise they disappear. *Origin of Information.* Here the term *'Accidental Choice Remembered'* comes to mind. As with 'Self-Replicating Systems' no intelligent agent is involved. Stephen Meyer often references Information Theorist, *Heny Quastler* when talking about the origin of information. In the book published the year after he died, Quastler describes in a section called _'Emergence of Information',_ how a _'prebiological polynucleotide system'_ could create new information by a natural process: *the preferential polymerization of complementary double-stranded polynucleotides (like RNA or DNA), which will be more stable if they pair with a complementary strand.* This natural, *accidental* process *creates new information.* Quastler, writes: _"...[T]he primarily meaningless [nucleotide] sequence _*_acquires very definite meaning_*_ as soon as it becomes imperative that it be followed faithfully; _*_information has emerged through the accident_*_ of a particular single strand becoming the ancestor of the system..."_ In other words - as soon as a particular new nucleotide sequence has become an integral part of the RNA/DNA strand - it will be passed-on to all descendants. He finishes the section: _"It must be emphasized that _*_the emergence of information out of noise_*_ is not the same as the unmasking of information present in noise... In the latter case, the information was there, although hidden; in the former, it was not there at all. ....the necessity for faithful complementation would exist even if the choice of the original sequence were _*_completely random._*_ The _*_'accidental choice remembered' is a mechanism of creating information_*_ and very different in nature from mechanisms of discovering information."_ Remember that term *'Accidental Choice Remembered'.* Quastler's work foretold later work by 'origin of life' researchers who have since discovered that short RNA strands will assemble when nucleotides come into contact with the surfaces of *Montmorillonite clay* that act as catalytic templates. When any random but non-IethaI sequence of nucleotides arises - it represents *new genetic information* for later generations. No inteIIigence needed to create it - and none needed to use it - all of a cell's 'molecular machinery' (ribosomes, heIicase, polymerase, etc) - simply produce output molecules (proteins, m RNA, etc) based on the input sequence - just as the pattern on fabric is output when holes punched into a card are fed into a Jacquard loom. Quastler gives a simple analogy: _"A humble way of originating information furnishes an exact analog to the presumed situation in the case of the nucleic acid system: this is the instance of information emerging by the choosing of a number-combination to unlock a safe. It does not matter how the combination was originally selected - wisely, by culling it from a table of random numbers, or unwisely, by using a guessable sequence such as birth date or telephone number. What matters is that before the combination is set into the lock, every number sequence is exactly as gѻѻd as every other one (namely, no gѻѻd!), and after it has been set, one sequence is useful and all others are useless. _*_Thus the choice of a sequence and the subsequent implementation of the choice by setting the lock have created information."_*

[@ahmedmoustafa143]

@@derhafi Actually it’s a the biggest problem that they have 10 million $ in Evo 2.0 as prize for who answer the origin of life and genetic information

[@peterhodgson2581]

They'd be better off not wasting their time on insoluble pursuits by accepting abiogenesis is impossible and focusing on the who and why of our existence.

[@jozsefnemeth935]

Why does not Lex invite James Tour into his show?

[@derhafi]

Because Tour is a lying fraud.

[@Sams.Videos]

The paradox is that, the day a scientist creates life from scratch in a lab, the only thing he will have proven is that life can only be created in certain conditions, if, and only if there is an intelligent designer making it happen.

[@Sams.Videos]

@moneyxl00 Then life should be spontaneously happening from scratch in nature, all the time, without the intervention of scientists. Matter should turn into organic life all by itself. And that is not what scientists witness. Only then it will have been proven that it araised by itself. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't completely exclude that life on earth could have started by alien intervention.

[@derhafi]

That is an interesting way to say "I don't know how scientific experiments work. I can put water under conditions it will turn to ice in my freezer….according to your “reasoning” that proves that it takes an intelligent agent to make ice…That’s how mo++++c your line of “reasoning” is.

[@derhafi]

@@Sams.Videos " Then life should be spontaneously happening from scratch in nature, all the time, without the intervention of scientists." Yes buddy....should that happen nowadays, there is something here that wasen't when life originated: Other life which considers it food. NOt to mention that the conditions on earth have changes a bit in the last 4 billion years. Remind me...what is your alternative to a naturalistic origin of life again? Does it involve an ill-defined metaphysical entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science??

[@Sams.Videos]

​@@derhafi What you fail to understand is that life doesn't spontaneously appears randomly from scratch in nature. You need specific laboratory conditions to make it happen. Water on the other side freezes all the time in nature. You don't need a lab to make it happen under strict conditions. Water freezing is an observable process that continuously happens in nature. The appearance of life from scratch is not such a thing. It has never been observed in nature as such. Another thing is that it lacks understanding to compare water freezing to the the appearance of life. Both are completely different occurrences. One is way more complex than the other. One is just water, the other is a living organism. I doubt you consider your life of equal value to the ice in your soda. 🙄

[@derhafi]

@@Sams.Videos "What you fail to understand is that life doesn't spontaneously appears randomly from scratch in nature." I did not even imply anything like a sponatniouse appearence of life, neither does anyone in ool research. But, nice strawman you got there. "You need specific laboratory conditions to make it happen" Yes. Laboratory conditions, in this case, are the closes approximation to the conditions on earth when life first appeared. What you fail to understand is how experiments work. One simulates the natural condition in a lab..if you want to see when nature changes the state of aggregation of water from liquid to solid you recreate those conditions in a lab, you freeze it down. You are right, you don't need a lab in that case but YOU NEEN TO RECREATE THE CONDITIONS the water experiences in nature. That's what labrotories are for. Laboratory: A facility that provides controlled conditions in which scientific or technological research, experiments, and measurement areperformed. OOL researchers do the same with their work, they recreate the conditions we most likely had on a prebiotic earth and see what the available chmicals where up to under said conditions. AGAIN: That is how experiments in a lab work...science 101, I'm really buffeled that such an moro**c argument gets repeated wothout reflecting on it for about 2 seconds. "Another thing is that it lacks understanding to compare water freezing to the the appearance of life." I am using this example to let you in on the obviouse fact that recreating natural conditions is the job of a lab in this instance, given that you display severe problems in understanding this simple fact. You should be embarrassed that you are not getting this. Not to mention that there is a lot of work done in the field, in hot springs and underwater volcanoes due to their simularity of a prebiotic earth. " One is way more complex than the other." Maybe that's why we figured out the ice thing already. Could this be the reason, what do you think? OOHH the ORIGIN of life "has never been observed in nature as such" really? Are you surprised that nobody was there to watch THE FIRST LIFE on this planet. If only we had special institutions that would let us allow to recreate the conditions from back then under a controlled enviroment to step by step figure out possible chemical pathways from chemicals to biological systems.....hmmmm

[@stoictraveler1]

Fluffy BS

[@Tanengtiong]

The Heavenly Logos is the Information, the Grammar, the time-space salvational crosses. Better don't gamble our eternal soul big.

[@user-ov8iz9vz4n]

Except that it no more matters that "god' created us than it matters that a child creates a painting. A greater mystery than abiogenesis is why so many people think God comes pre-fitted with his own significance...like we are supposed to care? How could intelligent design matter when the designer obviously doesn't care about us?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

So James Tour was lying. Got it.

[@derhafi]

That is, after all, what he does.

[@occulus8687]

James Tour has been ripping through origin of life theory like a savage.

[@derhafi]

Exactly..like a lying, misleading, savage without a trace of scientific integrity.

[@bradwhelan4466]

That is laughably untrue, James Tour has been exposed and even humiliated on multiple occasions.

[@basedcheese1]

Sort of the opposite.

[@francoispoolman9853]

Money ROOT OFF ALL EVIL😢😂😢😂😂😂

[@MR-G-Rod]

People are the root of all money. The line between good and evil runs down every heart. ☦️

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

This video and channel need to be reported for terroristic threats against and hate crimes against and slander and libel against the dozens of hard working scientists in the field of Origin of Life Research, and removed for these violations, and for spreading misinformation & lies about a subject you know nothing about, have never studied.

[@LA-dd3pn]

Am I wrong or is this guy just saying a bunch of nothing?

[@WAllen-bn1ej]

Sounds like he's saying origin of life research is a scam....because it's proving intelligent design.

[@genericusername8337]

What led you to that (speculative) conclusion? To me, it sounds like this guy is saying a bunch of nothing, or you know, nothing interesting, nothing worth saying. Like the metaphor with cars going back to wheels. That is how life is being looked at. From the height of complexity (mammals for example) to the basics (bacteria, archaea), addressing the developmental path, and the genetic changes along the way.

[@nope5531]

It’s definitely not.

[@normalperson397]

That is.. the opposite.

[@sangwaraumo]

You clearly didn't get it.

[@FringeSpectre]

Sounds like someone didn't watch the clip. There's nothing intelligent about "design". If there was intelligent design, whales wouldn't have arm and finger bones, for instance. Your god doesn't exist. Sorry, not sorry.

[@nextgenfootball69420]

origin of life research is gonna blow up only when scientists begin to even remotely consider that it's possible that consciousness and matter are somehow interconnected, sadly most fear the idea because they think it's too "woo woo" because of their own internalized spiritual dullness

[@mmhoss]

That's because it's a theory with absolutely zero evidence at the moment.

[@nextgenfootball69420]

@@mmhoss there's plenty of evidence like the placebo effect, joe dispenza (the guy who literally healed his spine injury by reconstructing it with his own mind)

[@derhafi]

"when scientists begin to even remotely consider that it's possible that consciousness and matter are somehow interconnected," That is not even debated...consciousness is always housed by a material brain. What do you even mean by "most fear the idea " ? Do you really think this is some kind of revelation, some revolutionary insight? You seem to be under the impression that consciousness is some kind of magic ingredient that needs to be sprinkled over material to function. That is utter nonsense. Consciousness is the result of a certain way our material components are arranged and interact with one another. It is housed in brains and brains are made from matter. Like anything else relevant to us it is made from the particles and their interactions as they are described in the Standard Model of Physics.

[@nextgenfootball69420]

@@derhafi yeah apart from all the fillers and nonsense you said, you also made a baseless conclusion in the end "consciousness is a result of certain way our material components are arranged and interact with one another", this has not been proven in any way, theoretically or practically

[@derhafi]

@@nextgenfootball69420 You keep ignoring that the natural world is all there is, demonsatrably so...we figured that out. We know what reality is made of, the identity and behavior of all of the pieces underlying the world of our everyday experience is conclusivly known. That includes our bains and thus consciousness. It includes in fact, everything we will ever experience. This is not up for debate, an opinion or a gut feeling, that is a scientific fact varified with a sigma 5 certainty on the 12 of July 2012, sprinkled with a Nobel Prize one yera later. Is there anything else you think you know, that those thousands of physicists from all over the world, with different cultural backgrounds and religions, at CERN, who checked the data missed and want to call a "baseless conclusion " ?

[@kingkhrysesxiii5942]

The guy that can't figure out "The Origin of Life" so nobody else can, but he can definitely figure out artificial intelligence? Crazy that someone thinks we can't figure out how a simple intelligence came into being, but he can figure out how to create a super intelligence. This guy is a super genius in his simple mind apparently 🤣🤣🤣 Maybe his goal is to destroy life on earth since he can't figure out how it formed? 🤷 I bet he's secretly planning on starting an "accidental" AI apocalypse with his army of synthetic machines. 😂

[@TheCruiseDog]

Starting to sound like James Tour. Hmmm...

[@spatrk6634]

hmmmm. not at all. James Tour is yelling like a kid with a tantrum

[@johnfausett3335]

If life is an expression of consciousness through matter, we won't know anything about its origin until we approach the beginning of everything, which is unknowable. So yes, it is a scam.

[@JP-ec9rl]

Fools trying to play around with things that only God has authority over.

[@frisco9568]

If he’s going to claim it’s a scam, while simultaneously claiming there’s a creator behind this, is complete and utter nonsense.

[@03chrisv]

Did he? I don't think he implied a creator.

[@frisco9568]

@@1guitar12 You’re asking me to prove a unfalsifiable proposition that I don’t believe? Let’s use the scientific method here. I assume you believe in a creator/god, right?

[@frisco9568]

@@1guitar12 You’re the one making the positive claim here. As an Atheist, I reject the notion and the proposition that a god(including yours) doesn’t exist, due to lack of evidence, and failure to provide justification like yourself. It matters because that’s the whole point of this conversation. If it wouldn’t matter then why are you engaging in this conversation? Why do Theist like yourself behave in that manner? Wouldn’t you want to have conversations to see if one can prove their point? Through rational arguments and philosophical premises, you can achieve this. All I’m simply asking is why are you convinced of something you can’t demonstrate to be true. That is all I want to know.

[@frisco9568]

@@1guitar12 It’s also pretty self evident that you can’t provide evidence for your own proposition. What god are you even defending here?(As if an all mighty, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god needed your help). It’s truly sad to know that you whole heartedly defend your case, without any evidence to substantiate it.

[@03chrisv]

@@frisco9568 Exactly 👍If the burden of proof doesn't lay with the person making the claim then we would have to actively disprove everything including Bigfoot, Gnomes, etc. Theists wrongfully equivocate not being convinced of the God claim as the same as asserting that no God's exist.

[@MR-G-Rod]

Dr. Jame Tour taught Lee a lesson. You know what tho, I respect Lee way more now for taking it on the chin and getting back up and speaking truthfully about what can be scientifically proven.

[@derhafi]

The demonstrable liar James Tour taught us all a lesson....which was: He will stick to his script of lies no matter what. hH is deliberately misleading his audience, and his rhetoric always follows the same pattern. This molecule? Nobody knows how to make it. Oh they made it? Well they can’t make the building blocks. Oh they can? Well they aren’t enantiopure. Oh, homochirality has been explained? Then they bought their starting material. Irrelevant? Well their setup isn’t prebiotic. Oh it is? Then I’ll just baselessly call the study “hype” so that the viewer will reject it on faith without having a clue what it says. Jimmy Tour will always redirect to his desperate script in order to avoid addressing research that is inconvenient for him, just like any other creationist.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Every time they think they have something they find out that it's more complex than what they figured. Almost like it was all designed or something...

[@simplylethul]

Designed by "god?" 😂😂😂

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

@@simplylethul Precisely.

[@jkorling]

On the flip side it we can look at that same thing and say it doesn't look like anything designed that we've ever seen.

[@AlwaysSoldierOn]

Consciousness from cold matter is a scam indeed.

[@Moriadin]

i conjecture that consciousness is another dimension (or multiple dimensions, just as there are multiple dimensions of space) that all matter occupy to varying levels, and that in the case of human beings, by virtue of the brain, somehow, someway, are better able to traverse these dimensions. Our bodies traverse space and time, our minds, time and consciousness. I can't prove any of this. It is just a belief. In a way this implies the entire universe (even multi-verse if indeed there is such a thing) has dimensions of consciousness. Hence even stars, planets, moons, asteroids have some semblance of conscious awareness...even the chair I'm sitting on and the car I drive. For me the idea of consciousness being additional invisible dimensions of existence is more plausible than consciousness simply emerging from chemistry alone. This idea also spills over into the idea of a God. It wouldn't be a stretch to then "re-imagine" God as the very dimensions that envelop all of existence, that is the sum total of the abstract dimensions of space, time, consciousness and any other dimensions there might be...In fact the way I see it, a God that indeed IS what we regard as abstract dimensions of space, time (and consciousness) is the most plausible God. Not a man in the clouds, but the dimensions of space, time (consciousness and any other dimensions there may be). As such, we could think of the "building blocks" (for want of a better term) of God simply being the various dimensions themselves, not what they envelop. In my definition, God would be all space, all time, all consciousness, immeasurable, sustaining and creating all things simply by virtue of himself, existing. As such, our own existence and that of our universe would be a natural side-effect, and dare I say, inevitable...and, to dot the "i", it didnt start with our universe, and it will not end with it either, simply because God (according to my definition above) transcends that which he "contains" and by his very "nature" radiates creation...perpetually. If he is the spatial dimensions, things cannot but physically exist. If he is the dimension of time, things cannot but traverse time. If he is the conscious dimensions, things cannot but be conscious in one way or other. Everything would be an inevitable side-effect, by-product of his very nature. Now that is a "god" I can believe in. A god that transcends "your little prayer".

[@fireofhislove3395]

@@Moriadin You speak of the spiritual.

[@AlwaysSoldierOn]

@@Moriadin consciousness being a result of the brain and body is equivalent to a genie being the result of an inanimate lifeless bottle.

[@Moriadin]

@@fireofhislove3395 Spirituality would just be a natural side-effect of the existence of conscious dimensions, just as skyscrapers are a natural side-effect of the existence of a "vertical dimension".

[@Moriadin]

@@AlwaysSoldierOn This is my point. I don't think consciousness emerges entirely from the observable material realm. I think consciousness mostly supplements it (rather than purely emerges from it) by virtue of there being dimensions of consciousness. Everything occupies: 1) space, 2) time, 3) conscious dimensions. It's weird I know. And as I say its just a belief/suspicion that I have. I can't prove any of it. Certain "machinery" may be more suitable for traversing conscious dimensions, just as certain machinery is more suitable for flight. bicycles do not fly. Their machinery cannot easily negotiate the "vertical dimension", but they still exist in space. We cannot fly either. Our machinery cannot easily negotiate the vertical dimensions. However weCAN negotiate the conscious dimension(s) with ease. We have the plumbing to do so in the form of the brain (and possibly more...).

[@richardcarbery7035]

Science is motivated by the same psychology as theology. The resulting applications are just different. I find it difficult not to see a creator in creation. From quarks, leptons to infinity. An entire species or more is universally attracted to a sunset. A species or more grieves the dead. Why? No physics or chemistry can explain.

[@genericusername8337]

Was that supposed to sound coherent?

[@richardcarbery7035]

@@genericusername8337 asking the reason why humans grieve the dead is incoherent? Need your hand held?

[@derhafi]

"A species or more grieves the dead. Why?" Because we, and other who do so, are social species...behaviour which is best expleined by its evolutionary benefits. It reall is not that hard to explain in naturalistic terms...it also would not add any credibility to some supernatural nonsese if it coud not be explained like that.

[@richardcarbery7035]

@@derhafi not exactly an empirical explanation. That's OK b/c the best minds in our existence can't explain consciousness either. Microtubules is the latest fad, like String theory of old. Supernatural is a red herring. Darwin and Einstein and Wheeler and Planck were spouting "supernatural" missives in their day. It's hubris to think we have the slightest clue.

[@derhafi]

@@richardcarbery7035 "not exactly an empirical explanation" Ha, please look up "emperical" , both biological evolution and social evolution are based on emperical data. It does not get more emperical than that. Sure we don't know every detail of "consciousness" like with most things...that does not mean we know nothing. One of the things we do know, is that the supernatural is bogus and not part of our reality.