In the Beginning: The Origin & Purpose of Life | Dr. Bruce Damer | TEDxSantaCruz

[@Sean-qt8sj]

Tru grad 2024 this guy is great talked to him after the ceremony!

[@peters972]

Too big a jump to the Swiss Army knife. I was kinda ok up to the corkscrew. Nice friendly bloke though.

[@jordynbrooke1587]

He is so cool

[@timauth]

What a brilliant mind and speaker. Thank you for opening my mind that much more.

[@haraldmencke3252]

God is great! Cooperation on the Level of chemistry:))) Proper parameters were preset from the beginning!

[@johannwolf1]

Thanks Bruce! you'll not be surprised that your video here arrived to me at the precise moment of most potent synchronicity... of course. I love how we collaborate even now from a distance. Much love!

[@Sabyls]

Nice *imaginary* origin of life story. Try running it by Dr. James Tour, a leading synthetic chemist. The problem with this scenario is that it’s extremely oversimplified, totally non-specific and it makes billions of *assumptions* about what chemicals might do (which they normally don’t do). Dr. Tour can explain it better. But for starters, the chances of a single “useful” protein that you refer to forming by chance is only one in 10^-77. That’s incredibly unlikely. And all the other non-functional amino acid polypeptide chains are worthless and actually get in the way. There’s also a huge problem called “homochirality” (please look it up if you want to know more). The probability of hundreds of these necessary functional proteins forming in the right quantities by chance, with each one surviving more than days or weeks, AND ending up in the SAME tiny space to make a cell at the SAME time is infinitesimal. But even if that ever does happen, and all the OTHER complex lipids, carbohydrates and nucleic acids that are necessary to form the simplest cell somehow came together, making them “come alive” is by far, the hardest part. Every functional protein has to do it’s job at the right time in the right place, in the right way. And they all have to work together, like a very complex, tiny watch. All with no help from humans, if you want to describe a true abiogenesis scenario. What you’re leaving out is the real chemistry of how it all actually happened. Nobody knows enough to even say that it did happen by chance, for sure. Science requires more than fanciful ideas. This video is more like science “fiction”. Without real chemistry, it’s just speculation that lacks the elements that makes it a real testable or falsifiable theory. Instead of saying “We figured out how life began”, origin of life scientists ought to be down to earth enough to say “we really don’t know how life began; we only have a few very sketchy ideas that you can’t build a real model on.”

[@deathbyseatoast8854]

well said.

[@d7dh523]

Your the best man

[@Boris99999]

I’m still waiting for actual criticism. You know, something other than “it is too oversimplified”. I mean of course it would be oversimplified - it is TEDx! If you need actual complex stuff - go read his papers. Do you disagree with what was said about how lipids work? Or maybe you disagree with what was said about gazers? I’m genuinely interested in what actual step of this process did you disagree with?

[@haraldmencke3252]

Exactly:) God is great from the beginning!

[@richardfinlayson1524]

@@Boris99999 yeah me too there seems to be a assumption it's all just imaginary, he is actually a scientist.

[@captainzappbrannagan]

Makes sense. We get closer and closer the more we learn.

[@praveentomgm]

Dr. Damer, sign me up..... I am totally convinced about your proposition..... Life can only thrive by co-operation.... As proved by the earliest forms.... Naturally it can only sustain by doing so....

[@iain5615]

This guy is talking bollocks! Pure supposition based on absolutely no evidence.

[@deathbyseatoast8854]

there are other much more evidence based hypotheses on abiogenesis. one good example would be the Iron sulfer bubble hypothesis. really much more evidence in that one.

[@iain5615]

@@deathbyseatoast8854 I'm sorry but that hypotheses is meaningless as it has not shown how even the most basic building blocks of a cell such as proteins, vesicles, etc. could form nor how a cell itself would form. It is purely a hypotheses without any explanatory power and so is meaningless. It is one of thousands of hypotheses, that are just that, hypotheses - without any scientific validation.

[@deathbyseatoast8854]

waterborne You can’t really call these hypotheses meaningless. They’re probably not true. But the things we discover from them are undoubtedly leading us to eventually finding the true origins of life. For eg the discovery of ribozymes, the natural creation of fatty acids. The polymerization of activated nucleotides on monmorillonite? (Not sure if i spelt that right) have all been discovered due to people trying to find lifes origins. To call them meaningless is just wrong when you consider how much we have gained knowledge from them

[@iain5615]

@@deathbyseatoast8854 we haven't really discovered that much, these come from a far better understanding of biology and genetics from other fields. Much of these 'natural' occurrences are actually achieved in tightly controlled laboratory conditions that do not reflect nature. There is a huge amount of money invested in these searches for evidence but compared to what has been achieved in other fields research in abiogenesis hasn't progressed much since the 1950s. We've found how simple it is for amino acids, nucleobases, lipids and hydrocarbons form in nature but have not really got anywhere in determining hoe the real building blocks of a cell are formed - proteins, RNA/DNA and vesicles.

[@iain5615]

@@deathbyseatoast8854 some ideas are interesting but they are not actual evidence. Scientists use their own beliefs and the area of their expertise can also influence these beliefs. As such some believe on panspermia, some in abiogenesis, some in the simulation theory, some in Alien intervention, because they don't believe in divine intervention, but also don't believe in any of the prior ideas, while others believe in divine intervention. The real driver though is their personal narrative. This also holds true for the origins of the universe. There is no scientific evidence supporting any position and science has no actual position on the causation of them.

[@thefractalbible8214]

He is still repeating the mithology of evolutionism. Is impossible that life emerges by itself.

[@kingdavid3318]

2nd mistake you said was "computer model" 1st is who created the first cell?

[@Mike-pv6et]

Key word in this fantasy of unscientifically based origin of life without an engineer..."magical"

[@christophermichael7401]

Thank you!! Great clip

[@cjhepburn7406]

Love this, anyone seen that one where an inanimate bunch of cells start to live. I can't remember who did it. Anyone remember seeing that one?

[@RonPare]

I always felt somehow, that we are already a multi-planetary species. Teraforming in realistic ways will be a treasure hunt for future generations. IMO

[@LesMiserables999]

This man is insane. In a podcast with Christian Ryan, he said that he had MEMORIES of being 4mo in utero when his mom gave him up for adoption and he felt the love supposedly leave his body. Absolute maniac

[@bigjon1359]

Very interesting Hypothesis

[@EdLantz777]

Interesting theory, Bruce! Not sure how you would substantiate it... in your lifetime, anyway :-)

[@johnfrost5268]

nonsense

[@khamis853]

At least you can give this guy an A+ for enthusiasm. But unfortunately he and many other thinkers in this field lack the details and mechanisms for all of this stuff to happen. It will continue to be a thought experiment until it can be demonstrated end to end in a lab.

[@richardfinlayson1524]

He's actually very respected in a number of fields, it isn't all a thought experiment, he is a scientist.

[@erewind]

incorrect

[@adamdouglas5596]

interesting

[@mundojourney1104]

I will be really happy if in my lifespan we as species discover fossilized bacterial life in Europa, Mars, or anywhere outside our planet... that is all I ask for :)

[@Ali-yy5lx]

Redicolus presentation nothing more

[@Aswodel]

This all sounds very cool, but why? The reason why also brings up there might be a God or a "creator". Because I cant think of a reason why, why are we here, why did this happen, whats the use? To me it also sounds like the world and the way we interact with it also defines us being a giant cell also. Maybe we are what we call a cell, inside a cell, inside a cell etc. Meanwhile every cell in every dimension thinks its a living and thinking cell, even though we all react on eachother on a cellular level. :O!

[@spatrk6634]

science doesnt deal with why only how

[@chronischtelaat]

So the swiss army knife company actually stole it's ideas from nature?!?

[@thewaytruthandlife]

the DRAWINGS look nice, but so does a spiderman/superman/donald duck comic book. DOES not make it real. THAT part is NEVER proven to be correct.

[@fmn2628]

Your dogma blinds you. Science researches for the answers based on evidence from scientific method application, it changes it views if the evidence contradicts a previous hypothesis. If you prove to me with an scientific experiment that there is a better explanation than current abiogenesis theories for life, I will believe you. Creationist dogma just blinds you and makes you a useless contributor to mankind’s advancement.

[@josketobben]

@fmn2628 Bruce's work comes with seven testable hypotheses you numbnut.

[@fmn2628]

Joske Tobben I do not understand your comment, I believe you miss-read the thread.

[@GBart]

8:28 - God's cells start to realize they're building a sperm

[@curiousshiba]

Absolute rubbish!

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

God created everything ,a simple fact people always trying to negotiate and are failing

[@jamesragsdale6460]

mudu abdi god is everything and everything is god. God is the invisible force that drives all living things. What most religious people don't get is they take a word that has been translated in so many different ways and take it LITERALLY. it's being mis taught god is not some skydaddy who smites his own creations. Human origin is indeed driven by "god" but not the way you interpret it.

[@paul5899]

Read a book. No not that book another one.

[@averagejoe8280]

mudu abdi not a fact, a delusion

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

No, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything. It's all in the Loose Canon. And I know it's absolutely correct because there's a passage somewhere in the Loose Canon that says that it is absolutely correct.

[@jamesbarlau7781]

This guy is delusional. Abiogenesis is impossible in uncontrolled conditions

[@averagejoe8280]

It’s not impossible, because it happened

[@spatrk6634]

chemistry happens outside laboratory flasks.