The Origin of Life - Scientific Evidence

[@q8yMontages]

Mr. Andersen: "Do you look like a banana?" Me: "Yes"

[@annamichelle4559]

It's sad to see the hard work of people like Mr. Bozeman be completely disregarded by people who, honestly to the most part, don't have a lot of basis for what they talk about. As a Catholic and a strong believer in Christianity, I still see nothing wrong with the Origin of Life or the theory of evolution. For atheists or other groups to denounce Christians, or for Christians to do the same thing back, just proves the fact that no one here has reached the basic maturity of high schoolers to even be watching these videos in the first place (considering that this is a platform for AP Biology students, and not the creation/evolution rant- which I don't even get why you have to 'choose' a side in the first place). For Christians denouncing evolution and the origin theories, please reread the Bible. Many theologists agree that the beginning two chapters of Genesis could have been written by different authors, and that the words of the Bible may be poetic or symbolically representing the events that took place during the formation of the universe. As for atheists or other non-Christians, please do not denounce a religion simply due to the fact that you do not believe in it or because you see our beliefs as absurd. Many of us try our best to respect the beliefs of others, so everyone here please grow up and do the same. With love, A Slightly Annoyed High-School AP Bio Student

[@annikam2004]

+Anna Michelle I'm in highschool honors Bio. I think your views are fairly reasonable. I myself am an athiest, but I don't mind religion for the most part. What does annoy me is when people just throw away evidence because it disagrees with blind faith. Reasoning and interpreting the Bible seems much better. A good balance between Faith and the happiness and calm it gives you and science.

[@briseboy]

+Annika M Study the history of organized religions, and look directly at the efforts of religions to affect what is taught in schools. To fail to see the difference between scientific inquiry into reality, and religious explanation, merely means that one is so far unequipped for understanding scientific methods. Without that understanding, one cannot understand the process, the development, the methodology of any skill or discipline that rests upon science. One can mindlessly practice protocols, but not understand, and that is two far different ways of living. I have mourned somewhat the loss of Richard Dawkins, a brilliant scientific mind, to his choice of disputing religionists, even though I understand his segue, because religions positing manipulators called gods, have seriously attempted to impede freedom to inquire and education/understanding of scientific process and findings. Since I also see the danger, and have been sucked into the attempted obfuscation that the religious do, in order to avoid inquiry into themselves or anything at all, I realize how unproductive it is. I'll stop after mentioning that there seems to be a variable psychological response in humans, called "need for cognition." Some follow the natural curiosity evolved in humans, especially visible in children, while others shut off cognition through alcohol and other neurally-suppressing drugs, or dead-end rejection of curiosity and cognition itself (called dementia, meaning away from mind) of religion.

[@annikam2004]

george mira I understand. Religious people do often disregard science in favor of stories or pseudoscience. (my personal favorite is religious people insisting that scientists don't believe evolution anymore because an ASTROPHYICIST (not a biologist) said so) And I haven't studied it's affects on schools, but i've seen bits and pieces. Often I wish religion would completely go away, but sometimes i'm reminded of the peace and happiness and kindness it SOMETIMES brings. I think I more wish (however fruitless wishing is) that a religion could be purely value based. Not including stories or rules, but just guidance to be kind, help others, etc.

[@wbiro]

You illustrate the cluelessness of humanity (to date) by resorting to 'natural curiousity' for the justification of science. Here, I'll give you an enlightened reason (since I'm trying to disseminate it - which is a tall order considering the mental barriers that people have): To secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe.

[@vitakyo982]

You don't need to believe in god to be stupid ...

[@TVTacon]

I really wish this educational video did not get spoiled by the idiocy of some people in the comments.

[@wbiro]

Use the comments as a gauge of the general state of humanity (minus the 1% who actually take the lead in securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe)... wait- there isn't even a 1% yet... I guess there's only me...

[@nonenone5976]

I wish the limitations and idiocy of the human mind were not attempted to be overlooked, as if we could possibly have the capacity to make sense off what a God does with His knowledge. Big Bang and other evolutional theories, beyond adaptation, is a bigger joke than falling off of a flat earth in the past. A creator was still necessary for there to be Something to smash together to cause the Big Bang explosion, the theory's so stupid! Yet people still say that same creator didn't also create life- he just wanted to create some pointless crap to smash together

[@ct8377]

It doesn't, I still believe in God.

[@ct8377]

@@nonenone5976 Amen, I agree. I believe in Evolution but I don't believe that we all came from one ancestor. That is impossible. It's honestly more likely that God created everything than we all came from one ancestor.

[@Attamatic]

you dear sir...are a LEGEND!

[@bobbymamba8798]

No matter what people believe about the origin of organisms, life is beautiful. IMO science is beautiful too. How does sound travel from tech you’re looking at to your ear? Vibrations produce sound waves which travel to the Midear hitting the malleus and causes changes in the inner ear. Our brain, comprised of the cerebrum, cerebellum, thalamus, medulla oblongata, etc., is sooo complex though still homologous to that of a lamprey. Life is incredibly intriguing.

[@Kencan254]

Bovey Liu 00

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.” (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)”

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

✪World’s leading Darwinian Evolutionary and Agnostic Scientist, Richard Dawkins, admits “No One Knows How Life on Earth Began”✪ kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKDRlH14p9eXh5o

[@Squeakyboy]

@@Paradigm2012ShiftI don’t understand why people think that dredging up quotes from Charles Darwin in his pre-scientific revolution time does anything to disprove evolution. We don’t worship him as a deity, disproving what he said means nothing. Obviously we have made groundbreaking scientific discoveries based on his writings, whether or not he was correct or even convinced.

[@eiko4298]

Lucky people who took AP bio 8 years ago. I’m stuck at home in 2020 dealing with it.

[@Atomos_tech]

It turned out humans 50% banana 😂😂, now i know why I love banana 🍌

[@catsopolis21]

12:37 am doing ap bio hw

[@tannercardenas7975]

lmao I go to the school now and know your siblings. and am doing honors bio Hw now

[@zl8to]

7 years later a random12 yr old is doing the same thing as you!

[@maddybelle3957]

me too cathy me too .

[@adaptability_]

same cathy, same

[@sydneycrockett687]

Same

[@realmless4193]

Why do so many of these theories seem to start with a hypothesis and then seem to interpret the information as if the hypothesis is true instead of interpreting the hypothesis in light of the information? I'm not seeing the normal process of the scientific method in evolution.

[@Acts412jc]

Because it is a belief not a science. Science is demonstrable, repeatable, and verifiable; these theories are not therefore the belief in these theories are regarded and presented as truth because there is not a demonstrable, repeatable, and verifiable proof of these theories. I'm not an evolutionist, but at least be scientific in your teachings if you want to be regarded as scientific.

[@donaldclifford5763]

You make the complex understandable. Excellent.

[@onwardandupward-t1g]

thanks! I'm in my 50's. and I'm here b/ of Ray Kerszwell the futurist you speak about towards the end.... I've been trying my best to finally see and understand the meaning of life and maybe where we're going but feel compelled to finally listen to these thinkers/scientist on the ultimate connection of the cosmos, cells in our body, life on earth and what commonalities exist throughout all matter, our lives being one of them... I go to you're high school podcasts to learn what i missed... they're very good thanks

[@turtlegrams6582]

youtube > Total Onslaught series via Walter Veith

[@shawncweed]

This was excellent...thanks.

[@oreodog]

Love the ending topic, wish it was in the scope of AP Bio.

[@fatherafrica4186]

Did you pass?

[@harveenkaur4684]

Thank you so much!

[@pwnUgood]

Some areas of space are warm enough for living things. Dust clouds can be warmed by stars or friction.

[@timefororbit]

That is exactly why science is the best method for collecting evidence about the natural world. There is no ultimate authority in science. It doesn't matter how famous or popular a scientist is, if the overwhelming evidence contradicts something that scientist says, we trust the evidence. It's actually a testament to science, rather than a detriment. The overwhelming evidence tells us how life evolved and developed, as well as how it arose from organic compounds.

[@mustafamalik4211]

Towards the end of the video, when you're talking about the logarithmic scale, I want to add that in a logarithmic function stops growing and eventually stays the same, although I don't see this being the case with evolution.

[@timefororbit]

I'm not calling it abiogenesis, I'm showing you that organic material is simply chemistry. Chemistry is governed by the laws of physics, not by magic. We still have a lot of research to do, because the chemistry of organic matter is very complicated. But a self replicating molecule is what you need to get life started. And Venter did create a new species. The cell wall was merely a husk, there is nothing magical about a cell wall. It's about organic chemistry.

[@devansingh3323]

great video.

[@timefororbit]

We know that some genes are older or younger by studying evolution. In many older genes they use older variations of amino acids. New genes are created through gene duplication, which frees the gene up to copying errors, which change it's arrangement and therefore the traits it expresses.

[@AaronKlapheck]

Going from the creation of amino acids to proteins is a huge leap of faith. All scientific experiments trying to confirm this have failed thus far. The generation of a protein from raw amino acids is a leap of faith I am not willing to take until I see the evidence.

[@loricalass4068]

I have some amino acids in supplement bottles. They don't spring to life.

[@purpp-esque1711]

People have created synthetic cells from inanimate material. -_-

[@purpp-esque1711]

And creation is a way bigger leap of faith than amino acids.

[@trisapient]

Do you have 40 different amino acids in a slightly acidic solution?

[@justindavis2711]

@Bob Dillahunty its a faith based choice because there is no evidence for it. If you choose to believe it you must that its an unscientific belief. That doesnt make it wrong, but to claim science is on your side is misleading at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

8:14 Miller-Urey type experiments show that you can produce the "genetic code as well"? Really? Would you please explain?

[@thenouskid]

Literally just google it lmao

[@thenouskid]

This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[15] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[16] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[17

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

​@@thenouskid The production of nucleotide bases is different than the production of genetic code. The bases (A T C G) are meaningless when alone, just as the 26 letters of the English alphabet. An "Intelligence" is required to precisely arrange the bases into meaningful genetic code, just as an "intelligence" is required to arrange the 26 letters of the alphabet into 200000+ different words, and subsequently into an infinite arrangement of meaningful text.

[@thenouskid]

​@@Paradigm2012Shift Whats your evidence for this intelligence that arranged the bases?

[@michaelvickers8691]

@@thenouskid information, which is what is carried in DNA, is not randomly generated. There is no known source beyond an intelligent mind or agent that produces information. If you find information bearing signals like those sought for in the SETI program, or in runes or hieroglyphics or letters carved on a a tree, you can bet there is an intelligence behind them. The same is true of coding. Computer code, as complex as it may be, pales in comparison to the coding in the DNA of life's simplest forms. We know where code comes from, a mind or minds, ei intelligence. If you see a code, a string of words, since an intelligent agent is the only known source, it is logical to conclude a mind is behind it or authored the information. Who? is a different question entirely.

[@timefororbit]

Nature was not designed. But because it works there is the idea of the illusion of design. The solar system works more or less perfectly. You could argue that the solar system works so well it could have been designed. But the solar system didn't require a designer, it came about through natural processes and the laws of physics. The "mechanism" of the solar system are really the complex interactions of matter and energy and gravity and physics. That's what is meant by the illusion of design.

[@TonyTooTuff]

@9:00 This is the “insert fiction” here part of the story.

[@TonyTooTuff]

This is how chemistry shows how life is formed. You’re glossing over the most important part.

[@spatrk6634]

@@TonyTooTuff what part is that

[@williammartinez840]

It takes a lot of faith to believe something comes from nothing.

[@PureLuck719]

That is precisely how Christians believe the universe came about...

[@spatrk6634]

creatio ex nihilo

[@mcmanustony]

It takes a lot of laziness to trot this drivel out time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after...... Sweet suffering Jesus.....would it hurt you to open a book?

[@briseboy]

BTW, Mr. Andersen, Hades was not a hot or dangerous place according to the Greeks. Hel was a Norse goddess, who presided over the dead who did not die in battle. I have not explored where the idea of painful heat or violence as permanent residence for humans came from, but know only that some European religionists wrote about such a place where the consciousness of the dead (shown as an oxymoron by neuroscientists who studied people with various brain lesions affecting consciousness) went, should they have violated some social norms, which varied over time. Thinking for a moment about literature, Dante, a 13th century Florentine involved in religious disagreement, who was exiled, wrote then apolitical treatise, identifying some contemporaries and others with punishments he imagined for them, called the Inferno. Since Europeans loved to torture one another and enjoyed such vengeful activity so much they really paid attention to methods of pain induction, he probably imagined the most painful revenge he could, which was eternal fire.

[@GoldenKingStudio]

+george mira I don't think you actually read The Divine Comedy (of which the Inferno is the first third), There are nine circles of the Inferno (Inferno is Italian for Hell, it does not mean fire), and the deepest layers of the Inferno are actually cold. The middle ones are hot. I don't know why you even bring this up. Hell in the Divine Comedy is very different from the modern literary tradition of Hell, which calls it a place of eternal fire. The people who named the Hadean Era liked their Greek root words and so associated the Greek underworld with Hell in order to convey the idea that it was a hot place.

[@briseboy]

+GoldenKingStudio I have actually read the entire Divine Comedy, although quite some time ago, and not in Italian. Since inverno means winter, I do see your point about Dante and the very close word inferno. Since the Hadean era is one in which the earth is presumed hot, I posted the elaboration on Hades and Hel, again, neither of which were hot (unless the Norse goddess happened to be really good looking) in order to call attention to the misnaming. Should you be unable to understand the implication of my comment, that reference to a single narrow and unscientific theistic tradition in scientific naming may be inappropriate., then let at least the two of us allow the issue to pass here without further comment. It will probably be rectified with the passing of that narrow and unscientific tradition.

[@GoldenKingStudio]

george mira Naming things in general is unscientific, it is just an arbitrary thing based on whatever people want to name things. I was just explaining that it is not really misnamed, it is just how the ideas of the concepts have changed over time and have been associated with other ideas, even if it was not originally meant to be that way. Language continually has roots that make no sense and word origins that come from seemingly nowhere. Even in the lifetime of the Greeks, the concepts of Hades changed many times, becoming more elaborate, and further changing with the rise of the Romans. There was the river Phlegethon of Hades, which was one of the four rivers in Hades (and also in the Inferno of the Divine Comedy, which was heavily inspired by Greek culture as part of an allegory about Paganism), and that was the river of Fire, so there was fire in Hades. Well, I guess you could say that half of Hel (the person) was hot, seeing as half of her body was youthful, and the other half was a disfigured corpse.

[@darkoverllord]

Great video! I found this as a super helpful review before a monday morning biology II quiz!

[@brianaprado6205]

Just going to take a moment and *applaud* mind blowing :)

[@MrMaximo39]

this helps me so much its awsome

[@SevakKirakosyan]

Thank you very much. It was quite interesting.

[@othertestchannelbeta]

Without evidence an opinion can't win an argument. It's as simple as that.

[@myewgul]

Mr Anderson, I love you videos. Theyre so helpful but my major isn't Biology or Chemistry... As much as i love those two branches of science they arent my major, Geology is. It would be amazing to see some actual Geology videos from you. Any chances at all for this?

[@luxmar1]

He's not gonna make videos just for you

[@Zacky721999]

+MarTin ShorLux You don't know that.

[@myewgul]

MarTin ShorLux It wouldn't be just for me... So many people out there would also benefit from them but nice try.

[@TonboIV]

I have to question your singularity countdown a bit. As Mar's Law tells us: "Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker." On other hand, futurism does tell us that the abiogenesis question will be answered eventually, if no other reason than that planet sized experiments lasting for millions of years will be a practical thing to do some day.

[@baraskparas9559]

A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Cheap as an e book.

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.” (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)”

[@panagiotistsampanis1276]

1. Stop taking what he said out of context 2. Even if Darwin himself believed evolution wasn't true, it would'nt change anything about evolution being there

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

@@panagiotistsampanis1276 ✪World’s leading Darwinian Evolutionary and Agnostic Scientist, Richard Dawkins, admits “No One Knows How Life on Earth Began”✪ kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKDRlH14p9eXh5o

[@jbrandy202]

I don't understand what an "old" amino acid is. I re-watched you explain that part about four times, and I still don't get it.

[@vitakyo982]

Is it possible that instead of ONE common ancestor , there could have been more , dispatched in different locations ? I mean two or more life forms who appeared independantly ?

[@Thefamiliaguy]

Can you consider for one second that all that exists does not have to only exist in this box of the universe we exist in. Once you step out of the universe and try to talk to it you have to switch to philosphy and we can't begin to understand what it is or have it something that can be proved from the limits of this universe. But its the concept that there is more than this universe and there is more than we can try to comprehend. I believe there is more to reality than what our eyes can see.

[@RameshNarayanaswamy8]

are you using omnidazzle

[@TheLoobis]

This is so interesting but how did photosynthesis take place? 5:00 What gave off oxygen from this possess? I thought trees, plants, bushes, grass, etc. gave off oxygen. What did it back then? Rocks?

[@dorianl.210]

cyanobacteria are able to photosynthesize in process similar to plants (they dont use chloroplasts though)

[@TheLoobis]

Is cyanobacteria a living thing? Isn't bacteria a living thing? How did that come to life?

[@dorianl.210]

That is the question my friend! No one knows yet. However, I think we will have an answer to how the first cells came to be in time. Even if God created life it will have been done with the laws of physics/ chemistry and we will discover the process, and probably be able to recreate it starting from abiotic compounds.

[@dorianl.210]

By the way there is the possibility that life did not originate on Earth since microorganisms can retract into endospores and survive extremely intense conditions (cold/ dry) for thousands of years in a dormant state and could have arrived here on a meteorite. See panspermia theory. Of course that only pushes back the question of the first origin of how it began but its to say that we might not have all the clues here on Earth because it may not have begun here.

[@Atomos_tech]

Awesome

[@timefororbit]

Living organisms have already been created in the lab from non-living materials. In 2011, NYU researchers used synthetic DNA to create a self replicating molecule. In 2010 genome pioneer J. Craig Venter created the first synthetic organism using an artificial genome. These are both peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals.

[@dalaillamama4229]

im an engineer and not a biologist so I can dwell too deep into this but as far as creation of life is concerned, scientists with all our technologies and labs still cannot create life form from an inanimate thing or things.

[@gamesbok]

Fur seals in South Africa have a violent mating behavior, big beach masters fighting for dominance of femails, frequently hurting pups. 6 years ago one pair decided to move further up the beach and pair bond. He doesn't get a harem and she doesn't get an alpha male, but they do have a peaceful life and don't attract the great white sharks that frequent the crowded beach nor do they deplete local fish stocks. They have raised 6 cubs successfully. How's that for a culture shift.

[@Gurinder1992]

read everybody- where we are doing mistake in understanding all what is going on- Let us take an example of any animal,let dog, A dog know everything occuring around him, example a car going on road, but he cannot even thinks about how car works, but according to dog, he know everything, because his brain cannot even guess beyond a limit. Similarly how we humans can say that we can think eveything example oigin of universe,life etc. Our brain is not so developed that we can guess things beyond a limit. thanku... like if you understand something...

[@animeali1388]

Although it MAY be possible that there are some things in life simply too mind-numbingly complex for humans to understand, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Look how far we've come in less than a hundred years. We've learnt about the Big-Bang, origin of humans, quantum physics and general relativity. Imagine if ancient cavemen, rather than investigate how fire works, simply gave up on trying to understand it. How far would that have gotten us?

[@timefororbit]

Science has shown conditions that can create the building blocks of life. Self replicating molecules are what you need to get a cell started, the rest is organic chemistry. "And my response is.. so what!" Well that has to be your response, or else you'd have to admit I'm making a point. Honestly, if you wish to believe that a deity allows biology to exist, I'm not going to argue. Zeus is not needed to make organic material arise from chemistry, but I also have no interest in mythology.

[@engineerahmed7248]

SERIOUSLY CHALLENGE THE IDEA: Why there has to be 1 common ancestor to all life. If the conditions were at period in time conducive to life generation then it would have sprouted in variety of basic forms at various locations just like we see crystallization. Just as the freezing point is reached variety of basic tiny distinct shapecrystals form at various random locations.

[@Bsliggs]

"DNA is a joke" exactly what you would expect to read in the realm of unintelligible youtube comments

[@carogame]

where is the evidence of life coming from non-life? How do you explain something as complex as a cell evolving without all the parts there at the same time for the cell to work?

[@wbiro]

Molecular self-assembly, powered by the molecular storm (which I like to call the energy gradient of the Big Bang - just for fun) (and I like to say that life is a joyride down the energy gradient of the Big Bang, as the universe disperses in a cloud of smoke) (and the trick is to survive that)...

[@carogame]

Please tell me where there is any evidence of life coming from non-living chemicals

[@Chi3fqu33f]

+carogame unfortunately, there is none and never will be. Certain things are outside the realm of human comprehension, this being one of them. In my opinion, the most logical explanation for life is a divine creator that carefully planned life. A cell cannot work if it is missing even one of its vital organelles. If cells evolved, that means they gained some of these organelles over time. But if that is true, then they could not have been able to function with a lack of vital parts! Just like a car engine won't run if you remove a part.

[@carogame]

Thank you for the reply. Finally, someone I agree with. I am not sure why others cannot understand this simple concept. Continue the good work.

[@carogame]

Thanks for the reply. I do understand evolution that is driven my random mutations and natural selection. I have studied it in school. After I graduated, I started looking at other things as well. The theory did not make as much sense to me after studying the natural world around us and studying God's word. Just to answer a few of your questions. It takes faith to believe that life comes from non-living matter. We know that life only comes from life. God as Creator makes more sense to me. There aren't multiple gods. The Bible tells us there is only 1 true God. The Bible is error-free in it's original. What we have today is very, very close to what the original was (just look at all the manuscript evidence). The Bible is not wrong on anything scientifically. Other religious books contain many errors. There is something called cause and effect. Everything that is in existence today has a cause. There had to be something before the first cause. By definition, God is the eternal first cause of everything. We can only think logically about things because there is a God who created laws of logic. If we are just stardust, why should we trust any of our thoughts? There is no good evidence that one kind of animal changes into another.

[@babywhale-eq9xk]

what if i am a banana?

[@timefororbit]

13.8 billion years, to be more exact.

[@PhilNEvo]

Doesn't other primates also pass on certain behavioral traits which could be considered cultural ?

[@betterdeadthanred4196]

Just a little note on big bang. It actually happened 13 billion years ago and not 11 as you ve mentioned. but not a biggy

[@DivineOwnageEVE]

why one common ancestor and not many? Is it possible that some branches of life do not share common ancestors?

[@spatrk6634]

everything alive today is related. meaning that there was ancetral population which split into two or more slightly different branches that continued to diverge into everything alive there might've been multiple branches of different life forms that arose independently. but only one lineage survived till now. and all life today is descendant from that population some sort of very simple single "cell" organism because it wouldnt be a cell in todays sense of a word what cell means. it would be much more simple

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

"Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, God was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, God was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that God would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though God is everywhere at all times, God did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) God is beyond heaven, earth ... and time."

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

@rent a shill The same applies to Multiple Universe Theory.

[@mattsierra9653]

No one would argue that randomly generated life is impossible, the universe just hasn't had enough time to make that possibility anywhere near likely, it would be like expecting a self replicating factory that runs on solar power to randomly form somewhere in the universe, possible yes, but unlikely. And as for the probability of a time/space/energy creating God-50/50- as far as science goes we don't have anything to confirm or deny Him

[@pwnUgood]

QUOTE: "as far as science goes we don't have anything to confirm or deny Him" We don't have anything to confirm or deny leprachauns, either, but that is hardly a reason to beleive in them.

[@DelphiUniverse]

Evidence is a hundred percent useful, but it's not necessary, there is the difference. It's wise to stick to evidence, it's useful to stick to evidence, it's time saving to stick to evidence, it's fortunate, it's beneficial.

[@pwnUgood]

QUOTE: "we still hit the wall of the staggering improbability of life... " This is pretzel logic. Obviously life is rare, but it is possible as the result of dynamic chemical processes that are known to exist. What is the "probability" that a conveniently mysterious, magical god willed life into existence by completely unknowable means?

[@gregbalteff1529]

PAUL why is carbon dating wrong ?thank you

[@jgbowers1]

Shouldn't you elaborate and cite some references to go with your statement?

[@MrGoatflakes]

Wait, I know the answer to this one... um, It isn't!

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

8:00 "A sterile environment where there was no oxygen?" Where did all of the oxygen in your chemical equations come from?

[@Ruby-eq1qg]

i assume its from the water in the experiment used to simulate the ocean. he might've meant no oxygen in the air (or "atmosphere" for the purpose of the experiment) but thats just what i got from watching this

[@ozein-wr7np]

photosynthesis

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

@@ozein-wr7np Photosynthesis of and by what? This is suppose to be prebiotic.

[@ozein-wr7np]

Perfect2020Storm sorry I thought it was something else, the oxygen comes from the reaction of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, which were two compounds that Miller and urey added to the simulation in the the amounts they believed ancient earth used to contain (sorry for the initial mistake)

[@Thefamiliaguy]

I have 28 years in the science of engineering and artifical intelligence. They call it computer science in universities for a reason. I am not speaking from reading websites. That would be you. I have real experience and am the expert for what I talk about in regards to engineering. Corporations pay lots for my opinion.

[@nickkoranda8392]

never mind, I completely misread your argument : /

[@TavgaHawramy]

Interesting to see how evolution search for cellur biology

[@Thefamiliaguy]

In the genius code of engineered life it allows for variation of a kind of animal to allow it to survive in different habitats and situations. The engineer thought ahead and put that in the code of life to give it a stronger survival rate. That is what darwin demonstrated and not some illusion of design. Variation of desing is already in the gene pool of an animal kind and is not some expression of new design its the design already in prepackaged in the gene code.

[@ShadowZZZ]

I recomment prof. Richard Dawkins books like "The greatest show on earth" and "The god delusion"

[@peters972]

I don’t understand why everything has to come from one common ancestor. Since the environment was conducive to the formation of life, wouldn’t it have emerged in several places simultaneously producing similar components. If there was just one, is that evidence to support that life is very rare in the universe?

[@justaway6901]

My guess is that there's only a specific condition in which chemistry could become biology. At least on Earth, I think Carbon and Silicone could be the only catalyst. Carbon got there first so silicone didn't got its chance. Since once carbon becomes more "alive", the formation of any other carbon-based or silicone-based organic compounds would be very unlikely if not impossible. They are going to be consumed constantly by the current carbon based life.

[@peters972]

@@justaway6901 in just one tiny spot on the whole earth? That’s rare right?

[@DavidVonR]

Life could have appeared more than once on the early Earth, but only one lineage survived to become the common ancestor to all life.

[@peters972]

@@DavidVonR how do we know? maybe components from one origination are similar to components from another.

[@spatrk6634]

​@@peters972 its not about components. everything alive today shares exact same DNA segments. there might've been multiple origins of life, but everything alive today is related for sure.

[@timefororbit]

Falsified evidence gets discarded, but verified evidence does not. There are many areas of science in which there are competing theories, both with various amounts of evidence to support them. This mostly happens in physics. But such a controversy simply does not exist in biology. As I said, the 40% of scientists who accept the evidence for evolution would gladly listen to a competing theory, if it was valid. But no such theory exists. I can tell you are not a scientists and have experience.

[@benthemiester]

I also find it interesting that nothing was spoken of the fact that Miller used the wrong type of reducing atmosphere not present on earth at that time. No mention was made of the fact that he used an old chemist trick called a trap which without,.....

[@pwnUgood]

If life came to earth from another planet that still doesn't explain how it came about from non-living matter intially. Caliming that it was "always" here doesn't jibe with conditions in the big Bang.

[@rursus8354]

It is loony and ignorant to call Kelvin's computation of the age of Earth to 20-100 Ma "a mistake!" Kelvin presented his results 1889, and radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel. In order to know that radioactivity can contribute to the internal heat, one has to know the isotopes K40, U238 and Th232. Isotopes were suggested in 1913. About then, there was enough knowledge to conclude that radioactivity can contribute to the internal heat. UPDATE: the science in this article is already obsolete. There are clear indications that liquid water existed in the Hadean time.

[@rolo5424]

There is no chemical evidence for a chemical reason of life to begin. None. It is not just about the chemicals and proteins, they need information too. Darwin didn't know how complex cells really were and he thought they were quite simple things and therefore his theory made more sense when that was the general belief. But cells are actually very sophisticated and complex mechanisms that rely on the instructions on the DNA to tell the cell what to do. Without that it is virtually impossible for a working DNA formula to appear by sheer chance in cell and in the right order. Even it that happened once, it would have to happen many many times and you would need an infinite amount of time for that to happen. The chances are too low. So where did the information come from that tells the DNA in the cells what to do? Randomness doesn't cut it, chance doesn't cut it, and accident doesn't cut it. It is like saying that a high tech computer can build itself just as long as all the relevant hard ware is there. It won't. You need a builder, so who built the dna information in the first cells?

[@michaelryd6737]

I give you one mr. Andersson, this is really "banana-science"...

[@mild546]

MR AVON IS AWESOME

[@timefororbit]

I feel like I'm repeating myself but science isn't like a religion, it doesn't start with all the answers. It's more like a detective that solve the mystery to a crime that he did not witness. We've been studying these organic processes for over a hundred and fifty years with earnest and there is simply no indication that an intelligent influence is needed at any step in the process. We are agnostic about the possibility. Answer: study molecular chemistry and let me know what you find.

[@ayanaengelbrecht4307]

Who knows what our common ancestor is?

[@pgplaysvidya]

the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) was a mega organism that lived in the ocean www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/mp04w/the_last_universal_common_ancestor_may_have/ www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404-300-life-began-with-a-planetary-mega-organism/ www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725151-300-looking-for-luca-ndash-the-mother-of-all-life

[@bumshikkim6914]

I wish I got to see this at the beginning of my class on this chapter... would've helped tremendously.

[@vitakyo982]

May be we could raise humans out of geneticaly modified bananas plants ...

[@ocanter]

2:45 You never cashed that check. You told us about the transition from one form of non-life to another. But you promised something much bigger.

[@Stray-mu4tq]

I am half banana and half PIZZA!

[@Thefamiliaguy]

you are confusing the complexity of physics and chemistry with the complexity of an engineered functional machine. Those are two different things. Does any of this finally make sense to you?

[@pwnUgood]

Intelligence has never created anything resembling natural forms. Nature does not need so lmited a mechanism as intelligence to produce a the variety and complexity of forms we obseerve-- spontaneously and without ego, without purpose or conscious design.

[@yiqingwang1437]

Two points: first, law of biogenesis, discovered by Louis Pasteur, states that living thing ONLY come from living thing through replication. Second, the second law of thermodynamic - the entropy. The whole universe can be assumed as a closed system, so order leads to disorders. If random chance was the key, then should I expect flying apple pies all around me since the components (all the chemicals) is a way much simpler???

[@Eagle93Writer]

Yiqing Wang Louis PAsteur is DEATH since more than a hundredfifty years now . He didnt even KNOW about DNA: Case closed. And the Universe is NOT established to be a closed system. We dont KNOW what kind of system it is.

[@lailas1811]

Does anybody know a good book that describes the Origin of Life? Other than Darwin's.

[@briseboy]

+Laila S Dawkins on genes, Gould on evolution Wallace's original work. Lamarck. Don't skip Darwin, though. He spent the most time and thought on evolution. You should also read Huxleys defense. Read Zshuang Zhou who over 2300 hundred years ago had great insight into evolution. De Buffon in the 1700s had other insights into the malleability o fspecies. Read the work describing Watson & Crick and others who discovered the chemical "mechanics" of descent with modification. All these will educate you in your quest. Since the mid-1800s, though, so much evidence for evolution has been discovered (with NONE whatsoever at all able to refute it) that just taking a few good biology courses will be more productive a pursuit. Evolution is literally accurate history, and if you wish to explore it deeply, your interest is probably written history. Paleontology and paleobiology are more deep study for someone who is interested in evolution than is human history.

[@loricalass4068]

There is no evidence whatsoever that life can originate from nonlife. All the evidence shows it ain't happening. I just left a post about how that...belief...is based on pseudo science, above, below the vid. Please learn the difference between theories presented as evidence that ignore the real evidence, and actual evidence. Evolution is based on theories presented as evidence and faith presented as fact, all piled high on logical fallacies. But I detail that in the post referenced.

[@wbiro]

The modern classic in the field is "Biogenesis - Theories of Life's Origin" by Noam Lahav. It organized modern theories well. It may take you two years or more to read (and there is no audiobook). I use it as a "Bathroom Reader" - no matter where I randomly open the book, there is something interesting there (I use toilet paper squares as bookmarks to the really good parts).

[@wbiro]

He noted "C. C. Patterson, whose first name was "Clare" (and even those books that do mention him assume he was female"). His life got really interesting stemming from his lead method for geological dating - he found that his lead experiments were contaminated with unnaturally high amounts of lead, and he later discovered that the levels coincided with leaded gasoline (the manufactures of which made his life very challenging). He eventually won out, and leaded gas was finally banned (whereupon the lead amounts (let's say 'poisoining') in people immediately went down). As for the inordinate number of deaths and disabilities at lead manufacturing plants, the industry "used a strategy of calm denial that served it well for decades". Surprising that 'animals' came before plants... (researching) - so they did - plants being an offshoot of algae (defined as 'photosynthetic organisms')...

[@gamesbok]

Yea, all of them.

[@ron274]

Yoooo mr.monestine

[@mk-zh7ub]

Who else is watching this video in 2021?

[@Mistahwong]

Thumbs up for Mr.Lulu's class

[@jeremymiller2303]

He talks about amino acids forming, (the experiment cited has never been duplicated), and suddenly single-cells show up? A nucleus? Cell walls? All those other parts working together to sustain life? It can't be built by steps. He's real happy when he gets to Darwin, because even Darwin didn't believe in abiogenesis.

[@ron274]

Yo Jalen

[@anandasonar3909]

Evolution explains survival of fittest but not the arrival of the fitest 😊

[@Thefamiliaguy]

I am explaining away only what is engineered and what is not. I don't need to explain more than that. Anything outside of physics and our universe cannot be explained away with science. But his shadow his fingerprint left on the universe can be explained away as such.

[@sebastian.v]

Do not agree with the believe that culture is unique to humans.

[@desertman33]

MR. GOD DAMN WESTPHAL HELLZ YEAH

[@timefororbit]

The basic premise of your argument has been demonstrated to be completely and utterly false on numerous occasions. While it is highly unlikely to get any order from chaos, if selective processes are in place you can get the illusion of design. Descent with modification and natural selection perfectly illustrate how a step by step process where traits are selected (purely by the fact that the environment is hostile and only the fit may survive), gives the illusion that life was engineered.

[@Thefamiliaguy]

There is no such thing as the illusion of something being engineered. That is a made up argument. Either it was engineered or it was not. When it comes to making a machine there are endless ways for the machine to not work and only a very few precise forms that result in some function and even less that result in full function. Machinary takes exact precision and when you variablize the parts of the machine the odds of them happening by illusion of design through chance are basically zero.

[@Thefamiliaguy]

To continue. The amount of real working DNA code needed to just get a functional eye is staggering. And if you knew what it took to get a simple thing coded at the base code level let alone an insanely complicated eye you would beging to appreciate what I am saying and have an all new perspective. The odds of all those mutations on top of new mutations to happen over long stretches of time is beyone imagination to seriously believe the evolution fantasy. Evolution is pure sci-fi

[@tor1302]

great until you brought kurzweil in

[@seamus9305]

Randomness is not a cause for complex sequential information.