Scientists disagree on the origin of

Leading researchers across the sciences, Addy Pross, Chrisantha Fernando, and Kate Adamala, discuss the origin, and thus the meaning, of life on Earth.
Will it ever be discovered, or should we accept a degree of mystery around where we come from?
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-origin-of-li...
Humans have always marvelled at the wonders of life. But for nearly a century science has had an explanation for the immense variety of life forms on earth. Out of a primordial soup a random combination of chemicals generated the building blocks of life. Evolution did the rest. But might this account be mistaken? Despite decades of effort, biologists and biochemists have been unable to evolve living things from inorganic material. The emergence of the first cell and the development of complex life remain a mystery.
Is there something about the origin of life that means it will never be uncovered? Is the failure to account for life a threat to the whole evolutionary story? Or might we be able at some point to demonstrate the evolution of cells from inorganic material and the subsequent development of complex life forms? And if so where might this solution be found?
#originoflife #biology #physics
Join molecular biologist Güneş Taylor as she hosts a discussion on biology’s most central question: how did life begin? Joining her on the panel are cell biologist at the University of Minnesota Kate Adamala, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Ben Guiron University Addy Pross, and research scientist at Google DeepMind Chrisantha Fernando.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
00:00 Introduction
00:15 Will the origin of life forever remain a mystery?
00:30 The mystery of terrestrial life
02:25 Physics and biology are incompatible
05:09 Definition of life
07:05 Experimental biology
09:07 Life is an energised state
10:30 But fire is not alive
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Do you think it's possible to discover the origin of life? A worthwhile endeavour? Let us know in the comments! To watch the full debate, go to iai.tv/video/the-origin-of-life?KZbin&+comment

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

I will think it is possible to find a single origin of life. The secret will be in the structure of the cell and following likely chemical steps backwards. Along with likely origins, and matching those up.

[@thetruth3574]

Of course it is possible to discover the origin of life through scientific investigation. We already know the basics, we are just filling in the details. Life is a chemical process that evolved from non-living molecular structures which are always assembling and reassembling in different forms through natural interactions. Life is no more "supernatural" than lightning, volcanos, the rising and setting of the sun or any other phenomenon that primitive people once thought were the work of gods and none of us mere mortals' business to explain.

[@cosmicpsyops4529]

The better title would be: "Scientists don't understand the origin of life."

[@acejenkina8472]

Life is an experience that takes place for an unset amount of time before death..

[@thetruth3574]

It's presumptuous to state that "we'll neveŕ know" how matter made the transition from non-living to living chemistry. Scientists have a pretty good idea about how it happens already and will learn more in the future unless we as a civilization give up and resort to the notions that held our ancestors in the bondage of myth and superstition.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

Scientists have no idea whatsoever how non living matter became living matter. They don't even know how glucose, homochiral amino acids or any other building blocks of life could arise naturally.

[@thetruth3574]

@@andrewdouglas1963 YOU have no idea how non-living matter developed living chemistry but scientists know a great deal about it. Why don't you read some science?

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@thetruth3574 I have been reading a lot about the subject of origin of life. It seems to me that you have read much about it. Through my research I discovered that science has no idea how the basic building blocks of life could arise, like ribose, homochiaral amino acids etc. I also discovered science has no idea on the origin of genetic information. Some scientists believe it started via RNA but to date, experiments have only shown it's highly unlikely to arise this way as RNA spoils very quickly under ambient conditions. Science also has no idea how the cell membrane could arise as it has its own genetic information separate from the inside of the cell Living cells only come from living cells. I've also learned that science has no idea how chiral induced spin selectively arose within the cell. Without this, the cell would burn up and die very quickly. How did all these necessary things arise? No one knows. I'll invite you to challenge any of the above points by citing research showing how any of the above could arise naturally.

[@wijithagorakanage4560]

When we don't know something and we know that we don't know, we have a chance of finding it one day. Kate and Addy Pross very openly admitted that. That is a very healthy sign.

[@Finn-McCool]

If only there were an ancient text that said something along the lines of: "In The beginning, God..." ... and went on to be historically accurate and scientifically accurate whenever it mentions history and/or science. And if that text was found to have predicted the future accurately as well. What a monumental text that would be!

[@SebastianKrabs]

Life is the temporary defeat of entropy.....of course entropy always wins in the end..

[@andregomesdasilva]

It's not the defeat of entropy, not even temporary. By saying that, you show you don't understand how entropy works. It will only apparently defy entropy if you consider a closed environment and exclude the external environment. But this inclusion or exclusion is merely arbitrary. When you consider real nature (and don't exclude any environment), then then entropy is there and it's completely normal.

[@dcartier1692]

@@andregomesdasilva- on the energy side, yes, life is as entropic as anything else, but on the order/disorder side life is highly dis-entropic - or you would not have a brain with which to write here.

[@francesco5581]

one of those cool phrases that explain nothing ...

[@lukas3185]

pretty sure we actually speed it up

[@andregomesdasilva]

@@dcartier1692 order / disorder is a misinterpretation of entropy. Entropy is actually the delta of the energy that can be user to perform work. When a cell divide or when a cell is created, the universe end up with less available useful energy.

[@ivo3903]

The solution could be that the so called dead stuff isn’t dead after all.

[@dorfmanjones]

A boundary, a metabolism and a template. Sounds good to me. But it's merely a viable description; can it come into being by means of deliberate effort.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

Well cells are micro-machines, the body is a machine. And since in everyday reality, it is conscious intervention undertaken by intelligent minds that brings forth a machine, it is reasonable to hold that a supremely intelligent irreducible mind is behind the fabrication of the earliest machines of life ( to which conscious minds could be connected).

[@thetruth3574]

The body is not built out of separate parts like a machine, it evolves naturally through chemical processes, mutation and natural selection. Nature has no intentions or goals, makes no plans, has no problems to solve and never produces a final result, only continuous change. Creationists promote belief in a supernatural ruler of the universe who is always silent, which is very convenient for his self-appointed spokesmen here on Earth

[@josephnied9585]

Except human-made machines are very different (much simpler, much more specific in function, etc.) than the "machines" we find in nature, and human minds appear deeply dependent on material brains, so no, it's not reasonable to assume a brainless mind is responsible for the creation of life. I'm not saying it's WRONG, I'm just saying you would need to use a different route to reason to that conclusion.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@josephnied9585 Human-made machines are simpler no doubt but that's because the machines of the body are made by a mind _supremely_ intelligent. Anyway the take-away point is the *conscious intervention* inherent in the production of a machine which is absent in the outcome of purely natural unguided processes and phenomena that present themselves before us in our everyday reality. As regards the possibility of brainless mind, well that's very much possible. If we study the brain and its neurons we can observe its limitations and can clearly see that it's unconscious and the neurons are merely the wires which must interface with some immaterial conscious personality without which experience would become impossible. And so if that is the case then the conscious mind must be something that is connected to the brain and not the brain itself, nor an entity that can "emerge" magically from the unconscious neural substance. So, in view of this, a brainless mind can certainly be a possibility.

[@thetruth3574]

A living body is not a fixed thing, but a flowing event, like a flame or a whirlpool. It isn't designed like a machine, it develops like a natural process.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@thetruth3574 There is an anatomy and a physiology. While the physiology is indeed dynamic though equilibrating, there are fixed anatomical structures that operate like machines and apparatus.

[@Evan490BC]

"discuss the origin, and thus the meaning, of life on Earth". The question of meaning is completely distinct from and irrelevant to that of origin. It's not even a question Science should ask; it is part of Philosophy.

[@subratbose99]

Can the virtual particles pair lead the cause of the Big?

[@Finn-McCool]

9:38 The dude strikes the "thinker" pose as he is confronted by a white guy that disagrees with him. But he then shakes his head just enough while in that pose to let us know what he's actually thinking....

[@quantumkineticscorporation]

William James Sidis had it figured out back in 1925. Please go read his book. “The Animate and the Inanimate.”

[@thetruth3574]

There is no clear distinction between the animate and the inanimate. Medieval theologians imagined that "brute matter" cannot act on its own, but today we know better. Matter is a form of energy, and energy is change

[@lukerage]

I see y'all! Gives me hope.

[@nedanother9382]

Absolutely brilliant to agree that you cant talk about it until you define life. Incredibly and completely specific for all cases. Just like particle physics. I would have lost a bet that you would admit as much. Bravo you're following the science. The complexity of bio questions contain about the same number of variables, known and unknown to ever hope for a complete answer...a counting infinite number. As the gentalmen said though, your theory need only be useful and true for a particular purpose. If it works it works "shut up and caculate" lol

[@johnnybonner1934]

I have no question about the origin, purpose, or the terminus of life. Evolutionary theory has not stayed informed or adjusted to the realities of new days. Science as a creator of life has nothing on the horizon and has failed us. Naturalism and existentialism as an answer for meaning have failed us. Keep looking.

[@sridharannarasimhan4916]

We all know how to put together various components and create life. It's called impregnating and giving birth.

[@vNCAwizard]

The primary point of this discussion is the notion of description. Description implies interpretation, and these three presenters devote a great deal of attention to the relationship between description and interpretation. Description and interpretation are central to my work cellular automata with the Partial Constructor.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@mdmm1010]

you never know 🟡 the system!!!!!!!!

[@HebrewsvJohnv]

John 3 v 16 and John 1 v 1-3.

[@timterrell8678]

A supernatural being sacrificed himself to himself? Not a good contender with Abiogenesis.

[@baraskparas9559]

A thorough scenario of life's origin and evolution is to be published this year by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth employing over 290 references . It begins with raw chemicals and ends with the eukaryotes whilst offering a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome. Illustrated and with several info tables.

[@musicsubicandcebu1774]

Why is the thumbnail for this video an eye? Anyone?

[@joebowers2249]

It fits, the eye is so complex as to be impossible. As is every other biological function.

[@musicsubicandcebu1774]

@@joebowers2249 Thanks

[@Privacityuser]

lower entropy fields (needs mother's) stasis is about one organism inside of the other organism an so on.. That how complexity, higher-ups in 🧠 🧠 forms!

[@suelane3628]

Always double check fluffy things. Recently in the UK a baby hedgehog was taken to a rescue centre as it wasn't eating. It turned out to be a fluffy hat pom-pom!

[@kennethshort2016]

Lol

[@Dr.Z.Moravcik-inventor-of-AGI]

I give you one very useful advice. Never ever ask biologist about something that is important to you that is crucial to you that is fundamental to you. And don't ask church either.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

But biology and church are the only things important to me 😔

[@joebowers2249]

Unless church important, crucial, fundamental to you.

[@toni4729]

There was a time when we it was impossible to fly. One day we will see the light.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Information origination > thermodynamic evolution

[@user-zg9oo5bj4f]

When I was in college, the question was, "How can we ever shrink a computer from room-size to make it fit in a box?" Now we have computers in our phones. Premise here is ridiculous.

[@commentarytalk1446]

"BRAIN BUGS! Frankly I find the idea of a bug that thinks, offensive!" It was speculating long ago that: Mineral -> Plant -> Animal -> Human -> [AGI] . In this era we can probably add the brackets postulation at the end. If these people discuss, try to set out a broad summary then from that picture categorize the major arguments on the specifics of "life" and thus theories of origin. Eg simple organic molecules from elements combining under various conditions. Cellular Automata evolution is a good simulation example of simple starting conditions leading to complexity. For avoiding theory, extra data is another approach eg organic simple life probably is highly prevalent across the entire universe and likely within mulitple bodies in this solar system alone. Assuming that for now and probably confirming it later, then the building blocks of replicating organic molecules evolving under various conditions with this chemistry of "mineral" present becomes highly likely in probability hence prevalence prediction across the universe (apart from sheer size of the universe also lending a hand). Another example is the synthetic experiments in laboratories. For "life" the energized state is another way of saying a high(er) information state. IE all matter is encoding some form of local information at a macro state above quantum. This becomes self-describing if conserved sufficiently and if that conservation replicates and evolves as such then it produces "life" (organic so far).

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

Consciousness is obviously brain based. As you can see lesser developed brains being less conscious. Just like we can point to the evolution of the eye, by pointing to more primitive eyes. Similarly, more primitive animal brains.

[@metoonunyabidness1391]

@@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC No one can observe consciousness we can only infer it…

[@lohphat]

Consciousness is fragile and fleeting. Simple injury can drastically alter brain function. Our "consciousness" is easily fooled by distraction or optically or auditory illusions. That's how magicians make their money; they're exploiting "bugs" in our ability to interpret our world in real time. We synthesize reality because our senses are too slow to react in real time so our brains model what it thinks is happening and "pre-acts" e.g. catching an object. We predict where it will be in space and through practice as children have to learn how to predict and coordinate before our eye can actually process the images in real time.

[@andregomesdasilva]

You keep posting this text over and over. I remember I refuted it long ago, and probably other people did as well, but you keep going

[@bondjames652]

You are nothing without all the Humans who have inhabited this Earth past and present. It's not about your cells. It's about your cells and everyone's else's. You alone are nincompoop .

[@aditya.sedhai]

I have a great theory.

[@UniversalSovereignCitizen]

The gentleman with the platinum hairstyle is closest. 10-12 years ago?... Since our off-world guests have been teaching us that is... (longer than 12 years mate! But learning takes time... Very interesting thing that - time.) On the 49th day after conception in the womb, the pineal gland is developed enough for 'Light' to be accepted by it. Thus the 'Spirit' enters the growing foetus and then becomes a 'Person'! Until this point the mothers life force harbours the foetus. The life (light) force of the two gamets (cells) provides the initiating process combined with their individual programs. The life force and the physical matter for producing new cells comes from the mother, and the programs of the types of cells is governed by the genetic calibration that happens upon conception. 'Light' is in the parent, and so 'Life-force' is in the 'Cells' (gamets, ie sperm/ovum). To quote the Christian scriptures... 'God is light'. and, 'Know ye not ye are Gods'? (LIGHT!!!) [ LIGHT HAS FREQUENCY AND FREQUENCY MEDIATES ! This is how we have conscientious-ness connection with others and in fact ALL THINGS. ] Yes, there are chems involved. (Luv luv luv those chems) Yes, there is an actuating force. (life-Light) On the wall of the pyramid in Egypt is a Sun with rays of Light streaming down depicted as lines, on the ends of the lines are 'hands'. What does this say to you? (It's not rocket science... the truth of it is and has always been, IN YOU!)

[@thetruth3574]

Talk of "the life force" smacks of mystical mumbo-jumbo

[@sentientflower7891]

Abiogenesis is Impossible. Even in an infinite Universe.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

It is utterly ridiculous to think that anyone should even attempt to explain the origin of life on this planet without first explaining how this absolutely perfect setting from which life could effloresce, first came about. I'm talking about a setting consisting of the perfect source of light, heat, and bio-driving energy, shining on a rotating ball that somehow came *fully equipped* with everything life would need to emerge and evolve into us humans.

[@duaneeitzen1025]

Anthropomorphic principle? I.e. out of trillions of planets in the universe, it's not too big of a surprise that you find yourself on one that supported human evolution.

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

The solution is beyond simple. Earth life develops on Earth. Jupiter on Jupiter. Vulcans on Vulcan. You have it precisely backwards. It's not a miracle, it's natural.

[@dramaticyoyo4740]

Creation, simple

[@metoonunyabidness1391]

It all presupposes a materialistic metaphysics.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

How's that? Seems perfectly compatible with idealism, to me.

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

Might as well start with material. If we prove it doesn't work (we haven't) then fine, spiritual it is. You should support that.

[@metoonunyabidness1391]

@@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC You can’t prove a negative

[@metoonunyabidness1391]

@@Jacob-Vivimord Chemical Abiogenesis is compatible with idealism? You’re going to have to explain that one…

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

@@metoonunyabidness1391 if you eliminate all other possibilities, what remains must be the Truth.

[@andregomesdasilva]

Please, next time don't invite Fernando. Thw discussion was supposed to be good and it as a complete chaos

[@paulonius42]

Kate speaks like a scientist. Addy sounds like a grumpy tenured professor upset about other departments getting funding. Chrisantha is an arrogant, angry pseudo-philosopher.

[@thebee6142]

Addy was the only one talking sense.

[@thebee6142]

Addy probably talked the most sense.

[@mrhassell]

I disagree. We can know the origin of human life and this much is certain, it was not the work of natural phenomenon. No other animal has the same characteristics as the human genome.

[@suelane3628]

The human genome isn't special. We have some differences from our nearest relatives in both coding and non-coding DNA. Also some different timing of gene switches during embryonic development. Don't forget Human Endogenous Retro-viruses. Apart from that c.98% of our DNA is the same. The same DNA code is used by all life on Earth. Humans are no different. We even have the same brains as chimps, but yes ours is bigger, more complex and has enabled us to initiate agriculture, civilisations, science and technology.

[@sabeehb9514]

What is that guy (the one talking about the bubbles, alien pink fluffy things, cutlery and says countries are alive) on ? Seriously please bring people who know what they are talking about. This guy takes over the discussion by talking nonsense ! Please go back to GCSE definitions of life or characteristics of life. OK there is a bit of debate but in the main it is broadly agreed that life exhibits: - organisation - ability to transform energy - homeostasis (maintaining constant internal state) - can reproduce / make copies of itself - has the ability to grow and develop - can respond to stimulus.

[@B-none]

Complete BS to say Physics and Biology are incompatible. He confuses our ways of understanding emergent phenomenon as somehow violating the underlying dynamics.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

I found his views quite reasonable. Consciousness is the great disjunction.

[@alex79suited]

So, we know the main ingredient for life, water. All life requires water. So if our water-matter verse began from a frozen state. Then that would suggest life is throughout the matter-verse. What sustains life the source energy? Anyone come on. EMFSYSTEMS all life has 1 source of energy as do solar systems. What your failing to understand is that life is a function of the entire system. And if that system was originally a water-matter source, then you have your source for life and the energy that powers it or enables life to exist. Peace ✌️ 😎. Everything has a starting position and that's where it begins.

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

Water is not necessarily the origin of all possible life. Ammonia is also suggested.

[@paulonius42]

Well, thank you for that gibberish. Whatever strain you are smoking seems to be doing its job.😂

[@markvincentordiz]

It participated the process of evolution. Not 1 second transformation.

[@alex79suited]

You all sound confused about the topic you're supposed to be leaders in. Come on man lol. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

That's what debate is.

[@alex79suited]

@@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC water 💧vote Trump 2024?

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

​@@alex79suited water is mindless, that is at least a step above the average Trumper

[@alex79suited]

@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC I'm Canadian, lol. It is to laugh as the saying goes. Peace ✌️ 😎 from Canada, eh.

[@joshjackson678]

I think you’re confused lol. no one knows, no one knows how we will know, if ever. What’s confusing about that

[@METYX]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. What's wrong with that?

[@homewall744]

Life's purpose and function disproves physics' purposeless and deterministic universe.

[@HappyPrometheus]

Trying to explain the origin of life within the paradigm of physics that denies life? It's like saying that 1 = -1 Only spirituality can explain life.

[@seanhewitt603]

Does it matter?, I get that everyone has to contribute, but asking about something that cannot be conclusively proven is just an excuse to get away with adult playtime . That is to say, doing something useless with public resources is selfish and what one might expect from a drug addicted loser, not a group of allegedly intelligent humans. Like, uh, solve the crisis of pollution, not "the crisis in cosmology". Cosmology MAY come up with interesting ways to end human civilization, but chugging on fossil fuels WILL absolutely kill you, no questions.

[@metoonunyabidness1391]

The real reason why they’re asking the question is because it will confirm or disconfirm certain worldviews. If they can conclusively show how we came to be by merely material means, then there is no basis for spiritual belief

[@AleksandarBloom]

It's like you are trying to find a good reason to remain an idiot, but also, at the same time, to moraly blackmail other people with a brain.

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

Eliminating possibilities and building working models of life is still a worthy goal. It may even lead to solving these existential problems you mention. You never know where research may lead

[@naruto12270]

“Asking about something that cannot be conclusively proven is just an excuse to get away with adult playtime”. Sounds like someone can’t stand pondering outside the box for even as little as 12 mins in one day. It’s called curiosity & speculation. Go search somewhere else if you’re worried about pollution, the title of this video discussion is literally about life origins, not current world problems.

[@Iznenadan]

Well who says the Universe has no purpose? I mean, it's a mystery. And no I'm not saying "god". But perhaps there is a purpose to it or a logic we're too far (or too arrogant) from understanding.

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

❤Crystals can also be said to be alive under a poor definition of life. Like fire. But robots? Can they ever be alive with no DNA? A key does seem to be: life persists. But so do black holes. Another observation is dead stuff becomes alive all the time. Food: Dead. Then alive. So its not as stunning as the rightmost Prof suggests imo. I think Fernando makes the most sense in the end. Except, I believe robots could be considered alive and are a great reason to know we exist not via spirit, but chemicals. Because a spiritual origin wouldnt use dna. But a more top down approach (robots, from nothing). Also disagee with lady1. I do believe we MIGHT be able to figure out our origin exactly. On evidence? Yes. Fossil evidence. Where? In our dna vestiges and cell structure. These MIGHT be able to eliminate many possibilities. Perhaps... All but 1.

[@Tenebris8444]

ye it was odd seeing the other two disagree with the middle guy. funnily it seemed like they were pretty much repeating what he was just saying but their own spin on it. The middle guy's three point categorisation however, is spot on in my humble opinion and would make the most logical sense to define any existing object if we shift the meaning of life to something where it is tangible.