What is Chemical Evolution?

[@Haggisfondler]

Great video. As a biologist i love seeing concise scientific media targeted at educating the general public. Its not easy to simplify complex topics into a package that can be understood by people that don't necessarily come from a scientific background, but in this instance you have nicely covered the main processes but left enough to spur on those with a healthy interest to seek further information .It seems like you have amassed the right people for the job. Keep up the good work.

[@iliketurtles6777]

fuzzyhaggis and thank you too!! This was a brilliant video. Made wonder about viruses and their role in sculpting life. As a biologist, have you any information you like to share about your work and or knowledge of virus and cell relations that amazes you? I’m curious and this stuff fascinates me!!😊

[@feynstein1004]

Agreed. This channel is amazing. Simple enough to easily follow along and yet not too dumbed down to be incorrect. It deserves millions of subscribers.

[@5tonyvvvv]

Abiogenesis is an embarrassment! Genetic information is the result of a mind, not unguided natural chemical processes! RNA is being produced in advanced laboratories with intelligent chemists guided conditions and designed equipment!

[@me000654]

@ Dominick Holden Looks like you frightned him ;-)

[@Corn0nTheCobb]

@@me000654 Dominick's reply was over 3 years late, so the original commenter likely didn't see it

[@Kevin-cm5kc]

This blew my freakin' mind. So 6:30 would essentially form a primitive lipid bilayer? Then like a billion years later, that series of chemical reactions is still going... and I'm one of them (O__O )

[@Zerepzerreitug]

jim bob pretty cool when you think about it

[@footballunleashed]

jim bob Your ancestor is a rock!

[@the1andonlytitch]

jim bob Evolution is crazy

[@JFPCreative]

Lol

[@SteveEwe]

+the1andonlytitch Our universe is crazy. But the only reason we think so is because we inhabit, interact with, and are normally aware of only a sliver of it most of the time. The methodologies of science allow us to peer in to those aspects of our universe we don't normally have access to.

[@Unfawkable]

This series needs and deserves so much more episodes. Excellent work, love all your videos.

[@mario0318]

Unfawkable It deserves far more attention than more episodes too.

[@ryanfloch6054]

***** It's super hard to make so good content. That's why it takes so much time

[@mario0318]

Ryan Floch I wasn't just saying we need more episodes. I was saying it needs more Attention.

[@ryanfloch6054]

***** agreed

[@adic8993]

Why did I just find this channel? You're so good I'm going to share this with anyone who cares to listen.

[@besmart]

So great to see a new video from you guys!

[@JustinMoralesTheComposer]

It's Okay To Be Smart Agreed

[@Kid_Mode]

+It's Okay To Be Smart I love your name.

[@JustinMoralesTheComposer]

Patrik Nilsson It's a little farther along as a theory than "pure speculation".

[@amrdawoud5467]

It's Okay To Be Smart Best greetings from Egypt ❤️❤️❤️

[@Gordon_Freeman_PhD]

It's Okay To Be Smart Hi Joe.

[@vikashsharma6343]

Every video of 'Stated Clearly' lives up to its name.

[@johnarbuckle2619]

vikash sharma indeed my good friend

[@kazearaki853]

The best evolutionary biology source on KZbin and most importantly understandable to laymen.

[@per_ringnes]

sup brotah!? how's the fishing going?

[@kazearaki853]

Not good, so many fishing ships around.

[@ritadelarosa9534]

I'm a more super science geek, I memorised the human reproductive system when I was 6 or seven, but a six year old beated , memorising the periodic table of elements

[@feynstein1004]

Indeed. I wish the channel had millions of subscribers. But I guess 9 year olds are gonna Pewd.

[@mohsenheydari4687]

You are discussing very complex scientific topics in the simplest way, while it's still accurate. Many thanks for your valuable videos.

[@XBoY4869]

Now you know what to blame for your existance

[@roodlesprease7659]

+Zatchooze Naut repetitive production is your fata!

[@matthewtheobald1231]

My mom

[@HermanWillems]

And your inviornment creates input in your brain due to impulses of your enviornment and neural plasticity it creates who you are !! And what you do! You think you make choices? :D lol we have no free will. Your brain is a pattern matching machine which is constantly addapting due to impulses and strengthening certain pathways in your brain that help you forward. You don't choose something... it's your brain making a choice all deterministic based on your past from birth untill now. Damn i didnt ask for this.

[@michaelladd4049]

Curse you, balls of fatty acids!

[@simonpeter5032]

Who do I blame for my awareness?

[@eventhorizon3158]

I absolutely love these videos! The vector/cell shading art style paired with great content make these some of the best educational videos on KZbin. Thanks and keep up the great work!

[@Yui714]

I've been exposed to a lot of material pertaining to evolution and at no point was chemical evolution mentioned. I always wondered how chemicals made a transition into life and this video was very insightful despite not being able to provide an answer.

[@CrimsonVoid]

ゆい714 It might be because there's still a lot that we don't know in the area.

[@alconvin2334]

+ゆい714 Another interesting fact is that through a complicated process, segments of RNA have been found to form randomly in nature, so theoretically RNA plus amino acids plus ribosomes plus fatty acid membrane = the first cell.

[@maxdecphoenix]

+ゆい714 I watched this video a few years ago, very well done. It took me like 10 minutes to re-locate this link, so... please watch.

[@puncheex2]

Science marches on. The human genome wasn't defined at all 25 years ago. 75 years ago we didn't know the function of DNA. Now we know what the typical genome is down to its bases, and a very large amount of the genomes of the life around us to boot. Chemical evolution started with the experiments of Miller and Harold Urey 65 years ago, though it wasn't called that at the time.

[@BudgetFilmmaking]

Wait what? It did provide answers. We haven't confirmed them but that doesn't mean they are not answers. And you wouldn't have heard any of this in evolution books because it has nothing to do with biological evolution. You have to have biology first, and molecules, no matter how complex, dont count.

[@kenzofinucane4057]

this is a great channel, ive only watched two vids up until now, but im looking forward to watching a lot more

[@copticvillage]

I really hope that this informational gap can be closed soon, its so annoying seeing all these people acting as if they are right about the origin of life just because we don't completely understand it.

[@jake1996able]

They still won't believe it.

[@copticvillage]

Jake K. yeah but it will slowly close in on them. Then the creationists would be the minority.

[@vampyricon7026]

Creationists are already the minority.

[@copticvillage]

Vampyricon If you believe god created the first life form you are still technically creationist.

[@adamg24]

I think the more fashionable opinion amongst moderate religious people (along with institutions like the Vatican) is that god created the conditions necessary for life to arise. That still implies 'creation' of the universe but not specific guided creation of life. However you are correct that the opinion of 'gods hand' always seems to lie just beyond the current understanding of science.

[@jdgrahamo]

This is about the best explanation I've come across. Usually either there are missing steps or the explanation is far too arcane. Well done and thank you.

[@egretion]

Woa! My husband & I went to a Science Cafe event in Athens GA. Chris Parsons came and presented a few of the videos. Today is a rainy Sunday & we are going to spend the day watching all the Stated Clearly videos. I sent them to my son's highschool chemistry teacher in British Columbia - including " What is the Miller Urey Experiment" which mentions research being done at SFU. Thank you for making this videos! They are excellent!

[@nesslig2025]

to be clear evolution is defined as descent with inherent modification so abiogenesis can't be a part of evolution. However the word evolution can be used in different ways so here the word evolution simply means change over time.

[@jdonnorland6609]

there was an some article i read once about this guy theorizing that life naturally occurs because of the attraction between different combinations of atoms. which of course is what this video is talking about. I find that extremely interesting, first because it seems logical and that if its true life isn't accidental it's inevitable. I love thinking about these sort of things. I can't wait to watch more of your videos. perhaps a video about thermodynamics!

[@alz2174]

you have the best videos on evolution topics that i have seen

[@berimisiel4638]

This is the simplest and most comprehensive video on this topic I have seen on youtube. I am not a scientist but rather an enthusiast. I am grateful. This is the first time it fuly made sense, subscribed.

[@JG-vh6oy]

I got an ad about accepting Jesus on this video

[@StatedClearly]

+Jack Green (XoviaHarmile) haha, marketing trolls.

[@jasuni554]

You better accept bro 👀 the Lord is watching 👉🏼

[@amazinglyaverage590]

Do it

[@BudgetFilmmaking]

Don't do it, he's a dick. You know that sumbitch took my sandwich and said he would multiply it. He came back 20 minutes later with crumbs in his beard talkin bout, "Ye of little faith..."

[@musSSS_]

Yeet

[@Buckets41369]

When I next get paid I'm donating to this channel. The videos are so beautiful to watch.

[@Lexyvil]

If we can truly demonstrate that chemistry can give rise to the most basic form of a reproducing organism, then we'll really know for sure how life was created. This is amazing. Great documentary! Although it is theoretical, this is the best informative video I've seen in a long time. Subscribed~ -- A Canadian.

[@kardashevr]

was that necessary to tell you are a canadian?

[@Lexyvil]

Ruslan Kardashev Yeah, for pride.

[@kardashevr]

Lexyvil is that a skill, a talent, an achievement.. anything useful? such pride, much sense. wow

[@MintTree117]

Yeah Canada!

[@ikjman1]

You didn't say sorry so you are not a Canadian.

[@flobiish]

"...protect the plant from deadly predators." [insert Bambi here]

[@57thorns]

That was a good laugh.

[@cheaterman49]

I like how you're exploring the origins of life with the currently accepted theories or hypothesis, instead of the sadly recurrent "we don't know" or "more research is needed" that this field usually yields!

[@ec67890]

Thanks!

[@electrochemnerd]

These are really well done. Subbed.

[@carolmcnulty5017]

Could you make a video about the next stage. Like after they become a sphere

[@Angelmou]

+Carol McNulty We now have the puzzle parts. The fats in the video are Coacervates here photos: studyforce.com/gallery/33_29_06_11_12_14_37.jpeg The RNA within those fat bubbles are: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme The reproduction of DNA is explained here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/ Cells are basically surviving fat bubbles with a very robust form of Thymine DNA as survivor or Uracil-DNA without reductase as enzymes to reproduce.

[@JustinMShaw]

This is old but good. Shows some images of such spheres in the lab. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXuYm5tpaLSchaM

[@sinan720]

His video series explains the next stage: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZzVc5uCZ7lsa6M

[@jasuni554]

They become bigger spheres

[@johncgibson4720]

That takes 1 billion dollar R&D fees. The lipid ball is never visible by microscopes. You need electron scanning. 1 million down. Now you can add some RNA in the sphere. 3 millions for the RNA synthesizer. Then you need virus to splice and see what the RNA is changing into. 3 millions down for the virus lab. Then you get sequencer to see what the virus changes into to figure out what what the molecules in the sphere are. 3 million for the sequencer. Now we are talking. And we can look for isotope methods to determine what molecules are inside the sphere and outside the sphere. 1 million for purified isotope carbon, deuterium, nitrogen. Your budget runs into 10s of million dollars within the first 5 days of lab work.

[@MattTheMagician23]

Thank you for these videos! I'm earning a degree in physics, so obviously I don't know enough about evolution. These videos help me to understand it. They're *stated clearly.*

[@santiagomikelos]

The theory of evolution claims life began with a single self-replicating molecule 3.5 billion years ago. It doesn't talk about the origin of life, a necessary prerequisite, without which there's no biological evolution on earth. Thus, if origin of life from dead matter is scientifically impossible, so is biological evolution. The theory of abiogenesis claims, without any evidence or experimentation, life simply popped into existence from dead matter in the warm, primitive ocean (primordial soup) 3.5 billion years ago on a mindless early earth. This fairytale is not only a ridiculously absurd proposition hiding behind scientific language, but is also scientifically impossible. Many scientists have spoken about the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis (see details below). In their desperation to make evolution true, evolutionists tell us to believe that life could have just popped into existence on a mindless early earth 3.5 billion years ago from dead matter, even though it's scientifically impossible. Moreover, governments are often tricked into funding the "origin of life research" which is called a "scam" by some scientists (see below). "Professor James M Tour (Synthetic Chemist) has publicly challenged ten leading OOL research scientists to synthesize organic molecules (protein, lipids, DNA, RNA, etc.) or a simple living cell! (Forget about creating from scratch, just try to put them together!) Dr Tour is included in the 'Top 10 chemists' in the world and one of 'The 50 Most Influential Scientists' in the World Today).

[@OmegaFalcon]

Everything on this channel really is stated as clear as day

[@AshishSingh-wk8in]

You said it so clearly ! Not like other channels with vague sentences even better than PBS channels . Wow

[@ASABcependant]

OH MY GOD i've been looking for a hypothesis like this my whole life !! i cant way to see if scientist will refute or come up with something better or whatever's next THANKS

[@curiousshiba]

Don’t take the name of the Lord in vain

[@KingWorstie]

youre back :)

[@grantcroll]

white You're*

[@CollapseSurvivalSite]

Fascinating!!

[@charlespax]

The cockroach attack gag and the flying squirrel were wonderful. I enjoyed this video :-)

[@MingoMash]

This video has really good animation and audio! Crisp, colourful and very satisfying :D And the content is very good as well.

[@TERRYEE88]

I need more of this.

[@zalphero618]

I learn so much from your channel. Thank you very much.

[@rlr5048]

With the content of this video in mind, is it possible that life originated in the deep sea? hydrothermal vents along the seafloor would have provided very similar conditions to those found in the experiments exploring chemical evolution that you mentioned, and the harsh conditions of the deep sea could have been a driving motivation for early life to move upwards towards the surface "standard" ocean.

[@irkendragon]

Totally possible, deep sea hydrothermal vents are one of the many locations being investigated as a potential origin point for chemical evolution for that very reason.

[@MsTommyknocker]

Very good description. Also appreciate the fact that the atmosphere of ancient Earth was much more reducing than it is today.

[@Satyadevbandi]

Stated clearly is my favourite channel on KZbin. Keep it up guys.

[@Cutesticles]

"Reproduction is an extremely complex process" Boy i'll tell you

[@feynstein1004]

Lmao dude

[@therobot1080]

Bruh

[@marvinchester]

It is indeed chemical evolution stated clearly. And informatively. Thanks John Perry

[@morlanius]

Just gotta say that at @3:25 he makes a mistake. Oxidation of iron is a bad example of entropy because iron oxide is more "complex" then elemental iron. Its not going to reduce because it cant without energy being applied, same reason why stars can't use iron as fuel. Iron rusts because oxygen is being added it, a chemical reaction is happening that is ADDING to its energy. Oxidised iron is only pseudo-stable because we have an oxygenated environment and enough warmth to provide the energy for the reaction to take place, take these things away and elemental iron will sit there "forever".

[@djr5995]

Wow! brilliant as always. Great job especially on the molecular animations. All to often animations of that kind of stuff don't do justice to the reality but you have done a damn fine job. Bridging the gap from the abiotic to the biotic is tough subject matter to get ones head around but I come away feeling like I understand this a great deal better.

[@dylancope]

This is ridiculously interesting! I definitely need to look into this more

[@isatousarr7044]

Chemical evolution refers to the process by which simple chemical compounds gradually combined and became more complex, eventually leading to the formation of the first life forms on Earth. This concept is central to the origin of life theories, suggesting that before biological evolution could occur, there was a period of chemical evolution where molecules like amino acids, nucleotides, and other organic compounds formed and assembled into more complex structures like proteins and nucleic acids. How does the concept of chemical evolution explain the transition from simple molecules to the complex chemistry necessary for life, and what evidence supports this theory?

[@spatrk6634]

In the early Earth's atmosphere, simple gases such as methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), water vapor (H₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂), and nitrogen (N₂) were likely present. These molecules are the basic building blocks of more complex organic compounds. High-energy sources like UV radiation, lightning, and volcanic activity provided the energy needed for chemical reactions. These reactions caused simple molecules to combine and form organic molecules, including amino acids, sugars, lipids, and nucleotides, which are the building blocks of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and nucleic acids. Over time, these simple organic molecules formed more complex ones through processes like polymerization, where smaller units (monomers) joined together to form polymers. Amino acids linked together to form proteins, and nucleotides assembled into nucleic acids like RNA and DNA. Proteins and nucleic acids are essential macromolecules in life, as proteins are necessary for structural support and catalysis of reactions (as enzymes), while nucleic acids carry genetic information. The spontaneous formation of these molecules in early Earth conditions is a critical step toward life. One of the leading theories is that RNA was one of the first self-replicating molecules. RNA can store genetic information (like DNA) and act as a catalyst (like proteins), meaning it could have both replicated itself and catalyzed other reactions. This suggests that early life may have started with RNA-based systems. Lipid molecules in early Earth’s environment could have spontaneously formed micelles or lipid bilayers, leading to the creation of protocells-primitive cell-like structures. These protocells would have provided a protective environment for chemical reactions to occur, eventually leading to the first true living cells. Once self-replicating systems like RNA formed, biological evolution could begin. Early protocells would have undergone natural selection, where the most efficient and stable systems survived, leading to increasingly complex life forms. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment simulating early Earth’s conditions by passing electrical sparks (to mimic lightning) through a mixture of gases (methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen). The experiment produced amino acids, demonstrating that simple organic molecules could form under prebiotic conditions. Organic molecules like amino acids, nucleotides, and simple sugars have been found in meteorites, comets, and interstellar clouds. This suggests that the building blocks of life can form in space and may have been delivered to Earth through meteorites or comets, contributing to chemical evolution on early Earth. Hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean are rich in chemicals like hydrogen sulfide and methane, which can fuel chemical reactions. These vents create an environment where organic molecules can form and accumulate. This supports the theory that life might have originated in such environments, where chemical gradients provided energy for prebiotic chemistry. Recent research has shown that nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, can form under plausible prebiotic conditions. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that under the right conditions, simple molecules can combine to form complex nucleotides, a critical step in the formation of genetic material. The discovery of ribozymes-RNA molecules that can catalyze chemical reactions-provides evidence for the RNA World Hypothesis. This shows that RNA could have both carried genetic information and catalyzed its own replication, making it a strong candidate for the first self-replicating molecule in chemical evolution.

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

@@spatrk6634 cool story. The only problem with it, is that this is all supposed to happen by random chance & it's trivial to show that this is mathematically impossible, even if the Earth was Trillions of years old.

[@spatrk6634]

@@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM chemistry is not random. so whatever you think is mathematically impossible is wrong.

[@SpeciesPlantarum]

@@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM When you calculated the probability, how did you determine your denominator?

[@joebill48]

you use the word 'cause'. I believe that 'randomness' is more accurate. Even humans have an average of 70 dna differences. When one of the these changes happens to have a positive effect, then it will be passed on. And it's that simple. A harsh environment doesn't 'cause' evolution, it just opens a window.

[@lrvogt1257]

causality does not infer intention.

[@WorthlessWinner]

The mutations themselves are random with respect to function, but selection is not. The vast majority of mutations that happen are bad for function but some are randomly good, just because so many changes are happening in so many organisms. The harsh environment is what turns it from random accumulation of mutations into adaptation.

[@juanvaladez3082]

It’s a huge leap in complexity from a fatty acid membrane to a living cell. It takes a leap of faith to believe random chemical interactions can form living organisms. The simplest among them are exponentially more complex than anything that can be observed to occur naturally or under lab conditions.

[@daikucoffee5316]

Juan Valadez what if I told you that the first cells were actually very simple not nearly ass complex as today after billions of years of evolution. The process by which molecules can make copies of themselves and are thereby selected created the first cells. These selfreplicating molecules are subject to replication and mutation such that new molecules can evolve that execute any number of functions. No need for a leap of faith. Just molecules and lots of time. ☺️

[@davidfenton3910]

"what if I told you that the first cells were actually very simple not nearly ass complex as today after billions of years of evolution._ I would say that unless you show that for a fact then it's hocus pocus creation of imaginary beliefs, just like when Christians imagine their One Man, Jesus rose from the dead. Similarly for their imaginations of a creator/creation. When we don't know stuff, it's best to make that our position. What if I told you that the first cells were _actually_ (i.e. really and truly) ... You don't have an _actual_ basis which is why you have to use words like "what if I told you", you may as well use the words can't you imagine. You're using words in the place of substance, but the thing is words without substance to point to have none. What if I told you to imagine it the way I say which is just the same as religious people saying read my book and imagine life and creation and life coming about that way. Same principle, no evidence. In the absence of evidence it's best to stick to nescience. 'Great' evidence there, "what if I told you" ... why don't you try, "what if I showed you" and then show it, yes point to it in reality, that would be great.

[@MsSomeonenew]

It's a gap of knowledge on your end Juan, this is the entry level to the topic, not the complete field of study. And of course our mind wants to invoke magic the moment we lack knowledge, that is why we have flat earth, aliens, living Elvis, jeti, ghosts,... the list of magic patchwork never ends.

[@daikucoffee5316]

david fenton great analysis of the first 5 words I’ll use. I’ll just wait here for you to adress my point.

[@davidfenton3910]

Hi Daiku Coffee. You wrote "The process by which molecules can make copies of themselves and are thereby selected created the first cells." Ok, demonstrate. Cheers.

[@shreyash8813]

Great animation! This shows how strong your understanding about the topic is.

[@slayerjable]

This was quite a gem to find after finishing O chem. We learned how the fatty acids would begin to group like that (soap). But to then transform into shells as they did here... how neat!

[@MultiSciGeek]

It would be really cool if we could recreate these conditions in a lab and see if some new living thing can be created, different from everything we know now.

[@MrElectricVibration]

I agree it would be cool , the ethical questions that would rise would give a political shitstorm tho.

[@MultiSciGeek]

Hmm yeah. But is it wrong if it's a very simple organism without consciousness?

[@theemathas]

People already tried that. Nobody succeeded yet.

[@2ossy]

MultiSciGeek And wait millions of years until first signs of live wil emerge? Nty

[@gametron1]

problem might be that it takes too long to form anything complex enough to be considered life. add to that the fact that its unknown if life can even happen in a way thats much different from our own.

[@thephaneron3676]

Another beautiful occurrence in nature is the random spontaneous production of the *phospholipid bilayer* (an important constituent of the cell membrane). Shake individual phosphate and lipid molecules about in a water chamber, and they "engulf" other *macromolecules* contained within the water. Simply by virtue of their innate *chemical properties,* they naturally coalesce to *form bonds,* wrapping into a *pocket* or a "bubble" around biological and organic proteins suspended throughout the "primordial soup." *No magic, experiments, artificial intervention or intelligence necessary in the formation of the phospholipid bilayer!*

[@migaca7]

I am not a creationist but we dont still know the true "why". We dont know why things have innate chemical properties. Because this "magic" still exist

[@andrewg3196]

"another beautiful occurrence" uhhh that's what this video is about from around minute 6 to minute 7...

[@feynstein1004]

Well, shaking individual phosphate and lipid molecules is an artificial intervention. Lol jk.

[@WorthlessWinner]

Soap bubbles are magic :P

[@WorthlessWinner]

@@feynstein1004 - it isn't like processes in nature can't shake things

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Holy wowzer yes. I usually direct creationists to CDK007's abiogenesis video summarizing Szostak's abiogenesis model, telling them to skip to 3:50 and focus. The smartest one or two have asked further about how lipid molecules form into bi-layer vesicles, the first stage. I looooved your animations and narration of that.

[@NessieAndrew]

One of the best videos on evolution.

[@lippy896]

I should be studying for a midterm tomorrow but I have no clue how I came about this. Anyway, I think this channel is amazing; and I think it's so important to have science and educated people. I love being mind blown!

[@TheAl_T]

This needs to be mandatory to watch in our schools.

[@gelatinocyte6270]

It wouldn't need to be if it wasn't for bigotry and ignorance

[@ericclements9104]

Science is the act of the universe attempting to understand itself

[@jasuni554]

bruh

[@ExistenceUniversity]

No, life is the universe trying to understand itself. Science is the method by which rational life integrates the information into an understandable whole.

[@lahrence5059]

@@ExistenceUniversity I think we can all agree that the universe is trying to understand to itself, much like our brain trying to understand ourselves.

[@hanshintermann1551]

The universe isn't attempting shit.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

@@hanshintermann1551 Says a part of the universe

[@WorthlessWinner]

Unsure if it's a good idea to call this "chemical evolution" instead of just "chemical reactions."Creationists like Kent Hovind base a lot of their equivocation laden 'arguments' on the word, chemical evolution, sounding like biological evolution. I've rarely seen the term in papers or textbooks, and there are many fine synonyms, so It's probably best to avoid the word since it can be abused by spreaders of misinformation.

[@StatedClearly]

unassumption Chemical evolution is what it is called by the people who study it. Thus, the NASA funded "Center for Chemical Evolution" centerforchemicalevolution.com/

[@MaximilienDanton]

unassumption nobody should modify their definitions because people don't understand the terminology and are motivated to discredit the ideas therein.

[@TheGODork]

Tjaart Blignaut like gay marriage? Marriage being defined as between a man and a woman shouldn't be changed just because a few people want it to.

[@MaximilienDanton]

G0Dork​ I never said definitions should not change at all. Besides that is a completely different issue and not relevant here.

[@mario0318]

G0Dork Not to mention marriage itself has NEVER been defined as a man and woman union. That is a purely Abrahamic construst developed hundreds of years after the concept of marriage. Many ancient cultures considered the idea of marriage independent of gender.

[@guthrie_the_wizard]

Supporting you now on Patreon - thanks for all you do!

[@JoeFusion]

Very nicely done! This is adjacent to my own research area, and you gave me a few ideas on better ways to explain my work. Plus, I can share these great videos with everyone to explain the field. Great work, and thanks to everyone involved.

[@DevinAK49]

Fantastic explanation as always. My 6 year old is able to understand. Thanks, and keep up the awesome.

[@FutureAIDev2015]

That solves the chicken-and-egg problem! The answer is, neither!

[@aienatu]

the amniotic egg evolved millions of years before anything even remotely resembling a chicken ever evolved.

[@amaureaLua]

The chicken and egg problem is usually understood to be about chicken eggs, not just any old egg. That is, "What came first, chickens or chicken eggs?". In this case, the answer to the question depends on how you define "chicken egg". Is it an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg from which a chicken hatches? Chickens evolved from non-chickens, but since the process was general, the point at which you say "this is the first chicken" will be arbitrary. But no matter where you choose to set that point, that chicken will have been hatched from an egg laid by a very similar non-chicken. So under the definition "chicken egg = egg chicken hatches from", the chicken egg came before the chicken. However, that egg was laid by a non-chicken, so under the definition "chicken egg = egg laid by chicken", then the chicken came first.

[@TazPessle]

answer = "dinosaur egg"?

[@zachary939]

The egg laid itself. Physics Bitch!

[@michaelfixedsys7463]

The egg came first, the thing that laid it was different enough to not be classified as a chicken

[@GeraldAllen]

Excellent video. Understandable to a 8 yr old child. Maybe even simple enough for creationists.

[@KinguCooky]

Gerald Allen Don't get carried away now, Gerald.

[@GeraldAllen]

Empyredon Ok, I got carried away. Can't I hope for the christians ? My grandkids did like this series.

[@KinguCooky]

Christianity will eventually be diluted by education, yes, I hope and believe this too; however, my main fear is for 'Islamic' children - they have centuries left yet to break the spell - and, with the ever mingling modern world, this is going to cause such a problem to everyone. But yes, hope is essential, but it comes with a sense of dread too.

[@jasuni554]

Dammit Gerald.

[@Yapity111]

You've got a really calming voice. I fell asleep to this last night

[@katiekat4457]

I really like this channel. I am glad I found it.

[@jack-gf6jw]

How are you gonna dislike this video..

[@TheVideoIsLongEnough]

jackson schmitt step one: be a creationist

[@k4z3ryuu]

Probably the roaches.

[@jasuni554]

Bonk! Atomic Punch boy if you dont

[@trisapient]

The reason no one but me has solved this problem is that people can't see the forest for the trees! What does life use to make things happen? Proteins. What are proteins made of? Amino Acids. Why are amino acids good to make proteins? They self-assemble into repeatable structures spontaneously. Where can amino acids be found? Every comet, asteroid, and meteorite. How did the volatile elements get to earth? The heavy bombardment. What have recent experiments have shown about comet impacts? That they unite amino acids into polypeptides. The simplest life forms use multiple small polypeptides to make RNA!!! Now we just need to know what conditions made it possible for polypeptides to unite and make RNA from other Amino Acids!!! Just like organisms do to day!! All biological molecules begin with Acids Acids!!! Currently astrophysicist published articles stating most of our carbon, amino acids, and all volatile compounds were delivered by meteorite impacts. Recently Prof. Jennifer Blank showed how the impacts united amino acids to form small polypeptides. Today E.coli and simpler organisms use small polypeptides that unite to make RNA from other Amino Acids. Why when amino acids are ubiquitous, can be made from any mixture of compounds, and self-assemble into repeatable structures would we expect it to have happened any other way. These Polypeptides, like today, would have easily united without help or exotic conditions and produced RNA. Which would have been united by other polypeptides to form the first replicators; which still exist today. They are called Viroids: strips of RNA that replicate in plant cells and do not code for any proteins. These are the latest reports. For how exactly all this formed Life you need to read my book:@Emergent Chemical Evolution: How Life Started with Modern Published Evidence 1, Eduardo Hernandez - Amazon.com

[@FrankHarrison12]

Shameless.

[@gelatinocyte6270]

Shameless advertising but... nice!

[@DudeWhoSaysDeez]

Creationists will be triggered by reality

[@adjiar]

I'm not.

[@TheIceThorn]

they won't since they're not able to understand it.

[@adjiar]

@@TheIceThorn I understand the theory. So, what's your point?

[@TheIceThorn]

Well then: explain it.

[@johncale1849]

what reality .... he kept saying ...if if if

[@kowsarjannat2204]

Thank you so...................much much much. How wonderfully you have animated! Give us more more video based on biology.(please)

[@FlyntofRWBY]

Stated Clearly It's ALIIIIIVE! I thought you weren't going to make any more videos.

[@DonNachi]

Better than the bible

[@SuscriptorJusticiero]

Not a big challenge.

[@clicker123]

RoyalBlue That's a logical fallacy called Argument from Authority. Him saying it can't happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

[@cunningwolf4516]

clicker123 argument of authority, I heard Ben Shapiro bring that up before.

[@HermanWillems]

Yes, but even if your not religious. Do you still believe in FREE WILL? That is the next chapter of people who "believe" that there is free will. But the brain is deterministic and we don't have free will. So. Are you up to the next kind of "faith" thingy? Do you believe in FREE WILL like those people before believe in a fictional GOD?

[@lebefrancis3720]

+Herman Willems this is my question. Do you believe that asking a question like this is determined? let's be objective man. free will exist, and i know you believe in things like education, merits and justice. so , why won't you believe in free will?

[@NikiHerl]

"Chemical evolution is being investigated as a possible cause for the origin of life" I realize that it's not wise to declare something a fact before fully understanding all the mechanisms involved, but by which other route could life have possibly come into existence? Is there any other reasonable explanation? (and I don't consider "god snapped his fingers and tadaah, life" a reasonable explanation ^^)

[@JustinMShaw]

Nope. Though sometimes advocates of panspermia think so when they forget that it still had to start elsewhere even if it arrived here already formed. Chemical evolution can cover a variety of different ideas, but by a wide margin they're the only plausible ones.

[@mordirit8727]

I think the point of Panspermia is that it *might* so happen that chemical evolution could have never produced life *on Earth* . If that's to be the case, then Panspermia and Chemical Evolution will be working hand on hand, because the idea that life couldn't be brought forth by chemical evolution on Earth doesn't make it impossible for it to have happened on Mars, Panspermia's favorite darling. I don't see the two hypothesis competing at all, it's just that while one is looking to find out if our planet could have come up with life on it's own, the other is looking into how life could have spread even if a single planet had the ideal ingredients to evolve it.

[@dansegelov305]

We can never come to a conclusion on a subject just because we don't have another viable solution. All concepts must be confirmed as true or false independently to whether or not there is a competing concept. We can't predict what information will be available to us in a year, 5 years or 100 years from now. If chemical evolution really was our only idea, but it failed as a theory, then the answer is 'we don't know.'

[@jbbudish]

Truth is often stranger than fiction my friend. When dealing with the unknown, the best we can do is estimate probabilities. And anyone that is 100% certain about these types of things is inevitably wrong.

[@MsSomeonenew]

There is a high chance of extra terrestrial "infection" so to speak, because we found some building blocks of life among asteroids between Earth and Mars. Which could mean we had some severe impacts at the time of first RNA occurrences, or by a long shot could mean asteroids from outside our system, possibly sent intentionally. Which could also explain why we haven't been able to recreate the natural conditions for chemical evolution. And this is why you exhaust your line of research and not call it prematurely, inventing an answer without testing always leaves you completely wrong.

[@thethinker4048]

we need more men like you. i just hope the creationists will finally turn their eyes towards the light of nature's wonder.

[@Scott89878]

I kind of understood some of this but this video really clarified it. With the origin of cell membranes explained also the fact that RNA can be created in the lab that self reproduces, it becomes clear that it's not a rare impossibility for life to form, but an inevitability given the right conditions. This leads me to believe that all planets that can support simple life, will create it chemically. I think we will find that Mars had life when it was wet and Europa might have something too. Being that for about three billion years, Earth's history revolved around singled celled life, it leads me to believe that the leap to eukaryotic and further to multi-cellular life is much less common. Earth just happened to be stable for a very very long time.

[@engin7787]

Wonderful and exciting , it gives my mind the tools to understand life on earth.

[@iain5615]

Well this video is no longer valid - chemical evolution required for abiogenesis does not occur.

[@spatrk6634]

so who is the winner of nobel prize that proved it doesnt occur?

[@iain5615]

@@spatrk6634 chemical evolution was a hypothesis that was never truly taken seriously by chemists and time has validated that position. You do not get Nobel prizes for such findings.

[@Angelmou]

@@iain5615 We have literally camere footage & photos of Liposomes and Coacervates forming and selection incl. Amylase and maltose metabolism You claiming "no longer valid" is like saying water never existed and was an optical illusion LOL

[@iain5615]

@@Angelmou sorry missed this. Bif you read what I said, I stated chemical evolution, chemicals do not include biochemicals which you have put forward. Chemistry is miles apart from biochemistry as chemists can not synthesis biochemicals as found in biology. For example all nucleotides and amino acids, which can appear naturally in a chemical environment, when synthesised are racemic.

[@Angelmou]

@@iain5615 ??? The topic is how specific laws and mechanism gain and interlock the biochemistry. That means you seem to completely ignore the topic's content and the very names of different discovered mechanism and intermediate forms. You sound to me like someone who has never head that wolves existed where the dog breeds were bred from. And be puzzled how dog breeding stock worked. So you seem to have never heard of amphiphilic intermediate forms with catched amino acids just as 1 step. Or Ribozymes as heartpiece for the later Ribosome.

[@rapacidtrips1131]

I’d love to understand how the very first living organism was able to eat, digest, poop, urinate, breathe, reproduce and be mobile? The digestion system is very complex on its own. If this organism isn’t mobile how does it find a mate? Where does it’s mate come from? Millions of years of evolution doesn’t work here. Did it wait millions of years for some other thing to spontaneously appear? How did it just have a way of taking in oxygen? RNA and DNA break down in water, how did RNA and DNA survive? How did this organism live long enough to evolve DNA? What came first it’s heart or the blood? With modern tech we understand how complex a single cell organism is, something Darwin did not have, how is this complex cell possible? How was this organism able to intake oxygen? It rained for millions of years on the crust of the earth? Where did the clouds come from? How did they form? Today we get clouds from water evaporating. The earth was a hot molten ball that slowly hardened, where did the water come from? Where did all the chemicals come from? How did we get gold and lead? When one thinks critically and really questions these things they don’t make sense. I GUARANTEE no one can give me an answer. Just answer where the water came from on a hot molten ball, doesn’t heat evaporate water? Couldn’t come from the vacuum of space. Makes zero sense how the first living organism was able to eat, breathe, poop, reproduce!? Millions of years for simple changes cannot account for this, quick evolution cannot account for this. If this thing cannot reproduce it’s done for, even if it multiplies itself how would that be possible? It was just zapped into existence from soupy mud and had a way to reproduce? I call bull.

[@spatrk6634]

"I’d love to understand how the very first living organism was able to eat, digest, poop, urinate, breathe, reproduce and be mobile?" first organism wouldnt be able to do any of that. not in the sense you are thinking of. it doesnt need a mate because it reproduces by replicating itself. have you heard of mitosis or meiosis for example? no, it didnt wait for millions of years. it reproduced for million of years. and each descedant would be slightly different from its parent. it didnt take oxygen. there was no oxygen on earth back then. oxygen was introduced on earth by cyanobacteria around 3.8 billion years ago. they didnt break down in water because they were protected by a micelle organisms dont evolve the dna during their lifetime. so they dont need to live long they reproduce instead and their offspring have slightly different DNA from them. "With modern tech we understand how complex a single cell organism is" yes today single celled organisms are complex, they were evolving for 3+ billion years. first single celled organisms wouldnt be this complex. you dont know how clouds form? water evaporates.... water comes in a form of ice on meteors that were falling on earth for millions of years yes, earth is molten rock and that ice evaporates and gets stuck in the earths gravity, it forms primitive atmosphere and clouds. chemical elements are formed inside stars. stars are fusing hydrogen and helium into heavier elements. and at the end of their lifetime they explode and release most of those elements into space. which forms planets and new stars. gold and lead are formed in inside stars "? When one thinks critically and really questions these things they don’t make sense." yes it doesnt make sense when you dont know anything about anything. " I GUARANTEE no one can give me an answer." i just did.

[@budd2nd]

Wow what a lot of questions. So I’ll start with the first question. You asked how did the very first living organism eat, digest, poop, urinate, breathe etc. The first living organism was a single cell, where all of those actions just diffused in & out of its outer membrane. You don’t need a digestive system if you are a single cell, everything happens inside your single cell. We have examples of organisms that live just like that today. You don’t need a mate and you probably reproduce by simply dividing yourself. So they are copies of the original.

[@anthonyoctaviano9055]

@@budd2nd LOL this is comically absurd... there is no such thing as a "first living organism was a single cell" 😂🤣😅

[@budd2nd]

@@anthonyoctaviano9055 You - “there was no such thing as the first living organism was a single cell” Were you there? No you weren’t. We can study single celled organisms today, and that is how they digest their food and excrete waste. Straight through the membrane. So it’s totally possible. What evidence (properly validated scientific evidence) do you have that it was not like this?

[@thiagogoncalves7389]

Earth's water could easily have come from the vacuum of space, in the form of comets and asteroids. Upon impact, this water would have evaporated and formed clouds at high altitudes, going through the water cycle until today

[@brandonlandon5262]

It's a huge jump from a ball of fatty acids to a cell wall made of proteins. Even if the environment was favorable to the production amino acids and they were coming together to make proteins, there is too many useless combinations for it to have happened in less than 1 billion years on earth or even in a trillion trillion trillion years. And that's to make a single protein. Yet alone all the proteins needed for life and then for those to assemble into useful mechanisms as well as for complex RNA and DNA structures to form. Then mutations happened to make things such as a leaf bug that perfectly resembles the leaf it is mimicking. All these odds have been beaten on one place in a short time of a few billion years. To an uneducated person a billion years may seem long enough. But to a mathematician it is a severely insufficient amount of time. It is an anomaly most evolutionists like to gloss over because it requires much faith in the impossible to believe that life can spontaneously generate anywhere in the universe. Even Sir Fred Hoyle admitted that it is damaging to the belief in evolution yet he says it had to have happened because here we are. That sounds like circular reasoning to me.

[@MrMollusk7]

+B L "It's a huge jump from a ball of fatty acids to a cell wall made of proteins." You mean, a cell wall made from a ball of fatty acids and integral proteins? Liposomes will assemble spontaneously in water from phospholipids. Any sort of protein that has a nonpolar domain could theoretically become integrated into it. Just because we don't have comprehensive models for the fifty billion possible transition forms of a liposome to the basic cell doesn't mean we need to plop an all-powerful man in the sky to make the pieces fit. "Then mutations happened to make things such as a leaf bug that perfectly resembles the leaf it is mimicking." This is a COMPLETELY warped view of evolution. It occurs GRADUALLY. random mutations resulting in ugly brown splotches on the insect 500,000 years ago could have been the precursors to mutations creating patterns beneficial for camouflage. "All these odds have been beaten" Expect for 99% of all life that has existed on the planet, which has obviously NOT beaten the odds.

[@warrax111]

+Brandom Landon There is no chance, this can lead to create a living cell, or even DNA, that is capable to work or reproducing. No fear. This is not way, how life was made, it could not be by random accident of connecting some fatty acids. Every smarter scientist, that had deep enough knowledge of molecular biology, admited, DNA is too complicated to be made by random connecting of everything, it has intelligence inscribed to it, so there must be creator with intelligence.

[@gelatinocyte6270]

Cell membranes aren't made of proteins. They contain proteins but the main idea remains the same - they contain fatty acids. That's why the main components of a cell membrane are phospho- *lipids!*

[@gelatinocyte6270]

@@warrax111 Abiogenesis. Simple. All this creationism does is encourage ignorance. Trust me, I've been there.

[@warrax111]

@@gelatinocyte6270 Abio - try to find on this first part of the word. A - Bio. That means, no bio. No bio cannot lead to bio. It's abio, that means - not alive. Understand? No matter how do you order molecules, it will be still dead. It can only look like cell, but it will be not alive.

[@omermeydan3811]

Only 754 views on such an awesome work? It is really saddening.

[@onuryes]

This is incredibly good work. I watched it and watched it again. Thank you so much

[@lgbonfim]

I see religious fanatics freaking out!

[@jasuni554]

Good for you bro! Youre so fucking cool!

[@Mark-Wilson]

@@jasuni554 ok? if you thinkh e is but he never said anything strictly cool

[@joerafael8743]

This doesnt make any sense to me. How are these molecules turning into life? There was no "bridging of the gap" in this video. How is natural selection happening to non-living chemicals? It's not natural selection at all, t's just physics right? Also living cells have a code. How can these non-living, self-arranged chemicals evolve into a cell with a code? Genuinely asking cause I don't understand this at all

[@itapinfomaps6233]

Evolution is a fool's thesis, couched in the shadows of convoluted words, and ideas laden with circular reasoning and untenable theories. Dr. Colin Patterson Romans 1:19-20: Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

[@Joviangamer]

RNA structures have different replication performances that mean that some rna are is more productive and will replicate more than others also known as natural selection. Also, rna has been synthesized in a probiotic manner many times.

[@croonx1779]

It doesn't explain how live was establish. It doesn't explain anything.

[@caryfrancis8030]

RNA world hypothesis

[@tgstudio85]

It explains it quite well from my point of view.

[@m3aar]

Keep doing more videos like this please. Humanity needs them.

[@philippereekie9625]

You blow my mind! Love your videos, hoping you continue making more!

[@HeartlessGorre]

but this video doesn't bring up scripture, not even once!

[@johnarbuckle2619]

LOL

[@JustinMShaw]

Imagine the length of that video - from around 4 billion years ago up until around twenty-five hundred years ago, featuring many details of life and drama in the middle east.

[@electricity2703]

Materialistic worldview has more fairytale than theist worldview

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

This is just chemistry. It’s not a “worldview.”

[@electricity2703]

​@@hammalammadingdong6244 I am not saying chemistry is a worldview. I'm just saying that scientism is a worldview.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@electricity2703 - This video isn't about a worldview.

[@cloroxbleach3809]

@@hammalammadingdong6244 it is

[@katamas832]

@@electricity2703 Scientism is not a thing, nor is what is said here a fairytale.

[@vitivasi]

Even if chemicals can assemble in sheets or balls, life is different. Life has consciousness with will to live, ambitions and aspirations, fear, desire, lamentation and many other emotions and these separates life from inert chemical assembly. We observe at the time of death of an entity all the chemicals are more or less intact and yet there is no luster and brightness and no conscious life??? Don't get fooled that only chemicals make life and we are going to make life by assembling insert chemicals. Apart from chemicals there is subtle superior energetic particle that animates each living body.

[@Angelmou]

Do bacteria have fear?

[@VioletScarelli]

this... almost made sense.

[@vitivasi]

All entities eat, sleep, mate and defend. Defence is from fear to protect oneself. Some entities have far more developed defence system or ability to defend while others to different degrees and are more vulnerable. We can know presence of life when an entity undergoes these six changes or development in life. They are born, grow, mature, reproduce, dwindle (grow weak) and finally die. We can observe the presence of life force but our material science cannot directly detect the subtle conscious force. Only in the Indian spiritual tradition is the process to know and directly experience the life force.

[@VioletScarelli]

@@vitivasi Hate to break it to you but it really all boils down to chemistry. Lots and lots of little chemical switches in that lump of soggy bacon called a "brain". Bacteria don't have brains.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

@@vitivasi -do mushrooms sleep? Do bacteria mate? Nope. Life is defined by various biochemical processes, not by consciousness.

[@criss9607]

Wow! Eye opener! These videos about the steps of life emerging from chemistry are much needed!

[@Hightower489]

I love these videos. Everything is simple and easy to understand and well presented. Thank you for making these.

[@Healing556]

Possible ? That means scientist doesnt know but teaches in schools as if they know it all 😂

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

No fukwit. Scientists don't teach hypotheses as facts and no scientist I've ever met, worked with, or read has claimed to "know it all".

[@curiousshiba]

Atheism is madness

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

This video is about chemistry. But no, it's not.

[@spatrk6634]

not collecting stamps is madness.

[@a_randomaccount]

does this relate to the video

[@clap5108]

Yeah that’s not how that works.

[@waspanimations7037]

How would it work? You're clearly a scientist.

[@XiaoMof]

You’re just saying that to be contrarian. You are a simpleton if you say such brash statements with no evidence and substance. Bad comment and incorrect way to carry oneself. Idiotic. 再見

[@manyworldsin1]

Most of this was not new to me, but the stuff that was new was AMAZING!!! Fatty acid films forming hallow spheres?! WOW!

[@pointblank0020]

I was gonna say the animator for this is god-tier but I guess it was probably more than one person

[@jepizzo2]

In Darwin's time they thought a cell was simple. Now it is known to be astonishingly complex. All cells are. To replicate itself, a cell needs DNA. This requires both a precise sequence of digital code and a mechanism to translate this code into instructions for proteins, molecular machines and a vast number of other crucial functions. All of these function together like clockwork. Natural selection can't help since that would be only after replication begins. Thus, it has to get everything right the first time. It would be like making up a language from scratch on the spot and simultaneously writing a book in that language. You can't assemble a protein without DNA and you can't make DNA without existing proteins. It's a chicken and egg problem. If the odds of something are 10 to 50th power it is considered by science to be mathematically impossible. To randomly assemble a single protein of only 150 amino acids long in the required order is 10 to 74th power, assuming all the required left handed amino acids are conveniently available! Exponentially beyond mathematically impossible. How much more unreasonable for an entire living cell with it's numerous crucial cooperating parts to come together spontaneously! There is nothing in "how chemicals behave" which would cause them to be compelled or inclined to self-assemble into a cell. Here is the deal. People want to believe there is no Creator. Then they have impossible problems like this one. Since life exists, they figure somehow cells must have once self-assembled from lifeless chemicals. This is despite the fact scientists can't even come close to doing this even in controlled ideal settings and admit how unlikely this would be. Thus, proponents try to mitigate the impossible by appealing to millions of years or billions of galaxies as you did. This is just a smokescreen to obscure the difficulty and claim the impossible is inevitable. Let's say someone's favored theory requires a turtle to jump over a skyscraper. Suppose they told you, "If you just have enough turtles jumping for long enough, surely one of them will succeed, because that's what I need to happen." Would you find that a convincing argument, or would you tell them to reconsider their theory? Thank you for your consideration of this topic. For more complete discussion and references see this link: www.jw.org/en/publications/books/The-Origin-of-Life-Five-Questions-Worth-Asking/

[@Super_Unlucky_Rubber_Ducky]

+John Pizzo Oh my, you're quite the keyboard warrior aren't you? How about we break this up since there's a lot of unrelated assertions you make it'd be easier than a wall of text. *"To replicate itself, a cell needs DNA. This requires both a precise sequence of digital code and a mechanism to translate this code into instructions for proteins, molecular machines and a vast number of other crucial functions. All of these function together like clockwork"* No they don't. All modern cells are DNA-based but that evidently hasn't always been the case. DNA isn't digital code but it's true that DNA requires proteins to replicate; no such restrictions exist on RNA or self replicating proteins though. The "RNA World" hypothesis postulates that the first life was RNA based, not DNA based. RNA can replicate on its own without the need for protein assistance and requires only a simple mineral catalyst to get going. Citation: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664692/ *"You can't assemble a protein without DNA and you can't make DNA without existing proteins"* You can do both of those things. DNA can be formed by simply exposing RNA with a suitably strong reducing agent and prions are self-replicating proteins that work without DNA or RNA assistance. Citation: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2464698 *"If the odds of something are 10 to 50th power it is considered by science to be mathematically impossible. To randomly assemble a single protein of only 150 amino acids long in the required order is 10 to 74th power, assuming all the required left handed amino acids are conveniently available!"* That's a red herring. Chemistry isn't random. *"There is nothing in "how chemicals behave" which would cause them to be compelled or inclined to self-assemble into a cell"* Yes there is. To date there isn't a single reaction required of abiogenesis that hasn't been replicated under laboratory conditions. Life isn't an act of random chance, it's an inevitable result of the chemistry of the pre-biotic Earth. Citation: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/ *"Since life exists, they figure somehow cells must have once self-assembled from lifeless chemicals. This is despite the fact scientists can't even come close to doing this even in controlled ideal settings and admit how unlikely this would be. Thus, proponents try to mitigate the impossible by appealing to millions of years or billions of galaxies as you did. This is just a smokescreen to obscure the difficulty and claim the impossible is inevitable"* No child, science isn't some kind of gigantic conspiracy to deny the existence of your particular version of God. I suggest you stop reading conspiracy theorist blogs for a moment and actually familiarize yourself with the research. Some of the stuff you're getting wrong is stuff most 12 year old's understand. *"Thank you for your consideration of this topic. For more complete discussion and references see this link: [insert link to conspiracy theorist book here]"* No, if you want to talk science then you have to cite scientific literature as your source otherwise it's just random conjecture. Of course other conspiracy theorists believe your conspiracy theory, the issue is that nothing you've said is actually supported by science. It's either a deliberate misrepresentation or flat-out wrong.

[@SimplyReg]

+John Pizzo We don't yet fully understand every step, therefore god. Is that your point? Being unable to replicate something in the lab is not a legitimate criticism, by the way. We can't make a sun in the lab, but they undoubtedly exist and they are emphatically NATURAL objects.

[@jepizzo2]

+SimplyReg Nope, that is not my point. "God of the Gaps" is no one's belief. It is simply a straw man concept constructed by evolutionists solely for mocking. "Not yet fully understanding every step, therefore god" would be more analogous to saying one doesn't fully understand how a carburetor works, therefore a car requires a designer and builder. What I am saying is a cell is like a sports car, complete with it's own car assembly plant; and an owner's manual written in a language made up on the spot for the occasion which robots use to build and maintain the car; and a plant fabricating parts out of raw materials while we are at it. Chemical evolutionists are the guys saying, "Why don't you believe that?", and I'm saying, "Because that's ridiculous!" The burden of proof is on the one proposing impossible things. A cell self-assembling from lifeless chemicals is one of these. Understanding the car/cell better doesn't eliminate the need for a designer/builder. If anything, the more detail one understands the more obvious such could not come about at random. If something happened unaided in some pond somewhere, then why couldn't a scientist with limitless materials and tools do similar? By the way, who does the capable, intelligent scientist in the illustration represent? Making a sun in a lab is "apples and oranges" to making a cell. A sun is extremely simple compared to a cell, basically requiring only lots of hydrogen and gravity to assemble. Besides the matter of scale, if one "can't make a sun" in a proportionately sized lab, you are only reinforcing the point.

[@Super_Unlucky_Rubber_Ducky]

John Pizzo Except it is proven, I even went into excruciating detail to explain it to you with citations at every point. You just ignored the corrections because you don't actually care if what you believe is true or not. It's not a matter of you saying "It's ridiculous!" it's a matter of you asserting that it's ridiculous because it's too complicated for you to understand and then plugging your ears and screaming "lalalalalalala" when someone tries to explain it to you. You'd rather indulge yourself in your little conspiracy theories than actually be right.

[@SimplyReg]

"The burden of proof is on the one proposing impossible things. A cell self-assembling from lifeless chemicals is one of these." It is your assertion that these things are impossible. Chemists and physicists have demonstrated that complex chemical systems arise spontaneously due to natural physical and chemical laws. Self-replicating chemical species such as RNA, simple proteins and lipid bi-layers arise spontaneously under the right conditions. No-one is suggesting that a complex cell sprang into life spontaneously except you. What is suggested is that the first cell gradually evolved via an assemblage of naturally-occurring chemical and physical reactions, through far simpler but self-replicating intermediates.The scientists are working on demonstrating whether this might be possible and if so, a plausible mechanism. You have stated that it's impossible for this to happen. PROVE IT.

[@gregbusey6556]

What are the elements making up the compound at 3:06? The purple component appears to have 5 bonds, so I don't think it's carbon. Any ideas?

[@StatedClearly]

+Greg B its supposed to be 4 bonds but is pressing into a 5th neighbor a bit.

[@umcarainteressante]

Your videos are incredibly well made, entertaining and useful. Please keep up the awesome work!

[@Kroggnagch]

Very awesome and easily understood. Fantastic work.

[@rupakrokade]

Thank you for creating this channel and uploading such great content.