Why is Life the Way it Is? with Nick Lane

The vital question: Earth teems with life but why is it the way it is, and how did it begin in the first place? Nick Lane unravels the tangled history of life.
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
Nick's book "The Vital Question: Why is life the way it is?" is available to buy now - geni.us/JjoZRx
Nick Lane and Matthew Cobb came together to tell the story of life. Watch Matthew Cobb’s take on the tale here: • The Race to Crack the ...
And watch the Q&A here: • Q&A - The Story of Lif...
Nick Lane is an evolutionary biochemist in the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London. His work focuses on the origin of life, and the origin and evolution of eukaryotes. He is also author of prize-winning popular science books, including 'Life ascending'.
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@stephenarmiger8343]

A small thing, but delighted to see water being poured into glasses. In so many lectures, speakers are given water in plastic bottles. I have always loved glass. We take glass for granted.

[@DocFrobnitz]

Excellent talk, great to have a speaker who just runs with their ideas, doesn't dumb things down or lower the conceptual bandwidth. A science lecture *should* leave you with a list of notes, things to look up, books to read.

[@LEDewey_MD]

Dr. Nick Lane's book, "The Vital Question", blew me away. I am a physician, but I have followed closely for the past four decades (yes that dates me) the search for possible mechanisms as to how life first evolved on Earth. (In Dr. Lane's words: the shopping list for Life is rock, water, and CO2). I grew up in the era of the Viking Mars space missions, and have followed this topic as a hobby ever since. (I even took biochemistry as an "elective" in college, and have continued to study it ever since...) Dr. Nick Lane lays out in logical format HOW it could be done (creation of the first life on Earth), and HOW complex life (i.e., eukaryotes) may have evolved, and WHY advanced life is likely to be rare (at least much MORE rare than bacterial life) in the universe. He is an engaging, humorous, creative and passionate writer. (Dr. Lane's earlier book, "Oxygen - the Molecule that Made the World", is a wonderful adjunct, even though it was published in 2002, and is still relevant and accurate.)

[@praveenmallar]

Nice to read about your journey of enquiry on origin of life. I am reading the book too currently, bit tough at places, will have to read again, to understand it better. Great book

[@ThePoptartster]

Who wouldn't love a dynamic cytoskeleton? Totally worth the adenosine triphosphate. :P

[@z4k4z]

Enjoyed this talk, particularly Nick Lane's frank honesty about the established theories, and how new understanding continues to be developed. The RI talks often seem to fall into one of two types. (1) aimed at school children. (2) aimed at adults. I rarely watch the former as I find the presentation style a little patronising. It would be helpful, when receiving email updates of new videos, to have a clear indication of this split.

[@videos2pick]

Thank you for the post - I always love to hear Nick Lane. Of course reading his books are even more rewarding - Thank you all for making life meaningful.

[@eddieking2976]

Highly recommend Dr Lane's book, Oxygen: The Molecule that Made the World.

[@Ashley-jb4yu]

Reading it currently! love it!

[@edwigcarol4888]

Yes.. Life belongs to its planet... without Geology no clue on the evolution of life. All his books are passionating

[@aminofuel2801]

thank you for the video!

[@todds7655]

WOW! Just saw Eric Idle in the audience at 2:22/2:23 front row second from left ...I LOVE Nick's Book the Vital Question- amazing! and Eric Idle in audience- can't beat that! :)

[@PongoXBongo]

Always look on the bright side of 'the origins of' life. ;)

[@citizenschallengeYT]

Dang, you have a good eye.

[@animumaurarium]

18:00 "Extraordinary professor" simply means that he wasn't given a full professorship, i.e. an "ordinary" professorship. The two types of professor are also called "extraordinarius" and "ordinarius".

[@noahharrison7684]

5:24 is that a wild Brian Cox in the audience?

[@smartwombat9116]

Eric Idle and Brian Cox = Infinite Monkey Cage ?

[@TS-wf2rn]

Amazing talk!

[@adhipmitra]

What an amazing talk.

[@citizenschallengeYT]

6:00 I got an entirely different take on that. Regarding germs having "done nothing" - to me those evolutionary trees and what Lane and others are teaching us about the full breath of life on Earth - is revealing to me that microorganisms have been evolving along side the rest of complex life, helping support the increasingly complexity, etc, doing their thing. Evolving in their own tiny world. Does that make sense? Or?

[@peterbarjona6150]

I love listening to these talks by these learned men that try so hard to get the answers for origin of life, they always end up with more questions than answers just like Darwin did, it's spectacular.

[@mountainhobo]

17:50 "Extraordinary Professor of Anatomy" was actually a lower title than "Ordinary Professor of Anatomy". Germany was not the only country which used that hierarchy.

[@dlwatib]

+mountainhobo So it really should be translated Superfluous Professor of Anatomy?

[@mountainhobo]

dlwatib Semantically interesting, but for comparison, it is roughly like American "Associate Professor". Sometimes a visiting professor might also be called extraordinary, implying without chair.

[@Raydensheraj]

I study Astrophysics but try to find time concerning Abiogenesis and Evolution/Biology. I own Ruse & Travis Evolution: The first four billion years. I also owe a couple Books specifically on Astrobiology like Paul Davies "The Eerie Silence", David Grinspoon " Lonely Planets" and "First Contact" by Marc Kaufman and my favorite "Rare Earth" by Ward & Brownlee...of course I have Darwin's Origin of Species. I purchased this week Nick Lanes " The Vital Question" and am in the process of reading it... I'm asking individuals here watching the video - which other Books are "must reads" concerning Abiogenesis, Evolution, DNA/Genetics - basically Biology... And a brief explanation/review would also be great. Thanks fellow Science lovers (:

[@AhmadMubarik642]

W Homework from Mr Norton

[@johnfox9169]

My goodness, is this guy good!!😊

[@gamingpuppy8391]

MGS BIOLOGY HOMEWORK LESSGOOOOO

[@unvergebeneid]

31:00 "It forces you to have sex." #RapedByEndosymbionts

[@TheRcls]

wow

[@sadhanaidu5918]

If there is the possibility of accepting reality then People change and times have nothing to do with it. I am into my 7th decade and still pray to the sun despite my pronounced academic accreditation.

[@patrickboudreau3846]

If the first unicellular organism had some 4000 genes, we definitly have not a clue how it all started. We know that if you put 4000 genes in competition with other 4000 genes, you end up with humans after a few bilion years.

[@Crokto]

Oh man, I actually cracked up at "bog standard algae'. I think that means I'm gonna be a dad.

[@giuseppeLizzi-rj3er]

It really is annoying the way it is wars earthquakes volcanoes life ending violence stupidity nothing new being bored 😐 depression and anxiety no new tricks or any new meanings infinite is terrifying

[@ashoknaganur8551]

I think it is about evolution of life and parents give rise to off springs

[@ToddSloanIAAN]

That's a lot to say we are bacteria lost in a mess.

[@lefrog3851]

Question:Is *the vital question - energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life* the same book as *Vital Question: Why is life the way it is* ??

[@rogerkreil3314]

So we still don’t know for sure? I might have to change my comment on another video.

[@pofacknamaki]

To order to understand life, one must define the nothing then we could see?

[@FreekHoekstra]

Why is more complex life more relevant to evolve towards then single cellular organisms. in the end what matters is survival and procreation, there is no basis to suggest more complex individuals have a bigger chance of surviving as a species. in fact Bacteria and other smaller singular lifeforms are some of the ruggest, most robust and hardest to erradicate from our planet. so given Survival of the fittest, they do extrememly well, also who says multiple things have not developed in parralel, and successfull change instead of being transferred by lateral transfer, redevelopment over time.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

+Freek Hoekstra agreed, did you read his book the vital question? I just bough it and am debating returning it

[@PongoXBongo]

That's not really how it works. Competition is essentially one way. You only need to do better than your immediate predecessor. Germs are dangerous to humans, but not so dangerous as to wipe us out (despite several valiant attempts). Complexity enhances the ability to adapt faster and in more varied ways (now including tools/technology).

[@stuffilike05]

I can't help but dream in the same way we have replaced the extremely complex combustion engine with a simple electric motor. We could potentially replace our existing complex bio energy creating system with electricity. Meaning we don't need water, oxygen and nutrition and we don't age. Hahaha

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Im sorry to say this, but I really didn't enjoy his book the vital question, I couldn't get past the first chapter, too much anthropic bias, subjective hypothetical scenarios, little/no sources cited on things or hell, he never even gives an observation to back up his claims, and his "argument" is based off of "well this happens, but sometimes it doesn't" then he goes on after stating a certain hypothesis as "wrong" (stating his opinion as fact) because "if life proceeded because of X, then Y would be the result" but NEVER gives a fucking example of why this is the case, its as if he doesn't know what r and k selection theory is,... any biochemists or molecular biologist read the whole book ? Does it get better? Is there anything to gain from reading this?

[@RoastyPotato]

+thomas underhill R/K selection theory = gross

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

+councilhousecaviar I think its an extremely useful pedagogical tool to explain how complexity plays into natural selection

[@RoastyPotato]

Surely its not much more than a thought experiment though? The evidence just doesn't back it up.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

+councilhousecaviar so small animals don't reproduce by large amounts and large animals dont reproduce by small amounts?

[@rumraket38]

+thomas underhill Absolute and complete horseshit of the highest order. In fact I contend you did not even read the book. I've read the whole book.

[@You_Can_Do_If]

I have the answer

[@quill444]

I was hoping to learn more about the lichens: my search for the truth continues . . . - j q t -

[@ankeunruh7364]

seems he's looking for fellows... can they exist?

[@andrewdouglas1963]

Why not include the possibility that life may be intelligently designed?

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@edit8826 Do you require the same burdan of proof for all hypothesis of how life arose from non life?

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@edit8826 There is zero empirical evidence that life can arise naturally from non life. So would you require empirical evidence before you believe life can arise naturally from non life?

[@spatrk6634]

@@andrewdouglas1963 there is empirical evidence and scientific hypotheses that suggest life can arise naturally from non-life under certain conditions. Here are a few examples: Miller-Urey Experiment: In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment that simulated the conditions believed to be present on early Earth. They created an atmosphere containing gases thought to be present at that time and subjected it to electrical sparks to simulate lightning. The experiment produced various organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, one of the essential components of life. RNA World Hypothesis: The RNA World hypothesis proposes that RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules played a crucial role in the early stages of life's origin. RNA is capable of both storing genetic information, like DNA, and catalyzing chemical reactions, like enzymes. There is evidence that RNA can self-replicate and undergo evolution, suggesting it could have served as the precursor to DNA-based life. Laboratory experiments have shown that simple RNA molecules can be formed under conditions resembling those on early Earth. Hydrothermal Vents: Deep-sea hydrothermal vents, which are hot, mineral-rich environments on the ocean floor, have been proposed as potential sites for the origin of life. These vents provide a diverse array of chemical compounds and energy sources that could have supported the formation of organic molecules and the emergence of early life. Experimental studies have demonstrated that hydrothermal vent conditions can catalyze the synthesis of complex organic molecules. Prebiotic Chemistry: Various studies have shown that simple organic molecules, including amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and lipids, can be synthesized under conditions that resemble those on early Earth. These molecules are the building blocks of life, and their formation through prebiotic chemistry supports the idea that life's origin is a natural process. It is important to note that while these experiments and hypotheses provide valuable insights into the plausibility of abiogenesis, they do not provide a definitive proof of how life originated. The process is likely to be complex and multifaceted, involving a combination of different factors and conditions. Ongoing research continues to explore and refine our understanding of the origins of life on Earth.

[@ernstpolania5334]

No god in life creation. LIFE is The Universal Law like Gravitation or magnetismus in the universe. the electrical fields, minerals, medium, etc is all and life start. Life not for mart meteore.

[@arasharfa]

Nick Lane can have my number

[@eXtremeDR]

One thing is obvious - there are some fundamental flaws in our current theory of evolution. One is the ignorance of nature's highest order: To maintain the highest possible diversity at any time - be it between species or within species.

[@PongoXBongo]

Only as much diversity as the ecosystem can support. There's a reason there aren't thousands of sub/species of larger animals (versus say insects/bacteria). There isn't enough energy to feed or enough pressure to drive such unnecessary diversity. Nature is as complex as it needs to be, but no more so.

[@desperateastro]

Good lecturer, making his "big picture" general points well; but without some chemistry you'll get confused about proton gradients; so this is a failure as a lecture for the public.

[@thomashess6211]

The bacterial cell wall is complex and has repeating motifs. Someone please tell me how this came about to make the first bacterial life.

[@mcmanustony]

the modern car has GPS, powered steering, satellite radio......the Model T Ford lacked them. Cell walls 3.8 billion year ago lacked many features of modern cells.

[@jonbolton491]

@@mcmanustony And how did the modern car get GPS and power steering? By random mutation?

[@mcmanustony]

@@jonbolton491 No, by design. Cars, however, don't reproduce, automatically inherit characteristics from precursor car, don't compete for limited resources, are not subject to random mutation, are not acted upon by natural selection.... Was there a point you were hoping to make?

[@andrewdouglas1963]

​@@mcmanustony Ok so cars are a terrible example and not at all comparable to cell walls. (Membrane). The membrane needs to be complex to allow food and energy in and rubbish out. If the membrane can't actively do this, the cell dies very fast before it can reproduce. So the complexity needs to be there from the beginning to allow the cell to live and reproduce. Also, the information required to build the cell is contained in the DNA within the cell. If the cell dies, so does the DNA and no further evolution can occur. It's a paradox.

[@mcmanustony]

@@andrewdouglas1963 the first life almost certainly predates DNA

[@richardgangemi3143]

You need everything in place at the same time to have life. Scientists can talk in circles forever, life comes from life

[@mcmanustony]

the planet was dead 3.9 billion years ago. Now it is not. How did that occur? According to you it must have been magic. I'll stick with the science thanks...

[@andrewdouglas1963]

True. Science has no idea whatsoever how life started. The more science discovers, the more impossible it appears.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@edit8826 First can you tell me do you apply the same standard of evidence to all hypothesis?

[@mcmanustony]

@@andrewdouglas1963 instead of embarrassing yourself with these slogans why not get off your arse and learn some science?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

He has a brainfart at 6:55, calling Euglena a bacterium. He knows better .... the words just got ahead of his mouth.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

+Nick Lane you're not nick lane

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

+thomas underhill His explanation (whether or not 'Nick Lane' is the real Nick Lane) makes sense: no brain fart.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

you don't think its weird ?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

+thomas underhill Well yes, I thought it was really unusual for a scientist like Nick Lane to bother to respond to a mere KZbin comment. But at the same time, I find it unusual for someone who is not Nick Lane to create a KZbin account as Nick Lane, in order to come to his defense, and to do so in a manner that makes sense and clears up the alleged problem. I've defended many scientists on KZbin, but never faked an account in their name to do so. Either way, I accept the explanation that, in the video at 6:55, Nick Lane was not referring to Euglena but was instead talking about the tiny bacterial cell on the slide (which I did not see the first time I watched the video: maybe a bototm-of-the-screen pop-up ad was covering it up??).

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

+DNAunion Did you read his book "the vital question" ?

[@sachinbalasundaram865]

Guys what is he wafflin about

[@liceous]

omg hes so hot!!

[@whirledpeas3477]

Better title is, Nobody has a clue?

[@mcmanustony]

speak for yourself.

[@baraskparas9559]

Nick Lane became a disgrace to Origin of Life research when he denigrated the concept of the primordial soup, likening it to a can of Heinz soup in a gross misinformation and misrepresentation to the public. In a whole book on Life's origin he features nowhere.