How did life begin? Abiogenesis. Origin of life from nonliving matter.

How did life begin? Abiogenesis. Origin of life from nonliving matter.


If, in an instant, you could magically
transport yourself to the ancient earth 4.5 billion years ago, and then in the
next instant, you magically transported yourself to now. you may say that only
magic, or a supernatural force could have transformed the earth to its present day
from its humble beginnings. The diversity of earth today can be explained largely
through evolution by natural selection, a process that occurred over billions of
years. But this diversity must have had a seed of some kind,
the first semblance of life at some point must have had a beginning, a start
from the primordial soup. And it must have started from nonliving matter. But
how is it that the seemingly unremarkable processes of geology,
chemistry, and physics could have combined in precisely the correct
sequence to produce the first living matter, from nonliving matter. This
seems to many people utterly impossible. There must have been a blueprint. There
must have been an architect, they say. How could such vastness of diversity,
functionality, and beauty come from the physical processes of the cosmos and
nature? And how could it have happened on its own? that’s coming up right now… The origin of living organisms from
inorganic, or nonliving material is called abiogenesis.
It’s important to distinguish this from evolution. Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Evolution is the process of development or diversification of living things from
earlier forms of living things. Evolution does not say anything about how life
first originated. So how did the first life originate? Despite the incredible
variations that we see today, at the fundamental level all living things
contain a trinity of elements. First, nucleic acids, which make up the DNA or
it’s simpler form called RNA. These contain the blueprints of life and are
self-replicating molecules. Second, there are proteins, which are the workhorses
that perform the important functions of your body. And third, are lipids which
encapsulate the cells of your body. Before any living things existed, before
animals, plants and even bacteria existed, these three things had to have been
present in the primordial soup in order for life to start. Some argue that the
most important component of this Trinity are the lipids, which make up the cell
walls. Why would this be the most important?…because without the wall, or a
way to encapsulate certain elements within the soup, there would just be a
soup of material that would just be disorderly and floating around in a sea
of liquid. It would not be functioning inside something that could potentially
self-replicate. But because these lipid membranes could potentially form around
other elements, they could bring disparate parts of various chemicals
together, that could potentially interact, combine, react and work together to
perhaps eventually form a machinery for self replication. So these fatty
membranes composed of lipids were critical components for abiogenesis.
So any study of abiogenesis should perhaps start with a closer examination
of lipids. Lipid molecules have a unique structure. There is a round part and a
long tail part. It so happens that the round part loves water.
It’s hydrophilic. The tail part however, hates water.
It’s hydrophobic. So what tends to happen is, when a bunch of lipids are floating
around in water, they tend to gather together and self assemble in
spheres. Why does this happen?…because the tail part of the molecule, since it
wants to get away from water, automatically faces other tails that
also dislike water. And the round part which likes water, exposes itself to the
water outside and inside the sphere. It is what these types of molecules do
naturally. So it has a tendency to self-assemble into natural spheres. But
where do lipids come from? It was once thought that they could only be produced
by living cells. But experiments have shown that when carbon monoxide and
hydrogen is heated up with minerals commonly found in Earth’s crust, lipids
can form. All components were available in the early Earth and could have
happened in underwater hydrothermal vents. You might at this point say aha
that’s it! That’s how the first cell must have formed! Not so fast.
It turns out that while lipids do have this quality of self-assembly, when there
are certain ions present, such as salts or magnesium, it destroys the lipid
structure they disintegrate. But the problem is that RNA and other functions
of a cell require these ions, and since the early Earth was believed to have
salty oceans, and since these spheres can’t form in these salty oceans, this
theory always had a gaping hole. However, just this year, in 2019
researchers at the University of Washington showed that lipid spheres do
not disassemble if they are in the presence of amino acids, which are
precursors to protein molecules. In addition, the enclosing of amino acids
within cell walls allows amino acids to concentrate within the walls and
interact with each other to form proteins, which is part of the Trinity
one of the essential components of life. What is remarkable about this research
is that it turns out that nonliving lipid cell walls and non living
proteins need each other to exist in an ion rich or salty water. So now we see
that lipids and proteins can potentially form in the presence of each other. What
about DNA and RNA? These are the key self-replicating molecules, the
blueprints of all living things. Today, genetic information is stored in
DNA. And RNA is created from DNA to put that information into action. RNA can
direct the creation of proteins and perform other essential functions of
life in a cell. The simplicity of RNA compared to its cousin
the DNA is the reason that most people think RNA came first. This is part of the
“RNA world hypothesis.” which theorizes that RNA, the molecule that today plays
roles in expressing genes, was the essential precursor which led to the
first living matter. Only later did it’s more complex cousin, DNA, take over the
task of storing and replicating genetic information. This hypothesis has gained
wide acceptance by scientists. So let’s look at RNA. How did the first RNA
molecule form from nonliving chemicals? Well, the answer to this is not as
clear-cut. And this has been a major stumbling block to any theory of
abiogenesis. So here is what some of the latest research points to regarding RNA.
RNA is made up of three chemical components – the sugar ribose the bases
and phosphate. A ribose-base-phosphate unit links together with other ribose-base-phosphate units to form RNA polymer. Figuring out how a bond between the
bases and ribose first formed has been difficult to replicate in the lab.
Attempts to show how ribose bonds can form with the bases of RNA have been
largely unsuccessful. This is because cells in your body require complex
enzymes to bring RNA building blocks together before they combine to form
polymers. But in a 2009 study, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute in Troy New York, showed that current-day RNA could have formed on the
surface of clays which act like catalyst to bring RNA bases together, as shown in
this animation. A 2017 paper by scientists from McMaster University in
Canada, and the Max Planck Institute in Germany, showed that the building blocks
of RNA could have polymerized in the early Earth using organic molecules from
meteorites and interplanetary dust in shallow ponds. The wet/dry cycle of these
ponds, they showed, are conducive to RNA polymerization. They also theorized
that such polymers were probably present on earth shortly after its formation as
early as 4.17 billion years ago. So now we have ways that two
of the Trinity could have formed – RNA and lipids. But what about protein?
How did they form? In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold
Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins,
and other organic compounds, out of organic materials, was possible under the
atmospheric conditions of the primordial earth. So the precursors of proteins were
likely present in the very early Earth. It turns out that it’s pretty easy to
form many kinds of organic molecules in a wide range of environments. But so far,
I have only presented ways that can result in potential precursors needed
for life. You might say, “Well, that’s fine and dandy,” but having all the precursors
get together inside a lipid cell wall does not necessarily mean they will all
come together to form a self-replicating living cell. How do the complex molecules
come together to self replicate and become a living organisms? And if I’m
being honest, this is currently not well understood, and there’s no experiment or
smoking-gun evidence, right now, that points to a precise mechanism of how
this could have happened. There are creationist arguments such as
the one that says if I put all the parts of a watch in a big vat, and keep
stirring it for a million years, a functioning, ticking watch is not going
to magically form inside the VAT. And some cite an estimate by scientists Fred
Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe that the probability of all the
chemicals in a simple bacterium arising on their own by chance is something on
the order of one in 10 to the 40,000 power, which is more than the Planck
volume of the entire universe. So that is a virtual impossibility. But this number
and the clock-parts-in-a-vat argument are oversimplifications. They ignore the
fact that sophisticated life forms, like current-day bacteria, almost certainly
did not arise spontaneously, but arose in much simpler incremental steps, that had
a much higher chance of occurring. There are stats such as the one that says the
odds of creating a protein molecule by chance is 1 in 10 to the 45 power. Odds such as these and others not only ignore the idea of simpler precursors, but also
ignore the fact that it was not just one set of amino acids, at
one place, at one time, but it was trillions upon trillions of amino acids
reacting in countless places, over millions of years, that resulted in
simple protein molecules. There are about 4×10^47
molecules of water in Earth’s oceans. Even if there was one amino acid among 1
million water molecules, that would be 10 to the power 41 molecules of amino acids that
had the opportunity to interact with each other, and to form proteins in
numerous environments, in numerous places, and in numerous trials, over millions of
years, to produce proteins. The actual probability is not how the hundreds of
complex chemicals can come together to form a modern-day bacterium, but the
probability of a few chemicals, may be 10 or 20, forming and coming together to
form the precursors of life, that can chemically evolve over time to form the
simplest kind of life form, that likely looked nothing like any evolved life
form we recognize today. But showing how even this chemical evolution could have
happened is problematic. Chemical evolution is not the same as biological
evolution, which is driven by favoring organisms that have the best chance of
survival and reproduction. Scientists have had trouble figuring out what could have
driven chemicals to evolve the complexity needed for biological
functioning. But in 2014 Jeremy England, physics professor at MIT,
showed mathematically that the driving force for chemical evolution may be
hidden in physics, in Newton’s second law of thermodynamics. that’s our old friend
“entropy.” From a physics point of view, the one thing that distinguishes living
things from nonliving things is its ability to capture energy and convert it
to heat. England argues that when exposed to an external source of energy, such as
the sun, any group of molecules will restructure themselves to dissipate more
and more energy. This, he says, is the driving force for chemical evolution. And
this can, over time, result in living organisms, such as those we see today –
organisms that are super efficient at dissipating energy. This theory is
further supported by a 2011 paper by Karo Michaelian, that
showed that RNA and DNA are the most efficient of all known molecules for
absorbing the intense ultraviolet light of the Sun. While there is no single
generally accepted theory of the origin of life, all credible proposals show that
life under natural conditions by a slow process of chemical and molecular
evolution, could have plausibly resulted in simple life forms over a long period
of time, and that this evolution of chemistry was probably the biggest hill
to climb for life to have occurred on earth. But once this happened, biological
evolution took over and relatively quickly, resulted in exceptional
diversity of life forms. We see that in the fossil record of early Earth, and of
course, we see that on earth today. Do we have proof that this is how life came
about? No…at least not yet. Is it plausible?…absolutely. Just like chemical
and biological evolution, our knowledge too is evolving in a slow process over
hundreds and thousands of years, driven by the pursuit of science, and hopefully,
ever decreasing ignorance. Hey guys, video is sponsored by the newly released
sci-fi novel “New Eden” by Kishore Tipirneni. New eden is a mind-boggling story of
quantum entanglement and the origins of life. Follow physicist Joshua Andrews and
journalist Rachel Miller as they discover that entangled particles were
created the moment of the Big Bang, creating a universe-wide communication
network. So if you love sci-fi based on some real science, I highly recommend New
Eden. It’s available now from Amazon. The link is in the description below.
And if you want to support us and see more videos like this, then please
subscribe, ring the bell icon, and give us a like. Or support us on patreon. I’ll see
you in the next video.

100 Replies to “How did life begin? Abiogenesis. Origin of life from nonliving matter.”

  1. Here is a solution…. This is all a simulation. The program tells us what we are and what we are made of. When we try to figure it out by looking deep into the structure of anything, "we" discover complexities that are nonsensical. From what I understand of what we are made of and how it works is found out by indirect methods because microscopes can't look into the nucleus of a cell, we can't actually see RNA or DNA. Something about light waves are larger then the DNA. I think that we are in a simulation and when the simulation finds us looking to closely or as far as we can look out into the universe, it deliberately changes it's own rules to confuse us and make us guess at how it really works, because all commonsense and ingenuity tells us that what we see shouldn't work or even be here and yet here we are conscious and going to work getting married having babies chatting on cell phones. On the surface we pretty much understand the simulation and how most of it works, the human race has imitated most of it in our daily lives but when we look into it or look at it, the explanation is like looking at a pixelated photo – blurry hard to read; understand. There are so many overlaying layers of reality. The world we live on; on the surface is amazing yet easy and simple to understand for most, the closer "we" look at the tiny, microscopic the crazier it is. It's probably there. It's like the double slit experiment, when we look at it, the wave function collapses and we only see a piece of reality. And that piece changes every time we look. What gets me is, is we don't know where any of it came from, I am talking about Earths past. Anything further back then our own modern history is all hypothetical and theoretical. We just don't know… and we are just playing a guessing guessing for the most part. When the human race figures it all out, we will discover that that answer was wrong too.

  2. To begin with the assumption that Abiogenesis is science in the first place is off to a bad start.
    Abiogenesis is belief not fact. The subject must believe that inanimate matter can create life. ..and that matter IS Life.That's a stretch…

    The definition of Life becomes paramount and deep scrutinizing of the way too many things that are taken for granted…

  3. Life does not begin with self replicating cells, undergoing mitosis. No. The DNA being free and radical bits of RNA and DNA strands of DATA, infested the Earth Geology and like an invading bacteria into a host , the DNA forced the geological mineral elements of the Earth to behave in servitude to form CELLULAR FORTRESSES , like cocoons, in which the invading DATA , called the DNA compelled cells to appear behave in like with cellular mitosis, being forced upon mineral elements of the Earth, so that the DNA is the first expression or experience of LIFE and it has an INNATE WILL TO SURVIVE , THRIVE AND BUILD BIOSPHERES. There is no evidence at all that any such Darwinian Evolution is the cause of life , the LIFE itself does not evolve out of "Molecular Evolution" or any non living matter. The life on Earth is an adaptation of DNA arriving on Earth , taking up Earthly Compounds out of the seas to adapt to it's own use as Cellular Cocoons or Fortresses, a "HOUSE" for the newly arrived DNA DATA to live in and from that platform infest the entire Earth changing the non living Geological Earth, into a BIOSPHERE.
    So LIFE on Earth was not invented by any Evolutionary Process , the compelling force of WILL exudes out of the DNA which is alive before any investiture into "self replicating cells" and so that means Evolution cannot explain the existence of Life. Life is not the product of any Alchemy Theorem of Molecular Evolution. Lead does not evolve into Gold. There is a force or driving compulsion existing in the DNA to indwell the Realm of the Earth's Natural Resources and produce a Biosphere out of the DESIGN and LIFE already existing in the DNA , regardless of where the DNA actually came from. It could have come from outer space, or outside this particular Universe or as well , LIFE comes directly from a place we call "HEAVEN." Then we have a inner voice telling us that our LIVES do not belong here on Earth , that this experience is a conundrum, and our place of origins is not of this world at all.
    Biological CELLS cannot live without the DNA to cause them to function, the CELLS are not creating DNA , the DNA exists first and are creating the CELLS as service to the WILL and NATURE of the DNA, as the first appearing LIFE. DNA is the only life , nothing else has the INNATE WILL TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE AS A LIFE FORM, OTHER THAN THE DNA. THE DNA on it's own merit , when you see it move on it's way , it is what is alive in the human body , if the DNA was not alive, nothing else in the human form would ever be alive.
    THUS if you can say where the DNA comes from and who made it, you could answer allot of people's questions. But if you are a Darwinian Evolutionist and trying to credit the CELLS as the progenitors of DNA , you are lying to all the people, you are a false teacher.

  4. If a great filter resulted in the conversion of chemistry to biological evolution then either
    1. Life is very rare
    2. Life has millions of forms

  5. Excellent break down explanation – made me subscribe because of the great video questions. I always come up with strange hypothesis on my own – not very popular though. This took my interests a lot deeper.

  6. 10:20 actually they do. The math shows that if every planet in the visible universe were made of the amino acids needed to create life and were connecting every second the chances of the right protein forming would be unlikely in the time it takes for the universe to expand and shrink trillions of times. and that's the shortest form of protein that is part of life that's not actually the one that would be right to start life.

    if the universe is INFINITE then we are not the only life in it. however it's likely we won't find other life, at least like ours. there may be other forms of life that are much easier to make who knows. but if we were to find it it'd be something like tree(3) kind of number light years away. in an infinite universe with quantum physics it's possible a solar system just like ours with all the people with all the memories we have right now just appeared out of nowhere somewhere out there. hell we could be that solar system with the memories of another one. but if it's really only 14 billion years old and only expanded so far ( outside of the visible universe ) then it's likely we're the only life of any kind in the universe

  7. This probability sounds like magic to me. So he trys incremental steps to achieve coordinated big steps, but wait there can't be any guide, so this is just another contradiction. Sponsored by sci-fi for delusional pleasures.

  8. Says creationists are stupid and creationism is not possible then proceeds to try to explain an event that is 10^40,000 probable is possible……hmm……..

  9. Divinity is the reason there are many deities in this realm and there are infinite higher and lower realms within all eternity and all existence

  10. What makes these lipids assemble in the first place. They must have some type of intelligence or they are programmed to do this and with that said who or what is the programmer.

  11. Abiogenesis, just like the Synthetic Chemistry and the Genetic Mutation, etc. grandiloquent explanations from the ''origin of life'' community, is just another 21st century's pseudo-evolution version (attempt) of the supposed ape-man missing link skull that eventually went down to be considered as one of the top crime of the 20th century (against humanity).

  12. So this guy believes in magic too ? I believe in God not magic.You telling me everything came from nothing aka big bang? In a scientific stand point that can not be … but because God has always been and not limited to what we know as a whole God can live out side our knowledge of the universe and do so. A building can't be made without a architect and neither could the universe. So if you believe a car can spontaneously emerge from nothing that the Big Bang Theory is plausible, in the same regard as nothing started everything.

  13. This is ignorance. James Tour has explained it very well, time is actually the enemy of self-assembly. If all parts are not there at the same time, it will crumble and it needs to start all over again from the beginning. I'll wait until they can produce 1 living cell from scratch out of those supposed plausible guesses.

  14. Not only how all began but the process in between cannot evolve by itself. Evolution is the most irresponsible word some sceintists love to use. Just say we don't know yet.

  15. The Atheists believe a non living sort of god ,but not God, being just an eternal matter that evolves, produced the world, but they cannot repeat the data and do that experiment to invent another world or create life, they are only OBSERVERS of the data, not Masters of any FACT , such that they can by their Mental Prowess, do as they claim Nature did to create worlds or evolve life. The Theists say the more efficient methodology is to assume first an Intelligent Mind and Will, an ACTOR with SELF ACTUATING POWERS THAT ARE SELF EXPLANATORY AS THE "LIVING BEING" as it were, existing before the Mundane World appears atomically , that this LIFE FORM has the exponential advantage of consuming time to eliminate the need of any time, and theoretically create the world, in a Mental Data System , without material mass causing Friction , and then spawn the material universe to be Atomic in nature, in the same way a Cow eats grass and craps out the Manure, which Manure then is second hand medium , to produce other life forms that grow out of that shit. So some living entity , having REASON AND WILL POWER meritable as a life form, CRAPPED OUT THE PHYSICAL WASTE LAND of the "DEAD" Universe and surrounds all this materialism with the superiority of itself, a LIVING BEING who is the CAUSE of this CHAOTIC MASS. This means the Theory of God is more likely an efficient explanation of the World, than reversing the theorem to suggest a "Eternal Steady State Matter " by random chance , evolved the world.
    The Atheists must lose this battle ,for in winning this argument, they only prove that their own sentient existence is merely a "DELUSION" and so they are so worthless , they should do the only logical thing , commit suicide….

  16. So you're trying to tell me that it's all just a sundance? Cool.
    So when global temperature rise occurs, does evolutionary diversity increase?

  17. Anyone who thinks that biological evolution is like a tornado assembling an airplane is a crackpot. Evolution proceeds logically like all natural processes. Creationists think that saying "god did it" means no further explanation is necessary– or even possible.

  18. Looks like we still need organic material from meteorites to make it all work – 7:30 in the video, also around 8:00. How was that formed? Still a lot of unprovable hypothesis. Keep going….

  19. Sigh so much speculation and wild guess work. Life from non life is nonsense and violates the law of biogenesis. Watch some videos by James Tour a real biochemist and you will see how silly these arguments are.

  20. I’m calling BS on that. Still so many prerequisites and assumptions needed. This is not a working theory for all it’s worth.

  21. Huge problems for abiogenesis, since all living, metabolizing, dividing cells that exist on Earth require ATP to power their metabolism, and with the molecular machine ATP synthase both generating new ATP and requiring ATP to even function in the first place, hapless abiogenesists would have to show their usual magical story some SIMULTANEOUS prebiotic synthetic chemical path for both ATP and ATP synthase. Yet another logical reason to think that the first living, metabolizing, dividing cell was IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. Poor hapless abiogenesists!

  22. The first life that formed surely wasnt a one time event. It probably happens all the time through the lifetime of the Earth. Even recently. Yet goes unnoticed due to other life that's already here, that has a headstart of billion of years.

  23. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instructions Definition of instructions:
    1 : a an outline or manual of technical procedure : directions
    b : a direction calling for compliance : order —usually used in plural //had instructions not to admit strangers
    c : a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation
    For the fairy tale of abiogenesis to be shown as actually having happened some 3.5+ billion years ago, you would need to start with the specified instructions in DNA to synthesize numerous protein enzymes, yet you would first need numerous protein enzymes to even synthesize the DNA double helix in the first place.
    ? Naturalism is forever trapped in this circular catch-22 prison. ?
    (N.B. Where the specified instructions would come from, that’s just part of the fairy tale anyone’s guess).

  24. It is one thing to zero-in on little compartmentalized snippets of the process of abiogenesis that offer plausible explanations of how that particular process may have come about. However, it is something else altogether to step back and take-in the greater picture.

    For instance, none of what is being explained in the video would have even begun to occur were it not for the seemingly impossible, millisecond-by-millisecond precision with which this gigantic orb we are standing on has gently turned on its axis (unerringly for BILLIONS OF YEARS) in order to be evenly bathed in the perfect source of light and energy.

    I mean, that single aspect alone…

    (the axial/orbital relationship between the Earth and Sun)

    …is a prerequisite “miracle” that had to be in place before any of the subsequent processes leading to abiogenesis could even begin. Yet, we’re all just supposed to take these impossible accidents for granted.

    The point is, don’t let the cleverly produced video graphics mesmerize you into thinking that “chance” is a logical explanation for the existence of life and consciousness.
    _____

  25. There is no hypothesis that adequately explains abiogenesis. And as the science of genetics advances a workable hypothesis further eludes us. There is no other science that postulates organization and the creation of information as a product of random chaotic forces. As of right now we don't even know of an intelligence sufficient to create even the simplest microbe. As we learn more about living organisms we also find deeper complexity and we realize how little we know.
    It is still unknown how new body plans arise in evolution. More geneticists and mathematicians are raising questions about common descent every year that there are no satisfactory answers for. Many, if not most serious geneticists are aware that the human genome and all genomes are degenerating and have been since the first genome appeared. Life is not improving through natural selection or neutral drift, life is degenerating and becoming less fit. And if you look at statistics on things like general health, fertility, IQ scores, cancer, and genetic syndromes and diseases the numbers agree with degeneration rather than common descent. And that would explain the lack of transitional fossils. Also, the "Y" chromosome is degenerating at an accelerated rate. Men are degenerating faster than women. It is apparent that there are many more people claiming sexual ambiguity today than even forty years ago and I don't think it's due to societal pressure in the past. There actually may be a scientific reason for gender confusion. Not a gay gene but a gay mutation or series of mutations. Evolutionary science has been denying what the evidence reflects ever since Darwin wrote his book. They deny the fact that there have been no evolutionary precursors found for the Cambrian animals yet the layers below the Cambrian contained soft, microscopic sponge embryos. If the Cambrian animals had evolutionary ancestors they should be abundant in the precambrian layers.

  26. Origin of life hasn't had any break throughs since the 50s. We've learned how things work and details but that's actually made more things to explain.

    As it is we require a first complex rna to form and this is literally step number 1 million happening first.
    Its not as easy as random amino acids algining.

  27. Everything before even earth is also part of answering origin of life. You don't just explain after the fact that 10 to power of 44 has managed to happen ironically billions of time before putting thing in position randomly.
    Odds against so much are astronomical. If you listen to mathematicians and hawkins phd published work it's so many complex things that just so happen to take place that require understanding.

  28. @7:33 researchers explain how the RNA molecule was formed by saying it was deposited here by meteorites 4.3B years ago. if it were that easy i wouldn't have had to retake ochem. you will have better luck throwing a million iphone 11s in a huge cocktail shaker and pouring out an iphone 12. physics chemistry and quantum theory are great tools but that's as useful (in a theory of everything sense) as a dictionary with 3 words.

  29. Sorry, your argument seems mathematically impossible….. first, the chances of forming the “many different types of proteins” necessary for even the most primitive cell is well beyond 10 to the 40th power, for each protein. Then there’s the impossible challenge of bringing all the various elements…. proteins, RNA etc. into one microscopic space. Next the proteins need to be assembled in exact order and again magically be in the presence of RNA, all inside a lipid cell. Finally, the cell needs to live and reproduce. The complexity of even the simplest cell being accidentally formed in my view, is impossible. I think you would have much more luck with the bag of watch parts….. even if somehow the watch eventually self assemble, it still needs to self wind to work.

  30. The chances of life not only forming from a non-life source but then not being soon destroyed is so low it very presumptuous to assume even when considering millions upon trillions of trials. Also, look up polymerase or anything else to do with dna/rna and protein replication. This video was interesting, topic-wise, thus it got a thumbs up. But, no, it isn't even a fraction as simple as you put it in this video. Life is still somewhat of a miracle and even trying to describe possible mechanism for what started it doesn't remove God from the picture.

  31. Something is beyond quantum mechanics. Forces such as love, hatred, guilt, conviction are spiritual in nature. At the end of the day, with so many activities of man to prove that there was and is a supreme being who created the universe and all its fullness, all efforts are all futile when everyone will face the Creator-the Father of Life.

    But we appreciate the efforts of these people since they give us new revelations of the complexity and beauty to be amazed at even in a single celled organism. The more they uncover the facts of all material things in sub atomic levels, the more we appreciate, praise and adore the Creator of all things which is God and revealed Himself to us in the flesh through His Son Jesus Christ.

  32. To put everything in a prescise and accurate order to create life an ultimate power, an Almighty planner was there that Almighty planner created everything. Even now His creation himself is searching about how they came into being. Another miracle of Almighty Allah.
    Today humans are sure about themselves but doubt God (Almighty Allah).
    Think …

  33. The thing is there is no such thing as "inanimate" matter. Everything in the universe is always animated, there is no differentiation aside from scale and time.

  34. The probability of just one protein forming by chance has been estimated at 1in10 to the power of 164! The chance of one cell forming?

  35. OR, God, a much smarter being than us, could breathe his breath of life into a creation he made, and give us life. He could do this with all living things. He could be the maker of everything that has been made. I've heard it said that people can't believe some higher being created human life, and then in the next breath say that they believe life basically over time created human life.
    I see science as an incomplete work that follows the principles of the Bible. At a time when we can genetically engineer about anything, it makes believing in a smarter, more advanced being not only possible, but highly probable. The only thing that makes it hard to believe is man's arrogance. If we simply evolved, we would have examples of all stages of human life alive today.

  36. Sounds like it all definitely needed an allknowing engineer with infinite patience, now who would that be? The most wonderful part of this explanation is that it doesn't even rule out a creator and shows the tools and how to use 'em if you read between the lines!! You even acknowledge the importance of lumination!! Wonderful!! I'm sure you're right!

  37. Abiogenesis supporters need constant reminding that if you dismiss all other explanations but your own, yet have no evidence to back yours up, and are therefore left to imagine how your explanation nevertheless accounts for the phenomenon, you're making an ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY!

  38. These guys would make a lot more progress a lot faster if they recognize that we were created.
    Newton had it right – "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing."

    And let's not forget Irreducible Complexity.

  39. Arvin, you did not cover the main question, which is how the first "simple" RNA or DNA with a meaningful base pair sequence came about. You briefly touched on perhaps how the chemical bonds could be made to occur, but RNA and DNA are nothing but large useless molecules if their base pair sequences are not correct. The only value of RNA and DNA is the information they carry, and not the molecules themselves. Also, a number of extremely specific and complex proteins are needed to read the genes in the DNA, and to create the required proteins, and to duplicate the DNA when it is time to reproduce. You also briefly touch on perhaps how the chemical bonds in proteins could be made to occur. Fine, but the constituent atoms must be absolutely correct for the protein to be able to perform some useful biological function – that is the hard part. Finally, you did not even mention the "chicken and the egg" problem. If proteins and other molecules are made per instructions from RNA or DNA, but RNA and DNA need many proteins to build them correctly in the first place, then how could abiogenesis occur? This video would have been far more interesting and valuable if you had attempted to answer the hard questions, rather than going after the very simple and obvious low hanging fruit.

  40. I don’t know why I keep watching videos like this – it always comes down to ‘we know life is possible but we don’t know how it happens’. I’m not a bible thumper, but don’t you think it’s kind of strange that we can’t recreate something so fundamental in our existence? It makes me feel even the brightest of us are just monkeys banging about with rocks and sticks.

  41. Excellent explanation. I'll have to watch this again (and maybe again). If indeed energy dispersing molecules are favored under certain conditions, what are the next necessary steps between non-life and life? Also, have we seen actual evidence for this energy dispersion process? Also, are there forms of life based on just RNA? Or some different sort of RNA? Why are there no competing RNAs or DNAs in the world? (Okay, this is an assumption on my part.) Is it just that actual life is so ubiquitous that "new" non-life to life processes are crowded out, so to speak?

    Okay, I watched it again and you did kind answer some of my questions (above). I guess I can't help but wonder what that simplest bacteria looks like. Also, what chemical set-up might be just shy of self-replication? Also, I wonder how many near self-replications must have occurred before actual self-replication occurred?

  42. Life Could have
    Possibly
    Maybe
    Theorised
    Potentially formed in a pool
    No smoking gun evidence
    Then try’s to discredit creationism to prove abiogenesis ??‍♂️
    I’m gonna call bs on this one.

  43. Put these chemicals together and watch life appear.
    Let me know when you succeed.
    The simplest living cell is irreducibly complex, and the complex elements within it will degrade if not part of a living system.

  44. There must be vast ancient clouds of diverse covalently closed circles of DNA or RNA coated with lipids and peptides floating in space. These space libraries of pre proto cells must be the result of natural cosmic processes.

  45. There was no promirdial soup. The earliest rocks formed just after the late heavy bombardment when the earth was purely molten show life but no pre-biotic chemicals. Proteins don't form naturally and they are vital for any form of biological activity. So pure metaphysical speculation and no real science!

  46. So you're implying that we exist in a sort of simulated environment with pre-programmed quantum-mechanical and physical algorithms that inevitably created matter and arranged life? Nice story.

  47. Seems to me that the elephant in the room is merely admitting to the fact that the universe may itself have an inherent self organztional property that expresses itself appropiately under the proper coordinting conditions. Like the formation of the periodic table of elements, and susequent iterations upward to molecules and then substance etc.etc. It also doesn't destroy cause and effect based paradigms as it could be viewed as a type of attractor.

  48. As of today, 12/06/2019, there is no known process where DNA can be created from scratch. All ideas or theories are speculation at this point.

  49. The earliest fossils of primitive life are 4 billion years old. According to the best theories, the planet Earth was not yet cooled 4 Billion years ago. This seems to suggest that life cam from somewhere else. The explanation above does not address this fact.

  50. Its not possible to revive dead organisms, even recently dead and intact organisms with guiding intelligence.
    But it's possible for a living organism to come into being, from a bunch of dead parts, by happenstance?

  51. Arvin,
    There's no scientific evidence in what you are saying. Chemistry is so complex. It's not so easy to put in words. It's easy to tell like fairytales but no truth in that. It's so complex.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *