Absolutely fascinating, great work.

It's amazing to me that these kinds of videos have only a couple thousand views while Flat Earth idiots can garner 50k views in no time. Our civilization is about to go through catalytic recombination.

@LooxJJ

4 жыл бұрын

he is basically saying, in a controlled environment, predicted result is possible. But the nature is not a controlled environment.

@spookyskeleton1230

3 жыл бұрын

LooxGood it demonstrates nature as the controlled environment to explain the catalytic corroborative formation of rna It's a fascinating demonstration of the functions of its proof

It all makes sense now!!!

Thank you.

@5tonyvvvv

6 жыл бұрын

Intelligent chemists use templates, designed synthesis machines, unnatural lab conditions and donor genomes.....And this is all suppose to happen on a harsh primitive planet somewhere? all mindless unguided processes? yea ok..... Abiogenesis is laughable!!!

@tothesciencemobile4707

4 жыл бұрын

@@5tonyvvvv He says in this very video that the synthetic stuff isn't much use for origin of life research.... @15:45

how does geochemistry give way biochemistry? catylization and self assembly...beautiful!

Thx.

He was also talking about enzymes being involved but if this is pre-biotic there weren't any enzymes...

@efraimcardona8452

2 жыл бұрын

A ribozyme may have cathalityc activity, that is an enzyme

So happy I dropped out of college.

I have been looking for a lecture that discusses somewhat technically detailed best guesses as to all of the processes that might account for abiogenesis. I have not found one so far. This lecture started out so promising, with the chart at 0:22 and with Niles stating that he was going to discuss the Pre-RNA World and the RNA World. But then he proceeded to get increasingly bogged down in the minutia of detailed chemical reactions, which used up all of his time (as happens in pretty much every other similar lecture). So, the topic of how biologically useful information replaced "garbage" in RNA strands, was not covered. And the topic of how RNA came to create at first a few biologically useful enzymes and proteins, and later thousands of biologically useful enzymes and proteins, and finally hundreds of thousands of biologically useful enzymes and proteins, was not covered. And the topic as to why nature favored any chemical progressions toward forming life, as opposed to favoring chemical progressions that led away from forming life (at all of the various points in the long, long chain), was not covered. His researchers need to remember that even though we know today that complex life eventually came about on this planet, it was not a foregone conclusion 4 billion years ago, and no molecules along the long path could possibly "know" that. I am well aware that every study is limited by the amount of funding it has received, and I am aware that any scientist who speculates on any topic without having detailed experiments to back it up is considered a dilettante or a "light weight" or a fraud. Perhaps this topic needs a project similar to the massive 1950's American government project that experimentally explored all aspects of metals and the tens of thousands of metal alloys. Because it certainly isn't successfully happening now! Finally, a small point - Niles unconsciously says "Okay?" or "Alright?" at the ends of hundreds of sentences during this lecture. It becomes a bit distracting.

Chemicals that “reason” vs a intelligent agent that reasons..... yeah that’s the ticket!

Why not to create simpler artificial molecule models on a computer and test them?It could help creating higher level models and connections of model levels. Thus model speed and low level design can be achieved.

@arthurmario5996

5 жыл бұрын

good idea, somebody is probably doing it. won't be easy, there is probably much more than a pool of water. (I.e. porous minerals. ?)

@deckuofm

5 жыл бұрын

Not too many videos on this topic. It could be fun and motivation for science too. Also it can be a connection to artificial intelligence if considerably simplified.

What can happen will happen sooner or later.

At 15:45: "These are just synthetic oligo(nucleotides), they don't really have any use in studying the origins of life"... So, basically, ...we're right back to the "chicken/egg" problem...imagine my shock!

@tothesciencemobile4707

4 жыл бұрын

If the synthetic ones are not much use, then that simply means they don't rely so much on the synthetic stuff. I've never understood how "look -- they didn't even bother to make it from scratch!" is the equivalent of "therefore, they will NEVER figure out how how to make it from scratch!"

such fun.. just add saltwater. but lets add a few more things.. a big problem is that prooving self starting replication doesnt give an easy calculation of how long it would take on earth, or which kinds of rsults different earths give. why not add some lightening, sand and turbulence etc.. lets go for it. call me..

so my name is AGCT

great presentation! to the skeptics: it's a given that abiogenesis is unlikely , but if there are millions of pools of water on each of millions of planets over the course of millions of years, the dice are rolled a million million million times so very rare events will inevitably happen. probably if you rolled dice this many times you might see them both standing on their corners!

@arthurmario5996

5 жыл бұрын

I forgot to say that there are quintillions of molecules colliding in each pool!

@sparky5584

4 жыл бұрын

What's this unlikely statement? Where did you get that? What makes you think it was unlikely?

@rayertman

3 жыл бұрын

@@arthurmario5996 so you're saying that if you roll dice hundreds of millions of times they'll stand on their corners? That alone seem preposterous let alone likening that to massive amount of information required to all of the sudden be able to replicate. It's like saying , take all of the material needed to build a house and turn in a barrel for millions of years and expect a house to 'inevitably' appear, then expect the house to possess some kind of complex reproduction mechanism. A princess kissing a frog who turns into a prince is as unlikely after the 100 quintillionth time as it is the first time.

of course, we all believe what we believe. reasoning is irrelevant!

Lightening struck a mud puddle and one of two things happened. Either it instantly created a nearly immortal life form that lived long enough to learn to evolve, OR it created an instantly self replicating life form. Both of these are statistical impossibilities.

@fellowearthling4609

5 жыл бұрын

Or, it stimulated the organization of simple organic molecules already present in the puddle into more complex organic molecules and this happened over and over again until there was a surplus of more complex organic molecules on earth. and these go on to to react with each other until eventually you start to get molecules that can self replicate. And from there natural selection favors the more efficient self replicating molecules and this is where life probably originated from

@Samsara_is_dukkha

4 жыл бұрын

@@fellowearthling4609 Great speculation concerning the "how". Can you please speculate as to the "why"?

@fellowearthling4609

4 жыл бұрын

@@Samsara_is_dukkha there might not be a very satisfying reason. maybe it happens only because the laws of physics allow these natural processes to happen.

@marrrtin

4 жыл бұрын

"Instantly" isn't the claim made. Right at the beginning is Joyce's slide showing that the transition from prebiotic chemistry to RNA World took about 1 billion years.

@rayertman

3 жыл бұрын

@@fellowearthling4609 How do you get organic material in an environment void of life?

There's ahuge distance between chemical stuff and "LIFE". Otherwise, all perfect human body would never die. All chemicals needed are there. And this thought took, maybe, two cells in my brain to conceive it...

@sparky5584

4 жыл бұрын

And the conclusion you have drawn sounds like it came from a total of two brain cells.

This is so full of speculative nonsense you can't begin to take it seriously."just think of it as chemical co-operation."? There is no possible way chemicals fall together to form complex systems. Interesting that on a whim he can posit some kind of auto substitutions where bonds are broken and made and this once functional entity now disassembles to create another complex protein but never do you hear him provide at least a proposal of any kind of mechanism by which to inject some level of intellectual thought involved. Maybe he's not aware that we now understand there are vast numbers of regulatory systems involved with the operations of cell replication and other processes. The worst part of this is if he were to understand organic chemistry he would know that time is the ENEMY of organic synthesis rather than the hero of the plot.

@tothesciencemobile4707

4 жыл бұрын

1) What regulatory systems are you talking about? 2) What do they do in regards to cell replication specifically? 3a) Are you talking about modern cells or simpler primitive cells? 3b) If you're comparing modern cells to primitive ones how is that a fair comparison?

@rayertman

3 жыл бұрын

@@tothesciencemobile4707 You seem to have the impression that the 'primitive' cell is not highly complex. No one has even come close to even proposing a mechanism by which chemicals, reagents, reactants can auto assemble into complex systems, let alone the limited substances available on a prebiotic earth. So regulatory system must be present to direct assembly. We do not to my knowledge have a single example in nature of a living system that randomly mutates gaining functionality. Mutations never mutate 'up', in fact mutation always moves in the direction of extinction.

And this isn't as much "fantasy" as creation huh? I guess we forgot the meaning of religion.

@tothesciencemobile4707

4 жыл бұрын

Did he get something wrong in the video? I couldn't find anything wrong. Maybe you can help me with that.

Such a university style argument.. everything is already assumed who cares about the math right.