The manner in which he describes how once ribosomes proved to the the most efficient concept led to other options to die off leapt into my head as to what took place with home sapiens met other human forms, homo sapiens were the most efficient form ... and the others simply died off or became assimilated.
I think the key part is how it got to replication. As he says when you have replication it’s endless possibilities; but what conditions would cause it to happen? Saying it eventually got to replicate itself doesn’t give any insights.
i think it's quite simple actually, rna (in the form of protein after folding onto itself) will utilize and combine amino acids in the environment in any sort of random way + replicating itself in the form of a negative rna of itself (where mutations sometimes happen) which goes onto to make a replica(or a slightly mutated version) of the first pair. until an rna that can fold into a protein that serves its existence emerge. so the rna that better makes a replica of itself will persist in the environment and be more numerous. and once that happens an rna that can compete will arise from it by mutation( if a non useful mutation happens the new rna wont be competing ) or independently competing for resources(amino acids) in the environment. a chemical evolution and competition of sorts where it's just governed by the laws of chemistry. take my words with a grain of salt tho
What about the fact that we have tectonic plates and they get saturated with water in life and then put it under immense amounts of pressure and heat I believe complex life could’ve developed far below the surface and then been pushed out from random chance
It’s fascinating to me how many accomplished scientists with a ton under the hood, never investigate evolution enough to utilize it as an operating system, as a method of examination. Science of the last century was physics focused, it will be biology focused in this next one.
Why do scientists always seem to supplant the "How" with the "What" when "explaining" the evolution of life on Earth. They wouldn't dare do that for any other scientific discipline.
STOP, hold the phone.....at 2:20, his statement is purely subjective, we have NO WAY of knowing what we don't know and given the theory of evolution, which, that in an of itself would tell you through empirical physical evidence (required to prove a theory) that life outside the water HAS to be BETTER in order to survive and thrive otherwise the intelligent mass of singularity's wouldn't have selected this road to go down. If it is purely random, then the theory falls on its face immediately as randomness is not how theories are proven, they must adhere to a set of laws which are constant......Sir, you can't have it both ways as only one supports your theory, just something to chew on.
@Brian Meyers Thanks Brian! took your advice and my mind is now blown! the logical conclusion is a time paradox of the distant future. Where we go back in time and invent the beginning of life ourselves!! as good a guess as any I'd say
It’s astonishing how depraved we humans are; that we will go to the ends of the earth to avoid the elephant in the room. The truth above all truths. Almighty, eternal, un-created God created us. And we’re so depraved that we didn’t recognize Him when He walked the earth for 33 years.
ModestDeity It’s a fact that most of the discrete numbers of earth’s species are terrestrial and are insects. The ocean is more uniform in climate from one part to the next. Not mapping the entire ocean does not mean there are proportionally that many more undiscovered species. There is a lot less life in the cold depths and even with that they have discovered similar species across the ocean floor. There are more discrete species terrestrially is probably because there are more distinct pockets of habitats on land. But the difference between the species is concentrated in insects. Manolis point about ocean being more diverse is wrong because there are more species on land than in sea. But he’s right if he explained it as more diverse species, ie, the difference between the species is greater.
Focusing on this planet and the life on it,,,,theres definitely an intelligent design behind it,,down to the oxygen,the water,the air,,down to how the human body works,,that takes intelligence,,my opinion, theres definitely a higher intelligence behind our creation,,that comes before anything in my opinion Right down to our body,,I mean we have to go to learn about our own bodies we nothing about,we have to do to school college and university,,and google to learn about our own bodies,,were born into a body we know nothing about????????
So we don’t know based on facts.. but theoretically. Yet they don’t why life decided to come forth yet they don’t belive in God. To me life whether creation or evolution is a miracle either way. God is responsible.
"Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
Saddened to see a good scientist conveying such confidence in hypothesis that are actually not well supported, and glossing over all of the missing steps with a "materialism of the gaps" explanations.
What you just heard is pure conjecture, and mostly wishful thinking. Any attempt to reproduce this story will show that it is impossible for dead chemicals to arrange themselves as Kelli’s describes.
In 2015 scientists did produce DNA and RNA nucleotides from organic compounds. And in 1952 they also were able to produce amino acids from chemical reactions in a simulation of the early Earth. To be fair, it was later found out that those weren’t the exact conditions of the early Earth, however it still shows that organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganic precursors.
Hussain Alaithan www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-reproduces-the-building-blocks-of-life-in-laboratory That is the 2015 one. The 1952 experiment is called the Miller-Urey experiment - I couldn’t find the original paper, but you can corroborate the information for yourself. There’s a lot of information online.
@@SantiagoRK96 First off, thank you for this interesting source, and for the Miller-Urey experiment, no source is needed, because it is well known. Secondly, the source you provided doesn't say they produced RNA, it says they produced components of RNA/DNA in conditions found in space.
This is beautiful. Manolis Kellis conveys this abstract concept in such an elegant and simple to understand way. amazing!
This is the most amazing channel on the Internet.
2nd best buddy
Yours is 1st
Let's not get carried away
Huge new fan of Kellis
I'm so glad I found this channel
It's always more interesting to here from experts when they are passionate about their field.
Thx Lex & guest
I’m in nursing school and love microbiology. I love how he transcribed (transcription pun) this process. Thank your ribosomes everyday!
How old are if you don’t mind me asking? I’m interesting In maybe being a nurse , but I think I might be to young.
Sign language skills are top notch ;)
I know a lot about these general topics, yet I learned a lot of new things from him.
Manolis Kellis is AMAZING!!! What a mind!
perfect guest, bringing back wonder to life
My favorite guess thus far Lex. Keep up the great work...
The manner in which he describes how once ribosomes proved to the the most efficient concept led to other options to die off leapt into my head as to what took place with home sapiens met other human forms, homo sapiens were the most efficient form ... and the others simply died off or became assimilated.
Please get chandra wickramasinghe regarding panspermia and how it is not a silly theory..
These are great 👍
Only someone like Lex can process this information and be able to ask intelligent questions
So good I almost teared up. My appreciation for your dedication to this information & knowledge is huge. God bless you, both.
Replication, partitioning... I'm thinking deep about scaling a database system and those words are part of my actual daily thoughts🤔
this guy was good, very good speaker..
I think the key part is how it got to replication. As he says when you have replication it’s endless possibilities; but what conditions would cause it to happen? Saying it eventually got to replicate itself doesn’t give any insights.
A great question we will never have a definite answer to.
i think it's quite simple actually, rna (in the form of protein after folding onto itself) will utilize and combine amino acids in the environment in any sort of random way + replicating itself in the form of a negative rna of itself (where mutations sometimes happen) which goes onto to make a replica(or a slightly mutated version) of the first pair. until an rna that can fold into a protein that serves its existence emerge. so the rna that better makes a replica of itself will persist in the environment and be more numerous. and once that happens an rna that can compete will arise from it by mutation( if a non useful mutation happens the new rna wont be competing ) or independently competing for resources(amino acids) in the environment. a chemical evolution and competition of sorts where it's just governed by the laws of chemistry. take my words with a grain of salt tho
@@kataya5005 I still can't understand what was the necessity that forced all the processes.
@@AlexanderKKolarov what is the necessity of chemical reactions. non, just chemical reactions. why do chemical reactions happen? entropy.. i guess.
... "Sorry What?".. Thought I was the only one..
Thanks Lex
I would love Lex to discuss this origins of life w Dr Jim Tour see what happens
Wonderful story, few facts, not better than a shamanic hallucination.
I've watched this twice on main channel and now i'll do it third time here. THIS IS AWESOME.
What about the fact that we have tectonic plates and they get saturated with water in life and then put it under immense amounts of pressure and heat I believe complex life could’ve developed far below the surface and then been pushed out from random chance
Very interesting
You put "origin of life" in the title and suddenly the comments are full of religious nutcases.
Manolis Kellis: “You Know”
And "basically"...
It’s fascinating to me how many accomplished scientists with a ton under the hood, never investigate evolution enough to utilize it as an operating system, as a method of examination. Science of the last century was physics focused, it will be biology focused in this next one.
Water stores information too
Why do scientists always seem to supplant the "How" with the "What" when "explaining" the evolution of life on Earth. They wouldn't dare do that for any other scientific discipline.
3:20 in is when I realized it , fish boy
It all makes sense except Why life happened only ONCE on earth if it’s not God or meteor. Why we have only one tree of life? Anyone knows the answer?
well done
STOP, hold the phone.....at 2:20, his statement is purely subjective, we have NO WAY of knowing what we don't know and given the theory of evolution, which, that in an of itself would tell you through empirical physical evidence (required to prove a theory) that life outside the water HAS to be BETTER in order to survive and thrive otherwise the intelligent mass of singularity's wouldn't have selected this road to go down. If it is purely random, then the theory falls on its face immediately as randomness is not how theories are proven, they must adhere to a set of laws which are constant......Sir, you can't have it both ways as only one supports your theory, just something to chew on.
"I don't really have a scientific argument against panspermia so let's skip that one." LOL
It wasn't this way. More like the actuall question origin of life goes one step behind as it only solves origin of life on earth!
Lex: LISTEN. Go talk to Donald Hoffman from UCI.
I wonder what the odds are of a bunch of random chemicals turning into a ribosome or some rna? by the way I'm in way, way over my head here!
some kind of necessity, that I just can't find decent explanation for....
@@AlexanderKKolarov Is this where we slip "God" back in!? Isuppose my next question would be why would anything self organise at all?
@Brian Meyers Tour is amazing, bu some people will tell that he is bias because of his religious views
@Brian Meyers Thanks Brian! took your advice and my mind is now blown! the logical conclusion is a time paradox of the distant future. Where we go back in time and invent the beginning of life ourselves!! as good a guess as any I'd say
Sick.
Just another materialist confidence trickster - simple question - where does the information come from in the first place? And why is it functional?
You’re right. The only explanation is your invisible sky daddy.
So basically.....lol... Interesting talk, I do feel diversity above the surface is quite astonishing too
It was the annunaki
If science knew how life was created they would already replicated the process. But they can't even in controlled environment like laboratory.
You must not know about cloning
It’s astonishing how depraved we humans are; that we will go to the ends of the earth to avoid the elephant in the room. The truth above all truths. Almighty, eternal, un-created God created us. And we’re so depraved that we didn’t recognize Him when He walked the earth for 33 years.
No lie.... This is what I always thought.
RNA evolved from DNA first
nitrogen consumption was first.
✨
D makes more of G.
P makes more of S.
N makes more of H.
❤
How do you explain that 80% of the species on Earth are terrestrials. This takes into account undiscovered marine species.
ModestDeity It’s a fact that most of the discrete numbers of earth’s species are terrestrial and are insects. The ocean is more uniform in climate from one part to the next. Not mapping the entire ocean does not mean there are proportionally that many more undiscovered species. There is a lot less life in the cold depths and even with that they have discovered similar species across the ocean floor. There are more discrete species terrestrially is probably because there are more distinct pockets of habitats on land. But the difference between the species is concentrated in insects. Manolis point about ocean being more diverse is wrong because there are more species on land than in sea. But he’s right if he explained it as more diverse species, ie, the difference between the species is greater.
Focusing on this planet and the life on it,,,,theres definitely an intelligent design behind it,,down to the oxygen,the water,the air,,down to how the human body works,,that takes intelligence,,my opinion, theres definitely a higher intelligence behind our creation,,that comes before anything in my opinion
Right down to our body,,I mean we have to go to learn about our own bodies we nothing about,we have to do to school college and university,,and google to learn about our own bodies,,were born into a body we know nothing about????????
So we don’t know based on facts.. but theoretically. Yet they don’t why life decided to come forth yet they don’t belive in God.
To me life whether creation or evolution is a miracle either way. God is responsible.
"Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
And so the Ouroboros grows. Jörmungandr, from the sea, he too once came.
All mammals fish like we're once living on land. Will we be next?
Not single person understood this guy.
does he sleep in a suit?
Yea... his birthday suit
🥁
#GameOfLife #timephonehack
The problem with these theory(s) is too many missing links. The mutations are so drastic and so many.
Saddened to see a good scientist conveying such confidence in hypothesis that are actually not well supported, and glossing over all of the missing steps with a "materialism of the gaps" explanations.
“I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space.”
― Stephen Hawking
ungratefulmetalpansy Well that’s a little pessimistic.
his hands hairy af ngl
🦈?
When a scientist makes grandiose pronouncements about the universe the universe is obliged to prove him wrong.
I dont buy into this dude. Hes projecting a lot
maybe you are projecting a lot of him projecting a lot
@@drgryz a lot a lot ? True. It is a possibility that I will have to examine further. I shall study it and get back to you, friend.
What no Aliens came here and made us .
Panspermia is "silly" yet abiogenesis isn't? Pah!
What you just heard is pure conjecture, and mostly wishful thinking. Any attempt to reproduce this story will show that it is impossible for dead chemicals to arrange themselves as Kelli’s describes.
The earth's core energy does come from the sun. The sun heated the earth's core.
Talking as if RNA is easy or even possible to arise abiologically
@@4.0.4 You are making a fallacy here. Causality only works inside space-time, so, asking who created or made that being is a nonsensical question.
In 2015 scientists did produce DNA and RNA nucleotides from organic compounds. And in 1952 they also were able to produce amino acids from chemical reactions in a simulation of the early Earth. To be fair, it was later found out that those weren’t the exact conditions of the early Earth, however it still shows that organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganic precursors.
@@SantiagoRK96 link?
Hussain Alaithan www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-reproduces-the-building-blocks-of-life-in-laboratory
That is the 2015 one. The 1952 experiment is called the Miller-Urey experiment - I couldn’t find the original paper, but you can corroborate the information for yourself. There’s a lot of information online.
@@SantiagoRK96
First off, thank you for this interesting source, and for the Miller-Urey experiment, no source is needed, because it is well known. Secondly, the source you provided doesn't say they produced RNA, it says they produced components of RNA/DNA in conditions found in space.
This guys is an anti-tetrapodite.
Hate to say it but looking at the theories on how life started on Earth, the least outlandish claim is Genesis from the bible............
But Genesis in no way tells us how GOD created, just that HE did.
@@meangradin it tells us EXACTLY how God created, he spoke them into creation.
Your asking the wrong question
He thinks that live came from the ocean?! HA! He's got alot to learn.
Life started in space brother
How?
I think it's possible life could live in a space cloud
So basically
Abiogenesis is absurd
If you find this interesting, read the Bible. The TRUE origin of life!
Which particular bible? Which translation? Why not the Torah or the Quran?
jozas frogas KJV whichever you can read.
Ugh, don't fall for this. Check out my series Life Kills Atheism.
Bullshit no one knows how life began on earth.
this guy most of his theory is bullshit..humans started from ocean? seriously? thats bs..
Einstein didn’t kill himself