I remember in High School the teacher describing water as a solvent. Later water was described as a building block of life. I asked for clarification, I got back a blank stare and the subject was changed. Just thinking out loud...
As a stem cell biologist, I think it's so amazing that we still can learn so much about the origins of life. To think how such a beautiful structure like DNA is so stable but can also be slightly modify over time to allow evolution was created is just mind-boggling. Then we also have enzymes which catalyze concentrated reactions in our cells and allow us to create ordered structures in the unordered universe (I made a video about this). Just last week I had an online seminar given by a professor who's trying to create life forms from scratch and that research is so fascinating!
when you say scratch? are you saying taking the basic building blocks & putting it together? Are not the blocks something already provided? Would not the true sense from scratch be to create those building blocks in the first place?
I mean given all our knowledge & technology now vs the supposed primordial soup open to the chaotic changing environment surely we would of been able to ignite life by now?
So what I've learned from videos like this is that my body is 60% water, that water is technically lava and now, that we were "born" from radiation. I am a living lava creature born of radiation... I am an x-man😎
I'm going to be a pedant, sorry not sorry, the puddle analogy was featured in Douglas Adams's posthumously published book Salmon of Doubt not the Guide. We miss you Douglas ❤️
I was under the assumption that rockpools were already the general consensus, not the open ocean. That's what I was taught at university twenty years ago at least...
@@KRYMauL Yeah... that was also a recognised possibility twenty years ago, but I guess that still counts as new on the scale of the evolution of life. Also volcanic lakes, and comets.
@@greenisnotacreativecolour Actually I meant the most recent version of it that was given in cosmos possible worlds. The one I kept hearing in AP bio was that the chemicals just formed by hydrothermal vents, but they recently added that you need porous volcanic rock. Although, the Geyser hot springs makes far more sense than tadpools.
@Claire H Hydrogen it helps to know the answer, but more likely than not life was not an isolated event it was a series of events that converged. Also, panspermia is another origin that is possible even if it just kicks the can forward.
@Claire H Hydrogen I agree. Origin of life research is showing we need a mixture of Hot, ambient and very cold conditions along with dry, wet, and evaporating conditions as well as ingenious methods of refinement, filtration and vacuums to achieve some of the building blocks thought to be required for life. And these all have to be very close to each other for the chemicals to interact before they break down. I don't think they have any idea yet how the early earth made sugars thought to be essential for life. The early earth must have been very very clever.
This “water paradox” doesn’t exist. Yes it’s true water degraded proteins. But remember, the first “cell” (just RNA and phospholipids) had a phospholipid bilayer (precursor to the cell walls and cell membrane). This membrane of phosphates and lipids had a hydrophobic exterior that prevented water from entering and degrading the RNA and proteins.
Thats not true at all... First, we dont know If there was an initial phosfolipid bilayer. Life probably origined as something even more "simple" than a virus, so the initial coat could have been proteinic or even mineral or a combination of both... (Maybe phosphates as its seem they were pretty important)
Phospholipids would have come after a pure lipid bilayer vesicle "membrane" in the first protocell. Before that, naked strands of RNA might have replicated without protein or fatty acid coatings. RNA viruses are nucleic acid strands with protein coats (some also have phospholipid capsules derived from their victim cells' membranes). Life probably went through a membraneless phase.
I agree! Though personally I and many others professional scientists challenge the whole idea of evolution at all. Though this well grounded scientific view is constantly looked down on unfortunately.
In Buddhism the Lotus flower or “ flower of life “ is believe to come out of the mud . It’s how Lotus flowers grown for years, it’s believed through life situations we seek enlightenment . When we break through we bloom . ❤️
I'll bet the script say "... things that are making proteins, DNA and RNA." And she read it as "... things that are made of proteins, DNA and RNA." And nobody caught it.
@@garsayfsomali problem isn't to say we where created by a deity, after all may be we are, rather saying that we are created by "that" specific deity (abrahamic and so on) is problematic since it's disproven
@@sampajam6256 I couldn't compute that. You are comfortable with the possibility that we are created by a deity yet you're not allowing one to specify the deity.
Hasn't the "primordial soup" always been depicted in pools and shallow water? In movies it's always shown as some kind of bubbling pit not in the ocean...
Leave it to science to just throw their hands up and go, “well... you know it could’ve been this, but also could’ve been this, so we just really have no clue”
But remember, the oldest "enzymes" are in great part "ribozymes" made of RNA. This is the case for very conserved organuls like ribosomes (which sintetize proteins from RNA). So RNA replicating RNA was probably the original thing.
By FAR the most convincing scenario for abiogenesis I’ve heard involves alkaline hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, as laid out by people like Nick Lane, Mike Russel, and others. Through a process called serpentinization, ocean water is drawn into the mantle, heats up, reacts with the rock, and billows back up as hydrogen ions (protons) along with tons of dissolved minerals, which precipitate out to form the lattice-work, honeycombed vent structures. The mineral rich, ion rich brew flow through the millions of tiny chambers (which are about the size of single cells), a very interesting set of conditions are generated, namely a series of gradients between the inside of the vent and the ocean environment outside: a temperature gradient, a PH gradient, and a proton gradient. And it turns out the most fundamental thing about metabolism and energy use in all living organisms on earth - no exceptions - involves the use of a proton gradient across a membrane. The internal chambers also provide the ability for all kinds of molecules to accumulate in high concentrations. The vents provide an energy source and plausible explanations for many of the strange quirks of biology. It fits. A warm little mud puddle or tide pool or hot spring provides none of that.
At 1:40 you mention H2O breaking down molecules like proteins (hydrolysis), which is correct. However at 1:43 you mention that DNA nucleic acids (nucleotides) are also made of proteins... I hope you meant that proteins (enzymes like DNA polymerase) help form the DNA and RNA into specific sequences, rather than being made from them.
There’s nothing more refreshing than drinking cool water. I often look at it, perfectly clear and harmless looking, and wonder if it would be like drinking gasoline for an extraterrestrial.
I genuinely always thought the theory was that the building blocks of life began in small pools on the surface. Isn't that what we have been teaching for years?
@@MoCaineal and then taught, and then more is discovered, which is taught ontop of what was previously discovered and taught, thus the cycle continues.
Awesome video. The biggest question I still have is: "where did the instructions come from?" A couple of years after the famour Millar-Urey experiment made amino acid rich goo, Watson and Crick discovered DNA and found that not only do we need the "building blocks of life" but there are thousands of pages of instructions in each cell telling it how to construct a copy of itself! It's very interesting to hear how chemicals form and bond - but it still doesn't explain life. If a radio message reached us from Alpha Centauri with thousands of pages of instructions on how to make a machine beyond anything humans have ever built - I would not be satisfied with an expalination on how radio waves work and where Alpha Centauri is. - My question would still be: "Who sent us this information?"
The earliest life didn't even use DNA. And proto life certainly didn't and these things were WAY more primitive and simplistic than even the most basic single cellular life today. DNA (that huge instruction book we have today) evolved over a very long period of time as life became ever more complex.
@@drewrommel Life didn't simply appear with DNA ready to go. Unless you are suggesting panspermia which would have seeded life on earth from elsewhere. Though that DNA based life would have had to have evolved from something more simple. Or unless you're suggesting that some all powerful complex thinking doing entity just magically always existed outside of space and time, just.... because, and then magically poofed DNA-based life into existence. We don't know exactly how life on earth came about which is why it's an area of continual study that is getting ever closer to the answers. We're hypothesizing and even finding more ways to demonstrate how the building blocks of life can arise spontaneously though natural physical and chemical forces and then assemble themselves into ever more complex and presumably eventually self-replicating molecules though a process of 'natural-selection' not all that unlike the natural selection that allows life to change and become ever better at doing what it does over vast periods of time.
@@EmeraldView I think the complex thinking entity. It fits the evidence and requires less faith. Complex machines require intelligence. All our experience and experiments tells us this. it is scientific. (And we are talking about a machine more complex than anything humans have ever designed.) To imagine that it formed by - (as you seem to have faith in) a yet unknown accident that doesn't include a designer is ignoring the evidence. I follow the evidence. I don't have your faith.
“...now with nucleotides and protein and fat precursors we’ve got all the moving parts to get life going...” Not true, just having nucleotides, proteins and fats does not mean that they are automatically in any mechanical configuration. Having steel and rubber does not equate to a wheel and tyre. The bear minimum needed for life to get going is actually staggering complex and coordinated. You need an engine to produce the energy needed to overcome entropy (with all its many molecular machines to keep it running), a repair system (with all its many molecular machines to facilitate the reversal of wear and damage), and an information system to coordinate it all (with all its many molecular machines to read, write, copy, correct and process the highly specific information). That’s far from just nucleotides, proteins and lipids!
Yes I agree, but with billions of these chemical reactions happening, again and again. There is plenty of scope for those configurations to be drawn together naturally. Also it is happening repeatedly for billions of years. I mean we know it has happened, we are just working out the exact how, of it.
A puddle would be entirely too small. Maybe a secluded inlet with a stretch of alternating shady and sunlight areas. Maybe a lake. Puddle doesn't stick around long enough...but I can see where your mechanism of gradual unalterable approaching arid condition might eventually force basic-most living things to survive by way of the earlier dead used as shell protecting and or somehow going into recesses in the soil.
Video Summary: _for the science deniers eventually going to overwhelm this comment section And people just confused_ • UV radiation could have been the special factor that weighed in forming early remnants or nucleotide materials for the eventual formation of life. Scientists have confirmed that UV light helped in bringing together certain chemical molecules (which haven't been changed) and helped in forming 2 out of the 4 components necessary to build a nucleotide. The above research was infact done by dissolving the chemicals in water but the catch is it was in high concentrations. • the high concentration of the chemicals lead to a paradox in the theory that life formed in hot volcanic springs deep in the sea bed in the oceans and then formed in the sea then moved to land, But such a vast expanse like a sea would have been too much for high concentration of chemicals to have stayed in one place. • this leads to a theory or an update of the existing theory that life did evolve from water but maybe it was somewhere shallow and where a little water could have had high concentrations of early chemicals on earther that formed life and would have been exposed to UV radiation enough to have formed. Preferably an inland water way like a lake or a pond which could have even turned into a marshland or muddy area during wet dry cycles.. And for this exact environment life would have formed with a high concentration of chemicals dissolved in the water and sedimented in the land too, which would have been exposed to UV radiation to confirm the experiments •And even lipids could have been formed this way by the single cellular organisms to protect themselves during the drying cycle by forming an encasing lipid casing around its cell body so this theory seems plausible NOTE: NOT EVERYONE AGREES UPON THIS THEORY YET AND STUDIES ARE BEING DONE AND BIO GENESIS ENGINEERS ARE STILL SEARCHING FOR MORE EVIDENCE AND ALTERNATE REASONINGS LIKE HOT SPRING, SEA BED VOLCANIC ACTIVITY ETC. Conclusion: life did form on water, but where water was in small and shallow quantities, UV radiation played an important role in organising molecules for the first life forms, life could have formed in muddy hot springs, or lakes or inland ponds even then could have moved to the oceans or the puddles were near oceans that life migrated to ocean first and then to land too, the ocean theory is not completely debunked, but the present theory is highly likely, Science is a process. it's not an answer giving machine, it's a tool of understanding. first theory on life from ocean was presented in 1920s after 100 years it's natural and acceptable to have a better version of this theory. Stop denying Science.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +5
Curiously, in the final episode of Star Trek The Next Generation there was a multiple time travel arriving to the beginning of life on Earth... in a puddle. Also, a puddle makes sense. Quiet water, not strong currents and waves, make for a friendlier environment for tiny molecules to combine and work together as a living entity.
@@Hes1oscillations Technically, the mitochondria from the sperm actually goes into the zygote. It’s just that the mitochondria in the egg outnumbers the mitochondria in the sperm to a insane level so that the mitochondria from the sperm doesn’t really affect anything differently.
Are you talking about Cytoplasmic Inheritance. I learnt that it's only from maternal side(uniparental) i.e. only the Cytoplasmic genes (genes outside nucleus, as in mitochondria or chloroplast) from female gamete gets inherited as they are the max contributor of cytoplasm for zygote
No it's not lol it's based on the fibonacci sequence. It's just math that also appears in nature. It's definitely not all "myth". Where did you read that?
Wet dry cycling sounds probable to me. Way back when, it was was hotter, and lighting struck often. Think of it like tropical conditions but everywhere and more extreme. Giving the soil at the time exposure to pretty much every element. Volcano eruptions would have been common place too
when have you ever observed any puddle of goo that had any potential of itself? you cannot even drop DNA already formed in there, the DNA would be degraded into goo itself
I have a question: how is It possible to obtain nucleotides (which notoriously contains a phosphate group) by Only using CO, HCN and NO? I men, i see no phosporus in this reaction: is there something missing among reagents?
I think it takes a lot of time for a living phenomenon (self-replicating) to develop. But not only does it take time for a living phenomenon to develop, but also for the environment to be relatively stable during a given time of development. The gravity of Mars (by its mass) is too small to prevent the escape of the atmosphere and water. Therefore, there could not be a stable environment for the development of the living phenomenon for so long.
@@GOITERBALL Common sense believes that if someone rejects something without a reason, their opinion is weightless (in other words: if someone rejects something, they must come up with a reasonable alternative instead). Refusal without reasonable justification proves stupidity.
So is there a possibility that life has started on beaches? What a medaphor when you think about looking at the sea from the beach has such a calming effect.
I hate the beach. HATE. Sand is irritating disgusting and pointless, the smell is annoying and repetitive noise makes me want to break things. The beach isn’t calming for everyone
So the possible origin of life might have been around wetland-like areas and coasts, possibly even volcanic ones - which might have provided some of these essential building block. Always cool to see some kind of progress being made. Makes me feel like we aren't that far way from joining up those earliest missing links, from non-living matter to simple self replicating life. When do you think it'll happen?
Hey Seeker! I have a weird Question I need you to try and answer. We often hear in wildlife documentaries that different species have different mating seasons and different time it takes for the offspring to reach adulthood. I would like to know if humans ever followed such cycles and what impact it could have had on Evolution?
the main problem in Miller-Urey experiment is aminoacids doesn't form polypeptide chains in water or other solutions. The living cell to produce that kind of reactions spending a lot of energy and have a lot of other mechanisms to assist that process. So the question about position Miller-Urey experiment doesn't mean that it answers the question "how the life begins?". I'm sorry for mistakes if i made, i'm not write or speak english that much it's need to be.
This was taught in elementary school in the 90’s that this hypothesis was first raised by scientists in the 1800’s.Not sure why this video states this is a new idea.
I have been saying this for years. Everyone researching the origins of life seemed to forget that water dilutes chemicals, and breaks them down. Hot springs and thermal vents are too thermally active, violently mixing everything in a boiling solution that rapidly disperses chemicals. This sort of environment would not to allow the formation of complex compounds. My theory is that the primordial materials probably formed in a thermal region, much like Mammoth Springs at Yellowstone. You have slow-moving warm water loaded with chemicals moving through a series of terraced pools. The travertine deposits would also provide large surface areas and nooks and crannies for nascent life to develop while avoiding stagnation and the build-up of toxic/adversely reacting substances.
I'm still waiting for the day scientists have the A-Z product, or go through the ABC and show the world how they made their first living thing. I _hope_ it will be within my lifetime. Creationists will go nuts, but I guess they then will somewhat cool down, and say something like _"well it's not exactly a human",_ or something along those stupid lines. Abiogenesis is more or less religion's last stance. It would be fun to get rid of at least most of it.
@@adrianstoian2484 I don't have to. Already at Verse 3 is where the bible shows its _first_ spark_ of great ignorance. From there and onward, the bible truly _shines_ in this confident _unenlightened_ guesswork many believes to be revelation, but no. The bible does not have a clue about what light is, how it works or behaves or anything.
The attention-grabbing description is potentially misleading. Please change it. It should be made clear that we're talking about the very first lifeforms, because some might interpret that description as fish didn't crawl onto land, which the fossil evidence does support that they did.
Apart from a new theory about the beginning of human life, I learn that the Sun, UV rays, is also just as responsible for human life as land and the air.
Maybe I come from an alternate universe or something, but hasn't this been the implication of the Miller-Urey experiment all along? I'm 39, and I don't recall anyone ever thinking that the first life arose in the ocean proper. Everything I've ever read has suggested there would have to be shallow, concentrated pools .
Wait. You are saying that uv radiation coalesced inanimate material into the most complex system known in the universe. A living cell formed randomly and produced enough information by default to render the space shuttle no more than a mere childs toy in comparison. Finally!! A coherent and plausible explanation for the information mystery. Thanks!!!!
1:43: "things that are made of protein, like RNA and DNA..." No, RNA and DNA aren't proteins. They contain some amino-acids (namely, A, C, T andG and U), but they are mainly ribose (sugars) and phosphate groups.
If what your saying is true, mars can be a healthy place for life. Can you also explore a place called lonar lake which have diffrent organisms whose life has been thought to be alien in origin.
No, the DNA of the fish has changed and evolved a billion times until you. Reincarnation implies there was a "you" before, but in fact there's just you now, and before, no you.
Since there was no land above water when life began on earth I would say this one is pretty conclusively settled. Life started in water, as demonstrated by every piece of archeological and biological evidence without exception. This paper does absolutely nothing to make its case
@1:40 - correction: proteins are not made of nucleic acids, DNA and RNA are. Proteins are made from amino acids and these are joined together according to the nucleic acid programming in DNA/RNA.
![PURPEECH - นี่ฉันเองคนที่... (It's me) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NuhHd0hOOg8/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember in High School the teacher describing water as a solvent. Later water was described as a building block of life. I asked for clarification, I got back a blank stare and the subject was changed. Just thinking out loud...
Life was only made possible once a fatty membrane was formed in water. This part is already pretty well established.
a tip: you can watch series on flixzone. Me and my gf have been using it for watching loads of movies recently.
These people talking about flixzone all have accounts created one month ago. I’m reporting them
It can be both, no problem. Solvent in this instance just means a liquid where other substrates can act and do stuff
Not a bad question but one with an answer above a instructor's pay grade
now i understand my addiction to the shower, im just reliving my primordial wetandry cycle
Wow... You're clever... Like.... Drunk... Really drunk.. 😂
Or you're just into doing weird things under the shower ;)
hahahahahaha
@@RAMBO14001 dont we all
XD
As a stem cell biologist, I think it's so amazing that we still can learn so much about the origins of life. To think how such a beautiful structure like DNA is so stable but can also be slightly modify over time to allow evolution was created is just mind-boggling. Then we also have enzymes which catalyze concentrated reactions in our cells and allow us to create ordered structures in the unordered universe (I made a video about this). Just last week I had an online seminar given by a professor who's trying to create life forms from scratch and that research is so fascinating!
Unordered universe? Depends on your viewing angle, friend.
yeah it does make me laugh. I can see why people think the universe looks un-ordered but its crazily ordered.
when you say scratch? are you saying taking the basic building blocks & putting it together? Are not the blocks something already provided? Would not the true sense from scratch be to create those building blocks in the first place?
All micro states are equally probable*
I mean given all our knowledge & technology now vs the supposed primordial soup open to the chaotic changing environment surely we would of been able to ignite life by now?
So what I've learned from videos like this is that my body is 60% water, that water is technically lava and now, that we were "born" from radiation. I am a living lava creature born of radiation... I am an x-man😎
👍🏼🧛
wrong, you are a flesh machine coded with weird looking spin ladders operated by pinky think think jelly
Cue the x-men theme song .
@@Bestname_Ever I'm never calling brains anything other than pinky think think jelly now lol. Thank you😂😂😂🙌
@@vishank7 call it pinky thinky think jelly for the extra ✨ fabulous ✨
Ohh that puddle must be the one featured in Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy😂
If hitting a puddle with starlight is all it takes to jumpstart life then life must be in abundance in the cosmos.
42
@Matityahu a couple of 4s is 8... 2, 4s is also 8... But I'm still lost in infinity ♾️ 😂
I just found out that that was a book... Lol
@Matityahu lol that's cool, where did u learn that... Tell me what to Google :)
I'm going to be a pedant, sorry not sorry, the puddle analogy was featured in Douglas Adams's posthumously published book Salmon of Doubt not the Guide. We miss you Douglas ❤️
I was under the assumption that rockpools were already the general consensus, not the open ocean. That's what I was taught at university twenty years ago at least...
One of the newer ideas is that life started in hydrothermal vents.
@@KRYMauL Yeah... that was also a recognised possibility twenty years ago, but I guess that still counts as new on the scale of the evolution of life. Also volcanic lakes, and comets.
@@greenisnotacreativecolour Actually I meant the most recent version of it that was given in cosmos possible worlds. The one I kept hearing in AP bio was that the chemicals just formed by hydrothermal vents, but they recently added that you need porous volcanic rock.
Although, the Geyser hot springs makes far more sense than tadpools.
@Claire H Hydrogen it helps to know the answer, but more likely than not life was not an isolated event it was a series of events that converged. Also, panspermia is another origin that is possible even if it just kicks the can forward.
@Claire H Hydrogen
I agree. Origin of life research is showing we need a mixture of Hot, ambient and very cold conditions along with dry, wet, and evaporating conditions as well as ingenious methods of refinement, filtration and vacuums to achieve some of the building blocks thought to be required for life.
And these all have to be very close to each other for the chemicals to interact before they break down.
I don't think they have any idea yet how the early earth made sugars thought to be essential for life.
The early earth must have been very very clever.
According to John and Dave, The 'special' sauce was in fact soy sauce.
So this "soy-boy" thing is just nature and inevitable? lol
omg thats hilarious! At first I was like WTF then I remember...I love that film!
or was it? #vsauce
@@themoonsbluelight Rick Sanchez approves this message
@@pauldolton9118 The Book is way better. You need to read it, as the movie only showed so much, and it's an entire series
This “water paradox” doesn’t exist. Yes it’s true water degraded proteins. But remember, the first “cell” (just RNA and phospholipids) had a phospholipid bilayer (precursor to the cell walls and cell membrane). This membrane of phosphates and lipids had a hydrophobic exterior that prevented water from entering and degrading the RNA and proteins.
Thats not true at all... First, we dont know If there was an initial phosfolipid bilayer. Life probably origined as something even more "simple" than a virus, so the initial coat could have been proteinic or even mineral or a combination of both... (Maybe phosphates as its seem they were pretty important)
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit.
@@Hansulf you should really work with me.
@@brandonsballing826 what do you mean? Btw, nice Playlist you got there.
Phospholipids would have come after a pure lipid bilayer vesicle "membrane" in the first protocell. Before that, naked strands of RNA might have replicated without protein or fatty acid coatings. RNA viruses are nucleic acid strands with protein coats (some also have phospholipid capsules derived from their victim cells' membranes).
Life probably went through a membraneless phase.
Ok this is really cool. I love seeing ideas that challenge established ideas!
Awesome to see you here!
I agree! Though personally I and many others professional scientists challenge the whole idea of evolution at all. Though this well grounded scientific view is constantly looked down on unfortunately.
@@BradleyAndrew_TheVexis I hope you have some peer-reviewed studies to back up what you just said or you're going to look like a complete idiot.
@@jonathanromero5289 Cheers Jonathan!
@@BradleyAndrew_TheVexis Yeah I'm with Kieran on this: what are you referring to and do you have scientific papers?
"Sum stuff growing in a puddle" will be my graduation quote
If you plan to go to college, go with this instead:
"Some stuff growing in a puddle."
I always assumed life began in the mud. This video doesn't say that, but does make me think it even more.
On the contrary... life isn’t what we think it is 😉. June 1st. Brace for impact.
In Buddhism the Lotus flower or “ flower of life “ is believe to come out of the mud . It’s how Lotus flowers grown for years, it’s believed through life situations we seek enlightenment . When we break through we bloom . ❤️
"from dust you are born and to dust you shall return"
@@bp3188 on the contrary.. from light, you will perceive. In consciousness you will know. 😉
I don't know if mud and clay are the same but, yeah, pretty much (sort of) - montmorillonite clay specifically.
Slight error at 1:38 nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) aren't made of protein. Great video still, thanks!
I'll bet the script say "... things that are making proteins, DNA and RNA." And she read it as "... things that are made of proteins, DNA and RNA." And nobody caught it.
My theory is we were created by aliens as a science project. Now we are the most popular channel on their comedy channel network.
ironic if you were to say we were created by a diety then you would be attacked
Not impossible
So you believe in panspermia theory.
@@garsayfsomali problem isn't to say we where created by a deity, after all may be we are, rather saying that we are created by "that" specific deity (abrahamic and so on) is problematic since it's disproven
@@sampajam6256 I couldn't compute that.
You are comfortable with the possibility that we are created by a deity yet you're not allowing one to specify the deity.
My cousin definitely came from a puddle. You need to see this dude to really understand.
Hasn't the "primordial soup" always been depicted in pools and shallow water? In movies it's always shown as some kind of bubbling pit not in the ocean...
Leave it to science to just throw their hands up and go, “well... you know it could’ve been this, but also could’ve been this, so we just really have no clue”
Exactly
Yeah, that's why its always better to make something up and say Magic!!
@@alexalcan Where do you think evolution came from?
".. not everyone is in agreement on this."
Understatement of a lifetime.
1:40
What? Nucleic acids aren't made of proteins.
Histones are proteins though
@@gynaecographer
Histones aren't part of nucleic acids though. They're just associated proteins.
But remember, the oldest "enzymes" are in great part "ribozymes" made of RNA. This is the case for very conserved organuls like ribosomes (which sintetize proteins from RNA). So RNA replicating RNA was probably the original thing.
Correct but nucleic acids are made by proteins. Maybe she said 'of' instead of 'by' by mistake.
By FAR the most convincing scenario for abiogenesis I’ve heard involves alkaline hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, as laid out by people like Nick Lane, Mike Russel, and others. Through a process called serpentinization, ocean water is drawn into the mantle, heats up, reacts with the rock, and billows back up as hydrogen ions (protons) along with tons of dissolved minerals, which precipitate out to form the lattice-work, honeycombed vent structures.
The mineral rich, ion rich brew flow through the millions of tiny chambers (which are about the size of single cells), a very interesting set of conditions are generated, namely a series of gradients between the inside of the vent and the ocean environment outside: a temperature gradient, a PH gradient, and a proton gradient. And it turns out the most fundamental thing about metabolism and energy use in all living organisms on earth - no exceptions - involves the use of a proton gradient across a membrane. The internal chambers also provide the ability for all kinds of molecules to accumulate in high concentrations. The vents provide an energy source and plausible explanations for many of the strange quirks of biology. It fits. A warm little mud puddle or tide pool or hot spring provides none of that.
A bit vague, don't you think?
interesting theory, kudos
Listen to Dr James Tour you will the get the real answer
Nobody really know how life started
great video. I'm a high school biology teacher and will definitely add this to my Miller-Urey experiment lesson. Thanks for the clear explanation.
Voice 10 out of 10. Damn she sounds wholesome.
At 1:40 you mention H2O breaking down molecules like proteins (hydrolysis), which is correct. However at 1:43 you mention that DNA nucleic acids (nucleotides) are also made of proteins... I hope you meant that proteins (enzymes like DNA polymerase) help form the DNA and RNA into specific sequences, rather than being made from them.
Love her enthusiasm when she is talking about all of this exciting stuff!
There’s nothing more refreshing than drinking cool water. I often look at it, perfectly clear and harmless looking, and wonder if it would be like drinking gasoline for an extraterrestrial.
I genuinely always thought the theory was that the building blocks of life began in small pools on the surface. Isn't that what we have been teaching for years?
Truth isn't taught, it's discovered.
@@MoCaineal and then taught, and then more is discovered, which is taught ontop of what was previously discovered and taught, thus the cycle continues.
It is.
Yeah and it's been wrong since 1952. Playing catch up much?
Awesome video.
The biggest question I still have is: "where did the instructions come from?"
A couple of years after the famour Millar-Urey experiment made amino acid rich goo, Watson and Crick discovered DNA and found that not only do we need the "building blocks of life" but there are thousands of pages of instructions in each cell telling it how to construct a copy of itself!
It's very interesting to hear how chemicals form and bond - but it still doesn't explain life.
If a radio message reached us from Alpha Centauri with thousands of pages of instructions on how to make a machine beyond anything humans have ever built - I would not be satisfied with an expalination on how radio waves work and where Alpha Centauri is. - My question would still be: "Who sent us this information?"
The earliest life didn't even use DNA. And proto life certainly didn't and these things were WAY more primitive and simplistic than even the most basic single cellular life today. DNA (that huge instruction book we have today) evolved over a very long period of time as life became ever more complex.
@@EmeraldView How do you know that? What is the scientific evidence? Has it been demonstrated or observed?
@@drewrommel Life didn't simply appear with DNA ready to go. Unless you are suggesting panspermia which would have seeded life on earth from elsewhere. Though that DNA based life would have had to have evolved from something more simple. Or unless you're suggesting that some all powerful complex thinking doing entity just magically always existed outside of space and time, just.... because, and then magically poofed DNA-based life into existence.
We don't know exactly how life on earth came about which is why it's an area of continual study that is getting ever closer to the answers. We're hypothesizing and even finding more ways to demonstrate how the building blocks of life can arise spontaneously though natural physical and chemical forces and then assemble themselves into ever more complex and presumably eventually self-replicating molecules though a process of 'natural-selection' not all that unlike the natural selection that allows life to change and become ever better at doing what it does over vast periods of time.
@@EmeraldView I think the complex thinking entity. It fits the evidence and requires less faith.
Complex machines require intelligence. All our experience and experiments tells us this. it is scientific. (And we are talking about a machine more complex than anything humans have ever designed.)
To imagine that it formed by - (as you seem to have faith in) a yet unknown accident that doesn't include a designer is ignoring the evidence. I follow the evidence. I don't have your faith.
“...now with nucleotides and protein and fat precursors we’ve got all the moving parts to get life going...”
Not true, just having nucleotides, proteins and fats does not mean that they are automatically in any mechanical configuration. Having steel and rubber does not equate to a wheel and tyre.
The bear minimum needed for life to get going is actually staggering complex and coordinated. You need an engine to produce the energy needed to overcome entropy (with all its many molecular machines to keep it running), a repair system (with all its many molecular machines to facilitate the reversal of wear and damage), and an information system to coordinate it all (with all its many molecular machines to read, write, copy, correct and process the highly specific information). That’s far from just nucleotides, proteins and lipids!
Yes I agree, but with billions of these chemical reactions happening, again and again. There is plenty of scope for those configurations to be drawn together naturally. Also it is happening repeatedly for billions of years.
I mean we know it has happened, we are just working out the exact how, of it.
Since the 80s I have never heard that life started in the ocean and crawled on land. It was always speculated to be a puddle.
A puddle would be entirely too small.
Maybe a secluded inlet with a stretch of alternating shady and sunlight areas.
Maybe a lake.
Puddle doesn't stick around long enough...but I can see where your mechanism of gradual unalterable approaching arid condition might eventually force basic-most living things to survive by way of the earlier dead used as shell protecting and or somehow going into recesses in the soil.
@@lancethrustworthy I think a lake would still be too much water. Guess again.
The first land dwelling vertabrates crawled from an ocean, the first life may have started in a puddle
@S Gloval I think they said in the video that a puddle in a wet dry cycle could make life
I am glad I am not the only one!
Cool Fibonacci necklace!
Saw it on an IG store some years back. Pretty cool.
Video Summary:
_for the science deniers eventually going to overwhelm this comment section
And people just confused_
• UV radiation could have been the special factor that weighed in forming early remnants or nucleotide materials for the eventual formation of life.
Scientists have confirmed that UV light helped in bringing together certain chemical molecules (which haven't been changed) and helped in forming 2 out of the 4 components necessary to build a nucleotide.
The above research was infact done by dissolving the chemicals in water but the catch is it was in high concentrations.
• the high concentration of the chemicals lead to a paradox in the theory that life formed in hot volcanic springs deep in the sea bed in the oceans and then formed in the sea then moved to land,
But such a vast expanse like a sea would have been too much for high concentration of chemicals to have stayed in one place.
• this leads to a theory or an update of the existing theory that life did evolve from water but maybe it was somewhere shallow and where a little water could have had high concentrations of early chemicals on earther that formed life and would have been exposed to UV radiation enough to have formed.
Preferably an inland water way like a lake or a pond which could have even turned into a marshland or muddy area during wet dry cycles..
And for this exact environment life would have formed with a high concentration of chemicals dissolved in the water and sedimented in the land too, which would have been exposed to UV radiation to confirm the experiments
•And even lipids could have been formed this way by the single cellular organisms to protect themselves during the drying cycle by forming an encasing lipid casing around its cell body so this theory seems plausible
NOTE: NOT EVERYONE AGREES UPON THIS THEORY YET AND STUDIES ARE BEING DONE AND BIO GENESIS ENGINEERS ARE STILL SEARCHING FOR MORE EVIDENCE AND ALTERNATE REASONINGS LIKE HOT SPRING, SEA BED VOLCANIC ACTIVITY ETC.
Conclusion: life did form on water, but where water was in small and shallow quantities,
UV radiation played an important role in organising molecules for the first life forms,
life could have formed in muddy hot springs,
or lakes or inland ponds even then could have moved to the oceans or the puddles were near oceans that life migrated to ocean first and then to land too,
the ocean theory is not completely debunked,
but the present theory is highly likely,
Science is a process. it's not an answer giving machine, it's a tool of understanding. first theory on life from ocean was presented in 1920s after 100 years it's natural and acceptable to have a better version of this theory. Stop denying Science.
Curiously, in the final episode of Star Trek The Next Generation there was a multiple time travel arriving to the beginning of life on Earth... in a puddle.
Also, a puddle makes sense. Quiet water, not strong currents and waves, make for a friendlier environment for tiny molecules to combine and work together as a living entity.
An experiment I want them to make a video on is “Biparental mtDNA inheritance”.
Ooh does the mitochondria from the sperm cell get inherited or something?
@@Hes1oscillations Technically, the mitochondria from the sperm actually goes into the zygote. It’s just that the mitochondria in the egg outnumbers the mitochondria in the sperm to a insane level so that the mitochondria from the sperm doesn’t really affect anything differently.
@Rick Sanchez HALF SISTER
Are you talking about Cytoplasmic Inheritance. I learnt that it's only from maternal side(uniparental) i.e. only the Cytoplasmic genes (genes outside nucleus, as in mitochondria or chloroplast) from female gamete gets inherited as they are the max contributor of cytoplasm for zygote
Add in antigen responses and also look at Sanger and Margulis
Life comes from a teenagers bedroom. Just look under their bed, lots of things growing under there!
Jokes on you I sleep on the floor.😝😝
@@winston8762 sorry to hear that. Maybe see your local council for any hostels that could give you a bed.
I'm confused wdym.
Crusty socks.
@@dreadnoughtus2598 some people like sleeping on the floor
I still don't understand how the universe came to be. How can there be something when there is absolutely nothing?
LOL. Now this gives a new twist to Douglas Adams' "Sentient Puddle" fable.
Still doesn't disprove the notion that fish crawl out of water because the oceans are too wet.
Her voice makes me feel safe
That charm on her neck is the key.
The Golden Ratio: symbol is on your neck ? Nice necklace :)
She got fat
@@arisoda was pregnant
A bit cringe when you realize the golden ratio is a complete myth
No it's not lol it's based on the fibonacci sequence. It's just math that also appears in nature. It's definitely not all "myth". Where did you read that?
@@juli-321 if u look for 23 u will find it
Wet dry cycling sounds probable to me. Way back when, it was was hotter, and lighting struck often. Think of it like tropical conditions but everywhere and more extreme. Giving the soil at the time exposure to pretty much every element. Volcano eruptions would have been common place too
Ha. The series finally of Star Trek: The Next Generation nailed it. Small puddles of goo!
when have you ever observed any puddle of goo that had any potential of itself? you cannot even drop DNA already formed in there, the DNA would be degraded into goo itself
I was thinking about that glad someone also did to
I have a question: how is It possible to obtain nucleotides (which notoriously contains a phosphate group) by Only using CO, HCN and NO? I men, i see no phosporus in this reaction: is there something missing among reagents?
I think they added phosphorus later
Yeah not nucleotides, probably made bases and some sugars.
Because H+2O = H20 (water)
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit.
I think it takes a lot of time for a living phenomenon (self-replicating) to develop. But not only does it take time for a living phenomenon to develop, but also for the environment to be relatively stable during a given time of development.
The gravity of Mars (by its mass) is too small to prevent the escape of the atmosphere and water. Therefore, there could not be a stable environment for the development of the living phenomenon for so long.
Wrong
@@GOITERBALL Common sense believes that if someone rejects something without a reason, their opinion is weightless (in other words: if someone rejects something, they must come up with a reasonable alternative instead).
Refusal without reasonable justification proves stupidity.
@@LaszloToth55 wrong
@@GOITERBALL So I wasn't wrong :D
So is there a possibility that life has started on beaches? What a medaphor when you think about looking at the sea from the beach has such a calming effect.
hmmm, make sense
Life’s a beach!
I hate the beach. HATE. Sand is irritating disgusting and pointless, the smell is annoying and repetitive noise makes me want to break things. The beach isn’t calming for everyone
@@codename495 you might have some problems you need to work out lmao
@@codename495 Calm down anakin sandhater
So the possible origin of life might have been around wetland-like areas and coasts, possibly even volcanic ones - which might have provided some of these essential building block. Always cool to see some kind of progress being made. Makes me feel like we aren't that far way from joining up those earliest missing links, from non-living matter to simple self replicating life. When do you think it'll happen?
Outside of Scripture, no one knows how life can arise from lifeless chemicals and such. No ideas are being seriously looked at.
Thats so smart!
"Some researchers have ", " Researchers think " Girl, WHO?? Citing sources is one of the most important parts of scientific reporting and
WHO? Dr. Who while listening to The Who - _that's_ who
The video you are referring to ... 5:55 doesn't show up. Is it the one at 6:02 ? Or, could you put it in the Description too?
Hey Seeker! I have a weird Question I need you to try and answer.
We often hear in wildlife documentaries that different species have different mating seasons and different time it takes for the offspring to reach adulthood.
I would like to know if humans ever followed such cycles and what impact it could have had on Evolution?
the main problem in Miller-Urey experiment is aminoacids doesn't form polypeptide chains in water or other solutions. The living cell to produce that kind of reactions spending a lot of energy and have a lot of other mechanisms to assist that process. So the question about position Miller-Urey experiment doesn't mean that it answers the question "how the life begins?". I'm sorry for mistakes if i made, i'm not write or speak english that much it's need to be.
This video is incredibly misleading and ignorant.
Not one mention of ancient aliens. 0/10
We have been wrong about every single thing since the dawn of history. This is why I discourage hypothesis's formed out of self bias.
Thank you for seeking out the latest and greatest in research for us!
What research...not a single citation.
Excellent video-documentary. Great delivery!
I vote hot spring! Many other organic molecules could've started near some. 😅
Seeker going beyond expectations as always
Seeken provides both knowledge and entertainment at the same time in the most SCIENTIFIC way!
thank you. this video was awesome
This changes how we think of the origin of life. Seek more answers indeed.
The problem with the possibility that life also originated on Mars is that materials go back and forth all of the time from Mars to Earth.
Mid latter part of the video about "bubblin' up brew" made me think about the theme song the "Beverly Hillbillies" tv show.
This was taught in elementary school in the 90’s that this hypothesis was first raised by scientists in the 1800’s.Not sure why this video states this is a new idea.
Fascinating..
I have been saying this for years. Everyone researching the origins of life seemed to forget that water dilutes chemicals, and breaks them down. Hot springs and thermal vents are too thermally active, violently mixing everything in a boiling solution that rapidly disperses chemicals. This sort of environment would not to allow the formation of complex compounds. My theory is that the primordial materials probably formed in a thermal region, much like Mammoth Springs at Yellowstone. You have slow-moving warm water loaded with chemicals moving through a series of terraced pools. The travertine deposits would also provide large surface areas and nooks and crannies for nascent life to develop while avoiding stagnation and the build-up of toxic/adversely reacting substances.
Shock of shocks, we dont know an unknowable thing. This is called humility, people.
They will likely know in the not so distant future
unknowable things? what a weird concept of saying you’re religious...
@@Bestname_Ever what are you even trying to say? Im not religious
@@Bestname_Ever So you mean to say you're furnished with a time machine?
@@thstroyur and what’s that supposed to mean? do you furnish your house with thermometers?
The U-M experiment never suggested that chemia evolution took place in an ocean when earth was primordial.
Creationists are punching air rn
I'm still waiting for the day scientists have the A-Z product, or go through the ABC and show the world how they made their first living thing. I _hope_ it will be within my lifetime. Creationists will go nuts, but I guess they then will somewhat cool down, and say something like _"well it's not exactly a human",_ or something along those stupid lines. Abiogenesis is more or less religion's last stance. It would be fun to get rid of at least most of it.
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit.
@@adrianstoian2484 I don't have to. Already at Verse 3 is where the bible shows its _first_ spark_ of great ignorance. From there and onward, the bible truly _shines_ in this confident _unenlightened_ guesswork many believes to be revelation, but no. The bible does not have a clue about what light is, how it works or behaves or anything.
Mud is possible but I wouldn’t rule out the bacteria near volcanic vents
I need me a real big glass of Kool-aid now. ahhhh...Oh Yeahhh!!!
The attention-grabbing description is potentially misleading. Please change it. It should be made clear that we're talking about the very first lifeforms, because some might interpret that description as fish didn't crawl onto land, which the fossil evidence does support that they did.
Thank you seeker 😁
Apart from a new theory about the beginning of human life, I learn that the Sun, UV rays, is also just as responsible for human life as land and the air.
Fascinating! 😃👍🏼
If only we gave this much time...effort and money to making this planet a balanced habitat.
🤯 mind boggling. Could life have formed in different places on heart. I love this theory. It brings everything required to life
Thank you
Yes, but maybe our ancestor or from the same 'puddle' in life family tree is the only one who survived today
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit.
We can’t figure out war , much less life and consciousness.
Hey now i see that golden ration necklace
We're wrong about everything, just less wrong than yesterday. Time to embace it.
Temperature and static charge to stimulate chemical interactions and bonding along with energy from UV radiation.
Maybe I come from an alternate universe or something, but hasn't this been the implication of the Miller-Urey experiment all along? I'm 39, and I don't recall anyone ever thinking that the first life arose in the ocean proper. Everything I've ever read has suggested there would have to be shallow, concentrated pools .
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit.
Woow stunning content 👏
Wait. You are saying that uv radiation coalesced inanimate material into the most complex system known in the universe. A living cell formed randomly and produced enough information by default to render the space shuttle no more than a mere childs toy in comparison. Finally!! A coherent and plausible explanation for the information mystery. Thanks!!!!
Life is conscious without beginning and end
1:43: "things that are made of protein, like RNA and DNA..." No, RNA and DNA aren't proteins. They contain some amino-acids (namely, A, C, T andG and U), but they are mainly ribose (sugars) and phosphate groups.
Also she misspelled "abiogenesis" a bit earlier; glad other people got these mistakes...
“It didn’t come from a pool of water, it came from a puddle.”
Great episode.
I love the content 🔥💯
i love her voice, so crisp
If what your saying is true, mars can be a healthy place for life.
Can you also explore a place called lonar lake which have diffrent organisms whose life has been thought to be alien in origin.
Could you please do a video about the oldest rocks and tell us about them? That would rock, no pun intended it just worked out that way lol
I was once a fish 🐟. I have reincarnated an endless amount if times.🕜
You sure you aren't a clownfish?
@@raunaklanjewar677 You sure you aren't a clown? Or a clone? Or just a colon?
You were once a star too and we were one. This timeline rocks, life is amazing
Psssh only a fish I was once a sponge like tube on the bottom of the ocean way before fish Existed
No, the DNA of the fish has changed and evolved a billion times until you. Reincarnation implies there was a "you" before, but in fact there's just you now, and before, no you.
So life formed as a terrarium, not an aquarium.
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video. The video is convincing and logical. Many thanks for the links to the papers.
Listen to Dr James Tour you will be pleased
Since there was no land above water when life began on earth I would say this one is pretty conclusively settled. Life started in water, as demonstrated by every piece of archeological and biological evidence without exception. This paper does absolutely nothing to make its case
Fascinating. Just fascinating!
Hi Richard....
🖖
They've found that water trickling through volcanic glass creates RNA fairly quickly.
thank you Maren and all the team for this fascinating video. Do any of you guys have some suggestions on books regarding this topic?
@1:40 - correction: proteins are not made of nucleic acids, DNA and RNA are. Proteins are made from amino acids and these are joined together according to the nucleic acid programming in DNA/RNA.
Not a biology or chemistry student but you need to know everything about the system and surrounding ..
Think so 🤔
In 20 years from now another theory will come about