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?
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 ❤️
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 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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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...
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.
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 . ❤️
“...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.
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?
@@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
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
I'm suprised there are so few "But but Butt Jebus did it" or "muh holy book says" people in the comments. Are we finally getting to a point where people have a basic education?
Meh - 'fraid not; considering we still feel the need to misrepresent and mock others' beliefs for no better reason than the satisfaction of doing so, I reckon we're still a _looong_ ways off...
@@thstroyur Well we mock bad, harmfull, immoral and silly beliefs partly because its fun. But mostly because its better to point out just how stupid, bad, harmfull, immoral and silly those beliefs are.
@@themplar "Well we mock bad, harmfull, immoral and silly beliefs partly because its fun" Why, me too - wotta coinkydinky; know what else is fun and games? Making assertions without bothering to justify 'em. It's a little bit more challenging, to quote _Full Metal Jacket _ , to "walk the walk", tho. For instance, when we make a claim that something is bad, harmful, and/or immoral, it'd be rather stupid and silly of us to not have an objective standard to measure that which doesn't boil down to our subjective preferences - otherwise, our learned opinion would be no more noteworthy than our favorite ice cream flavor. Well, Poindexter - would you happen to have one of those handy?
Aww I thought they would admit they finally found out life was designed and created by a inteligent being. Was kind of disappointed. At least, it shows that "theories" scientist threat as fact can be totally wrong. Soon, the rest of evolutionary "theories" will be contradicted.
"Soon, the rest of evolutionary "theories" will be contradicted." Not unless you et al can demonstrate that chain reactions [domino cascades] leading to *_variation and bottlenecks_* isn't happening.
Of course theres gonna be some wrong theories, that's what science is about. If it doesnt work, try something new until it works and you'll get the answer. I doubt some random bearded dude created us sorry.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit. In the Genesis you can find what they are triyng to discover...
@@adrianstoian2484 Unfortunately, you're not speaking the language that most people steeped on secular language and values understand; you might want to step up your apologetics game (assuming that's a concern here), bro...
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 .
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.
Wow. this was mentioned in Quran 14 hundred years ago. Then inquire of them, [O Muhammad], "Are they more difficult creation or those [others] We have created?" Indeed, We created them from sticky clay.
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit. In the Genesis you can find what they are triyng to discover...
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.
@@miko5167 Nah, I don't care about Alyx, since I already got all the certainty I need already with the advent of nuclear fusion and the launch of the James Webb Telescope.
life-building blocks ... cells precursor ... sound a tiny leap to life itself , but hey to build life from those building blocks you need an intelligence far more extraordinary than what we can imagine .
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
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.
One thing that I can't understand is how can the DNA code operate on its own? Who is the one that gives instruction to make DNA perform tasks? I think its the mitochondria, because mitochondria is a living organism with its own nucleus inside every cell of plants and animals. The viruses are like computer software updates, and the nucleus with DNA is the computer in every cell.
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.
Yes, and as the moon gradually got further from Earth, tide conditions gradually grew weaker, water getting shallower and further away, half walking half swimming organisms survived on the land, and some of those survivors were carried out to sea. Some of those survivors wound up going back and forth, land to water, water to land. This could also be the other way around, but more than likely it's a combo of both ideas, life starting on land and sea, both can be seen as raw material generators and as life form assembly plant/proving ground.
At 1:44 you say DNA / RNA are made of proteins, not sure if you meant to say they are made BY proteins. But even so, according to the RNA world hypothesis life started as RNA and RNA only, and only later different cell functions were taken up by more stable DNA and more versatile proteins. As far as I know the RNA world hypothesis is relatively widely accepted.
RNA is very unstable. It needs to be stored in freezing conditions to last around 80 days. At room temperature it lasts around 2 days. RNA also has a mass transfer problem for self replication. The best we have seen in the lab under carefully controlled conditions which were unavailable on the early earth is around 7%. Nowhere near enough to be self replicating.
I love how you call a quess work, science... So based on your today's observation you think you could accurately guess how life started billion of years ago... Let me correct you, scientist ARE wrong about what they are guessing and will be wrong about all guess works that they falsely call it science.
Science is always about approximating truth through progressive and accumulative guesswork. You are now using the internet, which is a RESULT of that process. Also all of modern medicine, airplanes, etc. I hope you didn't think knowlege can be attained via just imagining it. Only little children think that.
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.
So of the complexity level seen in the simplest cell, about how much do these experiments cover? 1%? Or more like 0.0000001%? Videos like these are so misleading....seeming to indicate that we know more than we really do
Do we know what the prebiotic atmospheric composition was like? Do we know the target environment in which life would originate for the presented research? Did the researchers successfully simulate these prebiotic conditions, or did they just run the chemistry at 1 atm and ambient temp? Also, was the nucleotide synthesis conducted in bulk solution, or was this chemistry generated in microdroplets (these can result in vastly different resulting chemistries). If the synthesis was performed in microdroplets, what was the temp of the solution during the reaction? The ambiguity in your title is vital. However, this video still gets my blood boiling for some reason.
Honestly it’s ignorant to believe our science is and has been correct all this time. When in reality our modern science is quite new, only ~100 years of using the scientific thinking we use today
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit. In the Genesis you can find what they are triyng to discover...
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
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
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?
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 ❤️
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
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 ✨
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?
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.
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.
This video is incredibly misleading and ignorant.
Not one mention of ancient aliens. 0/10
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
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Cool Fibonacci necklace!
Saw it on an IG store some years back. Pretty cool.
“...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.
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
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
My cousin definitely came from a puddle. You need to see this dude to really understand.
"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."
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?
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.
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!
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.
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
Love her enthusiasm when she is talking about all of this exciting stuff!
Stop saying first
NO
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.
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.
LOL. Now this gives a new twist to Douglas Adams' "Sentient Puddle" fable.
"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
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
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?
Still doesn't disprove the notion that fish crawl out of water because the oceans are too wet.
I'm suprised there are so few "But but Butt Jebus did it" or "muh holy book says" people in the comments. Are we finally getting to a point where people have a basic education?
I hope so, but chances are, they’re not getting this video in their recommendations.
Meh - 'fraid not; considering we still feel the need to misrepresent and mock others' beliefs for no better reason than the satisfaction of doing so, I reckon we're still a _looong_ ways off...
@@neo_tsz well they are everywhere generally. And loads "love science" while arguing against it.
@@thstroyur Well we mock bad, harmfull, immoral and silly beliefs partly because its fun. But mostly because its better to point out just how stupid, bad, harmfull, immoral and silly those beliefs are.
@@themplar "Well we mock bad, harmfull, immoral and silly beliefs partly because its fun" Why, me too - wotta coinkydinky; know what else is fun and games? Making assertions without bothering to justify 'em. It's a little bit more challenging, to quote _Full Metal Jacket
_ , to "walk the walk", tho. For instance, when we make a claim that something is bad, harmful, and/or immoral, it'd be rather stupid and silly of us to not have an objective standard to measure that which doesn't boil down to our subjective preferences - otherwise, our learned opinion would be no more noteworthy than our favorite ice cream flavor. Well, Poindexter - would you happen to have one of those handy?
".. not everyone is in agreement on this."
Understatement of a lifetime.
I vote hot spring! Many other organic molecules could've started near some. 😅
Aww I thought they would admit they finally found out life was designed and created by a inteligent being. Was kind of disappointed. At least, it shows that "theories" scientist threat as fact can be totally wrong. Soon, the rest of evolutionary "theories" will be contradicted.
"Soon, the rest of evolutionary "theories" will be contradicted."
Not unless you et al can demonstrate that chain reactions [domino cascades] leading to *_variation and bottlenecks_* isn't happening.
Of course theres gonna be some wrong theories, that's what science is about. If it doesnt work, try something new until it works and you'll get the answer. I doubt some random bearded dude created us sorry.
@@Nana-fg3pr Haha he is not a "bearded dude".
@@lisandroreynoso I mean he literally is, you can't prove otherwise.
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.
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.
Thats so smart!
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
Thank you for seeking out the latest and greatest in research for us!
What research...not a single citation.
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
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.
Cool.... This is very interesting. UV radiation
Rohit Mehra proved this in Krish 3 with his stupid pen
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 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?
Mid latter part of the video about "bubblin' up brew" made me think about the theme song the "Beverly Hillbillies" tv show.
That charm on her neck is the key.
Why doesn't it still happen.. earth can support life still so why dont we see new organisms coming out the oceans .. 🧐
Because you should have a life span of 200 million years to see it. I think you're a bit younger than that, aren't you?
Once life appears and takes over it consumes mostly anything that could be a precursor. Life is a pretty aggressive phenomenon
@@doedesjel Wait - you saying the fossil record doesn't go that far, sonny? 🧐
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit. In the Genesis you can find what they are triyng to discover...
@@adrianstoian2484 Unfortunately, you're not speaking the language that most people steeped on secular language and values understand; you might want to step up your apologetics game (assuming that's a concern here), bro...
bruh, the dumbing down is next level.
It starts from within
I need me a real big glass of Kool-aid now. ahhhh...Oh Yeahhh!!!
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.
Her voice makes me feel safe
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.
Temperature and static charge to stimulate chemical interactions and bonding along with energy from UV radiation.
Has to be the best one yet....I've slapped my knee so much I'm red all over
Hey now i see that golden ration necklace
Wow. this was mentioned in Quran 14 hundred years ago.
Then inquire of them, [O Muhammad], "Are they more difficult creation or those [others] We have created?" Indeed, We created them from sticky clay.
Wishful thinking buddy. Isn't never going to happen.
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit. In the Genesis you can find what they are triyng to discover...
Not a biology or chemistry student but you need to know everything about the system and surrounding ..
Think so 🤔
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.
wow, first time i ever see "No views" and 0 thumbs up/down.
FIRST!
wow, first time i've seen a first comment that isn't actually first
Newsflash: you may be wrong about everything you think you know. Nobody knows anything.
Newsflash: this way of thinking is useless.
@@miko5167 Newsflash: you reminded me Half-Life 3 still isn't a thing, and that way of thinking is useless.
@@thstroyur Indeed, you shouldn’t worry about half life 3 for it may never come. Although we got alyx so that’s great.
@@miko5167 Nah, I don't care about Alyx, since I already got all the certainty I need already with the advent of nuclear fusion and the launch of the James Webb Telescope.
@@thstroyur I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Fascinating..
life-building blocks ... cells precursor ... sound a tiny leap to life itself , but hey to build life from those building blocks you need an intelligence far more extraordinary than what we can imagine .
no you don't
@@sparky5584 clearly you don't know how complex a protein an ADN or a cell can get , it can't be random .
@@youcefaoufi6182 Prove it.
“It didn’t come from a pool of water, it came from a puddle.”
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
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.
One thing that I can't understand is how can the DNA code operate on its own? Who is the one that gives instruction to make DNA perform tasks? I think its the mitochondria, because mitochondria is a living organism with its own nucleus inside every cell of plants and animals. The viruses are like computer software updates, and the nucleus with DNA is the computer in every cell.
DNA operates according to the laws of physics and chemistry. "instructions" are not involved. You are pushing analogies way too far.
This changes how we think of the origin of life. Seek more answers indeed.
I still don't understand how the universe came to be. How can there be something when there is absolutely nothing?
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?
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...
The moon was much nearer back then. Tides were much higher. Days were quicker. All in all, perfect conditions for the video.
Wet, dry, wet, dry.
Yes, and as the moon gradually got further from Earth, tide conditions gradually grew weaker, water getting shallower and further away, half walking half swimming organisms survived on the land, and some of those survivors were carried out to sea. Some of those survivors wound up going back and forth, land to water, water to land. This could also be the other way around, but more than likely it's a combo of both ideas, life starting on land and sea, both can be seen as raw material generators and as life form assembly plant/proving ground.
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit.
At 1:44 you say DNA / RNA are made of proteins, not sure if you meant to say they are made BY proteins. But even so, according to the RNA world hypothesis life started as RNA and RNA only, and only later different cell functions were taken up by more stable DNA and more versatile proteins. As far as I know the RNA world hypothesis is relatively widely accepted.
RNA is very unstable. It needs to be stored in freezing conditions to last around 80 days.
At room temperature it lasts around 2 days.
RNA also has a mass transfer problem for self replication.
The best we have seen in the lab under carefully controlled conditions which were unavailable on the early earth is around 7%.
Nowhere near enough to be self replicating.
🤯 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.
I love how you call a quess work, science...
So based on your today's observation you think you could accurately guess how life started billion of years ago... Let me correct you, scientist ARE wrong about what they are guessing and will be wrong about all guess works that they falsely call it science.
Science is always about approximating truth through progressive and accumulative guesswork. You are now using the internet, which is a RESULT of that process. Also all of modern medicine, airplanes, etc. I hope you didn't think knowlege can be attained via just imagining it. Only little children think that.
Genesis Is The Origin Of Life
It isn't.
Genetics proves common ancestry as opposed to seperate creation of species.
@@Pyriphlegeton Have you ever read the genesis?
@@adrianstoian2484
Multiple times, yes.
I always thought life began after college 😆
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.
So of the complexity level seen in the simplest cell, about how much do these experiments cover? 1%? Or more like 0.0000001%? Videos like these are so misleading....seeming to indicate that we know more than we really do
“You’ve got all the movin’ parts needed to get life going” that is completely false
Fascinating! 😃👍🏼
Do we know what the prebiotic atmospheric composition was like? Do we know the target environment in which life would originate for the presented research? Did the researchers successfully simulate these prebiotic conditions, or did they just run the chemistry at 1 atm and ambient temp? Also, was the nucleotide synthesis conducted in bulk solution, or was this chemistry generated in microdroplets (these can result in vastly different resulting chemistries). If the synthesis was performed in microdroplets, what was the temp of the solution during the reaction? The ambiguity in your title is vital. However, this video still gets my blood boiling for some reason.
Wherever life started, wherever it'll end, always a pleasure to have 😍"Maren Hunsberger"😍 spk abt it.
Yeah.... She is a _really_ charming woman. :)
Search Dr James Tour/origin of life, and the probability of just one protein molecule forming randomly. This primordial soup stuff is 100% nonsense.
That's an *excellent* series by a top scientist.
Thank you seeker 😁
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
Honestly it’s ignorant to believe our science is and has been correct all this time. When in reality our modern science is quite new, only ~100 years of using the scientific thinking we use today
Science we know today can drastically change or differ in the far future, who knows?
Seeken provides both knowledge and entertainment at the same time in the most SCIENTIFIC way!
Excellent video-documentary. Great delivery!
Woow stunning content 👏
It could also happen in cloud ☁️, after that it would have evaluated
In the first chapter of the Bible you can find the story of the creation. Just think about it a bit. In the Genesis you can find what they are triyng to discover...
Life is conscious without beginning and end
Genesis Chapter 1 has got all the answers about the origin of life and all things visible and invisible.
Nope.
"Origin of Science". 🤐🤭😊.
why do i feel like you have this weird vibe?
@@Bestname_Ever I feel it too, I don't like it