Here are some notes I made on this video if any of y'all need • The idea of rats and maggots suddenly appearing to eat rotten food was called spontaneous generation. This idea stated a new scientific fact: “life must come from life”. • Darwin wrote that it could be possible to create life from non-living materials, these non-living materials are light, heat, electricity, etc. inside a chemical soup. • Alexander Oparin elaborated on this idea further by creating a step-by-step process of how it could happen (Simple Molecules to Molecules of Life (Biomonomers) to Macromolecules to Polymer Complexes to Metabolic Networks to Living Cells). He imagined all of these chemical reactions would happen inside a primordial soup. • These ideas were just speculation and needed scientific proof to be considered true science. Stanley Miller had an idea to prove these theories correct, he thought he could simulate the early Earth stages and observe what happened in the water to see the outcome. Harold Urley worked with Miller to complete this experiment. • They modeled tubes of water to fit the conditions of the ancient ocean and boiled it to mimic evaporation. They also added water vapor & other gasses like Methane, Hydrogen, & Ammonia, to simulate the Earth’s atmosphere. Also, they added a condenser to cool down the atmosphere, simulating rainfall. Then, they added sparks to simulate lightning in the atmosphere. This test was used to see if Oparin’s first steps in his step-by-step hypothesis was true. • After a week of the experiment being observed, the water turned black, and it was filled with complex molecules created by chemical reactions. This proved his first step in his theory correct. • This experiment was such a breakthrough that a new field of science research was created called ‘Prebiotic Chemistry’. This science was researching other methods of how complex molecules could’ve been created.
When I was choosing a grad school in chemistry (so, mid-90s), I called Dr Miller, (then at U Cal, San Diego) and discussed options about studying under him. I went a different way, though. Great professor. Dr Urey, of course, was best known for the discovery of deuterium, for which he won the 1934 Nobel Prize.
Wow, this is so much better than my online study course. A sentence literally said: You are made up of large molecules built from smaller molecules produced through digestion of larger molecules to form those smaller molecules which are then used to make up required larger molecules using a template. Bloody hell.
I had to read it 10 times until I got what it was trying to say. I'd rather you, Stated Clearly, to be my teacher, and my teacher you shall be. I look forward to watching your videos! Thanks
This is the MOST underrated edu channel on this planet..... You wait until this is the most subscribed channel on TH-cam looking at the amount of work put into these videos ....
I’m in AP Biology right now as a Sophomore, and my teacher gave us this video to watch and take notes on. It explains the experiment so much better than she did, so thanks for making this!
this channel is so underrated. I mean which person goes through hard work like making an animation and doing so much research for one video. this guy deserves a million subs.
+girly lovell lolololol....they left out ....Oxygen...you need Oxygen....there not even close to makeing life in a lab ....And even if they did make life in a lab witch they didnt even come close to ....what does that tell us ......it takes a Intelligent bean to make life lol....look up a video called 100 resons evolution is stupid
"sugars have even been found on meteorites" sweet! literally :D Edit: I made a pun, why are you discussing the validity of this theory here, and not in a comment threat that is actually about that?
Im a PTA student in a vocational college in germany, today in my first lesson of botany my teacher told us to watch a video like this, this maybe the most fascinating homework i ever done in my life.
wow this is so fascinating if you think about it. All probably started like this and today I am sitting at a table that is produced by a machine, using my computer to communicate via the internet about things like that... Overwhelming!!
So what's gonna happen then? What's your plan after you die? Seems like a pretty close-minded life if all we are just a product of nature, creatures created for no purpose, with no eternal goal. Misery.
Thanks for doing this video. I read the slides and informations about the Miller-Urey exeriment, and just couldn't understand it in simple terms. You made it so easy to understand. I could do the disscussion that my teacher wanted me to do with ease and am feeling pretty good on what I will get on it. Thanks.
This is genuinely exciting, I had no idea about this and I'm glad I now know about this and I can't wait to see any future developments in prebiotic chemistry
Even if we imagine that polymers were able to form on early Earth, this still leaves us with the question of how the polymers would have become self-replicating or self-perpetuating, meeting the most basic criteria for life.
@@DethKwok As Cambridge Professor John Barrow put it: "belief in the evolution of life and mind hits dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”
+ThaZapa lolololol....they left out ....Oxygen...you need Oxygen....there not even close to makeing life in a lab ....And even if they did make life in a lab witch they didnt even come close to ....what does that tell us ......it takes a Intelligent bean to make life lol
+Kelly Duitmann Oxygen in its free state wasn't in the early atmosphere. Until photosynthesis started making it available, almost all oxygen was bound up with hydrogen (water) or carbon (CO, CO2). For most primitive bacteria, oxygen is actually toxic, Google 'anaerobic bacteria'. They left out oxygen in exactly the same way they left out peanut butter, and for the same reasons.
Same here 😅 But I'm just on the 90th Chapter and very eager to know the scientific display that Robert has seen on the Chapel Torre Girona. Thanks for the meaningful explanation. ✨
if we've found them in comets then they must be significantly common. I have a feeling that extremely simple life happens often in the universe but complex life is the step that is actually the hard part
The reason why they have found them on comets and it actually didn't turn in to a complex lifeform like we are, It's because the comet doesn't have the atmosphere we do to be able to create more chemical reactions to form complex life.
There's no such thing as "extremely simple life". As molecular biologist Michael Denton put it: “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. But it is not just the complexity of living systems which is so profoundly challenging, there is also the incredible ingenuity that is so often manifest in their design. It is at a molecular level where the genius of biological design and the perfection of the goals achieved are most pronounced. Everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”
This team is so passionate about proving the underlying idea of where all life originated from, and is combining many bits of significant information into one absolute view that holds much truth. Keep it coming, you caught my attention.
As Nobel laureate Francis Crick, speaking about origin-of-life theories, observed "there is too much speculation running after too few facts.” Chemist Richard E. Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.” Professor J. D. Bernal in the book The Origin of Life wrote: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small. Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.”
@@MG-hi1ej I was very ignorant at 18 years old, I’m now convinced at 26 that we were placed here by an advanced intelligent being, God. Genes are proof of our creation, nucleotides are the programming language of life.
Cool video - great job explaining the Miller-Urey experiment. The only constructive criticism I would make is around Darwin's contributions stated early in the video. His theory wasn't called "The Theory of Evolution" - that's a misnomer making it sound like he came up with the idea of evolution - the idea that relatively simple life forms can give rise to more complex life forms. He did not. Evolution was observed and established as fact in the scientific community long before Darwin's involvement. But we didn't understand _how_ evolution happened. Darwin's theory was actually called "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" and it sought to explain that evolution happens via a process he called "natural selection". It was one of multiple theories trying to explain the _how_ and his is the theory that stood the test of time and was best supported by the evidence found since.
I'm wearing my light-blue Stated Clearly T-shirt today (Charles Darwin riding the Archaeopteryx). If I thought it meant something I'd mention it. Wait..
+Young Shaman Contact the site (I see the "Merchandise" link is not functional). I got mine a year or two ago when they first became available.. some promotional thing. They might still be available - any assistance +Stated Clearly ?
+Oskar Henriksen I'd love to but it's a huge time sink to run an online store with shipping and all that. I could do it if I found a good company that handled that all for me. The one's I've looked into do poor quality prints. Let me know if you find a good one.
But did they ever continue that experiment to see if something actually forms from it? Just because you get a few molecules, does not mean they actually form DNA. It is a complex code needing a translator and power supply. nether of the three can exist without the other. If it was really that much a breakthrough, I would imagine they would have continued it till they created a single celled organism. Or at the very least a start of a DNA construction.
Found this article about how the experiment fares out nowadays: goo.gl/0PG2fK The issue, it seems, is that while the Miller-Urey experiment is a good proof of concept for the creation of organic molecules out of simpler ones, the _specifics_ are not very good. That's because we now know more about the way the early Earth's atmosphere was like than in Miller's time, and those conditions are not ideal for this experiment to produce good molecules as it is designed. So it's seen today as a dead-end. So instead, scientists are focusing on other plausible methods for obtaining complex molecules and basically starting from zero as Miller did back in his day. Recreating scenarios such as deep ocean vents, comets, etc, and seeing which one is a better candidate.
daniellclary My guess is that it's a similar reason to why we learn about Pavlov's dogs or the Michelson-Morley experiment (which disproved the luminiferous aether). Even when the experiment is not too useful today, it was a big breakthrough back then, and became the foundation for a whole new branch in science.
As it says in a video this was only mean to demonstrate the feasibility of getting organic molecules from non-organic molecules. It is unlikely that even at the time they thought they could just let this keep running and ever get an actual cell. This being because there are far more variables to be able to progress. Indeed as Arturo points out this particular method is not a plausible candidate for how it happened on earth but it remains a functional and relatively simple demonstration of the principal. A few competing hypothesis exist for the way it would have happened on earth, many of which have similar ability to producing organic molecules from non-organic molecules I recently listened to the audible book Life Ascending by Nick Lance. In which they he addresses experiments his team has been working on with laboratory representations of alkali vents from the deep seas . In these experiments, If I'm not mistaken, they see all the way through the generation of random strings of useless RNA. This is however only one of the proposed method for how life actually arose and much work needs to be done still in verifying the results of these experiments. This is why the Miller-Urey experiment is a better candidate for demonstrating the principal of organic molecules from non-organic molecules: something that at the time was viewed as not possible. This experiment is done, has been verified via repeat experiments, and answers only a specific question.. The Miller Urey experiment is perfectly valid for what it claims to demonstrate. It only falls short if you try to extrapolate more from it than it claims to offer.
+Parthasarathy TOTADRI NATHAN lolololol....they left out ....Oxygen...you need Oxygen....there not even close to makeing life in a lab ....And even if they did make life in a lab witch they didnt even come close to ....what does that tell us ......it takes a Intelligent bean to make life lol
+Kelly Duitmann Actually, oxygen came much later, as a waste product of the early life. The other chemicals came from the out-gassing rocks of the forming planet.
I think you posted in the wrong place. This is a video about chemistry, not logical fallacies. The entire point is that chemistry alone can create the building blocks of life without needing a designer or necessary being. Life is plastic to its environment, so of course things are going to fit hand in glove. Soda is not manufactured in 12 ounce cylinders then wrapped in aluminum - an amorphous fluid fills whatever its placed in.
+No Name I'd suggest you read that article yourself then go look up all the fossils it claims don't exist.....because they do and in copious numbers. The giraffe (which he gives as an example) www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html news.discovery.com/animals/fossils-reveal-how-giraffe-got-its-long-neck-151125.htm Other transitional fossils www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils www.transitionalfossils.com/ rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms So your article is proven to be wrong with very little fact checking required. Also....the author is a dentist....not a biologist. This alone should raise some questions as he doesn't have a background in biological sciences.
Thank you, John, for this wonderful video. I sent this to a Friend and to others. This helps them understand how Inorganics can become Organics without the POOFING of God's supposed Hand. Thank you for doing what I read about in Chemistry in 7 minutes or less ...
+Benjamin Carlyle I asked because there are no links to Patreon anywhere on Stated Clearly's channel, videos, or website, and a search for them on Patreon yields no results. As of right now, they don't appear to be on Patreon at all.
I successfully signed up last night Australian time based on the info at the end of this video that Stated Clearly is now on Patreon. I used this page: www.patreon.com/statedclearly
+Joel Detrow (Onihikage) The link is the in description now. I intended to have that all up on our site before the video went live but I've been on the road. Our Patreon page is still a work in progress, we'll push it big once it's totally finished. Thanks Jon
WOW! I've watched a few videos about this subject in German but I couldn't understand a bit tho I was born here..now after I've watched this English one I could understand it. :'D What I want to say is, that you explained it that good, that someone, whose English is super bad, could understand it. Thank you!
Great Video guys. Can't wait to watch the next video. I would love to see a video done on why genetic diversity is so important and what factors lead to a species like the dodo bird or Thylacinus cynocephalus that cause their inevitable extinction.
So back when I was still a creationist I was dismissive of the expiriment's indication that organic material could be created from inorganic material with such ease, but I had another take-away from this experiment. When exploring outer space or terraforming lifeless worlds(I.e some worlds will likely have the ability support life but not happen to have it yet.) processes like the one in this could be used to create servicable quantities of basic biomatter out of completely inorganic matter, by processing the basic materials, then feeding the end product to microbes. So I was the annoying Bible-thumper getting into arguments with the atheist kids over the plausibility of colonizing outer space, only it was the atheist kids saying "There's no soil up there, so how the fuck we going to farm anything?" And I'm the one chiming in, "Hello! If the Miller-Urey experiment tells us ANYTHING, it's that we can literally make it out of materials that are EVERYWHERE!"
The part about soil... The funny thing is if there is an atmosphere with wind, there will be dust. If there is water, there will be erosion. To get soil out of that, all one needs to do is add the appropriate biomatter and microbes, and you have soil.
Well I'm not really sure about your idea there. Basic chemisty doesn't need very much energy and its rather small scale monomers that are produced. For larger scale things above the size of amino acids you'd need more energy. That means a closer sun or maybe a geothermal vent or something that heats things up faster. Then you have the problem of the waste product's. You have to get rid of the biproducts of all this chemistry or it micht in fact end up destroying the system. On earth there was no oxygen for example which isn't a requirement for life but it is for living thing with more than a few cellss. Multicelled creatures need lots of energy and oxygen is the only element we know of that can supply that energy in tge shortest pathway. Thankfully on earth the biproduct of early life was oxygen... It poisonous though. Despite your fondness of the stuff it will eventually kill you! Lol. So now you need yet more energy and pathways to stop the oxygen from destroying the system... So for a faraway planet to suppot life then it would need to have existing life! Its the life on earth that built the life support system for life on earth.
mystuff the only thing I can think of is a claim that the *original experiment only created toxic, left hand amino acids. That is only mostly true, because when the samples were retested with note sophisitaced technique, right hand amino acids were also found, albeit in small quantities. Even still, no one knows what the first life actually was, and if could have been produced from either left or right handed amino acids, or if it could use a combination of both. But aside from that, the experiment was only ever supposed to be a proof of concept, not a proof of theory.
I can just see the people that gave it the 6 dislikes: "Oh I have this book the was written 2k years ago that says something different so this must be wrong"
+andy kimin Can you explain that more? water has oxygen in it (H2O) so if they evaporated water in the apparatus then that would clearly put oxygen into the equation. Please let me know what you mean thanks!
aroseland1 no dear.. Although there's oxygen in water, in equilibrium almost none of it is present as O2. That's very familiar from the behavior of water nowadays. Even when heated to boiling, water doesn't decompose and give off O2. but by electrolysis or Photochemical dissociation it can produce O2. but the experimet didn't promote these. therefore O2 was almost completely excluded in this experiment. :) It is easy to get confused because this experiment is misleading..
+andy kimin Okay, maybe that is true. But the experiment is just to show how the building blocks of live could form, if it shows they could form in less ideal conditions (with out oxygen) then that further validates the idea that they can naturally form in unlikely conditions. And the experiment doesn't show complex living organisms starting, it just shows how you can get a simple chemical division under those conditions. So I don't see how the lack of oxygen would de-validate the implications of the experiment?
aroseland1 OMG.. Let me tell you a secret. Miller knew there was O2 in the atmosphere. But if he included O2 in the experiment, O2 will oxidize most of the substance in the experiment and this won't produce amino acid :) so, he purposely exclude O2 to get the desired result. I won't call this experiment science...It was a fraud and a disgrace for science
+Vinay Seth cos the bibul say's so..... But seriously....all life is chemistry....very very complex chemistry maybe but it's had several billion years to develop
wrong. Life isn't just chemistry or merely complex molecule by chance evolved matter. No way! God forbid! it is also Information. Information for all the processes of the body and the brain: Wound--heeling, dna, rna, proteinsynthesis -> and control thereof, dna repair- and reduplicating-systems, the digestive system, reproductive system, cardiovascular system, nerve system and so on and so forth. Feelings, Thoughts, Universal Information, Free Will, everything like that is not matter of any kind. and thus couldn't have evolved from chemistry.
+Keith Durant _It is ridiculous that every time I watch an actual scientific video I am offered the choice of ancient aliens or why I should accept magic as the real explanation...but you gotta give em credit for trying to hide stupidity behind reality_ who are 'them"?
+Balen Arete It's a special kind of stupid..with delusional fantasies much like schizophrenia. I think a good psychiatrist could deprogram them but it would take too long
I'm a 10th grader who has to study about Urey-miller experiment.But I was not really ready to study this portion bcz it was not clear when my mam took this portion in class.But HEY thanks to you .since I found this vedio of your channel 7 yrs ago Yeah you explained it more clearly than my mam did.!and I'm going to study it. Keep uploading these kind of vedios sir
So,basically, this experiment in fact did NOT create any life itself but just the necessary physical organic building blocks for material that may contain it if that was possible. Alright then.
Good summary. We haven't reached a stage where we can create life, but this is just another piece of the puzzle. How long until scientist are able to simulate the next step of life?
This video leaves out important context information about the Miller-Urey experiment, in what was produced from it and how it ties in abiogenesis, like the amino acid chirality.
If anyone can answer this, please do. So in this experiment, when they made this enclosure or device, did they COMPLETELY in everyway possible, kill every bit of bacteria and microbe and small cell on every surface? How would they know? I love this idea and experiment, and it pretty much proves that life develops from basic reactions, but this is the only flaw or hole in it. If someone knows the process they did to ensure that the experiment was completely void of all chemicals and life and the smallest of small cells etc, can you please tell me how they did it? Or if they did? Thank you
To me it looks like intelligence is involve in both this experiment and life itself. Romans 1:19-20: Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
That doesn't disprove creation! Because you can combine things in a lab and make something out of them doesn't mean that's how life started in the beginning.
@@yeahkeen2905 But the Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen-a change that made a world of difference.
@@lilyoyo77 It was questioned with a better understanding of the enviroment of earth's ancient past, wich gave rise to better simulations of that enviroment, wich in turn resulted on improved experiments that produced new and and far more complex structures that could form the basis of early life on earth, wich further supported the hypopthesis of life coming from non life. I might be wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that this theory is inplausible because the original 70 year old experiment used as proof of concept was not accurate with our current understanding of the enviroment when life first appeared. But not without reason, abiogenesis is accepted as the most likely explanation for the origin of life. and if you do think all of this is wrong, you can present your reasoning and evidence to the scientific community and get a nobel prize
agreed I've just had a argument with a couple of Creatards on the Guardian website. I had one watch the videos on Evolution etc and he almost came around, almost. He was of course a Creatard so still insists scientists suggest life just popped into existence
Yeah it is possible that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster and till someone disproves me I believe in our great savior, blessed may be his meat balls!
It's amazing to me how hateful some of the evolutionists become when you challenge their ideas. Of course, it's not really their ideas, they simply mime the material that they've been taught (something that they accuse creationists of, all the time).
Let's say that it was possible that simple monomers such as amino acids, lipids and sugars were able to form randomly in an early earth. Those monomers are still a very very very very long way from becoming life. Let's say that somehow phospholipids were randomly created and spontaneously formed a double layered micelle membrane with some random amino acids, sugars and even nucleic acids inside. In order for that to happen the primordial soup would have to be saturated with these compounds. Then these compounds would have to have magically come together into a polymerase enzyme that link random ribose, phosphate and nucleic acids together to form either RNA or DNA. Enzymes don't just magically spontaneously come together, they have to be put together by other enzymes. Not to mention the sequence of amino acids in this enzyme would have to be very very specific. It would have to be the right shape with the right active site. These things don't happen all by themselves. Seeing as how DNA polymerase enzyme is 783 amino acids long the odds of this happening are 1 in 20^(783) or 1 in 10^(1018). That number is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe which is 10^123. But the odds are actually much much much much lower than that. Considering all of the different sizes of proteins those odds have to be added to that number. That number comes out to (10^1018)! which is equal to 1 in 10^(10^(1021)). That is ten to the power of ten to the power of one thousand and twenty one!!! That is more than a googolplex times ten raised to a billion! The chances are so infinitesimally small that the concept of life evolving is beyond laughable! Not to mention you have to work against the laws of entropy which are constantly breaking things down. But wait! It doesn't end there! Even the most simple cellular life form has THOUSANDS of different proteins interacting in a specific way to work toward a specific goal, usually to store energy in a useful form such as ATP or to form new proteins that build the cell or create other proteins. So just add few more numbers to that power. I could go on an on about the impossibility of this idea. There is no chance on earth that these proteins randomly formed without enzymes to create them and some mind to design a function and goal for them to accomplish. It is simply a foolish idea to think such a thing. I do not have enough faith in scientists or in evolution to believe such a thing. On the contrary the existence and specific design of a God is so much more fathomable and scientifically believable. The Miller-Urey experiment was done in the 50's. It has been over 60 years and no other experiment worth mentioning has come to give us any support for abiogenesis? Sounds to me like science is dead in the water. So much for God of the disappearing gaps. Science pointing to God as the creator is alive and well.
+Justin Bosley Your argument about how abiogenesis is "impossible" is predicated on the absurd assumption that life (or processes leading to life) must have somehow instantly begun at the level of complexity of DNA/RNA and a full suite of transcriptases and enzymes. This is like arguing that flight was never possible before the incredibly complex cutting-edge stealth fighters of today, therefore they must have just magically sprung into existence, and therefore "God" must have intelligently designed all aircraft because they're "just too complex" otherwise. That's a ridiculous notion on its face.
The fact that you can explain everything with god doesnt make god real.you are just making an excuse for not knowing something instead of admitting it. For evolution to occur you need something that can reproduce it self ,it doesn't need to be a complex rna/dna strain.
Justin Bosley Even if you were correct in your assumption that improbable = impossible, which you're not, that still wouldn't point to a creator, and even if it pointed to a creator, which again it doesn't, it wouldn't necessarily point to a god, and even if it pointed to a god, which yet again it doesn't, it woudn't by any stretch of the imagination point to any specific god.
This doesn't impress me at all. Scientists try to create something in their labs that will prove that life began spontaneously, without a creator. But the fact is, even if they create something meaningful, they provide proof against themselves because it shows that an intelligent mind is required to conduct an experiment, someone who knows what they're doing. If there's no scientist, there's no experiment. Open your eyes, you may even be a layman but you still have a mind to think, capable of reasoning.
Science exists without anyone practicing it. Science is based on evidence. Science exists without anyone observing the evidence. The laws of nature exist and are constant without anyone observing/understanding them. But what we do understand 100% is that no facts/truth/evidence preached by religion exist.
1) Experiment was designed by scientist to replicate expected conditions on ancient Earth. The planet was created as the result of simple laws of physics such as gravity, see gravitational collapse. 2) Prove the existence of creator and then we will discuss it's capabilities and whether it can do anything. 3) Granting you existence of complex creator, what created your creator?
@@pavel9652 I also would add. The Miller-Urey experiment was 70 years ago. We have progressed light years since. Many other experiments duplicated several parts of abiogenesis. It is only a few more decades before wee duplicate the entire process. Dr. Jack Szostak and team at Harvard are making steady progress.
@@maylingng4107 Thanks for the comment! I appreciate the extra details! I see you are challenging disinformation on the platform. Be mindful of the ai filter. I have noticed my comments are rarely deleted by the filter but are often not visible to the public, even perfectly polite ones. You can check it from the other account or incognito. Sometimes there are threads with "6 replies", but only 2-3 load when clicked. This is the sign. The author always sees their own.
@@pavel9652 Anytime! I suffer from the same tactics. Many of my comments are also deleted or shadow banned (shadow banning is a deceitful tactic, it makes you believe that your comment was posted, but only you see it and nobody else). I have no idea what the criteria is, since I do see a bunch of profanity that passes, just fine. I see the YT guidelines, but nobody seems to observe them. YT needs a major update, unless they do this deliberately.
Why did you withhold the total failure of the experiment to produce Only left-handed amino acids? This video although enjoyable to watch, leaves much to be desired in the way of Truth.
@@athulkathul7112peace be with you ~ all living organism are made of entirely left handed aminos. Just one right handed amino will render the sequence lifeless. Yet this experiment always produced an outcome of 50% right and 50% left. Not producing the promising outcome hinted at in this video.
@@ChristIsKing0919 No, we are made mostly out of left handed amino acids. But many biological processes use right handed amino acids. I think bacterial cell walls use right handed amino acids. It's that, left handed molecules were mainly selected over right handed molecules through chemical evolution. Funnily enough, almost all amino acids in our body are left handed, while sugars are right handed, so we have right handed DNA.
@@athulkathul7112 the following can be looked up. It is a quote taking from the Smithsonian Magazine: "On Earth, the amino acids characteristic of life are all “left-handed” in shape, and cannot be exchanged for their right-handed doppelgänger. Meanwhile, all sugars characteristic of life on Earth are “right-handed.” The opposite hands for both amino acids and sugars exist in the universe, but they just aren’t utilized by any known biological life form. (Some bacteria can actually convert right-handed amino acids into the left-handed version, but they can’t use the right-handed ones as is.) In other words, both sugars and amino acids on Earth are homochiral: one-handed." Those bacteria your referring to must "convert" the right to left.
@@ChristIsKing0919 I'm talking about molecules such as non-ribosomal peptides. Proteins synthesized by the ribosomal RNA are primarily left handed, and we're trying to figure out why but it's been pretty evident that it's likely to do with the structure of the ribosome rather than the molecule itself. However, there are peptides called non-ribosomal peptides in some, especially primative, biological systems which do in fact use some right handed amino acids.
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
Here are some notes I made on this video if any of y'all need
• The idea of rats and maggots suddenly appearing to eat rotten food was called spontaneous generation. This idea stated a new scientific fact: “life must come from life”.
• Darwin wrote that it could be possible to create life from non-living materials, these non-living materials are light, heat, electricity, etc. inside a chemical soup.
• Alexander Oparin elaborated on this idea further by creating a step-by-step process of how it could happen (Simple Molecules to Molecules of Life (Biomonomers) to Macromolecules to Polymer Complexes to Metabolic Networks to Living Cells). He imagined all of these chemical reactions would happen inside a primordial soup.
• These ideas were just speculation and needed scientific proof to be considered true science. Stanley Miller had an idea to prove these theories correct, he thought he could simulate the early Earth stages and observe what happened in the water to see the outcome. Harold Urley worked with Miller to complete this experiment.
• They modeled tubes of water to fit the conditions of the ancient ocean and boiled it to mimic evaporation. They also added water vapor & other gasses like Methane, Hydrogen, & Ammonia, to simulate the Earth’s atmosphere. Also, they added a condenser to cool down the atmosphere, simulating rainfall. Then, they added sparks to simulate lightning in the atmosphere. This test was used to see if Oparin’s first steps in his step-by-step hypothesis was true.
• After a week of the experiment being observed, the water turned black, and it was filled with complex molecules created by chemical reactions. This proved his first step in his theory correct.
• This experiment was such a breakthrough that a new field of science research was created called ‘Prebiotic Chemistry’. This science was researching other methods of how complex molecules could’ve been created.
love u bro
someone give this hero a medal
Much love & many thanks!!
Thanks a million ☺️
can i copy off you I missed the video
When I was choosing a grad school in chemistry (so, mid-90s), I called Dr Miller, (then at U Cal, San Diego) and discussed options about studying under him. I went a different way, though. Great professor.
Dr Urey, of course, was best known for the discovery of deuterium, for which he won the 1934 Nobel Prize.
Wow, this is so much better than my online study course. A sentence literally said: You are made up of large molecules built from smaller molecules produced through digestion of larger molecules to form those smaller molecules which are then used to make up required larger molecules using a template.
Bloody hell.
+Lucky Icecube haha, well, your class is technically correctish.
I had to read it 10 times until I got what it was trying to say. I'd rather you, Stated Clearly, to be my teacher, and my teacher you shall be. I look forward to watching your videos! Thanks
@@StatedClearly what a stupid video..muller uray experiment was total failure..because still we dont know how life emerged ..ask any junior scientist
that's a "borutos dad" type of sentence
This is the MOST underrated edu channel on this planet.....
You wait until this is the most subscribed channel on TH-cam looking at the amount of work put into these videos ....
I’m in AP Biology right now as a Sophomore, and my teacher gave us this video to watch and take notes on. It explains the experiment so much better than she did, so thanks for making this!
this channel is so underrated. I mean which person goes through hard work like making an animation and doing so much research for one video.
this guy deserves a million subs.
He's half way there.
This is one fantastic channel. My thanks to whomever is behind it.
I agree! :)
+girly lovell lolololol....they left out ....Oxygen...you need Oxygen....there not even close to makeing life in a lab ....And even if they did make life in a lab witch they didnt even come close to ....what does that tell us ......it takes a Intelligent bean to make life lol....look up a video called 100 resons evolution is stupid
Kelly Duitmann that's not true that all life needs oxygen. Anaerobic bacteria is an example.
+girly lovell is there any know mammals related to this bacteria?
Kelly Duitmann
No one was talking to you. Fuck off.
"sugars have even been found on meteorites" sweet! literally :D Edit: I made a pun, why are you discussing the validity of this theory here, and not in a comment threat that is actually about that?
how can peptide chains and nucleotide chains which need sugars to exist, form in an early earth nitrite acid and amonia rich atmosphere
Cosmic giant nerds ;-p
@@stevenjohnfoster8785 given billions of reactions every second for billions of years ,,hmm yeah its possible
th-cam.com/video/Bci7FmI5Ofs/w-d-xo.html
Cybernova chocolates mmm..😋
Just love your clips. Graphics, clear exposition, all. Keep up with the good work.
Im a PTA student in a vocational college in germany, today in my first lesson of botany my teacher told us to watch a video like this, this maybe the most fascinating homework i ever done in my life.
This is an amazing channel! Thank you for all your effort!
This channel should have way more subscribers
Thanks, keep spreading the word!
It just did,... *: )*
Kami84 not everyone likes science
But things like this should be general knowledge
No they shouldn't
wow this is so fascinating if you think about it. All probably started like this and today I am sitting at a table that is produced by a machine, using my computer to communicate via the internet about things like that... Overwhelming!!
ich hci come on...
ich hci I don't know which "unscientific theory has been pushed as official science" that you are referring to...?
yea I think all day of what CREATED life... and it's the fundemental forces of the universe
NICE
th-cam.com/video/Bci7FmI5Ofs/w-d-xo.html
So what's gonna happen then? What's your plan after you die? Seems like a pretty close-minded life if all we are just a product of nature, creatures created for no purpose, with no eternal goal. Misery.
Thanks for doing this video. I read the slides and informations about the Miller-Urey exeriment, and just couldn't understand it in simple terms. You made it so easy to understand. I could do the disscussion that my teacher wanted me to do with ease and am feeling pretty good on what I will get on it. Thanks.
This is genuinely exciting, I had no idea about this and I'm glad I now know about this and I can't wait to see any future developments in prebiotic chemistry
One simply does not say this video is sponsored by NASA.
LOTR 😂
Underrated statement of the year.
In 1952?
Why not?
@@zelmoziggyThat's wild
What I like most of this channel is its ending.
"This is ....... stated clearly"
My mother language is hungarian, but i swear that this video made me understand it better in english than any other hungarian viedos i viewed online!
Even if we imagine that polymers were able to form on early Earth, this still leaves us with the question of how the polymers would have become self-replicating or self-perpetuating, meeting the most basic criteria for life.
Yes information for replication and order does not come from random sources, but a mind.
Infinite monkey theorem. Given infinite time and space, eventually, somewhere, it will combine the right way to replicate itself.
@@DethKwok As Cambridge Professor John Barrow put it: "belief in the evolution of life and mind hits dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”
I'm not sure you realize how many people you are affecting. My little nephew loves this channel. I love this channel.
Me, a german student, watches this so I won’t fail my biology exam tomorrow. So thanks! It’s pretty good
did u pass?💀
I am reading Origin, by Dan Brown and your video helped me understand the ending. Thank you.
I share your videos every-time one comes out! I just hope that one would come more frequently. I have contributed on your website
the animations of molecules interacting are amazing!!
WHOA!! There's something that took 3 days for my teachers to explain to me, done within 7 minutes.Thank you so much for the help! :-D
This is the first I've heard of this experiment, but wow this was fascinating!
+ThaZapa lolololol....they left out ....Oxygen...you need Oxygen....there not even close to makeing life in a lab ....And even if they did make life in a lab witch they didnt even come close to ....what does that tell us ......it takes a Intelligent bean to make life lol
Kelly Duitmann It didn't take an intelligent being to make your post.
es it did dumm fuck
+Kelly Duitmann Oxygen in its free state wasn't in the early atmosphere. Until photosynthesis started making it available, almost all oxygen was bound up with hydrogen (water) or carbon (CO, CO2).
For most primitive bacteria, oxygen is actually toxic, Google 'anaerobic bacteria'.
They left out oxygen in exactly the same way they left out peanut butter, and for the same reasons.
+ThaZapa really? It was on my 8th grade biology class more than 15 years ago. Still remember it.
I just finished reading Origin. Dan Brown took me here.
Jomaico M same!!
Me too 😁
Me too 😂lol
Same
Same here 😅
But I'm just on the 90th Chapter and very eager to know the scientific display that Robert has seen on the Chapel Torre Girona.
Thanks for the meaningful explanation. ✨
if we've found them in comets then they must be significantly common. I have a feeling that extremely simple life happens often in the universe but complex life is the step that is actually the hard part
The reason why they have found them on comets and it actually didn't turn in to a complex lifeform like we are, It's because the comet doesn't have the atmosphere we do to be able to create more chemical reactions to form complex life.
There's no such thing as "extremely simple life". As molecular biologist Michael Denton put it: “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. But it is not just the complexity of living systems which is so profoundly challenging, there is also the incredible ingenuity that is so often manifest in their design. It is at a molecular level where the genius of biological design and the perfection of the goals achieved are most pronounced. Everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”
I'm in college and this is so much better than my professor said it! Thank you for making this.
A much needed video! Great job.
Thank you for making this subject so clear!
This team is so passionate about proving the underlying idea of where all life originated from, and is combining many bits of significant information into one absolute view that holds much truth.
Keep it coming, you caught my attention.
+THE UNIVERSE not truth.. but misleading facts.
As Nobel laureate Francis Crick, speaking about origin-of-life theories, observed "there is too much speculation running after too few facts.” Chemist Richard E. Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.” Professor J. D. Bernal in the book The Origin of Life wrote: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small. Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.”
@@MG-hi1ej I was very ignorant at 18 years old, I’m now convinced at 26 that we were placed here by an advanced intelligent being, God. Genes are proof of our creation, nucleotides are the programming language of life.
That was indeed "Stated Clearly"! Thanks❣️
Cool video - great job explaining the Miller-Urey experiment.
The only constructive criticism I would make is around Darwin's contributions stated early in the video. His theory wasn't called "The Theory of Evolution" - that's a misnomer making it sound like he came up with the idea of evolution - the idea that relatively simple life forms can give rise to more complex life forms. He did not. Evolution was observed and established as fact in the scientific community long before Darwin's involvement. But we didn't understand _how_ evolution happened.
Darwin's theory was actually called "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" and it sought to explain that evolution happens via a process he called "natural selection". It was one of multiple theories trying to explain the _how_ and his is the theory that stood the test of time and was best supported by the evidence found since.
farmers took advantage of selective breeding since ancient times and so darwin gained idea of selective breeding to come up with natural selection
You are doing a great job with these videos! Keep it up!
I'm wearing my light-blue Stated Clearly T-shirt today (Charles Darwin riding the Archaeopteryx). If I thought it meant something I'd mention it. Wait..
+Young Shaman Contact the site (I see the "Merchandise" link is not functional). I got mine a year or two ago when they first became available.. some promotional thing. They might still be available - any assistance +Stated Clearly ?
+Rand Huso We do promos twice a year where we sell them. We'll do one for Darwin Day this year again!
+Stated Clearly Why not sell them all the time? It's pretty random when I can afford to buy stuff like that
+Oskar Henriksen I'd love to but it's a huge time sink to run an online store with shipping and all that. I could do it if I found a good company that handled that all for me. The one's I've looked into do poor quality prints. Let me know if you find a good one.
Stated Clearly Understand. And will do, but it's a huge if...
This channel is amazing, You learn so much without it making your head spin!
But did they ever continue that experiment to see if something actually forms from it? Just because you get a few molecules, does not mean they actually form DNA. It is a complex code needing a translator and power supply. nether of the three can exist without the other.
If it was really that much a breakthrough, I would imagine they would have continued it till they created a single celled organism. Or at the very least a start of a DNA construction.
Found this article about how the experiment fares out nowadays: goo.gl/0PG2fK
The issue, it seems, is that while the Miller-Urey experiment is a good proof of concept for the creation of organic molecules out of simpler ones, the _specifics_ are not very good. That's because we now know more about the way the early Earth's atmosphere was like than in Miller's time, and those conditions are not ideal for this experiment to produce good molecules as it is designed. So it's seen today as a dead-end.
So instead, scientists are focusing on other plausible methods for obtaining complex molecules and basically starting from zero as Miller did back in his day. Recreating scenarios such as deep ocean vents, comets, etc, and seeing which one is a better candidate.
So why they not teach that then I wonder?
daniellclary My guess is that it's a similar reason to why we learn about Pavlov's dogs or the Michelson-Morley experiment (which disproved the luminiferous aether).
Even when the experiment is not too useful today, it was a big breakthrough back then, and became the foundation for a whole new branch in science.
As it says in a video this was only mean to demonstrate the feasibility of getting organic molecules from non-organic molecules.
It is unlikely that even at the time they thought they could just let this keep running and ever get an actual cell. This being because there are far more variables to be able to progress.
Indeed as Arturo points out this particular method is not a plausible candidate for how it happened on earth but it remains a functional and relatively simple demonstration of the principal.
A few competing hypothesis exist for the way it would have happened on earth, many of which have similar ability to producing organic molecules from non-organic molecules
I recently listened to the audible book Life Ascending by Nick Lance. In which they he addresses experiments his team has been working on with laboratory representations of alkali vents from the deep seas . In these experiments, If I'm not mistaken, they see all the way through the generation of random strings of useless RNA.
This is however only one of the proposed method for how life actually arose and much work needs to be done still in verifying the results of these experiments.
This is why the Miller-Urey experiment is a better candidate for demonstrating the principal of organic molecules from non-organic molecules: something that at the time was viewed as not possible. This experiment is done, has been verified via repeat experiments, and answers only a specific question..
The Miller Urey experiment is perfectly valid for what it claims to demonstrate. It only falls short if you try to extrapolate more from it than it claims to offer.
I would not call you names. Only an infant does that. But I do agree with you. So often things are sewed to support a view.
Nice way to put things in ..it takes a lot of hard work and you did impress me
simply superb . ..Very convincing . .thanks
+Parthasarathy TOTADRI NATHAN lolololol....they left out ....Oxygen...you need Oxygen....there not even close to makeing life in a lab ....And even if they did make life in a lab witch they didnt even come close to ....what does that tell us ......it takes a Intelligent bean to make life lol
+Kelly Duitmann Actually, oxygen came much later, as a waste product of the early life. The other chemicals came from the out-gassing rocks of the forming planet.
I think you posted in the wrong place. This is a video about chemistry, not logical fallacies. The entire point is that chemistry alone can create the building blocks of life without needing a designer or necessary being. Life is plastic to its environment, so of course things are going to fit hand in glove. Soda is not manufactured in 12 ounce cylinders then wrapped in aluminum - an amorphous fluid fills whatever its placed in.
fuck you all lies
+No Name I'd suggest you read that article yourself then go look up all the fossils it claims don't exist.....because they do and in copious numbers. The giraffe (which he gives as an example)
www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html
news.discovery.com/animals/fossils-reveal-how-giraffe-got-its-long-neck-151125.htm
Other transitional fossils
www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
www.transitionalfossils.com/
rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
So your article is proven to be wrong with very little fact checking required. Also....the author is a dentist....not a biologist. This alone should raise some questions as he doesn't have a background in biological sciences.
So glad to see another great video by this amazing channel.
YES i love these videos!
In germany we would say: Ehrenmann, du hast meine Klausur gerettet.
And what's that? 😅
I forgot German
Long time
I love this guy
I am from germany and this video was easier to understand for me, than everything i found in german! So thank you!!
Yes, "Oparin imagined." So true, and that's one of the few facts in this video.
This video help me a lot! Tks for sharing with us, I also loved the channel!
Thank you, John, for this wonderful video. I sent this to a Friend and to others. This helps them understand how Inorganics can become Organics without the POOFING of God's supposed Hand. Thank you for doing what I read about in Chemistry in 7 minutes or less ...
THIS IS SUCH A GOOD VIDEO! ❤
It was replicated many, many times. Very important experiment.
It's good to see you on patreon, guys.
+Benjamin Carlyle Is it? Or do you mean it _would be_ good to see them on Patreon?
+Joel Detrow (Onihikage) They are in Patreon now
+Benjamin Carlyle I asked because there are no links to Patreon anywhere on Stated Clearly's channel, videos, or website, and a search for them on Patreon yields no results. As of right now, they don't appear to be on Patreon at all.
I successfully signed up last night Australian time based on the info at the end of this video that Stated Clearly is now on Patreon. I used this page: www.patreon.com/statedclearly
+Joel Detrow (Onihikage) The link is the in description now. I intended to have that all up on our site before the video went live but I've been on the road. Our Patreon page is still a work in progress, we'll push it big once it's totally finished.
Thanks
Jon
It's not Mystery... It's Chemistry
its crazy how easy a concept is difficult for some.
Thank you so much!! This is so helpful, and helped ease my stress for my upcoming exams!!
WOW! I've watched a few videos about this subject in German but I couldn't understand a bit tho I was born here..now after I've watched this English one I could understand it. :'D What I want to say is, that you explained it that good, that someone, whose English is super bad, could understand it. Thank you!
Great Video guys. Can't wait to watch the next video. I would love to see a video done on why genetic diversity is so important and what factors lead to a species like the dodo bird or Thylacinus cynocephalus that cause their inevitable extinction.
So back when I was still a creationist I was dismissive of the expiriment's indication that organic material could be created from inorganic material with such ease, but I had another take-away from this experiment. When exploring outer space or terraforming lifeless worlds(I.e some worlds will likely have the ability support life but not happen to have it yet.) processes like the one in this could be used to create servicable quantities of basic biomatter out of completely inorganic matter, by processing the basic materials, then feeding the end product to microbes. So I was the annoying Bible-thumper getting into arguments with the atheist kids over the plausibility of colonizing outer space, only it was the atheist kids saying "There's no soil up there, so how the fuck we going to farm anything?" And I'm the one chiming in, "Hello! If the Miller-Urey experiment tells us ANYTHING, it's that we can literally make it out of materials that are EVERYWHERE!"
The part about soil... The funny thing is if there is an atmosphere with wind, there will be dust. If there is water, there will be erosion. To get soil out of that, all one needs to do is add the appropriate biomatter and microbes, and you have soil.
Well I'm not really sure about your idea there. Basic chemisty doesn't need very much energy and its rather small scale monomers that are produced. For larger scale things above the size of amino acids you'd need more energy. That means a closer sun or maybe a geothermal vent or something that heats things up faster. Then you have the problem of the waste product's. You have to get rid of the biproducts of all this chemistry or it micht in fact end up destroying the system. On earth there was no oxygen for example which isn't a requirement for life but it is for living thing with more than a few cellss. Multicelled creatures need lots of energy and oxygen is the only element we know of that can supply that energy in tge shortest pathway. Thankfully on earth the biproduct of early life was oxygen... It poisonous though. Despite your fondness of the stuff it will eventually kill you! Lol. So now you need yet more energy and pathways to stop the oxygen from destroying the system... So for a faraway planet to suppot life then it would need to have existing life! Its the life on earth that built the life support system for life on earth.
TonyTime elaborate?
mystuff the only thing I can think of is a claim that the *original experiment only created toxic, left hand amino acids. That is only mostly true, because when the samples were retested with note sophisitaced technique, right hand amino acids were also found, albeit in small quantities.
Even still, no one knows what the first life actually was, and if could have been produced from either left or right handed amino acids, or if it could use a combination of both. But aside from that, the experiment was only ever supposed to be a proof of concept, not a proof of theory.
Very clear explanation, easy to understand. Thank you.
I can just see the people that gave it the 6 dislikes: "Oh I have this book the was written 2k years ago that says something different so this must be wrong"
+aroseland1 this is wrong.. the experiment had excluded oxygen.. no oxygen no life...keep that in mind
+andy kimin Can you explain that more? water has oxygen in it (H2O) so if they evaporated water in the apparatus then that would clearly put oxygen into the equation. Please let me know what you mean thanks!
aroseland1 no dear.. Although there's oxygen in water, in equilibrium almost none of it is present as O2. That's very familiar from the behavior of water nowadays. Even when heated to boiling, water doesn't decompose and give off O2. but by electrolysis or Photochemical dissociation it can produce O2. but the experimet didn't promote these. therefore O2 was almost completely excluded in this experiment. :)
It is easy to get confused because this experiment is misleading..
+andy kimin Okay, maybe that is true. But the experiment is just to show how the building blocks of live could form, if it shows they could form in less ideal conditions (with out oxygen) then that further validates the idea that they can naturally form in unlikely conditions. And the experiment doesn't show complex living organisms starting, it just shows how you can get a simple chemical division under those conditions. So I don't see how the lack of oxygen would de-validate the implications of the experiment?
aroseland1 OMG.. Let me tell you a secret. Miller knew there was O2 in the atmosphere. But if he included O2 in the experiment, O2 will oxidize most of the substance in the experiment and this won't produce amino acid :) so, he purposely exclude O2 to get the desired result. I won't call this experiment science...It was a fraud and a disgrace for science
That was literally a fascinating one. Thumbs up to such work.
Amazing
Oh yeaaah! This video was so cool to watch❤
Hmm but why WOULDN'T life emerge from chemistry?
+Vinay Seth On the moment we are chemistry 24/7 :D
+Vinay Seth cos the bibul say's so.....
But seriously....all life is chemistry....very very complex chemistry maybe but it's had several billion years to develop
+diceman199 Haha- religion- our shared venom! :D
+Vinay Seth it's held the world back so much sadly
wrong. Life isn't just chemistry or merely complex molecule by chance evolved matter. No way! God forbid! it is also Information. Information for all the processes of the body and the brain: Wound--heeling, dna, rna, proteinsynthesis -> and control thereof, dna repair- and reduplicating-systems, the digestive system, reproductive system, cardiovascular system, nerve system and so on and so forth. Feelings, Thoughts, Universal Information, Free Will, everything like that is not matter of any kind. and thus couldn't have evolved from chemistry.
Thank you for this awesome explanation. Makes so much more sense now!
Anyone else think it's weird that the sidebar links are full of creationist videos?
+GamerFromJump The sidebar links are based on your youtube viewing history.
+GamerFromJump I got one titled "Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview" from the Northwest Creation Network. Oh Hitler, you old scalliwag, lol
+Young Shaman - But I _never_ watch that crap. Why would the algorithm think I want it.
+Keith Durant _It is ridiculous that every time I watch an actual scientific video I am offered the choice of ancient aliens or why I should accept magic as the real explanation...but you gotta give em credit for trying to hide stupidity behind reality_
who are 'them"?
+Balen Arete It's a special kind of stupid..with delusional fantasies much like schizophrenia. I think a good psychiatrist could deprogram them but it would take too long
Loving this channel! I'm so glad Genetically Modified Skeptic brought me here
great vid
I'm a 10th grader who has to study about Urey-miller experiment.But I was not really ready to study this portion bcz it was not clear when my mam took this portion in class.But HEY thanks to you .since I found this vedio of your channel 7 yrs ago
Yeah you explained it more clearly than my mam did.!and I'm going to study it.
Keep uploading these kind of vedios sir
2019 anyone?
Yes
2022!
Fantastic!! Keep on making videos! Best youtube channel!!
Can you please make more videos about DNA and Genetics?
I am so glad I clicked on this video. I almost didn't because the thumbnail made me think it was just a boring water cycle video
So,basically, this experiment in fact did NOT create any life itself but just the necessary physical organic building blocks for material that may contain it if that was possible. Alright then.
Good summary. We haven't reached a stage where we can create life, but this is just another piece of the puzzle. How long until scientist are able to simulate the next step of life?
Yeah you have to put in account that this happened in long periods of time
Still quite the breakthrough.
This video leaves out important context information about the Miller-Urey experiment, in what was produced from it and how it ties in abiogenesis, like the amino acid chirality.
It produced over 20 amino acids and an assortment of other biomolecules.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 mostly tar
Anyone here after school?
No
Ye
Ofc the clash royale pfp is still in school@@Epic_Memer_Man
😅😂😂😂🎉
Define after school
Very Good video, thank you for explaining the experiment!
im watching this for school fml
If anyone can answer this, please do. So in this experiment, when they made this enclosure or device, did they COMPLETELY in everyway possible, kill every bit of bacteria and microbe and small cell on every surface? How would they know? I love this idea and experiment, and it pretty much proves that life develops from basic reactions, but this is the only flaw or hole in it. If someone knows the process they did to ensure that the experiment was completely void of all chemicals and life and the smallest of small cells etc, can you please tell me how they did it? Or if they did? Thank you
That's described in the paper from what I remember. Sterilization isn't a hard thing.
To me it looks like intelligence is involve in both this experiment and life itself. Romans 1:19-20: Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
The small amount of amino acids that resulted from the experiment could definitely be from microbial contamination
great
I need a spanish version of this! Perfect video por my biologý classes
We have one! See it on our Spanish Channel: th-cam.com/channels/inaWvgsDyAfppjY9ZPak5Q.htmlvideos
Charlotte vil du med til Galla?
ja tak det vil jeg meget gerne! jeg glæder mig til at feste med jer
Very well explained!!
Reality triggers creationists
That doesn't disprove creation! Because you can combine things in a lab and make something out of them doesn't mean that's how life started in the beginning.
dubo la they didn’t combine things in a lab, they simulated earth and amino acids formed *naturally.*
@@yeahkeen2905 But the Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen-a change that made a world of difference.
@@lilyoyo77 It was questioned with a better understanding of the enviroment of earth's ancient past, wich gave rise to better simulations of that enviroment, wich in turn resulted on improved experiments that produced new and and far more complex structures that could form the basis of early life on earth, wich further supported the hypopthesis of life coming from non life.
I might be wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that this theory is inplausible because the original 70 year old experiment used as proof of concept was not accurate with our current understanding of the enviroment when life first appeared. But not without reason, abiogenesis is accepted as the most likely explanation for the origin of life.
and if you do think all of this is wrong, you can present your reasoning and evidence to the scientific community and get a nobel prize
This channel is amazing. Thank you for explaining things so wonderfully.
Easily understands, thanks 4 making this video
Who is Byju's premium students
🤔
👇
👇
Im in ninth grade doing ap bio and it makes very little sense, these videos help so much with my understanding of the subject thank you
agreed I've just had a argument with a couple of Creatards on the Guardian website. I had one watch the videos on Evolution etc and he almost came around, almost. He was of course a Creatard so still insists scientists suggest life just popped into existence
You have to make this comment by calling people names?!
Very interesting display of knowledge!
1. Is it possible that there is a common designer, not a common ancestor?
That's all for now!
Sorry, one more thing, since I've just finished reading it:
www.icr.org/article/9753
Yeah it is possible that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster and till someone disproves me I believe in our great savior, blessed may be his meat balls!
It's amazing to me how hateful some of the evolutionists become when you challenge their ideas.
Of course, it's not really their ideas, they simply mime the material that they've been taught (something that they accuse creationists of, all the time).
i understood everything so much better after this, this is a great video. thank you so much
Let's say that it was possible that simple monomers such as amino acids, lipids and sugars were able to form randomly in an early earth. Those monomers are still a very very very very long way from becoming life. Let's say that somehow phospholipids were randomly created and spontaneously formed a double layered micelle membrane with some random amino acids, sugars and even nucleic acids inside. In order for that to happen the primordial soup would have to be saturated with these compounds. Then these compounds would have to have magically come together into a polymerase enzyme that link random ribose, phosphate and nucleic acids together to form either RNA or DNA. Enzymes don't just magically spontaneously come together, they have to be put together by other enzymes. Not to mention the sequence of amino acids in this enzyme would have to be very very specific. It would have to be the right shape with the right active site. These things don't happen all by themselves. Seeing as how DNA polymerase enzyme is 783 amino acids long the odds of this happening are 1 in 20^(783) or 1 in 10^(1018). That number is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe which is 10^123. But the odds are actually much much much much lower than that. Considering all of the different sizes of proteins those odds have to be added to that number. That number comes out to (10^1018)! which is equal to 1 in 10^(10^(1021)). That is ten to the power of ten to the power of one thousand and twenty one!!! That is more than a googolplex times ten raised to a billion! The chances are so infinitesimally small that the concept of life evolving is beyond laughable! Not to mention you have to work against the laws of entropy which are constantly breaking things down.
But wait! It doesn't end there! Even the most simple cellular life form has THOUSANDS of different proteins interacting in a specific way to work toward a specific goal, usually to store energy in a useful form such as ATP or to form new proteins that build the cell or create other proteins. So just add few more numbers to that power.
I could go on an on about the impossibility of this idea. There is no chance on earth that these proteins randomly formed without enzymes to create them and some mind to design a function and goal for them to accomplish. It is simply a foolish idea to think such a thing. I do not have enough faith in scientists or in evolution to believe such a thing. On the contrary the existence and specific design of a God is so much more fathomable and scientifically believable. The Miller-Urey experiment was done in the 50's. It has been over 60 years and no other experiment worth mentioning has come to give us any support for abiogenesis? Sounds to me like science is dead in the water. So much for God of the disappearing gaps. Science pointing to God as the creator is alive and well.
+Justin Bosley Your argument about how abiogenesis is "impossible" is predicated on the absurd assumption that life (or processes leading to life) must have somehow instantly begun at the level of complexity of DNA/RNA and a full suite of transcriptases and enzymes.
This is like arguing that flight was never possible before the incredibly complex cutting-edge stealth fighters of today, therefore they must have just magically sprung into existence, and therefore "God" must have intelligently designed all aircraft because they're "just too complex" otherwise. That's a ridiculous notion on its face.
The fact that you can explain everything with god doesnt make god real.you are just making an excuse for not knowing something instead of admitting it.
For evolution to occur you need something that can reproduce it self ,it doesn't need to be a complex rna/dna strain.
Justin Bosley Even if you were correct in your assumption that improbable = impossible, which you're not, that still wouldn't point to a creator, and even if it pointed to a creator, which again it doesn't, it wouldn't necessarily point to a god, and even if it pointed to a god, which yet again it doesn't, it woudn't by any stretch of the imagination point to any specific god.
Wow!!! What a great easy to understand video!!!
Really? Since then, with all the advancement of technology what has the lab produce? Still amino acid?
It has produced a new species after 32,000 generations --- evolution in action.
so what's your point exactly ?
@@fritzdiaz2680 you can’t make living things from non living things
@@muhammadm4582
Experiment show that you can!
@@almightybunny3320 what experiment.?.. give me peer reviewed publications.
This was really well explained. I now understand much better. Thank you
Silly scientists. You can't "simulate" the will of Allah.
Sky Fairy: 1
Scientists: 0
+A Duck Why not? You do...
+A Duck --- Oh yeeeeeah!
evolution happened: sky fairy -1
scientists +100
were still waiting on the proof, skip.
Lol I'm sure scientists would be able to murder a lot of infidels if they wanted to
A suck they did
This video has helped me a lot to understand all that is related with my exam, although I'm spanish. Great joooooooob!
This doesn't impress me at all. Scientists try to create something in their labs that will prove that life began spontaneously, without a creator. But the fact is, even if they create something meaningful, they provide proof against themselves because it shows that an intelligent mind is required to conduct an experiment, someone who knows what they're doing. If there's no scientist, there's no experiment. Open your eyes, you may even be a layman but you still have a mind to think, capable of reasoning.
Science exists without anyone practicing it. Science is based on evidence. Science exists without anyone observing the evidence. The laws of nature exist and are constant without anyone observing/understanding them. But what we do understand 100% is that no facts/truth/evidence preached by religion exist.
1) Experiment was designed by scientist to replicate expected conditions on ancient Earth. The planet was created as the result of simple laws of physics such as gravity, see gravitational collapse.
2) Prove the existence of creator and then we will discuss it's capabilities and whether it can do anything.
3) Granting you existence of complex creator, what created your creator?
@@pavel9652 I also would add. The Miller-Urey experiment was 70 years ago. We have progressed light years since. Many other experiments duplicated several parts of abiogenesis. It is only a few more decades before wee duplicate the entire process. Dr. Jack Szostak and team at Harvard are making steady progress.
@@maylingng4107 Thanks for the comment! I appreciate the extra details! I see you are challenging disinformation on the platform. Be mindful of the ai filter. I have noticed my comments are rarely deleted by the filter but are often not visible to the public, even perfectly polite ones. You can check it from the other account or incognito. Sometimes there are threads with "6 replies", but only 2-3 load when clicked. This is the sign. The author always sees their own.
@@pavel9652 Anytime! I suffer from the same tactics. Many of my comments are also deleted or shadow banned (shadow banning is a deceitful tactic, it makes you believe that your comment was posted, but only you see it and nobody else). I have no idea what the criteria is, since I do see a bunch of profanity that passes, just fine. I see the YT guidelines, but nobody seems to observe them. YT needs a major update, unless they do this deliberately.
That was a great video. Lots of information and digestible. I feel like I can set up that experiment myself now.
Wally Pizza do it
Why did you withhold the total failure of the experiment to produce Only left-handed amino acids? This video although enjoyable to watch, leaves much to be desired in the way of Truth.
Life is mostly made up of left handed amino acids, right?
@@athulkathul7112peace be with you ~
all living organism are made of entirely left handed aminos. Just one right handed amino will render the sequence lifeless. Yet this experiment always produced an outcome of 50% right and 50% left. Not producing the promising outcome hinted at in this video.
@@ChristIsKing0919 No, we are made mostly out of left handed amino acids. But many biological processes use right handed amino acids. I think bacterial cell walls use right handed amino acids. It's that, left handed molecules were mainly selected over right handed molecules through chemical evolution. Funnily enough, almost all amino acids in our body are left handed, while sugars are right handed, so we have right handed DNA.
@@athulkathul7112 the following can be looked up. It is a quote taking from the Smithsonian Magazine: "On Earth, the amino acids characteristic of life are all “left-handed” in shape, and cannot be exchanged for their right-handed doppelgänger. Meanwhile, all sugars characteristic of life on Earth are “right-handed.” The opposite hands for both amino acids and sugars exist in the universe, but they just aren’t utilized by any known biological life form. (Some bacteria can actually convert right-handed amino acids into the left-handed version, but they can’t use the right-handed ones as is.) In other words, both sugars and amino acids on Earth are homochiral: one-handed."
Those bacteria your referring to must "convert" the right to left.
@@ChristIsKing0919 I'm talking about molecules such as non-ribosomal peptides. Proteins synthesized by the ribosomal RNA are primarily left handed, and we're trying to figure out why but it's been pretty evident that it's likely to do with the structure of the ribosome rather than the molecule itself. However, there are peptides called non-ribosomal peptides in some, especially primative, biological systems which do in fact use some right handed amino acids.
Thanks for your video! It is so helpful and easy to understand!
Bye christianity, hello atheism
Wtf ,watch james tour ,origin of life.
Huh?
yayy great video, really helped me understand this better