is it weird to get tired from the noise of the media and relax listening to this wonderful lecture? i'm not smart, and most of what Dr. Nick Lane says goes over my head, but somehow i feel enriched by ideas that he presents. thank you Royal Society for uploading this video for all of us to enjoy also, this is the best comment section on YT
"...or Vogon poetry readings..." I don't think anyone in the room reacted to that! Excellent presenter and scientist. Well worth the time, now on to reading some of his books!
Cracking lecture. So good it should be on television - and not screwed up with deafening orchestral music, dummed down with all the big words removed and "cures for cancer" added, just played as is. Perfect.
We could dumb it down perhaps? Get some really nice John Williams like orchestral music and maybe get Morgan Freeman to narrate it? Hahaha! Joking off course.
Real pity that the Q&A was cut short. It's always wonderful when one has an opportunity to question an expert such as Nick Lane. Thanks for making this available online. 👍
Wonderful talk from an eminent scientist who possesses the ability to explain complex ideas to learned audiences in a succinct and clear manner. Bravo!
@@thetherorist9244 EINSTEIN IS UNCOVERED BY DIMEGLIO: WHAT IS E=MC2 is dimensionally consistent, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Indeed, consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground; AS touch AND feeling BLEND; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Indeed, WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. GREAT. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand, AS it all CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE. Magnificent. By Frank Martin DiMeglio The sun's tide-generating force is about half that of the moon. One half times one third is one sixth. Consider what is water. The density of what is the Sun is believed to be about one quarter of that of what is THE EARTH. The diameter of WHAT IS THE MOON is about one quarter of that of what is THE EARTH. The density of the human body is about the same as water. Lava is about three times as dense as water. Pure water is about half as dense as packed sand/wet packed sand. We can multiply one fourth times two thirds in order to ALSO get the surface gravity on the Moon in comparison with what is THE EARTH/ground. The gravity of the Sun upon the Moon is about TWICE that of what is THE EARTH. The lunar crust is about TWICE as thick on the far side of what is the Moon. Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. The maria (lunar “seas”) do occupy ONE THIRD of the visible near side of what is the Moon. One half times one third is one sixth. What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is the orange AND setting Sun ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON ON BALANCE !!! What is E=MC2 is dimensionally consistent. The land surface area of what is THE EARTH is 29 percent. This is EXACTLY between (ON BALANCE) what is one third AND what is one fourth. The maria occupy one sixth of what is the Moon. The BULK DENSITY of what is the Moon is comparable to that of (volcanic) basaltic lavas on what is THE EARTH/ground. Consider what are the tides. ONE HALF times one third is one sixth. ONE QUARTER times two thirds is one sixth. What is gravity is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. CLEAR water comes from what is THE EYE (ON BALANCE). ON BALANCE, what is THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE !!! GREAT. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. What is LAVA IS ORANGE, AND it is even blood red. Awesome. Yellow is the hottest color of lava. Blue is the hottest flame color. Note: Consider what is the blue flame. The lunar surface is chiefly composed of pumice. By Frank Martin DiMeglio In understanding SPACE, what is gravity, TIME, AND time dilation (ON BALANCE), it is important is it to understand what is a BALANCED displacement of what is SPACE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. (c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE.) Indeed, the stars are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is THE EYE, AND notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. NOW, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE. CLEARLY, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental (ON BALANCE). “Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ON BALANCE, consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE) consistent WITH E=MC2, F=ma, TIME, AND time dilation ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, DESCRIBES, AND INVOLVES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Indeed, inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This CLEARLY explains what is E=MC2 AND F=ma ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !! (Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.) Great. Indeed, consider WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. I have mathematically proven why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. (Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.) I have mathematically proven what is the fourth dimension, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! I have explained why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
I think it's worth remembering that this "event" of a bacteria getting inside another cell may not be as rare as we think - a problem for entities that do that these days is that they're surrounded by a biosphere full of already existing complex life, and much of that life will *eat them*. Only once did a candidate have a clear playing field to exist in. So it may be a case where "being first" made all the difference in the world. I truly enjoyed this talk - Dr. Lane is a person that has made it onto my list of peple whose new videos I always make a point to watch.
This mechanism is very simple and doesn't require any intelligent design to develop. Getting from this simple mechanism to the "machinery" of the cell is not straightforward however, nor where the coding of DNA originated. Some gaps need to be filled in yet.
Marvelous presentation! I have read "The Vital Question" several times, (and some of his other books), and find Dr. Lane to be an engaging, brilliant and creative writer. Will Dr Lane be coming to the U.S. any time soon for more presentations?
wonderful lecture. Especially interesting is the separate origin of (membranes) of bacteria and archaea, since we are accustomed to generalize and talk about the origin of prokaryotes. Illustrations of this separate origin, that is fully dependent on the structure of pores in the vents' wall, can be found in the following article. A Bioenergetic Basis for Membrane Divergence in Archaea and Bacteria Sojo V, Pomiankowski A, Lane N (2014) A Bioenergetic Basis for Membrane Divergence in Archaea and Bacteria. PLOS Biology 12(8): e1001926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001926
Very interesting lecture! I'm very much interested in knowing how the instructional codes (code-script as Schrodinger called it) in DNA, Genes etc. come from and how they are written into the structure of molecules. Code (information) is a very abstract concept in itself, so it's surprising to see that code is required for life which itself is not abstract.
there are many hypotheses about that. one idea is RNA is catalytic; the part of ribosomes which actually link amino acids into a chain are a bunch of RNAs which interact with each other. RNA and peptides seem linked together in their origin. folded peptide chains are necessary for the fatty acid, iron-sulfide clusters and other catalytic structures necessary for energy usage to break free from their lithic substrate origins. for sure informational and energetic aspects of life had different origins and had to later merge.
How long do you have to flip a coin until you get a heads and tails? No matter how many sides a coin has if you flip it enough you will see them all. If it can happen, give it enough time and it will, so it did.
I believe it is correct to say that the Eukaryotic symbiosis happened once, but not correct to say a single event. I think it is more accurate to say one particular type of bacteria with one kind of mitochondria. The event itself could have happened millions of times with just these two organisms and no other organism ever again
Nick lane is a compelling and humorous lecturer and this is a fascinating subject. The trouble is that the lecture concludes with the admission that no one knows why life is the way it is, which is disappointing given Prof Lane gives various iterations of the same lecture
The presentation are educational but every time I was a lecture on the origin of life, they always describe the process instead of explaining "WHY" evolution (not how) would produce sight, movement, smell, etc..
00:06 Entendiendo el papel de la energía en la evolución. 04:22 El Dr. Nick Lane explora la pregunta: ¿Por qué es la vida como es? 10:40 Explorando la variación genética y la complejidad morfológica en diferentes formas de vida 13:53 Las bacterias tienen una complejidad morfológica limitada a lo largo del tiempo evolutivo. 19:52 Transición de una comprensión parcial a una comprensión detallada a través de la determinación 22:33 La importancia de las membranas en mantener el contacto dinámico. 28:16 Las estructuras de respiraderos hidrotermales pueden haber desempeñado un papel en la formación de materia orgánica. 31:27 Los planetas rocosos húmedos forman sistemas de ventilación con gradientes naturales de protones. 37:18 Explorando la complejidad y las diferencias en las estructuras celulares 40:02 Todas las células eucariotas son sexuales por naturaleza. 45:50 La simplificación genómica conduce a células más pequeñas y dedicadas. 48:45 La vida compleja surgió solo una vez y es muy rara. 54:19 Comprender y apreciar el proceso científico y cuestionar el mundo es vital para la sociedad. 57:29 La importancia de las mitocondrias en la evolución celular 1:03:42 La presentación del Dr. Lane concluye.
Koonin's hypothesis is that lokiarcheota were phagocytes, and that is how they managed to take in a bacteria. The answer 1hour in goes against that. I'd like to see the 2 discuss that idea.
0. All-inclusive 1. Tao = Way of Life (That which is/That I am). 2. Eternally actualizing Infinite potential because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity. 3. The Rhythm of Life is a movement and a rest. The optimum (Heaven) is always found somewhere between the extremes of too much/too little (hell = the two thieves). 4. Inner/Outer More/Less Better/Worse Yes/No
The lokiarcheota have genes for some of the traits once thought unique to eukaryotes like a cytoskeleton, suggesting that not all of the seemingly unique structural diversity of eukaryotes happened after the bacterial fusion event
Superb! Several more data points for that oh-so-optimistic "Life on Earth, with or without the human race" proposition...and the "and then there are other planets" other-propositiion. And great fun, at 31:00, to see experimentation based on genuine speculation, moving forward from the very interesting Mike Russell.
Missing the fact that humans and almost all advanced life are not singular life forms. Humans and most complex life are diverse mobile colonies of microorganisms. These microorganisms include archea, bacteria, fungi and viruses among others. These microorganisms communicate with each other to sustain homeostasis within the colony (ie. your body). We can not live without our diverse microbiome. All complex life has been designed and built by microorganisms for the purpose of their survival. They made everything we see.
24:00 and on - where does the H2 come from? It's a gas, not highly soluble and very buoyant. It's hard to get 4 molecules of it together by microorganisms. Protons (H+) are not H2, and 8H+ are rare You need 4 FeS2 or 4 H2S, somehow managing the pH to a near-neutral pH 6-8
Why do you fear creationist comments? I found much of the material fascinating, but I loved the fact that it implicitly screams "life was designed" even while he frantically tried to tamp it down and impose his evolutionist dogma on top of it. For example, the eye makes such a powerful case for design that he felt obligated to attack it, but it was a pitiful attempt.
frankos rooni: "The evolution of the eye has been know for a mere 150 years ..." No, it has been theorized for 150 year. Darwin thought the cell was "simple." He couldn't know about the awesomely complex molecular machinery in the cell. He couldn't know that genes are expressed by transcribing the DNA into messenger RNA, processing it, translating it into protein, folding it and then transporting it to where it's needed. He couldn't know that three RNA bases form a codon which selects one amino acid. That is, there's a "genetic code" that maps RNA to proteins. It's very clear that it was designed that way. Too much has to happen specifically in order for it to come about by chance. Also, probabilities get hard to work with when they're as astronomically small as evolutionary claims present. But the math says that even if evolution were possible, it couldn't produce a protein in trillions of trillion of years.
@@KenJackson_US The always upcoming Eye argument that has been explained over and over and over again... I suggest a visit to your local library... Biology/Evolution section...
@@Raydensheraj: "... Eye argument that has been explained over and over ..." Do you know about rhodopsin and the other opsin proteins? They are proteins which are crucial to detecting light. Rhodopsin is a chain of over 340 amino acid molecules in precise order. Twenty kinds of amino acids are used. Do you know how many possible chains of 340 amino acids there are? The number is essentially infinite. Don't bother calculating it or trying to imagine how big it is. Evolution depends on random chance filtered by natural selection. It would take an essentially infinite number of years to find rhodopsin by randomly mutating through the essentially infinite possibilities. So evolution depends on natural selection to get it done in the available time. But there's a huge problem with that. Natural selection only works if there is an *advantage* or *benefit* to each mutation. But a chain of amino acids doesn't work at all if it's not right. Rhodopsin has to be pretty precisely correct to work. There's no advantage along the way. Natural selection can't work for developing proteins. It doesn't matter how much you explain it. You can't get around the facts that science has revealed. Life was designed.
_"if we look at a genetic tree"_ BIG DATA analysis of genetics of all life did not conclude a tree but a forest of types (kinds) tracing back with no connection across kinds, consistent with a creation event.
Je mehr wir wissen, umso mehr staunen wir und erkennen, dass wir das meiste noch gar nicht wissen, Leben kann nur von Leben kommen, tote Materie ist nicht in der Lage Leben hervorzubringen, ist uninteressiert an irgendeiner Entwicklung , einem Code oder an Naturgesetzen. Sie tut, was ihr vorgegeben ist - von Wem, von ihr selbst? Das ganze Rede will uns davon überzeugen , dass die Natur kreativ ist, dies erscheint mir wie ein moderner Götzendienst , man bemüht sich sehr, eine Weltanschauung durchzusetzen, die unserem Hausverstsnd widerspricjt
Genes, genetics and human biological evolution are just a small part of why life, especially human life today, is the "...way it is." Epigenetics, the non-biological portion of human existence is much more important than genetics. What is epigenetic? Everything that is not genetic such as: love, beauty and all non-biological aspects of human existence. For a further elaboration, watch the TH-cam video "Opening the Doors of Creativity" narrated by Terence McKenna.
SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution: 1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist 2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution) 3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection; 4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_ 5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution 6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_ 7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_ 8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle 9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ? 10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem 11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!*
The best things 😉 written about nature and planet Earth 🌎🌎🌎 are referred to Gaia which is a greek word that stands for Mother Nature and the way things work and the cycle of life. Gaia has its own agenda regardless of what humans are doing 🙂😌 and how much damage we are causing to this planet.
Einstein: "I want to know how God created this world." ("Einstein: The Life and Times" by Ronald Clark, London, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1973, p. 33)
Can please anyone answer me on few questions? How did human as a mammal shift in diet preference? Are human really an omnivorous or is it just a societal construct in view of survival of fittest? How mammals had been differentiated into carnivores and also as herbivores in natural selection process? Unlike today in world where cows are fed with meats. Evolution theory need modification. If scientists believe that survival of fittest is natural process and also believe evolution has brought human from common ancestors of animals with natural selection, none of the old scientists deserve to live in earth and we human beings should remove all old peoples as they are not able to reproduce. So these old scientists are denying their own theory of nature staying in earth as life.ß
God did it. There are just too many chemical reactions that have to occur first or in conjunction with others thats its impossible for it to occur randomly
My God! Next time tell anyone who is coughing their head off to leave! How rude that they would stay and infect everyone. It was so annoying to listen to.
Their has been life on this plaint for millions of years and that life has always live side by side with nature and we come along we don't give no thought to how life has has got along with this plaint we r trying our best to destroy it it looks like we as an intelligent life would study the history of life and how it has live with this plaint and know better if we had been hear instead of the dinosaurs no life would be able to live on this plaint now maybe we r Alien's because life born of this plaint and knowing the history of life and this plaint we would not destroy but we would live that's all I got to say about that
There are FIVE information codes in every cell, aside from blood cells. The five are the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the 'sugar' code that lines the surface of every cell, and the lipid code making up cell membranes. All these had to work in unison. The makeup of these for life are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. To say the ribosome sums up evolution is ludicrous. That is defined as a 10^50 or more. It's far too complex without outside intelligence to make it happen. On top of this, the Intelligent Designer is a master chemist with 65 different hormones in the human body. We are a creation.. Not an evolution.
Einstein was a science communicator, Jewish or Masonic science handed him a script. He was just the front man, like a CEO of a compartmentalized psy-op.
Evolution can explain well the expansion and behaviour of living things, but still it does not make sense for me that all being was an accident and our existence has no meaning except eating,replicating ourselves and make this nonsense cycle forever.
Take your wrist watch apart, to the smallest component, put it in plastic bag and shake it, till the watch assembles itself, let me know when you get a working time piece, and all the components integrate themselves.
@@peteconrad2077 It's easier to know what's not than what is and if you have 2 brain cells to put together it should be pretty obvious how much of this is absolute unprovable bullshit
@@Dezy623 yet you’re unable to tell us what is BS because that would risk you being exposed. You’ve had two chances to specify what’s wrong. You’ve chickened out twice.
userwl2850 lol I was thinking the same thing. I saw zero thumbs down and thought immediately.....did we shake all the creationist crack pots? then realized very few make it to the top echelon in scientific lectures. a breath of fresh air indeed 🤗
I encourage you to watch that Dawkins video about the eye again, but this time THINK about what would have to happen at the protein level. Dawkins said the Swedish scientist used "very small steps indeed". "He assumed that each step, which means each mutation, caused only a one percent change in the size of something." One percent is a HUGE change coming from random mutations. He states that lots of eyes have evolved. Eyes exist therefore they evolved. QED. That's not science, it's religion. But dumb. His discussion is totally functional. He doesn't discuss the correlation between mutations and function. In fact it would take many, many, many mutations to get one tiny improvement. But all those in-between states are harmful, or even deadly. Natural selection would wipe them out long before you got to the improvement. I know Dawkins speaks like he has authority, but he's just describing his wish, not science.
He did not discuss the correlation between mutations and function because it was not the context to do so. No, even taking for granted that the majority of the mutations are harmful or deadly it does not follow that an eye could have not evolved naturally; - part of population 1 gets a mutation who is the 1° step - part of population 2 to 10 gets only harmful or neutral mutations - part of population 11 gets a mutation who is the 2° step In each population only some individuals gets a second detrimental mutation for several generations and, since the 1° step is still in the gene pool, it's ever possible for some individual to get the 2° step independently from how many individuals are eliminated by natural selection, because of beneficial mutations. As any creationist you are showing scientific illiteracy.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
is it weird to get tired from the noise of the media and relax listening to this wonderful lecture?
i'm not smart, and most of what Dr. Nick Lane says goes over my head, but somehow i feel enriched by ideas that he presents.
thank you Royal Society for uploading this video for all of us to enjoy
also, this is the best comment section on YT
not weird at all peaou...a very sane take you have
"...or Vogon poetry readings..." I don't think anyone in the room reacted to that! Excellent presenter and scientist. Well worth the time, now on to reading some of his books!
Cracking lecture. So good it should be on television - and not screwed up with deafening orchestral music, dummed down with all the big words removed and "cures for cancer" added, just played as is. Perfect.
We could dumb it down perhaps? Get some really nice John Williams like orchestral music and maybe get Morgan Freeman to narrate it? Hahaha! Joking off course.
So good it should be on TH-cam
Real pity that the Q&A was cut short.
It's always wonderful when one has an opportunity to question an expert such as Nick Lane.
Thanks for making this available online. 👍
Wonderful talk from an eminent scientist who possesses the ability to explain complex ideas to learned audiences in a succinct and clear manner. Bravo!
I liked the way he had a background theme of ‘how science works’ to return to throughout the talk
Genius : The ability to cut through all the crap and complexity and see into the heart of the matter. A most enlightening and fertile talk :-)
True Genius : the ability to keep your mouth shut so you dont come up missing......lol
@@thetherorist9244 EINSTEIN IS UNCOVERED BY DIMEGLIO:
WHAT IS E=MC2 is dimensionally consistent, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Indeed, consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground; AS touch AND feeling BLEND; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Indeed, WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. GREAT. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand, AS it all CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE. Magnificent.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
The sun's tide-generating force is about half that of the moon. One half times one third is one sixth. Consider what is water. The density of what is the Sun is believed to be about one quarter of that of what is THE EARTH. The diameter of WHAT IS THE MOON is about one quarter of that of what is THE EARTH. The density of the human body is about the same as water. Lava is about three times as dense as water. Pure water is about half as dense as packed sand/wet packed sand. We can multiply one fourth times two thirds in order to ALSO get the surface gravity on the Moon in comparison with what is THE EARTH/ground. The gravity of the Sun upon the Moon is about TWICE that of what is THE EARTH. The lunar crust is about TWICE as thick on the far side of what is the Moon. Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. The maria (lunar “seas”) do occupy ONE THIRD of the visible near side of what is the Moon. One half times one third is one sixth. What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is the orange AND setting Sun ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON ON BALANCE !!! What is E=MC2 is dimensionally consistent. The land surface area of what is THE EARTH is 29 percent. This is EXACTLY between (ON BALANCE) what is one third AND what is one fourth. The maria occupy one sixth of what is the Moon. The BULK DENSITY of what is the Moon is comparable to that of (volcanic) basaltic lavas on what is THE EARTH/ground. Consider what are the tides. ONE HALF times one third is one sixth. ONE QUARTER times two thirds is one sixth. What is gravity is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. CLEAR water comes from what is THE EYE (ON BALANCE). ON BALANCE, what is THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE !!! GREAT. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. What is LAVA IS ORANGE, AND it is even blood red. Awesome. Yellow is the hottest color of lava. Blue is the hottest flame color. Note: Consider what is the blue flame. The lunar surface is chiefly composed of pumice.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
In understanding SPACE, what is gravity, TIME, AND time dilation (ON BALANCE), it is important is it to understand what is a BALANCED displacement of what is SPACE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON/IN BALANCE.
Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. (c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE.) Indeed, the stars are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is THE EYE, AND notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. NOW, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE. CLEARLY, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental (ON BALANCE). “Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ON BALANCE, consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE) consistent WITH E=MC2, F=ma, TIME, AND time dilation ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, DESCRIBES, AND INVOLVES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Indeed, inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This CLEARLY explains what is E=MC2 AND F=ma ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !! (Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.) Great. Indeed, consider WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. I have mathematically proven why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. (Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.) I have mathematically proven what is the fourth dimension, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! I have explained why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
I think it's worth remembering that this "event" of a bacteria getting inside another cell may not be as rare as we think - a problem for entities that do that these days is that they're surrounded by a biosphere full of already existing complex life, and much of that life will *eat them*. Only once did a candidate have a clear playing field to exist in. So it may be a case where "being first" made all the difference in the world.
I truly enjoyed this talk - Dr. Lane is a person that has made it onto my list of peple whose new videos I always make a point to watch.
This mechanism is very simple and doesn't require any intelligent design to develop. Getting from this simple mechanism to the "machinery" of the cell is not straightforward however, nor where the coding of DNA originated. Some gaps need to be filled in yet.
Congratulations Dr. Lane you greatly deserve that award!! You have been an inspiration for me!!!
The guy is a wonderful popularizer of biology and a credit to one of the greatest universities in the world UCL.
This is the thing I’ve been looking for literally my entire sentient life. Thank you. Although I’m kind of ashamed I didn’t do it first.
arrrrgh every time I say “this is [exactly] the thing” prematurely I’m wrong
better internalize that lesson
Excellent talk - and this former 1978 “A” Level candidate understood the majority of it - many thanks Dr. Lane!
Marvelous presentation! I have read "The Vital Question" several times, (and some of his other books), and find Dr. Lane to be an engaging, brilliant and creative writer. Will Dr Lane be coming to the U.S. any time soon for more presentations?
Wonderful amalgamation of knowledge, concept, clarity and presentation Dr. Lane. Congratulations 👍
"The origin of life - five questions worth asking." Very interesting and thought provoking brochure that can be found by an inter net search.
wonderful lecture. Especially interesting is the separate origin of (membranes) of bacteria and archaea, since we are accustomed to generalize and talk about the origin of prokaryotes.
Illustrations of this separate origin, that is fully dependent on the structure of pores in the vents' wall, can be found in the following article.
A Bioenergetic Basis for Membrane Divergence in Archaea and Bacteria
Sojo V, Pomiankowski A, Lane N (2014) A Bioenergetic Basis for Membrane Divergence in Archaea and Bacteria. PLOS Biology 12(8): e1001926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001926
This is one fabulous lecture!
Very interesting lecture! I'm very much interested in knowing how the instructional codes (code-script as Schrodinger called it) in DNA, Genes etc. come from and how they are written into the structure of molecules. Code (information) is a very abstract concept in itself, so it's surprising to see that code is required for life which itself is not abstract.
there are many hypotheses about that. one idea is RNA is catalytic; the part of ribosomes which actually link amino acids into a chain are a bunch of RNAs which interact with each other. RNA and peptides seem linked together in their origin. folded peptide chains are necessary for the fatty acid, iron-sulfide clusters and other catalytic structures necessary for energy usage to break free from their lithic substrate origins. for sure informational and energetic aspects of life had different origins and had to later merge.
How long do you have to flip a coin until you get a heads and tails? No matter how many sides a coin has if you flip it enough you will see them all.
If it can happen, give it enough time and it will, so it did.
I believe it is correct to say that the Eukaryotic symbiosis happened once, but not correct to say a single event. I think it is more accurate to say one particular type of bacteria with one kind of mitochondria. The event itself could have happened millions of times with just these two organisms and no other organism ever again
Nick lane is a compelling and humorous lecturer and this is a fascinating subject. The trouble is that the lecture concludes with the admission that no one knows why life is the way it is, which is disappointing given Prof Lane gives various iterations of the same lecture
The presentation are educational but every time I was a lecture on the origin of life, they always describe the process instead of explaining "WHY" evolution (not how) would produce sight, movement, smell, etc..
Very interesting talk. Thanks for sharing.
Smashing! Simply smashing!!
00:06 Entendiendo el papel de la energía en la evolución.
04:22 El Dr. Nick Lane explora la pregunta: ¿Por qué es la vida como es?
10:40 Explorando la variación genética y la complejidad morfológica en diferentes formas de vida
13:53 Las bacterias tienen una complejidad morfológica limitada a lo largo del tiempo evolutivo.
19:52 Transición de una comprensión parcial a una comprensión detallada a través de la determinación
22:33 La importancia de las membranas en mantener el contacto dinámico.
28:16 Las estructuras de respiraderos hidrotermales pueden haber desempeñado un papel en la formación de materia orgánica.
31:27 Los planetas rocosos húmedos forman sistemas de ventilación con gradientes naturales de protones.
37:18 Explorando la complejidad y las diferencias en las estructuras celulares
40:02 Todas las células eucariotas son sexuales por naturaleza.
45:50 La simplificación genómica conduce a células más pequeñas y dedicadas.
48:45 La vida compleja surgió solo una vez y es muy rara.
54:19 Comprender y apreciar el proceso científico y cuestionar el mundo es vital para la sociedad.
57:29 La importancia de las mitocondrias en la evolución celular
1:03:42 La presentación del Dr. Lane concluye.
This lecture was indescribably good!!!👍🏾🥇🏆
Made me realize assumptions I never knew I was making.
s a m e
Delightful talk.
The audience questions were excellent too
Koonin's hypothesis is that lokiarcheota were phagocytes, and that is how they managed to take in a bacteria. The answer 1hour in goes against that. I'd like to see the 2 discuss that idea.
0. All-inclusive
1. Tao = Way of Life (That which is/That I am).
2. Eternally actualizing Infinite potential because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.
3. The Rhythm of Life is a movement and a rest. The optimum (Heaven) is always found somewhere between the extremes of too much/too little (hell = the two thieves).
4. Inner/Outer
More/Less
Better/Worse
Yes/No
The lokiarcheota have genes for some of the traits once thought unique to eukaryotes like a cytoskeleton, suggesting that not all of the seemingly unique structural diversity of eukaryotes happened after the bacterial fusion event
Superb!
Several more data points for that oh-so-optimistic "Life on Earth, with or without the human race" proposition...and the "and then there are other planets" other-propositiion.
And great fun, at 31:00, to see experimentation based on genuine speculation, moving forward from the very interesting Mike Russell.
The talk starts @4:50.
It would be great see videos like this one that last 10 minutes, It would be more popular.
you can't compress nick lane into 10 minutes
Anton petrov is the guy you are looking for
This lecture 👍 was amazingly hilarious 😁 and enlightening.
Great talk
Was that David Attenborough sitting in the audience in the greenish-brown jacket on the left side of the screen at 56:55?
No
Excellent lecture! Great jokes 🤣
English lecture - maximum info, minimal words. American lecture, the exact opposite.
Generally, yes, but I've met some ol' chaps who'd put even the most verbose of Americans to shame. 😄
I was taught about ATP, Krebs cycle and mitochondria in 1975.
Missing the fact that humans and almost all advanced life are not singular life forms. Humans and most complex life are diverse mobile colonies of microorganisms. These microorganisms include archea, bacteria, fungi and viruses among others. These microorganisms communicate with each other to sustain homeostasis within the colony (ie. your body). We can not live without our diverse microbiome. All complex life has been designed and built by microorganisms for the purpose of their survival. They made everything we see.
Lane appears at 4:50.
Glad to hear that the stereo typical audience with a cough at a lecture was able to make it
Probably on their way to a piano
recital.?
@@2msvalkyrie529 hehe
Question:Is *the vital question - energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life* the same book as *Vital Question: Why is life the way it is* ??
"The book of nature that we are obliged to read is written by the hand of God." (FARADAY, quoted in Seeger 1983, 101).
Watch the video and spare us your religious spam.
24:00 and on - where does the H2 come from? It's a gas, not highly soluble and very buoyant. It's hard to get 4 molecules of it together by microorganisms. Protons (H+) are not H2, and 8H+ are rare You need 4 FeS2 or 4 H2S, somehow managing the pH to a near-neutral pH 6-8
no creationist comments, no thumbs down crusaders???? it's a miracle!!!!
Why do you fear creationist comments? I found much of the material fascinating, but I loved the fact that it implicitly screams "life was designed" even while he frantically tried to tamp it down and impose his evolutionist dogma on top of it. For example, the eye makes such a powerful case for design that he felt obligated to attack it, but it was a pitiful attempt.
frankos rooni: "The evolution of the eye has been know for a mere 150 years ..."
No, it has been theorized for 150 year. Darwin thought the cell was "simple." He couldn't know about the awesomely complex molecular machinery in the cell.
He couldn't know that genes are expressed by transcribing the DNA into messenger RNA, processing it, translating it into protein, folding it and then transporting it to where it's needed.
He couldn't know that three RNA bases form a codon which selects one amino acid. That is, there's a "genetic code" that maps RNA to proteins. It's very clear that it was designed that way. Too much has to happen specifically in order for it to come about by chance.
Also, probabilities get hard to work with when they're as astronomically small as evolutionary claims present. But the math says that even if evolution were possible, it couldn't produce a protein in trillions of trillion of years.
@@KenJackson_US The always upcoming Eye argument that has been explained over and over and over again... I suggest a visit to your local library... Biology/Evolution section...
@@Raydensheraj: "... Eye argument that has been explained over and over ..."
Do you know about rhodopsin and the other opsin proteins? They are proteins which are crucial to detecting light. Rhodopsin is a chain of over 340 amino acid molecules in precise order. Twenty kinds of amino acids are used.
Do you know how many possible chains of 340 amino acids there are? The number is essentially infinite. Don't bother calculating it or trying to imagine how big it is.
Evolution depends on random chance filtered by natural selection. It would take an essentially infinite number of years to find rhodopsin by randomly mutating through the essentially infinite possibilities. So evolution depends on natural selection to get it done in the available time. But there's a huge problem with that.
Natural selection only works if there is an *advantage* or *benefit* to each mutation. But a chain of amino acids doesn't work at all if it's not right. Rhodopsin has to be pretty precisely correct to work. There's no advantage along the way. Natural selection can't work for developing proteins.
It doesn't matter how much you explain it. You can't get around the facts that science has revealed. Life was designed.
The only thing that's evolved, is the bullshit, changes are needed to counter resistance!
Nick Lane sounds just like the guy from the @Techmoan channel.
Worth pointing out that his very important final point about scientists "arguing" is meaninglessly mistranscribed in the running text as "arranging".
_"if we look at a genetic tree"_ BIG DATA analysis of genetics of all life did not conclude a tree but a forest of types (kinds) tracing back with no connection across kinds, consistent with a creation event.
Wow!!!
NCMR Inventing Method book Discovery chapter CONSCIOUSNESS is the Origin of Life.
Je mehr wir wissen, umso mehr staunen wir und erkennen, dass wir das meiste noch gar nicht wissen, Leben kann nur von Leben kommen, tote Materie ist nicht in der Lage Leben hervorzubringen, ist uninteressiert an irgendeiner Entwicklung , einem Code oder an Naturgesetzen. Sie tut, was ihr vorgegeben ist - von Wem, von ihr selbst? Das ganze Rede will uns davon überzeugen , dass die Natur kreativ ist, dies erscheint mir wie ein moderner Götzendienst , man bemüht sich sehr, eine Weltanschauung durchzusetzen, die unserem Hausverstsnd widerspricjt
Genes, genetics and human biological evolution are just a small part of why life, especially human life today, is the "...way it is." Epigenetics, the non-biological portion of human existence is much more important than genetics. What is epigenetic? Everything that is not genetic such as: love, beauty and all non-biological aspects of human existence. For a further elaboration, watch the TH-cam video "Opening the Doors of Creativity" narrated by Terence McKenna.
SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution:
1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist
2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution)
3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection;
4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_
5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution
6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_
7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_
8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle
9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ?
10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem
11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!*
"SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution:"- no he didn't. He just made a fool of himself prattling in ignorance about science he never properly studied.
The best things 😉 written about nature and planet Earth 🌎🌎🌎 are referred to Gaia which is a greek word that stands for Mother Nature and the way things work and the cycle of life. Gaia has its own agenda regardless of what humans are doing 🙂😌 and how much damage we are causing to this planet.
14:06 Christian de Duve looks like Magneto
25:43 Actually, CO2 and hydrogen are converted to synthetic gasoline at commercial scale in the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Einstein: "I want to know how God created this world." ("Einstein: The Life and Times" by Ronald Clark, London, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1973, p. 33)
piss off.
Einstein Masonic science is full of holes. He holds no credibility with me or any critically thinking human.
has anybody tested the Faraday Motor in carbon dioxide gas? i think it might still work 🤷♂️💦🤔
Can please anyone answer me on few questions?
How did human as a mammal shift in diet preference? Are human really an omnivorous or is it just a societal construct in view of survival of fittest? How mammals had been differentiated into carnivores and also as herbivores in natural selection process? Unlike today in world where cows are fed with meats. Evolution theory need modification.
If scientists believe that survival of fittest is natural process and also believe evolution has brought human from common ancestors of animals with natural selection, none of the old scientists deserve to live in earth and we human beings should remove all old peoples as they are not able to reproduce. So these old scientists are denying their own theory of nature staying in earth as life.ß
You dint understand the first thing about evolution. Hard to know where to start. Did you attend a school? Any school?
5-6 kilometers wow
I hate the way brian cox calls matter is the universe " stuff" dumbed down so much i down don't want to watch it. But This lecture is great
There is DNA and then there is RNA what is before the RNA, well more rudimentary than RNA, evolution led to all these RNA and DNA
that is a big open question
God did it. There are just too many chemical reactions that have to occur first or in conjunction with others thats its impossible for it to occur randomly
My God! Next time tell anyone who is coughing their head off to leave! How rude that they would stay and infect everyone. It was so annoying to listen to.
electromagnetism......period
That was 6 periods, followed by the word period.
Their has been life on this plaint for millions of years and that life has always live side by side with nature and we come along we don't give no thought to how life has has got along with this plaint we r trying our best to destroy it it looks like we as an intelligent life would study the history of life and how it has live with this plaint and know better if we had been hear instead of the dinosaurs no life would be able to live on this plaint now maybe we r Alien's because life born of this plaint and knowing the history of life and this plaint we would not destroy but we would live that's all I got to say about that
The lowly news postauricularly type because buffer possibly groan pace a smooth mint. bizarre, wanting home
GOD IS THE INFINITE UNIVERSE!!! All lives and moves in GOD, smaller than smallest, bigger than bigest ..................
White Paul Miller Jennifer Martinez Brenda
Skip first 5 minutes. Tedious windbag introduction.
There are FIVE information codes in every cell, aside from blood cells. The five are the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the 'sugar' code that lines the surface of every cell, and the lipid code making up cell membranes. All these had to work in unison. The makeup of these for life are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. To say the ribosome sums up evolution is ludicrous. That is defined as a 10^50 or more. It's far too complex without outside intelligence to make it happen. On top of this, the Intelligent Designer is a master chemist with 65 different hormones in the human body. We are a creation.. Not an evolution.
Did you watch the lecture?
"Science communicator" is not a real thing!
Einstein was a science communicator, Jewish or Masonic science handed him a script. He was just the front man, like a CEO of a compartmentalized psy-op.
Evolution can explain well the expansion and behaviour of living things, but still it does not make sense for me that all being was an accident and our existence has no meaning except eating,replicating ourselves and make this nonsense cycle forever.
esref celik celik This is the Universe speaking, esref. We have one question. Why must it have meaning?
No evolution doesn’t address the origin of life. So what, it’s not meant to. It’s like complaining that your toaster doesn’t make coffee.
No worries. Forever is not a thing and religion poisons everything
About the big bang theory, no explosion has ever created anything!
Take your wrist watch apart, to the smallest component, put it in plastic bag and shake it, till the watch assembles itself, let me know when you get a working time piece, and all the components integrate themselves.
Complete bullshit. Hilarious.
Like you’d know.
@@peteconrad2077 It's easier to know what's not than what is and if you have 2 brain cells to put together it should be pretty obvious how much of this is absolute unprovable bullshit
@@Dezy623 yet you’re unable to tell us what is BS because that would risk you being exposed. You’ve had two chances to specify what’s wrong. You’ve chickened out twice.
please nobody put God did it.
I always thought it was Dogs that did it, but I'm dyslexic
Pip pip
userwl2850 lol I was thinking the same thing. I saw zero thumbs down and thought immediately.....did we shake all the creationist crack pots? then realized very few make it to the top echelon in scientific lectures. a breath of fresh air indeed 🤗
userwl2850: "please nobody put God did it."
Why do you fear the truth? Why do you grasp at the illusory straw hope of evolution?
I encourage you to watch that Dawkins video about the eye again, but this time THINK about what would have to happen at the protein level.
Dawkins said the Swedish scientist used "very small steps indeed". "He assumed that each step, which means each mutation, caused only a one percent change in the size of something." One percent is a HUGE change coming from random mutations.
He states that lots of eyes have evolved. Eyes exist therefore they evolved. QED. That's not science, it's religion. But dumb.
His discussion is totally functional. He doesn't discuss the correlation between mutations and function. In fact it would take many, many, many mutations to get one tiny improvement. But all those in-between states are harmful, or even deadly. Natural selection would wipe them out long before you got to the improvement.
I know Dawkins speaks like he has authority, but he's just describing his wish, not science.
He did not discuss the correlation between mutations and function because it was not the context to do so.
No, even taking for granted that the majority of the mutations are harmful or deadly it does not follow that an eye could have not evolved naturally;
- part of population 1 gets a mutation who is the 1° step
- part of population 2 to 10 gets only harmful or neutral mutations
- part of population 11 gets a mutation who is the 2° step
In each population only some individuals gets a second detrimental mutation for several generations and, since the 1° step is still in the gene pool, it's ever possible for some individual to get the 2° step independently from how many individuals are eliminated by natural selection, because of beneficial mutations.
As any creationist you are showing scientific illiteracy.