The Origin of Life on Earth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ย. 2017
- You must have wondered about it before, haven't you? How did life begin on earth? I mean the very first thing. The first unicellular organism, billions of years ago. Is it even possible? As it happens, our understanding of chemistry, biochemistry, and biology has become so sophisticated over the years, that we now have a pretty reasonable grasp as to how abiogenesis must have occurred. This is the spontaneous generation of life from non-living material. As incredible as it sounds, there is a lot of science to discuss here, so let's get into it!
Watch the whole Biology/Genetics playlist: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveOrgChem
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiochem
Anatomy & Physiology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveAnatPhys
Biopsychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiopsych
Microbiology/Infectious Diseases Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveMicrobio
Pharmacology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePharma
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDaveHistoryDrugs
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
HS Bio and Physics teacher here. The kids really "get" you. I so appreciate all you do for me and my students' learning
This is eye-opening. I always thought an organism was just the thing that she did with a vibrator after you left the room.
Lmao
That’s an organ
lol
Lol. You made a funny
ur talking about an oregano 🤦♂️🤦♂️
0:10 The First Cell
0:37 DNA
- Replication
- Transcription
- Translation
1:20 Miller-Urey Experiment (1950’s)
“Abiogenesis” = The Origin of Life
3:18
Hydrothermal Vents.
Tidal Pools
Panspermia Hypothesis
Your channel has been incredibly helpful both for my university studies and convincing my skeptical father of the validity of evolution. He was really into Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute, said stuff like "there's no proof for animals being able to change phylums" even when offered evidence of transitional fossils, and how "we don't see evolution continuing to happen today in any species", so these videos have really helped him be more supportive of the field I want to study. Thanks.
Ancestors..cry
For anyone seeing this in the future. About a week ago japanese scientists conclusively proved that the components necessary to form life can be found on meteorites
Well obviously plenets assemble themselfs out of the fucking things lmao
@@A_C_E_R... yeah but its still important to conclusively prove things. However I do agree it was pretty obvious
Do you have the research paper? I’m interested
About 300 years ago, scientist conclusively proved that the components necessary to build an F1 car can be found in the ground.
@@theDNAfactory you have no knowledge of anything science based
I really like how you speak, very clear. I'm not a native speaker, and i'm enjoying your videos!
What language do you speak?
@@StoutShako dumb foreigner language
Dumb racists who have no intellect
agreed!
me either!
*uncomfortable James Tour noises*
How about uploading a video about Cryobiology and how certain chemical compounds block ice growth and reduce or eliminate freezing damage? I would very much like to see that.
interesting! i will look into it.
I watched six prior videos on how life began on Earth. Yours was the last video i watched. You were very straight forward and easy to understand. Plus you spoke slow and easy. I subscribed to your channel. Thank you for teaching me this!!
Thank you so much for these Videos Dave ! ive been watching your vids non stop lately and ive been learning so much !!!
😂
I love how simple it is to understand. That is a very useful component, especially for me.
😂
So there was a study in 2012 where they conclude that hydrothermal pools would be the most suitable environment for proto-life form in based on high ratios of potassium since cells need a ton of potassium to synthesize protein.
Sources:
- Origin of first cells at terrestrial, anoxic geothermal fields
I have seen your 4 videos . I am a science master. I am going to teach heredity and evolution to 10th standard students on Monday. Your explanation skill is very good . animations made the lessons more illustrated. Very good keep it up bro
Love reading the comments from all of the triggered theists
After a short time, you begin to see all the same recycled nonsense "arguments".
Why don’t you like theists? According to atheistic believe free will can not exists, so it’s not their fault that they believe in a God.
@@marksackhaarberg1822 first of all I like theists. Just disagree with their belief.
Second of all, you clearly don’t know what atheism is.
@@marksackhaarberg1822 atheism says nothing about free will.
@@Nxck2440 Oh yes, it does, but you guys don’t understand that 😂
80% comments : Dumb video! I'm religious so this can't be true
10% comments: Nice video! Thanks!
9% comments : when will you bring out X series?
1% comment(like me) : Discussing the other comments
there is no conflict between religion and cells u dumb ass , cells are created by god
H1N1 interesting observation!
@@rittenbrake1613 Tell that to the first group, believers that disagree with you. I mostly agree; the only conflict is with a literal interpretation of some ancient stories that may be entirely allegorical, but couldn't have literally happened as described in the story.
@@zemorph42 don't forget god is the one ultimately control how the world works , rules are set by him/her/it, mostly the existence of this world is to train & test the integrity of the souls, the world is just a place to provide the venue for the events/training to happen, Like Karma is a good system to teach each soul a lesson when people are committing evils
@@rittenbrake1613 If by "rules" you mean the laws of physics, then no, men formulated and refined them to *describe* how matter and energy behave under specific conditions, apparently consistently. I've seen no evidence that God or anything else intelligent was involved or needed.
THANKS FOR LL YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS UNDERSTANDABLE!!
May you prosper, whomever added the Arabic translation.
اشهد ان لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
@@mhb.i 😂😂😂😂😂
@@mohamedyassen9732 أعتقد أنك لست مسلما...
@@mhb.i يا عم غور انت ودينك
@@Fava_beans i trnslated broooo what a madlad
This is an incredible and concise summary - bravo!
Theists just hate reality 😂
Nuh uh, the Bible says “God created man in His own image,” and the Bible is true because it says so.
2 Timothy 3:16
See, you can’t argue with that.
@@L-8 lol
@@L-8poor God must be struggling with inflammatory appendix, tonsils, cancer and all that. I wonder why the ultimate body has so many errors
Essentially yeah, way I see it the main reason why religions exist is because people cannot cope with not knowing how the world works and living without an external factor giving them purpose. I have no problem with people who choose this way of living, just don't push those beliefs into science and the observable world.
Hey Dave, I liked your slide from the debate with the venn diagram showing OoL as an inter-disciplinary study incorporating several physical sciences along with math and information science. Do you have any more videos or links around that? Super cool stuff as always! Take care.
I think he mentioned in the comments on another video that he intends to do a full series on the modern state of origin of life research
First, I need to preface this comment by saying that I work at a college and I teach chemistry. I am a scientist looking at this question from a scientific perspective. If I was a student looking at this video, I might be tempted to think that life could potentially come from non-life, however, with my background in chemistry and biology, I'm afraid that I must
remain skeptical.
The Miller-Urey experiment does indicate the possibility of forming
complex biomolecules such as amino acids under early Earth conditions, however it
has been theorized that an absolute minimum of about 150 genes would be necessary
to allow for a functional, self-sustaining cell capable of reproduction (with each gene
containing a few hundred base pairs at a minimum). In addition to the genes
themselves, there would also need to be some sort of a barrier (phospholipid bilayer)
against the outside of the cell and at least some minor organelles for intracellular
processes. Under the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment, these genetic sequences have not been shown to have any ability to form.
Currently, I would assert there is simply no viable scientific explanation
that has been put forward which explains the origin of life. That is not simply my position, but it is also the position of MOST serious biologists. These biologists would say that since life exists, there must be some kind of mechanism by which it came to be. However, none of the current explanations are satisfactory, and there is wide disagreement between biologists about which theories have any merit. Until such an explanation
arises that is at least moderately testable/plausable, from a scientific perspective I simply can't make a judgment on whether life could have developed in the absence of some sort of intelligent intervention (which many would call God).
Saying "there's life on Earth, therefore there must be
a way for life to come from non-life on its own" is not a sound scientific assertion. This assertion implicitly makes the religious statement, "there must NOT be such a thing as God." Make no mistake that insisting that there is no God is just as much of a religious statement as claiming that there is a God. No atheist is capable of proving that God does not exist. It is every bit as much of a belief as the God of Christianity. I only mention this to emphasize the following point; while the true scientist should always seek answers about the causes of nature and the universe without relying upon "God made it that way", he must never be so closed-minded as to insist without evidence that a particular process (that seems impossible under current theories) must have occurred without divine agency. By all means, we should continue to explore and experiment and search for a natural solution to the origin of life. However, if every exploration is run and no satisfactory answer can be found, is it really so unreasonable to consider that God created the first organism?
Some will try to use statistics
to say that, given enough time, anything can happen. However, if you put an immortal
monkey in a room with an unbreakable computer for a trillion years, that monkey is never going to
reproduce the works of William Shakespeare. Unfortunately, the likelihood of life
occurring under the current proposed theories has about the same level of probability.
For now, I must remain agnostic on this issue.
Sorry for the book ;)
Yes, it's true that we don't have a complete and coherent picture of the origin of life, we just have a lot of very reasonable and credible hypotheses, the jigsaw puzzle is slowly being filled in. Miller-Urey is just one small piece, it shows that we can get amino acids from more basic materials. That's all it proves, certainly nothing about biopolymers. But there is plenty of other work being done, and maybe one day we will have a better understanding!
I do want to say thank you for your videos. Putting together a video tutorial library for my chemistry students online, I regularly use yours due to their quality. I admittedly have limited time and rather than try to reinvent the wheel (with my limited technological expertise), I am grateful I can rely upon quality videos like yours.
Much Thanks!
Michael DePauw
You're very welcome, please tell all your students to subscribe!
Michael DePauw hey man. I’ve been struggling a lot with the thought of death and the idea that after you die there is nothing (and that I’ll forget my family and friends) it’s comforting to think that life isn’t just a fluke and that it almost certainly came from something out there. I hope you have a good life man
Blake Sinclair
Hi Blake, if you’re interested, checkout InspiringPhilosophy. He has a lot of evidence based videos on the after life and Christianity.
Hey you! Yes,you who is gonna write a comment about how "that proves nothing" and "god did it" and "this is too perfect to be true".
Maybe go and see more science. It is not by watching a single video that you will understand the whole of chemical processes and of complex fields of science such as biochemistry.You would not learn the entirety of differential calculus in one video and understand everything immediatly.So do a lil research before being angry.
Someone who enjoys finding real questions in the comments.
Thanks for the teaching
One could conclude that origins of life are the result of infinity plus probability. Over time a near infinite set of all the combinations and permutations of available chemicals and conditions would occur. The laws of probability would favor the combinations that replicate. After that beginning different environments plus laws of evolution would ensure diversity of life forms.
Sounds like a brute force process. The last rule of decryption is - "LUCK". It happens and may be very early in the shake up of all those atoms.
Maybe you can help me, I know we have ways to find carbon based life that has been fossilized eg. Dinosaurs and early life fossils, but how would a silica based lifeform look when fossilized, and have we found any evidence of these?
Silica based lifeforms have recently been found to be highly improbable due to the small amount (compared to things like carb) of organic silica compounds. Any free organic silicon compounds would react with nearby water, oxygen, or rocks to create silicate.
Hey! James Tour supporters! You might want to start studying this instead of putting faith in someone who has not studied enough biology!
So we know that the lipid bi layer can form spontaneously but can the basic organic components polymerise spontaneously? I’m not an evolution denier or anything I’m just genuinely curious
Yes, there are various mechanisms such as wet dry cycling and activating agents that facilitate polymerization.
how do you feel about the recent discovery of RNA that was found to have spontaneously formed on basalt lava glass?
Tell me about the red goo that was also present in the experiment. Was it the by-product or the product of the experiment?
Finally some sequence data was published to illucidate the endosymbiont hypothesis of
mitochondria
Joran Martijn et al., “Deep Mitochondrial Origin Outside the Sampled Alphaproteobacteria,” Nature 557 (May 3, 2018): 101-5, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0059-5.
Great review article by Fazal Rana
The Endosymbiont Hypothesis: Things Aren’t What They Seem to Be
Miller-Urey experiment: “The highly alkaline chemical broth dissolves a small amount of the borosilicate glass reactor vessel used in the original and subsequent experiments. Dissolved bits of silica permeate the liquid, likely creating and catalyzing reactions. The eroded walls of the glass may also boost catalysis of various reactions. This increases total amino acid production and allows the formation of some chemicals which are not created when the experiment is repeated in an apparatus made of Teflon. But, running the experiment in a Teflon apparatus deliberately contaminated with borosilicate recovered some of the lost amino acid production.”
And where is the evidence for that? You're using again the: "Miller-Urey experiment bad, therefore Magic!" This is old and illogicall. You're also, just like flat earthers, trying to make a narrative of a system that is trying to fool people for no reason.
Nice vid ...
How about a meteorite fell into a tidal pool then got washed into the sea snd sank to a thermal vent....
I thought the Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids randomly, both right and left handed, but living organisms only use left handed? So the experiment produced hundreds of ONLY left handed amino acids?
Also I’m always skeptical when a scientist says “it’s not a stretch to assume”… that means they don’t know the answer for sure but it’s only a guess. So I don’t take their word for it unless they have the evidence
No, they were racemic. It doesn't matter. Deracemization occurs by many mechanisms. This is a very surface level tutorial for high school students. Visit my content debunking James Tour for way more information.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains thank you
I agree with you about this point!
Didn't you later state, in a video response to Dr. James Tour, that the Miller-Urey experiment was not an appropriate explanation as to how life began?
Or did I conflict informations?
It's not appropriate to refer to that experiment as single-handedly explaining the origin of life, yes. It's just a landmark experiment that spontaneously produced important biomolecules. This is a high school level tutorial so it's pretty shallow. In my Tour response I go way more in depth.
Thank you
I love that you're still replying to uneducated comments on this video. Love your channel, Dave, super interesting stuff.
Thank you!
@Lydia lyly Oh You look so cute and adorable.
It’s hilarious that these people in the comments are trying to “seem smart”, I hope they are trolling because they really need a science class. Great video
Dave. Got a Racoon using a tool video it's a rock on a glass window. It's on the net F B everywhere. Posted it to Dr. Jane Goodall. One of those animal videos ya know. Would like to second source it to another it's out of my area soon I'll have to return to studying. (low level Physics xfer student.)
Nice vid
Fascinating....
What theories do we have on the chirality problem?
How did one out perform the other?
Fantastic
Great Article by Fazal Rana on
RNA relication-
"Artificial Life: Ready or Not Here It Comes"
Based on this paper
Kensuke Kurihara et al., “Self-Reproduction of Supramolecular Giant Vesicles Combined with the Amplification of Encapsulated DNA,” Nature Chemistry 3 (September 4, 2011): 775-81.
Dave theoretically what if i was to slurp up some primordial soup
You'd die.
Why @@jesterc.6763
James Tour be like
“This Video proves nothing. Mr Farina show me on the blackboard how molecules assemble into a living animal. We are clueless therefore God did it origin of life research is a SCAM.”
in the beginning of the video, you posed the exact same questions i did. great minds think alike!
I have liked this. However it was a bit short. The Miller Urey experiment involved molecules which are found in the Jovian atmosphere and were believed to have been the composition Earth's atmosphere 4bya. They created a tarry inert gunk composed of (of course) prebiotic molecules including AAs. Unfortunately later research suggests Earths early atmosphere was carbon dioxide (the sun was cooler) and nitrogen. Whilst they are also the building blocks of pre-biotic molecules (with hydrogen, sulphur & phosphorus) the experiment was never successful with the new parameters. Unfortunately Stanley Miller died a bitter man.
This is a watered down tutorial for high school students, visit my content debunking James Tour to learn about the current status of this field.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsthis video is perfect for reaching/teaching the masses
Since this segment was made as of 2022 all the bases of DNA and RNA have been found in meteorites. Which is a serious game changer: The building blocks of life are floating through the universe in space debris.
So a DNA/RNA strand got captured between lipids. It's cool how complex everything has become
I love crystals for a very similar reason. They are seemingly complex structures that arose from the need to evenly and efficiently disperse energy. Entropy.
I'm with Panspermia. Simple biomolecules have been found in asteroids too. Of course there is a possibility that those molecules arose in a process similar to abiogenesis.
Waning crescent but the real question is how did they form on other planets
It is not popular, because it does not resolve the issue. Although, some organic compounds could have been delivered to the surface this way.
@@pavel9652 panspermia simply allows that the conditions of life didnt need to happen on earth, i.e. earth doesnt need to have the conditions for life, just some place/planet did and it eventually arrived on earth, thats its appeal really. I dont really buy it tho.
@@fruitylerlups530 True, I actually like the idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of origin of life. The conditions in space are even harder for life to start and sustain itself. If it happened on another planet, then it had to survive extraction, travel and insertion into the Earth environment. The question still remains, how it happened and why it didn't happen on Earth? It just adds complexity and offers no answers.
Good
Has this experiment been repeated? Extended to months/years of early earth conditions. What happened?
Reading the newest comments on any video that has remotely anything to do with religion or contradicting religious belief is probably the easiest way to lose your sanity.
I'd be a little more careful distinguishing between honest-to-goodness PANSPERMIA and "pseudo-panspermia" or "soft" molecular panspermia. Most people only use panspermia to describe the notion that ACTUAL ORGANISMS arrived on Earth from space, not just amino acids and biomolecules.
Here comes the creationists. lol.
When we say something “self generates” arnt we actually saying we didn’t observe their formation?
No, we can observe it.
But the bible says that God pulled all of life out of his magical hat exactly as it is today 6,000 years ago. Are you telling me that your easily provable and observable scientific data contests my Abracadabra model? Inconceivable!
But seriously though, the only thing i love more than the science presented in this video is how it turns the stomachs of these stone-age religious fundamentalists who can't seem to get past their hang-ups about whichever magic words whichever god had to say to make it happen.
The Bible isn’t a science book and life can just appear in 6k years
@@Xithin87 its a joke
I tried my best to compress the words and sentences ,and ignore things in between the thoughts and let the intelligence of the reader fill these gaps so we don't need to mention things twice.
We need to distinguish between matter/energy level (where humans live ) and subatomic level where everything happening .The classic physics in matter/energy level cannot be applied on subatomic level, our observation is a reflection to what is happening on subatomic level including time ,for example, what we experience it as heat is actually atoms vibrating on subatomic level, and what we see it shinning is actually photons created and ejected from an object undergoing transformation on subatomic level.
The whole universe works on subatomic level, The universe does not see sun ,earth , planets , trees and buildings. It sees concentration of particles that form these objects, and with particles it deals, any term in physics associated with matter/energy is meaningless or does not exist on quantum level including (mass,force,time,energy,...etc) so in this case any physical laws that include these terms does not apply on quantum level. We need to find the aspects that play role and the physical laws that govern them on inertia scale ,and they are thousands if not millions, the mathematical equations are few kilometers long,you call uber to correct something at the other side of it. We can understand quantum physic better if we use the term (behavior of particles of the universe) , there are nothing such as particles, there are only particles of the universe and the universe forces particles to behave on a certain way in certain conditions and one of these behaviors is gravity, gravity is behavior of particles, dark matter is behavior of particles , Why Oxygen is a gas and iron is solid metal is behavior of particles , Why photons penetrate glass and reflected on other media is behaviors of particles ,any chemical process or reaction is behavior of particles. Why some elements mix with each other and some not is behaviours of particles, Movement in space is behavior of particles, the electrical charge (- and +) are behavior of particles (so they are not properties of particles),double slit experiment is behavior of particles, the Gyroscope is behavior of particles, the speed of light is behavior of particles, and ALL fundamental forces humans know are actually behavior of particles ,particles change their behavior accordingly with the circumstances surrounding them
The existence of black holes is still to be investigated ,but for the moment let's assume there is black hole in the center of each galaxy, the galactical behavior is totally different than the behavior of mass on smaller scale like planets orbiting stars and solar systems which controlled by what we know as gravity ,on galactical scale it is totally different (no matter if they are close or far from the center of the galaxy) , where the stars far from the center of the galaxy orbit faster than the stars close to the center of the galaxy ,The only explanation for this is that the behavior of particles is a function of distance (or space)
let's take 2 magnets north and south and put them close to each other ,their particles will change behavior and pull each other and if we move them away from each other their particles behavior start to change, and the attraction force starts to weaken so space in fact change the behaviors of particles, the same applies for matter that circle the galaxy ,the space is much greater of matter in galaxies than space between the mass on solar systems ,that is why particles on galactical level behave differently. This was explained by scientists by the effect of dark matter
So for all what mentioned above the origin of the universe was not the big bang but when particles started to get their properties and behaviors and atoms started to bond together and take shape to form matter and its companion energy ,the universe was different to what we see now ,The properties and behaviours of particle are ever changing ,and continue to do so for ever. Entropy is a good example for this.
The issue with big bang theory is that it turned many aspects of the universe to constants, and we know very well that nothing in the universe is constant everything is changing all the time (including properties and behaviors of particles ) and everything is moving in space, and nothing is stand still. We have expansion of the universe and we have a big bang ,we just need to fill the gap between them and we have a theory of creation.
The behaviors of particles in your body is interacting with,the particles surrounding them ,the particles of the planet you are on, the particles of the solar system your planet in, the particles of galaxy your solar system part of, and particles of all galaxies in the universe, particles have multy behaviors at the same time. So if we remove all galaxies in the universe ,and only remain you and the most distance galaxy then the particles of your body will behave according with this galaxy.
The change in properties and behaviors of particles over de course of time was not equal or at the same rate everywhere in the universe, some regions didn't develop matter yet or developed to different properties
We can say that vacuum is existence, or part of existence ,and what applies on everything exists in the universe applies also on vacuum, but humans observe vacuum from their perspective in matter/energy level , if we want to know and identify vacuum from perspective of quantum level then it will be something totally different ,if we say vacuum is absence of particles (and I mean everything we call particle, even fundamental particles) then still vacuum is influenced by the same aspects of the universe that influent all particles and give particles their properties and behaviors, so vacuum in a way or another does carry the properties and behavior by the influence of the aspects of the universe and because vacuum fill the gap between particles (at least what we know till now) then vacuum play major role in "communication" between the aspects of the universe and particle. was the early universe only vacuum ,then particles started to emerge? Humans are limited to their senses and brain ability and accuracy of their equipment's so there are lot of aspects in the universe human cannot interact with for example multi dimensions so it will take some time to know what vacuum consist of and its behaviors and properties
So any thing happening around us could be and must be explained on behavior of particles on subatomic level,the big masses matter on any size are eventually composite of particles..and the behaviour of their particles gives the big masses their behaviors and actions in space
It is certain that all particles have no mass,mass only starts to build when atoms start to bond and make matter ,so anything more that 2 atoms have mass..mass is something associated with matter/energy level ,it is nonsens that some think that the mass of big bodies is the summation of the masses of its particles ,
Where are the boundaries?,when we are going to apply the quantum physics rules and when we are going to apply classical physics,explanning this is very long task ,but there is one principle here is that the formation of atoms from Hydrogen till atoms of heavy element all subject to quantum level and mainly ruled by behaviours of particles any thing comes after is subject for matter/energy level still we need to take into account that the bonds between atoms of the same elment,or the bonds between atoms of different elements are directly concidered as behaviours of particles,if we understand this it will lead us to know how all elements and anything matter or energy formed and have its own charastaristices and properties and their transformation froma stat to another and from sort element to another by fusion ,decay ,radiation or what ever process .
Are life and biological realm a product or a consequence of behaviour of particles on subatomic level ,the answer is yes,The ingredients in humans body or any living body even small tiny single cell creatures are all made from the same elements that every thing in the universe is made off,the difference is that they have life,or what we call it life.
So what kind and what percentage of each element available on a planet that have the right environment to support life would create what kind of biological world..?
We see this very clear on differences between plants ,animals,humans and the biological world as a whole on each continent on earth it self,The biological developments started on many places on earth at the same time separately and still till now days ,so nothing fell from the skies that caused to kick start life on earth, and it is an example how behaviours of particles follow a certain path when it goes higher in complexity level.So it was not a spark.
I'm happy to see your face on evolutionary tree Professor Dave
I swear the things I see in this comment section make me ashamed of being religious, on a side note nice video Professor Dave.
@@danminer5343
Uh huh... damn that fantasy, with its stupid "evidence" and "logic"...
Oh don't be! Science is for shedding truth and religion is for gaining faith! Learn to keep both..both are equally necessary
@@danminer5343 ever heard of natural selection?
@@danminer5343 Which god created us?
You sound like Doug from Up.
0.0001% comment : Comparing his voice to a movie character
SQUIRREL!!!
If methane was needed to create first amino acids then that would mean that hydrocarbons were produced inorganically in the earth. This could change the theory of biotic source of hydrocarbons. There had to hydrocarbons available in the atmosphere for this to occur where did those hydrocarbons come from if there were no lithotrophic methanogenic archaea to begin with? Protocell would require fatty acids and lipid membranes where did the hydrocarbons originate? Could the hydrocarbons discovered in the earth be result of abiotic synthesis?
Methane can be produced abiotically.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 I know that that’s what I’m saying what if majority of hydrocarbons are derived by hydrogenation reactions with carbonate salts in the mantle of the earth?
I think the Miller Urey experiment was successfully recreated using only N2 and CO2.
Professor Dave i have no fucking clue how you read every single comment on every single video you have to the point where there's always a reply from you if you sort by new in any comment section of yours, but keep it up
ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT AND ITS ROLE IN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Paper.
Introduction. A number of recent studies suggest that ultraviolet radiation may be a necessary ingredient in the origin of life. Further, one may hypothesize that the daily solar cycle and the Sun's UV radiation were important in all stages of the origin of life on Earth. Moreover, it is suggested that life can be defined as that chemical reaction forced by the energy cycle of the Sun, under very specific circumstances.
Evidence. In support of these claims are the following assumptions and lines of evidence:
1. The assumption that all stages of the origin of life took place at or near the surface and close to or on land.
2. The assumption that there was a lower solar luminosity, higher UV flux, and no ozone layer in the period of the origin.
3. The assumption that there was a shorter diurnal, day/night cycle, due to the faster rotation of the Earth following the presumed collision that preceded the formation of the Moon.
4. The assumption that chemical selection was for stability under the Sun heat cycle.
5. The assumption that solar radiation far exceeded all other energy available for organic synthesis, including electrical discharges, shock waves, radioactivity to a depth of 1 km, volcanoes, and cosmic rays.
6. The assumption that there were wet/dry cycles that drove phosphorylation of nucleotides and perhaps other condensation reactions.
7. The assumption that there was at first a primitive, environmentally forced, PCR-like replication process of alternating heat and cold that denatured then annealed RNA paired strands. It is assumed that the Sun cycle (day and night) caused a cycle of primitive denaturing and annealing of paired RNA nucleotide strands [and possibly folded (annealed) and unfolded (denatured) nucleotide strands]. It is assumed that this provided a large number of variations of paired RNA strands with variations of properties, the most stable of which possessed the best Watson-Crick (W-C) pairing.
8. It is assumed that instead of a self replicator, there was at first a primitive, Sun-forced replication process. It is assumed that proof reading would at first have been limited to W-C pairing over non W-C pairing for stability. Note also the assumption that paired bases may have better protected the ribose-phosphate backbones from UV damage.
9. The assumption that the first coded information would have been for that molecule which was most stable in the Sun/heat cycle environment. Note: in Watson-Crick base pairing in RNA there are two sets of nucleotide bases: G bonds to C and A bonds to U. It is assumed that Watson-Crick base pairing is more stable in this environment than non Watson-Crick base pairing. And of the two sets of bases, It is assumed that the G-C bonds would have been more stable than A-U bonds because G-C bonds have 3 hydrogen bonds instead of the 2 of A-U. It is also assumed that A-U would have been more stable than non Watson-Crick base pairing. Further it is assumed that high G-C base pairing would have supported more stability than high A-U base pairing. Additionally it is assumed that A-U base pairing would have supported more stability than non Watson-Crick base pairing, or no base pairing at all. It is also assumed that high A-U base pairing would allow for more variation than G-C base pairing, because A-U bonds are more likely to denature in heat and more likely to denature quicker than G-C bonds and thus more likely to anneal with other RNA strands in cooler temperatures. It is assumed that overall the G-C plus A-U sets of nucleotides would promote both general stability with the G-C set, and variety with the A-U set of nucleotides.
10. The assumption that RNA acted as a receptor and transducer of UV radiation.
11. The assumption that there was a cyanobacteria-like lifestyle for the earliest confirmed true organisms so far, and that this earliest remnant of life is very near the likely origin of life.
12. The assumption that there was a pyrimidine dimer impact on the genetic code. It is assumed that because of the high UV during this period, UV-caused pyrimidine dimers would also be highly likely. This further assumes that this would not favor any code with adjacent pyrimidines that would lead to the likelihood of pyrimidine dimers. This further assumes that the most likely first codons would be either purine / pyrimidine / purine, or pyrimidine / purine / pyrimidine; coding that prevents adjacent pyrimidines and thus pyrimidine dimers. Later it is assumed that this would lead to information coding beginning in the 2nd position, or middle position, the most protected position of the 3 base codon and anticodon. It is assumed that this initial coding may have been limited to 2 classes or sets of amino acids; hydrophilic (XAX with "A" in 2nd protected position) and hydrophobic (XUX with U in 2nd protected position). There is also the assumption that there was a pyrimidine dimer impact on tRNA which, it is further assumed, was one of the earliest forms of RNA.
13. The assumption that the Miller / Urey experiments are seen as an illustration of a heat cycle, "energized by a cyclical electrical discharge apparatus to represent UV radiation from the Sun."
14. The assumption that the first mechanism that used sunlight energy to remove hydrogen from water may have been UV radiation on ferrous ions. Magnetite, a mixed oxide of ferrous and ferric iron found in banded iron formations (BIF) may be remnants of that process.
I aint reading allat
A creationist demanded to know how basic molecules because complex cells. I'm using your video to explain it.
Check out my content on James Tour, it's much more thorough than this.
They should have carried out the exp longer .
Why?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains i mean they carried out the exp for 1 week right so if they could have done it for like a month maybe they could see some organisms too .
That's impossible. It was a very basic setup to show that small organic molecules can form spontaneously. There was nothing in the flask that would allow them to polymerize, let alone any materials that would constitute a self-assembling membrane.
What's the difference between a proto-cell and a cell?
One does not exist
@@jlouis4407magic isn't real.
Protocells where incredibly simple and was basically a membrane and some some DNA. (Or RNA) Cells are after 3 billion years of evolution and are way more complex.
@@waspanimations7037 Any actual evidence for these cells?
@@jlouis4407 any actual evidence for sky dad?
How does a light turn on?
Don’t be stupid. You just turn on the switch, duh
you know its a good video when the dude looks like Jesus
We don’t know what he liked like
@@canbest7668yes we do, he looks exactly like the guy who played obiwan kenobi in the prequels
@@oberonpanopticon I don't know what you saying , care to explain pls 😅
This explanation is replete with words like believe, perhaps, think, theorize, and guess. In other words, they have no idea.
I can see that you've studied science denial under James Tour. No, we have a lot of it figured out, bud. Complaining about word choice is just infantile obfuscation.
@@orduenshambe4891 Well we absolutely can learn about what happened a million years or a billion years ago, it's called SCIENCE, little boy. Did you wanna try and learn about that while you're here or just continue humiliating yourself?
وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ مِن سُلَالَةٍ مِّن طِينٍ
ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُطْفَةً فِي قَرَارٍ مَّكِينٍ
ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ
دجل وكلام فاضي
زرقها
@@Fava_beans
ليس خطأك مجرد فتنة على أرضنا العربية وفقك الله
I love how Dave calls alls his haters "sweetie" LOL
1:50 This experiment doesn’t seem like an accurate representation of early earth. The atmosphere was full of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, the hydrogen would’ve quickly ran out, and if amino acids formed (I’m not doubting that the results, amino acids definitely did form) they would quickly decay back to more stable molecules
Nitrogen is rather inert, and amino acids don't just magically "decay". They are very stable.
How do you know hydrogen wasn't present? It's not here today, but that's just because it's extremely light so it floats away by its own random thermal motion. Hydrogen is the most common elements so it is reasonable to say it was present at the Earth's formation.
How did the fist proto cell reproduce?
Asexually like unicellular beings still do.
My toe sis
Please talk on the routes of drugs administration
check my pharmacology playlist
There isn't alot of evidence for abiogenesis yet, but like everything so far, things that we dont know yet, and that we claim to be supernatural in origin turn out to be simply natural with further investigation. My guess is that this trend will continue.
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance
👏👏👏
The presentation is nice, and I like the way Dave explains it, however, the level of assumptions made in the video is next level. It's not deduction. It's pure speculation and wildly so. To assume a self-replicating cell "could" form if there is enough of time in the cosmic tumbler is equal to say that nuts and bolts of precis shape, size and quantity (assuming they are already "formed naturally") flies around in a fan propelled room in infinity, they will never - I repeat - NEVER - form an engine, no matter how long time you blow the bits around. The numbers of chance for that to occur "spontaneously" is simply too high for even EONS to manifest. And a car engine or a space rocket is peanuts in construction intelligence in comparison to a CELL. This is not me guessing, this is something science already has concluded!
You’re whining about “speculation” while regurgitating the absolute dumbest creationist talking points. Try and learn something while you’re here, little boy.
I’m afraid I’m with James Tour on this. Abiogenesis in five minutes! “It’s not much of a stretch to assume” that something we haven’t been able to replicate with all the tools of biochemistry we have available, happened. I’m afraid that’s not science as I understand it, but carry on.
Maybe you should watch my several hours of content exposing him as a fraud, eh kiddo? Stop whining about "replicating" origin of life and just learn some science.
Did we ever build a tree? No. Do we know how trees grow? Yes. We don't need to exactly replicate something to understand it
Has the Miller Urey experiment been repeated, and for more than a week?
LordDavidVader www.scientificamerican.com/article/primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/
I’ve read paper on this topic before but frankly don’t want to pay for them. This gives a pretty good summary of the experiment being repeated and made even more accurate
Maybe they should add a natural and plausibly occuring molecule or catalyst that would allow for polymerisation in drops at a constant rate, something like 5 ml every 2 days. Maybe also change the conditions like maybe adding a slow speed stir bar or an overall bigger setup. Then run the experiment for a few months and see what happens. I would like to see that.
I agree we need more research, although, the scale and amount of combinations and environmental factors that might come into play are just mind-boggling. Perhaps some computer simulations as well? Something like protein folding. Reminds me of the longest experiment on evolution that is running since the late 80s ;)
Because although widely heralded by the press as ‘proving’ that life could have originated on the early earth under natural conditions (i.e. without intelligence), we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred.
In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can even be toxic to life.
Superb. Show us a bit of abiogenesis. Maybe one of these times.
Visit my content debunking James Tour, I talk about an enormous amount of research in that area.
I mean unless you have an electron microscope, it’d be very hard to see abiogenesis happening with your eyes
omg people would you stop? my family and i are very religious too, but never was there any discussion regarding science/religion or anything related to that. Both my parents are science students and all of us believe in science and in God. I swear none of us had even thought of this before i read Dan Brown a few weeks ago. Seriously, grow up. God is my family, but that doeant mean science is shit.
so the molecules clashed and formed amino acids, but how can the molecules exist? if the whole beginning of the universe is truly caused by an explosion, why did it cause a specific set of atoms to exist, and have specific rules that exist on all levels of life? why didn't it just create random charged molecules that can't bind whatsoever and leave the universe as literally nothing, only particles with no life forms in it?
the more I study biology the more this bothers me.
enjoyed the video though. I'm gonna watch all of them
If you want to understand cosmology, visit my astronomy series. It is very clear you have zero knowledge regarding the processes that created atoms and molecules.
Has anyone ever been able to create synthetic life in the lab? If so, was the person who created them an intelligent individual?
DR. hovind taught me this one.
Um, Kent does not have any degrees, and he's dumber than rocks. Synthetic biology has nothing to do with origin of life research. Please actually watch this.
@@ogreman-lll-957 "Dr."
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
_Wheeze_
*AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH*
No.
@@ogreman-lll-957 Have you actually even seen where he got his "degree" from? He was just paid to lie to kids whose parents where scientifically illiterate enought to believe in magic
''DR''? 😆@@ogreman-lll-957
Hey Dave, have you done any videos or debates debunking bullsh*t conspiracy theories about covid-19 vaccines? Or mRNA vaccines in general?
I talk about them in my generalized anti-vaxx debunk.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains thank you sir, I found that video. Loved it!
I started out watching your flat earth videos, as I am completely fascinated how anyone in this day and age could believe such nonsense. This is the first video I watched of yours that wasn't flat earth related. While you clearly have much knowledge about things scientific, I noticed you said things like 'some believe, 'we don't exactly know what happened', or 'it's possible', which of course means you are a man of faith, but of course not the same faith as someone who believes in God. While your video is interesting, it doesn't explain how the different elements that supposedly somehow came together were in existence in the first place. While I am not a scientist, and don't pretend to be, it seems that things coming together by chance, and becoming more and more complex as times goes on, would contradict the laws of thermodynamics, which says that things always move from a state of order, to a state of disorder, or chaos.
If you want to know how elements came to exist, you need to visit my astronomy series. They are fused in stars. No, abiogenesis does not in any way contradict the laws of thermodynamics, you just don't know what those laws state. Visit my classical physics tutorials if you wish to learn about that.
Globally (whole universe) things tend toward chaos. Locally, things do not necessarily do so in the way that you describe. So no, this does not contradict basic rules of thermodynamics.
Alright, so a bunch of stuff goes through a process that turns it into amino acids, those amino acids turn into proteins, the proteins get trapped in a lil bubble and it's then a cell. Am I right?
No you need genetic material. RNA.
So "Cool Blobs" that reproduce are made from "Spheres of Influence"
The most important aspect of science is being willing to say those three little words "I don't know." When it comes to the origin of life on earth, We Don't Know. I've constructed and operated the Miller-Urey apparatus, and it proves nothing more than that it takes an intelligent force directing controlled processes in a small closed system to make amino acids. The unwarranted assumptions of Miler included the early composition of the atmosphere. Urey-Miller chose the experiment's atmosphere using the molecules necessary to create amino acids, using known chemical reactions. That's a tautology. For this reason, and others, Urey-Miller has been roundly debunked in the biochemistry community. Proponents say "but we can't observe that former environment" to justify their missing data. But as a famous chemist once said, the absence of data is not data.
Evolutionary biologists have zero idea how life originated. There is no plausible explanation and no demonstrated mechanism. It's a huge gulf, which is why some resort to the "panspermia" theory as a last resort.
When you say "we don't know exactly what happened, but it's not much of a stretch to assume that the basic organic components delivered from the Urey-Miller experiment were able to spontaneously polymerize", that's not science. That's pure conjecture with no basis in any research. Nobody has been able to simulate this polymerization, let alone observe it occurring in nature.
Please reply with those three little words. And retitle this video to tell the truth instead of the giant lie that science knows "The Origin of Life on Earth"
You don't think that if a week of bubbling in an apparatus can produce amino acids, that a half a billion years of sloshing around in the ocean can do the same? I agree that the experiment is not a flawless recreation, but it's by no means a huge stretch of the imagination. Biologists don't have "zero idea". There are incredibly detailed and plausible scenarios involving volcanic vents and mineral-filled tidal pools, which I briefly mention here. Also, yes, there is some conjecture in this clip. So what? This isn't a journal publication. It's a TH-cam video. I'm teaching what we know about how life evolved, from non-life to humans. I explain some things that we know, mention that there are definitely gaps, and insert my own opinion. Who says I can't? And who are you to tell me how to title my videos? Make your own channel and title your videos whatever you want.
@mwstar The absence of data is not data. Show me the data.
@@Nigel-Webb Oh how much has changed in the five years since I wrote that reply. I've learned so much about origin of life research and debunked so many idiot creationist naysayers. No, sweetie. I won't say "we don't know", it should be you saying you have zero knowledge of the status of origin of life research. Take some responsibility for your worldview and learn something.
@@Nigel-Webb Oh cool, a random word you pulled out of your ass that has nothing to do with any research on anything ever. Why do you bother commenting when you know that you have clue what you're talking about?
A lot of spontaneous and serendipity lol
Huh?
"I can't think of any other thing than creationism of God because...because.. -that's what I was taught my entire life- you are wrong and James tour is right and that's it."
@@RationalPea what a boring thing to say.
What about the idea of directed panspermia
Kind of science fiction if anything, but not completely outside of the realm of possibility.
The thing is we can't believe whatever we see on Google or Wikipedia and somehow completely unrelated but I found a reserch paper which shows 2 nuclear explosions on Mars surface 300 mn years ago and the paper says that the most plausible explanation is that it didn't happen naturally, so what the hell happened?
Google is a search engine. It shows literally everything on the internet, factual or otherwise. So that makes zero sense. And Wikipedia is an incredibly reliable source of information because the open source feature means it can't be propagandized. No, there is nothing that says there were nuclear explosions on Mars. That's ridiculous.
Nah there are some articles and papers I just rechecked that they were still there after I commented. Maybe I could email you that one. The paper quotes "The xenon isotope mass spectrum of the Mars atmosphere matches that from open air nuclear testing on Earth and is characteristic of fast neutron fission rather than that produced by a moderated nuclear reactor".
I am convinced urey Miller experiment didn't create anything. The chemicals just reacted with the glass test tubes used and was shown by experimenting with different test tubes made of different materials and found that no. Of amino acids varied.
Evolution is perfectly capable tobe a Christian view, science doesn't say life happened forcefully but atoms and the simplest of different molecules piece together under exterior stress naturally. God could've made this and doesn't diminish our excellence on earth at all
Did the first “living” thing need to have cells, or be a cell?
It was a single protocell.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains how do you know that?
@@maambomumba6123 Because unicellular life predates multicellular life. Simpler to more complex. It's obvious.
He ignored many basic facts about protein synthesis, didn't even attempt to discuss the chirality issue, how peptide bonds form, the reversibility of reactions without enzymes, the correct sequence of amino acids necessary to create proteins, what the putative single molecule of correct protein will do in the sea of junk protein produced by the same blind processes...my only question is, is this imaginative storytelling fuelled by wilful ignorance or deliberate propaganda?
This is a basic, introductory video for high school students, bud. It sounds like you're going to want to watch my debunk of James Tour I put out a month or two ago. It goes quite a bit more in depth and explains why your baseless cries of "propaganda" are not warranted.
@@ProfessorKleinium There’s nothing to stop you addressing the actual biochemistry issues I raised. Or is there? I am not particularly impressed by the ‘already debunked elsewhere’ strategy. Tell me about cheirality, peptide bonds, amino acid sequences and the other basic biochemistry of a cell assembling itself from scratch, if you can.
@@ProfessorKleinium IF tours had anything of value to add he would have written a peer-reviewed science paper on it like he has done numerous times before- BUT he resorted to youtube videos instead. That says all that is needed. Tours is a nothing in the field of abiogenesis and is losing much of his credibility in his own specific field. But you go right ahead and worship him as a messiah IF you need to. No one in the Origins of Life field takes him even slightly seriously. He has made a joke of himself.
@@ProfessorKleinium IF tours had anything of value to add in this specific field he would have written a peer-reviewed science paper backed with the evidence he collected like he has done numerous times before in his own specific field. But he didn't. He stooped down to attack a youtube videographer. But it looks more like he was looking up at Professor Dave the whole time. Hope that clears up any misunderstanding. Sorry but I don't waste my time watching religious creationists spout on about anything- they have no value for me. And it is embarrassing that you actually admitted to teaching science and you found anything tours muttered to be compelling. Embarrassing.
Interesting video, it leaves me with a question. Are you a religious man or even acknowledge a possible god or do you think it is strictly evolution.
I'm not religious in any way, no.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains And if Lucas asked that of Prof. Kenneth Miller (of Brown University), he would have answered yes. Which begs the question, "What is Lucas' point?"
I don't think he had one, and you certainly don't.
Whoa there, Prof Dave, I'm agreeing with you! Lucas asked what your religious affiliation was. You replied you didn't have one. I suggested that if he asked the same question to Dr Kenneth Miller (well known evolution advocate, University Professor, and Catholic), he would get a different answer. I asked him what was the point of his question. My point was that the religious background of any scientist doesn't have any bearing on the veracity of the Science itself. That's all.
Haha whoops sorry, I didn't even look to see that the first commenter was named Lucas. I get a little agitated after rapid fire replying to flat earthers all day! It's true, it is totally possible to be religious and still accept the entire body of modern science, at least if you are not fundamentalist about it.
Jumping to conclusions at the beginning of the video. I'm out.
Uh oh, did my science insult your agenda?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains 100%
How Nebula formed?
Visit my astronomy playlist.
I think this is the most logical fallacy statement and very fast one just one seconds from the intro. You said we all things came from one ancesstor... Which is still not confirmed according to many scientist
Got an alternate explanation, kiddo?
"this is the most logical fallacy statement" can you even english bro? You should learn the science for your self instead of listening to creationist feeding you propaganda and dogma. Think for your self.
Science is not based on philosophical arguments.