Chemical Evolution didn't happen. Here's why: Cell membranes.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2024
- Charles Darwin and some modern scientists think that life started all on its own, it sort of just...happened, spontaneously. It’s called chemical evolution (aka Abiogenesis). They say it started with chemicals forming building blocks, and then combining into polymers like DNA and RNA.
The next step toward life would be CELL MEMBRANES. All living things are made of cells that are surrounded by a cell membrane, life simply cannot exist without membranes.
Origin-of-life researchers claim that cell membranes are easy to make and that they have demonstrated this in the lab. They point toward experiments where these molecules called “phospholipids” (or more generally “amphiphilic molecules”) are placed in water and they form into a spherical shell-kind of like a cell membrane-all on their own. Wow!
But is it really the case that cell membranes are so easy to form? Let’s take a look more closely….
References: docs.google.com/document/d/1X...
#originoflife - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpQnHoQvZt4/mqdefault.jpg)
Another classic case of "emergent complexity doesn't exist." The earliest precursors to life would have obviously been simpler than life as we know it today. You don't need any organelles for a proto-cell, just self-replicating nucleic acids (easy to form) and a phospholipid bilayer. Specific channels wouldn't be needed when there was literally no other life on Earth to attack the proto-cell.
Hmm, it's as if you didn't actually watch the video because we cover that objection in the video.
"You don't need any organelles for a proto-cell". Please provide proof that said proto-cells existed and are not only theoretical. A replicating nucleic acid needs auxiliary proteic machinery. That's why viruses 'borrow' said machinery (replicases) from their cellular hosts. We know of no virus replicating by itself.
You certainly did not watch the video. We're speaking of homeostasis, no one said anything of other cells 'attacking' each other.
"Emergent" properties do indeed exist. The whole is more than the sum of its parts (2500+ years ago, Aristotle explained it perfectly well).
The problem is that materialists assert said "emergence" (because it's obvious that it exists) but they can not explain why it happens. Which are the 'rules' of emergence?
@@LongStoryShortVideos No, you draw invalid comparisons between life today and the precursors to life. Proto-cells would not need to expel waste because without metabolism they would have no waste to expel. They wouldn't need specificity in their channels because replication of simple nucleic acids can occur spontaneously. ATP synthetases obviously would not be present in proto-cells.
You then proceed to conflate decreasing the size of the genome with reverse-engineering the precursors of life. That's like saying a car can only run on an engine of this minimum amount of power, therefore it had to have that engine from the beginning or it could never exist. You ignore that the metabolic and homeostatic systems of modern organisms are emergent properties of feasible autocatalytic reactions that could easily occur on the primordial Earth. You also forget that proto-cells are not alive.
It’s not about keeping other organic substances out but promoting a balance within an inanimate environment attempting to react to, bind to, or otherwise interfere with the other substances within the biotic organism as though it too were abiotic. You technically could live forever if not for the universe attempting to react to your mere existence, but sadly, all the sodium wants to siphon away your water, potassium wants to bind to your cells, etc., but those cell membranes have to selectively choose in what amounts it’ll allow within itself and then keep out the excess.
I think it would be more effective to cite your sources in the description
We've done that previously, but character limits :\
@@LongStoryShortVideosever here about pinned comments. Cough...Cough....
@@TonyLambregts lol, fair enough! I tend to like to highlight a good comment thread from someone who disagrees and keep the conversation going there. If there is enough interest in having the links in a pinned comment I might do that instead.
References:
1. Some may argue that viruses generally don't have a cell membrane and yet they are “living”; however, viruses cannot replicate without the assistance of a host cell that has a membrane, and everyone agrees that replication is a requirement for life.
2. “The reason that lipids have become so prominent in research on the origin of life is the ease with which they self-assemble into membranous compartments.” David Deamer, “The Role of Lipid Membranes in Life’s Origin,” Life (Basel), 7(1): 5 (March, 2017). doi: 10.3390/life7010005 .
“A mixture of oily lipids shaken up in water will spontaneously sort itself into a thin bilayer, a biological membrane enclosing a watery vesicle, because that is the most stable state.” Nick Lane, The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life (W.W. Norton, 2015) p. 57
“Historically, the origin of membranes has been mostly approached from a bottom-up perspective, focusing on how amphiphilic molecules form vesicles under prebiotic conditions and serve as primordial boundaries for protocells.” Jonathan Lombard, Purificación Lopez-Garcia, and David Moreira, “The early evolution of lipid membranes and the three domains of life,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 10: 507-515 (2012). doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2815
“Such compartments are known to readily self-assemble from amphiphilic compounds (soap-like fatty acids and fatty alcohols) that are commonly found in experiments that simulate the prebiotic ‘soup’.” David Deamer, “How leaky were primitive cells,” Nature, 454: 37-38 (2008). doi.org/10.1038/454037a.
3. “We conclude that the membranes of LUCA [The Last Universal Common Ancestor for all of life] were necessarily leaky, composed of mixed amphiphiles (including fatty acids) but lacking glycerol-phosphate headgroups.” Víctor Sojo, Andrew Pomiankowski, and Nick Lane, “A Bioenergetic Basis for Membrane Divergence in Archaea and Bacteria,” PLoS Biology, 12(8): e1001926 (2014). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001926.
“It is unlikely that Earth’s first cells assembled bilayer membranes together with specific membrane protein transporters. Rather, intermediate evolutionary steps must have existed in which simple lipid molecules provided many of the characteristics of contemporary membranes without relying on advanced protein machinery.” Sheref S. Mansy, “Membrane Transport in Primitive Cells,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 2: a002188 (2010). doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a002188.
“The permeability properties of prebiotically plausible membranes suggest that primitive protocells could have acquired complex nutrients from their environment in the absence of any macromolecular transport machinery.” Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krishnamurthy, Sylvia Tobe, Douglas A. Treco, Jack W. Szostak, “Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell,” Nature, 454: 122-126 (2008). doi:10.1038/nature07018.
4. It’s a bit more complicated than this due to electric charges and other chemical factors but the back of the napkin math works out: the smallest known cells (~200 nm across) typical amino acid, histidine (0.61 nm) and protons (0.000000833 nm). Housefly ~5 mm, Monaco ~2 km2, Sweden ~410,000 km2.
5. Although only a small voltage (approximately 0.2V) is generated across the cell membrane, the cell membrane is very, very thin (a stack of about 10,000 membranes would equal the thickness of a human hair). So, if we think about this in terms of volts per meter, cell membranes have about the equivalent volts per meter of a bolt of lightning! (30 million volts per meter!)
6. Technically speaking this would destroy the proton gradient and rob the cell of its ability to generate electricity via ATP synthase.
7. Kuniaki Takata, Toshiyuki Matsuzaki, and Yuki Tajika, “Aquaporins: water channel proteins of the cell membrane,” Progress in Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, 39: 1-83 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.proghi.2004.03.001.
Tamir Gonen and Thomas Walz, “The structure of aquaporins,” Quarterly Review of Biophysics, 39: 361-396 (2006). doi:10.1017/S0033583506004458.
Kazuyoshi Murata et al., “Structural determinants of water permeation through aquaporin-1,” Nature, 407: 599-605 (2000). doi.org/10.1038/35036519.
8. Some claim that M. genitalium is not truly free-living. The smallest truly free-living microbe known is Pelagibacter ubique, but the membranes of both organisms are similar in complexity.
9. Claire M. Fraser et al., “The minimal gene complement of Micoplasma genitalium,” Science, 270: 397-404 (1995). doi:10.1126/science.270.5235.397.
10. Westberg et al., “The Genome Sequence of Mycoplasma mycoides susp. mycoides SC Type Strain PG1T, the Causative Agent of Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP),” Genome Research, 14, 221-227 (2004). doi:10.1101/gr.1673304.
11. Clyde A. Hutchison et al., “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome,” Science, 351: aad6253-1 (2016). doi.org/10.1126/science.aad6253. DOI:10.1126/science.aad6253.
12. Marian Breuer et al. “Essential metabolism for a minimal cell,” eLife, 8:e36842 (2019). DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36842. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36842.
13. “mycoplasmas-a group of bacteria with small genomes (580-1350 kbp (Herrmann, 1992; Fraser et al., 1995)) lacking a cell wall, which evolved via extreme genome reduction from low GC content Gram-positive ancestors (Pollack et al., 1997). Mycoplasmas exist as parasites or saprotrophs and are adapted to scavenging nutrients and cellular building blocks from their niche environments, which enabled them to lose many metabolic capabilities.” Marian Breuer et al. “Essential metabolism for a minimal cell,” eLife, 8:e36842 (2019). DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36842.
14. Glucose, glycerol, spermine, nicotinic acid, thiamin, pyridoxamine, thioctic acid, riboflavin, choline, folic acid, pantothenate, adenine, guanine, cytidine, cholesterol, palmitic acid, oleic acid, oligopeptides, and cysteine.
15. National Kidney Foundation, www.kidney.org/patients/peers/dialysis.
@@LongStoryShortVideos dang man you really got receipts
6:50
This argument could have been left out.
Removing parts/genes from an organism that has undergone 3.5+ billion years of Evolution and specialization is a horrible way to test what the first lifeforms needed to survive. Because you're not just talking about an organism with reduced genes, you're talking about an organism with a completely different set of genes and biochemistry than what is found in organisms today.
It's like trying to remove the lungs from a lunged organism and then argue that because they can't survive without lungs then therefore said organism could not be simplified/reduced beyond its lunged condition.... whilst completely ignoring that the ancestors to organisms with lungs used a totally different system (gills) to absorb oxygen.
Just because the removal of some part or genes from an extant and specialized organism is detrimental, it doesn't mean that their ancestors needed it.
Keep coping buddy.
@@kyledenson1287 this guy doesn't care too much about anything in this video. His life is dedicated to trying to prove evolution true. Even when intelligent individuals speak nonsense, it's still nonsense
What do you think about the rest of the video then? Do you think cell membranes didn't have to be complex to start with? Got any evidence for your claim?
@@Golfinthefamily read my comment. This guy won't change his mind, it's already been set
@@jakejones3453 I know... but I'd like to hear where he dismisses one component but how he deals with the necessary complexity of the cell membrane
Interesting that a lot of these comments boil this down to creationism versus evolution. Discrediting the current model of evolution in no way creates proof for creationism, and it is entirely possible there is some other explanation we haven't dreamed of yet. Confirmation bias is an issue on everyone's part, so what's important is that we remember discussions like these are not targeted attacks and should under no circumstances be taken on a personal level (or given on one).
And the attempts to falsify evolution are largely based on a straw man version of science anyway.
Eh, I always practice open skepticism. It's crazy all that one can learn.
Or we may have finally found the solution to the Fermi paradox. That so many specific and random things have to happen perfectly to create life that we could be the only (Or one of the only) planets with life in the entire universe.
This channel is targeting ads with false science to muddy people's scientific understanding which is a goal of creationists.
The attacks are completely justified and you're a moron if you think there is any scientific information to be gained from this channel
this post is offensive. I want to be a dick and have arguments online and call people that have different opinions and beliefs due to a need/want of purpose and guidance in how to live life. I don’t wanna expand my horizons and grow as a human being by learning from and respecting their personal outlooks on the world. I want to be a soggy cunt and say that my outlook on the world is the one and only outlook on the world!
(If my English was hard to understand then please know this is supposed to be sarcasm. I’m not sure how to write sarcasm in English)
The opening title card speaking about this being produced with collaboration of 5 PhD scientists needs to be clarified. This same title card is shown in one other video in this channel (I've seen it in only one of the three videos I've watched, perhaps the other videos have it as well)
Who are these 5 people in question and what are their qualifications?
While appreciated that the sources are listed in the description, it'll also be nice to know who the channel creator is working with with regards to content arrangement and validation for what is subsequently uploaded onto the channel.
I think the science is better served by keeping the focus on arguments rather that the individuals behind them. The goal with the opening title card isn't to get people to accept the argument on their authority, but more as a cursory quality check that this isn't all made up. Some serious research has gone into writing these videos. That said, it's not really a secret who is on the team, I posted about their qualifications before and a number of them are here personally replying in the comments as well.
@@LongStoryShortVideos The reason why it's important to know who's saying it is to know that these are people who understand what they're saying. This helps validate that what the statements they make are indeed based from studies and research that they've done on the field or research at hand matches with the topic of discussion right in front of us.
If they have been open to commenting, please ensure in adding them in the source document linked in the descriptions, or instead mention their names along with qualifications on the description directly.
The purpose isn't to say that those without qualifications aren't valid, but that if viewers to attach the academic weight that would be implied by the tag of "Five PhD scientists" into a piece of content, that claim in itself has to be validated by providing those viewers with the names (and preferably the field and college of study they're from) of those individuals to validate that claim itself.
@@LongStoryShortVideos 🤣
@@LongStoryShortVideos If the goal isn't to invoke their authority, what's the point of mentioning that they have PhDs?
@@LongStoryShortVideos if so much research went into it how is it so bad?
I noticed a lot of people saying in the comments that the first life doesn’t have to be complex could you do a video on why there wrong?
This is that video... 6:55 :)
It is hardly surprising that things start simple and get more complex. Scientists have even created very simple cells.
@@capitalb5889not functional living cells.
This one's a pretty good example! 😭 Put all of their videos together, along with the thousands of other pieces of evidence...." I think I can hear the Bell tolling" 🙏😍
😂😂😂😂 “please make a video to explain why what I want to believe is right, please”
...Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any creationist assertions in this video.
There are plenty of places in science where "we don't know why X, but based on A and B, it had to be some kind of Y" is a fine answer. I'm reminded of dark matter.
You could make an argument that dark matter couldn't possibly be, for example, the result of spontaneously forming matter-antimatter particle pairs. (Whether this is actually true, let's ignore that for now.)
That argument does not imply any of the following, necessarily:
1) That dark matter has no scientific explanation
2) That divine intervention is required for dark matter to exist
3) That dark matter itself is a conspiracy theory to deceive the public
I don't really see how declaring a simple phospholipid (bi)layer insufficient for the emergence of life as we know it is any different.
If the complaint is that the video is too dismissive of unknown mechanisms...sure, I guess? But even in that case, the challenges here aren't easily resolved. Going from "a bubble with some stuff inside of it that is distinct from the stuff outside it" to "the first instance of something that counts as a metabolism" is pretty monumental. The only real possibility seems to be building blocks flowing in to fuel a self-sustaining reaction that joins small molecules into larger molecules that can't pass through the membrane, and either creates no waste or small, membrane-permeable waste. And at that point, you also have the problem of why this reaction isn't occuring in the surrounding environment, and how the system as a whole is getting its energy and is not inert.
There's been this nasty habit ever since creationism was a cultural phenomenon in the early 2000s, that any concerns about how we even get to LUCA in the first place are anti-science. But it's an intensely interesting and difficult thing to answer, and I wish we could talk about it critically without devolving into "believe this or you hate science," which is itself ironically unscientific.
Smartest thing I've read here so far. Everybody is "believing" science these days like it's a dogma, and when you have or pose questions or objections (which is how science is supposed to be done), they brush you off and stamp you with a label/tag. It's just crazy these days. Everyone wants to police everybody. Let's just hear each other out and argue respectively without labeling
As others have noted, this video IS unscientific. It makes wild assumptions about what the first ‘life’ even was. Even assuming metabolism existed is a stretch, between RNA world and virus world theories. Could prions have been the first things? They would have homogenized the environment. Who knows.
@@tarod3 it makes no assertions, so how then can it be "unscientific"? It simply makes common sense deductions from what we know about how life exists *now*, and doesn't defer to unproven theories about how it "must have" existed in some undefined time period, and under some undefined conditions. If you ask me, it's THOSE speculations which are unscientific. Qualified scientists spit balling unfounded (literally) ideas doesn't automatically turn their arguments into science simply because they previously did actual science.
@@frankdayton731His argument sounds just like the arguments against evolution. There’s no way that horse came from a monkey, they’re too different! It misrepresents the theories very badly. As I said in my last post, his idea of what life is is. even dubious.
Also, speculation IS scientific. You make a theory and test it, or test something similar after making an argument as to why it’s meaningfully similar. If we didn’t wildly speculate, scientific progress would grind to a halt every time we fail to solve a problem.
Theories are then VALUED based on their predictive and explanatory power. Proof is a rare treasure in some fields.
False assumptions are always abounding!!! You assume that dark matter exists! Because someone tells you "it has to"... Because it somehow makes their other unbelievable theories... "More believable"?... Follow the money! 💪😭
When I disagree with someone I’ll just go ahead and avoid discussion by making their argument for them. I always agree with myself so it works out very well for me.
So, instead of fighting them, you join them?
Have you came across someone so stupid you just couldn't join them? If no, i geuss you don't count anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, pseudo-scientists, and flat-earthers.
LOL I thought I had nailed the video’s problem in my comment over there well, but you just did it better and in like one tenth the verbiage and time spent typing.
Brilliant.
Gotta say, I’m impressed with the improvement in production quality in today’s religious propaganda. Subtle enough to only seed doubt, patient enough to withhold the real sales pitch for creationism for another time. Maybe even another sponsored video from another channel. Clever.
Socrates says The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
@@joshngarcia true but I smelt a rat when on the subject of abiogenesis the first two words out of the narrator's mouth was "Charles Darwin....".
Ok, I am curious how do you believe life was started exactly?
Clearly a judgemental pervert in the sky who decided to take Sundays off
God, which is a stupid fucking argument cause he doesn't exist
It did not start via purely mechanistic processes because life is not "just" matter, although it certainly involves a material component.
@@martam4142 ok, so what’s the other component then?
“DuH, mAgIc mAn iN sKy sAiD wOrDs!”
I only clicked on this video because I wanted to know why there was a tiny poo inside a bubble 😂
😂 💩 🤣
Legit :)
It was obviously predicting the video's content.
@@chbu7081It’s fine to admit all the information is beyond your understanding hence it looks like “poop” to you.
Your videos helped me alot. It takes little skeptism to deconstruct Darwinian evolution and find holes which completely destroys the theory.
And yet no one has ever done so.
@@strangequark3897 yes many brave scientists did.
@@KhalilKhan-kg9ox Really, a scientist debunked the preponderance of transitional fossils we know of, explained the extremely close match in ERVs and pseudogenes in closely related taxa, and negated all the cases of evolution being directly observed?
That is exactly right!! Well done!! 😍 It was always a stupid idea! 😭😭
@@strangequark3897 where are the actual transitional fossils?
6:49
I don’t this rebuttal really works. The cell that had genes removed was still having to support the other complex structures that the remaining genes created without the necessary structures that the removed genes produced. For an analogy, the first “proto-cell” wouldn’t have had a heart to keep clean with a detoxing liver.
On top of that, we are drawing the line at what we think is “alive.” Which I’m simply going to assume means, “can dispose of waste, can consume nutrients, and can reproduce” since it is very simple and encompasses, pretty much, everything. Everything except autocatalytic reactions. Chemical processes that prime further chemical processes. Which the first “proto-cell” would’ve likely been a product of.
While I do agree with the objections to chemical evolution posed by this video, I simply wonder what is the alternative? Chemical Evolution is widely accepted because it, while not perfect, still stands better than most other theories and hypothesis.
That is an easy answer........Creation. If you take an unbiased deep dive you will find that more and more is lining up with Intelligent Design and less on Evolution. I invite you to research the Flagellum. It has been discovered that the mechanical mechanisms of bacteria flagellum could never have evolved. Its an eye opening subject!
@@reneesantiago6496
Even if the flagellum could not have evolved, which I don’t know enough to say wether or not it could, that does not disprove the entirety of evolution. Evolution requires that life simply be there and cares little for how it got there. So, I ask, how so does the impossibility of cells forming on their own, completely disprove evolution as it pertains to, say, the emergence of whales and the lactose tolerance of mankind?
@@pillowmcnormalman2753 *of Europeans*
Damn my distant Asian ancestor.
This whole video is a giant straw man. It’s all based on probably wrong assumptions about how the first life ‘must have been’. The first proto-life probably wasn’t even a cell it was likely just a molecule that first managed to replicate. There may have been a fair amount of complexity evolved long before the first cell membrane was existent.
The primary alternative to chemical evolution which Long Story Short seems to support is the existence of God and either divinely guided evolution or YEC. :)
I often wondered, considering how complex our bodies are, how any single cells came to link up to produce such vast lifeforms...because everytime I delve into it, science itself proves its impossible.
"science itself proves it's impossible" - what utter crap. This sentence is nonsensical. The science is available and it all provides overwhelming evidence for evolution. The fact that you hunt down pseudoscience to tell you what you want to hear doesn't change the reality, it just leaves you ignorant of the truth.
@@capitalb5889You function only on assumptions.not science
@@capitalb5889if you don’t believe in a afterlife, stop wasting it getting ticked off by religious people or people that don’t support your view of evolution.
@@bikesrcool_1958 I didn't say anything about am afterlife in my post. Please focus on what I wrote rather than what you imagine I wrote.
I simply made clear that evolution is a fact and those who don't believe in it cherry pick certain things to fit their predetermined narrative.
@@capitalb5889 how in any way did you prove evolution was a fact by just stating your opinion.??
Talking about the origin of life as starting with cell membranes is like trying to describe taking a trip overseas that begins with getting off the plane, then denying that planes exist. There's about 2 billion years of evolution that happened before the first cellular membrane appeared. This is just a fancier version of the Watchmaker's Fallacy. Try reading a book that wasn't written by shepherds 2000 years ago.
Hey Kenneth, thanks for the comment. Maybe you missed that this is the 3rd video in a series?
2 billion years can not make a 0 into anything. If life was not meant to be in the Universe, no amount of time could actualize it. You are inserting magic.
0 x whatever = 0. Please take a course in logic. And do tell Dawkins to join you too.
@@martam4142 this is just an assertion. We didn't start at "zero"
@@cuiper_ No one can empirically calculate the "odds" of life beginning in this Universe, because then we would need to have knowledge of "other" Universes with life in them to make the comparison.
What metaphysics tells us is that it was either:
- 0 (and therefore life would never have appeared, which we know is not true). Discarded.
- greater than 0: which means that the Universe was "pregnant" with life (so to speak) from the very beginning. If it's greater than 0, then the materialist has not right to claim that life was an "accident" or "unplanned". An "accident" compared to what? That's pure philosophical bias, not science.
@@martam4142 nobody really claims life is an "accident". Saying it was just natural processes is not really saying it was an accident, you're kind of mincing words. Bringing up the probability of life existing in this universe is irrelevant, because like you said, we don't have anything to compare it to. What's important is that life exists, and has processes we can study. I suppose you could say that the universe was "pregnant" with life to begin with, in the same way that it was "pregnant" with things like stars and compounds. The components for these things existed in the universe before they formed into those things. So far, there's no reason at all to conclude that it's impossible for life to come into existence through naturalistic means.
There's a lot of desperation in the comments. Their lack of specificity in addressing the points raised in the video are noteworthy, as well as their appeal to non observed ideas.
This video makes the point that food cannot pass through cell membranes. Sunlight can however which can be a form of food.
@@June28JulySunlight by itself isn't usable food. What if I threw a watermelon at you? You wouldn't be nourished. You may even get hurt. You have to have the faculties to hold, chew, swallow, digest, absorb, excrete , etc. in order to turn the watermelon into useable energy.
@Pyr0Ben
I'm a complex life form however. The beginnings of life would be much simpler and could find sunlight as a means of driving chemical reactions.
@@June28July That doesn't change the fact that you still have a chicken and egg conundrum. You need biological mechanisms to eat food, but food to create biological mechanisms.
The burden of proof is on you to show how this is possible.
As demonstrated, there really is no such thing as a "simple organism".
@@Pyr0Ben
No such conundrum exists: light itself is a potential source of food and light has been here since the very beginning.
@longstoryshort could you share what your thoughts on alternative explanations are? If not spontaneously from chemical life, how else could life come about in the universe let alone Earth? Meaning, even if it were seeded on earth rather thana primordial soup, how would it have come about wherever it originated from? Do you have other videos exploring that? Or just refutations against spontaneity? I'll go browse but please let us know if you haven't mentioned it in a video yet.
God did it.
I'll put this here as I just discovered your videos as it's the most recent one, but it's regarding points raised in all three of your related videos. I'm not a biochemist and have focused more on genetics and cell biology, but do know and understand a bit.
In terms of getting large amounts of molecules, autocatalytic cycles would be key. RNA fragments have been shown to self-assemble into self-replicating ribozymes spontaneously and form cooperative catalytic cycles and networks. If molecules are autocatalytic then selective pressures can be applied to them and they evolve. The more efficient autocatalytic molecules outcompete the less efficient ones, in Darwinian fashion. For example, two different “species” or self-replicating ribozymes have been shown to accumulate mutations and gain affinity for different substrates presented to them in the same environment, effectively exploiting their own micro-ecological niches.
You can even get autocatalytic cycles with the relatively common molybdenum oxide, so a really simple autocatalytic set.
Low yields aren’t really an issue in autocatalysis because after many cycles of generating the same molecules, impurities become purged spontaneously from the system.
In terms of life, or the generation of, going in the opposite direction of every other process, that’s not entirely true. Living systems are regarded as dissipative structures as they dissipate free energy coming from intense sources, i.e. the sun. They are high free energy and low entropy, arising because of the need to dissipate that free energy and increase the entropy of the system, according to the second law of thermodynamics. This drives the formation of self-organising systems.
UV light is even thought to have played a role in the formation of purines (parts of nucleosides) from hydrogen cyanide in an aqueous environment.
Life has dynamic kinetic stability rather than thermodynamic stability because of the constant energy input, so hydrolysis isn’t really a problem.
You mentioned Eigen, yet he himself has said “Evolution appears to be an inevitable event, given the presence of certain matter with specified autocatalytic properties and under the maintenance of finite (free) energy flow necessary to compensate for the steady production of entropy”.
So you quoted from a presentation given by Donna Blackmond about chirality but she wasn’t taking about how to obtain enantiomerically pure solutions in general. She was only talking about partial violation energy difference where one stereoisomer is slightly more stable than the other. She was talking specifically about symmetry breaking, where L amino acids are slightly more stable than D and so trying to find a reaction that can help to form and propagate one over the other.
Other research she has done goes against your point, for example, her paper “Spoilt for choice: assessing phase behaviour models for the evolution of homochirality”
Some amino acids crystalise in an enantiomerically pure fashion in water in ambient conditions, and others in metastable conditions, and you can get deracemization via sublimation. With asparagine, one of the first types I mentioned, if it is in excess, i.e. non-equilibrium, then amino acids of the same configuration will be co-crystalised, giving a high enantiomeric excess, even when starting with a racemic solution. The crystallisations are kinetic and stochastic not thermodynamic, meaning that the yields are highly variable, potentially up to 100%. But even if it is low, you can get further crystallisations leading to higher resolution ee in the future.
Chiral mineral calcite surfaces can selectively absorb amino acid enantiomers leading to pure/enriched peptides.
Donna herself has experimentally produced enantiopure RNA precursors from a racemic solution in water at 4 degrees centigrade. Clearly prebiotically relevant.
There are also some models which suggest homochirality may have emerged at the polymer rather than monomer level, which is quite an interesting concept.
These are all points from Professor Dave's video criticising James Tour.
Excellent points, well put
Thanks for your comments. Because they are rather lengthy, let's just start with the first claim you make:
"RNA fragments have been shown to self-assemble into self-replicating ribozymes spontaneously and form cooperative catalytic cycles and networks. "
As you admit, this is a story told by Professor Dave. I asked Dave to produce references to back this up. His response was to censor me from commenting. I guess that is his approach to working together to seek the truth.
So, would you be willing to provide references to back this up? And, before throwing a bunch of manuscripts at me, please read them to ensure that they provide evidence that "self-replicating ribozymes spontaneously form". You cannot cheat by borrowing components from existing life!
@@robstadler927
All of Dave's sources are in the descriptions of his videos and he puts them on the screen when he's talking about them. The paper it's from, which he shows in the video, is called "spontaneous network formation among cooperative RNA replicators". TH-cam often deletes comments with external links so I'll just put the names of the papers and you can google them. I said that fragments of RNA can self assemble into self-replicating enzymes and form cooperative networks. In the paper they took already existing ribozymes, broke them apart and mixed those fragments together. The fragments reformed into the ribozymes spontaneously and formed cooperative networks. So, they did take from an organism, but what I said wasn't a misinterpretation of the paper. Fragments of RNA self-assembled into ribozymes which then self replicated. It's a proof of concept that ribozymes can self assemble.
If you want a prebiotic mechanism by which RNA can form, as you seem to do, saying it's cheating to use a biological source, when they weren't even investigating RNA formation, there's a paper called "synthesis of activated pyrimdine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions". The crucial findings of which being that addition of inorganic phosphate can act as a pH buffer which gives clean reactions at high yields. In addition, adding phosphate gives urea as a byproduct which can be used in dry heating as a plausible prebiotic mechanism of nucleoside phosphorylation. Also irritation by ultraviolet light was found as a possible mechanism by which activated pyrimidine ribonucleosides could be selectively enriched for RNA synthesis. They conclude by saying "our findings suggest that the prebiotic synthesis of activated pyrimidine nucleotides should be viewed as predisposed".
There is then this paper called "Chemoselective multicomponant one-pot assembly of purine precursors in water" which goes into a huge amount of chemical detail which I am not educated enough to understand. But they're all done it water at relatively neutral pH and one is definitely at room temperature, not sure about the others. In their summary they say "In particular, we have demonstrated the concurrent synthesis of '37' and the ... pyrimidines in the activated pH range in which activated pyrimidine synthesis can occur... suggesting that both the pyrimidine and purine ribonucleotides could be made together at the same time, in the same place, and under the same conditions."
So now you have the prebiotically plausible mechanisms for ribonucleotide synthesis it leaves the problem of chirality. Again, Dave puts his sources in the description, but the paper is called "a route to enantiopure precursors from nearly racemise starting materials." It talks about if you have amino acids in enantiomeric excess, e.g. by just two wet dry cycles they managed to go from 1% to 99% ee of L-phenylalanine in the paper "amplification of enantiomeric concentrations under credible prebiotic conditions", they help to create ribonucleotides of high enantiomeric purity. Donna used unnatural amino acids and ribonucleotide precursors at 1% ee and ended up with pure crystals in water at 4 degrees centigrade, like I said in my original comment. Unnatural being the key word here as you view it as so important that it didn't come from a biological organism.
This is an ongoing field of research and we don't have all the answers but there are highly plausible mechanisms for lots of these things as I have presented here. Calling it cheating when scientists don't do every single thing from scratch is a bit disingenuous. The focus on specific questions at a time. I found all these papers really easily, albeit they are quite complicated at times.
@@robstadler927 oh man you got BURNED 😂
It just kept going! "Stop Mathew", I'd think, "can't you see he's already dead!" But he just kept on kicking and kicking... it was brutal. Oh the humanity. 😂
Thank you for all that Mathew. That was delicious. 😊
I was going to mention Prof Dave's video tackling Tour and his consequent responses (because Tour freaked out after the first one). Cheers mate.
This is unbelievably incomplete, misleading and factually inaccurate-in basically every sentence.
It seems you’re depending on the need for an entire video series just to debunks all the flaws so you can get away with this many lies through omission and outright and hoping your viewers won’t search for the information elsewhere.
Massively dishonest effort and no wonder you have to pay to get people to watch it.
It seems that the atheist wolf pack has banded together. Third comment today coming from your side where you hurl accusations but provide no explanations. Probably because you have none. Yawn.
@@martam4142 Provide me an explanation for God then
@@martam4142 I have no idea how this got into my feed, but here I am.
The science presented here is misleading and full of errors. But it is designed for people with very little scientific education to not question the falsehoods. The style is aimed at young people, perhaps those who are at college and wavering towards agnosticism or atheism.
And the video comes out with convincing sounding "facts", backed by PhDs. So the scientific consensus must be wrong because cell walls. Take that evolution!
You'd think that if the case for ID was so strong, you wouldn't need a disingenuous video misrepresenting science to make the point, would you?
@@jetski-oo5oe Why? We're talking about the impossibility of abiogenesis/chemical evolution here. Why are you calling upon God?
He clearly has not talked to anyone studying this in the feild. People who actually studdy this could pick apart all the inaccurate statements. But I guess religouse people will always find a way to justify the god of the gaps. Lol
The idea life depends on cell membranes only applies to the living kingdoms as defined for convenience. Viruses certainly are living matter in the broad sense, and they don’t have cells or membranes. If we had an accepted theory of the proper position of viruses in the taxonomic diagrams, we would include them as complete lifeforms. Therefore, life does not require cells, that requirement is one of the “characteristics of life” that should come with an asterisk.
and now I've got to pick myself up off the porch! 😭😭😭
7:57: "It required a precise cocktail of nutrients, basically life support, or else it would die. However, most of these life-support nutrients couldn't have existed on a prebiotic earth." Why not? Today, free-floating organic molecules are rare, presumably because scavengers would soon pick them up. But this wasn't the case 4.2 billion years ago.
Ok so really REALLY basic question here. Forgive my ignorance. But why do the cell membranes HAVE to be formed all at once? You say that if they don't they'll simply die but how can they die if they're not yet alive? Is it not possible for the "complex doorways" to form randomly in the same way the phospholipid membranes did and for said doorways to sprinkle on and bond with the existing membrane?
Essentially to stitch the monster together before striking it with lightning?
The illustration in the video is to imagine you're in space. If there is a hole where a door should be on your spacecraft, you'll die (vacuum of space, temperature aliens etc.). If there is no way to get more supplies in or waste out, you'll starve or drown in your own waste and die. Make sense? If you are going to live in a hostile environment you need to be able to maintain homeostasis to live.
Entropie destroys information and life is not possible without conserving information. If you want to imagine the first cell still as dead you need as protective hull for the same reason you want to protect a book in a rainstorm from rain: the information of the book would become unreadable if you don’t do that.
That language was For the children.... He's speaking of the immediate chemical breakdown of what "just came together".... (Which is just one of the millions of problems they encounter... In the laboratory!).. every explanation except for "someone is a LOT smarter than us" falls flat once you enter into the Lab... Google James Tour... Chemical bio-engineering par excellence!... But first you better put on a good "cup" 😭😭😭
@@LongStoryShortVideos
Imagine we're in space? But we're not in space, we're on Earth.
This video showed up as an ad on some Paulogia vid i was watching, not sure why youtube keeps doing that. I'm not a biologist so I have no idea how accurate anything you're saying is, not gonna pretend I know enough to argue with you in any meaningful sense. Seems like a significant portion of it is sound enough but I don't trust my own judgment here.
I just wanted to comment that your animations are really good and the delivery of your jokes is funny to me. Subject matter obviously isn't my thing but otherwise i'm still tempted to subscribe based on just this video.
Also, could you please link to the papers you cited in the description so I can read them myself? My eyes and internet are too bad to make out the letters in your reference page, and the automatic end card puts a bunch of crap over half the page on mobile.
Anyways, that's my piece. Good luck with whatever it is you're doing.
Hey Emily, welcome! Thanks for the kind words. I've got the references for you down below.
References:
1. Some may argue that viruses generally don't have a cell membrane and yet they are “living”; however, viruses cannot replicate without the assistance of a host cell that has a membrane, and everyone agrees that replication is a requirement for life.
2. “The reason that lipids have become so prominent in research on the origin of life is the ease with which they self-assemble into membranous compartments.” David Deamer, “The Role of Lipid Membranes in Life’s Origin,” Life (Basel), 7(1): 5 (March, 2017). doi: 10.3390/life7010005 .
“A mixture of oily lipids shaken up in water will spontaneously sort itself into a thin bilayer, a biological membrane enclosing a watery vesicle, because that is the most stable state.” Nick Lane, The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life (W.W. Norton, 2015) p. 57
“Historically, the origin of membranes has been mostly approached from a bottom-up perspective, focusing on how amphiphilic molecules form vesicles under prebiotic conditions and serve as primordial boundaries for protocells.” Jonathan Lombard, Purificación Lopez-Garcia, and David Moreira, “The early evolution of lipid membranes and the three domains of life,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 10: 507-515 (2012). doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2815
“Such compartments are known to readily self-assemble from amphiphilic compounds (soap-like fatty acids and fatty alcohols) that are commonly found in experiments that simulate the prebiotic ‘soup’.” David Deamer, “How leaky were primitive cells,” Nature, 454: 37-38 (2008). doi.org/10.1038/454037a.
3. “We conclude that the membranes of LUCA [The Last Universal Common Ancestor for all of life] were necessarily leaky, composed of mixed amphiphiles (including fatty acids) but lacking glycerol-phosphate headgroups.” Víctor Sojo, Andrew Pomiankowski, and Nick Lane, “A Bioenergetic Basis for Membrane Divergence in Archaea and Bacteria,” PLoS Biology, 12(8): e1001926 (2014). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001926.
“It is unlikely that Earth’s first cells assembled bilayer membranes together with specific membrane protein transporters. Rather, intermediate evolutionary steps must have existed in which simple lipid molecules provided many of the characteristics of contemporary membranes without relying on advanced protein machinery.” Sheref S. Mansy, “Membrane Transport in Primitive Cells,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 2: a002188 (2010). doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a002188.
“The permeability properties of prebiotically plausible membranes suggest that primitive protocells could have acquired complex nutrients from their environment in the absence of any macromolecular transport machinery.” Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krishnamurthy, Sylvia Tobe, Douglas A. Treco, Jack W. Szostak, “Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell,” Nature, 454: 122-126 (2008). doi:10.1038/nature07018.
4. It’s a bit more complicated than this due to electric charges and other chemical factors but the back of the napkin math works out: the smallest known cells (~200 nm across) typical amino acid, histidine (0.61 nm) and protons (0.000000833 nm). Housefly ~5 mm, Monaco ~2 km2, Sweden ~410,000 km2.
5. Although only a small voltage (approximately 0.2V) is generated across the cell membrane, the cell membrane is very, very thin (a stack of about 10,000 membranes would equal the thickness of a human hair). So, if we think about this in terms of volts per meter, cell membranes have about the equivalent volts per meter of a bolt of lightning! (30 million volts per meter!)
6. Technically speaking this would destroy the proton gradient and rob the cell of its ability to generate electricity via ATP synthase.
7. Kuniaki Takata, Toshiyuki Matsuzaki, and Yuki Tajika, “Aquaporins: water channel proteins of the cell membrane,” Progress in Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, 39: 1-83 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.proghi.2004.03.001.
Tamir Gonen and Thomas Walz, “The structure of aquaporins,” Quarterly Review of Biophysics, 39: 361-396 (2006). doi:10.1017/S0033583506004458.
Kazuyoshi Murata et al., “Structural determinants of water permeation through aquaporin-1,” Nature, 407: 599-605 (2000). doi.org/10.1038/35036519.
8. Some claim that M. genitalium is not truly free-living. The smallest truly free-living microbe known is Pelagibacter ubique, but the membranes of both organisms are similar in complexity.
9. Claire M. Fraser et al., “The minimal gene complement of Micoplasma genitalium,” Science, 270: 397-404 (1995). doi:10.1126/science.270.5235.397.
10. Westberg et al., “The Genome Sequence of Mycoplasma mycoides susp. mycoides SC Type Strain PG1T, the Causative Agent of Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP),” Genome Research, 14, 221-227 (2004). doi:10.1101/gr.1673304.
11. Clyde A. Hutchison et al., “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome,” Science, 351: aad6253-1 (2016). doi.org/10.1126/science.aad6253. DOI:10.1126/science.aad6253.
12. Marian Breuer et al. “Essential metabolism for a minimal cell,” eLife, 8:e36842 (2019). DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36842. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36842.
13. “mycoplasmas-a group of bacteria with small genomes (580-1350 kbp (Herrmann, 1992; Fraser et al., 1995)) lacking a cell wall, which evolved via extreme genome reduction from low GC content Gram-positive ancestors (Pollack et al., 1997). Mycoplasmas exist as parasites or saprotrophs and are adapted to scavenging nutrients and cellular building blocks from their niche environments, which enabled them to lose many metabolic capabilities.” Marian Breuer et al. “Essential metabolism for a minimal cell,” eLife, 8:e36842 (2019). DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36842.
14. Glucose, glycerol, spermine, nicotinic acid, thiamin, pyridoxamine, thioctic acid, riboflavin, choline, folic acid, pantothenate, adenine, guanine, cytidine, cholesterol, palmitic acid, oleic acid, oligopeptides, and cysteine.
15. National Kidney Foundation, www.kidney.org/patients/peers/dialysis.
@@LongStoryShortVideos Sweet, thanks, i'll look at this some other time when im not dead tired trying to sleep through a upswing
@@acccountloc1676 excuse me could you clarify?
@@acccountloc1676 Alright, thank you for clarifying.
Still gonna read them myself lol
A good friend introduced me to this series, and I'm hooked. This blew me away and showed me that the 'settled science' is anything but.
Your good friend is scientifically speaking illiterate and he intoduced you to a creationistic pseudoscience.
This channel promotes ID/creationism; that God created everything and the channel creators will reject any proven science that contradicts this.
It’s run by the ill-named Discovery Institute, where no research at all is done, none. They employ several demonstrable liars with a degree and no scientific integrity to misrepresent scientific research. Not to mention that one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.
They specialise in intellectual vandalism, which is predominantly based on the deceptive lie that discrediting scientific research would add credibility to their ancient mythology. Nothing about debunking any scientific hypothesis or theory automatically equals or even remotely alludes to “God did it”.
I don't think anyone is claiming that abiogenesis is settled science. They believe that it happened, but they have no idea how.
@@davidknipe4113 It is also a fact that there is no credible alternative to natural causes in regards to the origin of life.
Given that nothing but the natural world has a demonstrable correaltion with reality.
No one said that abiogenesis was a settled science; textbooks merely present it as a possible hypothesis. On the other hand, biological evolution is indeed a settled science.
Remember, what is presented here is not science as we know it, but pseudoscience, designed for a scientifically illiterate audience to convince them that Goddidit.
I think a problem with the doorway analogy is that you use size and physical openings, as the reason for thing being able to enter the cell or not, when it actually uses chemistry like your example of the water and protons or like the “membrane“ forming due to its chemical composition. The doorways could let certain chemicals in or not, just based of of its chemical composition not size, maybe?
These guys: It’s not science if I don’t understand it.
If "I" as a highschool graduate dont understand it, its not because im dumb or not educated enough, obviously its because its impossible. "I" am obviously inherently a genius capable of understanding anything no matter how complex, and if thousands of scientists provide proof of something and "I" DONT understand it, they must all be collectively lying or massive idiots.
The word logic gets misused in these comments about as much as the word organic generally does. So does the phrase "common sense".
Common sense tells us that if we drop 2 balls of same size, 1 metal, 1 wood, off the roof of our house, the metal one will hit the ground first. Common sense is pretty useless for comprehending that there are different sizes of infinity, and the quantum realm does run on common sense, unfortunately its a completely DIFFERENT common sense from the world at our scale.
Yawn.
😭😭😭😭😭
@@jimhughes1070 Yeah, I guess the thing that bugs me is the mental gymnastics you have to do to deny evolution.
I'm not going to lie, I believe in something beyond our understanding. Maybe you could call it God but I think there is something way beyond our comprehension out there. The universe is a big place.
With that said we definitely evolved from monkeys. The evidence is irrefutable. The earth is not 6000 years old, it just isn't.
They have to believe in a God that created the earth 6000 years ago and then meticulously planted evidence to the contrary.
My father believed Satan wandered the earth and planted fossils to deceive us. I told him that means God watched him doing this for thousands of years as it was happening and let him do it?
Now that is nuts.
@@georhodiumgeo9827 mental gymnastics to avoid believing in "evolution"😭😭... Come on man! I've been taught evolution for 60 years!... It's nothing but mental gymnastics! 💪 And I've been looking at the evidence for it for the last 38 years.... Looking.... Is the keyword!! The only actual evidence they produced for The "descent of Man"... Were all admitted as frauds! (Course the people that were looking!... Could already see that!) The bombastic claims of all evolutionary scientists, are incredibly dubious on their face! 😭.... Sorry I'm just not built like that... I don't believe people just cuz they tell me they think they know!
So an all powerful all intelligent invisible being creating life makes more sense, how exactly?
Because it's all-powerful as the definition states. Dumb chemicals-to-life implies a miracle, so the naturalist belief is nonsense.
@@martam4142 So how did an all powerful being assemble itself into a God from nothing? At least chemicals evolved over a logical process. An intelligent animal didn't just appear.
@@alexojideagu In classical metaphysics, God has no parts (He is metaphysically simple). He did not 'assemble' itself because He is not composed of parts.
@@martam4142 Nobody, literally nobody, has seen this God
@@alexojideagu Obviously, because for Him to not have parts (and avoid the assemblage problem and others), He has to be immaterial. And human eyes need physical (material) components to perform vision. No one has ever seen a black hole or a 'universe appearing from nothing' as Stephen Hawkings dared to say (which is first-class nonsense).
The metaphysian uses his 'intellectual eye' so to speak.
What do you think explains the origins of life on earth? I’m just curious if you have any alternate theories (not that you need to have any. Criticism in a vacuum is fine.)
And can't be heard.
If natural processes are incapable of producing life, the alternative is clear, unless it is blocked a priori.
@@icantthinkofaname8139 what do you mean? If we're out hiking and we come across a rock that is unlike the rocks around us and I say that I think it must have grown wings and flown to our location, you would probably rightly criticize that idea even if you didn't know exactly how the rock got there. But the rock is still there, and I have a theory for how it got there, so you have to have a competing theory in order to criticize the idea that rocks can grow wings?
@@latifoljic yah it’s generally a good idea to have a better explanation in a debate.
@@baneofbanes it can be helpful for the purposes of a debate, but it doesn't make any difference to the underlying facts. Sometimes "I don't know" is better. The sailing stones of Nevada are a good example for this - we didn't know how they were moving for decades - the correct answer was "don't know" and not "magic Man".
Evolutionist love posting hateful comments, but don’t spend any time trying to disprove the video, because they can’t.
Lots of the comments provide the evidence debunking this bullshit. But remember, this isn't serious science - it hasn't been peer reviewed or published, and the "five PhDs" remain anonymous. It is religious propaganda.
Evolutionist is the wrong term. Biological evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life and did and does occur no matter how hard you try.
Origin of life is a great topic of debate. Evolution is well observed, well documented and works well with every possibility of life emerging since it is not bound to it.
This makes you seem like a fool, while portraying others as fools.
Besides I’ve seen lots of comments bringing up very valid points, maybe you just don’t understand them
@@nieselregen420 Yes all the thousands of scientists with PHDs who disagree with evolution just "don't understand it" but you do? If evolution was such an obvious and OBSERVABLE fact. That number would be ZERO. Show me a single physicist who thinks the earth is flat. That would be ZERO because that is actually observable. Taking observable small variations within the genome and then extrapolating that over billions of years to say that fish evolved into humans is absurd and NOT observable. There are OBSERVABLE LIMITATIONS to the change. We both look at a fish fossil millions of years old, you say "look there is our ancestor". I say " that is just a fossilized fish". Yet you are correct? Based on your own beliefs about something that isn't observable? We can't even correctly predict the KNOWN movement of comets more than a 100 years or so into the future, yet you believe such unobservable nonsense.
@@nieselregen420 People say evolution is an observable and well documented fact. Assuming we are talking about the same evolution that turned fish to dinosaurs, dinosaurs into birds, and so on, then categorically it is incorrect to say that such evolution has never been documented since all of the examples I’ve listed would have happened before the first human would have been able to speak a language.
Pointing to something like the similarities of hippopotamus and whales might be evidence that some form of evolution happened, but you can’t say there is observable or repeatable evidence that such a thing has happened or could happen again.
Again, we have to be on the same page when talking about evolution, because apparently there isn’t just the one kind of evolution.
The cool thing about being a molecule or whatever is that you don't need super consistent conditions to continue existing, do ya? I mean think of prions, those fuckers are known for being incredibly hard to "kill", and can even jump between species.
Prions, like proteins, do not actively enjoy the status or definition of being alive, but rather are like building a square wall from a spring or coil folded from a mobius strip while it’s bounced on a trampoline. Not something you would want as the foundation for your existence. As for “jump between species,” is a misstatement of facts, as an example, take salt, which is a necessary component of life, but also, in high enough concentrations completely toxic to life (like slugs), but you wouldn’t describe it as “jumping between species” as this would be extremely ignorant to say the least.
However, your point about existence is true but misleading, as some molecules only exist during very specific environmental conditions, while others seemingly exist nearly everywhere (even in the vacuum of space).
Okay. Kindly be the next person to present another pseudoscientific theory about how life arose from prions, or proto-prions, or prion-like organisms. Heck, LUCA is a prion!
@@juilianbautista4067 strawman argument
@@blueveins295 pseudoscience
Untrue. Part of the problem with trying to get abiogenesus is that most of the larger organic building blocks you need to get to get life started do not maintain themselves well over time without help from enzymes. They won't just sit there for 100 years, let alone a billion years waiting. They will break down way before that if they aren't assembled into a living system to maintain homeostasis. And a good number of chemical components you need for life are susceptible to being hydrolyzed. Whoch means if you let it sit in water, it breaks down. Which you NEED water for the idea of abiogenises to ever be feasible.
Creationists claiming that to believe in evolution is to believe in magic and fairy tales, pretty hilarious.
You are constantly trying to claim evolution could not have suddenly created a cell. Well humans didn't suddenly invent the 747. The invented kites on strings and played around with gliders and then extremely simple motorized planes.
Life had a billion years to mix in tide pools and the bottoms of oceans following strict rules of chemical bonding.
@SHOGUN Yes, that you can't take away parts from a CURRENT cell and have it keep working. There are parts I can't take away from a modern car engine and have it still work, but that doesn't mean simpler machines did not exist in 1700.
Stop listening to this bad propaganda and go find info from the real people doing beginning of life research.
Evolution is a theory of biodiversity. It explains how life changes over time to create that diversity. It says nothing about how life started. Also Charles Darwin published over a hundred and fifty years ago. We've learned an awful lot since then. If you're going to attack something please make sure you understand it first.
Yes, we have learned that gradualism is not backed by empirical proof.
@@martam4142 Phyletic gradualism is one mode of evolution. It tends to occur slowly in large populations. This is in contrast to punctuated equilibrium proposed by Stephen J Gould and Niles Eldredge which explains the relative absence of transitional fossils *at the species level* as being due to relatively rapid evolution of smaller peripheral populations. Punctuated equilibrium builds on the concept of allopatric speciation wherein species usually form after one population is split by a geographic barrier. If the populations are small it takes less time for traits to become 'fixed', where every individual has them. Because this is relatively fast it's less likely that fossilization will occur. The tricky part is that both phyletic gradualism _and_ punctuated equilibrium can occur, just not in the same population at the same time. Lastly although it's relatively fast punctuated equilibrium still happens over tens to hundreds of thousands of years.
@@thylacoleonkennedy7 *"Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains but it doesn't create".*
Lynn Margulis
EVOLUTIONARY Biologist
and Geneticist.
*"The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another.….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."*
Lynn Margulis
EVOLUTIONARY Biologist
and Geneticist.
Yes, it WAS dishonesty to make claims about evolution and especially mankind's alleged "evolution" when they collectively had No, I repeat, No evidence for it.
The mainstream scientific community are STILL doing it to this day.
Also........
*"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science for there is no way of putting them to the test."*
Dr Colin Patterson.
a former Senior Paleontologist
at the Museum of Natural
History.
*"Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement... Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation."*
Lynn Margulis
EVOLUTIONARY Biologist
and Geneticist.
So how did dinosaurs allegedly "evolve" to become birds again?
So how did fish allegedly "evolve" legs again?
So how did mankind allegedly separate from some mythical and unevidenced shared common ape type ancestors again?
Oh! That's right, *THEY DIDN'T!*
evolution and abiogenesis are connected to each other in some ways. People love to insist they have no correlation.
@@AmazingStoryDewd People like "evolution" loving atheists who sense their own limitations and defeats looming over them while trying to shore up their collapsing position whilst they're on the back foot. 😏
Am sorry I Bing watched all your videos... too interesting to stop... do you have any other channels... else... make more content like this... can't wait. Great work btw.
Heyy, i just wanted to say your videos are freaking amazing , they're so clear and funny i love watching them so keep it up:DDc
I like how, according to the comments, if you point out the flaws in scientific papers and/or their experiments, you're automatically a religious zealot
The arguments made in this video can be traced back to well-known Christian apologists like Stephen Meyer and Kent Hovind who deny evolution, the Big Bang and science in general. I think all of them have been refuted on Talk Origins and their index to creationist claims as early as 2003ish.
Feel free to post links to any article addressing any one of the 3 main claims in this video.
I find the notion of 'It would have had to be complex from the beginning' to be a naive assumption. This is not true in the development of any of our technology, and is surely not the case in the evolution of life either. We see the complexity of today's biology with all its contingency plans and metabolic pathways just like kids from the 90's onward work with computers using GUI's and high level programming languages. Few outside of specialized fields of research have to deal with assembly code or circuit logic or stuff like that because it was abstracted out of normal user experience decades ago. It used to be the case that one would have to manually do what we call programming today, and if they made a mistake, they ran the risk of literally burning out or otherwise destroying their hardware. I believe in a similar process for chemical/biological evolution, especially given the amount of time there has been for it to happen. There's plenty of evidence of the process unfolding in the past and currently, even if we don't know nearly enough to see the fine details of it right now, nor could we ever see the actual path life took to get to where it is today. For instance, there's evidence of global ecological collapse as a result of life doing its thing in the past. There are also many examples of life actively shaping its external environment to it's needs.
@Josh:
"I believe in a similar process for chemical/biological evolution, especially given the amount of time there has been for it to happen."
We don't care what you "believe". Empirical science is based in, you know, empirical proof. Of which you have offered none.
Why the "chemical/biological" distinction? How can darwinian evolution explain the evolution of life but not "chemical evolution"? Aren't they the same? Then the same explanation should apply to both.
"Time" is not a magical daddy in the sky that can grant you materialists your wildest dreams. It's an appeal to magic unless you offer us proof of the so-called "chemical evolution"-"transition to life". Chronos was a pagan god (of the greeks). You should drop that line of argument.
"There's plenty of evidence of the process unfolding in the past and currently."
Assertions are not proof. Show us said "evidence". No one in the history of humanity has seen life "evolving from non life". The Law of Biogenesis says that life comes from previous forms of life. We have accumulated massive empirical proof of that. Naturalism's special pleading regarding the OOL is quite telling.
By the way, you have to offer us a definition of "life" to take you seriously. I have not read a coherent one from your side.
"even if we don't know nearly enough to see the fine details of it right now, nor could we ever see the actual path life took to get to where it is today".
Didn't you say that "there's plenty of proof" for that development? If we can not see "the actual path of life took to get where is today", how can you affitm that that path indeed took place?
Is shaping the environment something that the first cell could do?
@@Sandwich0artist I think so, in fact the first bits of that starting to happen would probably constitute the first steps of what we could call life, though it probably wouldn't be all the way there. It'd be some stable state between extrema in whatever relevant dimensions in the environment (temperature, chemical concentration, PH, radiation, etc.)
@@chillyperson23 what a fun story that would be
@@martam4142 Your energy feels a lil harsh, but i'll reply anyway because i love discussions.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for both Darwinian and lamarkian evolution at this point. The evolution of plants has been observed first hand, both intentionally and unintentionally, as well as single celled life in recent years. Though we haven't observed it for long enough times, say, for horses to turn into whales, we can infer that kind of stuff from fossil records and the study of the genes and cellular processes.
And no time is no sky daddy lol. But given the unfathomable amount of things that happen in just one second at an atomic level, a few billion years under a huge source of energy like the sun is plenty of time and energy flux for some complexity to arise.
As for empirical evidence of the earths specific path through abiogenisis, i believe that is probably forever hidden to us. We can however prove whether or not the initial building blocks were present, and there is empirical evidence of that kind of thing. Amino acids, sugars, and even phospholipids have been observed in outer space. We're made out of the same stuff as everything else in the universe.
Most folks who are against evolution seem like they are trying to combat what they see as a threat to a worldview. However most folks who support evolution are more interested in finding truths, than confirming what they already believe, and will readily throw it out if it no longer seems plausible. That's the core of science itself, to update ones beliefs in light of new evidence. Not to reject new evidence in favor of old beliefs, for instance intelligent design.
In fact, in favor of that in particular, assuming God exists, I think that chemical evolution could be like one of his celestial paintbrushes. Haha I can't think of any empirical way to test that though! Always good to keep an open mind. However, we also gotta be skeptical, for similar reasons to why we should wash our hands. 👀
I would think that you would want to link to the papers for these experiments in order to further understanding. Certainly chemical evolution is difficult but you don't seem to have an alternative explanation either.
Maybe difficult in the same sense that perpetual motion machines are difficult :)
In the other videos we've often included the full list of references in the video description but we hit character limits. It's not too hard to search the name of the papers or type the URL.
@@LongStoryShortVideos you could put your resources in a pinned comment.
We don't see perpetual motion. We do however see life. Somehow life started to exist, the question is how it started. Sometime the answer is we don't know.
Thanks for the tip Tony! You're right we do observe life; however, we haven't observed abiogenesis.
@@LongStoryShortVideos
The only logical option doesn't have to be observed. The alternative that life was created only pushes abiogenesis back to when it happened to the creator.
@@jonatand2045 True, but now we're leaving science and venturing into philosophy.
You can pretty much disregard any creationist argument as soon as they say "X had to be extremely complex" (6:32), since that is a huge assertion that will never be followed by a reasonable justification. Anyone who manages to justify that would be the first in history to do so.
In this case, the supposed justification is that there's a limit to how far you can simplify a modern cell before it becomes unviable, as if protocell evolution is equivalent to a scientist removing features in reverse. The video hastily asserts that this is good enough and hopes you won't notice. If you didn't notice, you're the mark for this video.
Nowhere in the video does he argues for creationism. you are attacking a strawman.
@@akshat.jaiswal Correct, he doesn't - however, creationists have a long history of trying to disguise their propaganda, and I assert that this is such an attempt. Notice that there's no attempt to provide an alternative, but simply to attack origin of life studies - gosh, it couldn't be because that science conflicts with creationism by any chance, could it? I must just be paranoid after watching creationists doing this for 20 years.
Also, I'm not attacking a strawman, because my argument doesn't hinge on my assertion that this is a creationist video.
@@hawthornrabbit Does "complexity" exist or is a subjective, human construct? Are an isolated molecule of DNA in a "primordial soup" and a T--rex equally complex or not?
Please do tell us more about those "proto-cells" (whatever that means, lol) and how are they characterized and if the results are repeatable. Thank you.
@@martam4142 Not sure why you're addressing this question to me? I didn't use the term "complex" - the video did, and it seems to define it as "has lots of complicated parts".
Assuming the cell had to be extremely complex in the beginning to live implies the cell was alive at all during the begging. Some scientists think it was just a bunch of components of a cell pre existing and coming together to make the cell.This is why allot of the time people who study evolution more than likely believe it was just the perfect storm of events and situations that allowed for cells to be created. With this in mind and the idea that there most likely wasn’t only one set of coincidences that these chemicals were coming together to make just one cell would also beg the argument that there didn’t have to be allot of successful cell creations. Just one successful enough to allow for the one successful cell to replicate.
ATP, for example, is created by mitochondria, not the cell itself.
Life could have come from another planet which did have the capability for chemical evolution, where there is evidence of proto cells, the early earth was literally bombarded by comets and meteors from every direction.
Self replication only needs to begin once
Prove spontaneous abiogenesis.
Even IF you could you would now have a thousand plus + other questions to answer on how new genetic information gets created from a state of not having that now needed new genetic information in order to make millions of new life forms across the planet.
Face it. The atheist world view is circular madness.
It's very much like the proverbial dog chasing its own tail also. It seemingly doesn't understand or it's doing it for fun.
That explains the dog's behaviour but doesn't extended to explaining why organised atheists try soooooo hard to fight against the God that they profess to not believe in when no one asked them.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Go ahead then, PROVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN please.
So if you took "modern city guy", took away his phone and his clothes and whatever tools he had and dropped him in the wild, your saying his death would be proof that humans appeared on earth with clothes and cell phones? This video has as many holes as the theories you "debunk"
he is talking about essential components like let's say we took all ur two legs and 2 arms how long would u survive in the wild?
@@anasmohamed6013 Non-survival in an environment is not proof against an evolution. It is only proof that one individual did not survive in an environment they are not currently adapted to. Exaggerating the parameters does not make the experiment less flawed. It's not science, it's speculation. A whales death on dry land is not proof that it didn't evolve from land dwelling mammals. It just proves that that whale couldn't survive in dry land. Even if the Op is correct, his argument does not provide evidence for his claim.
If you put a naked guy in the woods with bears, deers, wolfs, mosquitoes, cold temperatures, hot temperatures, rain, disease. Yes likely he will die. Especially if he was raised in a city
@@blockhead1899 🤨I mean... That was my point... Not sure what you're getting at.
Did you find the cold spring paper from the internet or did you go to the school I wint to the school
Best video in the world!!!
Unimaginative, tbh. One could imagine a million different reasons why these arguments are weak. The first life could've been a random set of molecules that did nothing but self replicate, spread as wide as possible, and happened to be in a tide pool that stays homoeostatic via other reasons. Half of what you ask of membranes isn't needed for early life as there aren't predators, there's no life-made toxins, and the area can be as large as needed, so something that might kill them doesn't necessarily effect all of the proto life. For all we know, a proto-golgi body was the only life for millions of years, kept safe by chance and statistics, creating basic building blocks that sometimes formed more of themselves, before one happened upon the right mix to become a proto-cell. Life happened, and arguments against abiogenesis are arguing for the existence of magic.
Life also has the tendency to take the path of least resistance. Why evolve beyond the comfortably warm water bubble somewhere underground? What can possibly prompt evolution if there’s no stress to adapt?
@@sunnyd9321 everything takes the path of last resistance. At the smallest scales, this means diffusion. The first life could've been a single bit of RNA, copied billions of times in the luckiest bit of the earth. Diffusion would see it spread across the planet whether it has a survival instinct or not. It has no need to evolve, it just happened. Maybe the first cell membrane was a lucky strand diffused into a bubble on the side of a rock. It eats the rock and diffusion pushes out what it doesn't need outside. This video's whole argument anthropologises bits of next to nothing following natural laws that happened to copy themselves. They don't even need to do it well, hell a proto-golgi whatever might not've even copied anything, just created random RNA with whatever was around. There's no reason to apply a survival instinct at this stage.
Could "imagine" is not science. It's speculation.
@@martam4142 literally all of this is speculation
@@geoffreymartin6363 But then you can not prove that your speculation is "better" than the one being offered here. Empirical science is concerned with the behavior and properties of real entities (existing in nature). You are offering a plausible path for the development of life, but since you have no physical proof of those "proto-cells" to back up your hypothesis, the OOL has not been settled. The problem we have with naturalists is that they falsely claim that "science" has settled the issue.
can someone explain how the cell membrane exist before the DNA and how DNA exist before the cell membrane
perfect question
RNA existed before both and cell membranes existed before DNA
"...Angry..." is right but also proto cell membranes simply self assemble by the nature of their hydrophobic/hydrophilic properties and it could be expected that they would have been pretty damn common as soon as the phospholipids were present in the environment
Can't be done... Can't have one without the other... Can't have an egg without a chicken... Can't have a chicken without an egg.... Unless you have the power & knowledge to build a chicken so fast... And kick-start it immediately... You'll never get a egg... Isn't it curious we've been 75 years trying to do... What God already did... (Without asking for our help by the way)... And we're mad at him to the point of jealousy... Because we can't do it too!?! 😭😭😭 We are living in the time of "greatly increased knowledge"... When our pekid efforts would begin begin to take us to one dead end after another!... To the day when we would have to finally admit... We aren't as smart as we think we are! And the obvious truth is glaring back at us!
Mitochodria.
So let's just make up an invisible character that ordered a man to put a pair of every single species into a tiny boat to save them from a world-wide flood. Yeah, THAT'S more likely...
Far more likely than the astronomical odds against what you preach! 😭😭😭
Can the references be listed somewhere please.
The video description contains a link to the references.
No. Because it is pseudoscience for religious people.
Phospholipids self-aggregate at the Boundary Layers of Aqueous Solutions, though. Liquids separating by Molecular Polarity and Solubility proceeds according to Natural and Physical Laws from there...
That's why they've created life in the lab!!! 😭😭😭(Got to have a comedian in every venue! 😭)
These videos are fabulous!! Sharing them with my peeps.
Amazing brilliance of the Creator!! He leaves no excuse for people about Him being behind the creation!
The inclusion of "five PhDs" that apparently collaborated sounds like a case of "lying for Jesus". What are their names and what are they researching? And how did they collaborate?
What's wrong with lying? Under the evolutionary paradigm, I mean. Is Darwin going to punish us?
@@martam4142 while you may have a rather quaint bronze age belief system, you would think that they would appreciate that needing to lie in order to reveal the "the truth" is a tad hypocritical.
@@martam4142 ah you see, some poeple avoid doing certain things because they believe them to be wrong and they are decent people rather than out of fear of punishment.
@@martam4142 Is fear of punishment the only reason you aren’t cruel to other people? Are you only ever nice to people because you think that’s what god wants? The argument that the very concept of any kind of morality is incapable of existing without god is unbelievably asinine. I don’t have to ask wwjd to show empathy. It isn’t hard to figure out that honestly is generally good for maintaining healthy relationships with other people, which we need, because we are a social species.
@@margraveofgadsden8997 this argument at this point is so trite. People are habitual liars to manipulate others on a daily bases, people spread rumors to get what they want and hurt others. Steal and explain it away by saying there taking from a rich person. come to work inebriated and take advantage of there coworkers. Sexually harass verbally and physically. I witness every single one of these things on a daily bases from my coworkers and employees. People are not moral, atheists and non believers live in a delusion thinking they are good people and no I’m not saying I’m perfect either I screw up all the time but I acknowledge it and try and do better.
I love this guy and his science skill... wow
He does do a great job of performing The script! 😍... Don't forget the five doctors of science helping him write it! 🙏😍(Reading the scientific literature... Gathering the evidence... Pointing out the obvious false assumptions!.... Awesome)
"Science skill"
@jimhughes1070 They are supposedly 5 PhD *students* (not yet doctors) and their titles are mysteriously absent. Makes you wonder what their degrees are in and what institution is funding them
If you remove a modern animals eyes, they would lose their fitness advantage. But that doesn't reverse the process. If you replace the eyes with photosensitive cells they still have some kind of fitness.
You can't take gears out of a modern clock and say "see it doesn't work!" When the precursor was an sundial
A sundial was intelligently designed, and a clock based on gears was also intelligently designed, with no mechanism or design connection between the two. Without the intelligent designers, you are left trying to explain how random mutations and natural selection turned a sundial into a clock. If no mechanism is shared between the two (as in your example), then evolution has no hope of getting from one to the other.
Leaving your analogy and making this a bit more realistic, if you think that chemical evolution made the first cell, and biological evolution gave us the modern cell, there must have been a long, continuous path of innovation between the first cell and modern cells. So, claiming that discontinuity of mechanism rebuts our argument of knocking out genes ends up rebutting your own belief in evolution.
We are talking about cell, no longer about complex multicellular organism. It can't get any simpler to be living. What you're saying is like there is an atom inside an atom, which of course isn't the case.
Did you mean to say intelligently designed,.? With a fine level of engineering and craftsmanship? Following a cleverly organized plan?... That's what I thought you meant 😭😭😭
2:56 I'm a bit stupid but what about organisms that have their mouth work both ways
Your premise fails at the start... it's not called 'chemical evolution', it's called abiogenesis. You're trying to make the watchmaker argument, and that's ridiculous.
The best way I can illustrate in my minds eye the absurdity of this video would be to create my own similar TH-cam video about the Fox, the Chicken, and the Corn crossing the river problem from when we were kids. I’m gonna create a video that I smugly title “the farmer never got the fox, chicken, and corn across the river because boat based transportation couldn’t do t. Here’s why it’s impossible.” I would then layout in the video step by step the apparent logical impossibility where;
“Okay people, let me ‘sprain how obviously wrong boat evolution is. Here’s why;
you take the fox first, the chicken eats the corn. Uh oh that’s not gonna a work!
If you take the corn first, the fox eats the chicken. Nooo but my chicken dinner, this doesn’t look good at all!
But fear not (in mocking voice) “So obviously the only way to even take step one is taking the chicken first.” Okay so you may feel all smart now, you managed to get one third of the way there, but what do you do then smarty??
Okay so maybe then you go back to take the corn across. Way to go!!! Now you are two thirds of the way there! Clearly the farmer will succeed right? Uh WRONG as soon as the farmer goes back to get the last animals, the fox, the chicken eats the corn on the far side of the shore.
Ditto if you try the other way around and get the corn last,Bc SORREEE boom your chicken just got chomped down and turned to poop (here the video has fart sounds and poop emojis flashing across the screen) and you have just a corn and one fat happy fox left.
Obvious to anyone paying attention, since we know that indeed the farmer DID make it to the other side of the river, the ONLY REASONABLE explanation that can stand up to scientific and logical scrutiny is that GOD did it. (Insert more fart sounds and poop emoji).
That is this video in a nutshell.
That's a perfect example of a strawman argument.
Now instead, why don't you refute what's actually on the video.
Good story, it's true we used silly poo emojis - guilty. But the underlying arguments are all from mainstream published literature. Watery vesicles based on simple lipid bilayers is mainstream thought. The inability to import needed material and export chemical waste is a show stopper. The "leaky membrane" idea is an attempt to solve this known issue (see reference 3 in the end notes). Homeostasis and conflicting requirements won't allow for this. Protocells are the next attempt at a solution and the minimal genome experiments are supposed to support these kinds of ideas. But rather than demonstrate that simple cells can get simpler, they demonstrate quite the opposite. Their problems are freely admitted in the literature as well. A certain number of minimal things are need to have life, it's a well known problem.
If you have any actual criticisms, we're open to that but a straw-man made up story won't do the trick :)
@@LongStoryShortVideos used from literature? I think you meant to say misused.
I do enjoy that the sheer majority of people here are roasting your video. Bet you appreciate the removal of the dislike counts
@Mason Taylor If you don't give specifics people might think you're bluffing and haven't ready any of the papers ;)
@@LongStoryShortVideos oh it isnt necessary for me to provide those sources since I was replying to you when you said "published literature" without providing any sources.
In addition, I thought an argument should stand on it's own merit ;) Still waiting on the credentials of the alleged 5 PhDs.
Wait so at the beginning of the episode you criticize the fact that because the explanation for the origins of life is somewhat murky and not yet fully understood, that the assumption that it nevertheless occurred is “waving a magic wand” to explain away the problem?
Okay I do see that view, but how is that not uhm... 100,000 times more true about your preferred explanation of “a supernatural omnipotent omnibenevolent being named god did it”??
I mean for Christ’s sake, at least the postulates/conjectures involved with abiogenesis and early evolution have SOME evidence backing it up, even if that evidence isn’t yet complete.
I find the double standard of attitude towards each explanation to be so salient that it makes the entire video simply impossible to take seriously.
To be honest, the ignorant approach and unwarranted cynical attitude towards scientific explanation while not directing even one iota of critical analysis towards the “well DUH, unlike all the holes evolution has, the theory of ‘god just did it all’ has no logical issues whatsoever. My favorite book says so.”
Its so extreme that I don’t even know what to say to whoever created this video. There shouldn’t even need to be any commenter explaining this. The inherent lack of credibility is so glaring that I’m shocked nobody involved in creating the video didn’t raise it, if only just because for the argument being put forth is to have any credibility at all, you clearly MUST address the issue at some point in the video.
But they don’t even acknowledge it, more less try to explain why it’s not a huge problem. As such it’s impossible to take the arguments brought forth as being made in good faith by people who actually believe that they are reaching conclusions using the tools of science and logic better than the overwhelming consensus of the worlds scientists. Instead it just comes across like a child ranting to himself with plenty of poop emojis and fart sounds piped in randomly generated word salad... no offense.
There's zero empirical proof of chemicals 'becoming alive' (=magic). That's an assumption of the materialist mind ('mother nature and father time did it' lol, as another person has commented in another video). The theist does not negate that chemicals are a necessary part of life, the theist negates that life is EXCLUSIVELY chemistry.
Empirical science is not metaphysics. Empirical science is subject to change and revision, metaphysical certainties are not. So metaphysics is the most reliable science ever. Empirical science is a poor substitute for feeble minds (no offense meant).
@@martam4142 but Marta, this video isn’t about metaphysics. It’s about empirical science, at least ostensibly, and that’s what my comment was directed at.
If you want to sweep that all away and start afresh with a completely different topic, about whether empirical science or metaphysics is a better way to determine what’s true and real, that’s fine let’s go ahead and schedule that, but my original comment was a response to this specific video, yours is not.
@@martam4142 If that’s where you feel safe storing away the last vestiges of what god is still necessary to explain, by all means go ahead and do that. But a lot of us over here in the non-theist side have gotten burned too many times by agreeing that we can confidently credit god existing to (insert a long line of mysteries that over the last two hundred year’s have been ultimately shown to NOT be magic, with no additional requirement of a supernatural omnipotent being that my favorite book tells me confidently is the one who did it.
Admittedly, i am making a bit of a predictive leap here, but if recent scientific advancement demonstrates any kind of pattern, it’s that your cubbyhole to smugly assert that “science doesn’t have an explanation for this. OBVUOUSLY this thing must’ve where God did everything.” has a short shelf life before what god is needed for is forced to retreat further as this particular question of empirical science gets answered conclusively and ends up surprise being, surprise.:. NOT MAGIC.
shout out to people getting upset cause this COULD mean life was designed. like relax....
This method of argument is analogous to hijacking a passengar plane, flying it into a building thinking that is what the plane is for because that is what you used it for.
I think I'll take the abiogenesis explanation thank you very much.
Have at it!! 😭... Your ass is the only one you have to worry about.. after all. 😭🙏💪
I liked the whole video, don’t let people who are unable to imagine a world with explanations beyond what we understand get you down
A very well produced video. A pity it dishonestly misrepresents science.
The blatantly obvious is also handy... And apparently available! 😭💪🙏
But if it's not chemical evolution or something similar, then what is it? Creation? Did life just appear suddenly? Has it always been here? I mean, it doesn't really leave us with a lot of options, right?
When you critique a theory or model, it is based on the evidence and assumptions provided on the model and if they are valid or not. This happens daily in university courses or science programs. There is absolutely zero obligation for anyone to provide an alternative story to critique the main one. By that logic, science could never have progressed since the first person to critique an existing theory on merit, if he did not provide an complete and working alternate model, would be shut down. That makes no sense.
When you defend your research or paper in a masters or phd thesis, the evaluation team consisting of experts will critique your model and assumptions mainly. They are not required to provide alternate explanations before critiquing your work.
God is not an idea... And certainly not the focus of most all "religious systems"... (Bible)He is bigger than the universe, IS...outside of time, and space ... The creator of dimensions!... And is apparently able to interact with them.. at will!!! 💪... And is obviously the best biochemical engineer in known history! 🎉
Abiogenesis means life came about from the nonliving. Protocells, like virus, could have been evolving while not technically alive. Homeostasis is one criteria for a thing to be considered alive. But if we're talking about the realm of the non-living, whether a thing possesses homeostasis or not is irrelevant. This video does show how much science doesn't understand about how life came to be. However, this video goes too far when it claims that abiogenesis is impossible.
So, what’s the counterpoint? Life quite obviously does exist, so what are you ascribing it to? Pointing out something science doesn’t know (yet) or hasn’t proven (yet) doesn’t mean jack if you don’t have the answer either. (And if it’s religion, BOY do you have a lot of “observable evidence” you’re gonna need to come up with)
If natural processes are known to be incapable of producing life, then life itself is the observable evidence of supernatural processes. I'm sure that statement won't change your thinking. So, let me ask: what (hypothetical) evidence could possibly ever convince you that natural processes did not start life?
Not all proof is "empirical" proof as understood today (coming from a lab). Philosophical proof and logic lead inescapably to a First Cause.
@@robstadler927 It's impossible to have evidence of "supernatural" things. Once something is proven to be real, hey its part of reality and no longer "supernatural." Finding out an explanation isn't good enough isn't cause to give up and think "whelp, must be magic!" but an invitation to dig deeper for more evidence and better explanations.
@@Oswald927 At the highest level, there are only two possibilities for the origin of life: Purely natural causes produced life, or purely natural causes were not capable of producing life. From your comments, you seem to have excluded the 2nd possibility a-priori. If so, that means that you are not seeking truth, you are not open to following the evidence wherever it leads. Evidence has no place in what you believe. On the other hand, if you are open to follow the evidence wherever it leads, then you could answer my question: What (hypothetical) evidence could possibly ever convince you that natural processes did not start life? If you cannot answer this, your epistemology is bankrupt.
I feel like you’re deliberately missing the point here. Once evidence proves something, it ceases to be “unnatural.” Even if evidence starts pointing to magical leprechauns creating life then that just means magical leprechauns are/were part of the natural world. Any distinction between natural and supernatural that isn’t the barrier of evidence is purely arbitrary categorization.
And, there will never be a way to prove something exists purely by excluding other options. New methods and variables and discoveries will keep adding more options. If, though, all experiments keep pointing to the necessity of something “unprovable” for observations to be true, it means that new methods, etc. will need to be developed to prove it (a la Higgs boson)
Jesus Christ man. You should be getting way more traction. Everything is on point. Like a hundred percent. The voice over, the animation, the science, everything is just a hundred and one percent. Good job guys. This is one of the channels that I love. And I don't like a lotta channels.
Oh dude... most of this is great other than the terrible science content. The science in this video is awful and all the sources argue AGAINST this video's conclusion. This is just Christian apologetics
@@hadishstreet3066 Nah. You're wrong man. For real. There's no apologetics in this, and nothing about this even points to Christianity or religion or whatever. So that's an idea that you have. Science is supposed to be questioned and critiqued. That's how you do science. Most people aren't doing that these days, but this channel is doing just that. And in an awesome way too. The science is sound. There might be some flaws (none that I know of by the way), but that's science. There's gotta be flaws before you reach conclusions. If you got objections, show me something. We could talk about it
@@hadishstreet3066 all the comments say the video is wrong on everything but no comment gave a good argument tbh.
@@hadishstreet3066 ok provide some references or pick one small segment of the video and share with everyone what is wrong with that argument and back it up with some reality based evidence or paper. That would be a good response!
@@digitaleasyaadacube2149 "There's no apologetics in this" It's nothing but...This channel promotes ID/creationism; that God created everything and the channel creators will reject any proven science that contradicts this.
It’s run by the ill-named Discovery Institute, where no research at all is done, none. They employ several demonstrable liars with a degree and no scientific integrity to misrepresent scientific research. Not to mention that one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.
They specialise in intellectual vandalism, which is predominantly based on the deceptive lie that discrediting scientific research would add credibility to their ancient mythology. Nothing about debunking any scientific hypothesis or theory automatically equals or even remotely alludes to “God did it”.
Comparing modern cells to the the first forms of life is not a valid comparison. The precursors to life would have been vary basic potentially being as simple as self replicating molecules of RNA. They would not have to dead with the qualms of modern day metabolism. Cellular life and even proto cells would have developed later.
These videos are AMAZING! Keep up the good work Please!
I love this, these videos are genius
Thanks!
@@LongStoryShortVideos A genius appliation of intellectual vandalism....
The problem with the papers that try to take away things from living cells is exactly what you state: these cells are already very complex and removing functions it has will make it very sickly. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to build a simple cell.
After 75 years of trying to... No one still has any idea how that would be done. Always follow the money! 😭
@@jimhughes1070scientists have already created artificial replicating cells. You are several years out of date.
That was only one point though. His much bigger point was question you when you say simple cells? The simplest cell is already incredibly complex. Like how it would need to keep bad things out and put good things in. You can’t simplify that any more than it already is and it’s already too complex. In other words, there’s no such thing as a simple cell.
@@nicholashale5988
Nails in a coffin!! 🤣👍
@@nicholashale5988 - the problem here, I suspect (and apologies for being presumptive) is that this video by the Discovery Institute is that when it makes creationist pseudoscientific propaganda, it isn't aimed at the scientifically literate, it is aimed at the likes of us, who probably have a fairly limited knowledge of the topic being discussed.
The video sounds very impressive to those who know nothing about the topic, but it is laughable nonsense to those that do.
It may appeal to someone not educated in the specific topic, who is then convinced by these arguments of irreducible complexity, but those who actually understand the topic in detail know that the problem has been scientifically studied and resolved.
The aim of this video is not to spread science, bit to spread anti-science with a veneer of science, to persuade the scientifically illiterate that creationism is the only option.
And while this may win approval in flyover states in the USA and in some Muslim countries, the rest of the world just moves on with reality.
When are you coming back?
I don't know how life happened, but there is one thing I am absolutely sure of.. There is nobody up there creating stuff.
Pro tip: No one calls abiogenesis "chemical evolution" except Kent Hovind and his fans. If you want to avoid immediately destroying your credibility (key word being "immediately"), you should avoid this term.
Chemical evolution is a common term in the published literature as well as textbooks.
@@LongStoryShortVideos It may be used in the colloquial sense of "things change over time," but it's not the technical term. I'm a biology major, and the term "chemical evolution" has never been used by any of my professors or appeared in any of my textbooks. If anything, biologists try to avoid it so people don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution.
Perhaps it's a regional thing then? I've found some textbooks avoid using the term, others use it throughout. A cursory search of the literature shows it is in common use. We also use abiogenesis frequently throughout the series as well, it's a fine word (if not a tad "jargony"). Thanks for watching and the thoughtful comments!
@Dino Hall: if life is "nothing but chemicals" and evolution explains how it has changed during vast periods of time, how come evolution can not explain its origins? What's the difference? It's just chemicals all the way down.
As a scientist, I has thinking,” chemicals can’t evolve. what is this click bait?” Life is about self replication of chemical reactions in a structured way. Evolution is the change of that structure over time.
Excellent video. Thank you.
I'd actually love for Aron Ra or Professor Stick to respond to one of these videos. I think it would be entertaining and informative.
Yeah, that'd be cool! Let me know if either of them do. Prof stick reviewed a previous video, he mostly agreed if I recall.
Gab popcorn lol, those dudes can talk for hours !
Actually I've been taught evolutionary theory for 60 years... Had about enough! 😭😭
Hi there. An atheist buddy of mine had one criticism about this video: he wondered why the 5 PhDs mentioned at the beginning weren’t referenced. Could it be possible to add these in the description? Thanks.
So, from what I can tell your argument is that a deity created life, right? The inherent issue with that is that a deity would in of itself be a a form of life, so, if it created life and that is the answer then it would have to of created itself. That's a paradox. The fact is that for instance and example the Christian God exists, then it is a living thing( albeit a living thing outside our understanding, but, it would be indelibly a form of life) and under that fact we would then need to understand how it came to be to actually know of the true creation of life.
No one mentioned a deity. But it's important to differentiate: the act of "creation" is for contingent beings. God is a necessary being, so creation does not apply to Him.
@@martam4142 If the implications are creationism the deities are implied. Regardless of how you justify a deity existing it is a living thing and you can't explain life's start without explaining it coming into being, that's how it works.
@@martam4142 our existence inherently proves abiogenesis. not some above-all figure (which has never been proven to exist) that is magically the same species as us.
Just found this excellent series. As a physicist, by following, I am learning a bit of very important biology. Following the arguments by experts, pro and con, I am persuaded chemical evolution didn't happen.
You really are not learning about biology- you are learning religious propaganda masquerading as science.
Your friends are lucky to have you!! 💪😍
@@jimhughes1070 You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar!
@@exxzxxe Mercy!... 😳 Even if you're joking I'm going to keep that all day long!! 🙏🙏🙏😍 A rare accusation indeed!!! 😭
Protons are charged. That's how modern mitochondria keep a gradient of them. The problem is that early RNA world life relied on lots of interactions between various things that would get blocked by a cell membrane. This membrane would have come about much later. Proto life had the environment in the ocean, relying on statistical mechanics to replicate faster than decaying. It probably started as a bunch of rybozymes that were each able to do one of the many things needed for reproduction and they all had to work together to make more of itself. Putting some of these things in a bubble would just isolate it and prevent it from doing anything.
And that's how you use a vivid imagination.... To destroy the science already discovered!! 😭😭😭
@@jimhughes1070it's not as imagining that a supernatural bronze age Hebrew war god magicked everything into existence.
@@capitalb5889 and how is it less? 🤣🤣🤣.... You're saying that "dirt just did it" !! 😭... Isn't that just a sports merch slogan? 🤣
@@jimhughes1070 you sound like you're aping Kent Hovind's arguments - ignore the science and develop some ludicrous straw man claim.
But you say with a straight face that an invisible supernatural being, who behaves in a way entirely consistent with not existing is responsible for everything, despite there being absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. 😆
@@capitalb5889 blindness.... Must be a serious drug! 😭 Why do you Jokers always try to equate the educated, with people that they disagree with on almost everything!?!.. oh yeah!!! That's the straw man argument! 😭😭🤣
Great video as always!
Love these!
So I'm watching the vid and now commenting on the first point. Homeostasis is indeed important; however, you are thinking waaaay to complexly (I can tell already by the bi-lipid layer) The first cells didn't produce waste or collected food for energy. They just replicated and only needed materials for that. Their waste was water, a solvent that could destroy them. The first cell membranes were only single layer and acted effectively as soap, trapping in useable material and expelling the "waste" water. And there you have it, the intake of 'food' and the ejection of 'waste' on a prebiotic level.
[EDIT] Furthermore, a lot of the reactions do result in water, which the membrane can passively kick out.
On the second point, the first cells didn't have proton pumps. Again, they didn't take in food and release waste like we think of them on modern cells.
And on the third point, that is the incorrect application of the data. A bacteria's genes are again, modern. What they actually done is cut out your organs, not make you into the ancestral ape that evolved into you.
In short, he makes the mistakes of all other people who disagree with abiogenesis. They are thinking of the cells as we know them today after evolution has already taken place, not the most basic forms they'd take. His argument against the hypothesis of abiogenesis is disingenuous and fallacious, and he should stop talking about it as if he knows anything on the subject.
Oh and final thing, though a minor nitpick. There is no such thing as chemical evolution. Evolution refers to descent with inherent modification which requires you to be alive. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis of the process that you come from mere molecules to the first stage of living.
There's a lot to unpack here. You said "the first cells didn't produce waste or collected food for energy. They just replicated and only needed materials for that." You're saying that replication doesn't require energy? You think that the molecules in this first cell did not degrade (which is waste)? You think the only waste was water? Do you have a reference for that?
"The first cell membranes were only single layer"?? Never heard anyone claim that - you got a reference for that?
Can we please stick to actual science?
@@robstadler927
1. Replication does need energy. The difference is it doesn't come from metabolic processes.
2. They did degrade, they just didn't 'live' long enough. Remember, they are very basic cells.
3. I can't say if water is the only waste, but I do have a source about it. You'll have to give me a moment to find it.
4. The entire video does. Look at the graphics. It's a bilayer, not a micelle which is single layered. You somehow watched an entire video and didn't see that.
I am sticking to actual science, which is why I don't refer to Abiogenesis as a theory. It doesn't have the qualifications yet as it's indeed missing some links. Now, how about you actually stick to real science by analyzing something as basic as the misrepresentation of early life? Bilayers didn't exist and removing genes from bacteria doesn't make them equivalent to ancestral life. That's like taking out your organs to represent an early ape.
@@YoRHaAttackerNo2 1. Please explain how replication requires energy, but yet requires no metabolic process to make use of that energy.
2. So, the first cells produced no waste because they didn’t live long enough. So, your answer to the accumulation of waste is that the entire cell was waste - it just died and decayed. How does that advance us toward life?
3. You said water was the only waste, now you say “I can’t say if water was the only waste”.
4. The video shows a lipid bilayer, which all of life uses. I’ve never heard anyone claim that a micelle started life. You said that “bilayers didn’t exist”. Got a reference for that?
Then, you claim that you are sticking to actual science??
Interesting perhaps simplifying things are not a good way of looking at how simple something can be because there is pre-built systems what rely on each other but regardless, this is very interesting. I am going to give you some calendar points note I do not know much about biology so I could basically be misunderstanding the most basic things
Counter argument 1
Maybe there’s a way these systems could form naturally, we just haven’t discovered it
Counter argument 2
OK this even to me this sounds ridiculous, but I thought I may as well bring it up maybe the first life could just reproduce incredibly fast before it could die
I don’t know even if it is stupid please do tell me why, and we are always discovering more Please reply your counter arguments if you have any.
Oh yeah and final thing if you don’t think it’s chemical evolution then what is it?
Counter 1
Scientists have been trying to show various ways for 70 yrs plus, they are very close to where they started. Not much evidence needed. To create any chain of events of molecules, you need very specific steps, you need to stop the process at various points very strategically, and clean or clear the unwanted results of a reaction and purify what u need. This is basic chemistry or biology lab work. U make 1 minor error in your meticulously designed experiment to make not cells just simply organic compounds, you end up with garbage results. Happens all the time in labs. The evidence from all experiments is that unless you control all parts of the process or strategize everything in advance, your reaction will turn into garbage in 2 to 3 steps. If you have any or even a single paper that shows you can get any kind of working system without any serious human intervention, then that would be amazing.
Counter 2
The replication can only happen once you have some sort of life first even some primitive sort. No one has gotten anywhere close other than showing a few separate processes come about with a ton of equipment and strategy. There is zero positive results on this front.
And lastly, there is no obligation for anyone to provide an alternative model to critique a theory or your story for example. That's not how science works. That's the same argument ppl say theists use, if u can't explain it another way it was God. So making the same argument "if you can't show another way, then you're wrong and this low quality low evidence theory stands". Not a logical argument
A kind reply 😊... All the points are not only based on assumptions (imagination)... But also, as you stated, not based on science... The "simplest" beings on the planet (that supposedly evolved already) are so complex, the humans can't even begin to build one!... Why are scientific publications written the way they are? Easy... Follow the money!... Life rots, or breaks down, as soon as it dies. All of the experience of that life... Is gone!... There's no known method of transferring information from you're dead ancestor's... Chemical makeup to instruct "your" chemical makeup on how to "not die"(the basis for evolutionary theory) but if it "were possible"... Wouldn't things be getting better instead of "running down" and dying? (That's that pesky thing called "observable science")... As for the beginning... Building a simple cell... The odds against it occurring are beyond astronomical! (That's just doing the math on 20 proteins... Disregarding all the other "exact" chemical reaction that need to occur at the "same" time! (Life rots... Time is the enemy.... Not the friend.) If you do embark on a journey of learning... Mark well the contradictions of the "theories"
(imaginative guesses, are not science)... Creationist not only believe in God... We believe in science and logic!... To do otherwise would be....
Did we ever get the names and credentials of the "5 PHDs"?
I guess they are all anonymous because they will get their funding cut if the truth is revealed that we were magicked into existence by a Hebrew war god.
/s
@@capitalb5889 "I guess they are all anonymous because they"....are made up.
Are you a biologist ?
No, but I do know what a woman is.
Why’s it matter if he’s a biologist or not ?
You don't need to be a biologist to put forward a logical argument.
@Zach Weston:
The problem with the "there are no men or women" non-sense is a philosophical one. There is a cure for it, and it consists in coming back to essentialism (Aristotle).
Nominalism (the current mainstream Western thinking) is the cancer that has brought upon us all the non-sense we are witnessing.
@@ryanlengacher being a researcher makes you capable of better understanding scientific papers, and capable of doing unbiased research avoiding nitpicking sources that agree with your opinion.
2:15 The evil vacuum is skulking 😁 or is that lurking...?
Thanks for another stellar video‼️
0:57 minor mistake. rna world suggests that the code of life did stuff, and replicated, before there were membranes.
Hi @Orion Hunter, the RNA first hypothesis is being abandoned since RNA is so fragile (which is why the mRNA-based vaccines have to be stored at -80C despite being coated in a protective lipid nanosphere) due to rapid hydrolysis, especially in the presence of ubiquitous cations. Also, RNA has not been demonstrated to self-replicate in prebiotically-relevant conditions. The types of reactions that ribozymes can perform are very limited due to the flimsiness of the molecule.
All life on earth shares a common ancestor
I’m reading these comments and I love how all of these angry atheists/evolutionists are so quick to assume long story short is religious although he makes no indication of the sort. This type of reaction tells me that these evolutionists are so set on their beliefs and threatened by the fact that under closer examination they hold no water whatsoever despite long story short providing receipts in the form of expert papers and studies backing up his claims. Whoever is running this channel, keep up the good work. Your videos are simple yet informative to those of us who aren’t the most well-versed when it comes to this scientific field but still explain and make it clear that to believe abiogenesis actually requires more faith to believe than belief in God. Those who are on a genuine truth quest wouldn’t automatically seek to discredit this video and it’s claims by resulting to immediately calling long story short a creationist, but rather respond to the science and claims made in the video to have a productive discussion. Incredible video and incredible channel. You have earned my like as well as my subscription👏
Side note:
He may very well be a Christian but that has nothing to do with the points, data, and sources he presented in the video. If he’s SO wrong in what he’s arguing then by all means it should be incredibly easy for most to debunk no?🤔
@@conman128 So the fact that literally all of his arguments are copied and pasted from earlier religious apologists doesn't raise any red flags?
"...rather respond to the science and claims made in the video to have a productive discussion."
That's like half the comments section. There are comments presenting facts to refute the claims made in the video. One is literally pinned at the top of the comments.
@@strangequark3897
My point is who cares if he’s religious or not he still presents a valid objection to a scientific belief and most of the comments are filled with people writing him off as religious and not addressing the claims he made in the video. That was my point. If anyone results to personal attacks or trying to use arguments of authority to discredit an argument without addressing the initial claims it makes that person’s belief/worldview seem very fragile
@@Kinetochore-ti5hk
Not really. The few people in this comment section that actually address his claims he responds to
😁You do an amazing job with your videos. Thanks for all the hard work. I'd love to see you continue your creations! Thanks again!
The God of the gaps argument. Got it.
Hmmmm citation? I’ll go look in your description
In the endnotes of the video, we run into character length problems trying to fit the citations in the description.
What is your alternate hypothesis? It is vastly more logical to assume that cells developed over time than to assume they popped into existence just as they are today. I sincerely hope that you are not asking us to believe a completely unproven and unproveable divine force/entity "intelligently designed" cell membranes.
this is my second video from your channel and im so in love with them already!!!! pleaassee keep up with what you do & may God bless you all for that.
"may God bless you all for that" - found your problem.
@@Ericmor its good thing to know how to find what the problem is. A great thing to ‘start’ settling things up. But sorry to say, you might‽ be wrong this time.
Taking away features from living things can kill it BUT considering abiogenesis proposes that life came from non life, it only makes sense that life's predecessors were in fact not alive.
Duh.
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated: that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics." -- Sir Karl Popper
.
Sir Karl Popper was a brilliant man, but he was a philosopher of science, not a scientist. The two disciplines are quite different. Science has moved on already since he died a quarter of a century away.
@@mchooksis Funny how you didn't refute what he said.
Dude pls just make more videos I love them and have to start rewatching them now. You are amazing!
Idk fam,I hear what you're saying, but in many ways it sounds like "removing a battery from a smartphone will make it impossible to use therefore there couldn't have been phones without batteries" 🤔
It feels like we were made in space industry and send to earth here to spread life😂😂
Sounds like you're learning... As soon as you realize that things that "aren't alive" immediately begin to rot... You'll be able to continue on your way to genius level wisdom!!! 😭💪🙏😍
This is probably the best video at proving God on the entirety of TH-cam imo! Bravo! :D
But it provides no single argument for God. Therefor it can't prove God. But yeah, I guess if there is zero proof for God then all videos on that matter are the same good or bad as they all got nothing.
Making a confused pseudo-science video about membranes is not proof for God.
Another awesome video. You guys are the best. Thanks for making it.
What sicence based on evidence knows is that biulding blocks (aminoacids, nucleotides, fatty acids, and monosaccharides) for macromolecules in cells (proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates) can form non-biologically from simpler chemicals (hydrogen, carbon monoxide, water, nitrogen, etc) because we have found those building blocks in meteorites or we have been able to produce them in laboratory.
It is obvious that the transition of these building blocks to give rise to living, simplest, cells (aka abiogenesis) is a hypothesis lacking of evidence (as far as we know) as you pointed out quite convincely in this video.
But, which will be a better suited, reasonable, well supported explanation for the origin of life?
Lipid bubbles may have existed, but the cell would have to take over creating them with sequential information. RNA haphazardly going through finding its membrane is quite different than self-production of a membrane. Deep chasm between the two.