@15:50 Hydrogen cyanide &meteors 19:25-plasma /impact Henry's law 22:00 need of HEAT to create ferro- cyanide;compounds. H20 & solar radiation =aminos & Hydrosulfate 30:00 carbonate rich lake 40:00 jezera crater, MARS 45:00 q&a,,,
That picture at 9:30 of the biochemical pathways and control and feedback mechanisms gives overwhelming sense that there is a higher mind behind it all.
Immense gratitude and best wishes for your great work, and many thanks for making public that wonderful talk. Just an idle though from a stranger to the field - May it be that our life started in a rich environment of small compounds, where some undergone repeated cycles of selective assembly and polymerization caused by cracks on mineral chips that presented intricate patterns of positive, negative, and hydrophobic regions. One pathway could be that monomers were assembled on cracks and polymerized with solvent evaporation and then formed polymers were displaced with a gain of solvent. The other possibility could be that assembled compounds served themselves as an assembly pattern for complimentary monomers. If a polymer was not entirely displaced then repeating copies could accumulate in some amount in a single strand given the rise for even more complicated structures. Simply stated - there could be a unique combination of events and conditions that produces the very base for the life to form on our planet. Speculating further, one could assume that the life machinery had started the moment an entity facilitating polymerization had been synthesized. That would lead to the consumption of nearly all surrounding substrate of more stable forms of polymers giving them more time for interaction limited by natural degradation. The appearance of entity facilitating polymer degradation either would stop the process or trigger polymer diversity and thus the appearance of a polymer-based systems of synthesis and degradation. That would lay the base for selecting more stable forms of polymers and promote metabolic pathways of its monomer synthesis. It could be that RNA and peptides were developing in parallel and their monomers at the very earlier stage formed symbiotic associations. Compartmentalization and further functional specification seems to be products of already formed and stable evolutionary machinery with very developed metabolic processes. As we know of life, it consumes less productive and less efficient of its forms given food for more advanced. Origins of life could be as many and diverse as one could imagine, but the race for food had begun, and the process is untwisting. No trace would be left of yesterday winners succumbed for the newly emerged creatures.
Probably the best lecture on the subject that I've been able to find on TH-cam. Regarding the question discussed around 1:08:00, I think a MUCH simpler polymer than RNA is necessary as a starting point for life. You need a polymer that is made of two or more different monomers. The polymer needs to "like" wrapping around or sticking to other strands of the polymer, and strands with similar sequences need to stick together better than ones that don't. If a nanogram of such material forms, some sequences will have the property of catalyzing the formation of more polymer - at least a tiny bit. As a strand grows, its sequence needs to be influenced by the catalyzing sequence - at least somewhat. From this starting point, genetic evolution can set in and you're pretty much off to the races. There is no need for this first polymer to be RNA or anything like it, and the trouble with RNA is that each building block is already too specific and complicated. A nucleotide is formed from a phosphate, a sugar, and a base, each of which have specific structures with many variants. I don't know enough chemistry to guess what polymer could fit the bill. Something similar to a polysaccharide seems promising to me. Or maybe a peptide. Or some other kind of molecule that has long since gone extinct. The most important property is that strands with similar sequences stick together better. I'd like to see research into every polymer with that property, regardless of whether it resembles any existing biotic molecule. I think trying to start with RNA and working backwards is completely the wrong notion. The first genetic polymer doesn't have to be an ancestor of our modern genetic polymers! As long as life is thriving and evolving, it will create all sorts of byproducts. One of those could be the ancestor of RNA - if the ancestor is being produced for any purpose it could then become an autocatalyst just like the first polymer and independently of it.
The theory that compounds got stuck inside oil bubbles in the ocean, and that these chemicals interacted inside the bubble to form the first cell, is interesting. But that RNA can replicate itself by placing nucleotides insequence and then bending on itself to create two identical copies, and that these copies grew inside the ooil bubble, which eventually splitted into two when the amount of RNA inside become too big, does not solve the two major problems: first, is a self-replicating molecule that does not perform any activity other than produce copies of itself really "alive"? Snowflakes will often form quartz-like strcutures next to each other that are exact replicas of the ones in snowflakes next to it. Are snowflakes alive? And most importantly,. even if RNA can duplicate itself spontaneously, how exactly it got to manipulate amino acids into forming proteins? I mean, if we are talking RNA with no machinery of the ribosome, then RNA must *absolutely* have the ability to auto-catalyse amino acid reactions. Has this been demonstated? Because if it can't auto-catalyse protein reactions,. then how it created the machinery for creating even more complex proteins? Can an pure RNA create a riubosome from nothing? I mean, the oily bubbles, the precursors to cell walls, only make sense if RNA would need a contained space to create a machinery that is capable of performing it's own function(self-replicating) but with proteins that are too complex for it to form on it's own. The whole debate of which came first, replication or metabolism, seems like a semantic debate. Because both replication and metabolism to arise, something is essential: a molecule that has an innate abilitty to manipulate the matter around it to rearrange matter intelligently. "Intelligently" here, means according to instructions. Both self-replicating and creating a metabolism requires that ability to fold other matter into designed structures. So the whole debate of which came first, metabolism or replication, does not really matter since both of them require the same feature of a simple moilecule that can arise naturally through the laws of chemistry, that has *itself* the ability to catalyse matter into patterns according to instructions. This is the key to understanding the origin of life. We know that RNA can catalyse some fractions of itself, but not entirely. RNA also, outside a cell, cannot catalyse the formation of proteins. So where does this leave us? Well, we need to find a molecule that that can auto-catalyse amino acids into protein chains. What are the candidates?
Trying to figure out what he says beginning at 42:50. Can anyone figure it out? "Although I'm a [...] chemist, as Andre points out at the beginning, I've learned over the course of my career that being a single-minded, or narrow-minded, chemist on your own doesn't get you very far in origin of life research. You absolutely have to collaborate and learn from colleagues in other disciplines."
You have shown interesting picture of Darwin's pond with streams! Nice and interesting. What temperature was there? I am asking because, RNA would dissolved in temperature above -80*C. But what kind of reactions would you get below zero? From the other hand, If there was so much UV light, lighting, nuclear radiation, how could you possibly assume that there was no trace of electrolysis of water???
Interesting, if also beyond my grasp. So this is but a random reflection. Some pathways or optional possibilities were considered "cumbersome", "inefficient" and "messy". I wonder if chemists by and large are implicitly biased towards chemistry that makes sense in a laboratory or industry setting? To some extent, biology appears to be a fair bit cumbersome and messy.
The assembly of complex molecules involves a series of enzymes that must react in a proper sequence, very often producing intermediates that are useless to the cell until the final product is formed. Evolutionists imagine that these enzymes evolve randomly, often from a duplicate gene, and that the succession of steps in the synthesis, at least often, represents the succession of steps in the historical evolution of the process (the Granick hypothesis). But forces of natural selection could not operate to favour an organism which had ‘evolved’ a series of enzymes which merely produced useless intermediates until it somehow got around to making the end product. The Calvin cycle requires eleven different enzymes, all of which are coded by nuclear DNA and targeted precisely to the chloroplast, where the coding sequence is clipped off at just the right place by a nuclear-encoded protease. In reality, as described in the preceding paragraph, none of the enzymes can be missing if the Calvin cycle is to function. It is true that many of these enzymes are ubiquitous in living systems because every living cell needs to generate ribulose phosphates for the production of RNA, but evolutionists cannot solve the problem by merely pushing it back in time. The assembly of chlorophyll takes seventeen enzymes.21 Natural selection could not operate to favour a system with anything less than all seventeen being present and functioning. What evolutionary process could possibly produce complex sophisticated enzymes that generate nothing useful until the whole process is complete? Some evolutionists argue that the assumed primeval organic soup had many of the simpler chemicals, and that only as they were used up did it become necessary to generate the earlier enzymes in the pathway. In The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, the authors set forth the good basic chemistry that demonstrates that there could never have been an organic soup, and present some of the evidence out there in the world indicating that there never was.22 Denton23 and Overman24 also cite a number of experts who suggest that there is no evidence for such a primitive soup but rather considerable evidence against it. Chlorophyll itself, and many of the intermediates along its pathway of synthesis can form triplet states, which would destroy surrounding lipids by a free radical cascade apart from the context of the enzymes that manufacture them and the apoproteins into which they are inserted at the conclusion of their synthesis.25 According to Asada26 ‘triplet excited pigments are physiologically equivalent to the active oxygens’, and according to Sandmann and Scheer, chlorophyll triplets ‘are already highly toxic by themselves . . . .’27 The entire process of chlorophyll synthesis from δ-aminolevulinic acid to protoporphyrin IX is apparently tightly coupled to avoid leakage of intermediates.28 Almost all of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis are involved in handling phototoxic material.29 For many of these enzymes, if they are not there when their substrate is manufactured, the cell will be destroyed by their substrate on the loose in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apel30 has cited four of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis for which this has been proven to be the case. This is a significant problem for evolutionists, who need time for these enzymes to evolve successively. Each time a new enzyme evolved it would have produced a new phototoxin until the next enzyme evolved.
I gather you’re not a believer in a spontaneous origin of life. Where do yo think life originated from? I see no way there is spontaneous life and no way segments of functional DNA is added to a genome to eventually create man from a single cell first organism .
I would like to see debate between you and dr James Tour. He is real opponent. How would you answer his questions? What would you ask him about to falsified his believes?
scientists dont debate religious fundamentalists. if tour wanted a science debate he would write a science paper that debunks past hundred years of scientific research that he doesnt seem to know much about. hence he does youtube videos attacking his colleges behind their backs, and evangelizes in churches. not single paper published regarding origin of life by tour. he makes graphene, and nanorobotics papers nothing remotely related to origin of life research.
So many caveats. assumptions and circularities. Life needs these constituents, so we can posit the existence of these early environmently constituents, which thus brought forth life. Please.
I find this whole thing ridiculous. Put your end product on paper then figure out a completely impossible path to get there then take that impossible chemistry to create more impossible reactions. I may be completely wrong but it seems most of the reactions require an alkaline environment. That seems to make this whole video worthless because in that environment there is no way to produce stable proteins so what’s the point then?
Came here for the talk: left the talk by busting Professor Leroy Cronin (Glasgow), who is pretending to be Tony Maurice (see comments), and 'Tony Tony' on Twitter. So, so weird.
He lost me when he said the chemistry will “learn” as if non life can evolve and understand where it failed and fixed the problem as if it knew it’s end goal.
I'm with you in thinking it wasn't a good way of phrasing it in this case, but it's just a metaphor. Compare it to often said things like "atoms _want_ to have 8 electrons in their outer shell" or "an inductor _doesn't like_ the current flowing through it to instantly change". Obviously, atoms and inductors have no goals or desires; they don't actually 'want' or 'like' anything. He's using 'learn' in the exact same way here.
@@FarnhamJ07 He’s using learn in reactions and the good reactions being chosen. I found the whole thing worthless because all of the reactions require an alkaline environment which would quickly degrade proteins if they were ever accidentally made so these non life reactions would never go anywhere anyway
How could you assume that there was a panty of Hydrogen (which escapes from the atmosphere even today!) and no trace of free oxygen?The Earth is made of oxygen in 46% ! So are amino-acids and the whole of organism! How it came into those products without being freed from water? Water consists of 80% of it too! And you assumed that there was no free oxygen? HOW?
Free oxygen, i.e. molecular oxygen, is a very unstable and reactive substance. That is why oxygen burns in contact with so many different materials, and why it causes iron and other metals to rust: oxygen is depleting from the atmosphere all the time as it reacts with other substances. If life wasn't creating free oxygen constantly as a byproduct of photosynthesis, it would eventually disappear. As far as I'm aware, no free oxygen has been detected on any other planet, moon, or star. Molecular hydrogen is *eventually* knocked out of the atmosphere by solar radiation, but why should that mean it couldn't be in the atmosphere for a long time when Earth first formed? And unlike molecular oxygen, molecular hydrogen is quite stable, and is produced by various natural processes. When I first watched James Tour videos, I found him fairly persuasive - way more than any other creationist I've heard of. But sadly, like other creationists, his arguments ultimately rely on ignoring, misrepresenting, and even outright lying about the scholarship. If I remember correctly, his most important argument is that when abiogenesis researchers perform experiments, they use all kinds of complicated equipment that doesn't exist in nature. To emphasize this, Tour reads from the methods sections of various scientific articles. But just because people use complicated equipment to study a phenomenon, that doesn't tell you anything about whether the phenomenon is or isn't likely to occur in nature... This argument is also deceitful, because *all* papers about experiments need to have a materials-and-methods section with a very detailed explanation of how the experiment was done, so other people have a complete understanding of the experiment, and so they can perform the experiments themselves. Suppose for example you were studying how snowflakes form under different conditions: you might use complicated equipment to simulate the desired combination of gases, pressure, temperature, etc. Does that mean that snowflakes can't form all on their own? And does it mean that the conditions you simulated don't exist in nature on their own? The way Tours formed this argument, he has to be either ignorant, wasn't thinking carefully enough, or he wants to deceive his audience. Another argument he made is that biochemistry relies on only on form of each chiral molecule, and like he says it is extremely difficult to sort "right handed" from "left handed" molecules, since they are identical as far as 'normal' chemistry is concerned. I then learned that some crystals in nature come in right handed and left handed forms: the existing crystal structure does the sorting of building blocks as the crystal grows. Crystals can be used as catalysts for chemical reactions, so a chiral crystal will produce products that are biased towards one of the chiral forms. Look, I have a lot of respect for anyone who is interested in science and engages in it with skepticism and critical thinking. The last thing I want is to discourage anyone from asking these questions. But just because you have a question that seems like it has no solution, it doesn't mean the question doesn't have an answer, even a simple answer, or many answers. People who are skeptical about mainstream science have a lot of questions, but then they go on with their day *without trying to find the answer to their question!* Don't take this as an insult, but what I explained about molecular oxygen is something every first year biology or chemistry student would know. My point is not that your question was bad or unintelligent, my point is you would have found the answer if you made some effort to learn more, instead of using your question as an argument in a debate. I am not an expert, I have a bachelor's in biology. As a result of that education, I felt scientists made a good case that the theories of evolution and abiogenesis were correct. Then I started looking for every criticism and counter argument I could find - and only THAT is what convinced me that scientists are actually correct. Being skeptical and critical is great. Scientists love getting questions from the public. It is also literally their job to question and criticize their peers, and to respond to criticism they receive. In person, scientists are very independent minded, and they often criticize their fields harshly and sometimes even with alarming disrespect. Every course has at least one lecture where the professor starts explaining why a certain consensus is wrong and they are right. This is not a bug, it's a feature. I've met a graduate student in biology that was happy to tell me, a stranger in a public place, that he believed the earth was one thousand years old. A professor of statistics at my university told his students that climate change is baloney. One of my professors on the subject of climate said that while the consensus was true, climatologists have a bad and biased attitude. Nobody is punishing these people for thinking heretical thoughts - these people are a minority because everyone in their field has weighed the evidence and most decided to join the consensus. Science isn't perfect, but every common criticism that I've ever heard of the scientific consensus has a pile of articles and books that analyze it, debate it, and refute it. You are invited to prove me wrong. If you read this far, thank you for your time :)
@@blahblahsaurus2458 Thank you for such a long answer. I love science since and being very sceptic. Evolution was my love at first sight. But my scepticism led me to quastion it. So, now I know that I know ...nothing. We just believe, whatever we think. So, thank you again for your resentation of that interesting point of view. I dare doubt the absence of free oxygen in aeria of those abiogenetic reactions. The high temperature was hight espetially in place of thunders or vents. UV light was striking surface of ocean. So it doesn't seem to be so certain that whole of oxygen disappiered. Espetially that aminoaccids consist od oxigen = there was free oxygen in statu nascendi. We are talking about first little condition. It suppose to be necessary but not enought to create even first protein. The same story is with DNA or RNA. Sometimes something of those building blocks for a little while can accure. But what than? Cross reactions! Temperature, UV, H2O .... and game over. I think abiogenesis is still the weaker hipothesis. UFO is much better.
Forget the circular reasoning of atheistic evolutionists; the reason that understanding RNA is important right now is because the current shot for a certain worldwide disease is mRNA and people should understand before getting it how RNA could be the precursor to new genetics inside their own body. Is that kind of therapy experimental? It's never been done en masse before so you tell me.
@@junodonatus4906 Unlikely. Remember that the Magic Man orders fathers to murder their own sons in cold blood to prove their loaylty, and to genitally mutilate them on the 8th day to form a covenant. Since he is into torture and infanticide, it is unlikely that he would want to cure diseases.
Funny sketch, indeed! You presented steps towards life from chemistry in such a way that it seam that the highest, toughest step was the first one. Sorry, I have impression you deluding yourself. If it was like that just look up down to what I suggest. Maybe you should start from the end, the end of life. If you could stop dying or better if you could resurrect dyed organism, we may understand what life is?
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Hey wankers, I sent Tour a free copy of of my thorough scenario of origin of life months ago starting with prebiotic chemistry and finishing with protozoa. Without a knowledge of biochemistry or genetics he won’t be able to follow it even if he wanted to which he doesn’t since he believes in fairytales.
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Tour? He's nothing but the butt of jokes now. Get a grip tso. Professor Dave shredded Tour's entire 14 part video and it was spectacular. Enjoy.
@@sparky5584 the only thing that 14 video did was to highlight exactly what Dr Tour was saying in the first place if the 14 part video is so great why can't the maker of that video answer any of my questions ? and one of them is , since you people are so much smarter than Dr Tour who can make deaf people hear and have found cures for several cancers . then surely you geniuses should be able to raise the dead right ? I mean if I say I know how an internal combustion engine works , then I am a mechanic and I should be able to repair it when it breaks yet I see nobody being raised from the dead you dimwit
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Are you claiming your messiah tours can raise the dead and do other miracles? Wow. For a has-been scientist that is extraordinary. Professor Dave answered all of tour's questions and did it with science. Tour's just flailed about like a fish out of water and it was ugly. The proven misrepresentations were hysterical to say the least. We can all see who the 'dimwit' is- now can't we tsa? When religion meets science- religion doesn't do so well.
If people would actually think critically and not just by "there can't be God" all of this breath and time and money would not be necessary. There is no way all of this fantasy could've taken place to arrive at life. This video makes me laugh and see clearly how when the bible in psalms 14:1 says "the fool says in his heart there is no God" this is what it means.
There is a fundamental flaw it the "critical" thinking of men and women in this research. That flaw is to believe they can get to an answer without God. Just having ingredients is never going to give you a cake. I have a bachelor of science in biology and can see clearly that abiogenesis is just another way of saying spontaneous generation. I bet my life on God being truth. Men have been on this dead end road since the 1950's and are still wasting time on this endeavor. If they believe it happened in some puddle surely they should've found the answer by now. The reality is that that dead end road is getting longer ond longer. I could go on and on, but there it is from my perspective. I hope you have a nice day.
@@trippwhitener9498 your bachelor degree in biology doesnt do you any good in prebiotic chemistry.... there is nothing spontaneous about abiogenesis. its not like you can bake the cake by saying abrakadabra, and ingridients materialize before you and spontaneously become a cake abiogenesis has several stages. First, organic compounds need to be produced (or imported) in Hadean earth. Second, those organic compounds should produce the building blocks of living systems. Third, those compounds must organize into an evolvable system to produce life. I will try to cover a bit of each. since 1950's scientists demonstrated lots and lots of things about abiogenesis, you probably heard about Miller-Urey experiment, where they got amino acids by simulating prebiotic environment. which kickstarted the field of abiogenesis. but since then there were lots and lots and lots of research done on the topic, for example Mills, Peterson and Spiegelman (1967) demonstrated a first instance of darwinian evolution in vitro. They used the Q β phage's RNA and showed that there can be selection on the sequence, based on how well they are copied by a polymerase. A series of studies in the 1970s showed that chondrite meteorites contain a vast array of organic compounds, including amino acids. Quantification of monocarboxylic acids in the Murchison carbonaceous meteorite, Amino acids in the Yamato carbonaceous chondrite from Antarctica. Ferris et al (1989), showed that clay may possibly serve as a primordial backbone for polymerizing RNA. Mineral catalysis of the formation of dimers of 5'-AMP in aqueous solution: the possible role of montmorillonite clays in the prebiotic synthesis.... Ferris later improved vastly on this experiment. Bartel and Szostak (1991) showed that if you generate large pools of random RNA sequences and then select (simulate darwinian evolution) based on catalytic activity, you will end up with good RNA enzymes (ligases in their case). McCollom et al (1999) showed that lipids could form under conditions similar to hydrothermal vents Lipid Synthesis Under Hydrothermal Conditions by Fischer- Tropsch-Type Reactions. Johnson et al (2001) were the first team to successfully show RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization (with a template) in vitro, basically a huge requirement for one of the main scenarios in the RNA world. Lincoln and Joyce (2009) demonstrated a simple pair of cooperative RNA ligases the can replicated each other with rather high yield: Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme Powner et al (2009) showed one way we can make activated nucleotides in prebiotic earth, this was a key missing piece of the puzzle for many decades: Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Vaida et al (2012) showed that small RNA molecules can get together and make networks of cooperative and auto-catalytic cycles, and in some cases make self- replicating ribozymes. Adamala and Szostak (2013) successfully conducted Nonenzymatic Template-Directed RNA Synthesis Inside Model Protocells. Protocells are thought to be key in allowing complex functions to evolve in the RNA world. Before this experiment, people weren't quite sure how to couple Mg 2+ ions (required for RNA elongation without enzyme), with lipid bilayers (they would fall apart). Szostak and Adamala showed that citrate can stabilize the membrane and permit Mg 2+ in exist within it with higher concentrations. Attwater et al (2013) have produced what is to date the longest RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization (up to 200 nucleotides). This is key, because the enzyme itself is about the same length, which means in principle we are one step closer to a polymerase that can copy itself in full. An interesting property of their study is that it occurs in a cold environment. In-ice evolution of RNA polymerase ribozyme activity. Jack Szostak is the leading general in this field. Dave Bartel, who has done a lot of important studies in the list above, was Szostak's student. Apart from those, Gerald Joyce is also a leading figure with fantastic publications in the field. Nick Lane has written extensively on the thermodynamic requirements of early life, and the role of membranes. On the theoretical side, Manfred Eigen, Eors Szathmary and Martin Nowak have made significant contributions towards understanding the limitations of early replicators. there is nothing spontaneous about it, its a process that took millions of years to get to chemical system that is complex enough to be consider primitive form of life. as a bachelor of biology, you probably understand that there is no definitive definition of what life even is.... so we can only argue how simple it can get.
@@spatrk6634 life from non living matter is life from non living matter no matter what name you give it. You keep on believing the lie with no skepticism towards that which you hope is true. If you're going to be skeptical it should be for everything the same.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
@15:50 Hydrogen cyanide &meteors
19:25-plasma /impact
Henry's law
22:00 need of HEAT to create ferro- cyanide;compounds.
H20 & solar radiation =aminos
&
Hydrosulfate
30:00 carbonate rich lake
40:00 jezera crater, MARS
45:00 q&a,,,
That picture at 9:30 of the biochemical pathways and control and feedback mechanisms gives overwhelming sense that there is a higher mind behind it all.
Haha, for the first few minutes it seemed as if he were making the case against naturalism lol
Immense gratitude and best wishes for your great work, and many thanks for making public that wonderful talk. Just an idle though from a stranger to the field - May it be that our life started in a rich environment of small compounds, where some undergone repeated cycles of selective assembly and polymerization caused by cracks on mineral chips that presented intricate patterns of positive, negative, and hydrophobic regions. One pathway could be that monomers were assembled on cracks and polymerized with solvent evaporation and then formed polymers were displaced with a gain of solvent. The other possibility could be that assembled compounds served themselves as an assembly pattern for complimentary monomers. If a polymer was not entirely displaced then repeating copies could accumulate in some amount in a single strand given the rise for even more complicated structures. Simply stated - there could be a unique combination of events and conditions that produces the very base for the life to form on our planet. Speculating further, one could assume that the life machinery had started the moment an entity facilitating polymerization had been synthesized. That would lead to the consumption of nearly all surrounding substrate of more stable forms of polymers giving them more time for interaction limited by natural degradation. The appearance of entity facilitating polymer degradation either would stop the process or trigger polymer diversity and thus the appearance of a polymer-based systems of synthesis and degradation. That would lay the base for selecting more stable forms of polymers and promote metabolic pathways of its monomer synthesis. It could be that RNA and peptides were developing in parallel and their monomers at the very earlier stage formed symbiotic associations. Compartmentalization and further functional specification seems to be products of already formed and stable evolutionary machinery with very developed metabolic processes. As we know of life, it consumes less productive and less efficient of its forms given food for more advanced. Origins of life could be as many and diverse as one could imagine, but the race for food had begun, and the process is untwisting. No trace would be left of yesterday winners succumbed for the newly emerged creatures.
Probably the best lecture on the subject that I've been able to find on TH-cam. Regarding the question discussed around 1:08:00, I think a MUCH simpler polymer than RNA is necessary as a starting point for life. You need a polymer that is made of two or more different monomers. The polymer needs to "like" wrapping around or sticking to other strands of the polymer, and strands with similar sequences need to stick together better than ones that don't.
If a nanogram of such material forms, some sequences will have the property of catalyzing the formation of more polymer - at least a tiny bit. As a strand grows, its sequence needs to be influenced by the catalyzing sequence - at least somewhat. From this starting point, genetic evolution can set in and you're pretty much off to the races.
There is no need for this first polymer to be RNA or anything like it, and the trouble with RNA is that each building block is already too specific and complicated. A nucleotide is formed from a phosphate, a sugar, and a base, each of which have specific structures with many variants. I don't know enough chemistry to guess what polymer could fit the bill. Something similar to a polysaccharide seems promising to me. Or maybe a peptide. Or some other kind of molecule that has long since gone extinct. The most important property is that strands with similar sequences stick together better. I'd like to see research into every polymer with that property, regardless of whether it resembles any existing biotic molecule. I think trying to start with RNA and working backwards is completely the wrong notion.
The first genetic polymer doesn't have to be an ancestor of our modern genetic polymers! As long as life is thriving and evolving, it will create all sorts of byproducts. One of those could be the ancestor of RNA - if the ancestor is being produced for any purpose it could then become an autocatalyst just like the first polymer and independently of it.
The theory that compounds got stuck inside oil bubbles in the ocean, and that these chemicals interacted inside the bubble to form the first cell, is interesting. But that RNA can replicate itself by placing nucleotides insequence and then bending on itself to create two identical copies, and that these copies grew inside the ooil bubble, which eventually splitted into two when the amount of RNA inside become too big, does not solve the two major problems: first, is a self-replicating molecule that does not perform any activity other than produce copies of itself really "alive"? Snowflakes will often form quartz-like strcutures next to each other that are exact replicas of the ones in snowflakes next to it. Are snowflakes alive? And most importantly,. even if RNA can duplicate itself spontaneously, how exactly it got to manipulate amino acids into forming proteins? I mean, if we are talking RNA with no machinery of the ribosome, then RNA must *absolutely* have the ability to auto-catalyse amino acid reactions. Has this been demonstated? Because if it can't auto-catalyse protein reactions,. then how it created the machinery for creating even more complex proteins? Can an pure RNA create a riubosome from nothing? I mean, the oily bubbles, the precursors to cell walls, only make sense if RNA would need a contained space to create a machinery that is capable of performing it's own function(self-replicating) but with proteins that are too complex for it to form on it's own.
The whole debate of which came first, replication or metabolism, seems like a semantic debate. Because both replication and metabolism to arise, something is essential: a molecule that has an innate abilitty to manipulate the matter around it to rearrange matter intelligently. "Intelligently" here, means according to instructions. Both self-replicating and creating a metabolism requires that ability to fold other matter into designed structures. So the whole debate of which came first, metabolism or replication, does not really matter since both of them require the same feature of a simple moilecule that can arise naturally through the laws of chemistry, that has *itself* the ability to catalyse matter into patterns according to instructions. This is the key to understanding the origin of life. We know that RNA can catalyse some fractions of itself, but not entirely. RNA also, outside a cell, cannot catalyse the formation of proteins. So where does this leave us? Well, we need to find a molecule that that can auto-catalyse amino acids into protein chains. What are the candidates?
This is great I cant believe i can just get on the internet and watch this for free. Gonna go follow up on what the 2020 mars mission found. 👀
Trying to figure out what he says beginning at 42:50. Can anyone figure it out?
"Although I'm a [...] chemist, as Andre points out at the beginning, I've learned over the course of my career that being a single-minded, or narrow-minded, chemist on your own doesn't get you very far in origin of life research. You absolutely have to collaborate and learn from colleagues in other disciplines."
he said 'Although I'm predominantly a chemist..'
@@louise3637 Now that you point out what he said, I can't help but hear that! It's so obvious. Thanks.
You have shown interesting picture of Darwin's pond with streams! Nice and interesting. What temperature was there? I am asking because, RNA would dissolved in temperature above -80*C. But what kind of reactions would you get below zero? From the other hand, If there was so much UV light, lighting, nuclear radiation, how could you possibly assume that there was no trace of electrolysis of water???
Interesting, if also beyond my grasp. So this is but a random reflection.
Some pathways or optional possibilities were considered "cumbersome", "inefficient" and "messy". I wonder if chemists by and large are implicitly biased towards chemistry that makes sense in a laboratory or industry setting? To some extent, biology appears to be a fair bit cumbersome and messy.
You know when an orchid is about to die, so it'll flower quickly or put a kiki out as it's last effort?
The assembly of complex molecules involves a series of enzymes that must react in a proper sequence, very often producing intermediates that are useless to the cell until the final product is formed. Evolutionists imagine that these enzymes evolve randomly, often from a duplicate gene, and that the succession of steps in the synthesis, at least often, represents the succession of steps in the historical evolution of the process (the Granick hypothesis). But forces of natural selection could not operate to favour an organism which had ‘evolved’ a series of enzymes which merely produced useless intermediates until it somehow got around to making the end product. The Calvin cycle requires eleven different enzymes, all of which are coded by nuclear DNA and targeted precisely to the chloroplast, where the coding sequence is clipped off at just the right place by a nuclear-encoded protease. In reality, as described in the preceding paragraph, none of the enzymes can be missing if the Calvin cycle is to function. It is true that many of these enzymes are ubiquitous in living systems because every living cell needs to generate ribulose phosphates for the production of RNA, but evolutionists cannot solve the problem by merely pushing it back in time.
The assembly of chlorophyll takes seventeen enzymes.21 Natural selection could not operate to favour a system with anything less than all seventeen being present and functioning. What evolutionary process could possibly produce complex sophisticated enzymes that generate nothing useful until the whole process is complete? Some evolutionists argue that the assumed primeval organic soup had many of the simpler chemicals, and that only as they were used up did it become necessary to generate the earlier enzymes in the pathway. In The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, the authors set forth the good basic chemistry that demonstrates that there could never have been an organic soup, and present some of the evidence out there in the world indicating that there never was.22 Denton23 and Overman24 also cite a number of experts who suggest that there is no evidence for such a primitive soup but rather considerable evidence against it.
Chlorophyll itself, and many of the intermediates along its pathway of synthesis can form triplet states, which would destroy surrounding lipids by a free radical cascade apart from the context of the enzymes that manufacture them and the apoproteins into which they are inserted at the conclusion of their synthesis.25 According to Asada26 ‘triplet excited pigments are physiologically equivalent to the active oxygens’, and according to Sandmann and Scheer, chlorophyll triplets ‘are already highly toxic by themselves . . . .’27 The entire process of chlorophyll synthesis from δ-aminolevulinic acid to protoporphyrin IX is apparently tightly coupled to avoid leakage of intermediates.28 Almost all of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis are involved in handling phototoxic material.29 For many of these enzymes, if they are not there when their substrate is manufactured, the cell will be destroyed by their substrate on the loose in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apel30 has cited four of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis for which this has been proven to be the case. This is a significant problem for evolutionists, who need time for these enzymes to evolve successively. Each time a new enzyme evolved it would have produced a new phototoxin until the next enzyme evolved.
I gather you’re not a believer in a spontaneous origin of life. Where do yo think life originated from? I see no way there is spontaneous life and no way segments of functional DNA is added to a genome to eventually create man from a single cell first organism .
That's quite a lot of verbage just to say that you believe in talking snakes 🤣
@@junodonatus4906 you must be a child since you express yourself with emojis
@@jimdandy9118
Really, I was actually thinking that about you because only children believe in fairy-tales 😊
@@junodonatus4906 and another child like emoji. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously sweetie
The Origin of Life is Chemical Synthesis.Marine algae(green seaweed):Cellulose is a cell
I would like to see debate between you and dr James Tour. He is real opponent.
How would you answer his questions? What would you ask him about to falsified his believes?
scientists dont debate religious fundamentalists.
if tour wanted a science debate he would write a science paper that debunks past hundred years of scientific research that he doesnt seem to know much about.
hence he does youtube videos attacking his colleges behind their backs, and evangelizes in churches.
not single paper published regarding origin of life by tour.
he makes graphene, and nanorobotics papers
nothing remotely related to origin of life research.
So many caveats. assumptions and circularities. Life needs these constituents, so we can posit the existence of these early environmently constituents, which thus brought forth life. Please.
Where are you at on this subject?
I find this whole thing ridiculous. Put your end product on paper then figure out a completely impossible path to get there then take that impossible chemistry to create more impossible reactions. I may be completely wrong but it seems most of the reactions require an alkaline environment. That seems to make this whole video worthless because in that environment there is no way to produce stable proteins so what’s the point then?
But a book where people chat with bushes is fine. Okie dokie.
@@brianedwards7142 Yeah but the bush is on fire and it loves you, so...
Came here for the talk: left the talk by busting Professor Leroy Cronin (Glasgow), who is pretending to be Tony Maurice (see comments), and 'Tony Tony' on Twitter. So, so weird.
He lost me when he said the chemistry will “learn” as if non life can evolve and understand where it failed and fixed the problem as if it knew it’s end goal.
I'm with you in thinking it wasn't a good way of phrasing it in this case, but it's just a metaphor. Compare it to often said things like "atoms _want_ to have 8 electrons in their outer shell" or "an inductor _doesn't like_ the current flowing through it to instantly change". Obviously, atoms and inductors have no goals or desires; they don't actually 'want' or 'like' anything. He's using 'learn' in the exact same way here.
@@FarnhamJ07 He’s using learn in reactions and the good reactions being chosen. I found the whole thing worthless because all of the reactions require an alkaline environment which would quickly degrade proteins if they were ever accidentally made so these non life reactions would never go anywhere anyway
Nah dude, you were lost the moment you decided the Bible was a biology textbook and everything else had it all wrong.
@@junodonatus4906 thanks Karen. How's your TDS?
How could you assume that there was a panty of Hydrogen (which escapes from the atmosphere even today!) and no trace of free oxygen?The Earth is made of oxygen in 46% ! So are amino-acids and the whole of organism! How it came into those products without being freed from water? Water consists of 80% of it too! And you assumed that there was no free oxygen? HOW?
Free oxygen, i.e. molecular oxygen, is a very unstable and reactive substance. That is why oxygen burns in contact with so many different materials, and why it causes iron and other metals to rust: oxygen is depleting from the atmosphere all the time as it reacts with other substances. If life wasn't creating free oxygen constantly as a byproduct of photosynthesis, it would eventually disappear. As far as I'm aware, no free oxygen has been detected on any other planet, moon, or star.
Molecular hydrogen is *eventually* knocked out of the atmosphere by solar radiation, but why should that mean it couldn't be in the atmosphere for a long time when Earth first formed? And unlike molecular oxygen, molecular hydrogen is quite stable, and is produced by various natural processes.
When I first watched James Tour videos, I found him fairly persuasive - way more than any other creationist I've heard of. But sadly, like other creationists, his arguments ultimately rely on ignoring, misrepresenting, and even outright lying about the scholarship. If I remember correctly, his most important argument is that when abiogenesis researchers perform experiments, they use all kinds of complicated equipment that doesn't exist in nature. To emphasize this, Tour reads from the methods sections of various scientific articles. But just because people use complicated equipment to study a phenomenon, that doesn't tell you anything about whether the phenomenon is or isn't likely to occur in nature...
This argument is also deceitful, because *all* papers about experiments need to have a materials-and-methods section with a very detailed explanation of how the experiment was done, so other people have a complete understanding of the experiment, and so they can perform the experiments themselves.
Suppose for example you were studying how snowflakes form under different conditions: you might use complicated equipment to simulate the desired combination of gases, pressure, temperature, etc. Does that mean that snowflakes can't form all on their own? And does it mean that the conditions you simulated don't exist in nature on their own? The way Tours formed this argument, he has to be either ignorant, wasn't thinking carefully enough, or he wants to deceive his audience.
Another argument he made is that biochemistry relies on only on form of each chiral molecule, and like he says it is extremely difficult to sort "right handed" from "left handed" molecules, since they are identical as far as 'normal' chemistry is concerned.
I then learned that some crystals in nature come in right handed and left handed forms: the existing crystal structure does the sorting of building blocks as the crystal grows. Crystals can be used as catalysts for chemical reactions, so a chiral crystal will produce products that are biased towards one of the chiral forms.
Look, I have a lot of respect for anyone who is interested in science and engages in it with skepticism and critical thinking. The last thing I want is to discourage anyone from asking these questions. But just because you have a question that seems like it has no solution, it doesn't mean the question doesn't have an answer, even a simple answer, or many answers. People who are skeptical about mainstream science have a lot of questions, but then they go on with their day *without trying to find the answer to their question!*
Don't take this as an insult, but what I explained about molecular oxygen is something every first year biology or chemistry student would know. My point is not that your question was bad or unintelligent, my point is you would have found the answer if you made some effort to learn more, instead of using your question as an argument in a debate.
I am not an expert, I have a bachelor's in biology. As a result of that education, I felt scientists made a good case that the theories of evolution and abiogenesis were correct. Then I started looking for every criticism and counter argument I could find - and only THAT is what convinced me that scientists are actually correct.
Being skeptical and critical is great. Scientists love getting questions from the public. It is also literally their job to question and criticize their peers, and to respond to criticism they receive. In person, scientists are very independent minded, and they often criticize their fields harshly and sometimes even with alarming disrespect. Every course has at least one lecture where the professor starts explaining why a certain consensus is wrong and they are right. This is not a bug, it's a feature.
I've met a graduate student in biology that was happy to tell me, a stranger in a public place, that he believed the earth was one thousand years old. A professor of statistics at my university told his students that climate change is baloney. One of my professors on the subject of climate said that while the consensus was true, climatologists have a bad and biased attitude. Nobody is punishing these people for thinking heretical thoughts - these people are a minority because everyone in their field has weighed the evidence and most decided to join the consensus.
Science isn't perfect, but every common criticism that I've ever heard of the scientific consensus has a pile of articles and books that analyze it, debate it, and refute it. You are invited to prove me wrong.
If you read this far, thank you for your time :)
@@blahblahsaurus2458 Thank you for such a long answer. I love science since and being very sceptic. Evolution was my love at first sight. But my scepticism led me to quastion it. So, now I know that I know ...nothing. We just believe, whatever we think. So, thank you again for your resentation of that interesting point of view.
I dare doubt the absence of free oxygen in aeria of those abiogenetic reactions. The high temperature was hight espetially in place of thunders or vents. UV light was striking surface of ocean. So it doesn't seem to be so certain that whole of oxygen disappiered. Espetially that aminoaccids consist od oxigen = there was free oxygen in statu nascendi.
We are talking about first little condition. It suppose to be necessary but not enought to create even first protein. The same story is with DNA or RNA. Sometimes something of those building blocks for a little while can accure. But what than? Cross reactions! Temperature, UV, H2O .... and game over.
I think abiogenesis is still the weaker hipothesis. UFO is much better.
Forget the circular reasoning of atheistic evolutionists; the reason that understanding RNA is important right now is because the current shot for a certain worldwide disease is mRNA and people should understand before getting it how RNA could be the precursor to new genetics inside their own body. Is that kind of therapy experimental? It's never been done en masse before so you tell me.
You seem not to have the faintest idea what you you're talking about. What's that like?
None of that is important because your magical man in the sky should be able to cure any disease easily.
@@junodonatus4906 Unlikely. Remember that the Magic Man orders fathers to murder their own sons in cold blood to prove their loaylty, and to genitally mutilate them on the 8th day to form a covenant. Since he is into torture and infanticide, it is unlikely that he would want to cure diseases.
@@petercoderch589 Its not about religion at all , rather science fiction
What if abiogenesis and creationism are both wildly wrong?
Funny sketch, indeed! You presented steps towards life from chemistry in such a way that it seam that the highest, toughest step was the first one. Sorry, I have impression you deluding yourself. If it was like that just look up down to what I suggest. Maybe you should start from the end, the end of life. If you could stop dying or better if you could resurrect dyed organism, we may understand what life is?
I love science fiction
Were you working up to making a point?
Yeah, science fiction like germ theory, semi conductors, satellites and nuclear reactors right?
Oh wait...
In short ... how did life form on earth ? answer ... We have no idea !
exactly that is what Dr James Tour have been saying for a while now
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Hey wankers, I sent Tour a free copy of of my thorough scenario of origin of life months ago starting with prebiotic chemistry and finishing with protozoa. Without a knowledge of biochemistry or genetics he won’t be able to follow it even if he wanted to which he doesn’t since he believes in fairytales.
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Tour? He's nothing but the butt of jokes now. Get a grip tso. Professor Dave shredded Tour's entire 14 part video and it was spectacular. Enjoy.
@@sparky5584 the only thing that 14 video did was to highlight exactly what Dr Tour was saying in the first place
if the 14 part video is so great why can't the maker of that video answer any of my questions ?
and one of them is , since you people are so much smarter than Dr Tour who can make deaf people hear and have found cures for several cancers . then surely you geniuses should be able to raise the dead right ? I mean if I say I know how an internal combustion engine works , then I am a mechanic and I should be able to repair it when it breaks
yet I see nobody being raised from the dead you dimwit
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Are you claiming your messiah tours can raise the dead and do other miracles? Wow. For a has-been scientist that is extraordinary. Professor Dave answered all of tour's questions and did it with science. Tour's just flailed about like a fish out of water and it was ugly. The proven misrepresentations were hysterical to say the least. We can all see who the 'dimwit' is- now can't we tsa? When religion meets science- religion doesn't do so well.
If people would actually think critically and not just by "there can't be God" all of this breath and time and money would not be necessary. There is no way all of this fantasy could've taken place to arrive at life. This video makes me laugh and see clearly how when the bible in psalms 14:1 says "the fool says in his heart there is no God" this is what it means.
we are thinking critically.
by not just saying "god did it" as explanation.
how certain are you that bible god is real god?
and why?
There is a fundamental flaw it the "critical" thinking of men and women in this research. That flaw is to believe they can get to an answer without God. Just having ingredients is never going to give you a cake. I have a bachelor of science in biology and can see clearly that abiogenesis is just another way of saying spontaneous generation. I bet my life on God being truth. Men have been on this dead end road since the 1950's and are still wasting time on this endeavor. If they believe it happened in some puddle surely they should've found the answer by now. The reality is that that dead end road is getting longer ond longer. I could go on and on, but there it is from my perspective. I hope you have a nice day.
@@trippwhitener9498 your bachelor degree in biology doesnt do you any good in prebiotic chemistry....
there is nothing spontaneous about abiogenesis.
its not like you can bake the cake by saying abrakadabra, and ingridients materialize before you and spontaneously become a cake
abiogenesis has several stages. First, organic compounds need to be produced (or imported) in Hadean earth. Second, those organic compounds should produce the building blocks of living systems. Third, those compounds must organize into an evolvable system to produce life. I will try to cover a bit of each.
since 1950's scientists demonstrated lots and lots of things about abiogenesis, you probably heard about Miller-Urey experiment, where they got amino acids by simulating prebiotic environment. which kickstarted the field of abiogenesis.
but since then there were lots and lots and lots of research done on the topic, for example
Mills, Peterson and Spiegelman (1967) demonstrated a first instance of darwinian evolution in vitro. They used the Q β phage's RNA and showed that there can be selection on the sequence, based on how well they are copied by a polymerase.
A series of studies in the 1970s showed that chondrite meteorites contain a vast array of organic compounds, including amino acids. Quantification of monocarboxylic acids in the Murchison carbonaceous meteorite, Amino acids in the Yamato carbonaceous chondrite from Antarctica.
Ferris et al (1989), showed that clay may possibly serve as a primordial backbone for polymerizing RNA. Mineral catalysis of the formation of dimers of 5'-AMP in aqueous solution: the possible role of montmorillonite clays in the prebiotic synthesis.... Ferris later improved vastly on this experiment.
Bartel and Szostak (1991) showed that if you generate large pools of random RNA sequences and then select (simulate darwinian evolution) based on catalytic activity, you will end up with good RNA enzymes (ligases in their case).
McCollom et al (1999) showed that lipids could form under conditions similar to hydrothermal vents Lipid Synthesis Under Hydrothermal Conditions by Fischer- Tropsch-Type Reactions.
Johnson et al (2001) were the first team to successfully show RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization (with a template) in vitro, basically a huge requirement for one of the main scenarios in the RNA world.
Lincoln and Joyce (2009) demonstrated a simple pair of cooperative RNA ligases the can replicated each other with rather high yield: Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme
Powner et al (2009) showed one way we can make activated nucleotides in prebiotic earth, this was a key missing piece of the puzzle for many decades: Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions.
Vaida et al (2012) showed that small RNA molecules can get together and make networks of cooperative and auto-catalytic cycles, and in some cases make self-
replicating ribozymes.
Adamala and Szostak (2013) successfully conducted Nonenzymatic Template-Directed RNA Synthesis Inside Model Protocells. Protocells are thought to be key in allowing complex functions to evolve in the RNA world. Before this experiment, people weren't quite sure how to couple Mg 2+ ions (required for RNA elongation without enzyme), with lipid bilayers (they would fall apart). Szostak and Adamala showed that citrate can stabilize the membrane and permit Mg 2+ in exist within it with higher concentrations.
Attwater et al (2013) have produced what is to date the longest RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization (up to 200 nucleotides). This is key, because the enzyme itself is about the same length, which means in principle we are one step closer to a polymerase that can copy itself in full. An interesting property of their study is that it occurs in a cold environment. In-ice evolution of RNA polymerase ribozyme activity.
Jack Szostak is the leading general in this field. Dave Bartel, who has done a lot of important studies in the list above, was Szostak's student. Apart from those, Gerald Joyce is also a leading figure with fantastic publications in the field. Nick Lane has written extensively on the thermodynamic requirements of early life, and the role of membranes. On the theoretical side, Manfred Eigen, Eors Szathmary and Martin Nowak have made significant contributions towards understanding the limitations of early replicators.
there is nothing spontaneous about it, its a process that took millions of years to get to chemical system that is complex enough to be consider primitive form of life.
as a bachelor of biology, you probably understand that there is no definitive definition of what life even is....
so we can only argue how simple it can get.
@@spatrk6634 life from non living matter is life from non living matter no matter what name you give it. You keep on believing the lie with no skepticism towards that which you hope is true. If you're going to be skeptical it should be for everything the same.
@@trippwhitener9498 im skeptical enough to not say "god did it" if i cannot comprehend something.
i leave it to experts to figure it out.