The advantage of reading his books is that you can take it all in at an easier pace than he is going in this lecture! He has so many ideas and stories. Fascinating guy talking about fascinating stuff.
Nick Lane is one of the best lecturers about cell and molecular biology that I have ever heard. This is no surprise because all of his books are uniformly fascinating; Life Ascending is my favorite.
It is different to say complex cells arose only once and only one lineage of complex cells survived. It may be that once in a great while these symbiotic events occurred, but once it successfully occurred once, that all subsequent attempts failed because the created ecological niches were filled. In any event, these must be extremely rare but non-zero chance events, and we are lucky to be here at all...
I really love this lecture because👉 Rocks and Chemistry Makes Good Biology !! 📊 Bravo Nick your lecture is the Best, that's my fourth time viewing in 4 different place, Bravo again👍
Nick Lane is brilliant, articulate and an interesting speaker. He, like all other OOL scientists is doing his best to explain the unexplainable. Nobody was there, no fossils exist, and no similar process is happening now. But since mitochondria have the same size, shape and membrane construction as bacteria...It's as good a theory as any. Unless one invokes special creation at this point in evolution, there may be no other option.
@@Nagy50Magyar The idea of a First Cause is eminently scientific! Ascribing religious myths and dogmas to the idea is another story. But everything we know from science and physics demands causality. No physical process, including quantum effects, proceeds from a state of nothingness.
@@lastchance8142 First cause is not only unscientific, it is illogical. The argument is self contradictory. 1. Everything had to have a cause. 2. Causes cannot regress to infinity, so there had to be an ultimate (first cause). The contradiction you cannot see is that you must create an arbitrary exception to your first statement. You are a spectacular idiot.
@@Nagy50Magyar Ha! I hadn't considered the possibility that I am a spectacular idiot! That may be the end of the matter. However, your argument against a first cause presumes that causes MUST regress to infinity. Have you contemplated the implications of that assertion?
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
No. You're thinking of creationist Stephen Meyer...... "inside the cell we find digital code with nano technology inside the cell with characters in a machine code digital information inside the cell with digital information find digital code with nano the cell miniature miniature machines inside the cell digital information miniature machines inside the cell in a machine code digital information find digital code with nano the cell miniature miniature machines inside the cell digital information miniature machines.......blah blah....in Jesus name, Amen"
@@rl7012 and you expect a grown adult to believe a howling moron such as yourself is in a position to evaluate the research of a distinguished biochemistry professor..... He has published 5 books (and dozens of papers, none of which you've actually read). Can you rate the 5 in order of weakness? Do you do kids parties?
If the individual cell “makes a decision” to run away from hot environment or polluted environment my willful decisions a.k.a. consciousness is also a chemical reaction plus micro electricity. It seems that consciousness is a …complex machine #Bogoslowsky
The problem with special creation and/or intelligent design arguments is that no mortal can know when, or by what methods the higher being intervened in creation. Making dogmatic assumptions is silly and counterproductive to knowledge. I myself believe there must be a First Cause, but that is all I am dogmatic about.
There are also millions maybe billions of holes or gaps to be filled with ideology and (dis)belief. My body is my life carrier, but it is not the whole of me.
on the question why bacteria only formed eukaryotes once is simple: competition. microbal eukaryotes exist and bacteria can't compete with them on a multicellar level in the ecosystem; the roles in microbal societies have become fixed. further more there's probably a high level of co-operations among them; symbiosis. When society works together they can conquer the world
That does not answer the question at all. How did eukaryotes first form is the question. Saying 'competition' caused them to exist is a ridiculous answer. If eukaryotes don't exist, then how can completion bring them into existence? Can competition bring dragons into existence too then? Wake up will you.
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection" (The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, p. 164). Symbiosis... The last nail on the coffin... The annihilation of The Theory of Evolution... More like The Hypothesis of Evolution... The tittle of the video is misleading, he picked a well thought bait... He used the word... Origin... You see, the study of the Origin of Life (Ool) is another field by itself, he mixed adaptation with origins, and that's misleading, you can't adapt a language to another one if first you don't have the building blocks in the first place and some basic rules, like developing an alphabet, then some grammar rules for sintax to create sense an order, then you can translate into another language, etc. Some degree of adaptation among intraspecies is a whole different universe than saying transpeciation by natural selection.
In the transition from low entropy universe to a high entropy universe, life is an efficient adventure probably inevitable #catalyst which accelerates that process. (Speaking metaphorically).
That's doubtful / dependent on scale. Evolution takes place in an environment of inconsistent pressure 'to use less energy', in effect 'stating' outright 'Okay, here's a ton of extra energy: use it, waste it, let's see what you can do with it'. My God every presentation ever on the subject always includes mentioning gobs and gobs of ways that 'organisms' of all kinds come about, various coming up with 'their own' means of making a living, that survive - meaning essentially each strain is another quasi-experiment: and most definitely not all masters at 'energy savings', not by any means... so by default 'evolving in' something else. 'Energy-expensive pseudo-experimentation plus alpha' is going on. That 'plus alpha' led to us multi-cellulars. The 'reduction in genes' need have little to do with 'become more energy efficient'; I get the feeling the real pressure on the genes is more like 'if the useless data crap goes away, I get by just fine', and I suspect something else in there - maybe the interactions between the 'mitochondria' and the original host? In any case it all just had to happen in ONE lineage, in ONE eukaryote - to explain ALL CURRENT eukaryote - i.e. eukayotes themselves all tracing back to one bottleneck / common ancestor. Maybe the 'large host' somehow 'predated out / leached out / starved out' all the superfluous genes.... I wonder. It's arrarent to me that it's NOT an 'energy use' issue, perhaps a 'data + alpha' issue, or something else. What do you think? All this 'life evolves to save energy' hot wind seems to me no more than a long-time, popular fad of lazy thinking among science students; mostly NOT a logic-based explanation of evolution reality. I have spoken 😁
Alright, but why didn't photosynthesis evolve multiple times. All chloroplasts are descendants of ancient Cyanobacteria, why didn't Thylakoids evolve in Eukaryotes?
The life of meaning, (might be Vogon Poetry), could start with bio-logical clocking recombinant Superposition-point Singularity Superspin re-evolution cause-effect of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional logarithmic interference positioning that is i-reflection containment time-timing. And under the circumstances, the Holographic Principle Modulation Mechanism Image condensation is self-defining in/of complete explanation.., here-now-forever. It has to be self-consistent with WYSIWYG QM-TIME resonance floating in flat-space ground-state No-thing-defined eternally, and so is just about the most "unsatisfying" answer intellectually, because it's constant condensation circulation sequences of divergence-convergence perspectives, Quantum-fields Chemistry and "dumd luck" of pseudo random cycles of Uncertainty. It's always NOW.., and that is that.
And... After 44 min... We are still waiting for the explanation OF THE ORIGINS, not "adaptive" or "evolutionary must have" remarks and opinions, and other "not working" stufff...
@@mcmanustony You can watch it how many times. you like and the guy still does nothing except muddy the waters, answer no questions, and just provides a word salad of nothing that he thinks sounds clever.
@mcmanustony, since you opened up your a** and said sh*t... Why don't you help your friend Nick and pinpoint the EXACT minute where he supposedely addressed the transition between non-living matter and living matter. Since you are such a good brown noser with Nick and "have a good knowledge" about Origin Of Life scientific advancement, why don't you help him by trying to "explain" all the non sense he talked, since all that he did was deflecting from explaining the REAL hook, bait and sinker that he used in the title to lure some of the serious Origin Of Life (Ool) debaters out there... By the way, I don't do Alcohol, Tobacco or any illicit drugs, perhaps you are an expert user on those toxins and poisons, but not every body is that uneducated... Before even thinking to reply, consider this: I hold over 120 credits in Civil Engineering, over 50 credits in Humanities and Philosophy, a BBA in Financial Accounting and a MPH in BIOSTATISTICS from a Medical Sciences Campus... If you have anything INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED & RESPECTFUL to say and have THE PROPER QUALIFICATIONS to engage on this kind of debate, I MIGHT consider having a Friendly Discussion with you. I you fall short, then, this is it.
OK, BUT: Reaching 'a culmination/climax point' in your presentation was OK; but that isn't the most effective 'ending'. Summarizing / repeating back once the main points you accumulated over the course of your speech, would have been better: as that would be a most excellent way of reaffirming and accenting the points made, and cementing it in the minds of your student-listeners (i.e. all of us listener/recipients). Still, indeed, thanks fo the video 😄😄😄, and I want to encourage you further.
Not so, Thomo: think about scale; parasites; cave-dweller descendants; and other myriad ways in which genomes shrink. There's no reason even tax codes might undergo (have undergone, somewhere) simplification. Both increases and decreases happen, 'exclusive catagorical statements' cannot be made. I have spoken. 😁😁
Not bacteria. They have selection pressure to reproduce as fast as they can and the smaller their genome the faster they can reproduce - so long as the environment they're in is unchanging.
читал недавно ученых которые предсказывают статистику на 2023-й год и по-моему они правы что единственная программа которая приносит новых учеников/клиентов это TikTok. Всё остальное это наддуваловка💰обман 🙀
Totally and utterly wrong. Learn some basic chemistry and maths and you will discover the chances of something like that happening are zilch. Where did the information in the cell come from then? Have you any idea just how complex even the simplest cell is? The best scientists in the world in the best labs in the world still cannot create a cell from scratch. And that is with all the knowledge and equipment. Science has no idea how life first came to exist.
43 mins of non explanation. He says he likes writing books as they help him understand how things are? Is he serious? His books are absolute nonsense too. He answers no questions. All this man does is make a lucrative career of pretending to answer origin of life questions but what he actually does is answer nothing, and give a whole load of nonsensical 'could haves', 'might haves', 'possible that', etc. Obfuscation, misdirection and slight of waving hands.
It is not even funny though, just drivel and waffle and 'look at me trying to sound clever'. He just spouts a word salad but does not give the answers he claims to.
I used to believe all this, until I watched a few lectures of James Tour. Then it became very clear to me, that we know absolutely nothing about the origin of life, or of the eukariotic cell for the matter.
Rather James Tour knows nothing, or want us to believe this to be the case. Imo he is full of bs, misrepresentations and pretend we know nothing when we do know something. The fact is that there are many suggestion on how to life came to be, the problem is that biologist does not know how to exclude one suggestion from another and this is something James Tour carefully avoids mentioning to his ignorant audience which he wants to misslead with his nonsense.
@@jomen112 So the basis of you disrmissing what Tour says is that are 'many suggestions' to how life formed??? How on Earth is that any kind of scientific refute? You dismiss actual science for the 'many suggestions' and then you act like this is enough to act superior on the subject? James Tour is light years ahead of the no brain faith based conventional theories of something from nothing explanation.. Tour deals in science, but it seems like you deal in wishful thinking.
@@rl7012 That is not is not my claim. My claim is that there exists knowledge that James Tour dines exists. To say we know "nothing" is nothing less than misinformation. Hence my statement that James knows nothing or lies.
@@bobdobbs943 "Accident" suggests there was some legitimate reality from which life is a deviation- as if there was some way things were supposed to be. What is that? How do you know? Defending the impossible is....ummm....impossible. Evolution does not need defending as it has been observed repeatedly in real time. You seem a bit stupid. Do you know how books work?
Can please anyone answer me on 1 question? How did human as a mammal shift in diet preference? Are human really an omnivorous or is it just a societal construct in view of survival of fittest? How mammals had been differentiated into carnivores and also as herbivores in natural selection process? This doesn't make sense. Unlike today world where cows are fed with meats. Lets kill all vertebrates and invertebrates below us for survival. Dietary preferences for survival doesn't make any sense in evolution. Just a fossil and observational findings in eukaryotes doesn't confirm evolution. Evolution theory need modification
Human diet has always been animal based. This plant based diet pushed today is fairly new and not natural to our bodies. How do you think humans survived the ice ages with no plants etc. They ate animals and animal produce. That is what our bodies crave most and thrives on. Veganism is the most unnatural diet known to man and very unhealthy too.
@@TheAlmostFunnyGuy If Veganism were healthy and natural then there would be no need for them to require so many supplements. Like it or not human beings are natural carnivores and we would not have survived or evolved as we have if our ancestors ate a vegan diet. You can still be healthy as a vegetarian if you include animal produce like eggs and cheese and if you can include fish even better. But the king of nutrition is meat. Especially red meat.
Lotsa primates are omnivorous; so are humans. That we can digest all that stuff (and only 'very dgestible' plant matter (fructose, etc, not cellulose) is the biggest clue. As for 'diet preference shift': well, humans are certainly the sensei-masters there; but even primates (and I imagine very many mammals; I have no time to check) even do pretty well with that when environment circmustances change. As for our comparative 'sensei-level diet mastery': the house-mouse bookshelf of diet books is quite light.
@@spatrk6634 There is no evidence whatsoever for macro evolution. Micro evolution there is. Man has known for centuries, probably thousands of years that evolution exists. They may not have called it evolution, but they knew it existed or they would not have been able to breed different wheats and plants and farm animals etc. But macro evolution has zero going for it. What is pseudoscience is that a bacteria magically appeared billions of years ago and then eventually turned into a fish that eventually waddled out of a murky swamp, magically grew legs and lungs, became a dinosaur and then a bird. That is complete and utter bs.
@@worfoz 'The answer to life'?? WTF are you about? I commented on, the lack of any real answer to the origins of eukaryotic cells. Learn to read properly will you?
@@worfoz You have no rational argument so you resort to insults and tired old Douglas Adam quotes. And you can't even insult me properly you use the words I use to you, back at me. Grow a brain cell little sheep and use your own material. You have answered zilch. We still don't know where eukaryote cells come from and you refuse to see that your utter blind faith in non sensical explanations keep you ignorant..
Nick Lane is pretty good speaker. This is a really well organised and informative lecture.
But read his books. The books are absolutely stunning.
The advantage of reading his books is that you can take it all in at an easier pace than he is going in this lecture! He has so many ideas and stories. Fascinating guy talking about fascinating stuff.
@@Elephantine999 Well.... he is alluding that Life an arise from inorganic matter. NO. Not for the time being
@@pederommundsen5529 you have evidence that life emerged via magic?
You do know what science is, don’t you?
Nick Lane is one of the best lecturers about cell and molecular biology that I have ever heard. This is no surprise because all of his books are uniformly fascinating; Life Ascending is my favorite.
They are uniformly full of word salads, avoidance, stating the obvious and avoiding any real information as to the origin of life.
@@rl7012 feel free to fill in the gaps with your own research
@@rl7012Doesn't sound like any of his books that I've read. Which one are you talking about?
Agreed, but I think Transformer is the best of 'em.
@@bobkoure Listen to him speak. It is word salads galore.
Fabulous presentation. Nick Lane is arguably the best at explaining this.
He is a story teller. He explains nothing. Bloody ridiculous explanations and fairy stories he doles out.
Very good. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing the details
It is different to say complex cells arose only once and only one lineage of complex cells survived. It may be that once in a great while these symbiotic events occurred, but once it successfully occurred once, that all subsequent attempts failed because the created ecological niches were filled. In any event, these must be extremely rare but non-zero chance events, and we are lucky to be here at all...
It is a zero-chance event alright...
@@waldwassermann Ma, the creationist kid who a quarter of a brain is here. ;-)
We're closing in on LUCA. Very exciting!
Abiogenesis is not possible
There is a universe between non life chemistry and the simplest life.....read lynne margolis...
@@hosoiarchives4858 Only skydaddy can create life
I really love this lecture because👉 Rocks and Chemistry Makes Good Biology !! 📊 Bravo Nick your lecture is the Best, that's my fourth time viewing in 4 different place, Bravo again👍
"This isn't working". If I had a nickle for every time I heard that during a lecture...
the pay-out system isn´t working either.
Nick Lane is brilliant, articulate and an interesting speaker. He, like all other OOL scientists is doing his best to explain the unexplainable. Nobody was there, no fossils exist, and no similar process is happening now. But since mitochondria have the same size, shape and membrane construction as bacteria...It's as good a theory as any. Unless one invokes special creation at this point in evolution, there may be no other option.
Oh, absolutely no option at all, except for the far more absurd idea of nothing needed to create that creator.
@@Nagy50Magyar The idea of a First Cause is eminently scientific! Ascribing religious myths and dogmas to the idea is another story. But everything we know from science and physics demands causality. No physical process, including quantum effects, proceeds from a state of nothingness.
@@lastchance8142 First cause is not only unscientific, it is illogical. The argument is self contradictory.
1. Everything had to have a cause.
2. Causes cannot regress to infinity, so there had to be an ultimate (first cause).
The contradiction you cannot see is that you must create an arbitrary exception to your first statement. You are a spectacular idiot.
@@Nagy50Magyar Ha! I hadn't considered the possibility that I am a spectacular idiot! That may be the end of the matter. However, your argument against a first cause presumes that causes MUST regress to infinity. Have you contemplated the implications of that assertion?
Spectacular misrepresention of the first cause arguement. If you read some Thomist thinkers perhaps they could help you get a better understanding.
Amazing lecture
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
Oxygen:the molecule that made the world ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
and nearly destroyed it a couple of times
Oxygen is not a molecule. It’s an atom
@@FdaApprvd So you don't respire oxygen from the air?
At least British schools teach evolution...
What a useless comment!
So right off the bat, the very first scandal was _sex._
28:00
Wait, has this guy got just the one talk?!
No. You're thinking of creationist Stephen Meyer...... "inside the cell we find digital code with nano technology inside the cell with characters in a machine code digital information inside the cell with digital information find digital code with nano the cell miniature miniature machines inside the cell digital information miniature machines inside the cell in a machine code digital information find digital code with nano the cell miniature miniature machines inside the cell digital information miniature machines.......blah blah....in Jesus name, Amen"
@@mcmanustony No he isn't, Nick Lane has only one line of bs to push.
@@rl7012 and you expect a grown adult to believe a howling moron such as yourself is in a position to evaluate the research of a distinguished biochemistry professor.....
He has published 5 books (and dozens of papers, none of which you've actually read). Can you rate the 5 in order of weakness?
Do you do kids parties?
@@rl7012 how would you know? It’s not as if you’ve actually read any of his books or published research.
I doubt you’ve read many books
If the individual cell “makes a decision” to run away from hot environment or polluted environment my willful decisions a.k.a. consciousness is also a chemical reaction plus micro electricity.
It seems that consciousness is a …complex machine #Bogoslowsky
14:44 I don't know, therefore God. Or space aliens.
or....give me more money. the other god.
The problem with special creation and/or intelligent design arguments is that no mortal can know when, or by what methods the higher being intervened in creation. Making dogmatic assumptions is silly and counterproductive to knowledge. I myself believe there must be a First Cause, but that is all I am dogmatic about.
@@lastchance8142It is kind of hypocritical because
the "First Cause" is the most critical part that will be all about the life.
@@edenrosest not sure I understand what u mean..?
Let me fix it a little bit for you "i don't know, therefore I can't exclude god. Or space aliens".
. 14:07 common ancestor black hole
14:30
14:40 unknown common ancestor has traits lol
14:49 black hole
There are also millions maybe billions of holes or gaps to be filled with ideology and (dis)belief.
My body is my life carrier, but it is not the whole of me.
Is this supposed to mean something? It just reads like vacuous drivel.
And all life eventually evolves into crabs
on the question why bacteria only formed eukaryotes once is simple: competition. microbal eukaryotes exist and bacteria can't compete with them on a multicellar level in the ecosystem; the roles in microbal societies have become fixed. further more there's probably a high level of co-operations among them; symbiosis. When society works together they can conquer the world
That does not answer the question at all. How did eukaryotes first form is the question. Saying 'competition' caused them to exist is a ridiculous answer. If eukaryotes don't exist, then how can completion bring them into existence? Can competition bring dragons into existence too then? Wake up will you.
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection" (The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, p. 164). Symbiosis... The last nail on the coffin... The annihilation of The Theory of Evolution... More like The Hypothesis of Evolution... The tittle of the video is misleading, he picked a well thought bait... He used the word... Origin... You see, the study of the Origin of Life (Ool) is another field by itself, he mixed adaptation with origins, and that's misleading, you can't adapt a language to another one if first you don't have the building blocks in the first place and some basic rules, like developing an alphabet, then some grammar rules for sintax to create sense an order, then you can translate into another language, etc. Some degree of adaptation among intraspecies is a whole different universe than saying transpeciation by natural selection.
In the transition from low entropy universe to a high entropy universe, life is an efficient adventure probably inevitable #catalyst which accelerates that process. (Speaking metaphorically).
That's doubtful / dependent on scale. Evolution takes place in an environment of inconsistent pressure 'to use less energy', in effect 'stating' outright 'Okay, here's a ton of extra energy: use it, waste it, let's see what you can do with it'. My God every presentation ever on the subject always includes mentioning gobs and gobs of ways that 'organisms' of all kinds come about, various coming up with 'their own' means of making a living, that survive - meaning essentially each strain is another quasi-experiment: and most definitely not all masters at 'energy savings', not by any means... so by default 'evolving in' something else. 'Energy-expensive pseudo-experimentation plus alpha' is going on. That 'plus alpha' led to us multi-cellulars.
The 'reduction in genes' need have little to do with 'become more energy efficient'; I get the feeling the real pressure on the genes is more like 'if the useless data crap goes away, I get by just fine', and I suspect something else in there - maybe the interactions between the 'mitochondria' and the original host? In any case it all just had to happen in ONE lineage, in ONE eukaryote - to explain ALL CURRENT eukaryote - i.e. eukayotes themselves all tracing back to one bottleneck / common ancestor. Maybe the 'large host' somehow 'predated out / leached out / starved out' all the superfluous genes.... I wonder. It's arrarent to me that it's NOT an 'energy use' issue, perhaps a 'data + alpha' issue, or something else.
What do you think?
All this 'life evolves to save energy' hot wind seems to me no more than a long-time, popular fad of lazy thinking among science students; mostly NOT a logic-based explanation of evolution reality.
I have spoken 😁
@@johnschlottman619 life exists to use energy and increase entropy.
Alright, but why didn't photosynthesis evolve multiple times.
All chloroplasts are descendants of ancient Cyanobacteria, why didn't Thylakoids evolve in Eukaryotes?
. 43 minute video and he has no idea how eukaryotes came about 14:07 - 14:49
Exactly. He is clueless.
#AwarenessConsciousness
Allen Helen Lee Scott Martinez Lisa
The life of meaning, (might be Vogon Poetry), could start with bio-logical clocking recombinant Superposition-point Singularity Superspin re-evolution cause-effect of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional logarithmic interference positioning that is i-reflection containment time-timing.
And under the circumstances, the Holographic Principle Modulation Mechanism Image condensation is self-defining in/of complete explanation.., here-now-forever.
It has to be self-consistent with WYSIWYG QM-TIME resonance floating in flat-space ground-state No-thing-defined eternally, and so is just about the most "unsatisfying" answer intellectually, because it's constant condensation circulation sequences of divergence-convergence perspectives, Quantum-fields Chemistry and "dumd luck" of pseudo random cycles of Uncertainty. It's always NOW.., and that is that.
David Wilkes Don't take offence but what a pile of f**king drivel.
You'd need an Infinite Improbability Drive for that.
{:-:-:}
And... After 44 min... We are still waiting for the explanation OF THE ORIGINS, not "adaptive" or "evolutionary must have" remarks and opinions, and other "not working" stufff...
Sober up ad try watching again.
@@mcmanustony You can watch it how many times. you like and the guy still does nothing except muddy the waters, answer no questions, and just provides a word salad of nothing that he thinks sounds clever.
@@rl7012 Word salad? I guess everything sounds like word salad if you try to learn science from the backs of cereal packets.
@mcmanustony, since you opened up your a** and said sh*t... Why don't you help your friend Nick and pinpoint the EXACT minute where he supposedely addressed the transition between non-living matter and living matter. Since you are such a good brown noser with Nick and "have a good knowledge" about Origin Of Life scientific advancement, why don't you help him by trying to "explain" all the non sense he talked, since all that he did was deflecting from explaining the REAL hook, bait and sinker that he used in the title to lure some of the serious Origin Of Life (Ool) debaters out there... By the way, I don't do Alcohol, Tobacco or any illicit drugs, perhaps you are an expert user on those toxins and poisons, but not every body is that uneducated... Before even thinking to reply, consider this: I hold over 120 credits in Civil Engineering, over 50 credits in Humanities and Philosophy, a BBA in Financial Accounting and a MPH in BIOSTATISTICS from a Medical Sciences Campus... If you have anything INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED & RESPECTFUL to say and have THE PROPER QUALIFICATIONS to engage on this kind of debate, I MIGHT consider having a Friendly Discussion with you. I you fall short, then, this is it.
@@noelcruz6226 "a** and said sh*t.."- you mean "ass and shit"- and you're wrong.
OK, BUT: Reaching 'a culmination/climax point' in your presentation was OK; but that isn't the most effective 'ending'.
Summarizing / repeating back once the main points you accumulated over the course of your speech, would have been better: as that would be a most excellent way of reaffirming and accenting the points made, and cementing it in the minds of your student-listeners (i.e. all of us listener/recipients). Still, indeed, thanks fo the video 😄😄😄, and I want to encourage you further.
Develop morality in preparation for the coming AI singularity.
We all know things get more complex over time.
who is "we"?
Not so, Thomo: think about scale; parasites; cave-dweller descendants; and other myriad ways in which genomes shrink.
There's no reason even tax codes might undergo (have undergone, somewhere) simplification. Both increases and decreases happen, 'exclusive catagorical statements' cannot be made.
I have spoken. 😁😁
Not bacteria. They have selection pressure to reproduce as fast as they can and the smaller their genome the faster they can reproduce - so long as the environment they're in is unchanging.
читал недавно ученых которые предсказывают статистику на 2023-й год и по-моему они правы что единственная программа которая приносит новых учеников/клиентов это TikTok.
Всё остальное это наддуваловка💰обман 🙀
The Origin of Life is Chemical Synthesis.Marine algae(green seaweed):Cellulose is a cell
Totally and utterly wrong. Learn some basic chemistry and maths and you will discover the chances of something like that happening are zilch. Where did the information in the cell come from then? Have you any idea just how complex even the simplest cell is? The best scientists in the world in the best labs in the world still cannot create a cell from scratch. And that is with all the knowledge and equipment. Science has no idea how life first came to exist.
43 mins of non explanation. He says he likes writing books as they help him understand how things are? Is he serious? His books are absolute nonsense too. He answers no questions. All this man does is make a lucrative career of pretending to answer origin of life questions but what he actually does is answer nothing, and give a whole load of nonsensical 'could haves', 'might haves', 'possible that', etc. Obfuscation, misdirection and slight of waving hands.
Lmfao
I wanted science, not a stand up comedian.
{;-;-;}
It is not even funny though, just drivel and waffle and 'look at me trying to sound clever'. He just spouts a word salad but does not give the answers he claims to.
@@rl7012
Ain't it the truth?
{:-:-:}
I used to believe all this, until I watched a few lectures of James Tour. Then it became very clear to me, that we know absolutely nothing about the origin of life, or of the eukariotic cell for the matter.
Rather James Tour knows nothing, or want us to believe this to be the case. Imo he is full of bs, misrepresentations and pretend we know nothing when we do know something. The fact is that there are many suggestion on how to life came to be, the problem is that biologist does not know how to exclude one suggestion from another and this is something James Tour carefully avoids mentioning to his ignorant audience which he wants to misslead with his nonsense.
What if the photon and Earth magnetic field is the key to cell division.
@Victorious Yankee Tour has arguments. You have none. Diffamation is not an argument.
@@jomen112 So the basis of you disrmissing what Tour says is that are 'many suggestions' to how life formed??? How on Earth is that any kind of scientific refute? You dismiss actual science for the 'many suggestions' and then you act like this is enough to act superior on the subject? James Tour is light years ahead of the no brain faith based conventional theories of something from nothing explanation.. Tour deals in science, but it seems like you deal in wishful thinking.
@@rl7012 That is not is not my claim. My claim is that there exists knowledge that James Tour dines exists. To say we know "nothing" is nothing less than misinformation. Hence my statement that James knows nothing or lies.
he thinks this is all some happy accident.
No he doesn't.
@@mcmanustony Then someone designed everything. Thats good to know.
@@bobdobbs943 that doesn’t follow. Your comment is absurd.
@@mcmanustony If its not a happy accident, then it was on purpose. You must be an evo person. They have trouble defending the impossible.
@@bobdobbs943 "Accident" suggests there was some legitimate reality from which life is a deviation- as if there was some way things were supposed to be. What is that? How do you know?
Defending the impossible is....ummm....impossible. Evolution does not need defending as it has been observed repeatedly in real time.
You seem a bit stupid. Do you know how books work?
Sorry, evilution is dead.
Given that new research on evolution in a dozen or more branches of science is continuing you would appear to talking out of your arse.
because the frequency of heritable changes within a biological population doesn't change over time?
Where do they get these "Billions of years" from. Can they prove it ?? No, they can't !!
@Victorious Yankee Wind the vid back to 8:50, and 8:57 and 9:14 and prove he didn't say it.
that would a question for the cosmologists
Can you disprove it?
🤣😂🤣😆🤣😂😆🤣😂
Can please anyone answer me on 1 question?
How did human as a mammal shift in diet preference? Are human really an omnivorous or is it just a societal construct in view of survival of fittest? How mammals had been differentiated into carnivores and also as herbivores in natural selection process? This doesn't make sense. Unlike today world where cows are fed with meats. Lets kill all vertebrates and invertebrates below us for survival. Dietary preferences for survival doesn't make any sense in evolution. Just a fossil and observational findings in eukaryotes doesn't confirm evolution. Evolution theory need modification
Human diet has always been animal based. This plant based diet pushed today is fairly new and not natural to our bodies. How do you think humans survived the ice ages with no plants etc. They ate animals and animal produce. That is what our bodies crave most and thrives on. Veganism is the most unnatural diet known to man and very unhealthy too.
@@TheAlmostFunnyGuy If Veganism were healthy and natural then there would be no need for them to require so many supplements. Like it or not human beings are natural carnivores and we would not have survived or evolved as we have if our ancestors ate a vegan diet.
You can still be healthy as a vegetarian if you include animal produce like eggs and cheese and if you can include fish even better. But the king of nutrition is meat. Especially red meat.
Lotsa primates are omnivorous; so are humans. That we can digest all that stuff (and only 'very dgestible' plant matter (fructose, etc, not cellulose) is the biggest clue.
As for 'diet preference shift': well, humans are certainly the sensei-masters there; but even primates (and I imagine very many mammals; I have no time to check) even do pretty well with that when environment circmustances change.
As for our comparative 'sensei-level diet mastery': the house-mouse bookshelf of diet books is quite light.
Why is he allowing only the possibility of evolution? Why not intelligent design for example?
Because its religious dogma crudely disguised as science. There's not a shred of evidence for it.
Because he is a brainwashed leftie puppet who dare not question the orthodox religion of so called 'science'.
@@rl7012 " leftie puppet"-can you give a timestamp where he identified his politics? Were you tripping?
because evolution is real. intelligent design is pseudoscience.
@@spatrk6634 There is no evidence whatsoever for macro evolution. Micro evolution there is. Man has known for centuries, probably thousands of years that evolution exists. They may not have called it evolution, but they knew it existed or they would not have been able to breed different wheats and plants and farm animals etc. But macro evolution has zero going for it. What is pseudoscience is that a bacteria magically appeared billions of years ago and then eventually turned into a fish that eventually waddled out of a murky swamp, magically grew legs and lungs, became a dinosaur and then a bird. That is complete and utter bs.
What a load of bollocks and wishful thinking. And he still doesn't answer the origin of eukaryotic cells, he just muddies the water instead.
It is a talk about the origins, not The Answer to Life and Everything.
The answer you are looking for is 42.
Enjoy.
@@worfoz 'The answer to life'?? WTF are you about? I commented on, the lack of any real answer to the origins of eukaryotic cells. Learn to read properly will you?
@@rl7012 what a loaf of bollocks, again
42
not shut up
@@worfoz
You have no rational argument so you resort to insults and tired old Douglas Adam quotes. And you can't even insult me properly you use the words I use to you, back at me.
Grow a brain cell little sheep and use your own material. You have answered zilch. We still don't know where eukaryote cells come from and you refuse to see that your utter blind faith in non sensical explanations keep you ignorant..
@@rl7012 we dont know where eukaryotic cells come from. we are pretty sure they come from endosymbiosis