How Energy Flow Shapes The Evolution of Life - Professor Nick Lane
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- Despite the explosion of genetic information in recent years, we have surprisingly little insight into the peculiar history of life on our planet. Most genetic variation natural experiments in evolution is found in simple bacteria, yet they have barely changed over four billion years. No complex animals or plants are composed of bacterial cells. Why not? Why did complex cells only arise once in the history of life? And why are we complex beings so alike, with humans and mushrooms and trees all plotting for sex?
Nick Lane will explore the importance of energy flow in shaping life from its very origins to the flamboyant complexity around us, and ask whether energy flow would direct evolution down a similar path on other planets.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Total layperson here, no idea of biology, but the final statement regarding internal evolution driving external evolution makes so much sense to me conceptually, you need a purely chemical bonding dynamic that receives an external dynamic as to the organism functioning beyond the cell wall so that the overall structure can have the ability to change, not just an external environment and not just an internal reaction to those changes. Very clear mind this fellow has, his stream of consciousness has so few glitches, a delivery devoid of “ums”, “ahs”, missteps of speech and out of control tangents that require reset. Just listening to a prolonged monologue of this quality, regardless of subject matter is valuable and inspiring!
This video, along with a few other videos here on TH-cam, cover a part of the material written in Dr. Nick Lane's most recent book, "The Vital Question". This book, (and of course this lecture) blew me away. I am a physician, but I have followed closely for the past four decades (yes that dates me) the search for possible mechanisms as to how life first evolved on Earth. (In Dr. Lane's words: the "shopping list for Life is rock, water, and CO2"). I grew up in the era of the Viking Mars space missions, and have followed this topic as a hobby ever since. (I even took biochemistry as an "elective" in college, and have continued to study it ever since...) Dr. Nick Lane lays out in logical format HOW it could be done (creation of the first life on Earth), and HOW complex life (i.e., eukaryotes) may have evolved, and WHY advanced life is likely to be rare (at least much MORE rare than bacterial life) in the universe. He is an engaging, humorous, creative and passionate writer, and likewise, speaker as well. (Dr. Lane's earlier book, "Oxygen - the Molecule that Made the World", is a wonderful adjunct, even though it was published in 2002, and is still relevant and accurate.)
Life did not Evolve. Evolution is a Lie like the Utopia of Socialism/Communism is a lie.
Ability to Adapt is not Evolution. DERP.
@@HBFTimmahh Funny how almot 99% of scientist involved in the fields of Biology, Molecular Biology, Botanics, Geography, Astrobiology, Paleontology, Genetics disagree with you.
Funny how Evolution Theory makes predictions, funny how Fossils like the Taasilik or Archeopteryx disagree with you, funny how our knowledge in Abiogenesis, Evolutionary Biology, Horizontal Gene Transfer etc keeps growing while for example the pseudoscience called (Un)Intelligent Design by your preferred version of an Deity makes ZERO prediction, is unscientifically by dwelling in the ZERO evidence providing Metaphysical world.
Actually maybe you could answer these two questions:
1. Tell us ONE important Biology based breakthrough using the Intelligent Design modell?
2. Tell us how Intelligent Design makes predictions. How can a Scientist use ID in order to find a certain fossill?
@@Raydensheraj To me it seems funny how nobody debates scientists like James Tour (yes, google it, if you don't know him), who clearly point out how it is impossible to expect something like a full blown 747 to appear randomly out of the remains of s scrapyard, even if you wait a trillion years. Miller and Urey gave it a try in 1952, and we all know how it went: they randomly mixed up some pieces of junk, and out came - you guessed it - some more random pieces of junk. It takes a planning mind to assemble pieces of junk into something functional with a purpose. If nature is supposed to be mindless, how can it build highly complex factories like living cells? This is not meant to be an argument in favour or against evolution, it's just a reminder that we have no clue about how life emerged on Earth.
The reality is Earth was being bombarded with asteroids (some 100 miles wide) vaporizing the oceans and lakes between 4.3 - 4 billion years ago. The moon being very close to Earth was tearing up the crust (huge lava flows and volcanic activity) on a daily basis. How could life come into existence through a chemical process and survive long enough to produce a living cell - life - in such a hellish life extinguishing environment. I think that the first life forms on Earth were cyanobacteria with photosynthesis and they came into existence 4.1 - 4 billion years ago. How could photosynthesis come into existence through partial chemical processes. It all has to be in place or it will NOT WORK.
@@HBFTimmahh derp, dirp, drip.
Thanks for not being too technical.
I like the slide on the 3 domains of life, illustrated with photos of bacteria, and archaea, and Woese.
Great example of how a diversity of thinking and exploration can produce an acceptable working model. Compare this with the tendency to work in secret in order to make patents and cash in.
This is such a great lecture! Watched 3 times now in 3 days (I have no background in biology, but physics / philosophy / religion). Brilliant talk, so fun and fascinating
Half way through it for a second time :) Lane is a very good communicator.. Very interesting stuff !
I agree Dude ! Our brains is getting better every day 📈
lol your 2 years ahead of me lol
Indeed - and if you correlate this with Astrology you will, without any doubt, that here lies life cosmos and Universe.
We are not singular life forms. We are self aware, mobile colonies of diverse microorganisms. We can not live without our microbiome. The bacteria, archea, fungi, and viruses that inhabit our bodies are us essentially. These microorganisms are in cooperation and communicate with each other to achieve homeostasis within our bodies and maintain the colonies that comprise it. These microorganisms are the foundation that all complex life is built upon. Microorganisms made everything we see around us, including us.
Brilliant, exploratory yet with rational conclusions.
There is a neglected trait in bacteria, that echoes further on in single cell eukaryotes, insects and mammals. It‘s the rise of „distributed“ organisms. Myxobacteria are social beings, that are able, despite not physically connected, to perform coordinated raids. Connected by mucus, moving by mucus and devouring by mucus, they anticipate further evolutionary steps of coordination of living units over a distance and also of ingestion.
Great lecture. Thank you!
I see that this video is five years old. It’s a fantastic explanation. Why didn’t I come across it before? We are all being manipulated by TH-cam’s algorithms.
No, you are and the other witless gullible consumer drones.
Lol TH-cam is big bro
Excellent class, thanks!
I read your book "The Vital Question" in 2015 while I was a visiting Prof. in the Department of Biological Chemistry at Johns Hopkins Medicine. I also think that life started at energy-exchange interfaces, I just do not know if hot springs and smokers were the ones, but the role of membranous enclosures must have been vital, for several reasons. First, the proximity afforded by the interactions of randomly synthesized molecules must have been enhanced in the hydrophobic bilayers. Molecular and macromolecular crowding must have been a vital force, not dilute "warm ponds" of dissolved monomers! Of course these are issues that we need to address so that ultimately we can answer the question of the emergence of biological "information", and I place this term in quotes because I am moving away from the concept of information for the simple reason that artificially synthesized random-sequence polypeptides can be translated but they have no biological function, and secondly, they carry no information that is biologically meaningful. I have therefore adopted a chemical transformation view that might be helpful in giving us a glimpse into the transformation of random reactions, constrained as they are in a biphasic environment, into directed synthesis of macromolecules via a primitive genetic code. I wish I could discuss these issues with you and if you think that that is feasiboe you can contact me, I am currently at the Department of Biological Chemistry at Aristotle Univerisy in Thessaloniki in Greece or, alternatively, I could make contact with you. Thanks for taking time for this.
@Nick Papanikolaou. Professor Lane is hardly likely to plow through the YT comment section under his lectures just on the off chance you want to make contact with him, now is he Nick? Why don't you just email him?
@@elrjames7799 Indeed, I will do so, although he may judge my email as another spam!
@@nicka.papanikolaou9475 Just a short one Nick , preferably from your Institutional email.
@@elrjames7799 Thanks, I already did!
Great lecture for the rest of us!
Wow never thought that the environment could be life and life could the environment. But I have a question when and why do living things started to care to stay alive? What function does it serve them by being alive? I know primordial cells were under the influences of natural forces but at what point this sideffect became a goal?
This is a fundamental question! Especially considering life exists by manipulating gradients in energy that mere chemistry and physics doesn't, they exist by obeying entropy?
Thank you Nick Lane for your great lectures on youtube!
I wonder though; I miss the virusses in the tree of life, even though virusses might be or not be "alive". I would love to know how you look at those.
viruses have their own phylogenetic tree that is separated from tree of life
Thank very much for so much insight.
Respectfully, NHG
This is wonderfully appropriate in terms of the arguments of the Electric Universe.
lol
electric universe is a scam
Just LOVE this lecture!
And I will have a lot use for this knowledge in my work as a physiotherapist.
I've seen a number of Nick's presentations and they're always food for thought. He's absolutely right though: trying to imagine how nature put together ATP Synthase does your head in. I've been catching up with Orch OR via Penrose/Hameroff. We need a model of how microtubules can spontaneously self assemble before trying for anything remotely more grand than that particular miracle in itself. I first came across Nick Lane by reading his book on mitochondria.
read Jack Tuszynski
miracle or just emergence,,,take away the oxygen, Sun or earth atmosphere & we turn into mercury, venus or mars?
Religitards, pathetic.
19:43
"We all have methanogens as well, especially those of you who can light your own farts."
I knew if I watched as many lecture videos as I do I'd eventually hear someone say
"light your own farts" without it being the punchline to a joke.
Now I can die happy.
Late to the party, but Dr. Lane's discussion of the source of the alkaline environment, the discussion of the reaction within the crust/mantle reminds me of Vernadsky's "Biosphere" where such similar reactions as were then known form the basis of his thesis that the mineral and the biological interact as a system.
Perhaps there's more variability in fungi than plants and animals because they were not as effected by great extinction events.
beautiful
Does this mean organs inside our bodies are their own organisms? Organs evolved from organelles inside cells. This kind of implies that no organisms actually exist. It's just a series of transformations between proton gradients separated by a membrane of some kind.
Great lecture! I remember seeing this many years ago, great to see there's been some updates on the material.
My😮f try😮yct
Ycyycycyf
The first 😅time f
The tfirst fu😅y
😅😅 try😅Ty 😅
substrate channeling can explain some of evolutionary biochemistry :-)
🎯Wow..I loose my word..So interesting ! 🐌
Also, in regards to the absolute insanity that is the ATP synthase, I recall an experiment set up to understand why Saturn's storm at its north pole is hexagonal in shape and they were able to use, if I recall correctly, some models from fluid dynamics, and recreated the exact effect at our scale. I suppose that the symmetries we see at all these scale reflect the connectedness of all beings, We all share the same physics, but we manifest them in different ways. We build motors, molecules build ATP synthase. That might be one thing you could take out from this.
Its like covers of the same song
2:58 tree of life - the threee domains (Carl Woese): Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryote. Of which Animalia and Plantae are different branches - and probably not the most diverse.
Who said that life is the spray of mist thrown up by the waterfall of dissipating energy?
From the point of view of bacteria we are just part of their habitat.
He always come so close but then he takes off on a tangent! He is such a brilliant man, he is probably the only researcher capable of verifying my Theory!!!
Is could still be happening presumably.? Would we know?
What is the name of the single-celled protist that had an eye like morphology? @44:00 - where he said that cholorplasts make the retina and the cornea was made by mitochondria?
euglena
Energy flow is called differential geometry 😊
14:57 ATP synthase
6:42 He is correct, I believe. Were time rewound to the Cambrian, and contingency was allowed free reins once again, the resulting array of animal species, both contemporary and fossil, would match no contemporary nor fossil species in our present timeline. But no doubt certain basic themes would repeat: There would be terrestrial animals at some point, thus there would at some point be wings, ears, jaws, encased eggs, direct insemination; there would be arms races between armor and penetrating structures (teeth, tusks, horns, mandibles, stingers, etc.); there would be massive and long-range cyclical migrations; parasitism, commensalism, and symbiosis would be a constant ecological ferment. I bet there would be cancer.
But while we would see revealing and uncanny echoes of our known biota all through the hypothetical replay one, the echoes would be generated by an utterly different and mind-blowing list of species.
We can learn more of such stuff but we can never really make them go beyond what we learn. Funny but being what we have become is the whole issue. And worse, we will never accept it as so.
The bread burner and fridge. Time travel! 👐
There is a force called the rolling force that powers everything and keeps everything in motion. This force eventually breaks thru your luminous body causing physical death. You then transfer into another frequency.
Wow what are you smoking?
Microfluidic origins of life reactor, I can not wait to hear of your results. ✌
You will wait for a long time...
Question:Is *the vital question - energy, evolution, and the origins of complex life* the same book as *Vital Question: Why is life the way it is* ??
9:55 Uhh, Schrodinger's first name was Irwin, not "Owen".
0:59 that is not a tree, that is the way a snail grows its shell, or a sunflower orders its seeds; a fractal.
And how fitting that is I shall leave to your imagination.
I'm sure that this was not lost on the authors of the diagram.
You're a fractal
@@deadsi wouldn't you like to be a fractal too?
So does this mean the proverbial lightning strike to raw matter in a muddy ditch really created life like science books say!?!? So the Frankenstein movie was a documentary then?? Brilliant!!!
What about the overall centrifuging effect of gravity, after all the rocky planets wont form and there wont be the sinking of heavy elements and the rise of the light ones, just hydrogen and protons and electrons moving about
This presentation answers some of the basic questions about life origins relatively good. But the devil is in the details - and to have an operating cell, even the most basic one, you still need a lot of details.
Energy production and flow is just one of them. Information encoding and passage through RNA/DNA is another, protein synthesis via Ribosome like complex, semi permeable cell membrane encapsulating all this and more.
For now the questions are still more than answers and unfortunately there is not enough interest and funding in finding the answers. Yet these are the most important questions that we should resolve before trying to expand through the galaxy.
The cameraman is incompetent. 10⁹ is a milliard, 10¹² is a billion. ( except in the USA, because...reasons)
No one uses that illogical system.
👏👏👏
ATP SYNTHASE rotary motor slide 14:47
It's not true that no one agrees with Lynn Margulis about spirochetes. Some people still work on that stuff.
And they will be of one MIND
what's really exciting is that we have just discovered evidence of intermediate forms of proto-eukaryotes in the fossil record.
Interesting.
Can you provide a reference. Thx.
No you haven't.
You can see the shape of the pan in the pie
00:17:25
Peter Mitchel looks a bit like Richard Feynman.
{:o:O:}
It also seems margulis, was wrong about at least one thing.
☯️
0:40 bottom right corner of the screen, that fish is a deep sea fish habituated to live under extreme pressure and it only looks like that cause it was brought back to the surface. when it is not disfigured it looks like a regular fish.... just saying you should not include that picture amongst other animals to show the beauty of the diversity of life YIKES
Do you also look like a regular fish?
✌💛💡🙏
What if the entire universe is just a reactor for large aliens. 😮
My heart shrinks when Mr Lane reports on Jennifer Moyle.. with the heart of a modern man. "Cambridge wouldn't allow women to get a degree... "
The nobel prize together with Mitchell neither allowed..
"Science is actually about experiment t.o.g.e.t.h.e.r with thinking. Thinking alone goes nowhere."
(Each neuroscientist would confirm this view today. A brain without facts is only fabulation) I understand now the deep anger, the revolt, the sadness of my mother, young girl at that time...
The notion that Prokaryotes vomited out Eukaryotes does provide a marginal form of levity
I clenched my teeth for 5 more minutes, and felt much better when this man said @ 5.5 minutes that we really have no idea how life evolved. Then he felt better when he sited renowned scientist that didn't know either.
That made me feel better as well. Thanks for the help Father God.
I do know and wrote a book about it and have a free 30 video series on the solution @ my channel!!
IDK = God?
(Where's my socks? God has them?)
You confusing different claims. Theory of evolution by natural selection is effectively proven. Mathematically it is 100% undeniable, only thing is it applicable to the real world. Data shows that it is applicable.
"I don't know" is a honest question on a very specific questions INSIDE already proven theory. Theory of evolution is not under question here
And you don't know either. You just delude yourself thinking you do
LOL magic's not real, grow up you simp.
Scientists are just modern prophets. Its just their prophecies are backed by evidence xD
You couldn't be more wrong!.
If Nick has figured it out, why isn't he creating life from his lab? Reason, because he is selling his book.
what do you mean "more complex than bacteria" .. single cell organism is very complex and it has everything life should have .. multicell organism emulates same processes only on bigger scale
I think he meant "more complex than bacteria" 😊
Are we alone in the universe? On the basis of science, which is based on evidence, yes we are. So what is the basis of the speculation that the universe may have life elsewhere, is it just wishful thinking? On the basis of what we already know about the human species, if the human species had somehow spread across the universe, should we try to contact them now or would that be inviting our own genocide?
There are trillions of mitochondria in our trillions of human cells. At least 100,000 mitochondria per cell
yes, pretty inefficient.
Water and rock make life. I had a rock God tell me this in a dream. This is good confirmation. Oh and everything is conscious and psychic. Pan Psychism me think.
That's not thinking, it's failing.
@ Do tell me more.
Attempting to circumvent intelligence essential for creation does not work
thats what people thought about thunder not long ago.
More magical thinking from people who have to deny reality to maintain their silly belief in evolution...
Do you mean that theology is omitted from the discussion?
You do realize that believing in origin of life with naturalistic beginnings requires as much faith as any other religion right .
Well, that might be true, but which perspective leads to interesting further questions? Religions says "we already know what's relevant", but science says "let's keep trying to understand a bit better".
religion is the opposite of science
But religion is. Ded end d science continues to ask questions
Gould was a crappy biologist (though he actually did know a lot about snails) , and only made a name for himself by marketing what was more like politics masquerading as biology. Lane and the others mentioned are top notch biochemists.
Painful.
then they say god does not exist, all of this came to existence by coincidence 😂
Well then you move the question. If we came from god then where did gob come from? Who made god? How did god learn what he's supposed to know? Wouldn't it be easier to say The Universe was always here and will always be!!
Is goad more complex than the Universe? How so such complex entity can exist WITHOUT origin?
@@trisapient well...the whole naturalistic premise lies on a metaphysical assumption of materialism...which is quite untenable
@@mrcollector4311 Dunce.
Sounds like bs a lee cronin bs. Chemist james tour tell us why life has not been made in the lab. Alot of words no chemistry maybe could be should be magic
Cronin doesn't believe in magic. Neither does Nick Lane. Tour does....and he does not work in Origin of Life research.
Intelligent Design every where you look inside biological systems, mate! Yes, this means we were planned and created.Therefore let's get over Darwinism once and for all and start real science, looking up and analyzing the architecture and engineering of life, understand it and apply it to improve our daily lifes.
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!! ...right?
What do you mean by intelligent design?
Is an Intelligent Designer a thing like a monolith or a God?
Intelligent Design is purely speculative and is a pseudoscience according to Wikipedia.
If you really examine life, you will find it is not a utopia, but is really entrophy.
I am not a scientist, but I can understand their point of view - more or less. I am also able to understand the point of view of the believers of the Intelligent Design theory - more or less. But, with all due respect, I don’t really understand what prevents the members of the the latter group in “starting real science” themselves, whatever that may be. They too can go and find financial foundation, then sacrifice their active lifetime for the particular topic, which improves people’s (including scientists) daily lives. Hmm.
Why is it that there is so much evidence for evolution (note, as a current example, SARS-Cov-2 variants which have evolved - and are evolving) while there is no evidence for intelligent design? No eyes springing into existence fully formed, no people showing up suddenly with no predecessor species. Only religious people make that kind of claim. Real eyes and people evolved slowly, in tiny steps, from earlier structures, and over eons of time.
Where are the peer-reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design? The hypotheses and predictions? The experimental results of testing those predictions?
They don't exist. Because Intelligent Design is not a science, it is warmed-over Christian creationism.
@@nycbearffmiracles are the required lubricant. There's a creationist geology channel , probably one of many. The sedimentary layers evident in the Grand canyon are literally miraculous and not 400 million years old accretion . Like the fishes and loaves , it's a test of faith and physical display of godly omnipotence. The Bible is full of of implausible logical hoops that need to be jumped through. First there was the word. That fcks everything immediately up. If gods word created the world into being why are there different languages?
Eukaryotes are transphobic
"today the award could have gone to both of them" well even today men do not get many rights that women have.
Can you name three rights women have that men don't?
@@nycbearff please check in Google and Wikipedia, women have more rights than men
@@nayanmipun6784 Just because no one will allow you in their home.
A British person, before a British audience, who begins a lecture with a 'yeah so' prefix, lacks credibility from the very start.
He said "yeah so" and that means that he is not a credible scientist? Seriously? You must be from the arts side of knowledge, you certainly don't understand how science works.
@@nycbearff I didn't write that Professor Lane wasn't a credible scientist. If you want an 'arts side' opinion, what you've posted in your opening sentence is simply a 'strawman' argument and the conclusion you draw in the last part of your final sentence is not a logical corollary of the presupposition in its first part: in other words, it's non sequitur.
@@nycbearff On reflection, it was a mistake (if only as a breach of courtesy) to use my 'arty skill' to 'slap' you like I did. You did at least pay me a compliment and you clearly have a respect for 'science' which I totally share. I assure you that I was merely whining about adoption of Americanisms by British academics generally and would not wish to give any impression that I was attempting to cast aspersion upon either the person or discipline of Professor Lane. I'm not entirely an ignoramus where science is concerned: I did follow (to the extent that an intelligent layman can do) the lectures of Professor Susskind on co-ordinate systems, reference frames and the like and I can quite well explain the difference between a colloquial and scientific meaning of the word 'theory'. Maybe 'arty skills' aren't so bad after all. Again, I apologise for my rash and emotionally driven initial remarks.
@@elrjames7799 when a learned man speaks , wise men meekly sit and listen in order to gain some knowledge.....while a fool person in the audience points out to his crooked tie😂
@@shubhamkumar-nw1ui "But the iniquity of oblivion blindly scattereth her poppy, and deals with the memory of men without distinction to merit of perpetuity."