Only those with left handed chirality. If amino acids spontaneous assemble, they assemble both left and right handed. They don’t self assemble into complex proteins: they break down over time.
@@mcmanustonyInteresting, I had read Juan’s comment as sarcastic (the word easy specifically, I thought Juan meant it was not so much, which interestingly enough is pretty much what Jack says in the video, despite the title).
The progress of science has nothing to do with overcoming deeply ingrained prejudices, unless you're referring to Darwinian evolution. That prejudice has held back science quite a bit. The progress of science is embodied in uncovering the truth.
Can you name the last 5 biologists whose work you've actually read? Hate you break it to you but Darwin died. Don't know how you missed it. It was in all the papers. He died before the advent of molecular biology, almost all of genetics, almost all of biochemistry, almost all of paleontology. What he got wrong was tossed decades ago. Creationists were not involved. Scientists were. What he got right is one of the most astonishing achievements of human endeavour. Have you tried books?
You do understand that this talk is about abiogenesis and not evolution? And that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing at all to do with either evolution or Darwin? {:o:O:}
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 You are engaging one of the most profoundly stupid creationists I've ever encountered online.......be afraid, be very afraid.
@@l.m.892 However, there does not need to be a complete understanding of the origin of life in order for a scientific theory to address how life and species develop.
The work of people like Szostak and Deamer comprises just a few lines in a thorough narrative of life's origin and evolution due to the enormity of the events and chemistry. 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. Available cheap on kindle and other ebooks.
Barask Paraskevopoulos was born in Athens, Greece, and migrated with his parents from one year of age to Melbourne, Australia. Six years of studying medicine at Monash University, a science degree in cell biology and pharmacology at Monash as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature and Criminology at Melbourne University together with a lifelong interest in biology and biochemistry put him in good stead to tackle the difficult scenario of life’s origin. Modern Greek Tragedy-Comedy written by pseudo-science pseudo-journalist !
@@danchokonstantinov6735 Thanks Stanko! Tell me where you are from and I will return to you an ethnic slur so you can see what it feels like. I know a lot more about science than you and I was not lucky enough to be a journalist.
@@baraskparas9559 I am bulgarian with roots from southern Makedonia, which greeks ethnically cleansed with western support . I also studied medicine and practise medicine under the Hypocrates oath . I have interest in genetics & biochemistry . PS : MD - Varna, FCS - RSA, FCS - BG, FRCS - EIRE . Enjoy - th-cam.com/video/C8ddK1cSAUc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=w7krinqkPY_H_EJG th-cam.com/video/NqQBciqOy74/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xw_8AAh1mIx8eYRa th-cam.com/video/wGUHSTCRa8w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=mGpJw9idaKTc0qF_
Let's take a look at this HONESTLY. 1. We DON'T know how old the universe is. There are guesses that get stated as fact when in fact it is not, because nobody was around then, so it's ALL guesses. 2. What gets me is that "scientists" will act and make statements as if things like the above are beyond a shadow of doubt, which they most certainly are not. 3. They make those statements of FAITH to imply that the chemistry had long amounts of time to combine etc. They don't KNOW that, but it helps their beliefs go down easier. 4. If they would just be honest and state up front that they are making huge assumptions and stop acting like it's the only "legitimate" game going it would be okay. Just be honest about it. 5. In pretty much all cases it seems to be a matter of what any particular scientist BELIEVES to be true, which is fine as long as they state it that way, but far too often they state it as a fact when it is not. Just be honest. It makes you wonder why they try to play these kind of word games. If someone wants to spend money on researching whatever, go for it, but at least be honest and stop gilding the lily in an effort to fool the general public. The other major hurtle to this kind of approach is, where did the information come from? Pure random chance and chaos can't explain it even IF you have large volumes of time, which in of itself is questionable, it's an unknown factor.
@@codonmatrix4510 this is utter nonsense Do you seriously think the accepted age of the the earth, the universe etc is a “guess”? Seriously? Would it kill you to open a book?
I don't see how different kinds of nucleotides can just "accumulate" (24:00) in some warm little pond on the primordial earth. Could we make that happen now, even if we tried? No! And if that can't happen, then the whole thing is just wishful thinking, and almost certainly completely impossible.
They belive organic molecules accumulated on sticky mineral surfaces or within proto-cells, which were either inorganic (iron sulfide) or organic (lipid bubbles) semi-permiable cell like compartments (tiny bubbles). It's important to understand, these proto-cellular compartments formed inorganically, without the need for life, and they concentrated biomolecules inside. Inorganic proto-cells form today e.g. Moss Agate. Another good example of a proto-cell is the chemical garden, which mimics some rudimentary properties of living cells.
There is something called 'irrevocability' in this universe. Events may not be replicated in any setting subsequent to the original setting. It's about unique properties which can never be replicated again. That's my view. The job of scientists studying the origin of life is not only to imagine how that happened in the geological realities some 4 billion years ago, but also to explain how this process may never be replicated in a lab today, or in a place like Yellowstone, etc. All we can get is clues through our machines available today. The emergence of life is irrevocable. Unique.
@@Video2Webb Cool. If the emergence of life is irrevocable, that must mean that life will never end. That’s nice to know, but it doesn’t have much to do with how life got started in the first place. These scientists whose job includes imagining how life could have started 4 billion years ago can do a lot of imagining if they just want to wave their hands around and imagine impossible things. That’s easy to do. And the other part of their job - explaining why the origin of life can’t be replicated today - that’s easy too. It can’t be replicated today because it never could have been done anywhere, any time, any place without some super-intelligence to put it all together. Have these scientists discovered anything about “unique properties which can never be replicated again” which allowed life to form 4 billion years ago, even though it couldn’t happen now? I don’t think so. That’s my view anyway. No one knows the answer but I go along with Sherlock Holmes when he says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” (But it really helps to know your organic chemistry if you want to understand that abiogenesis really is and always was totally impossible.)
@@thechiralkid6349 The Earth's atmosphere was very different back then. Can the same chemical reactions happen in an oxygen atmosphere? No. But why are you telling us that you don't understand chemistry? We don't care about all the things that you don't understand. ;-)
Jack Szostak: The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Look what other mainstream scientists think ... their critique of this OoL-research is devastating ... Nick Lane, Joana Xavier (NATURE 2024), now paywalled, but here are a few quotes: Explaining isolated steps on the road from simple chemicals to complex living organisms is not enough … … Most scientists agree that these nanomachines are a product of selection - but selection for what, where and how? … There is no consensus about what to look for, or where … … Did life start on Earth in the hot waters of hydrothermal systems on land or in deep seas? … Combine that with the overarching importance of the question and it’s clear why the field is beset with over-claims and counter-claims, which in turn warp funding, attention and recognition … Strongly opposed viewpoints have coexisted for decades over basic questions … For example, if life started in a warm pond on land, the succession of steps leading from prebiotic chemistry to cells with genes is surprisingly different from those that must be posited if the first cells emerged in deep-sea hydrothermal vents. … Building coherent frameworks - in which all the steps in the continuum fit together - is essential to making real progress. … It is too soon to aim for consensus or unity, and the question is too big; the field needs constructive disunity. Embracing multiple rigorous frameworks for the origin of life, as we advocate here, will promote objectivity, cooperation and falsifiability - good science - while still enabling researchers to focus on what they care most about. Without that, science loses its sparkle and creativity, never more important than here. With it, the field might one day get close to an answer.
@@mcmanustony why can't I cite properly ? I am glad that the comment went through ... Commenting on TH-cam is very frustrating, I never know what gets published ... can you always see your comments? I can't ... this is a well known problem with TH-cam ... lots of users complain about it ... go to google and put in "Can't see my comments on youtube" ... Normally, I would even paste a direct link, but not on TH-cam ( spam filters ) ... Got it ? But, it is extremely easy to google that NATURE article ... really, it is extremely easy ... I have provided all the details needed to google it in 0.001 second ... Title of the article is: "To unravel the origin of life, treat findings as pieces of a bigger puzzle" Don't forget to let me know ... but you won't like it ... that's for sure ... like I said, I am surprised that NATURE published something like that ... from the article: " ... Combine that with the overarching importance of the question and it’s clear why the field is beset with over-claims and counter-claims, which in turn warp funding, attention and recognition" let me repeat this part: ... the field is beset with over-claims and counter-claims ... :)))))) Made my day ...
@@mcmanustony _Odd that you cite this as a devastating critique given that Nick Lane is a very prominent OoL researcher himself._ yes, that's the point ... So were you able to find the article ?
I’m listening. I’m going to be curious if Jack Szostak mentions the challenges by James Tour or if he just dismisses that very interesting challenge as unimportant and irrelevant. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. We’re really close to showing how life started. 😏😉
Time stamp 8:50 .Quite complicate, an understatement or what,so has a protein been created from scratch in the lab ?.Also where does the sugar come from ?.Is there a time problem,where the early complex molecules break down before they reach any further development.How stable are these things in water.Does the prescence of any metal salts hinder any development.Casting aside the fortuitous chemical soup where did all these basic molecules come together.So it has not been done in the lab yet.What about the problem of chirality.
Dr JS said hydrothermal vents supplied hot water to the murky ponds filled with protocells and nucleotides, etc. Actually hydrothermal vents are the source of those ponds. the hot water and everything needed to make life
"The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks?" So, Mr. Szostak ... why don't you try to assemble a simple cell from scratch using pre-made chemicals ? You don't have to figure out how it happened by unguided natural process in some primordial soup, go and buy all needful chemicals and assemble a simple cell from scratch in your lab ... in a controlled environment ... I see you got a big team, it should be way simple ... and you get another Nobel prize ... So think again, not as Hard as it Looks ?????
Not as hard as it looks? So far no Nobel prize for origin-of-life research. Not once in 70 years. Not as hard as it looks? Jack Szostak (World Science Festival, 2014): I will create "life in lab" in 3 to 5 years, more likely in 3 years. That was 10 years ago ... Not as hard as it looks ? Jack Szostak (University of Chicago interview, 2021): "I am still working on a self-replicating molecule" Not as hard as it looks? Szostak doesn't even have his self-replicating molecule, let alone life ...
As long as OoL researchers can sell you on their wild ideas and compelling theories to generate more funding and interest in their work, this academic shell game will continue. Even Lee Cronin admitted in a candid tweet that "Origin of life research is a scam".
"Jack Szostak (World Science Festival, 2014): I will create "life in lab" in 3 to 5 years, more likely in 3 years"- can you give a citation for this quote?
@@mcmanustony it is easy to google it ... I am afraid, that a direct link will be banned by youtube. To be honest, I am surprised that my initial comment on this subject went through. But it is very easy to google it ... Put into google the following words: Jack Szostak Susan Mazur interview at Scoop Let me know ... By the way, did you know, that Jack Szostak had to retract his RNA World paper, published 2016 in NATURE, because his origin-of-life experiment couldn't be reproduced by his own colleagues ? Again, it is easy to google it, search for: Jack Szostak Retraction watch Happy reading ...
@@kemicalhazard8770 Forget about Tour ... think about what I wrote in my initial post ... Why no Nobel prize ? I can understand your frustration, but this is a very simple question ... Where are all these "countless breakthroughs" in origin-of-life research I hear about all the time ? Why no Nobel prize so far ?
@@mcmanustony Elimentary school experiment ? By the way, Miller was supposed to do PhD with Ed Teller / H2 bomb father /, but Miller was found to be underperformer in quantum physics and was a drop out.
All speculation with no real science. If its easy Jack the do it. I'd love to hear Dr James Tour comment on this but I don't think he would waste his time. Jack is way out of his depth in commenting on the origin of life, on earth or anywhere else.
It’s what his lab researches. Tour, the disgraced lying fanatic should be publicly apologizing for the lies and slanderous abuse he screamed at Szostak before going on to do the same to the entire OoL research community. Tour is an utter disgrace to academia.
"Jack is way out of his depth"- quick question: how the fuck would you know? Presumably your lab has produced better work that we could all read? Tour's lasting legacy will be idiots like yourself. Sneering, lying fools who think their devotion to archangel Tour counts as learning science. Shame on you.
th-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html Richard Dawkins sits mute/deaf/sub-moronic as actual Nobel laureates in biology & Craig Venter ALL say "It is impossible that humans will EVER know life's origin'' TALK'S CHEAP MFR...UNLESS YOU'RE PAYING DAWKINS' SPEAKING FEES
@@mcmanustony You IMAGINE Dawkins confutes those three stating that it's "impossible humans will EVER know life's origin"? You're more ignorant than I thought...and that doesn't seem possible.
Wait a minute. No one has even come close to making a proto-cell in any lab! No one has even come close to making the four essential classes of chemicals that are necessary - amino acids, nucleic acids, carbs and lipids - under prebiotic conditions. Have you seen the structure of a simple cell? The membrane alone is exceedingly complex! As James Tour points out, in chemistry time is the enemy!! Why doesn't Jack Sosznac respond to Jim Tour?
You'd have a bit more credibility if you could get the name right. SZOSTAK. "No one has even come close to making the four essential classes of chemicals that are necessary - amino acids, nucleic acids, carbs and lipids - under prebiotic conditions"- really? Miller Urey was SEVENTY YEARS AGO. Maybe OoL researchers are too busy working to pay much attention to a screaming, lying zealot such as Tour. He doesn't work in this field, never has, never will and only peddles abuse for religious reasons.
@@danchokonstantinov6735they found amino acids at the time. The found several more later. Fraud? You are lying smear monger. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Lost credibility when he said he could make a simple cell in the laboratory. Prove that claim. Nobody has created a cell in the lab in a prebiotic way.
@@mcmanustony J Craig Venter allegedly created bacterium synthetically, he simply replaced the nucleus of a bacterium with recombinant DNA with allegedly minimum genes for reproduction & Life. I guess his 'synthetic' bacterium degraded in the wild as purposeless and useless in the grand design of life ! That is the legacy of mickey mouse theories-forgotten at best ! That is what happens when DNA is tweaked - ORGANISM STERILITY. JCVenter is prime example of human greed and egocentrism, but the guy made a fortune. That is where his mind and heart dwells .
A simple cell can be easily made in the laboratory, it's called a chemical garden. This is a chemical phenomenon involving a inorganic metal salt and a solution of silica, the reaction between the two precipitates a flexible semi-permiable membrane that mimics properties of simple cells. It has a redox gradient, it also produces a osmotic pressure that causes growth. Several researchers propose the first cells were inorganic, either made of iron sulfide or lipids (soap like polar molecules). Also, it's important to remember that before life emerged, there wasn't anything to eat organic molecules, so a soup of organic molecules could have formed, that would be not have accumulated if there was, life around to eat it.
Why is life elsewhere consigned to zero probability or "we don't know?" Why doesn't one example, and an example tied to physical processes which exist elsewhere, count for something even if we can't properly apply statistics.
“My view is we don’t know” seems like a sensible thing to say when there is low probability, to me, which is what Jack said. Jack did not say zero probability. Are “don’t know” and “zero probability” equivalent to you? If so, why?
@@aunch3 what the fuck is wrong with you? No one Szostak included claims the question is settled. There is a difference between not having all the answers and having none of the answers. Spare me the sermon…
@@aunch3 what the hell is wrong with you? NO ONE claims to have all the answers. Not Jack Szostak, not Nick Lane, not Addy Pross....not any of the researchers in OoL. It's an open problem in empirical science. Spare me the sermon...you are utterly clueless.
Yes, slowly! How can ye introduce a LIGHT NOONE CAN IGNORED? Students shared "i" Am will say, LORD rather not to FLASH the LIGHT while thy own in deep sleep upon their shared eyes! Will be offended! Indeed! But slowly till can bare the LIGHT. Students what is a LIGHT? Lord same can know? Who's the ROARING LION!
Modern life is incredibly complicated and incredibly self referential ? But we have deeply engaved prejudices ? But we have seen life arose here ! Not so hard from chemistry to biology , easy path though !? There are many places with water to support life / but we do not know . Life is part of metabolic chart , informationally is very complicated, crazy theories, central dogma, but RNA held the answer , RNA as enzyme / where is the allosteric domain ? , chemistry of early climate made complicated structure , structures are very easy to assemble in lab chemistry and physics give rise to self replication ? JACK, CHECK FOR THOSE BETA SHEETS IN THE GREY MATTER . YOUR BUDDY JC VENTER OFFER DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, BUT THE GUY IS GREEDY AND CHARGES FORTUNE.
@@hamsterwheelmc *Yea...The "primordial soup" theory was proposed by Alexander Oparin and John Scott Haldane who independently developed the idea around the 1920s, with Oparin first publishing his concept in 1924 and Haldane in 1929.* *It is 2024 and it is still a hypothesis.* *A hundred years and still no go.*
The problem with our search for knowledge per se, not just the origin of life, is the inbuilt lack of purpose in the IDEAL of science, viz. KNOWLEDGE FOR ITS OWN SAKE OUT OF CURIOSITY, along with its even more misguided criterion of proof: PREDICTIONS tallying with results of experiments and/or observations, as both these lack any direct relevance to the sustenance of life (as commonly understood) on this earth. On the contrary, the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge SHOULD be set as: PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF ALL EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH). That way, the traditional basing of mathematics and physics on describing PREDICTABLY the celestial motions, without any relevance to life function, can be discarded to set deriving, instead, "the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain living beings here through them" as the sole purpose cum criterion of all knowledge. Thus integrating arithmetic, geometry and particle physics by interpreting DIGITS, with which we perform calculations in our minds (NOT the electrons in the chips we manufacture ourselves), as unique type of particles with the 4 basic arithmetic operations as the only LAWS OF MOTION for all interactions among them, in our minds AND INSIDE THE CORE OF THE EARTH. This correspondence of the LAWS OF MOTION of DIGIT interactions in our minds and inside the Core of The Earth substitutes the necessity for Bohr's anthropocentric correspondence requirement as well as the necessity for the application of the two types of mutually incompatible LAWS OF MOTION in physics (Newtonian ones for particles in classical physics and Schrödingers wave function in QM) for calculations of interactions inside the earth that develop PLANTS on its own surface. As the accuracy of The Model so derived, and all related assumptions as to existence of particle types in formulating it, must be verifiable by any lay person by their applicability for practical influencing of the development of, and growth on, PLANTS neither special experiments nor any special observations would be necessary to prove the accuracy of The Model. Remember, this earth is the only vessel in the entire known universe, that manufactures bodies of living beings in its bowels to then deliver and sustain them on its own surface through the PLANTS it develops here for that purpose. Hence it MUST be seen and analyzed as such. And NOT as a mediocre ball of nonliving matter stupidly revolving around an insignificant star for no purpose whatsoever as suggested by Copernicus and accepted as absolute truth, practically by ALL (minus one) ON THIS EARTH, at present.
The most amazing thing about life is that all life uses the same basic biochemistries with the same amino acids!
Only those with left handed chirality. If amino acids spontaneous assemble, they assemble both left and right handed. They don’t self assemble into complex proteins: they break down over time.
Good luck "evolving" even with all the starter materials. Time is the enemy of evolution
@@caesarskiba9008 Expand on what you mean by that please
yes, it is elegant ... that's another proof of a mastermind engineering ...
@@martinjan2334 can you go through the steps of your “proof”? Looks very much like an evidence free assertion….
Life just requires a system for molecular assembly guided by precise instructions. Easy.
Who provided the instructions prior to there being life?
You’ve not thought this through
@@mcmanustonyInteresting, I had read Juan’s comment as sarcastic (the word easy specifically, I thought Juan meant it was not so much, which interestingly enough is pretty much what Jack says in the video, despite the title).
*Easy?!?!?!?!? Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
@@williamwhitten7820 Are you okay?
@@derekbredensteiner3957 *Yes of course.* *I was just responding to Juan Pineda's comment at the head of this thread.*
Fascinating! Is the study shown at the end (of which an image is shown) available for me to read?
He is such a great storyteller.
He's reporting on scientific research not telling stories.
The progress of science has nothing to do with overcoming deeply ingrained prejudices, unless you're referring to Darwinian evolution. That prejudice has held back science quite a bit. The progress of science is embodied in uncovering the truth.
Can you name the last 5 biologists whose work you've actually read?
Hate you break it to you but Darwin died. Don't know how you missed it. It was in all the papers. He died before the advent of molecular biology, almost all of genetics, almost all of biochemistry, almost all of paleontology. What he got wrong was tossed decades ago. Creationists were not involved. Scientists were. What he got right is one of the most astonishing achievements of human endeavour.
Have you tried books?
You do understand that this talk is about abiogenesis and not evolution? And that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing at all to do with either evolution or Darwin?
{:o:O:}
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 You are engaging one of the most profoundly stupid creationists I've ever encountered online.......be afraid, be very afraid.
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 Do you understand that without an origin of life, there is no evolution?
@@l.m.892 However, there does not need to be a complete understanding of the origin of life in order for a scientific theory to address how life and species develop.
When are we going to see Jack S vs James T on this subject?
The work of people like Szostak and Deamer comprises just a few lines in a thorough narrative of life's origin and evolution due to the enormity of the events and chemistry. 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. Available cheap on kindle and other ebooks.
Barask Paraskevopoulos was born in Athens, Greece, and migrated with his parents from one year of age to Melbourne, Australia. Six years of studying medicine at Monash University, a science degree in cell biology and pharmacology at Monash as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature and Criminology at Melbourne University together with a lifelong interest in biology and biochemistry put him in good stead to tackle the difficult scenario of life’s origin.
Modern Greek Tragedy-Comedy
written by pseudo-science pseudo-journalist !
@@danchokonstantinov6735 Thanks Stanko! Tell me where you are from and I will return to you an ethnic slur so you can see what it feels like. I know a lot more about science than you and I was not lucky enough to be a journalist.
@@baraskparas9559 I am bulgarian with roots from southern Makedonia, which greeks ethnically cleansed with western support . I also studied medicine and practise medicine under the Hypocrates oath . I have interest in genetics & biochemistry . PS : MD - Varna, FCS - RSA, FCS -
BG, FRCS - EIRE .
Enjoy - th-cam.com/video/C8ddK1cSAUc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=w7krinqkPY_H_EJG
th-cam.com/video/NqQBciqOy74/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xw_8AAh1mIx8eYRa
th-cam.com/video/wGUHSTCRa8w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=mGpJw9idaKTc0qF_
Seeing what Grieves HIM!
"LOVE" with the "NEW DAY" 12-29-1976 Signature!
Excellent!
Let's take a look at this HONESTLY.
1. We DON'T know how old the universe is. There are guesses that get stated as fact when in fact it is not, because nobody was around then, so it's ALL guesses.
2. What gets me is that "scientists" will act and make statements as if things like the above are beyond a shadow of doubt, which they most certainly are not.
3. They make those statements of FAITH to imply that the chemistry had long amounts of time to combine etc. They don't KNOW that, but it helps their beliefs go down easier.
4. If they would just be honest and state up front that they are making huge assumptions and stop acting like it's the only "legitimate" game going it would be okay. Just be honest about it.
5. In pretty much all cases it seems to be a matter of what any particular scientist BELIEVES to be true, which is fine as long as they state it that way, but far too often they state it as a fact when it is not.
Just be honest. It makes you wonder why they try to play these kind of word games. If someone wants to spend money on researching whatever, go for it, but at least be honest and stop gilding the lily in an effort to fool the general public.
The other major hurtle to this kind of approach is, where did the information come from? Pure random chance and chaos can't explain it even IF you have large volumes of time, which in of itself is questionable, it's an unknown factor.
Never mind, Sooty's on tomorrow.
{:o:O:}
@@codonmatrix4510 this is utter nonsense
Do you seriously think the accepted age of the the earth, the universe etc is a “guess”? Seriously?
Would it kill you to open a book?
@@mcmanustony Hey, guess what, the bible is a book. I could get a book printed that says you're nothing but a wannabe Druid. Would it be wrong?
@@codonmatrix4510 Your wilful ignorance is depressing.
@@mcmanustony I'm not concerned about your opinion.
Results going around the mountains, and going around the mountains, and going around the mountains, and going around the mountains in front of thee!
Life is information. Szostak's ideas are far from it.
What vacuous tripe. Did that sound good in your head?
Specially HIS SWORD fighting one another in front of HIM!
I don't see how different kinds of nucleotides can just "accumulate" (24:00) in some warm little pond on the primordial earth. Could we make that happen now, even if we tried? No! And if that can't happen, then the whole thing is just wishful thinking, and almost certainly completely impossible.
They belive organic molecules accumulated on sticky mineral surfaces or within proto-cells, which were either inorganic (iron sulfide) or organic (lipid bubbles) semi-permiable cell like compartments (tiny bubbles). It's important to understand, these proto-cellular compartments formed inorganically, without the need for life, and they concentrated biomolecules inside. Inorganic proto-cells form today e.g. Moss Agate. Another good example of a proto-cell is the chemical garden, which mimics some rudimentary properties of living cells.
There is something called 'irrevocability' in this universe. Events may not be replicated in any setting subsequent to the original setting. It's about unique properties which can never be replicated again. That's my view. The job of scientists studying the origin of life is not only to imagine how that happened in the geological realities some 4 billion years ago, but also to explain how this process may never be replicated in a lab today, or in a place like Yellowstone, etc. All we can get is clues through our machines available today. The emergence of life is irrevocable. Unique.
@@Video2Webb Cool. If the emergence of life is irrevocable, that must mean that life will never end. That’s nice to know, but it doesn’t have much to do with how life got started in the first place. These scientists whose job includes imagining how life could have started 4 billion years ago can do a lot of imagining if they just want to wave their hands around and imagine impossible things. That’s easy to do. And the other part of their job - explaining why the origin of life can’t be replicated today - that’s easy too. It can’t be replicated today because it never could have been done anywhere, any time, any place without some super-intelligence to put it all together. Have these scientists discovered anything about “unique properties which can never be replicated again” which allowed life to form 4 billion years ago, even though it couldn’t happen now? I don’t think so. That’s my view anyway. No one knows the answer but I go along with Sherlock Holmes when he says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” (But it really helps to know your organic chemistry if you want to understand that abiogenesis really is and always was totally impossible.)
@@Diamonddavej so where did it happen, thermal vents, rocks, meteorites, lab tube or vivid imaginations and cravings of narcissists.
@@thechiralkid6349 The Earth's atmosphere was very different back then. Can the same chemical reactions happen in an oxygen atmosphere? No. But why are you telling us that you don't understand chemistry? We don't care about all the things that you don't understand. ;-)
Students shared "i" Am will say, many wise and Scribes of this world hearing! Their murmuring among themselves in front of HIM!
As from before over and over again in front of thee!
Jack Szostak: The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks?
Look what other mainstream scientists think ... their critique of this OoL-research is devastating ...
Nick Lane, Joana Xavier (NATURE 2024), now paywalled, but here are a few quotes:
Explaining isolated steps on the road from simple chemicals to complex living organisms is not enough …
…
Most scientists agree that these nanomachines are a product of selection - but selection for what, where and how?
…
There is no consensus about what to look for, or where …
…
Did life start on Earth in the hot waters of hydrothermal systems on land or in deep seas?
…
Combine that with the overarching importance of the question and it’s clear why the field is beset with over-claims and counter-claims, which in turn warp funding, attention and recognition
…
Strongly opposed viewpoints have coexisted for decades over basic questions …
For example, if life started in a warm pond on land, the succession of steps leading from prebiotic chemistry to cells with genes is surprisingly different from those that must be posited if the first cells emerged in deep-sea hydrothermal vents.
…
Building coherent frameworks - in which all the steps in the continuum fit together - is essential to making real progress.
…
It is too soon to aim for consensus or unity, and the question is too big; the field needs constructive disunity. Embracing multiple rigorous frameworks for the origin of life, as we advocate here, will promote objectivity, cooperation and falsifiability - good science - while still enabling researchers to focus on what they care most about. Without that, science loses its sparkle and creativity, never more important than here. With it, the field might one day get close to an answer.
What is the title of the paper? Why can’t you cite properly?
@@mcmanustony why can't I cite properly ?
I am glad that the comment went through ... Commenting on TH-cam is very frustrating, I never know what gets published ... can you always see your comments? I can't ... this is a well known problem with TH-cam ... lots of users complain about it ... go to google and put in "Can't see my comments on youtube" ...
Normally, I would even paste a direct link, but not on TH-cam ( spam filters ) ...
Got it ?
But, it is extremely easy to google that NATURE article ... really, it is extremely easy ...
I have provided all the details needed to google it in 0.001 second ...
Title of the article is:
"To unravel the origin of life, treat findings as pieces of a bigger puzzle"
Don't forget to let me know ... but you won't like it ... that's for sure ... like I said, I am surprised that NATURE published something like that ...
from the article:
" ... Combine that with the overarching importance of the question and it’s clear why the field is beset with over-claims and counter-claims, which in turn warp funding, attention and recognition"
let me repeat this part:
... the field is beset with over-claims and counter-claims ... :))))))
Made my day ...
@@mcmanustony hey! could you confirm you have received the title of the paper ?
Because YT filters out lots of comment using AI
@@martinjan2334 No title.
Odd that you cite this as a devastating critique given that Nick Lane is a very prominent OoL researcher himself.
@@mcmanustony _Odd that you cite this as a devastating critique given that Nick Lane is a very prominent OoL researcher himself._
yes, that's the point ...
So were you able to find the article ?
I’m listening. I’m going to be curious if Jack Szostak mentions the challenges by James Tour or if he just dismisses that very interesting challenge as unimportant and irrelevant. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. We’re really close to showing how life started. 😏😉
Time stamp 8:50 .Quite complicate, an understatement or what,so has a protein been created from scratch in the lab ?.Also where does the sugar come from ?.Is there a time problem,where the early complex molecules break down before they reach any further development.How stable are these things in water.Does the prescence of any metal salts hinder any development.Casting aside the fortuitous chemical soup where did all these basic molecules come together.So it has not been done in the lab yet.What about the problem of chirality.
Dr JS said hydrothermal vents supplied hot water to the murky ponds filled with protocells and nucleotides, etc.
Actually hydrothermal vents are the source of those ponds. the hot water and everything needed to make life
And the 2 EDGES SWORD GUARDIAN!
Yes, among thee awaken!
"The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks?"
So, Mr. Szostak ... why don't you try to assemble a simple cell from scratch using pre-made chemicals ? You don't have to figure out how it happened by unguided natural process in some primordial soup, go and buy all needful chemicals and assemble a simple cell from scratch in your lab ... in a controlled environment ... I see you got a big team, it should be way simple ... and you get another Nobel prize ...
So think again, not as Hard as it Looks ?????
Not as hard as it looks?
So far no Nobel prize for origin-of-life research. Not once in 70 years.
Not as hard as it looks?
Jack Szostak (World Science Festival, 2014): I will create "life in lab" in 3 to 5 years, more likely in 3 years.
That was 10 years ago ... Not as hard as it looks ?
Jack Szostak (University of Chicago interview, 2021): "I am still working on a self-replicating molecule"
Not as hard as it looks?
Szostak doesn't even have his self-replicating molecule, let alone life ...
As long as OoL researchers can sell you on their wild ideas and compelling theories to generate more funding and interest in their work, this academic shell game will continue. Even Lee Cronin admitted in a candid tweet that "Origin of life research is a scam".
You've been watching too much James Tour
"Jack Szostak (World Science Festival, 2014): I will create "life in lab" in 3 to 5 years, more likely in 3 years"- can you give a citation for this quote?
@@mcmanustony it is easy to google it ... I am afraid, that a direct link will be banned by youtube. To be honest, I am surprised that my initial comment on this subject went through.
But it is very easy to google it ...
Put into google the following words:
Jack Szostak Susan Mazur interview at Scoop
Let me know ...
By the way, did you know, that Jack Szostak had to retract his RNA World paper, published 2016 in NATURE, because his origin-of-life experiment couldn't be reproduced by his own colleagues ?
Again, it is easy to google it, search for:
Jack Szostak Retraction watch
Happy reading ...
@@kemicalhazard8770 Forget about Tour ... think about what I wrote in my initial post ...
Why no Nobel prize ? I can understand your frustration, but this is a very simple question ...
Where are all these "countless breakthroughs" in origin-of-life research I hear about all the time ?
Why no Nobel prize so far ?
Why say, who is that little child born "i"? A mirror behind HIS HEAD? Nor looking HE HOLDING WITH HIS 2 HANDS?
My my, Jack - you certainly have not been keeping up! Since Miller-Urey, at least...
I think he understands Miller Urey better than you.
@@mcmanustony Elimentary school experiment ? By the way, Miller was supposed to do PhD with Ed Teller / H2 bomb father /, but Miller was found to be underperformer in quantum physics and was a drop out.
@@mcmanustony What is there about Miller--Urey to understand?
@@l.m.892 The abiotic synthesis of amino acids.
@@mcmanustony Are you trying to tell the world that all there is to life is a racemic mixture of a subset of the total compliment of aminos?
All speculation with no real science. If its easy Jack the do it.
I'd love to hear Dr James Tour comment on this but I don't think he would waste his time. Jack is way out of his depth in commenting on the origin of life, on earth or anywhere else.
It’s what his lab researches.
Tour, the disgraced lying fanatic should be publicly apologizing for the lies and slanderous abuse he screamed at Szostak before going on to do the same to the entire OoL research community.
Tour is an utter disgrace to academia.
"Jack is way out of his depth"- quick question: how the fuck would you know? Presumably your lab has produced better work that we could all read?
Tour's lasting legacy will be idiots like yourself. Sneering, lying fools who think their devotion to archangel Tour counts as learning science.
Shame on you.
Yes, let's check James Tour's critique of OoL claims.
th-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html
Richard Dawkins sits mute/deaf/sub-moronic as actual Nobel laureates in biology &
Craig Venter ALL say "It is impossible that humans will EVER know life's origin''
TALK'S CHEAP MFR...UNLESS YOU'RE PAYING DAWKINS' SPEAKING FEES
Tour is a disgraced lying fanatic. He doesn’t work in OoL.
@@WayneLynch69why do you post such pathetic lies? Dawkins IS NOT MUTE.
Why do you people lie so much?
@@mcmanustony
You IMAGINE Dawkins confutes those
three stating that it's "impossible humans will EVER know life's origin"? You're more ignorant than I thought...and that doesn't seem possible.
@@WayneLynch69 what the fuck are you talking about?
Wise and Scribes seeing who guarding? Who guarding will say, remember HE adopted Sons and Daughters from thee!
Wait a minute. No one has even come close to making a proto-cell in any lab! No one has even come close to making the four essential classes of chemicals that are necessary - amino acids, nucleic acids, carbs and lipids - under prebiotic conditions. Have you seen the structure of a simple cell? The membrane alone is exceedingly complex!
As James Tour points out, in chemistry time is the enemy!!
Why doesn't Jack Sosznac respond to Jim Tour?
You'd have a bit more credibility if you could get the name right. SZOSTAK.
"No one has even come close to making the four essential classes of chemicals that are necessary - amino acids, nucleic acids, carbs and lipids - under prebiotic conditions"- really?
Miller Urey was SEVENTY YEARS AGO.
Maybe OoL researchers are too busy working to pay much attention to a screaming, lying zealot such as Tour. He doesn't work in this field, never has, never will and only peddles abuse for religious reasons.
@@mcmanustony kV electric shock delivery created aminoacids ? And then second electric shock destroyed the self-assembly ?
@@danchokonstantinov6735 Wrong. The Miller- Urey apparatus was found later to have synthesized over a dozen amino acids.
@@mcmanustony tens of years later = fraud .
@@danchokonstantinov6735they found amino acids at the time. The found several more later. Fraud? You are lying smear monger. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
For the imitators who deceiveth and murderers exalted above to steal thy ....to ride Thee!
Life is present everywhere but not in form as we expect 😊
Lost credibility when he said he could make a simple cell in the laboratory. Prove that claim. Nobody has created a cell in the lab in a prebiotic way.
When did he make that claim?
@@ActedUponNoMore ….and??
@@mcmanustony J Craig Venter allegedly created bacterium synthetically, he simply replaced the nucleus of a bacterium with recombinant DNA with allegedly minimum genes for reproduction &
Life. I guess his 'synthetic' bacterium degraded in the wild as purposeless and useless in the grand design of life ! That is the legacy of mickey mouse theories-forgotten at best ! That is what happens when DNA is tweaked - ORGANISM STERILITY. JCVenter is prime example of human greed and egocentrism, but the guy made a fortune. That is where his mind and heart dwells .
The Creative Source & Center is well beyond our current science and theology. A closed mind is the enemy.
A simple cell can be easily made in the laboratory, it's called a chemical garden. This is a chemical phenomenon involving a inorganic metal salt and a solution of silica, the reaction between the two precipitates a flexible semi-permiable membrane that mimics properties of simple cells. It has a redox gradient, it also produces a osmotic pressure that causes growth. Several researchers propose the first cells were inorganic, either made of iron sulfide or lipids (soap like polar molecules). Also, it's important to remember that before life emerged, there wasn't anything to eat organic molecules, so a soup of organic molecules could have formed, that would be not have accumulated if there was, life around to eat it.
Not knowing? 2 EDGES SWORD sitteth with....
Why is life elsewhere consigned to zero probability or "we don't know?" Why doesn't one example, and an example tied to physical processes which exist elsewhere, count for something even if we can't properly apply statistics.
Where is zero probability stated?
“My view is we don’t know” seems like a sensible thing to say when there is low probability, to me, which is what Jack said. Jack did not say zero probability. Are “don’t know” and “zero probability” equivalent to you? If so, why?
Not as hard as it looks then create it bro
@@aunch3 the task is to understand not mimic
What? Bro just be humble and accept that you don’t have all the answers. Just take the L, learn from it, and move on
@@aunch3 what the fuck is wrong with you? No one Szostak included claims the question is settled.
There is a difference between not having all the answers and having none of the answers.
Spare me the sermon…
@@aunch3 what the hell is wrong with you? NO ONE claims to have all the answers. Not Jack Szostak, not Nick Lane, not Addy Pross....not any of the researchers in OoL. It's an open problem in empirical science.
Spare me the sermon...you are utterly clueless.
@@aunch3 Spare me the pompous sermons. Since you like to dish out “advice” try this.
Shut up and learn some science
That's how they make their money
Who? How? Doing what?
Any update on your grunt?
And???
Gonzalez Deborah Martinez Jennifer Martin Shirley
Yes, slowly! How can ye introduce a LIGHT NOONE CAN IGNORED? Students shared "i" Am will say, LORD rather not to FLASH the LIGHT while thy own in deep sleep upon their shared eyes! Will be offended! Indeed! But slowly till can bare the LIGHT. Students what is a LIGHT? Lord same can know? Who's the ROARING LION!
Harris Melissa Wilson Paul Taylor William
Modern life is incredibly complicated and incredibly self referential ? But we have deeply engaved prejudices ? But we have seen life arose here ! Not so hard from chemistry to biology , easy path though !? There are many places with water to support life / but we do not know . Life is part of metabolic chart , informationally is very complicated, crazy theories, central dogma, but RNA held the answer , RNA as enzyme / where is the allosteric domain ? , chemistry of early climate made complicated structure , structures are very easy to assemble in lab chemistry and physics give rise to self replication ? JACK, CHECK FOR THOSE BETA SHEETS IN THE GREY MATTER . YOUR BUDDY JC VENTER OFFER DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, BUT THE GUY IS GREEDY AND CHARGES FORTUNE.
*Dr Jack Szostak should admit that science hasn't a clue of how life began.*
That would be dishonest. Science seeks and knocks. Get on board.
pretty sure he said that. he's discussing experiments based on a hypothesis. wwjd
@@hamsterwheelmc *Yea...The "primordial soup" theory was proposed by Alexander Oparin and John Scott Haldane who independently developed the idea around the 1920s, with Oparin first publishing his concept in 1924 and Haldane in 1929.* *It is 2024 and it is still a hypothesis.* *A hundred years and still no go.*
@@williamwhitten7820 Religion still makes claims of magic. They only use the Bible to justify hatred. Isn’t that right?
@@williamwhitten7820 life took 700,000,000 years to emerge on earth. 100 years and it’s not completely understood……therefore Jesus!
Good grief…
keep trying. its a lie, but I guess you gotta try. "it'll never work"......LOL. I hate mocking...and I am doing that. but........
He is as clueless as that other fairy story teller Nick Lane.
This commenter is as ignoramus as the next door James Tour creatard fan.
Alternative theory: In the Beginng God Created the Heavens and the Earth.
Not even close.
That’s a religious fantasy, not a theory. It explains nothing, is not testable…..
Try again.
@@mcmanustony It explains everything.
@@deepcosmiclove wrong.
Nope
bunch of guessing garbage
You should see The Bible if you want some fantasy.
science is the throwing away of garbage guesses
@@danielpaulson8838 keep reading your copy of the "little red book"
@@peter-b7s I’d rather read the Bible. That’s how I know it’s full of really poor values.
@@peter-b7s you seem to have lost your mind. Where were you when you last had it
The problem with our search for knowledge per se, not just the origin of life, is the inbuilt lack of purpose in the IDEAL of science, viz. KNOWLEDGE FOR ITS OWN SAKE OUT OF CURIOSITY, along with its even more misguided criterion of proof: PREDICTIONS tallying with results of experiments and/or observations, as both these lack any direct relevance to the sustenance of life (as commonly understood) on this earth.
On the contrary, the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge SHOULD be set as:
PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF ALL EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH).
That way, the traditional basing of mathematics and physics on describing PREDICTABLY the celestial motions, without any relevance to life function, can be discarded to set deriving, instead, "the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain living beings here through them" as the sole purpose cum criterion of all knowledge.
Thus integrating arithmetic, geometry and particle physics by interpreting DIGITS, with which we perform calculations in our minds (NOT the electrons in the chips we manufacture ourselves), as unique type of particles with the 4 basic arithmetic operations as the only LAWS OF MOTION for all interactions among them, in our minds AND INSIDE THE CORE OF THE EARTH.
This correspondence of the LAWS OF MOTION of DIGIT interactions in our minds and inside the Core of The Earth substitutes the necessity for Bohr's anthropocentric correspondence requirement as well as the necessity for the application of the two types of mutually incompatible LAWS OF MOTION in physics (Newtonian ones for particles in classical physics and Schrödingers wave function in QM) for calculations of interactions inside the earth that develop PLANTS on its own surface.
As the accuracy of The Model so derived, and all related assumptions as to existence of particle types in formulating it, must be verifiable by any lay person by their applicability for practical influencing of the development of, and growth on, PLANTS neither special experiments nor any special observations would be necessary to prove the accuracy of The Model.
Remember, this earth is the only vessel in the entire known universe, that manufactures bodies of living beings in its bowels to then deliver and sustain them on its own surface through the PLANTS it develops here for that purpose.
Hence it MUST be seen and analyzed as such. And NOT as a mediocre ball of nonliving matter stupidly revolving around an insignificant star for no purpose whatsoever as suggested by Copernicus and accepted as absolute truth, practically by ALL (minus one) ON THIS EARTH, at present.
@@mykrahmaan3408 put the pipe down. Step away from the pipe …
@@mcmanustony
Clever people learn from other people's mistakes.
Ordinary people learn from own mistakes.
FOOLS NEVER LEARN!
@@mykrahmaan3408 did that sound good in your head?
Yawn