Every now and then you get one of these lectures that grips you with possibilities and data that remind you why you got interested in stuff in the first place. The approach to the questions surrounding abiogenesis, as chemistry anybody can understand, is delivered so well despite the quiet hypnotic voice. Gresham has not delivered a more captivating speaker since Caroline Crawford. This is my first in this series and he is in the running to take Crawfords crown if he keeps this up! I too thank him and his team for the graft to get here.
I just want to comment in regards to Dr. Lane's statements about cyanide and UV radiation. He said that he understands the presence of cyanide and high energy radiation as destructive forces for life, and they are. The issue is we aren't dealing with life when we talk about prebiotic chemistry. Cyanide has a strong presence in interstellar media, and has multiple reactive pathways to form nucleic acid precursors like acetonitrile. High energy radiation may play a part in that, because it can radicalize organic molecules, initiating polymerization (e.g. methane and methanol can be radicalized by gamma radiation). I understand that he's a biologist, so those possibilities aren't really on his radar, and it just serves to confirm what he said about the interdisciplinary nature of the problem of the Origin of Life. I appreciate the presentation a lot.
5 years since your comment and the origin of life is even further from being solved, possibly because chemical elements and organic compounds are dead and cannot be animated with electricity. Have you listened to organic chemist Dr James Tour, (millions of citations) who states quite clearly why abiogenesis is impossible and why he believes life could not evolve through chemistry on an early Earth?
This is a lecture I’ve wanted to hear for years. Never been able square the fact of entropy with how living systems have evolved to become more complex and organized.
You can create as much order as you want if you have a source of incoming energy. Creationists will come up with the erroneous simplistic idea that everything should be running down therefore life cannot be created. Ironic as they can only make such a statement because they are living beings with internal order maintained by a flow of energy.
The quote from Wachterhauser is oddly out of context. He originated theories of iron-sulfur based probiotic systems, positing that life originated near hydrothermal vents. This solves the dilution problem the speaker mentions - so why it wasn't given as one of the accepted solutions is hard to reconcile. Wachterhauser originated the "metabolism first" theory of the origin of life (other theories include RNA, or replication, first). He never stated an overall view that entropic forces either disproved or were unaccounted for in either of these models. The thermodynamicsis is in fact meticulously worked out in the literature.
That does not solve the problem when you introduce hydrothermal vents.. First thing is that matter can not come out of thin air.. And secondly non life can not produce life. Life only comes from other life, this is science 101
@Re Rose: in Dr. Lane's book, "The Vital Question", he does give support to Wachterhauser's ideas. In a short presentation like this, he barely can flesh out his ideas as he does in his book. Also, this I found wasn't one of his better lectures. It was more disjointed than usual. But his book is excellent, IMHO. Hope this is helpful. 😃
Thanks for the most interesting talk. Since the physics and the chemistry of the hydro-thermal vent environment are very complex, I may have missed something. If I am correct, the lecturer attempted to explain the synthesis of single-carbon organic molecules (methane, formaldehyde, etc.), but then moved on to the formation of cell-like vesicles bordered by multicarbon fatty acid-like lipids. Is there an idea, how these lipids are produced in the absence of specific proteins (some of them could be membrane-bound) that catalyze the elongation of the carbon chain from one to two, two to three, etc.?
Dr. Nick Lane does an amazing job IMHO in answering your questions (if I understand you correctly) in his most recent book, "The Vital Question". He has an engaging and humorous writing style, and does a good job of covering the pros and cons of different theories of how life got started - much better than can be covered in a brief lecture like this. Hope this is helpful.
Excellent work. Thanks for the video. I love the comments at the end where he feels it nescasary to commend his team as being brave and bold. I wish he had been more blunt. His team is facing a weaponized religion that has $546 trillion at their disposal. His team could use a little bit more support than the 142 thumbs up that this video currently has. Soldier on. Keep up the good work.
Trillions and trillions of natural, Earth crucibles are bound to create life eventually... so many niches.. Not so hard to imagine polymer chains forming regular sheets of molecules that can wrap into a semi-permeable cell... Different molecules form different structures with different sized and shaped holes..... Then you have a trillion squared semi-enclosed environments in semi-enclosed environments.... more crucibles getting more selective...
How could life form during Hadean period when earth's mantle was being liquiidfied repeatedly and its oceans vaporized by immense asteroid impacts over hundreds of millions of years ( 4.3 - 3.8 Billion years ago)? He should of addressed this, since these were the REAL conditions on early Earth.
What Erwin Schrödinger meant in simple terms is all life are machines, where machine is defined as an arrangement of matter capable of utilizing an energy source to effect a low entropy node at the expense of universal entropy. These types of material arrangements of known origin are exclusively products of intelligence as they require information inaccessible to any statistical process ie never by chance.
The most interesting fact about the MATERIALISM of MARXISTS is that in the entire history of its existence, from KARL MARX to XI JIN PING, there has never been even a single leader, who attempted to find MATERIAL solutions to any problem (STEM solutions), but always by actions on society (only possible exception, Che Guevara, being a Doctor doesn't count, as he too left his professional field to look for social solutions to problems). That is why the ideology (though admirable in principle) failed utterly in practice ~ none honoured in practice what the theory says in words: solution to all problems life faces are to be found in proper understanding of how MATTER works and changing the way we act only on nonliving matter (which includes PLANTS, though current definition of life includes them among living beings ~ plants facilitate life function, but are NOT living beings, which MUST be defined as entities capable of perceiving needs and their satisfaction through selecting input from different locations on earth, thus excluding PLANTS, for they neither feel needs and satisfaction, nor move nor select their input) ~ the real MATERIALISM.
We're trying. The issue is that even the most conservative estimates for the window within which life began are 10,000 years. To replicate the chemical evolution of 10,000 years (or more) in the lab is difficult to say the least. As Dr. Lane pointed out, some chemists believe that life may not have even resembled life as we know it today when it first started out, and our definition of what life is is vague. We can create these protocells. We can create self replicating systems. Can we call it life though?
""I think god put it there"" Really? That wrecked this talk for me. An entire, detailed discussion about the origins of life from a scientific viewpoint, and we get an "I don't understand this so God must have done it" comment!
I relistened to it myself when I first heard it, before I even saw your comment. He actually says "I don't think God put it there" although it comes out kind of "I 'on't think God put it there" with his accent. Of course this fits with what he said right before that: "It's certainly, to my eye, a product of genes and natural selection." (20:40)
He was being sarcastic. He frequently makes comments like this in his books, and always, it is evident from the context that he is joking or being sarcastic. He himself is atheist, (but his wife is Catholic!!)
Dr. Lane begins this talk by confessing that he will be taking a biologist's point of view, observing that scientists have a great deal of difficulty climbing out of their disciplines. He then goes on to show how serious this problem is in his own lecture, by concentrating entirely on the material aspects of the origin of life and entirely ignoring the informational (He does briefly point out that Crick called DNA "the code of life" but says no more about this.) There could hardly be a larger omission. After Einstein produced his famous equation linking energy and matter, there remained only one other thing in the universe as a fundamental building block, and that is information, and that of the two information is more basic. Philosophers have known this for millennia. Quantum physicists have more recently discovered it, when they found that at the bottom of the material universe there is no matter, just a "smear of probability". Dr. Lane can speculate as lengthily and cleverly as he likes about things which he repeatedly says are very hard to understand about how the hardware of life came into being. If he has not explained how its information content came into being he has not even begun to touch on the problem of its origins. Every instance of life so far discovered is based on a huge and hugely sophisticated code recorded in a DNA molecule. Transcribed into letters the size of normal type, this code would stretch from the equator to the North pole. Each molecule is surrounded by a hugely sophisticated mechanism for transcribing the information it contains, maintaining its accuracy in replication (one error per occurence!) and just keeping it viable. This is indeed very hard to understand using the standard approaches of science. But there is one extremely obvious way to make sense of it all. I will give you a hint. Nowhere and at no time in the history of the universe has any example been found of a code which was not generated by an intelligent agent.
Schrödinger believed in Vedānta, the conclusions of the Vedas, which explain how life is fundamental and creates observable matter to fulfill desires. The physical body is created by the living entity. Prior to that is a tiered set of increasingly abstract material forms, including the mind, intelligence, ego, and conscience, covering the changeless self. Life creates chemicals and chemistry.
He is good at presenting but I am not convinced by the theories. There is a lot os straw clutching here. 1. How can you base your rule on how life forms from bio-chemistry when there was no 'bio' before life? 2.. How can a catalyst arise from selection if there is nothing to select it? 3. How can enzymes magically appear to make selections of the first cell life? 4. Where did the first cell membrane which is made from lipids come from? I honestly can't believe they are teaching kids stuff like this. It decimates natural science laws. Even if they found every single thing needed for a cell, it still has to be selected and arranged in exactly the right order. There are parts of irreducible complexity in a cell, and they are not explained.
Energy is movement of matter. All energy is (potential) kinetic energy... Gravity, chemical energy are kinetic energy. Transformation of energy is an abstraction... It's transfer of kinetic energy.
purpose? Or - - destiny? Since there is a difference between Hydrogen and Gold, since stars are both collapsing and shining, we could know that entropy is the expression of existence itself.
Try to make a chirally pure ribose in a dirty puddle of water. Our current chemistry gurus can't even dream of doing it. No ribose no nuclaeic acids..... No life as we know it.
NASA's JPL Origins and Habitability Lab recently showed that hydrothermal vents in earth's early ocean chemistry allow for spontaneous creation of iron hydroxide chimneys, and subsequently the spontaneous synthesis of amino acids including peptides. A Zürich team recently showed that peptides in the presence of carbonyl sulphide (volcanic gas) can spontaneously convert to amyloids, which can also self-replicate and drive the synthesis of new amyloids in the same environment. Incredibly resilient and stable, amyloids can become more and more complicated without intervention and drive the synthesis of ribosomes on "risosome" polymers attached to backbone ionized fullerene (abundantly present on earth and in space), and subsequently RNA. Far simpler and stabler than the RNA World Hypothesis chemistry.
Sweet mother of Jesus, this is awesome info, still i think he should use an AI based simulation and extract more natural mechanisms or paths to expedite his research :)
"I think god put it there"....I have to stop at this point and wonder what kind of scientist would demand proof when conducting research, and yet not question the existence of supernatural beings for which there is absolutely no evidence.
I agree. "I don't know how it works, so it must be the action of gods." An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.
God is the only explanation. There is no other option.. Matter can not create itself! A god that is not bound by space or time is able to create matter... Creation itself is the best evidence for a creator It Is not god of the gaps, but admiting to facts choosing the most logical answer is very scientific..
it seems that so many atheists are comfortably ignoring a simple fact: all these experiments are done by highly intelligent scientists with PhDs and sophisticated labs, yet the so called "blind, unintelligent" nature did it without a guiding intelligence and without the highly controlled lab conditions. This is amazing to watch the faith commitment of the abiogenesis/atheist camp. I wonder if you took the time to listen to this renowned chemist giving a strictly technical lecture on the real and not imagined problems with the abiogenesis. The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - 2016 Lectures (with James Tour) th-cam.com/video/_zQXgJ-dXM4/w-d-xo.html
@@ambassador_in_training Blind, unintelligent nature also had billions of years to perform random experiments in a laboratory consisting of the entire universe. (And as far as we know, all of these experiments produced life... once.)
THERE ARE NO THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGINS OF LIFE: ALL are HYPOTHESES. A hypothesis is a [scientific] notion which may, or, may not be true; one which is, as of yet, unproven. A theory is a [scientific] notion which has been proven satisfactorily; that is, where there has not yet been found contradictions.
I guess you are nit-picking and only reject Darwinism not for any rational scientific reasons, but just because it doesn't support the religion you rely on. I would guess some form of christianity. Correct?
Protometabolism replaced by metabolism? He says ribozymes or protein enzymes? There were no enzymes , this is pre-biotic! Please tell me how the ATP synthase came by natural selection as ATP is required to construct the ATP synthase. How did ATP get there if there was no machine to make it? Good grief. Irreducible complexity is another fatal flaw in this. Unless all the parts are there from the start or this baby isn't gonna run. Origin of life is no closer now than when Miller attempted it. And seeing we know much more of the complexity of the simplest cell we are actually farther away. If someone tells you there is a mechanism determined by which natural selection self organized itself to form complex systems from non living material they are lying. If you want to see a honest depiction of the origin of life, watch the most accomplished and cited chemists on the planet. Labelled one of the greatest scientific minds of our time Dr. James Tour "Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University Cru" This seems like a very honest and sincere gentleman in this video and my goal isn't to undermine him but there are fatal flaws wild assumptions in every aspect of his understanding.
He was just stating a fact about the political orientation of the people at the conference, with the inference that they were most probably materialists as well (given the marxist materialist philosophical interpretation of political processes etc). For his lecture, it is important to realise that the people at the conference were materialists - this influenced the flavour of future biological work. Illiterate means unable to read or write - I doubt the Professor is challenged in this regard. Perhaps you mean ignorant ? He certainly is not ignorant!
Nick Sklavos Do we doubt Communism’s emphasis on the material? “Marx himself had talked about the "materialist conception of history", which was later referred to as "historical materialism" by Engels. Engels further explained the "materialist dialectic" in his Dialectics of Nature in 1883. Georgi Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism, later introduced the term "dialectical materialism" to Marxist literature.[8] Joseph Stalin further delineated and defined dialectical and historical materialism as the world outlook of Marxism-Leninism, and as a method to study society and its history.” Deliberately in opposition to Hegelian idealism - Marx/Communism saw events in the human world as determined by material conditions. That what Nick was joking about.
The facts of irreducible complexity in the Microverse, and that everything is fine tuned in the Macroverse, denotes intelligent design. See Stephen C. Meyer, PhD. There are several proponents of ID, but he happens to be the first one I found.
Why would anybody listen to the religious opinions of somebody that has no science qualifications on a topic regarding science? That makes no sense whatsoever. The term "intelligent design" is just a new age hipster catchphrase for "goddunit" and both terms are meaningless in all contexts.
At 8:25 the very scientific term "somehow" characteristic of magical thinking. At 17:13 The catalysts "appeared" or "arose through selection" . Another set of deeply meaningful scientific terms. Then there is that wonderful "Freudian slip" by molecular biologist Ken Miller in his lecture at Case Western (th-cam.com/video/Ohd5uqzlwsU/w-d-xo.html). Shortly after time 51:00, he states,” The 4th thing that really happened on the trial was EVOLUTION was shown to be a religion masquerading as science." He didn't correct himself and no-one else did when he said it or during the Q&A. Sometimes the truth slips out. Maybe we need to consider using some post 1905 thinking. Just because life appeared in the past doesn't mean that is when it came into being. Hint: The math of black hole physics says they can act as a "time machine" for things very small - like bacteria.
Nick Lane is representative of the origin of life scientists "metabolism first". However, he is more specialized on the proton gradient(s) out from hydrothermal vents. I find some serious problem with his mainstream thinking. Let me explain: No doubt hydrogen vents are indeed producers of organic molecules and may be important for creating the environment suitable for life, BUT his theory cannot explain how Darwinian evolution began. This is the major question in origin of life HOW DARWINIAN EVOLUTION BEGUN? not how metabolism began. Without Darwinian evolutiion NOTHING can evolve more than few amino-acids or few nucleotides arranged by chance. Sorry, Nik but in that case, I see scientist which is trying to defend its territory and to look important.
Life is everything you can see and what you can see. for me God is only human creation. The truth is the creator of the life is unbelievable no human brain can discover how the source of life began we need to be a true human being 💯 light this is the beginning of the life light from dark matter....
They are trying to answer maybe the biggest question there is in a scientific way ... I get the feeling you don't want to hear the answer. But without curiosity and thus science we would still be hunter gatherers, forever (until the sun blew up). Probably not even hunter gatherers, just monkeys. Or maybe just rat-like creatures. But even they might have had some curiosity in them or we wouldn't have been here now.
The Torah is speaks to our future , the Bible about the present and the Quran about our past ..they encoded our books a bit backwards ,not sure the agenda but I believe so that we can reincarnate or oblivion ...anyway Quran says that we come from water, the Torah from dust , we are both ..also the Quran says we are similar to monkeys and pigs and science confirms , in DNA and actions even ..the Torah might be reversible I believe also so to gain a better understanding , the same with the Quran ...maybe codes are our creators and maybe codes are eternal somehow just like quantum fluctuations , they come up with all these names and theories and cannot see their face value , right on our faces perhaps the secret has been..and I think they did it to expose Karma or Karmic biology
Another Darwinian flim-flam. The most important thing about "the origin of life" is information and intelligence which is not a property of energy or matter or chemistry or any particular natural atomic or molecular ordering .
Darwin had no claim to knowledge on the origin of life, but somehow you do. Why sould anyone believe the scientific claims of someone so profoundly ignorant of basic, established science? Answer: they shouldn't.
Instead o, "Energy and Matter at the Origin of Life" as a title for your talk, how about "Energy, Matter, and GOD, at the Origin of Life"? Are you "scientists" so arrogant, that you resist including an awesome being as the one that called life into being? Your talk begins with matter, elements that no one has suggested where they come from.
Every now and then you get one of these lectures that grips you with possibilities and data that remind you why you got interested in stuff in the first place. The approach to the questions surrounding abiogenesis, as chemistry anybody can understand, is delivered so well despite the quiet hypnotic voice. Gresham has not delivered a more captivating speaker since Caroline Crawford. This is my first in this series and he is in the running to take Crawfords crown if he keeps this up! I too thank him and his team for the graft to get here.
I just want to comment in regards to Dr. Lane's statements about cyanide and UV radiation. He said that he understands the presence of cyanide and high energy radiation as destructive forces for life, and they are. The issue is we aren't dealing with life when we talk about prebiotic chemistry. Cyanide has a strong presence in interstellar media, and has multiple reactive pathways to form nucleic acid precursors like acetonitrile. High energy radiation may play a part in that, because it can radicalize organic molecules, initiating polymerization (e.g. methane and methanol can be radicalized by gamma radiation). I understand that he's a biologist, so those possibilities aren't really on his radar, and it just serves to confirm what he said about the interdisciplinary nature of the problem of the Origin of Life. I appreciate the presentation a lot.
I think, this is what scientific exchange is all about. Just like families...
5 years since your comment and the origin of life is even further from being solved, possibly because chemical elements and organic compounds are dead and cannot be animated with electricity. Have you listened to organic chemist Dr James Tour, (millions of citations) who states quite clearly why abiogenesis is impossible and why he believes life could not evolve through chemistry on an early Earth?
Nick Lane should be held as an example for other research scientists wanting to do a proper general audience lecture.
His books are extremely interesting especially for a non scientist like me.
This is a lecture I’ve wanted to hear for years. Never been able square the fact of entropy with how living systems have evolved to become more complex and organized.
You can create as much order as you want if you have a source of incoming energy. Creationists will come up with the erroneous simplistic idea that everything should be running down therefore life cannot be created. Ironic as they can only make such a statement because they are living beings with internal order maintained by a flow of energy.
Spectacular work on complex structures. The molecular tip of infinity.
🎯Nick lane is one of my 2019 top-10 favorite Scientists !
Undersea vents, alimentary canals - very similar. Great video
The quote from Wachterhauser is oddly out of context. He originated theories of iron-sulfur based probiotic systems, positing that life originated near hydrothermal vents. This solves the dilution problem the speaker mentions - so why it wasn't given as one of the accepted solutions is hard to reconcile. Wachterhauser originated the "metabolism first" theory of the origin of life (other theories include RNA, or replication, first). He never stated an overall view that entropic forces either disproved or were unaccounted for in either of these models. The thermodynamicsis is in fact meticulously worked out in the literature.
That does not solve the problem when you introduce hydrothermal vents.. First thing is that matter can not come out of thin air.. And secondly non life can not produce life. Life only comes from other life, this is science 101
@Re Rose: in Dr. Lane's book, "The Vital Question", he does give support to Wachterhauser's ideas. In a short presentation like this, he barely can flesh out his ideas as he does in his book. Also, this I found wasn't one of his better lectures. It was more disjointed than usual. But his book is excellent, IMHO. Hope this is helpful. 😃
Why does maximum, interesting science, get minimum funding.., obvious fear of necessary/expensive change.
Excellent lecture, "where it's at"..
Thanks for the most interesting talk. Since the physics and the chemistry of the hydro-thermal vent environment are very complex, I may have missed something. If I am correct, the lecturer attempted to explain the synthesis of single-carbon organic molecules (methane, formaldehyde, etc.), but then moved on to the formation of cell-like vesicles bordered by multicarbon fatty acid-like lipids. Is there an idea, how these lipids are produced in the absence of specific proteins (some of them could be membrane-bound) that catalyze the elongation of the carbon chain from one to two, two to three, etc.?
Dr. Nick Lane does an amazing job IMHO in answering your questions (if I understand you correctly) in his most recent book, "The Vital Question". He has an engaging and humorous writing style, and does a good job of covering the pros and cons of different theories of how life got started - much better than can be covered in a brief lecture like this. Hope this is helpful.
Outstanding stuff, thank you!
Wow, exciting stuff. Thank you.
I can remember the teacher saying in grade 3;
"Life can only come from life."
So at least we know A clay doll didnt turn into a man
Excellent work. Thanks for the video.
I love the comments at the end where he feels it nescasary to commend his team as being brave and bold.
I wish he had been more blunt. His team is facing a weaponized religion that has $546 trillion at their disposal.
His team could use a little bit more support than the 142 thumbs up that this video currently has.
Soldier on. Keep up the good work.
Trillions and trillions of natural, Earth crucibles are bound to create life eventually... so many niches.. Not so hard to imagine polymer chains forming regular sheets of molecules that can wrap into a semi-permeable cell... Different molecules form different structures with different sized and shaped holes..... Then you have a trillion squared semi-enclosed environments in semi-enclosed environments.... more crucibles getting more selective...
“God did it and ran away” satisfies only the incurious and the lazy.
Interesting Lectures as always. :)
How could life form during Hadean period when earth's mantle was being liquiidfied repeatedly and its oceans vaporized by immense asteroid impacts over hundreds of millions of years ( 4.3 - 3.8 Billion years ago)? He should of addressed this, since these were the REAL conditions on early Earth.
What Erwin Schrödinger meant in simple terms is all life are machines,
where machine is defined as an arrangement of matter capable of utilizing an energy source to effect a low entropy node at the expense of universal entropy.
These types of material arrangements of known origin are exclusively products of intelligence as they require information inaccessible to any statistical process ie never by chance.
The most interesting fact about the MATERIALISM of MARXISTS is that in the entire history of its existence, from KARL MARX to XI JIN PING, there has never been even a single leader, who attempted to find MATERIAL solutions to any problem (STEM solutions), but always by actions on society (only possible exception, Che Guevara, being a Doctor doesn't count, as he too left his professional field to look for social solutions to problems).
That is why the ideology (though admirable in principle) failed utterly in practice ~ none honoured in practice what the theory says in words: solution to all problems life faces are to be found in proper understanding of how MATTER works and changing the way we act only on nonliving matter (which includes PLANTS, though current definition of life includes them among living beings ~ plants facilitate life function, but are NOT living beings, which MUST be defined as entities capable of perceiving needs and their satisfaction through selecting input from different locations on earth, thus excluding PLANTS, for they neither feel needs and satisfaction, nor move nor select their input) ~ the real MATERIALISM.
Life can only come from life. The complexity of life is beyond understanding of anybody. Life is miraculous
Life relieves stress for the matter thats interlocked into mass you got to remember matter had to get that way in the first plsce
Why don't they just make a copy of the simplist living cell from chemicals?
michael thompson brilliant, I bet they do now!!!
Simplest?
We're trying. The issue is that even the most conservative estimates for the window within which life began are 10,000 years. To replicate the chemical evolution of 10,000 years (or more) in the lab is difficult to say the least. As Dr. Lane pointed out, some chemists believe that life may not have even resembled life as we know it today when it first started out, and our definition of what life is is vague. We can create these protocells. We can create self replicating systems. Can we call it life though?
It's a secret ingredient from molten lava rock genes to us. A four billion year brew.
""I think god put it there""
Really? That wrecked this talk for me. An entire, detailed discussion about the origins of life from a scientific viewpoint, and we get an "I don't understand this so God must have done it" comment!
I relistened to it myself when I first heard it, before I even saw your comment. He actually says "I don't think God put it there" although it comes out kind of "I 'on't think God put it there" with his accent. Of course this fits with what he said right before that: "It's certainly, to my eye, a product of genes and natural selection." (20:40)
Definitely said “I don’t think god put it there”
He was being sarcastic. He frequently makes comments like this in his books, and always, it is evident from the context that he is joking or being sarcastic. He himself is atheist, (but his wife is Catholic!!)
Dr. Lane begins this talk by confessing that he will be taking a biologist's point of view, observing that scientists have a great deal of difficulty climbing out of their disciplines.
He then goes on to show how serious this problem is in his own lecture, by concentrating entirely on the material aspects of the origin of life and entirely ignoring the informational (He does briefly point out that Crick called DNA "the code of life" but says no more about this.) There could hardly be a larger omission.
After Einstein produced his famous equation linking energy and matter, there remained only one other thing in the universe as a fundamental building block, and that is information, and that of the two information is more basic. Philosophers have known this for millennia. Quantum physicists have more recently discovered it, when they found that at the bottom of the material universe there is no matter, just a "smear of probability".
Dr. Lane can speculate as lengthily and cleverly as he likes about things which he repeatedly says are very hard to understand about how the hardware of life came into being. If he has not explained how its information content came into being he has not even begun to touch on the problem of its origins.
Every instance of life so far discovered is based on a huge and hugely sophisticated code recorded in a DNA molecule. Transcribed into letters the size of normal type, this code would stretch from the equator to the North pole. Each molecule is surrounded by a hugely sophisticated mechanism for transcribing the information it contains, maintaining its accuracy in replication (one error per occurence!) and just keeping it viable.
This is indeed very hard to understand using the standard approaches of science. But there is one extremely obvious way to make sense of it all. I will give you a hint. Nowhere and at no time in the history of the universe has any example been found of a code which was not generated by an intelligent agent.
Schrödinger believed in Vedānta, the conclusions of the Vedas, which explain how life is fundamental and creates observable matter to fulfill desires. The physical body is created by the living entity. Prior to that is a tiered set of increasingly abstract material forms, including the mind, intelligence, ego, and conscience, covering the changeless self. Life creates chemicals and chemistry.
He is good at presenting but I am not convinced by the theories. There is a lot os straw clutching here.
1. How can you base your rule on how life forms from bio-chemistry when there was no 'bio' before life?
2.. How can a catalyst arise from selection if there is nothing to select it?
3. How can enzymes magically appear to make selections of the first cell life?
4. Where did the first cell membrane which is made from lipids come from?
I honestly can't believe they are teaching kids stuff like this. It decimates natural science laws. Even if they found every single thing needed for a cell, it still has to be selected and arranged in exactly the right order. There are parts of irreducible complexity in a cell, and they are not explained.
Energy is movement of matter. All energy is (potential) kinetic energy... Gravity, chemical energy are kinetic energy. Transformation of energy is an abstraction... It's transfer of kinetic energy.
top primary purpose of life is to go against anthropy
purpose? Or - - destiny? Since there is a difference between Hydrogen and Gold, since stars are both collapsing and shining, we could know that entropy is the expression of existence itself.
"...maybe it was a frozen soup.". 🤣
Try to make a chirally pure ribose in a dirty puddle of water. Our current chemistry gurus can't even dream of doing it. No ribose no nuclaeic acids..... No life as we know it.
NASA's JPL Origins and Habitability Lab recently showed that hydrothermal vents in earth's early ocean chemistry allow for spontaneous creation of iron hydroxide chimneys, and subsequently the spontaneous synthesis of amino acids including peptides. A Zürich team recently showed that peptides in the presence of carbonyl sulphide (volcanic gas) can spontaneously convert to amyloids, which can also self-replicate and drive the synthesis of new amyloids in the same environment. Incredibly resilient and stable, amyloids can become more and more complicated without intervention and drive the synthesis of ribosomes on "risosome" polymers attached to backbone ionized fullerene (abundantly present on earth and in space), and subsequently RNA. Far simpler and stabler than the RNA World Hypothesis chemistry.
24:40
Sweet mother of Jesus, this is awesome info, still i think he should use an AI based simulation and extract more natural mechanisms or paths to expedite his research :)
"I think god put it there"....I have to stop at this point and wonder what kind of scientist would demand proof when conducting research, and yet not question the existence of supernatural beings for which there is absolutely no evidence.
I agree. "I don't know how it works, so it must be the action of gods." An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.
God is the only explanation. There is no other option.. Matter can not create itself! A god that is not bound by space or time is able to create matter...
Creation itself is the best evidence for a creator
It Is not god of the gaps, but admiting to facts choosing the most logical answer is very scientific..
it seems that so many atheists are comfortably ignoring a simple fact: all these experiments are done by highly intelligent scientists with PhDs and sophisticated labs, yet the so called "blind, unintelligent" nature did it without a guiding intelligence and without the highly controlled lab conditions. This is amazing to watch the faith commitment of the abiogenesis/atheist camp.
I wonder if you took the time to listen to this renowned chemist giving a strictly technical lecture on the real and not imagined problems with the abiogenesis.
The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - 2016 Lectures (with James Tour)
th-cam.com/video/_zQXgJ-dXM4/w-d-xo.html
@@ambassador_in_training Blind, unintelligent nature also had billions of years to perform random experiments in a laboratory consisting of the entire universe. (And as far as we know, all of these experiments produced life... once.)
He actually says "I don't think God put it there" if you listen closely -- with his accent the d is almost silent. (20:45)
THERE ARE NO THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGINS OF LIFE: ALL are HYPOTHESES. A hypothesis is a [scientific] notion which may, or, may not be true; one which is, as of yet, unproven. A theory is a [scientific] notion which has been proven satisfactorily; that is, where there has not yet been found contradictions.
I guess you are nit-picking and only reject Darwinism not for any rational scientific reasons, but just because it doesn't support the religion you rely on. I would guess some form of christianity. Correct?
Protometabolism replaced by metabolism? He says ribozymes or protein enzymes? There were no enzymes , this is pre-biotic! Please tell me how the ATP synthase came by natural selection as ATP is required to construct the ATP synthase. How did ATP get there if there was no machine to make it? Good grief. Irreducible complexity is another fatal flaw in this. Unless all the parts are there from the start or this baby isn't gonna run. Origin of life is no closer now than when Miller attempted it. And seeing we know much more of the complexity of the simplest cell we are actually farther away. If someone tells you there is a mechanism determined by which natural selection self organized itself to form complex systems from non living material they are lying. If you want to see a honest depiction of the origin of life, watch the most accomplished and cited chemists on the planet. Labelled one of the greatest scientific minds of our time Dr. James Tour "Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University Cru" This seems like a very honest and sincere gentleman in this video and my goal isn't to undermine him but there are fatal flaws wild assumptions in every aspect of his understanding.
The view of Communists as not being allowed to have nice things is very childish
What is your point?
At 22:10, was a very illiterate comment about communism, and very sad that he showed that.
He was just stating a fact about the political orientation of the people at the conference, with the inference that they were most probably materialists as well (given the marxist materialist philosophical interpretation of political processes etc). For his lecture, it is important to realise that the people at the conference were materialists - this influenced the flavour of future biological work. Illiterate means unable to read or write - I doubt the Professor is challenged in this regard. Perhaps you mean ignorant ? He certainly is not ignorant!
Nick Sklavos Do we doubt Communism’s emphasis on the material? “Marx himself had talked about the "materialist conception of history", which was later referred to as "historical materialism" by Engels. Engels further explained the "materialist dialectic" in his Dialectics of Nature in 1883. Georgi Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism, later introduced the term "dialectical materialism" to Marxist literature.[8] Joseph Stalin further delineated and defined dialectical and historical materialism as the world outlook of Marxism-Leninism, and as a method to study society and its history.” Deliberately in opposition to Hegelian idealism - Marx/Communism saw events in the human world as determined by material conditions. That what Nick was joking about.
The facts of irreducible complexity in the Microverse, and that everything is fine tuned in the Macroverse, denotes intelligent design.
See Stephen C. Meyer, PhD. There are several proponents of ID, but he happens to be the first one I found.
Why would anybody listen to the religious opinions of somebody that has no science qualifications on a topic regarding science? That makes no sense whatsoever. The term "intelligent design" is just a new age hipster catchphrase for "goddunit" and both terms are meaningless in all contexts.
Nothing can come from nothing. The Greeks beat that dead horse til they ran out of whips.
At 8:25 the very scientific term "somehow" characteristic of magical thinking.
At 17:13 The catalysts "appeared" or "arose through selection" . Another set of deeply meaningful scientific terms.
Then there is that wonderful "Freudian slip" by molecular biologist Ken Miller in his lecture at Case Western (th-cam.com/video/Ohd5uqzlwsU/w-d-xo.html). Shortly after time 51:00, he states,” The 4th thing that really happened on the trial was EVOLUTION was shown to be a religion masquerading as science." He didn't correct himself and no-one else did when he said it or during the Q&A. Sometimes the truth slips out. Maybe we need to consider using some post 1905 thinking. Just because life appeared in the past doesn't mean that is when it came into being. Hint: The math of black hole physics says they can act as a "time machine" for things very small - like bacteria.
God created man.
No life - no universe.
Think about it !
Nick Lane is representative of the origin of life scientists "metabolism first". However, he is more specialized on the proton gradient(s) out from hydrothermal vents. I find some serious problem with his mainstream thinking. Let me explain: No doubt hydrogen vents are indeed producers of organic molecules and may be important for creating the environment suitable for life, BUT his theory cannot explain how Darwinian evolution began. This is the major question in origin of life HOW DARWINIAN EVOLUTION BEGUN? not how metabolism began.
Without Darwinian evolutiion NOTHING can evolve more than few amino-acids or few nucleotides arranged by chance.
Sorry, Nik but in that case, I see scientist which is trying to defend its territory and to look important.
What is life?
Baby don't hurt me ...
Life is everything you can see and what you can see. for me God is only human creation. The truth is the creator of the life is unbelievable no human brain can discover how the source of life began we need to be a true human being 💯 light this is the beginning of the life light from dark matter....
Still no closer to animating the inanimate than Marry Shelley ever got. A waist of time and resources.
They are trying to answer maybe the biggest question there is in a scientific way ... I get the feeling you don't want to hear the answer. But without curiosity and thus science we would still be hunter gatherers, forever (until the sun blew up). Probably not even hunter gatherers, just monkeys. Or maybe just rat-like creatures. But even they might have had some curiosity in them or we wouldn't have been here now.
You cannot even SPELL the word 'waste"
@ Cameron, you are Frankenstein's creature and I claim my free pizza!
perhaps you mean Mary Shelly ? Mary did not marry Shelley , they just lived together.
The Torah is speaks to our future , the Bible about the present and the Quran about our past ..they encoded our books a bit backwards ,not sure the agenda but I believe so that we can reincarnate or oblivion ...anyway Quran says that we come from water, the Torah from dust , we are both ..also the Quran says we are similar to monkeys and pigs and science confirms , in DNA and actions even ..the Torah might be reversible I believe also so to gain a better understanding , the same with the Quran ...maybe codes are our creators and maybe codes are eternal somehow just like quantum fluctuations , they come up with all these names and theories and cannot see their face value , right on our faces perhaps the secret has been..and I think they did it to expose Karma or Karmic biology
bullshit
Abel Chavez ......and for 4 million years before that nobody knew it ! Who invented the pencil? Great guy!
Another Darwinian flim-flam. The most important thing about "the origin of life" is information and intelligence which is not a property of energy or matter or chemistry or any particular natural atomic or molecular ordering .
You just made a big claim with no reasoning or evidence at all to back it up. And you are not even ashamed to sound so arrogant?
Darwin had no claim to knowledge on the origin of life, but somehow you do. Why sould anyone believe the scientific claims of someone so profoundly ignorant of basic, established science?
Answer: they shouldn't.
@@astrophonixHe is right though the things that you are suggesting are pure fiction. Where is the proof for any of these theories?
Instead o, "Energy and Matter at the Origin of Life" as a title for your talk, how about "Energy, Matter, and GOD, at the Origin of Life"? Are you "scientists" so arrogant, that you resist including an awesome being as the one that called life into being? Your talk begins with matter, elements that no one has suggested where they come from.
Such nonsense, pure garbage.