If this guy knows how life originated by accident, why doesn't he prove it by building a life form himself on purpose? I'm sure we can supply him with "heating", cooling, wave action" and all the "building blocks" he wants. When he does, I'm sure we'll be all ears.
@danmcc22 I bet this guy also knows how lighting originates by accident, and until he produces an artificial lightning cloud I am going to carry on believing Zeus does it.
@bradkey98765 Strange that you picked lightning. If this guy knows how lightning works then maybe he can explain that while he's at it, because last time I looked, it seems we don't really know how lightning works either.
Can science show evidence that life "arose" instead of "arrived" on Earth by showing an assumptive position of possibility of how it may have arose?
*Not when the possibility that life could have "arrived".
*Not when the stance in this video bases its concept that all life arises by purely naturalistic means, when we are starting to show that life CAN be designed by living beings.
and...
*Not when we find precursors to life all throughout the cosmos that could have arrived instead of arose.
Scientists are closer to creating purely artificial life through synthetic means and have something "living" come from something non-living by synthetic, designed processes to show that something 'living' can come from abiotic phenomena (non-living substance). This is a step closer to showing abiogenesis on a synthetic level. There is actually evidence to more steps in the synthetic process than outlined in the process of this video in the form of material produced in the lab, shown as evidence.
It's funny how evidence just won't go away when it contradicts a biased belief. When evidence shows, "other possibilities" then the assumptions that are made before the evidence came about are soon turned into unsubstantiated assumption and the assumption that life arose on this planet by purely naturalistic means is unsubstantiated because of the evidence that synthetically originated life is a possibility in origins and man himself has shown that such a concept is possible.
IF there is evidence of synthetic biology and there is evidence that man can venture into the cosmos, then the concept of abiogenesis based on completely 'naturalistic' means can be effectively falsified because there would be other possibilities for life in the cosmos other than the concept of purely naturalistic means! So to state that, "life on this planet is a result of completely naturalistic means" is no longer a valid argument and the other possibility must be acknowledged!
Chemists have taken an important step in making artificial life forms from scratch, creating self-assembling cell membranes, the structural envelopes that contain and support the reactions required for life and make a living organism from non-living molecules. “The reaction itself is completely artificial. There’s no biological equivalent of this chemical reaction. This is how you could have a de novo formation of membranes.". Google - Chemists create artificial cell membrane
Even though such research as described in this video has not led to the abiotic formation of a single functional protein, much less a living cell. Its entertaining to watch people defend such a concept whole-heartedly in such a fashion that they truely believe they have 'evidence' beyond any other reason when all this video shows is possibility and not theory. Some people are just too funny in what they will "believe" when the scientific community doesn't even accept this concept as theory. ;-)
@XGralgrathor it is a theory. Yes you can test but, it is still a theory. And, I won't cry. Only God creates life. Life has never and, will never be created in the lab.
@pmedic063252, "Only God creates life. Life has never and, will never be created in the lab."
Au contraire, mon frère, life has been created in the lab firstly by in-vitro fertilization and secondly artificial life is being created synthetically in the lab.
You are in a scientific community talking about evidence in which you bring no evidence to the table of your supposed God creating life.
Think about it: the alternative to having an explanation is *not* having an explanation. You are proposing that we go through life without having explanations. That is not reasonable.
@cdk007 Error in the video at beginning. Abiogenesis is related to evolution in that abiogenesis is the fundamental basis of completely naturalistic evolution. The only way it is not related is at the point concerning the environmental system by which self replicating molecules are produced. But whatever was produced would have had to be able to change and adapt and last long enough through natural selection to eventually become all life that is today.
"abiogenesis is the fundamental basis of completely naturalistic evolution"
Wrong. If the first lifeforms had been planted on Earth by pixies, with properties more or less as we know them to have been, "completely naturalistic evolution" would still have followed.
Abiogenesis depends on evolution (the possibilities of abiogenesis are limited to what we can tell about the earliest lifeforms through evolutionary theory), not the other way around.
@MrGralgrathor I just don't understand how you can think that... you must be misunderstanding me. I swear... I have discussions on reddit and usually I'm the wrong one, but I argue on youtube and it's with people who have such skewed perceptions of reality.
@MrGralgrathor ok I know how to explain it so you will understand what I am saying. If evolution of life came about on Earth in a completely naturalistic way as most scientists believe (or at least what is expressed by the majority), then abiogenesis is the precursor to the evolutionary process. Get it? And if it ends up being 100% impossible for any combination of molecules to become self replicating by the natural laws of physics, then God or some other dimensional being must ha
@DisforDubby Good luck ever being able to show that molecules operating in 3 dimensions and subject to very strong electromagnetic forces could not ever become self-replicating. The claim you allude to came from a dishonest nitwit who calculated the odds of nucleotides randomly piecing together to form replicating chains, thinking in one dimension and taking no account of the molecules' characteristics or their environment. It's an entirely baseless claim.
@JustinMShaw Dude... that was my point. I dont think abiogenesis is actually possible. It is the weakness of the theory of evolution. Every time I post a comment, someone responds to what I say as if I was saying the opposite of what I was actually saying.
@XGralgrathor No... the whole theory of evolution is based upon abiogenesis. If it turned out that there was no natural way for molecules to replicate (in a significantly sustainable way) then life could have never arose from non-living matter. Abiogenesis would have to be the very beginning of evolution.
Nope. The theory of evolution takes as its premise that cellular replicators exist, that transmit some of their properties to their offspring in replication. Whether those replicators result from magic or natural processes doesn't matter to evolutionary theory: the model will still be a valid explanation of our observations in biology and palaeontology.
@XGralgrathor I know what you are saying but I am speaking in the grand scheme of things regarding the propagation of life in it's entirety. The fact that thing's evolve may be largely separate from abiogenesis, but evolution without deity has it's basis in the possibility of lifeless matter to become able to replicate. They are far apart, yes, but abiogenesis is a dependent of evolution. Molecular physics is a dependent of abiogenesis, etc. All systems have similar roots.
The response remains the same in *any* "scheme of things", grand or tiny: evolutionary theory does *not* depend on abiogenesis. The reverse is true, however: abiogenesis *does* depend on evolutionary theory.
But life demonstrably exists, and moreover, demonstrably has the properties I outlined earlier. And that is the self-evidently true premise on which evolutionary theory is based. It does not require that we know how life first came about in order to be a valid explanation.
Evolution is BASED on the premise that ALL life originated from purely naturalistic means and leaves no room for anything else in its concept! When scientists are showing that life can be synthetically made, Evolution Theory has to reevaluated the stance it takes on the claim that ALL life arises from purely naturalistic means and so far, I find many biased people that won't even entertain any other possibility besides naturalistic origins by ignoring the evidence to the contrary
I'm guessing that, "ignoring evidence" that shoots down a concept is the usual modus operandi when dealing with Evolution, right? You only accept the evidence that supports your stance and simply "ignore" any lab evidence to the contrary? Real good stance you guys use in showing Theory by the scientific methods haha What should we do with those who simply deny evidence that doesn't fit their biased stance?
@nooneeagle Science acknowledges all sorts of possibilities, and having aliens involved in some part of our history is a longtime favorite for speculation among many people, some scientists included. But there's a huge difference between allowing for speculation and presenting as an equally viable alternative. The only 'evidence' I've seen you give for genetic engineers having started life on Earth is the fact that we're trying to do so and coming very close. That's very flimsy.
@JustinMShaw You claim that I am speculating, when all I am doing is showing concept. Its not debated that man can manipulate the genome through science. If the concept that evolution can be changed through anything other than naturalistic means and that man can show the same concept in synthetic biology then this concept is evidence against the idea depicted in this video, that life MUST have arose by purely naturalistic means, so there IS the possibility that life arrived instead.
Actually, it's this video that is 'speculative' in unsubstantiated speculation and relies on 'popularity' over science to "PROVE" its point which is really unscientific in reason.
@nooneeagle This video does not assume that what it shows is what happened (read the video description), nor does it claim proof. It merely shows that life could have arisen by natural means, dispelling claims that such an origin is impossible. If you want the 'aliens created us' idea to get equal representation then find and publish some evidence of aliens, and EXPLAIN THEIR ORIGIN. Our molecular biologists are not aliens.
@nooneeagle Besides the fact that the central issue of this video is the origin of life. If it was assembled on Earth by other life then it's not the origin, it's just one life form manufacturing another. We would then wonder where that life form came from, and unlike ourselves where we have a little evidence, with speculated aliens we have absolutely zero evidence. You would then be left with wild (and very entertaining) speculation. People like that, but it's not science.
@JustinMShaw You MISS the point I make. Many people here are trying to make it look like the model depicted in this video IS definitively the reason for life on Earth and argue that there is so much evidence that this stance stands to reason as being the reason for life on Earth and that just is NOT the truth! We can show that the concept of synthetic biology is possible so that possibility cannot be left out of the mix! No one really knows where or how life originated.
If you have 'evidence' that life did originate on Earth, then that would back up the stance of this video but no one has such 'evidence' so life may have very well 'arrive' here on this planet by some means (I do not state my 'assumption' on how the life arrived here) I state that evidence shows that the concept of 'origins' is NOT held to just naturalistic means only and this evidence shows that you can NOT claim that life arose on Earth by purely naturalistic means.
I do not assume that life 'arrived' on this planet but I don't ignore the possibility neither do I ignore the possibility that life may have 'arose' here, as this video states but I don't make the assumption that it did, as many do because there are other viable possibilities and by saying 'possibilities' I mean that evidence shows that other possibilities are there besides just the stance taken in this video and by our own science, we can show 'concept' to these possibilities.
If you ignore ANY evidence in science, then you are left with a biased view and an incomplete picture of what the truth may be. Let me explain: If I have 100 pennies and one dime in my hand and most people just see a bunch of pennies, most will make the assumption that I only have pennies in my hand but having evidence that there are more coins than just pennies, then the possibility that I may have something other than pennies in my hand makes any assumption speculative.
@nooneeagle Who cares, "where the pennies came from"? The pennies are there and so is the dime but to claim that the pennies created themselves is speculative.
@JustinMShaw, "People like that, but it's not science."
I am using evidence to show that “ignoring” any other ‘possibility’, that can falsify the hypothesis depicted in this video, shows flaw to your scientific reasoning. That IS science and by people consciously IGNORING such evidence is the flawed way of your "biased" scientific method. You can't selectively ignore evidence to show your point as being true by popularity. That is not science, maybe it's yours, but not mine.
@JustinMShaw I'm just showing ALL the possibilities and you are making the assumptions. Like I said, I don't make assumptions (as many do here in trying to prove their points of view) I use evidence to show ALL possibilities and by you ignoring some of the possibilities, your 'assumptions' become unsubstantiated assumptions!
@DisforDubby "abiogenesis is the fundamental basis of completely naturalistic evolution." Good luck showing evidence of such as the sole reason for life on this planet! The possibility still exists that life may have originated elsewhere in the cosmos and found its way here and there will never be a way to positivly show that life originated here on Earth by purely naturalistic means as long as we can show that we can create life synthetically and travel into space; this show other possibilities
@nooneeagle No, I was replying to the maker of the video as I understand him and most other people to believe that life originated on this planet by completely naturalistic means... I personally believe in God and think there is more to what's going on than science says. This is why I hate YT comments
I've actually read some Dr. Szostak's work, the man is brilliant.
Reading some of it before I took biochemistry really made me think about the way we think of things as spontaneous, when the environment can dramatically alter the activation energies and free energy of a system.
Then to put it so well in this video really made it come together nicely.
DNA nanotechnology and DNA computing are a couple of interests of mine. I often talk of 'design' in the evolutionary fields and often get a lot of ridicule over the word 'design'! If you want to dive into the magnificent world of cutting edge biological computing, you will soon find yourself surrounded by the word design. If you want to get a gist of my train of thought, you can go to wiki and enter the above DNA nano... and DNA compu.. descriptors and find a brief description of this new world.
DNA nanostructures must be rationally designed so that the individual nucleic acid strands will assemble into the desired structures. This process begins with the specification of a desired target structure or functionality. Then, the overall secondary structure of the target molecule is determined, specifying the arrangement of nucleic acid strands within the structure, and which portions of those strands should be bound to each other. The last step is the primary structure design.
Right about now, someone is going to claim that DNA computing and Evolution are two different things and I understand this difference but once you start to understand the 'logic' behind the computational side of using DNA in computing, you soon find that these logical systems and functions never self-assemble or evolve (except for mutations that might corrupt data and render the program useless) and you will never find a self-creating code in such a discipline. There is one exception
Algorithmic self-assembly: This shows that computation can be incorporated into the assembly of DNA arrays, increasing its scope beyond simple periodic arrays. DNA tiles can be "designed" to contain multiple sticky ends with sequences chosen so that they act as Wang tiles. A DX array has been demonstrated whose assembly encodes an XOR operation; this allows the DNA array to implement a cellular automaton which generates a fractal called the Sierpinski gasket.
So, when I often 'ask' for proof of "self-creation" and for you to 'show your work in logical terms' such evidence of self-creation just doesn't exist in logical terms and is a contradictory argument in concept as described in this video. IF you can describe such logistics in terms of funtions and processes, then you will be famous and the computing world will "evolve" so to speak but as of yet such a concept has been shown to be a null and void, contradictory fantasy. Sorry...
Look up self-replicating RNA ribozymes. RNA is not only a molecule that can pass on traits, it can also fold over on itself into complex tertiary structures that behave like protein/enzyme catalysts. So it's thought that these folded RNA structures could work symbiotically like a polymerase enzyme to replicate another RNA which held all the main genetic traits
(for example, short-chain hammerhead ribozymes can self-cleave)
This is exactly the 'assumption' without evidence that I speak of. I don't live in a world of assumption like many people do, I live in a world of possibilities and the possibility is there but possibility isn't evidence and neither is 'assumption'!
@nooneeagle Because it is impossible to go back in time and see exactly how life started on Earth, showing that it is possible for either life or the building blocks of life to develop is enough to allow a person to reasonably assume that, at the very least, life has a natural basis (rather than a supernatural one driven by "design").
@BenkaiDebussy "showing that it is possible for either life or the building blocks of life to develop is enough to allow a person to reasonably assume that, at the very least, life has a natural basis "
Well said. Exactly. All we need to show that is that it could have happened. We may never know the exact method, although I think we will one day!
And there will still be no evidence found for any gods!
@BenkaiDebussy I agree, that it is a possibility but that is all it is and to assume such, is a false assumption. I do not believe in a concept of - a supernatural entity - but mans advancement in science shows that I could assume that other advanced, living, scientific beings can design life and create life and the evidence of our own ability to do so shows evidence of concept to such, so to assume purely natural causes for life on this planet is not a true stance by any means.
If you have two possibilities for the origins of life and both have evidence of concept, then to assume that one or the other is true, is false, because if you claim one is true over the other then how do you explain the evidence that points at the other possibility? So to make assumptions about something in our past that has no direct evidence is false assumption and all you can do is show the possibilities and state that either may be possible by way of evidence of concept or PoP.
If you don't comprehend then let me explain. The 'concept' of design has evidence that advanced, scientific, living beings can and will manipulate the genome by design, we call it, genetic engineering! The same can be said of synthetic biology, we can show concept that man, through science, will synthetically create new life through design. This "concept" is backed by evidence so you can't "assume" that "ALL" life is of purely, natural origins!
The concept of purely naturalistic origins came over 150 years ago when man thought that all things either came from the concept of a supernatural entity or only one other possibility, that of natural origins and the concept did NOT entertain the possibility that man, through science could achieve this same feat. But now we know that "intelligence" can and will so you cannot just leave this possibility out of the equation anymore since there is evidence backing such a possibility.
@nooneeagle Take a closer look at the history of ID. It's not based on new evidence. It's based on a closet political movement and part of the idiot culture war that right-wingers in the U.S. have been fighting and losing for more than a generation. The people behind the ID and 'evolution is impossible' claims have put a hold on their traditional attempts to prevent interracial marriage. And they're losing this battle too. It's not easy to win when truth is the enemy.
@JustinMShaw I'm aware of ID and it's flaws. ID relies on the belief in a supernatural entity and has many other flaws in reasoning that I "DON'T" ascribe to. I am not showing ID but am showing scientific 'evidence' that most people IGNORE in favor of their own biased views of evolution and abiogenesis and if you IGNORE evidence then any 'assumption' you make in light of your view is "unsubstantiated" assumption and "false" if you consciously ignore contradictory evidence!
If ALL life was of purely, naturalistic origins, as Evolution teaches, then how do you explain the designed life that man creates by synthetic means? I know that many will lay claim that man has not created life but look at the evidence and tell me where the life that is created in the lab by synthetic means came about by natural means...
@nooneeagle The latest that I'm aware of is modified existing life. If you mean the almost-alive stuff (lol) like the protocells with genetic material that didn't multiply then it would just be a different version of what genetic material does anyway. We developed a focus on copying what we're made of and that's an early attempt. All of life came from, and still is, nature. If you think that diminishes us you're a pessimist, if you think it glorifies nature you're an optimist.
@JustinMShaw Are you saying that nature can create life but man, with all his scientific knowledge and no-how can't even find a working model of what you say nature can do so easily by chance?
@confettibrains What is the life span of these 'self-replicating' ribozones? Artificial ribozymes (by 'design') have more potential but do you want to ADD the word 'design' into the self-creating aspect?
"the computational side of using DNA in computing, you soon find that these logical systems and functions never self-assemble"
See ribozymes
Just because we can understand properties, find patterns in the physical world, and describe polymerized nucleic acid with mathematical equations doesn't mean these phenomena are controlled by math. The math is just a way to interpret it, just as we use language to convey what an object is, what color it is, relative to ourselves
@confettibrains Again, the RNA world hypothesis is so cluttered with 'assumptions' and speculation with only bits and pieces of evidence showing certain functions and processes but have many missing factors showing evidence. Many people start out with the conception that life originated on Earth and "ASSUME" that all the functions must be there since life is here but lack evidence to show such a concept so they 'assume' that this or that happened. ?Show me the evidence!
On August 8, 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting building blocks of RNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space. This concept bypasses ALL the assumptions associated with the unsubstantiated assumption that RNA was created here on Earth. You can 'assume' all you want but I look towards actual evidence to back my philosophies.
Again, life originating here on Earth is a possibility but until we have evidence, it's just considered unsubstantiated assumption and to teach that life started in a certain way by assumption is not part of my curriculum but to only show that it's a possibility, one of many.
actually...all the building blocks of RNA already form on earth. thus it doesn't bypass any assumption. plus...that NASA report was put into question. The best critic was: contamination.
Ppl already told you it doesn't matter where RNA was formed, it was ALWAYS formed by Abiogenesis. there is no assumption.
The possibility is quite strong because we DO have evidence, which you deny.
@transtlantic He is right to deny flimsy evidence. Evidence that does not even remotely prove any of your claims but rather distant chemical reactions that you lot stupidly allege could some how lead to the formation of DNA.
@karamarouge The video covers what has been proven in a lab, hardly what I would call flimsy evidence. Certainly it's by no means a be-all-end-all, but you're downplaying a really important finding to understanding the formation of early life. Also, the chemical reactions he's alleging to don't lead to the formation of DNA, just a precursor to what we know as RNA. It sounds like semantics but it is an important distinction when talking about this subject.
where are the assumptions? where are the speculations? point them out, prove your assertions. or else...the assumption is on you.
You are denying the evidence. that's not a good argument on your part.
We don't assume, we KNOW life started by abiogenesis, doesn't matter if on earth or some place else. either way...it didn't form because of a fairy named God.
Plus...we do know that ALL present life forms originated from a previous parent species by evolutionary mechanisms.
@confettibrains, "The math is just a way to interpret it, just as we use language to convey what an object is, what color it is, relative to ourselves."
Well said. But the thing you miss is, all chemical synthesis can be explained in some form or another by math and all of biology can all be explained mathematically or as you stated, 'be interpreted by math', although we may not have an entire knowledge of math to address every aspect of biology, as of yet.
a chemical equation is not a mathematical equation, you moron.
You really don't know anything about chemistry, you ignorant fuck.
There is no ABSOLUTE anything, thus...it is thought that, based on, is a logical reasoning. Suggestion is far more accurate than "we assume based on nothing".
Do you even grasp what I am saying? I doubt it, considering that you believe there is a fairy named God spreading "absolute morals", you fucking imbecile.
@nooneeagle Someone already pointed this out, but this is completely wrong; chemical equations are not even remotely the same thing as mathematical ones.
Let's talk about death. Even after I die, my DNA contains ALL the information necessary to bring me back to life and if we find a way to "record" ALL memories of my being and effectively place these memories back into a perfect clone of myself, after I die, then I could be effectively, resurrected and in essence could, in theory, live eternally. Once I die, my consciousness could be brought back through my DNA and my recorded memories with technology, being a possibility. Evolution? Religion?
"after I die, then I could be effectively, resurrected and in essence could live eternally"
Yes, it's called cloning. And yes, it will soon be possible to record your consciousness/memories digitally. We can already record pictures of what people are thinking by mapping the electrical patterns. It will also be possible to inject these digital memories into a newly formed brain
Cloning is genetic stagnation, so evolution cannot occur
@confettibrains I was just asking other people's take on what I mentioned and how evolution and the religious aspect played into it by asking others opinions. You stated your take on the evolutionary side and I wanted to hear from the religious side because most people, not just the religious think that cloning a human is unethical but "possible" and shows "evidence" to the age old question of immortality.
@confettibrains "Cloning is genetic stagnation, so evolution cannot occur"
Google "Children-genes-parents-born-years-thanks-new-IVF-technique".
Mutations in the DNA of Mitochondria can cause around 50 serious and untreatable genetic diseases in humans and mutations of this sort have never shown an improvement of the evolution of humans but just the opposite but through synthetic biology and IVF, we can correct and 'synthetically' evolve these fatal mutations through science.
Actually, evidence shows that the current common concept of evolution is the genetic stagnation of DNA and through mutation causes serious problems with an organism advancing. There is lots of evidence to mutations being detrimental to the advancement of organisms in the evolutionary tree of life yet we can show lots of evidence that synthetically manipulating the genome can correct many problems that mutations create in a damaging and degrading manor.
These are my opinions and my philosophy is a little 'different' than most. I base my knowledge on physical evidence of any sort, no matter where the truth leads and I throw out many biased, 'speculatory assumptions' that many people take for granted as being fact when no evidence backs up such claims so my philosophy is based on evidence that can be shown that speaks for itself and I don't rely on assumptions as do many. Possibilities are key but assumptions are often fatal!
I wanted the religious sect to ring in so that I can show the stigma that religion uses to hamper the progress of science as it has throughout history...
@nooneeagle This is total scifi bullshit! When you die you are dead! your consciousness can never be brought back. Dont mistake recorded memories for consciousness. The two are completely different things. (and there will never ever be some method of transplating your so called memories to your cloned brain. )
"This is total scifi bullshit! When you die you are dead! your consciousness can never be brought back. Dont mistake recorded memories for consciousness"
Technically, but a replicated neurobiology implanted with identical memories will create a consciousness exactly like the one he has now. That consciousness will see the world, interpret it, think in the same thought pattern, and call it himself just like he does now
@confettibrains Excellent analogy, confettibrains. The clone will have consciousness and the only thing that distinguishes identical twins is a few anomalies in their DNA (their DNA are not exactly identical) and their memories. Memories are what define us. We are working on transferring our memories and "consciousness" into a computer and IF we succeed, then all that is left is the achievement of transferring this consciousness/ memory into a new body after our old bodies die.
"(and there will never ever be some method of transplating your so called memories to your cloned brain. )"
Yes, actually there are ways already, but they're not advanced enough to implant significant amounts of memory. They've only recently been able to decipher the electrical pattern of the visual cortex in order to digitally map that aspect of consciousness. With a quantum computer it will be absolutely possible.
Ethics, tells us not to entertain the possibility of cloning a human but the only ethics I see in this stance is one of, 'not allowing an already living being to be cloned while still alive because the consciousness of the original would start to have different memories from the clone and one would loose the conceptual sanity of allowing their consciousness to be lived by another, even that of her/his self which would change the consciousness of the clone by way of new memories.
@nooneeagle Believe it or not, a form of cloning already exists and is in practise as we speak that uses in-vitro which can use the cells from two women to produce a baby as if these women copulated and had a baby. It's a partial clone of one woman with DNA from both persons. Having a baby in any respect is a form of cloning in essence left to chance to allow mutations for individualism.
@confettibrains Which brings me to the point I wanted to make about "code" and information in bringing up death and cloning; Soon we will 'break' the code of DNA and use this sophisticated form of coding to build a "BIOLOGICAL" computer that has the speed and storage of our own brains but we will be able to 'link' these ‘biologicals’ together to amass a supercomputer beyond anything imagined. With such a computer, we will be able to transfer our consciousness into such a computer
@karamarouge You see life as either/or. Many people see science by assumption and see this assumption as being fact backed even when there is no evidence pointing in that direction. I look at possibilities and where the evidence points. You "assume" it couldn't happen and look at it as a fact, I see evidence pointing in this direction and the possibility that it might be possible and work in the direction the evidence shows possible.
There is NO room for "ASSUMPTION" in science when no evidence backs the assumption and causes a biased mindset that leads people away from the truths in science! This is a hindrance in science that has plagued mankind and we find it in the ‘flat-Earth' mindset. If you get rid of assumptions and focus on possibility and look where the evidence points, then you see the world way different than even the most advanced scholars of our time that "assume" over looking at possibility.
I don't know what you consider 'consciousness' but our DNA gives each person certain characteristics, which can be seen in cloned pets, and our memories give us the uniqueness of our consciousness that developed over a lifetime in which we see ourselves at any given time. If I replace my heart, I don't loose what I consider my consciousness and if I replaced each individual body part all the way down to my brain, piece by piece by cloning, I would still have my consciousness. :)
When you die, the DNA that made your body ceases to function as a vessel that carries and contains what we call life. There is no longer an electric current directed by the brain and brought into consciousness through a stereographic nature in our brains that gives rise to each individual’s concept of self. But death does NOT kill the DNA that gave rise to our consciousness, even after death, our DNA is still there and can be cloned back into the same vessel that encloses us now.
so upset at the evolution lie. Its not healthy for so many deceived ignorant people walking around thinking there smart. And saying things like religion is bs man. I agree religion is bs. I look for truth only. Everything else is not true. Evolution never happened. It never happened. I just can't understand how dumb one has to be to believe in the evolution fable
@marigolds44 Great so you post 3 comments full of BS just to say you don't accept real evidence, citing a 'law of biogenesis' that never existed. All you had to say is you don't agree. Now stick your tail back between your legs, sit down, and shut up.
"And saying things like religion is bs man. I agree religion is bs"
.... "I am a Christian"
^ Dumbass. You are so fucking stupid. How did you ever learn to use a computer?
It's a shame bronze-age thinkers like you still exist in this modern era. I guess not everyone likes to learn how life and the universe works... Keep your psuedoscience to yourself though. It's fine if you want to hold onto primitive worldviews, but don't spread misinformation you asswipe.
Ya can plug your ears, cover your eyes, and avoid learning anything that might contradict your preconceived notions, but the facts are out there and ignoring them doesn't disprove them. It just leaves you ignorant.
Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science.
Also, don't confuse abiogenesis (animate molecular systems originating from chemical affinity) with the theory of evolution (slow changes to the DNA molecule)
Please don't send me your stupid comments. I heard every evolution argument. it did not happen. I will never change my faith in jesus Christ. I came to be a christian after studying science, not before like you idiots will suggest. Science pointed me to God. Nature is incapable of creating itself or life. Abiogenesis is a lie. I can prove it to anyone. I don't care if you make a living lying about evolution. If you do you are scum of the earth.
Bullshit. This is what christians always say so they don't look like a bunch of close-minded ignorant fucks
"Oh ya i studied alllll this stuff, and like, there was no stuff actually, so i became a christian cuz there simply was like, no evidence of stuff" - creationist
"Abiogenesis is a lie. I can prove it to anyone"
Ok, prove to me in chemical terms, why TNA/RNA cannot fold over on itself and behave like a protein?
Ode to Joy, is the evolutionist theme song. Evolutionists are such stupid people. I have studied this topic thousands of hours. The law of biogenesis already disproved this video 150 years ago, but people are so stupid they believe it. Think for yourself, nature itself can not create life, observed science 6000 years. Evolutionists have no reasoning or logical skills. Once you don't believe this krap talk then bring up the bible. Evolution is 100 percent not true. Id bet my life on it
Ok, real quick, would you mind disproving ANY supporting evidence for evolution (try wikipedia)?
Ie. explain shared ERV insertions between distinct species, accurate predictions with molecular phylogenetics, comparitive embryology, 2 ape chromosome fusion into 1 human, or why ALL living species have a predecessor they closely resemble (NO novel organisms exist). These are incontestable, empirical facts, so how do you explain them?
Living, biological processes utilize the information contained within the sequence coded within each cell to maintain this life, distinguish them as being alive over non-living things that produce patterns in nature such as crystals, which divide on a chemical basis. To assume that pre-biotic life had some magical notion that could mutate into an ordered, error-correcting pattern of what we call life needs to show evidence of such a leap by showing evidence to this step over imagined assumption.
@JustinMShaw Show "evidence" to your imagined assumption and you may edit the words from my post but that is the thing, your assumptions are unwarranted and baseless and just that, unsubstantiated "assumption" that show nothing in your arguments. Until you can show, how the information, self-created that organized into life you are relying on fantasy in your assumptions and they have no basis in the real world of reality.
@JustinMShaw The problem with you wishes of removing the word "information" out of the equation is, if you do that then there will be no information to distinguish ALL the diversity of life and everything would be exactly the same species or we would all still be just single cell organisms. About the words magical, all you guys believe in something magical IF you don't have evidence backing your claims and you are taking a "leap" in faith in your assumptions by not having evidence to back claims
@nooneeagle Believing that there are multiple possibilities and NO evidence or honest arguments against such is neither a leap nor magic. You're trying to argue against the certainty of this particular model, but no one is defending that certainty. The video itself says it's one of many possibilities.
Your next post isn't at all clear - I never said it was and was not information. Are you just criticizing your own comments?
"Living, biological processes utilize the information contained within the sequence coded within each cell to maintain this life"
Nope. Living biological systems utilize special binding characteristics to bring amino acids together close enough to form peptide bonds, and where the gene lies on the chromosome determines where this new protein goes. There is no information required for chemistry. Chemistry is entirely based on electrical properties of atoms.
How many here believe that no information is encoded into DNA? I ask these individuals, what makes you different from a tree because the DNA (and the information it contains) differentiates you from everything else and if you truly believe that information isn't contained in your DNA then you are more ignorant than previously believed and I shouldn't even being wasting my time with such adolescent ignorance...
A snowflake or crystals are entirely based on electrical properties of atoms. "Life" in the manor we are talking about goes way beyond electrical properties of atoms and use the "INFORMATION" encoded in DNA to substantiate 'what the life form is that the information in the DNA creates'! If you "believe" that no information is contained in DNA that controls and influences the life it creates, then you have been taught an incomplete lesson in biology and are ignorant to information logistics.
@confettibrains stated, "Nope. Living biological systems utilize special binding characteristics to bring amino acids together close enough to form peptide bonds, and where the gene lies on the chromosome determines where this new protein goes. There is no information required for chemistry. Chemistry is entirely based on electrical properties of atoms."
Where the gene lies on the chromosome IS the information I am talking about! You state that information is necessary THEN state it isn't there.
@nooneeagle Where the gene lies on the chromosome IS the information I am talking about! You state that information is necessary THEN state it isn't there. But wait, you state that "information isn't there but you stated that there was information there, which is it brains? Is there information there, like you said, "where the gene lies on the chromosome " Is this "information", information or is it not? Make up your mind. I find it to be "information" that determines where the protein goes...
@confettibrains, "Who assumes magic is involved in chemistry? I guess that must be a religious thought."
The people that believe in the concept of self-creating life (<- a contradictory argument) are the ones believing in some 'magical' stance since no one can bring "evidence" to the table of "how this event took place." You my friend are the ones believing in a magical, unsubstantiated stance by lack of evidence backing such contradictory stance!
"To assume that pre-biotic life had some magical notion that could mutate into an ordered, error-correcting pattern"
Actually, error is why life could even start. These errors exist in all sorts of different combinations on a planet with hundreds of trillions of them floating around. Nature will select the TNA/RNA sequence which folds over onto itself to act similar to proteins. The TNA strand could serve as its own polymerase enzyme by folding over itself to replicate
@confettibrains Then please show us how the very first errors actually produced order that 'started' life. If it’s that easy, then you should have no problem showing your work. You talk about the TNA/RNA "SEQUENCE" and in my profession, I have never seen any type of sequencing ever create an order of hierarchy above and beyond that which it originated and I fail to find any evidence of such a claim. If you can "show" such a thing, in reality, then show your work and you my friend will be famous
Bored enough to try my hand at some creationist-style logic: If you multiply an even number by an even, you get an even; by an odd you get an even; an odd by an even, you get an even; and an odd by an odd you get an odd. Therefore 3/4 of all numbers must be even. Furthermore, since multiplying an even by an odd and an odd by an even are the same, two-thirds and three-quarters must be the exact same value.
Logic sure is fun when you're selectively ignorant and chronically in denial.
Since nothing can come from nothing, it logically follows that there must be "an eternal source" -- a timeless, immaterial, ultimate source of all the energy and matter in existence, which existed before "spacetime." But what is this "source?" What is its nature? Whoever has a scientific answer - please enlighten us!! I want to know!!
While this video shows evidence to certain possibilities, and in science, testable predictions are a very strong form of evidence, the concept depicted in this video does NOT show any evidence that this possibility IS the cause of life on this planet through any means and just remains another "possibility" in which the scientific community ignores as empirical except the few here that debate otherwise, sorry...
"Now why don't you tell the kids why the entire scientific community only states it in the proper statement of, 'Although a working version of a protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting..."
Please allow me:
- Because you dont need to demonstrate something inorder to PROVIDE EVIDENCE it happened.eg. Have you ever seen Pluto orbit the sun?
- In science testable predictions are a very strong form of evidence and abiogenesis has many fillfulled predictions
It must be. There is no way natural chemistry can construct the chemical systems we call life!
There's no way molecules can form via chemical affinity. It's just simply impossible based on all the chemistry I've learned from Bill Nye on Nickelodeon
What this video says: The “theoretical” protocell shown is made up of only two molecular components, a RNA replicase and a fatty acid membrane. An extremely pared down and simple version of a cell, the “theoretical” protocell is nonetheless capable of growth, replication, and evolution. Although a working version of a protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal “appears” well within reach.
Protocells made of fatty acid membranes with RNA inside have been made in the lab. What are you whining about?
Oh, that's right, you want every step of the process in one neat little package. So go ahead and make a lab the size of the Earth and subject it to the same conditions the Earth faced 4 1/2 billion years ago. Then watch it for a billion years before you report your findings.
The truth here is, that NO EVIDENCE EXISTS to a continuing pattern or origins as described in this video! Some of the work done by Dr. JACK Szostak shows certain 'steps' can be achieved but the 'whole' pattern of “origins from natural means” has yet to be "shown" in the lab to show "CONCEPT"! Everything in this video uses speculation to "TIE" some steps together without evidence of such in actuality. Back in the real world, no one has achieved such as is described in this video!!!
This video makes the claim and must show the work! Not the other way around! If you make a "claim" you MUST back up your claim or else its just bullshit! It's not my job to show otherwise, you must show every aspect of this process to claim it so and all the evidence to show "concept" is NOT there! Anyone that believes the bullshit feed to the public is just as gullible as any religious nut that believes in a God! Without ALL the evidence showing "concept", this video is based on ASSUMPTION!
@transtlantic This video shows the EVIDENCE that supports the claim for abiogenesis. you are just spouting your personal incredulity. tsk tsk.
Do you now understand what I talk about? Evidence that "supports" assumption is not evidence to the fact or evidence that what you claim is truth, just more assumption and we all know what they say about the stance to assume...
Why do you keep bringing up the God stance? Do you keep that in 'reserve' if your stance fails because I don't?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! You need to produce evidence of these first little vesicles forming in the manor he describes, multiplying and "evolving"! Not just evidence of each process "INDEPENDANTLY"! Show me the fucking evidence of a continuing pattern of origins into life or else all I see is "assumption" and "speculation" which I call bullshit! Show me the evidence that a vesicle can form, multiply and especially start to obtain nucleic acids and 'evolve' these acids
Even if you can "show" that an early "PROTOCEL" can be achieved as told in this video, you still are 'assuming' that there may be enough information for an evolutionary process to take place without an understanding of any information being added to the process to achieve an order of a higher magnitude, without error correction. We see natural selection in today’s world a lot different than what would be available to the simplest speculated cells and you "assume" that chaos can be "ordered".
Getting back to "achieving" ordered information out of chaos; you still have to 'show' the principal behind such a "self-invention" of information without the mechanism in place of error correction. You again "assume" that some type of consciousness is inherent in this simple chaos of a protocell that can magically order information as to survive through natural selection and this mechanism has not been shown that orders intelligence in a non-living entity! Information cannot self-create!
Excuse me, intelligent information can not self create into life as 'speculated' in this video and I have not found any evidence of such as shown by ANY work done by Dr. JACK Szostak! If you "think" that such evidence exists, show it here, in this forum is all I ask and I'll shut the fuck up, but I've asked before without anything except 'ridicule' to back your stance!!!!!!
"Intelligent information"?? word salad, that doesn't mean anything.
fire is the result of three things, it's the transformation of something into another something. ABiogenesis is that: The transformation of matter into something else, this time: life.
This video series (it's more than one video) shows complete proof for abiogenesis. And it shows more than just the work by Jack Szostak. Your denial doesn't substitute the fact that you are wrong.
You keep asking for evidence, ppl keep posting it and you denying it.
You are just a moronic uneducated retarded imbecile fucktard. You don't even know what a cell or an atom is. You are a stupid shit with a delusion. You even must have a cork up your arse, considering the quantity of shit that you are spouting out of your mouth!
Chem Biodivers. 2007 Apr;4(4):633-55.
Ribozyme catalysis of metabolism in the RNA world.
The thing I see here, are intelligent people 'stuck' on an assumption that something must have happened and they overlook "KEY" factors that need to be answered in order to show the 'concept' as valid and they keep "skirting" the questions that HAVE TO be answered before they have a valid stance to argue yet they keep arguing their points anyways even without key factors backing up their stance!
you also deny the capacity of chaos to originate order. snowflake is proof that random chaotic interactions can originate order. Your denial doesn't substitute the fact that you are wrong.
"information"? again another reification fallacy... it's chemistry, not "Information".
You creatards are always so fucking dumb...
"consciousness"? what the fuck....
"orders intelligence"? you are just vomiting religious nonsense.
"Getting back to "achieving" ordered information out of chaos; you still have to 'show' the principal behind such a "self-invention" of information without the mechanism in place of error correction"
RNA forms naturally. It's only a matter of brownian motion and time until RNA segments join into a crude strand that can reproduce itself. No information required, just simple chemical rules and time.
"RNA forms naturally. Its only a matter of brownian motion and time until RNA segments join into a crude strand that can reproduce itself"
And of course most of those combinations would likely fail. But when you have a planet with many trillions of these molecular combinations going on, the probability of RNA joining into a certain length, with a certain sequence to make one translating protein, becomes higher. All it takes is one out of a trillions of RNA mols
"information"? you keep writing information in a way it implies a reification fallacy. You don't need information in order for a chemical evolutionary process to take place, all you need is chemicals interacting with each other. as supported, for example, with Nowak's evolvability - mathematical proof for abiogenesis.
"information being added"? that's just word salad, there's chemistry, not "information".
"you still are 'assuming' that there may be enough information for an evolutionary process to take place without an understanding of any information"
There doesn't need to be "information," there just needs to be an RNA strand that can fold over on itself to reproduce and self-encode. As long as it can reproduce with a margin of error, it will evolve.
you keep confusing chemical evolution with biological evolution. Biological evolution is an undeniable fact - you can't explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory.
You can provide evidence for each process independantly, then you add them up.
we also KNOW we can create life out of non-life.
You can call "Bullshit" to whatever you want, you are an uneducated fuck, your personal opinion is useless.
If this guy knows how life originated by accident, why doesn't he prove it by building a life form himself on purpose? I'm sure we can supply him with "heating", cooling, wave action" and all the "building blocks" he wants. When he does, I'm sure we'll be all ears.
danmcc22 1 hour ago
@danmcc22 I bet this guy also knows how lighting originates by accident, and until he produces an artificial lightning cloud I am going to carry on believing Zeus does it.
bradkey98765 59 minutes ago
@bradkey98765 Strange that you picked lightning. If this guy knows how lightning works then maybe he can explain that while he's at it, because last time I looked, it seems we don't really know how lightning works either.
danmcc22 54 minutes ago
Can science show evidence that life "arose" instead of "arrived" on Earth by showing an assumptive position of possibility of how it may have arose?
*Not when the possibility that life could have "arrived".
*Not when the stance in this video bases its concept that all life arises by purely naturalistic means, when we are starting to show that life CAN be designed by living beings.
and...
*Not when we find precursors to life all throughout the cosmos that could have arrived instead of arose.
nooneeagle 17 hours ago
Scientists are closer to creating purely artificial life through synthetic means and have something "living" come from something non-living by synthetic, designed processes to show that something 'living' can come from abiotic phenomena (non-living substance). This is a step closer to showing abiogenesis on a synthetic level. There is actually evidence to more steps in the synthetic process than outlined in the process of this video in the form of material produced in the lab, shown as evidence.
nooneeagle 17 hours ago
It's funny how evidence just won't go away when it contradicts a biased belief. When evidence shows, "other possibilities" then the assumptions that are made before the evidence came about are soon turned into unsubstantiated assumption and the assumption that life arose on this planet by purely naturalistic means is unsubstantiated because of the evidence that synthetically originated life is a possibility in origins and man himself has shown that such a concept is possible.
nooneeagle 1 day ago
IF there is evidence of synthetic biology and there is evidence that man can venture into the cosmos, then the concept of abiogenesis based on completely 'naturalistic' means can be effectively falsified because there would be other possibilities for life in the cosmos other than the concept of purely naturalistic means! So to state that, "life on this planet is a result of completely naturalistic means" is no longer a valid argument and the other possibility must be acknowledged!
nooneeagle 1 day ago
Chemists have taken an important step in making artificial life forms from scratch, creating self-assembling cell membranes, the structural envelopes that contain and support the reactions required for life and make a living organism from non-living molecules. “The reaction itself is completely artificial. There’s no biological equivalent of this chemical reaction. This is how you could have a de novo formation of membranes.". Google - Chemists create artificial cell membrane
nooneeagle 1 day ago
Even though such research as described in this video has not led to the abiotic formation of a single functional protein, much less a living cell. Its entertaining to watch people defend such a concept whole-heartedly in such a fashion that they truely believe they have 'evidence' beyond any other reason when all this video shows is possibility and not theory. Some people are just too funny in what they will "believe" when the scientific community doesn't even accept this concept as theory. ;-)
nooneeagle 1 day ago
Abiogenisis can't be the origion of life. A, it's a theory and B, they haven't created life in the lab.
pmedic063252 1 day ago
@pmedic063252
A. A scientific theory is an testable explanation.
B. That is irrelevant. Moreover, life *had* been created in a lab, then you lot would cry "See that it takes intelligence!?"
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
@XGralgrathor what did you just say?
pmedic063252 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pmedic063252
To your
"A, it's a theory and B, they haven't created life in the lab."
I responded:
A. A scientific theory is an testable explanation.
B. That is irrelevant. Moreover, life *had* been created in a lab, then you lot would cry "See that it takes intelligence!?"
XGralgrathor 21 hours ago
@XGralgrathor it is a theory. Yes you can test but, it is still a theory. And, I won't cry. Only God creates life. Life has never and, will never be created in the lab.
pmedic063252 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pmedic063252, "Only God creates life. Life has never and, will never be created in the lab."
Au contraire, mon frère, life has been created in the lab firstly by in-vitro fertilization and secondly artificial life is being created synthetically in the lab.
You are in a scientific community talking about evidence in which you bring no evidence to the table of your supposed God creating life.
nooneeagle 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pmedic063252
"but, it is still a theory"
Think about it: the alternative to having an explanation is *not* having an explanation. You are proposing that we go through life without having explanations. That is not reasonable.
XGralgrathor 20 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pmedic063252
"Life has never and, will never be created in the lab. "
That is 1) an unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable assertion, and 2) irrelevant.
XGralgrathor 19 hours ago
@cdk007 Error in the video at beginning. Abiogenesis is related to evolution in that abiogenesis is the fundamental basis of completely naturalistic evolution. The only way it is not related is at the point concerning the environmental system by which self replicating molecules are produced. But whatever was produced would have had to be able to change and adapt and last long enough through natural selection to eventually become all life that is today.
DisforDubby 2 days ago
@DisforDubby
"abiogenesis is the fundamental basis of completely naturalistic evolution"
Wrong. If the first lifeforms had been planted on Earth by pixies, with properties more or less as we know them to have been, "completely naturalistic evolution" would still have followed.
Abiogenesis depends on evolution (the possibilities of abiogenesis are limited to what we can tell about the earliest lifeforms through evolutionary theory), not the other way around.
MrGralgrathor 1 day ago
@MrGralgrathor I just don't understand how you can think that... you must be misunderstanding me. I swear... I have discussions on reddit and usually I'm the wrong one, but I argue on youtube and it's with people who have such skewed perceptions of reality.
DisforDubby 3 hours ago
@MrGralgrathor ok I know how to explain it so you will understand what I am saying. If evolution of life came about on Earth in a completely naturalistic way as most scientists believe (or at least what is expressed by the majority), then abiogenesis is the precursor to the evolutionary process. Get it? And if it ends up being 100% impossible for any combination of molecules to become self replicating by the natural laws of physics, then God or some other dimensional being must ha
DisforDubby 3 hours ago
@DisforDubby Good luck ever being able to show that molecules operating in 3 dimensions and subject to very strong electromagnetic forces could not ever become self-replicating. The claim you allude to came from a dishonest nitwit who calculated the odds of nucleotides randomly piecing together to form replicating chains, thinking in one dimension and taking no account of the molecules' characteristics or their environment. It's an entirely baseless claim.
JustinMShaw 1 hour ago
@JustinMShaw Dude... that was my point. I dont think abiogenesis is actually possible. It is the weakness of the theory of evolution. Every time I post a comment, someone responds to what I say as if I was saying the opposite of what I was actually saying.
DisforDubby 1 hour ago
@DisforDubby
"whatever was produced would have had to be able to change and adapt"
Precisely. You confirmed what I just said: abiogenesis depends on evolutionary theory, not the other way around.
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
@XGralgrathor No... the whole theory of evolution is based upon abiogenesis. If it turned out that there was no natural way for molecules to replicate (in a significantly sustainable way) then life could have never arose from non-living matter. Abiogenesis would have to be the very beginning of evolution.
DisforDubby 1 day ago
@DisforDubby
"theory of evolution is based upon abiogenesis"
Nope. The theory of evolution takes as its premise that cellular replicators exist, that transmit some of their properties to their offspring in replication. Whether those replicators result from magic or natural processes doesn't matter to evolutionary theory: the model will still be a valid explanation of our observations in biology and palaeontology.
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
@XGralgrathor I know what you are saying but I am speaking in the grand scheme of things regarding the propagation of life in it's entirety. The fact that thing's evolve may be largely separate from abiogenesis, but evolution without deity has it's basis in the possibility of lifeless matter to become able to replicate. They are far apart, yes, but abiogenesis is a dependent of evolution. Molecular physics is a dependent of abiogenesis, etc. All systems have similar roots.
DisforDubby 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DisforDubby
"I am speaking in the grand scheme of things"
The response remains the same in *any* "scheme of things", grand or tiny: evolutionary theory does *not* depend on abiogenesis. The reverse is true, however: abiogenesis *does* depend on evolutionary theory.
MrGralgrathor 18 hours ago
@DisforDubby
"then life could have never arose"
But life demonstrably exists, and moreover, demonstrably has the properties I outlined earlier. And that is the self-evidently true premise on which evolutionary theory is based. It does not require that we know how life first came about in order to be a valid explanation.
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
Evolution is BASED on the premise that ALL life originated from purely naturalistic means and leaves no room for anything else in its concept! When scientists are showing that life can be synthetically made, Evolution Theory has to reevaluated the stance it takes on the claim that ALL life arises from purely naturalistic means and so far, I find many biased people that won't even entertain any other possibility besides naturalistic origins by ignoring the evidence to the contrary
nooneeagle 1 day ago
I'm guessing that, "ignoring evidence" that shoots down a concept is the usual modus operandi when dealing with Evolution, right? You only accept the evidence that supports your stance and simply "ignore" any lab evidence to the contrary? Real good stance you guys use in showing Theory by the scientific methods haha What should we do with those who simply deny evidence that doesn't fit their biased stance?
nooneeagle 1 day ago
@nooneeagle Science acknowledges all sorts of possibilities, and having aliens involved in some part of our history is a longtime favorite for speculation among many people, some scientists included. But there's a huge difference between allowing for speculation and presenting as an equally viable alternative. The only 'evidence' I've seen you give for genetic engineers having started life on Earth is the fact that we're trying to do so and coming very close. That's very flimsy.
JustinMShaw 1 day ago
@JustinMShaw You claim that I am speculating, when all I am doing is showing concept. Its not debated that man can manipulate the genome through science. If the concept that evolution can be changed through anything other than naturalistic means and that man can show the same concept in synthetic biology then this concept is evidence against the idea depicted in this video, that life MUST have arose by purely naturalistic means, so there IS the possibility that life arrived instead.
nooneeagle 18 hours ago
Actually, it's this video that is 'speculative' in unsubstantiated speculation and relies on 'popularity' over science to "PROVE" its point which is really unscientific in reason.
nooneeagle 17 hours ago
@nooneeagle This video does not assume that what it shows is what happened (read the video description), nor does it claim proof. It merely shows that life could have arisen by natural means, dispelling claims that such an origin is impossible. If you want the 'aliens created us' idea to get equal representation then find and publish some evidence of aliens, and EXPLAIN THEIR ORIGIN. Our molecular biologists are not aliens.
JustinMShaw 6 hours ago
@nooneeagle Besides the fact that the central issue of this video is the origin of life. If it was assembled on Earth by other life then it's not the origin, it's just one life form manufacturing another. We would then wonder where that life form came from, and unlike ourselves where we have a little evidence, with speculated aliens we have absolutely zero evidence. You would then be left with wild (and very entertaining) speculation. People like that, but it's not science.
JustinMShaw 1 day ago
@JustinMShaw You MISS the point I make. Many people here are trying to make it look like the model depicted in this video IS definitively the reason for life on Earth and argue that there is so much evidence that this stance stands to reason as being the reason for life on Earth and that just is NOT the truth! We can show that the concept of synthetic biology is possible so that possibility cannot be left out of the mix! No one really knows where or how life originated.
nooneeagle 19 hours ago
If you have 'evidence' that life did originate on Earth, then that would back up the stance of this video but no one has such 'evidence' so life may have very well 'arrive' here on this planet by some means (I do not state my 'assumption' on how the life arrived here) I state that evidence shows that the concept of 'origins' is NOT held to just naturalistic means only and this evidence shows that you can NOT claim that life arose on Earth by purely naturalistic means.
nooneeagle 18 hours ago
I do not assume that life 'arrived' on this planet but I don't ignore the possibility neither do I ignore the possibility that life may have 'arose' here, as this video states but I don't make the assumption that it did, as many do because there are other viable possibilities and by saying 'possibilities' I mean that evidence shows that other possibilities are there besides just the stance taken in this video and by our own science, we can show 'concept' to these possibilities.
nooneeagle 18 hours ago
If you ignore ANY evidence in science, then you are left with a biased view and an incomplete picture of what the truth may be. Let me explain: If I have 100 pennies and one dime in my hand and most people just see a bunch of pennies, most will make the assumption that I only have pennies in my hand but having evidence that there are more coins than just pennies, then the possibility that I may have something other than pennies in my hand makes any assumption speculative.
nooneeagle 17 hours ago
@nooneeagle Who cares, "where the pennies came from"? The pennies are there and so is the dime but to claim that the pennies created themselves is speculative.
nooneeagle 17 hours ago
@JustinMShaw, "People like that, but it's not science."
I am using evidence to show that “ignoring” any other ‘possibility’, that can falsify the hypothesis depicted in this video, shows flaw to your scientific reasoning. That IS science and by people consciously IGNORING such evidence is the flawed way of your "biased" scientific method. You can't selectively ignore evidence to show your point as being true by popularity. That is not science, maybe it's yours, but not mine.
nooneeagle 18 hours ago
@JustinMShaw I'm just showing ALL the possibilities and you are making the assumptions. Like I said, I don't make assumptions (as many do here in trying to prove their points of view) I use evidence to show ALL possibilities and by you ignoring some of the possibilities, your 'assumptions' become unsubstantiated assumptions!
nooneeagle 18 hours ago
@DisforDubby "abiogenesis is the fundamental basis of completely naturalistic evolution." Good luck showing evidence of such as the sole reason for life on this planet! The possibility still exists that life may have originated elsewhere in the cosmos and found its way here and there will never be a way to positivly show that life originated here on Earth by purely naturalistic means as long as we can show that we can create life synthetically and travel into space; this show other possibilities
nooneeagle 1 day ago
@nooneeagle No, I was replying to the maker of the video as I understand him and most other people to believe that life originated on this planet by completely naturalistic means... I personally believe in God and think there is more to what's going on than science says. This is why I hate YT comments
DisforDubby 1 day ago
I never face palmed so hard in my life -____-
bboinigelunobboi 3 days ago
Cuh-hool!!
priceoffame 3 days ago
I've actually read some Dr. Szostak's work, the man is brilliant.
Reading some of it before I took biochemistry really made me think about the way we think of things as spontaneous, when the environment can dramatically alter the activation energies and free energy of a system.
Then to put it so well in this video really made it come together nicely.
SecularMentat 4 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
bla, bla bla. haven't u heard of chemical evolution, ziomal?
jerubaal3333 4 days ago
DNA nanotechnology and DNA computing are a couple of interests of mine. I often talk of 'design' in the evolutionary fields and often get a lot of ridicule over the word 'design'! If you want to dive into the magnificent world of cutting edge biological computing, you will soon find yourself surrounded by the word design. If you want to get a gist of my train of thought, you can go to wiki and enter the above DNA nano... and DNA compu.. descriptors and find a brief description of this new world.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
DNA nanostructures must be rationally designed so that the individual nucleic acid strands will assemble into the desired structures. This process begins with the specification of a desired target structure or functionality. Then, the overall secondary structure of the target molecule is determined, specifying the arrangement of nucleic acid strands within the structure, and which portions of those strands should be bound to each other. The last step is the primary structure design.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
Right about now, someone is going to claim that DNA computing and Evolution are two different things and I understand this difference but once you start to understand the 'logic' behind the computational side of using DNA in computing, you soon find that these logical systems and functions never self-assemble or evolve (except for mutations that might corrupt data and render the program useless) and you will never find a self-creating code in such a discipline. There is one exception
nooneeagle 5 days ago
Algorithmic self-assembly: This shows that computation can be incorporated into the assembly of DNA arrays, increasing its scope beyond simple periodic arrays. DNA tiles can be "designed" to contain multiple sticky ends with sequences chosen so that they act as Wang tiles. A DX array has been demonstrated whose assembly encodes an XOR operation; this allows the DNA array to implement a cellular automaton which generates a fractal called the Sierpinski gasket.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
So, when I often 'ask' for proof of "self-creation" and for you to 'show your work in logical terms' such evidence of self-creation just doesn't exist in logical terms and is a contradictory argument in concept as described in this video. IF you can describe such logistics in terms of funtions and processes, then you will be famous and the computing world will "evolve" so to speak but as of yet such a concept has been shown to be a null and void, contradictory fantasy. Sorry...
nooneeagle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"when I often ask for proof of "self-creation"
Look up self-replicating RNA ribozymes. RNA is not only a molecule that can pass on traits, it can also fold over on itself into complex tertiary structures that behave like protein/enzyme catalysts. So it's thought that these folded RNA structures could work symbiotically like a polymerase enzyme to replicate another RNA which held all the main genetic traits
(for example, short-chain hammerhead ribozymes can self-cleave)
confettibrains 5 days ago
@confettibrains, "it's thought that it could"
This is exactly the 'assumption' without evidence that I speak of. I don't live in a world of assumption like many people do, I live in a world of possibilities and the possibility is there but possibility isn't evidence and neither is 'assumption'!
nooneeagle 4 days ago
@nooneeagle Because it is impossible to go back in time and see exactly how life started on Earth, showing that it is possible for either life or the building blocks of life to develop is enough to allow a person to reasonably assume that, at the very least, life has a natural basis (rather than a supernatural one driven by "design").
BenkaiDebussy 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BenkaiDebussy "showing that it is possible for either life or the building blocks of life to develop is enough to allow a person to reasonably assume that, at the very least, life has a natural basis "
Well said. Exactly. All we need to show that is that it could have happened. We may never know the exact method, although I think we will one day!
And there will still be no evidence found for any gods!
mtbee9 3 days ago
@BenkaiDebussy I agree, that it is a possibility but that is all it is and to assume such, is a false assumption. I do not believe in a concept of - a supernatural entity - but mans advancement in science shows that I could assume that other advanced, living, scientific beings can design life and create life and the evidence of our own ability to do so shows evidence of concept to such, so to assume purely natural causes for life on this planet is not a true stance by any means.
nooneeagle 2 days ago
If you have two possibilities for the origins of life and both have evidence of concept, then to assume that one or the other is true, is false, because if you claim one is true over the other then how do you explain the evidence that points at the other possibility? So to make assumptions about something in our past that has no direct evidence is false assumption and all you can do is show the possibilities and state that either may be possible by way of evidence of concept or PoP.
nooneeagle 2 days ago
If you don't comprehend then let me explain. The 'concept' of design has evidence that advanced, scientific, living beings can and will manipulate the genome by design, we call it, genetic engineering! The same can be said of synthetic biology, we can show concept that man, through science, will synthetically create new life through design. This "concept" is backed by evidence so you can't "assume" that "ALL" life is of purely, natural origins!
nooneeagle 2 days ago
The concept of purely naturalistic origins came over 150 years ago when man thought that all things either came from the concept of a supernatural entity or only one other possibility, that of natural origins and the concept did NOT entertain the possibility that man, through science could achieve this same feat. But now we know that "intelligence" can and will so you cannot just leave this possibility out of the equation anymore since there is evidence backing such a possibility.
nooneeagle 2 days ago
@nooneeagle Take a closer look at the history of ID. It's not based on new evidence. It's based on a closet political movement and part of the idiot culture war that right-wingers in the U.S. have been fighting and losing for more than a generation. The people behind the ID and 'evolution is impossible' claims have put a hold on their traditional attempts to prevent interracial marriage. And they're losing this battle too. It's not easy to win when truth is the enemy.
JustinMShaw 2 days ago
@JustinMShaw I'm aware of ID and it's flaws. ID relies on the belief in a supernatural entity and has many other flaws in reasoning that I "DON'T" ascribe to. I am not showing ID but am showing scientific 'evidence' that most people IGNORE in favor of their own biased views of evolution and abiogenesis and if you IGNORE evidence then any 'assumption' you make in light of your view is "unsubstantiated" assumption and "false" if you consciously ignore contradictory evidence!
nooneeagle 1 day ago
If ALL life was of purely, naturalistic origins, as Evolution teaches, then how do you explain the designed life that man creates by synthetic means? I know that many will lay claim that man has not created life but look at the evidence and tell me where the life that is created in the lab by synthetic means came about by natural means...
nooneeagle 2 days ago
@nooneeagle The latest that I'm aware of is modified existing life. If you mean the almost-alive stuff (lol) like the protocells with genetic material that didn't multiply then it would just be a different version of what genetic material does anyway. We developed a focus on copying what we're made of and that's an early attempt. All of life came from, and still is, nature. If you think that diminishes us you're a pessimist, if you think it glorifies nature you're an optimist.
JustinMShaw 2 days ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustinMShaw Are you saying that nature can create life but man, with all his scientific knowledge and no-how can't even find a working model of what you say nature can do so easily by chance?
nooneeagle 1 day ago
@confettibrains What is the life span of these 'self-replicating' ribozones? Artificial ribozymes (by 'design') have more potential but do you want to ADD the word 'design' into the self-creating aspect?
nooneeagle 4 days ago
@nooneeagle
"the computational side of using DNA in computing, you soon find that these logical systems and functions never self-assemble"
See ribozymes
Just because we can understand properties, find patterns in the physical world, and describe polymerized nucleic acid with mathematical equations doesn't mean these phenomena are controlled by math. The math is just a way to interpret it, just as we use language to convey what an object is, what color it is, relative to ourselves
confettibrains 5 days ago
@confettibrains Again, the RNA world hypothesis is so cluttered with 'assumptions' and speculation with only bits and pieces of evidence showing certain functions and processes but have many missing factors showing evidence. Many people start out with the conception that life originated on Earth and "ASSUME" that all the functions must be there since life is here but lack evidence to show such a concept so they 'assume' that this or that happened. ?Show me the evidence!
nooneeagle 4 days ago
On August 8, 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting building blocks of RNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space. This concept bypasses ALL the assumptions associated with the unsubstantiated assumption that RNA was created here on Earth. You can 'assume' all you want but I look towards actual evidence to back my philosophies.
nooneeagle 4 days ago
Again, life originating here on Earth is a possibility but until we have evidence, it's just considered unsubstantiated assumption and to teach that life started in a certain way by assumption is not part of my curriculum but to only show that it's a possibility, one of many.
nooneeagle 4 days ago
@nooneeagle
actually...all the building blocks of RNA already form on earth. thus it doesn't bypass any assumption. plus...that NASA report was put into question. The best critic was: contamination.
Ppl already told you it doesn't matter where RNA was formed, it was ALWAYS formed by Abiogenesis. there is no assumption.
The possibility is quite strong because we DO have evidence, which you deny.
the assumption, the denial is on you.
transtlantic 4 days ago
@transtlantic He is right to deny flimsy evidence. Evidence that does not even remotely prove any of your claims but rather distant chemical reactions that you lot stupidly allege could some how lead to the formation of DNA.
karamarouge 3 days ago
@karamarouge
how do you explain the existence of spontaneously formed nucleotides in the deepest oceans?
transtlantic 3 days ago
@karamarouge The video covers what has been proven in a lab, hardly what I would call flimsy evidence. Certainly it's by no means a be-all-end-all, but you're downplaying a really important finding to understanding the formation of early life. Also, the chemical reactions he's alleging to don't lead to the formation of DNA, just a precursor to what we know as RNA. It sounds like semantics but it is an important distinction when talking about this subject.
redvision350 3 days ago
@nooneeagle
where are the assumptions? where are the speculations? point them out, prove your assertions. or else...the assumption is on you.
You are denying the evidence. that's not a good argument on your part.
We don't assume, we KNOW life started by abiogenesis, doesn't matter if on earth or some place else. either way...it didn't form because of a fairy named God.
Plus...we do know that ALL present life forms originated from a previous parent species by evolutionary mechanisms.
transtlantic 4 days ago
@confettibrains, "The math is just a way to interpret it, just as we use language to convey what an object is, what color it is, relative to ourselves."
Well said. But the thing you miss is, all chemical synthesis can be explained in some form or another by math and all of biology can all be explained mathematically or as you stated, 'be interpreted by math', although we may not have an entire knowledge of math to address every aspect of biology, as of yet.
nooneeagle 4 days ago
@nooneeagle A chemical equation is simply that, a mathematical equation showing principal of the chemical process...
nooneeagle 4 days ago
@nooneeagle
a chemical equation is not a mathematical equation, you moron.
You really don't know anything about chemistry, you ignorant fuck.
There is no ABSOLUTE anything, thus...it is thought that, based on, is a logical reasoning. Suggestion is far more accurate than "we assume based on nothing".
Do you even grasp what I am saying? I doubt it, considering that you believe there is a fairy named God spreading "absolute morals", you fucking imbecile.
transtlantic 4 days ago
@nooneeagle Someone already pointed this out, but this is completely wrong; chemical equations are not even remotely the same thing as mathematical ones.
BenkaiDebussy 3 days ago
Let's talk about death. Even after I die, my DNA contains ALL the information necessary to bring me back to life and if we find a way to "record" ALL memories of my being and effectively place these memories back into a perfect clone of myself, after I die, then I could be effectively, resurrected and in essence could, in theory, live eternally. Once I die, my consciousness could be brought back through my DNA and my recorded memories with technology, being a possibility. Evolution? Religion?
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
"after I die, then I could be effectively, resurrected and in essence could live eternally"
Yes, it's called cloning. And yes, it will soon be possible to record your consciousness/memories digitally. We can already record pictures of what people are thinking by mapping the electrical patterns. It will also be possible to inject these digital memories into a newly formed brain
Cloning is genetic stagnation, so evolution cannot occur
How is religion relevant to this?
confettibrains 6 days ago
@confettibrains I was just asking other people's take on what I mentioned and how evolution and the religious aspect played into it by asking others opinions. You stated your take on the evolutionary side and I wanted to hear from the religious side because most people, not just the religious think that cloning a human is unethical but "possible" and shows "evidence" to the age old question of immortality.
nooneeagle 6 days ago
@confettibrains "Cloning is genetic stagnation, so evolution cannot occur"
Google "Children-genes-parents-born-years-thanks-new-IVF-technique".
Mutations in the DNA of Mitochondria can cause around 50 serious and untreatable genetic diseases in humans and mutations of this sort have never shown an improvement of the evolution of humans but just the opposite but through synthetic biology and IVF, we can correct and 'synthetically' evolve these fatal mutations through science.
nooneeagle 6 days ago
Actually, evidence shows that the current common concept of evolution is the genetic stagnation of DNA and through mutation causes serious problems with an organism advancing. There is lots of evidence to mutations being detrimental to the advancement of organisms in the evolutionary tree of life yet we can show lots of evidence that synthetically manipulating the genome can correct many problems that mutations create in a damaging and degrading manor.
nooneeagle 6 days ago
These are my opinions and my philosophy is a little 'different' than most. I base my knowledge on physical evidence of any sort, no matter where the truth leads and I throw out many biased, 'speculatory assumptions' that many people take for granted as being fact when no evidence backs up such claims so my philosophy is based on evidence that can be shown that speaks for itself and I don't rely on assumptions as do many. Possibilities are key but assumptions are often fatal!
nooneeagle 6 days ago
@confettibrains "How is religion relevant to this?"
I wanted the religious sect to ring in so that I can show the stigma that religion uses to hamper the progress of science as it has throughout history...
nooneeagle 6 days ago
@nooneeagle This is total scifi bullshit! When you die you are dead! your consciousness can never be brought back. Dont mistake recorded memories for consciousness. The two are completely different things. (and there will never ever be some method of transplating your so called memories to your cloned brain. )
karamarouge 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge
"This is total scifi bullshit! When you die you are dead! your consciousness can never be brought back. Dont mistake recorded memories for consciousness"
Technically, but a replicated neurobiology implanted with identical memories will create a consciousness exactly like the one he has now. That consciousness will see the world, interpret it, think in the same thought pattern, and call it himself just like he does now
It's not sci-fi. It's already started, actually
confettibrains 6 days ago
@confettibrains Excellent analogy, confettibrains. The clone will have consciousness and the only thing that distinguishes identical twins is a few anomalies in their DNA (their DNA are not exactly identical) and their memories. Memories are what define us. We are working on transferring our memories and "consciousness" into a computer and IF we succeed, then all that is left is the achievement of transferring this consciousness/ memory into a new body after our old bodies die.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
@karamarouge
"(and there will never ever be some method of transplating your so called memories to your cloned brain. )"
Yes, actually there are ways already, but they're not advanced enough to implant significant amounts of memory. They've only recently been able to decipher the electrical pattern of the visual cortex in order to digitally map that aspect of consciousness. With a quantum computer it will be absolutely possible.
confettibrains 6 days ago
Ethics, tells us not to entertain the possibility of cloning a human but the only ethics I see in this stance is one of, 'not allowing an already living being to be cloned while still alive because the consciousness of the original would start to have different memories from the clone and one would loose the conceptual sanity of allowing their consciousness to be lived by another, even that of her/his self which would change the consciousness of the clone by way of new memories.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
@nooneeagle Believe it or not, a form of cloning already exists and is in practise as we speak that uses in-vitro which can use the cells from two women to produce a baby as if these women copulated and had a baby. It's a partial clone of one woman with DNA from both persons. Having a baby in any respect is a form of cloning in essence left to chance to allow mutations for individualism.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
@confettibrains Which brings me to the point I wanted to make about "code" and information in bringing up death and cloning; Soon we will 'break' the code of DNA and use this sophisticated form of coding to build a "BIOLOGICAL" computer that has the speed and storage of our own brains but we will be able to 'link' these ‘biologicals’ together to amass a supercomputer beyond anything imagined. With such a computer, we will be able to transfer our consciousness into such a computer
nooneeagle 5 days ago
@karamarouge You see life as either/or. Many people see science by assumption and see this assumption as being fact backed even when there is no evidence pointing in that direction. I look at possibilities and where the evidence points. You "assume" it couldn't happen and look at it as a fact, I see evidence pointing in this direction and the possibility that it might be possible and work in the direction the evidence shows possible.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
There is NO room for "ASSUMPTION" in science when no evidence backs the assumption and causes a biased mindset that leads people away from the truths in science! This is a hindrance in science that has plagued mankind and we find it in the ‘flat-Earth' mindset. If you get rid of assumptions and focus on possibility and look where the evidence points, then you see the world way different than even the most advanced scholars of our time that "assume" over looking at possibility.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
I don't know what you consider 'consciousness' but our DNA gives each person certain characteristics, which can be seen in cloned pets, and our memories give us the uniqueness of our consciousness that developed over a lifetime in which we see ourselves at any given time. If I replace my heart, I don't loose what I consider my consciousness and if I replaced each individual body part all the way down to my brain, piece by piece by cloning, I would still have my consciousness. :)
nooneeagle 5 days ago
When you die, the DNA that made your body ceases to function as a vessel that carries and contains what we call life. There is no longer an electric current directed by the brain and brought into consciousness through a stereographic nature in our brains that gives rise to each individual’s concept of self. But death does NOT kill the DNA that gave rise to our consciousness, even after death, our DNA is still there and can be cloned back into the same vessel that encloses us now.
nooneeagle 5 days ago
That was/is beautiful
fatcat2939 1 week ago
so upset at the evolution lie. Its not healthy for so many deceived ignorant people walking around thinking there smart. And saying things like religion is bs man. I agree religion is bs. I look for truth only. Everything else is not true. Evolution never happened. It never happened. I just can't understand how dumb one has to be to believe in the evolution fable
marigolds44 1 week ago
@marigolds44 Great so you post 3 comments full of BS just to say you don't accept real evidence, citing a 'law of biogenesis' that never existed. All you had to say is you don't agree. Now stick your tail back between your legs, sit down, and shut up.
JustinMShaw 1 week ago
@marigolds44
"And saying things like religion is bs man. I agree religion is bs"
.... "I am a Christian"
^ Dumbass. You are so fucking stupid. How did you ever learn to use a computer?
It's a shame bronze-age thinkers like you still exist in this modern era. I guess not everyone likes to learn how life and the universe works... Keep your psuedoscience to yourself though. It's fine if you want to hold onto primitive worldviews, but don't spread misinformation you asswipe.
confettibrains 1 week ago
@marigolds44
"Evolution never happened"
Ya can plug your ears, cover your eyes, and avoid learning anything that might contradict your preconceived notions, but the facts are out there and ignoring them doesn't disprove them. It just leaves you ignorant.
Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science.
Also, don't confuse abiogenesis (animate molecular systems originating from chemical affinity) with the theory of evolution (slow changes to the DNA molecule)
confettibrains 1 week ago
Please don't send me your stupid comments. I heard every evolution argument. it did not happen. I will never change my faith in jesus Christ. I came to be a christian after studying science, not before like you idiots will suggest. Science pointed me to God. Nature is incapable of creating itself or life. Abiogenesis is a lie. I can prove it to anyone. I don't care if you make a living lying about evolution. If you do you are scum of the earth.
marigolds44 1 week ago
@marigolds44
"I came to be a christian after studying science"
Bullshit. This is what christians always say so they don't look like a bunch of close-minded ignorant fucks
"Oh ya i studied alllll this stuff, and like, there was no stuff actually, so i became a christian cuz there simply was like, no evidence of stuff" - creationist
"Abiogenesis is a lie. I can prove it to anyone"
Ok, prove to me in chemical terms, why TNA/RNA cannot fold over on itself and behave like a protein?
confettibrains 1 week ago
Ode to Joy, is the evolutionist theme song. Evolutionists are such stupid people. I have studied this topic thousands of hours. The law of biogenesis already disproved this video 150 years ago, but people are so stupid they believe it. Think for yourself, nature itself can not create life, observed science 6000 years. Evolutionists have no reasoning or logical skills. Once you don't believe this krap talk then bring up the bible. Evolution is 100 percent not true. Id bet my life on it
marigolds44 1 week ago
@marigolds44
"The law of biogenesis already disproved this video 150 years ago"
You are stupid to confuse spontaneous generation with abiogenesis.
No shit life doesn't spring up overnight from rotting meat, and NO ONE ever claims this.
"nature itself can not create life"
So molecules cannot form by chemical affinity? Molecular structures can't provide mechanical function? Molecules are not subject to brownian motion?
Show me the chemistry that says nucleic acid can't form
confettibrains 1 week ago
@marigolds44
"Evolution is 100 percent not true"
Ok, real quick, would you mind disproving ANY supporting evidence for evolution (try wikipedia)?
Ie. explain shared ERV insertions between distinct species, accurate predictions with molecular phylogenetics, comparitive embryology, 2 ape chromosome fusion into 1 human, or why ALL living species have a predecessor they closely resemble (NO novel organisms exist). These are incontestable, empirical facts, so how do you explain them?
confettibrains 1 week ago
Living, biological processes utilize the information contained within the sequence coded within each cell to maintain this life, distinguish them as being alive over non-living things that produce patterns in nature such as crystals, which divide on a chemical basis. To assume that pre-biotic life had some magical notion that could mutate into an ordered, error-correcting pattern of what we call life needs to show evidence of such a leap by showing evidence to this step over imagined assumption.
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle No, we just need to edit the words 'information', 'magical' and 'leap' out of your inaccurate description.
JustinMShaw 1 week ago
@JustinMShaw Show "evidence" to your imagined assumption and you may edit the words from my post but that is the thing, your assumptions are unwarranted and baseless and just that, unsubstantiated "assumption" that show nothing in your arguments. Until you can show, how the information, self-created that organized into life you are relying on fantasy in your assumptions and they have no basis in the real world of reality.
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@JustinMShaw The problem with you wishes of removing the word "information" out of the equation is, if you do that then there will be no information to distinguish ALL the diversity of life and everything would be exactly the same species or we would all still be just single cell organisms. About the words magical, all you guys believe in something magical IF you don't have evidence backing your claims and you are taking a "leap" in faith in your assumptions by not having evidence to back claims
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle Believing that there are multiple possibilities and NO evidence or honest arguments against such is neither a leap nor magic. You're trying to argue against the certainty of this particular model, but no one is defending that certainty. The video itself says it's one of many possibilities.
Your next post isn't at all clear - I never said it was and was not information. Are you just criticizing your own comments?
JustinMShaw 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
"Living, biological processes utilize the information contained within the sequence coded within each cell to maintain this life"
Nope. Living biological systems utilize special binding characteristics to bring amino acids together close enough to form peptide bonds, and where the gene lies on the chromosome determines where this new protein goes. There is no information required for chemistry. Chemistry is entirely based on electrical properties of atoms.
confettibrains 1 week ago
@confettibrains...
How many here believe that no information is encoded into DNA? I ask these individuals, what makes you different from a tree because the DNA (and the information it contains) differentiates you from everything else and if you truly believe that information isn't contained in your DNA then you are more ignorant than previously believed and I shouldn't even being wasting my time with such adolescent ignorance...
nooneeagle 1 week ago
A snowflake or crystals are entirely based on electrical properties of atoms. "Life" in the manor we are talking about goes way beyond electrical properties of atoms and use the "INFORMATION" encoded in DNA to substantiate 'what the life form is that the information in the DNA creates'! If you "believe" that no information is contained in DNA that controls and influences the life it creates, then you have been taught an incomplete lesson in biology and are ignorant to information logistics.
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@confettibrains stated, "Nope. Living biological systems utilize special binding characteristics to bring amino acids together close enough to form peptide bonds, and where the gene lies on the chromosome determines where this new protein goes. There is no information required for chemistry. Chemistry is entirely based on electrical properties of atoms."
Where the gene lies on the chromosome IS the information I am talking about! You state that information is necessary THEN state it isn't there.
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle Where the gene lies on the chromosome IS the information I am talking about! You state that information is necessary THEN state it isn't there. But wait, you state that "information isn't there but you stated that there was information there, which is it brains? Is there information there, like you said, "where the gene lies on the chromosome " Is this "information", information or is it not? Make up your mind. I find it to be "information" that determines where the protein goes...
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
"To assume that pre-biotic life had some magical notion that could mutate into an ordered"
Who assumes magic is involved in chemistry? I guess that must be a religious thought
confettibrains 1 week ago
@confettibrains, "Who assumes magic is involved in chemistry? I guess that must be a religious thought."
The people that believe in the concept of self-creating life (<- a contradictory argument) are the ones believing in some 'magical' stance since no one can bring "evidence" to the table of "how this event took place." You my friend are the ones believing in a magical, unsubstantiated stance by lack of evidence backing such contradictory stance!
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
"To assume that pre-biotic life had some magical notion that could mutate into an ordered, error-correcting pattern"
Actually, error is why life could even start. These errors exist in all sorts of different combinations on a planet with hundreds of trillions of them floating around. Nature will select the TNA/RNA sequence which folds over onto itself to act similar to proteins. The TNA strand could serve as its own polymerase enzyme by folding over itself to replicate
confettibrains 1 week ago
@confettibrains Then please show us how the very first errors actually produced order that 'started' life. If it’s that easy, then you should have no problem showing your work. You talk about the TNA/RNA "SEQUENCE" and in my profession, I have never seen any type of sequencing ever create an order of hierarchy above and beyond that which it originated and I fail to find any evidence of such a claim. If you can "show" such a thing, in reality, then show your work and you my friend will be famous
nooneeagle 1 week ago
awesome, well done, educated video. it was suggested by my teacher and it greatly summarized a large portion of the chapter we were working on.
HeresYourLetter182 1 week ago
Bored enough to try my hand at some creationist-style logic: If you multiply an even number by an even, you get an even; by an odd you get an even; an odd by an even, you get an even; and an odd by an odd you get an odd. Therefore 3/4 of all numbers must be even. Furthermore, since multiplying an even by an odd and an odd by an even are the same, two-thirds and three-quarters must be the exact same value.
Logic sure is fun when you're selectively ignorant and chronically in denial.
JustinMShaw 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since nothing can come from nothing, it logically follows that there must be "an eternal source" -- a timeless, immaterial, ultimate source of all the energy and matter in existence, which existed before "spacetime." But what is this "source?" What is its nature? Whoever has a scientific answer - please enlighten us!! I want to know!!
harvardlaw14 1 week ago
Comment removed
harvardlaw14 1 week ago
Comment removed
harvardlaw14 1 week ago
This video has a mistake @2:14. There are several myths about people magically popping out of dirt or clay. Islam copied the idea in the Quran.
OptimisticCynic715 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
While this video shows evidence to certain possibilities, and in science, testable predictions are a very strong form of evidence, the concept depicted in this video does NOT show any evidence that this possibility IS the cause of life on this planet through any means and just remains another "possibility" in which the scientific community ignores as empirical except the few here that debate otherwise, sorry...
nooneeagle 1 week ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"Now why don't you tell the kids why the entire scientific community only states it in the proper statement of, 'Although a working version of a protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting..."
Please allow me:
- Because you dont need to demonstrate something inorder to PROVIDE EVIDENCE it happened.eg. Have you ever seen Pluto orbit the sun?
- In science testable predictions are a very strong form of evidence and abiogenesis has many fillfulled predictions
types10000 1 week ago
Comment removed
types10000 1 week ago
Comment removed
types10000 1 week ago
this is a joke, right?
philster00700 1 week ago
@philster00700 this is a troll, right?
alphaenemy 1 week ago
@alphaenemy This video? Yeah, I believe it is.
philster00700 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@philster00700
"this is a joke, right?"
It must be. There is no way natural chemistry can construct the chemical systems we call life!
There's no way molecules can form via chemical affinity. It's just simply impossible based on all the chemistry I've learned from Bill Nye on Nickelodeon
confettibrains 1 week ago
Absolutely amazing!
TimeOfNick 1 week ago
This video is simply masterful
MrDerogative 1 week ago
So What are you waiting for?!! Lets create some Schtroumpfs.
SIX9O6XIS 1 week ago
What this video says: The “theoretical” protocell shown is made up of only two molecular components, a RNA replicase and a fatty acid membrane. An extremely pared down and simple version of a cell, the “theoretical” protocell is nonetheless capable of growth, replication, and evolution. Although a working version of a protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal “appears” well within reach.
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle "The “theoretical” protocell"
Protocells made of fatty acid membranes with RNA inside have been made in the lab. What are you whining about?
Oh, that's right, you want every step of the process in one neat little package. So go ahead and make a lab the size of the Earth and subject it to the same conditions the Earth faced 4 1/2 billion years ago. Then watch it for a billion years before you report your findings.
JustinMShaw 1 week ago
The truth here is, that NO EVIDENCE EXISTS to a continuing pattern or origins as described in this video! Some of the work done by Dr. JACK Szostak shows certain 'steps' can be achieved but the 'whole' pattern of “origins from natural means” has yet to be "shown" in the lab to show "CONCEPT"! Everything in this video uses speculation to "TIE" some steps together without evidence of such in actuality. Back in the real world, no one has achieved such as is described in this video!!!
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
ofc there is evidence, you just deny it.
Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2004 Mar-Apr;39(2):99-123.
Prebiotic chemistry and the origin of the RNA world.
Orgel LE.
Source
The Salk Institute
you just deny, deny and deny some more. You even repeat your denial filling the entire board with your nonsense.
transtlantic 1 week ago
This video makes the claim and must show the work! Not the other way around! If you make a "claim" you MUST back up your claim or else its just bullshit! It's not my job to show otherwise, you must show every aspect of this process to claim it so and all the evidence to show "concept" is NOT there! Anyone that believes the bullshit feed to the public is just as gullible as any religious nut that believes in a God! Without ALL the evidence showing "concept", this video is based on ASSUMPTION!
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
ppl already showed you what you ask, your denial doesn't substitute the fact that you keep being wrong.
This video is part of a series, and at the end of that series everything is shown to work.
If you make the claim: "God did it"; why don't you back up your claim? oh right: because you are full of buy bull induced shit.
This video shows the EVIDENCE that supports the claim for abiogenesis. you are just spouting your personal incredulity. tsk tsk.
transtlantic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic This video shows the EVIDENCE that supports the claim for abiogenesis. you are just spouting your personal incredulity. tsk tsk.
Do you now understand what I talk about? Evidence that "supports" assumption is not evidence to the fact or evidence that what you claim is truth, just more assumption and we all know what they say about the stance to assume...
Why do you keep bringing up the God stance? Do you keep that in 'reserve' if your stance fails because I don't?
nooneeagle 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"Anyone that believes the bullshit feed to the public is just as gullible as any religious nut that believes in a God!"
Hardly. This conforms to all known chemical principles. Much of chemistry is theoretical before it's practiced.
God conforms to no known system of logic.
confettibrains 1 week ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! You need to produce evidence of these first little vesicles forming in the manor he describes, multiplying and "evolving"! Not just evidence of each process "INDEPENDANTLY"! Show me the fucking evidence of a continuing pattern of origins into life or else all I see is "assumption" and "speculation" which I call bullshit! Show me the evidence that a vesicle can form, multiply and especially start to obtain nucleic acids and 'evolve' these acids
nooneeagle 1 week ago
Even if you can "show" that an early "PROTOCEL" can be achieved as told in this video, you still are 'assuming' that there may be enough information for an evolutionary process to take place without an understanding of any information being added to the process to achieve an order of a higher magnitude, without error correction. We see natural selection in today’s world a lot different than what would be available to the simplest speculated cells and you "assume" that chaos can be "ordered".
nooneeagle 1 week ago
Getting back to "achieving" ordered information out of chaos; you still have to 'show' the principal behind such a "self-invention" of information without the mechanism in place of error correction. You again "assume" that some type of consciousness is inherent in this simple chaos of a protocell that can magically order information as to survive through natural selection and this mechanism has not been shown that orders intelligence in a non-living entity! Information cannot self-create!
nooneeagle 1 week ago
Excuse me, intelligent information can not self create into life as 'speculated' in this video and I have not found any evidence of such as shown by ANY work done by Dr. JACK Szostak! If you "think" that such evidence exists, show it here, in this forum is all I ask and I'll shut the fuck up, but I've asked before without anything except 'ridicule' to back your stance!!!!!!
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
"Intelligent information"?? word salad, that doesn't mean anything.
fire is the result of three things, it's the transformation of something into another something. ABiogenesis is that: The transformation of matter into something else, this time: life.
This video series (it's more than one video) shows complete proof for abiogenesis. And it shows more than just the work by Jack Szostak. Your denial doesn't substitute the fact that you are wrong.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
You keep asking for evidence, ppl keep posting it and you denying it.
You are just a moronic uneducated retarded imbecile fucktard. You don't even know what a cell or an atom is. You are a stupid shit with a delusion. You even must have a cork up your arse, considering the quantity of shit that you are spouting out of your mouth!
Chem Biodivers. 2007 Apr;4(4):633-55.
Ribozyme catalysis of metabolism in the RNA world.
and you deny, deny and deny
now fuck off you religitard.
transtlantic 1 week ago
The thing I see here, are intelligent people 'stuck' on an assumption that something must have happened and they overlook "KEY" factors that need to be answered in order to show the 'concept' as valid and they keep "skirting" the questions that HAVE TO be answered before they have a valid stance to argue yet they keep arguing their points anyways even without key factors backing up their stance!
nooneeagle 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
you also deny the capacity of chaos to originate order. snowflake is proof that random chaotic interactions can originate order. Your denial doesn't substitute the fact that you are wrong.
"information"? again another reification fallacy... it's chemistry, not "Information".
You creatards are always so fucking dumb...
"consciousness"? what the fuck....
"orders intelligence"? you are just vomiting religious nonsense.
transtlantic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"Getting back to "achieving" ordered information out of chaos; you still have to 'show' the principal behind such a "self-invention" of information without the mechanism in place of error correction"
RNA forms naturally. It's only a matter of brownian motion and time until RNA segments join into a crude strand that can reproduce itself. No information required, just simple chemical rules and time.
confettibrains 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@confettibrains
"RNA forms naturally. Its only a matter of brownian motion and time until RNA segments join into a crude strand that can reproduce itself"
And of course most of those combinations would likely fail. But when you have a planet with many trillions of these molecular combinations going on, the probability of RNA joining into a certain length, with a certain sequence to make one translating protein, becomes higher. All it takes is one out of a trillions of RNA mols
confettibrains 1 week ago
@nooneeagle
"information"? you keep writing information in a way it implies a reification fallacy. You don't need information in order for a chemical evolutionary process to take place, all you need is chemicals interacting with each other. as supported, for example, with Nowak's evolvability - mathematical proof for abiogenesis.
"information being added"? that's just word salad, there's chemistry, not "information".
transtlantic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"you still are 'assuming' that there may be enough information for an evolutionary process to take place without an understanding of any information"
There doesn't need to be "information," there just needs to be an RNA strand that can fold over on itself to reproduce and self-encode. As long as it can reproduce with a margin of error, it will evolve.
confettibrains 1 week ago
you keep confusing chemical evolution with biological evolution. Biological evolution is an undeniable fact - you can't explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory.
You can provide evidence for each process independantly, then you add them up.
we also KNOW we can create life out of non-life.
You can call "Bullshit" to whatever you want, you are an uneducated fuck, your personal opinion is useless.
transtlantic 1 week ago