Oh my god, you have never actually read a scientific theory on abiogenesis. If you had, you wouldn't be making a reference to any modern organism. Do you not understand that these organisms have been evolving for BILLIONS of years?
This chap, by constantly listing how many atoms/proteins/etc it takes to do x, makes a stoic effort to convince us that it is statistically impossible. Except that once we have a self replicating molecule, evolution takes over and the rest is history. In Shostaks model, we see a possible mechanism to get to the first self replicating molecule. This is, of course, long before the molecule and its lipid cell are alive. He seems ignorant of evolution as the thing that trumps his high odds.
@0sacrosanct Is it really that simple? My understanding is that a self-replicating molecule is a long way from a correctly-constructed protein. I think the numbers still speak for themselves: Bradley and Thaxton calculated the formation of a 100-amino-acid protein assembling by random chance to be 4.9x10-191. It is generally accepted that any event with a probability beyond 1x10-50 is impossible.
@Singa2570 As you do not appear to have actually read my comment, let me reiterate: .... Except that once we have a self replicating molecule, evolution takes over and the rest is history. In Shostaks model, we see a possible mechanism to get to the first self replicating molecule. This is, of course, long before the molecule and its lipid cell are alive. He seems ignorant of evolution as the thing that trumps his high odds. Please read some text on evolution.
@Singa2570 And it is very simple actually. Two things you need to understand is that early life didn't need complex amino acid chains. Even tard shit that made this video understands that amino acids occur outside of life, and anyone who understands chemistry at all knows that amino acids form chains. It's how they react.
I was totally with up until you mentioned that sceince comes up with theorys that dont actually exist and made this comparable to religon.
Stay to the sceince bro, you explain things real well, dnt honestly attempt to say that the jebus theory is jst as valid as any sceintific theory even if it is wrong.
an incorrect sceintific theory is still more useful and accurate than any religous storey.
Furthermore, what's particularly obnoxious about these videos is the smirking, sip-smacking manner in which this guy uses the word "theory." He misunderstands the word in exactly the same way that all "creationists" do.
This is essentially a straw man argument. We don't know how abiogenesis occurred. This guy CLAIMS he knows (proteins "come together" to make cells), and then says that can't happen....therefore science can't have an answer.
He simply doesn't possess a knowledge of biochemistry/molecular biology sufficient to intelligently discuss this topic. (I happen to have a PhD in molecular and cell biology--which I'm hesitant to mention, since such claims are meaningless on the internet).
Ok sir..lets see some testable science to back that up..given the stale mate situation of biochemical chemistry..just how are u separating the right and left handed amino acids..to assemble life????...This is the major conundrum of Chirality!!
On Atoms. Its not the case we need to explain why 30 atims make an amino acid as if its a complex event. We know that atoms like to be in certain configurations, favouring structures such as amino acids etc.. we dont therefroe need to explain their complexities as if they are unlikely, becuase we know they are not.
Now to compare filling hoels with god, and filling holes with science is again not impressive. Scientists use theoretical models, based on good science to do this. Thye dont CONT
Im starting to think this guy has an agenda.. because he is stating inacuracies.
The most basic life is not how he described it. It is much simpler.
Also laughing off the miller urey experiment is not very impressive. This shows us that the building blocks for life can be created by simple non-organic molecules. That was the point of it.
@5tonyvvvv The experiment didn't try to make life in the lab, he simple showed that the structural components of life can be created from tiny molecules.
Also, oxygen is a 'toxic' compound, but life has adapted to use it. The term 'toxic' is arbitrary. What one life form finds toxic, is not toxic to another.
And all amino acids are used in nature. None are toxic.
It shows your biochemistry is limited (and why not) but people who do understand it know the significance of the findings.
the life life didn't probably have 20 amino acids they probably have 8 or less, the first life most likely if it did happen naturally didn't use proteins or DNA, just RNA the current prevailing hypothesis of abiogenesis says the life very far more primitive than life than, actually the oldest fossil found were archabacteria which is very simple, and um scientists have observed other organic molecules form like adenine one of the most base pairs that make DNA
all matter on Earth is made from elements-these combine via electrochemical bonds to form compounds,a process almost impossible to STOP,even in a lab (CO2,
H2O,etc);the compounds also combine in the same way,some making amino acids-->NH2-CH-(R)-COOH... (R)is a joint
When this formula is joined by a phosphate-->NH2-CH-(H3PO4)-COOH results,the formula for RNA emerges...
NH2-CH-(H3PO4)-COOH is not only the formula for RNA,it also describes the earliest known living organism-->Cyanobacteria Archaea~no nucleus,no DNA,no organelles,no protein....just RNA coiled over to enclose a space! This basic biochemistry~no "designer" necessary---this happened on it's own,not by chance,but by chemistry....the fossils of these are called stromatolites, but cyans exist today as one of the largest phyla on Earth, but in more evolved forms.
It is not insignificent, because it shows us that the building blocks of life can be made from non-organicn basic materials.... It shows us that molecules favour certain structures, those being ones that are in all life forms.
This makes the idea of life arising from simple non-organic molecules more plausable.
Atheist morons need to learn basic chemistry and Homochirality if they life could happen by chance and time,first life by chance would be its own Paradox..and could never happen..science has reached a dead end..only stubborn atheist think it can happen purely by time and chance,even evolution scientists know simple chemicals cant make life..proteins will only use the LEFT handed variety of amino acids
@jinitron Ok sir..lets see some testable science to back that up..given the stale mate situation of biochemical chemistry..just how are u separating the right and left handed amino acids..to assemble life????...This is the major conundrum of Chirality!!
@5tonyvvvv I agree there are some unexplained phenomenons in biochem, like why does livign beings appear to use one direction of molecule? DNA for example in living cells is always in the same direction, even though in the lab three different types can be made?
If science thought we knew everything, it would stop.
DNA is transcribed Messenger RNA(mRNA) which is then translated in a Ribosome to a protein. In the ribosome each nucleotide of mRNA is matched up with a Transfer RNA(tRNA). Each tRNA has an amino acid attached to it. So what is happening in effect is the tRNA pairs to the mRNA then the tRNA detached leaving the amino acid and the mRNA moved along to show the next nucleotide which again matches with the tRNA and so forth.
Science acknowledges that there are things that need to be explained based on our current understanding of the world around us. We postulate the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy because we accept various conservation laws as true. We predicted the outer planets completely on theory because of gaps. Abiogenesis may not be full-fledged theory yet, but it's hardly a myth.
Ok, let's see who's Mr. calculator. The problem: How much does the chance increase of 1 followed by 113 zeros in 1 when put into the most generous time frame from the beginning of earth to the oldest fossils (cyanobacteria) which are supposedly 3.5 billion yrs old. How much does this increase the chances of abiogenesis?
Basically we're looking at about 1 billion yrs from basic blocks to cyanobacteria. How much do the odds increase in 1 billion years?
I did a little digging on Wiki, and it says that synthetic production of short proteins up to a chain of 300 amino acids can be done, and is used for lab research, but is not efficient enough for commercial applications. It's not that we can't do it, it's just cheaper to let nature so it.
Conclusion: we don't know everything about everything. What is the point? Will you be addressing the gaps of science in other fields?
PS: science does not explain gaps saying "this is so", but they, based on what information they have, make an educated guess. Supernatural answers have no place in objective reality for the simple reason that they in practical terms mean "unknown". So really, they don't satisfy the demand for an answer at all.
what is the chance of even a simple protain molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionsts acknowledge it to be only to be 1 followed by 113 zeros in 1. But any event that has one chance in just 1 followed by 50 zeros is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.if one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of the court.
Well considering that the number of subatomic particles in the universe has been described as 10 to the 72nd power, i would say the palerider911 is absolutely correct.
Pale, you're repeating stuff you read that you don't understand. Science cannot address the origin of life by any other means than nature. We do not know the details of abiogenesis - 500 years ago we did not know the details of how to make air planes; that hardly means that birds don't exist.
What is the chance of YOU forming? When you cansider all the atoms in the universe that had to come together in just the right way, I think the chances of you forming are far less than that of the 1 followed by 113 zeros. Yet, here you are?
The proposed mechanism of evolution over a long period of time turns the improbability of human existence without divine intervention into something much more probable. Is there not the possibility of a chemical mechanism that we have not yet uncovered to make abiogenesis much more probable?
Oh my god, you have never actually read a scientific theory on abiogenesis. If you had, you wouldn't be making a reference to any modern organism. Do you not understand that these organisms have been evolving for BILLIONS of years?
TheSatanicView 6 months ago
This chap, by constantly listing how many atoms/proteins/etc it takes to do x, makes a stoic effort to convince us that it is statistically impossible. Except that once we have a self replicating molecule, evolution takes over and the rest is history. In Shostaks model, we see a possible mechanism to get to the first self replicating molecule. This is, of course, long before the molecule and its lipid cell are alive. He seems ignorant of evolution as the thing that trumps his high odds.
0sacrosanct 7 months ago
@0sacrosanct Is it really that simple? My understanding is that a self-replicating molecule is a long way from a correctly-constructed protein. I think the numbers still speak for themselves: Bradley and Thaxton calculated the formation of a 100-amino-acid protein assembling by random chance to be 4.9x10-191. It is generally accepted that any event with a probability beyond 1x10-50 is impossible.
Singa2570 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Singa2570 As you do not appear to have actually read my comment, let me reiterate: .... Except that once we have a self replicating molecule, evolution takes over and the rest is history. In Shostaks model, we see a possible mechanism to get to the first self replicating molecule. This is, of course, long before the molecule and its lipid cell are alive. He seems ignorant of evolution as the thing that trumps his high odds. Please read some text on evolution.
0sacrosanct 6 months ago
@Singa2570 And it is very simple actually. Two things you need to understand is that early life didn't need complex amino acid chains. Even tard shit that made this video understands that amino acids occur outside of life, and anyone who understands chemistry at all knows that amino acids form chains. It's how they react.
TheSatanicView 6 months ago
I was totally with up until you mentioned that sceince comes up with theorys that dont actually exist and made this comparable to religon.
Stay to the sceince bro, you explain things real well, dnt honestly attempt to say that the jebus theory is jst as valid as any sceintific theory even if it is wrong.
an incorrect sceintific theory is still more useful and accurate than any religous storey.
shandcunt 8 months ago
complex life replaced simple.
mikerozo 9 months ago
someone who is makin some sense and logic ...interesting
dave000dzee 9 months ago
Furthermore, what's particularly obnoxious about these videos is the smirking, sip-smacking manner in which this guy uses the word "theory." He misunderstands the word in exactly the same way that all "creationists" do.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
This is essentially a straw man argument. We don't know how abiogenesis occurred. This guy CLAIMS he knows (proteins "come together" to make cells), and then says that can't happen....therefore science can't have an answer.
He simply doesn't possess a knowledge of biochemistry/molecular biology sufficient to intelligently discuss this topic. (I happen to have a PhD in molecular and cell biology--which I'm hesitant to mention, since such claims are meaningless on the internet).
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
He laughs because as far as actually crating life, it is completely insignificant. Although it does no good to tell fanatical abiogenesian that.
Hmm I wonder If i can take the amino acids and protein powder out of my cabinet and add some chemical and shock it into a little heart beat.
Oh wait. Thats right, after years and years noone has been able to do anything to add to that except more speculation. How scientific. ;-)
TheJflow008 1 year ago
Ok sir..lets see some testable science to back that up..given the stale mate situation of biochemical chemistry..just how are u separating the right and left handed amino acids..to assemble life????...This is the major conundrum of Chirality!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
jsut make up anything.
We know RNA is created from non-organic molecules, we know they arrange themselves in chains, we know they can ctalyze their own replication.
From here we can safely say that the early earth would have become saturated with RNA, water, glucos,e lipid,s amino acids.
Why is it so hard to than say, 'perhaps we got a single self replicator, than natural selection selected for the most efficent replicators'
markgg1 2 years ago
On Atoms. Its not the case we need to explain why 30 atims make an amino acid as if its a complex event. We know that atoms like to be in certain configurations, favouring structures such as amino acids etc.. we dont therefroe need to explain their complexities as if they are unlikely, becuase we know they are not.
Now to compare filling hoels with god, and filling holes with science is again not impressive. Scientists use theoretical models, based on good science to do this. Thye dont CONT
markgg1 2 years ago
Im starting to think this guy has an agenda.. because he is stating inacuracies.
The most basic life is not how he described it. It is much simpler.
Also laughing off the miller urey experiment is not very impressive. This shows us that the building blocks for life can be created by simple non-organic molecules. That was the point of it.
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1 no building blocks were made..miller made a non usable Toxic amino acids that can not be used!!!,,u people are morons!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv The experiment didn't try to make life in the lab, he simple showed that the structural components of life can be created from tiny molecules.
Also, oxygen is a 'toxic' compound, but life has adapted to use it. The term 'toxic' is arbitrary. What one life form finds toxic, is not toxic to another.
And all amino acids are used in nature. None are toxic.
It shows your biochemistry is limited (and why not) but people who do understand it know the significance of the findings.
markgg1 1 year ago
"spidersilk is incredibly strong" lol probably the only sort of accurate thing said in the whole video. what a joke.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
What? Any school teen will know that you use the Doppler effect to track back the galaxies to a single starting point.
Life has been started with the basic elements available at the time many times in labs.
Maybe 2007 he didn't have the info available.
I started from 0 and got the hang of the general concept within a week.
Maybe Wikipedia does not suffice, but it's a great start...
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
nature . com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
infinity730 2 years ago
Just highly impractical to synthesize.
The abiogenesis don't describe the origin of the "todaylife".
It makes a -> Quasispecies model.
Its a looooong ladder from "Quasispecies things" to a cell, like from cell to human with notebooks.
I think a final theory could fill many many books, its just the begin of research.
Angelmou 3 years ago
can't be synthesized in the lab,or just highly impractical to synthesize?
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
the life life didn't probably have 20 amino acids they probably have 8 or less, the first life most likely if it did happen naturally didn't use proteins or DNA, just RNA the current prevailing hypothesis of abiogenesis says the life very far more primitive than life than, actually the oldest fossil found were archabacteria which is very simple, and um scientists have observed other organic molecules form like adenine one of the most base pairs that make DNA
benalissa284632 3 years ago
I like how he laughs off Miller-Urey amino acids as insignificant, and then goes right back to using atoms as the start point next sentence.
jinitron 3 years ago
In terms of protein synthesis, it is insignificant.
Most amino acids occur in nature; big deal.
It's the difference between a molecule with the complexity of 7 particle to a molecule with the complexity of 1000s of particles.
psychetruth 3 years ago
"It's the difference between a molecule with the complexity of 7 particle to a molecule with the complexity of 1000s of particles."
Excellent point.
beardfreak1969 3 years ago
all matter on Earth is made from elements-these combine via electrochemical bonds to form compounds,a process almost impossible to STOP,even in a lab (CO2,
H2O,etc);the compounds also combine in the same way,some making amino acids-->NH2-CH-(R)-COOH... (R)is a joint
When this formula is joined by a phosphate-->NH2-CH-(H3PO4)-COOH results,the formula for RNA emerges...
manhunt48 2 years ago
Cont'd (pay attention)~
NH2-CH-(H3PO4)-COOH is not only the formula for RNA,it also describes the earliest known living organism-->Cyanobacteria Archaea~no nucleus,no DNA,no organelles,no protein....just RNA coiled over to enclose a space! This basic biochemistry~no "designer" necessary---this happened on it's own,not by chance,but by chemistry....the fossils of these are called stromatolites, but cyans exist today as one of the largest phyla on Earth, but in more evolved forms.
manhunt48 2 years ago
It is not insignificent, because it shows us that the building blocks of life can be made from non-organicn basic materials.... It shows us that molecules favour certain structures, those being ones that are in all life forms.
This makes the idea of life arising from simple non-organic molecules more plausable.
markgg1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist morons need to learn basic chemistry and Homochirality if they life could happen by chance and time,first life by chance would be its own Paradox..and could never happen..science has reached a dead end..only stubborn atheist think it can happen purely by time and chance,even evolution scientists know simple chemicals cant make life..proteins will only use the LEFT handed variety of amino acids
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@jinitron Ok sir..lets see some testable science to back that up..given the stale mate situation of biochemical chemistry..just how are u separating the right and left handed amino acids..to assemble life????...This is the major conundrum of Chirality!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv I agree there are some unexplained phenomenons in biochem, like why does livign beings appear to use one direction of molecule? DNA for example in living cells is always in the same direction, even though in the lab three different types can be made?
If science thought we knew everything, it would stop.
Also: what is your theory on how life began?
markgg1 1 year ago
Audio Compressors are our friends.
lahatte 3 years ago
You statement about how things theoretical don't exist whiffs of creationism. Perhaps rephrasing that in a later version would be prudent.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
"You statement about how things theoretical don't exist whiffs of creationism. Perhaps rephrasing that in a later version would be prudent."
Why - so we can again dismiss the notion of a sentient source to life? A god?
beardfreak1969 3 years ago
"Why - so we can again dismiss the notion of a sentient source to life? A god? "
That and every other claim that doesn't meet even the minimum of evidentiary standards.
AtheismIsDisbelief 3 years ago
DNA is transcribed Messenger RNA(mRNA) which is then translated in a Ribosome to a protein. In the ribosome each nucleotide of mRNA is matched up with a Transfer RNA(tRNA). Each tRNA has an amino acid attached to it. So what is happening in effect is the tRNA pairs to the mRNA then the tRNA detached leaving the amino acid and the mRNA moved along to show the next nucleotide which again matches with the tRNA and so forth.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
Science acknowledges that there are things that need to be explained based on our current understanding of the world around us. We postulate the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy because we accept various conservation laws as true. We predicted the outer planets completely on theory because of gaps. Abiogenesis may not be full-fledged theory yet, but it's hardly a myth.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Very well stated.
seethebright 4 years ago
Ok, let's see who's Mr. calculator. The problem: How much does the chance increase of 1 followed by 113 zeros in 1 when put into the most generous time frame from the beginning of earth to the oldest fossils (cyanobacteria) which are supposedly 3.5 billion yrs old. How much does this increase the chances of abiogenesis?
Basically we're looking at about 1 billion yrs from basic blocks to cyanobacteria. How much do the odds increase in 1 billion years?
BurlisJohnson 4 years ago
I did a little digging on Wiki, and it says that synthetic production of short proteins up to a chain of 300 amino acids can be done, and is used for lab research, but is not efficient enough for commercial applications. It's not that we can't do it, it's just cheaper to let nature so it.
Naxos99 4 years ago
Cool. Some of the proteins in your body have around 17,000 amino acids.
psychetruth 4 years ago
Conclusion: we don't know everything about everything. What is the point? Will you be addressing the gaps of science in other fields?
PS: science does not explain gaps saying "this is so", but they, based on what information they have, make an educated guess. Supernatural answers have no place in objective reality for the simple reason that they in practical terms mean "unknown". So really, they don't satisfy the demand for an answer at all.
smaakjeks 4 years ago
smaakjeks: correct.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
what is the chance of even a simple protain molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionsts acknowledge it to be only to be 1 followed by 113 zeros in 1. But any event that has one chance in just 1 followed by 50 zeros is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.if one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of the court.
Palerider911 4 years ago
Well considering that the number of subatomic particles in the universe has been described as 10 to the 72nd power, i would say the palerider911 is absolutely correct.
spockwise 4 years ago
Pale, you're repeating stuff you read that you don't understand. Science cannot address the origin of life by any other means than nature. We do not know the details of abiogenesis - 500 years ago we did not know the details of how to make air planes; that hardly means that birds don't exist.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago 2
What is the chance of YOU forming? When you cansider all the atoms in the universe that had to come together in just the right way, I think the chances of you forming are far less than that of the 1 followed by 113 zeros. Yet, here you are?
lahatte 3 years ago
The proposed mechanism of evolution over a long period of time turns the improbability of human existence without divine intervention into something much more probable. Is there not the possibility of a chemical mechanism that we have not yet uncovered to make abiogenesis much more probable?
philstilwell 3 years ago