well this video just opens a Pandora's box of how to explain thousands of more variables and experiments to prove all how these proteins and fatty acids came together perfectly.
@vivaramones1 That's the thing: they don't have to come together perfectly, and even if they did, just think of how many fatty acid vesicles form in a sink of water. Consider an ocean of vesicles.
Besides, the stuff in the video was discovered by Dr Jack Szostak (Google him) and his lab is working on this as we speak.
@vivaramones1 Well that has already been research extensively and for the most part we already know it (talking about your pandora box comment). Problem now is we have to separate which scenario was more likely to be the one that we have derived from. Other than that I think the poster of the vid wanted to only give a overview. Not a 2000 hour video of how everything works together or how certain molecules attract etc etc. Its supposed to spark curiosity and get people to look it up themesleves.
And you, JC, cannot observe electricity either, so why do you use that useless computer you have? Direct observation is not the only way in which to do science; in fact, most science happens through observation of results of hypothetical processes and inferring the theories.
Example: We cannot observe gravity; it is an invisible force (sorta). All we can do is observe its effects on objects as diverse as tennis balls and stars, and see they follow a common law in their interactions.
And this is falsifyable by observation of a body that doesn't obey the theory of gravity. That Mercury didn't do so led Einstein to add a codicil onto Newton for very fast interactions.
Abiogenesis can be falsified by observing that one of the steps required might not work properly. Some of the steps require, for instance, a suitable substrate to perform correctly.
It turns out that the clay known as Fuller's Earth (or montmarillionite) performs that function handily, but its absence would signal definite problems with Stostak's theory of abiogenesis.
Of course, the ultimate evidence (not proof) is using the theory to actually create artificial monocellular life. That's the aim, because if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
uh, uh, uh, uh...now, I notice you didn't say "impossible". That's good. Yes, up to this point, that is all that has been observed. Yet scientists infer that it must have started long ago, before observations, and perhaps they'll eventually be able to complete the circle on that and demonstrate how.
You're getting your terms mixed up here, JC. Darwinists aren't abiogenecists, though they might be. Let's stay within the theory bounds.
I agree that the proof of an abiogenesis theory will be in the demonstration, eventually. Meanwhile, they're building the theory a small step at a time, just as they went to the moon.
BTW, do you have any evidence (not proof) that "There is a limit on how simple life can be" (ditto your other assertion)? Have you studied viruses? Are they alive?
I disagree with your dichotomy, but even granted it, it certainly can be observed, tested and demonstrated. Evolution has been demonstrated; new species of bacteria have been observed in nature (cf the nylon eating bacteria) and in lab experiments (google Lenski). There are, perhaps, 20 or 30 other speciation events written up in the literature. The theory of evolution is fully falsifiable. I don't think you really know that that term means, do you?
@Korkzor Older organisms than that would not have fossilised and so we can follow the clues given us from the past in order to figure out what happened. Like you can figure out the chemical structure of earth, the gasses, the molecules etc.
Then much like a detective trail you go to the lab with these things and see what results you get.
@Korkzor ur wrong man! There has been fossil since 3.1 billion years ago, right after the heavy bombardment era. Not until 540 million years ago with out provocation and warning and less than 1 million years there were complicated creatures. That's a 160 year old mystery that has not still been explained or solved. Before the Cambridge Explosion and the Precambrian era, most fossils are intact, but however, there is little or no transitional forms are found though. Soft bodied species have...
@vivaramones1 Eh, ok, so it´s 3.1, I said 3.5 billion. I dont get where you disagree with me.. The oldest fossilised organisms to be found are not simple enough to have been the first living things, that´s basicly all I was saying..
name of the song plz
hilalzia6 6 months ago
well this video just opens a Pandora's box of how to explain thousands of more variables and experiments to prove all how these proteins and fatty acids came together perfectly.
vivaramones1 1 year ago
@vivaramones1 face palm* -_-
MaterialBoyx3 1 year ago
@vivaramones1 That's the thing: they don't have to come together perfectly, and even if they did, just think of how many fatty acid vesicles form in a sink of water. Consider an ocean of vesicles.
Besides, the stuff in the video was discovered by Dr Jack Szostak (Google him) and his lab is working on this as we speak.
BulletMagnetOWI 1 year ago 2
@vivaramones1 Well that has already been research extensively and for the most part we already know it (talking about your pandora box comment). Problem now is we have to separate which scenario was more likely to be the one that we have derived from. Other than that I think the poster of the vid wanted to only give a overview. Not a 2000 hour video of how everything works together or how certain molecules attract etc etc. Its supposed to spark curiosity and get people to look it up themesleves.
slavj 10 months ago
There is no proof of this "pre-biotic" environment,
how are scientists supposed to falsify it? Nothing in this hypothetical
environment can be observed, again speculation isn't science, it's philosophy.
JCinBergen 2 years ago
And you, JC, cannot observe electricity either, so why do you use that useless computer you have? Direct observation is not the only way in which to do science; in fact, most science happens through observation of results of hypothetical processes and inferring the theories.
Example: We cannot observe gravity; it is an invisible force (sorta). All we can do is observe its effects on objects as diverse as tennis balls and stars, and see they follow a common law in their interactions.
puncheex 2 years ago
And this is falsifyable by observation of a body that doesn't obey the theory of gravity. That Mercury didn't do so led Einstein to add a codicil onto Newton for very fast interactions.
Abiogenesis can be falsified by observing that one of the steps required might not work properly. Some of the steps require, for instance, a suitable substrate to perform correctly.
puncheex 2 years ago
It turns out that the clay known as Fuller's Earth (or montmarillionite) performs that function handily, but its absence would signal definite problems with Stostak's theory of abiogenesis.
Of course, the ultimate evidence (not proof) is using the theory to actually create artificial monocellular life. That's the aim, because if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
You get the point. If you care to.
puncheex 2 years ago
Astronomy, Chemistry and Geology can only make unprovable assumtions about the past.
And Hard facts about the present.
JCinBergen 2 years ago
Ha.
puncheex 2 years ago
There is a difference between flying to the moon, and get life to create itself.
The former is physically possible. All observations says that Life comes from life only.
JCinBergen 2 years ago
uh, uh, uh, uh...now, I notice you didn't say "impossible". That's good. Yes, up to this point, that is all that has been observed. Yet scientists infer that it must have started long ago, before observations, and perhaps they'll eventually be able to complete the circle on that and demonstrate how.
puncheex 2 years ago
There is a limit to how simple life can be, there are no proof that life in
the past could have been more simple than life today, and the burden of this
proof is rightfully on the Darwinists shoulders. Speculation isn't science.
JCinBergen 2 years ago
You're getting your terms mixed up here, JC. Darwinists aren't abiogenecists, though they might be. Let's stay within the theory bounds.
I agree that the proof of an abiogenesis theory will be in the demonstration, eventually. Meanwhile, they're building the theory a small step at a time, just as they went to the moon.
BTW, do you have any evidence (not proof) that "There is a limit on how simple life can be" (ditto your other assertion)? Have you studied viruses? Are they alive?
puncheex 2 years ago
The theory of Gravity is based on operational science.
Partilcle-to-you evolution on the other hand is
origins science, it can't be observed, tested or demonstrated
and therefore aren't really science at all, since it can't be falsified.
JCinBergen 2 years ago
I disagree with your dichotomy, but even granted it, it certainly can be observed, tested and demonstrated. Evolution has been demonstrated; new species of bacteria have been observed in nature (cf the nylon eating bacteria) and in lab experiments (google Lenski). There are, perhaps, 20 or 30 other speciation events written up in the literature. The theory of evolution is fully falsifiable. I don't think you really know that that term means, do you?
puncheex 2 years ago
Abiogenesis, isn't evolution.
But, it isn't unrelevant to it.
No abiogenesis = No particle-to-you-evolution
No abiogenesis = No Darwinism
No abiogenesis = No common ancestor for all life
etc.
JCinBergen 2 years ago
No abiogenesis = No JCinBergen
puncheex 2 years ago
@JCinBergen No, it´s still very possible for "God" to have planted life on the earth and just let it sit their on it´s own.
No abiogenesis is simply a state of not knowing. Not having a clue about abiogenesis simply means we don´t have a clue.
You acknowledge abiogenesis too, except you think a god did it magicly by turning dirt into humans.
One day there wasn´t life on the planet, one day there was; abiogenesis.
The oldest simplest fossils found are 3.5. billion years old
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor Older organisms than that would not have fossilised and so we can follow the clues given us from the past in order to figure out what happened. Like you can figure out the chemical structure of earth, the gasses, the molecules etc.
Then much like a detective trail you go to the lab with these things and see what results you get.
The results are in the video.
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor ur wrong man! There has been fossil since 3.1 billion years ago, right after the heavy bombardment era. Not until 540 million years ago with out provocation and warning and less than 1 million years there were complicated creatures. That's a 160 year old mystery that has not still been explained or solved. Before the Cambridge Explosion and the Precambrian era, most fossils are intact, but however, there is little or no transitional forms are found though. Soft bodied species have...
vivaramones1 1 year ago
@vivaramones1 Eh, ok, so it´s 3.1, I said 3.5 billion. I dont get where you disagree with me.. The oldest fossilised organisms to be found are not simple enough to have been the first living things, that´s basicly all I was saying..
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor been discovered so that's not the case. This doesn't mean evolution isn't true but it just means the mystery just deepens though...
vivaramones1 1 year ago