3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy (for schools)

This replaces the previous video that was truncated. My apologies to those who commented on the forum, but I have kept the comments on file if you need to reference them.

This video is the schools-friendly version of The Origin of Life Made Easy, the third in my series of videos taking us from the Big Bang to the human migration out of Africa.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Creation
• evolution
• christianity
• atheism

[bonham1981]

@potholer54

I had a discussion with someone who claimed that the reducing atmosphere, which is assumed by the Miller-Urey-Experiment, did not actually exist and he gave an article as a reference, J.Levine New Ideas about the Early Atmosphere, NASA Special Report, No.225, Langley Research Centre, August 11, 1983. All my searches lead to various Creationist sites, but not the article itself. Apologies if you've dealt with this in an earlier video.

Regards.

[potholer54]

@bonham1981 -- There is still uncertainty about the oxygen content of the primordial atmosphere. I don't know the article you refer to, but it should be on the NASA website. Your friend should know that the Miller-Urey experiment is over half a century old. Perhaps he should get up to date with more recent discoveries.

[gespilk]

2:25 "Some imperfectly copied molecules would have been better adapted to the environment. These successful molecules would continue to replicate and ...."

LOL: Could you define what molecule better adapted to the environment means?

3:58 You mean to say it is just a far fetched hypothesis but we have nothing better to work with. --- How about some computer modelling to evolve cells from basic chemicals. We are doing it for the Universe. Surely we can do it for the cell???

[potholer54]

@gespilk -- "Could you define what molecule better adapted to the environment means?" -- Yes. A molecule that survives and successfully replicates.

[gespilk]

@potholer54

These are not multicellular organisms.

A molecule just sits there and connects its active ends to whatever it can connect to.

How the copy would separate from the original? They do not just separate. Someone/something has to make particular separation possible.

Self-replicating molecule??? - Until we explain how that happens god will exist. Darwinian evolution just breaks around this point.

How a molecule evolves could not be explained with Darwinian process.

[potholer54]

@gespilk =These are not multicellular organisms.= No, they are self-replicating molecules. =Until we explain how that happens god will exist.= Well, since we can explain very well how that happens (read an advanced biochemistry book), I guess god doesn't exist. You said it.

[bribribri56]

some really good stuff here

[bonham1981]

@potholer54

Thanks for your answer, the controversy regarding the ox-red-species became clearer when reading into the matter. I think I found the correct article:

Levine, The photochemistry of biogenic gases in the early and present atmosphere, 1985. (the afore mentioned being a press release or news maybe)

Well, you probably know best what he was like, considering that your whole channel is basically dedicated to put the record straight. :)

Regards,

[tancheeken]

Chemical can replicate itself??? Damn. That's much BS.

[winterstellar]

@gespilk We've done it now. Or J Craig Venter's team has done it. And his computer made sigle celled life-form is multiplying and doing just swell.: ) Next gap for "God" to hide in that we can remove, please?:)

[gespilk]

@potholer54

I hate to be "a stick in the wheel" but if we know then where are the SIMULATIONS?

There are, in all those books, plenty of colourful diagrams and complicatedly explained chemical processes and yet if we are to claim that we understand the evolutionary processes we need to produce SIMULATIONS.

Up to date I am not aware of the existence of such software that can create complete ecosystems from basic chemicals by applying the knowledge gathered in all the books you kindly mentioned.

[Pirate44444]

@sallyamis firstly, he answered the question anyway, secondly he's a science reporter, thirdly he understands evolution in more depth than most people, thirdly he does have a science degree, fourthly you don't have to be a scientist to know about science. Being a science reporter he's obviously read vast amounts of the science literature.