Origin of Life 2 -- The Simple Life

SEE VIDEO 1 FIRST PLEASE

Three videos discussing the theoretical idea of abiogenesis. I am not a young earth creationist and I'm not particularly making an argument for creationism or intelligent design.

I do however make fun of the current scientific creation myths of abiogenesis.

These videos discuss how atoms become amino acids which become proteins and finally can be organized into a living single cell organism.

The current scientific models of abiogensis are actually simply attempts to explain how life could have come about with out the causation or intervention of any agent.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Abiogenesis
• life
• origin
• evolution
• science
• dna
• genetics
• atheist
• god
• biology
• rna
• religion
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• ID

[jinitron]

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.

[psychetruth]

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.

[Naxos99]

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.

[psychetruth]

Cool. Some of the proteins in your body have around 17,000 amino acids.

[TheSatanicView]

@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]

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?

[Singa2570]

@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.

[0sacrosanct]

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.

[shandcunt]

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.

[mikerozo]

complex life replaced simple.

[dave000dzee]

someone who is makin some sense and logic ...interesting

[markgg1]

@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]

@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.