How did life begin? Abiogenesis. Origin of life from nonliving matter.

How did life begin? Abiogenesis. Origin of life from nonliving matter. Arvin Ash 1.01M subscribers 694,948 views Sep 6, 2019 Complex Science Explained Simply Sponsored by Kishore Tipirneni's new book "A New Eden" available here: https://getbook.at/NewEden | Abiogenesis – origin of life. Living matter from non-living matter. The origin of living organisms from inorganic or non-living material is called abiogenesis. But abiogenesis is not evolution. Despite the incredible variations of life we see today, at the fundamental level, all living things contain three elements: Nucleic acids, Proteins, and lipids. These three things had to have been present in order for life to start. The most important component may have been lipids which make up the cell walls because without a way to encapsulate certain elements, they various chemicals could not come together to potentially interact. Lipids molecules have a unique structure. The round part loves water. The tail part hates water. So it has a tendency to self-assemble into natural spheres. However, when there are certain salt ions present, it destroys the lipid spheres. But RNA and other functions of a cell require salts and other ions. However, researchers at the University of Washington showed that lipid spheres do not disassemble if they are in the presence of amino acids, precursor to protein molecules. So it turns out that lipid cell walls and proteins need each other to exist, in salty water. Today, genetic information is stored in DNA. RNA is created from DNA. The simplicity of RNA compared to its cousin DNA, is the reason that most scientists think DNA came from RNA. This is part of the “RNA world" HYPOTHESIS, which theorizes that RNA was the essential precursor which led to the first living matter. But how did the first RNA molecule form from non-living chemicals? This is not clear cut, so here are some theories. RNA is made of three chemical components: the sugar ribose, the bases and phosphate. Figuring out how the bond between the bases and ribose first formed has been a difficult to replicate in the lab because cells in our body require complex enzymes to bring RNA building blocks together before they combine to form polymers. In a 2009 study, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that RNA could have formed on the surface of clays which act like catalysts to bring RNA bases together. But how did proteins form? In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins, was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth. It turns out that it’s pretty easy to form many kinds of organic molecules, in a wide range of environments. But having all the precursors get together inside a lipid cell wall does not necessarily mean that they will all come together to form a self-replicating living cell. This is not well understood. There are creationist arguments such as, if I put all the parts of a watch in a big vat and keep stirring it, a functioning watch is not going to magically form inside the vat. And some cite an estimate by scientists Hoyle and Wickramasinghe showing that the probability of all the chemicals in a simple bacterium arising on their own by chance, is one in ten to the 40,000th power. But these arguments are oversimplifications. They ignore the fact that sophisticated life forms like current day bacteria almost certainly did not arise spontaneously, but arose in much simpler incremental steps. The actual probability is not how the hundreds of complex chemicals can come together to form a modern day bacterium, but the probability of a few chemicals forming and coming together to form the precursors of life that can chemically evolve over time to form the simplest kind of life form that may have looked nothing like any evolved life form we see today. But showing how even this chemical evolution could have happened is problematic. Scientists have had trouble figuring out what could have driven chemicals to evolve the complexity needed for biological functioning. But in 2014, Jeremy England, physics professor at MIT showed mathematically that the driving force for chemical evolution may be Entropy. The one thing that distinguishes living things from non-living things is its ability to capture energy and convert it to heat. England argues that when exposed to an external source of energy, such as the sun, any group of molecules will restructure themselves to dissipate more and more energy. While there is no single generally accepted theory for the origin of life, all credible proposals show that life under natural conditions by a slow processes of chemical and molecular evolution could plausibly result in simple life forms over a long period of time. Do we have proof that this is how life came about – no. At least not yet. Is it plausible – absolutely. #abiogenesis Key moments View all Explore the podcast 144 episodes Complex Science Explained Simply Arvin Ash Podcasts Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript Arvin Ash 1.01M subscribers Videos About Become a Patron Follow Arvin on Twitter Like Arvin on Facebook Arvin's TikTok Instagram 3:59 Microbiome: How Many Bacteria Live on the human body? by Arvin Ash 7:29 What happens to your energy when you die? by Arvin Ash 19,650 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... Pinned by Arvin Ash @ArvinAsh 4 years ago (edited) ERRATA: Yes, you did hear me say Newton's 2nd law of (puts his head inside his shirt) of thermo. Totally embarrassing! I could make the excuse that my mechanical engineering background trained me to associate Newton with any mention of the words "2nd law," which is precisely the case. However, I also have a degree in Chemical engineering, so this is shameful. Sorry Sadi Carnot, wherever you may be! For those that may want to investigate this topic further, Derek Mathias has a good list of references here: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-in-2020-the-scientists-still-believe-that-abiogenesis-is-possible Also as Claire Jordan points out in the same forum: Consider that in only 30 years, scientists have been able to show that stable lipid bubbles can form spontaneously, DNA placed in these bubbles can self replicate successfully, the components of RNA and metabolic processes can be created in a lab by reacting raw chemicals in the lab, although we haven’t got them to click together yet. This is only in the last 30 years in a handful of labs, using glorified test tubes. Nature, on the other hand, had hundreds of millions of years and a whole planet with billions upon billions of chemistry experiments going on all over the place. I acknowledge that this process has not been figured out completely, nor demonstrated satisfactorily, but what has been done in only 30 years has powerfully demonstrated its plausibility. 365 Reply Arvin Ash · 226 replies @thomasg7864 4 years ago Give hydrogen enough time and it will start to question its existence 1.4K Reply 377 replies @kikomihov007 4 years ago 4 billion years laters those chemicals are typing comments about wondering how they came to be. 554 Reply Arvin Ash · 68 replies @cosmicwakes6443 5 years ago So it's highly likely that the transition from chemical to biological evolution could be a great filter. 706 Reply Arvin Ash · 304 replies @michaelheath9889 1 year ago The Miller Urey experiment did indeed form amino acids. However, what may have been conveniently overlooked is that the amino acids formed in the Miller-Urey experiment never combined to form proteins. The simplest proteins in a living organism are approximately 150 amino acids in length, and must be in the correct sequence and correct shape. Additionally, this also does not account for the myriad of proteins in a single cell organism. Color me skeptical that life happened by pure chance. 49 Reply 15 replies @etzenhammer 5 years ago I always knew that lipids were most important, that's why I love french fries. 368 Reply 22 replies @iain5615 4 years ago Difficult to recreate in the lab is an understatement. The clay studies show that the more that adhere to clay the harder to remove making a simplistic RNA molecule impossible. All scientists know proteins are impossible to form naturally from chemicals. 1 in 10^45 power is an understatement for proteins except the very simplest polymer. This guy is really understating the problems. 74 Reply 46 replies @Hambone3773 5 years ago The alternative application of the term "Trinity" in this video seems intentionally ironic. 194 Reply Arvin Ash · 89 replies @brynbstn 1 year ago (edited) I'm neither a materialist nor a "intelligent designer", but the problem with these arguments is they leave out a fundamental component: Action / Process / Function. It's NOT enough to bring the right ingredients together. Biological life depends on proteins, of which there are 1000's, to carry out specific operations. How did these proteins "learn" to carry out these operations? And in the right order? How did the the protein that separates DNA into two strands of RNA get this functionality and WHY would it get it? Such a sophisticated mechanism ... it boggles the mind how nature could naturally evolve this. 10 Reply 13 replies @sonicdoesfrontflips 3 years ago Because of the immense number of star systems in just the milky way galaxy, I once assumed that alien life would be very common. But after learning what it takes for life to form at all (let alone multi-cellular life), I'm really starting to think that we're the only intelligent species that we'll ever know about 186 Reply 50 replies @Starlesslemon 4 years ago This needs MUCH more study. 375 Reply 446 replies @gregorysagegreene 4 years ago (edited) "The driving force for chemical evolution ... is entropy ... in the presence of [energy] any group of molecules will restructure themselves to dissipate heat." ... to me that is a profound and almost eureka-like moment. It is saying that Physics is describing another 'force' if you will, that is emergent within bio-organic-chemistry that drives the tendency toward ever more increasing complexity . Could not that chemical evolution also carry this underlying impulse up and into biological evolution, and thereby set that up as well on such a high hill of potential ? I mean, this is like I have always intuitively felt ... that the universe wants to find itself made in ever more sophisticated forms. ... You can see that expressed even in the spectrum from particulate to galactic matter. I absolutely love this entire concept, and hope the science discovers and confirms more ! I might also point out that the 30 years you are describing, came about after I did my first 'college' in my youth including physics and chemistry, and it seems that after the decade after I left ... science has discovered so much more in the following three decades than I could have ever imagined ! Professor Ash: I would like to see a video on what pieces or organelles of the cell can be retro-hypothesized back to what scientists think might be any early working prototype of a living cell. I'm aware that cellular machinery, structure, and function are so astoundingly complex, that a cell is almost like a 'factory planet' unto itself. That was probably also a "very large hill." So if there are any scientific discoveries or conjectures out there on much simpler prototypical life, I would love to have you describe these for us ... as you do so well. 7 Reply @Prof_LK 5 months ago The "improbable chance" argument often used to describe the origin of life is overly simplistic. It ignores the correlation between sequential biological events, which is crucial for understanding how life could arise from non-living matter. Instead of viewing these events as independent, we should consider them as interconnected steps where the occurrence of one event increases the likelihood of subsequent ones. This is where Bayesian updating becomes useful—it adjusts the probabilities of these steps based on prior occurrences, showing that each step can make the next more (or potentially much more) probable, rather than all steps being isolated and equally unlikely. 11 Reply 15 replies @Mushbeary 3 years ago It's incredible seeing a creator as large and as busy as Arvin still replying to new comments thanks for interacting with your community and bringing complex issues to a level us simpletons can understand 127 Reply 20 replies @hospitalcleaner 4 years ago Love when he says "thats coming up right now" it brings the hype 28 Reply @think-islam-channel 4 years ago As a theist I found this a fairly well balanced and very interesting video 13 Reply 3 replies @Coltrabagar 1 year ago RNA and DNA are "Self-Replicating molecules?" No. They require proteins to replicate. They do not replicate on their own. 24 Reply 25 replies @grantdillon3420 4 years ago There's another question I'm seeing here: how was it in the first place that the universe happened to have the 110+ elements that have the natural proclivity to combine in such ways that, under the right conditions, they will self-assemble into increasingly complex forms. 50 Reply 101 replies @HardHitnHstry 4 years ago Not sure if anyone pointed this out. "Chemicals react they do not evolve." And figuring out how these chemicals stayed out of equilibrium is a problem proponents of abiogenesis avoid like the plague. 4 Reply 6 replies @shaccooper 4 years ago It’s ironic how so many viewers say that he explains this so well, when in reality, he explains nothing except how impossible abiogenesis is except if you accept statements of faith from some scientist. He cites many things that have been debunked by science as being possible for a biogenesis, at times in a deceitful way because he seems to know they’ve been debunked but why mention them. 15 Reply 7 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago (edited) Creationists often say things like, "The probability of even a single functional protein forming randomly even given billions of years is effectively zero." Let's see what science has to say about such statements. What is the probability of hitting upon an 80-amino acid protein, by random ordering of amino acids, that can perform a specific biologically relevant function: the ability to bind ATP? Well, let's use the typical Creationist-style calculations. There are 20^80 different amino acid sequences 80 amino acids long: that comes to more than 10^104 unique sequences. Who in their right mind would think that a functional protein that size, that can perform the specific function of binding ATP, could be hit upon by chance ordering of amino acids? The probability is 1 in 10^104, for Zeus's sake!!!!!!!!!! Some Creationists who know at least a little about biology might improve their calculation, and say something like, "But let's do evolutionists a huge favor and assume that 1 TRILLION proteins 80 amino acids long could perform the function. Not just 1 single amino acid sequence could, but 1 TRILLION! The probability of finding one of those by chance is still 1 in 10^92, for Thor's sake!!!! 10^92 is such an enormous number you can't even conceive it! There are only some 10^80 elementary particles in the entire universe!! Even given billions of years, the probability would still be effectively 0 of hitting such a protein!!!" Well, scientists went into the lab and tried it. They created a large pool of 10^13 RANDOM sequences 80 amino acids long, and then tested to see how many, if any, could bind ATP. They found 4 different proteins, formed from RANDOM amino acid sequences 80-aa's long, that could bind ATP. They didn't find just 1 sequence that could, but 4 different sequences that could. They then estimated that the probability of finding a 80-aa protein that could perform the specific function they tested for, the ability bind to ATP, to be about 1 in 10^11. Look at the difference between the results of Creationist-style calculations, and what scientists found through empirical experiments. See how astronomically horrible Creationist-style calculation are! PS: On top of all of that, the scientists tested for only 1 specific, predetermined function: the ability to bind ATP. In their pool of random amino acid sequences, there were probably other functional proteins (perhaps some that could bind ribose, or some other simple organic molecule, for example). 7 Reply @Nervybear 4 years ago James Tour is the master on this topic. 41 Reply 54 replies @tobylangdale95 3 years ago Still by no science or craft that we now possess may we bring life forth from it's absence. Still a profound mystery. 6 Reply 1 reply @jordanbennett6461 5 years ago I love that idea of life being a product of entropy 32 Reply 20 replies @patrickduffy2744 4 months ago A lot of theories still unable to replicate in the lab ? 6 Reply 1 reply @danev1969 4 years ago (edited) I have always followed the tenet that if physics provides a probable answer to a question; then any other answer that requires a supernatural foundation is in error. 4 Reply Arvin Ash · 19 replies @cdprince768 2 years ago The same people who say a creator must be responsible for inexplainable phenomena never seem bothered to explain where the creator came from. 9 Reply 4 replies @funkyflames7430 5 years ago (edited) There are a couple possibilities for the start of life. 1. Abiogenesis 2. Spontaneous Generation 3. Life from life (meaning there was always life) 4. Life from established life (highly intelligent beings create life) This though just pushes the question back a step. Out of these, most people believe spontaneous generation is impossible. Life from life means there has always been a life which is totally unsupported. So that leaves us with abiogenesis. If you would like to add any other mechanisms about the creation of life, please comment and give solid reasoning as to why it is likely. Additionally, it would be nice if you could find some studies supporting your claims. 4 Reply 2 replies @LessThanCertain 1 year ago What's the mechanism for pre-life chemicals to be preserved and protected for long enough time for chemical evolution to have occurred? Wouldn't they be subject to destruction by the same environmental forces that created them in the first place? 8 Reply 1 reply @UwU-ok2jr 2 years ago I know this is a science video and all but I just wanted to tell people how this video SERIOUSLY helped me in life I've been a Christian for almost my whole life and I don't ever remember not believing in God when I was younger. I've always believed in God and the thing that fueled my faith the most was the unfathomable complexity of life. Things like genetics, neuroscience, and the intricate complexity of human thought all made me think to myself "Wow! there's no possible way this all came out of nowhere it's all too perfectly designed." and that's what fueled my Christian faith for so long but i started having questions like: "If God loves us beyond comprehension, then how come he sends such wonderful people to hell for all of eternity just because they made a few harmless sins without asking him to be their savior? That's not a very caring or forgiving God at all." and "How come God allowed so many other religions to exist if he really wanted people to get saved? How do we even know which god is the real God?" I also understood why people would believe in a higher being because of the complexity of creation just like what made me believe in God. Questions like this have been in the back of my head for years but I've only really started thinking about these questions now because of my desire for "worldly" things like Halloween, kissing a girl, prom, you know all the teen things that I don't get to enjoy in a Christian school. I just want to enjoy the only life I have but I've never had sufficient proof to convince me that God isn't real and liberate me from religion. So I searched for an answer to how life started out of nowhere and by this time, I do understand the concept of evolution and how things have good and bad mutations and are selected by survival of the fittest so all I needed now was an answer to how life began from non-life and as you could see, I found it. I've found the answer in this video, so thank you so much, Arvin Ash for liberating me from religion you've really helped me break what is hopefully the last psychological barrier to truly becoming an atheist and being able to live my only life to the fullest. This video has genuinely helped me not have some sort of religious crisis or return to the bounds of religion and I can't thank you enough for it. 6 Reply Arvin Ash · 18 replies @jeffheadlee3513 4 years ago (edited) A very articulate presentation for the lay public. Taking a little jab at the creationists undermines the objectivity of the video, though. The discovery of a way to naturally combine nucleotides to make RNA ignores the fact that the information system that RNA/DNA represent is order specific, and is literally a computer algorithm. Engineering this very long polymer via natural processes is quite a high hurdle, maybe impossible from an information entropy standpoint , and makes all the other problems nearly insignificant by comparison, inviting the possibility of intelligent agency. While I do admire the talents and hard work of all who decipher the abiogenesis problem, the insistence on a natural process is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. 9 Reply 1 reply @Johnny-ts5hh 3 years ago I was literally wondering about this earlier. YouTube is reading my minds 21 Reply 5 replies @acgolem 1 year ago Can I just say THANK YOU. So much detail. I watched this with my 7 year old and he seems to have understood it. Exceptional work. Watching this I can tell it's a video that'll stand the test of time. 26 Reply 4 replies @2FaceTube 4 years ago Good job! I watched a presentation for a PhD work about abiogenesis years ago. It was very simple and it made a lot of sense (to me at least). The way that the particles would penetrate and organize themselfs inside the 'buble' it was dictated by natural laws like pressure diferencial, osmosis, positiv/negativ charged particles, etc.. So the main point was that the 'buble' almost trapped the particles and once inside they would organize into small stable structures by 'chemestry rules'. And from time to time more 'bubles' would fusion into one bigger 'buble' with bigger structures inside. It was almost a symbiotic relation between the shell and the structures inside the 'buble'.. the particles needed a shell in order to 'organize' into much bigger structures (cause of the protection of the shell) and the 'bubles' with more particles inside were more stable, so it was almost like natural selection aplied to non living things if I recall corectly. The bigger structures (even ADN/ARN) could only form inside of a shell. I've searched it a long time ago but I couldn't find it, it just dissapeared... :/ 7 Reply 7 replies @ssiddarth 4 years ago This video deserves millions of views; all your videos are so well made (The topics chosen are really interesting), your voice is clear & the vocabulary you use is easy to understand even for the non native speakers, the breakdown into sub topics makes it easier to understand the whole picture & the animations are amazing as well. All in all love your channel & thank you for the amazing work 🤗😘 189 Reply 42 replies @ineskucharz1990 2 years ago Nice explanation! Unfortunately, the Miller-Urey experiment has now been shown to have some major flaws, so does not help in explaining how life evolved. See for example Conway-Morris´ book Life´s Solutions. 6 Reply 2 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @StarLander6 said, "the Gibbs equation ..." Doesn't mean jack if the conditions of interest aren't those used in the calculation. Calculations are done for specific conditions, usually "typical" or standard conditions. Those are the conditions for which the results apply. For abiogenesis, the conditions of interest can be very different: for example, alkaline hydrothermal vents have huge pH gradients that can drive reactions forward that "the Gibbs equation" say are impossible under "typical" conditions. The "Gibbs equation" that is calculated under specific constant conditions also doesn't mean a thing if: a) reactants become more concentrated (as can occur during wet-dry cycles, and at air-water interfaces) b) products are removed (as can occur if water washes away products more readily than reactants) c) temperature changes (as can occur during freeze-thaw cycles) d) pH changes (as occurs at alkaline hydrothermal vents) e) an input of energy from the surrounding occurs (as can occur when UV light begins impinging upon shallow water in the morning) Reply @sang-jinri7491 3 years ago You are forgiven, Arvin, for the errata. A Mechanical Engineering major myself, I never thought I could be interested in organic chemistry. This is immensely fascinating - thank you. Your water origin video that just preceded this one makes me think if any of the elements needed for the simplest life form on earth (nucleic acid, proteins, lipids) were delivered by the asteroid(s) or comet(s). Also, the infinite number of multiverses are constantly being born and recreated, perhaps the basic structures of each universe can differ as well? Even at particle or string levels? Tis means the host possessing consciousness can be vastly different from that of his universe (let alone from the earth). Or would the consciousness itself have totally different meaning and mechanism compared to ours? Again, thank you, Arvin for sharing your knowledge. If your goal is to make this world smarter, you certainly are succeeding. 5 Reply 2 replies @Infamous_V.I.P 3 years ago Funny how people inflicted with religion see this as utter nonsense, yet are content in their fairytale that a magical all powerful being just willed everything into existence instantaneously. 10 Reply 8 replies @abelflores6397 2 years ago this video ended my midlife crisis 12 Reply 1 reply @tomlee2651 5 years ago Abiogenesis must still be happening today. It just that any new lifeforms would be quickly consumed/out-competed by the current dominate form of life. 21 Reply 18 replies @bubbercakes528 3 years ago The more I know about science, the more I realize what I don’t know. I’m 57 and would have been a lifetime student if I could. Thanks to the internet I am a student again. 7 Reply 59 replies @bkrharold 5 years ago (edited) In early Earth the environment was favorable for the formation of the three main precursors of life. The simplest life form is a virus, they are relatively simpler than bacteria, and therefore most likely candidates for Abiogenesis. However viruses cannot self replicate, they depend on living cells for reproduction. If viruses did not exist, it is unlikely living cells existed at that time, but of course you wouldn't need them. So if the first life form was as small and simple as a virus, it must have had the capacity to sustain itself long enough to replicate, and to actually replicate. These two functions require components similar to those used in normal cells, organelles, ribosomes or chloroplasts. Viruses are by no means simple, only relatively compared with living cells. Adding the requirement for extra machinery to sustain and self replicate would bring the proposed "simple virus" almost `to the same level of complexity as a cell. The earliest organism would most likely have used energy from the Sun. This would have required a chloroplast which could perform photosynthesis. It is a very small structure but extremely complex. https://imjustanotherstudent.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/photosynthesis-structure-of-chloroplasts/ It is difficult to understand how these complex systems arose by random natural chemical reactions, and then all came together at the same time and place to produce a living organism. 16 Reply 11 replies @KARAIsaku 11 months ago One of all-time greatest scientists, Louis Pasteur, proved 150 years ago that life only comes from life. Nobody has been able to prove the contrary until today. His discoveries opened the door to a medical revolution from which mankind benefits until today. This nice video presents an unproven theory. 1 Reply @stephd479 4 years ago I've been watching a bunch of origin of life videos (layperson), and this is the meatiest and most satisfying so far. Keep up the good work! 90 Reply 23 replies @brianawilk285 4 years ago About halfway through the video entropy was what came to my mind before you said it. As I've been getting older I've been looking at most things through the eyes of math/physics. 14 Reply 13 replies @mikefelber5129 2 years ago Such a great synopsis about this topic! Life is all about high to low energy, the meaning we make of it is through the gift of consciousness, which is all a product of entropy 21 Reply 11 replies @SamWitney 4 months ago (edited) I think the explanation is quite simple. A process that seems impossible, becomes possible given enough tries and times to make it happen. I actually find it quite satisfying. As it is actually quite a good explanation for what we should expect to find in the galaxy in terms of life. We would find lot's of failures at the attempt at this process, but very few successes. If any. Even if there was only one success per galaxy of our size. It would still result in so many civilizations out there. The reason why we don't see these civilizations is because there is no need to ever travel outside your galaxy. This to me is a satisfying answer to life and why we will never find it. 2 Reply 3 replies @cdiana1 2 years ago This is my favorite science video since the last one you made. You have a gift for explaining complex ideas in a way that anyone who wants to understand will. You can only simplify things a certain amount. Television is for everyone else. Thanks. Keep the great videos coming! 42 Reply 16 replies @nileshkorgaokar 4 years ago Beautifully explained. I had no idea about abiogenesis before I watched your video. Thanks very much. 23 Reply 3 replies @cvbob 3 years ago Thanks Arvin, nice discussion. But I think the major hurdle is the information-laden RNA and DNA. How did the base sequence arise to produce the first proteins; that's where you get those astronomical improbabilities (and therefore high information content). And, there's a chicken-and-egg problem. mRNA translation in prokaryotes requires some 50 separate proteins, RNA and ribosomes, along with tRNAs that match the 3-nucleotide codons to attach the amino acids, all of which would need DNA's direction (along with ATP or some other energy producing molecule) to initially build. So, if you need functional proteins working with RNA to make functional proteins, where did it start? I feel that videos like these really fall short of describing the complexity and really over-simplify the problem. We just may have a problem that falls out of scope for scientific exploration. 4 Reply 2 replies @logomoniclearning6680 3 months ago Isn’t it ironic that science believes in miracles even more so than religion. 27 Reply 1 reply @sussekind9717 4 years ago Why do creationists have to be so deliberately disingenuous, by constantly saying "by chance" when they know perfectly well, that matter and energy operate under natural forces. The only thing in evolution that could be considered random is mutation, and that's still disputed. 5 Reply 4 replies @WWTormentor 4 years ago When I use to teach college biology, this is how I explained the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is how we went from stone weapons such as spears to nuclear weapons. Abiogenesis is how the stones were made. 10 Reply 2 replies @cosmonaut42 5 years ago The era of heavy bombardment is also a reason for polymerisation of rna, and most of these meteorites had amino acids and ingredients of life. 25 Reply 50 replies @Nxck2440 1 year ago (edited) Amazing video, I learned so much. I summarised what I learned here, plus some extra research of my own using the things you showed as a guide. Abiogenesis theory describes the naturalistic origin of life on Earth from simple chemical substances, thought to have occurred in the late Hadean eon (before 3.5 billion years ago). Astrochemistry: molecules relevant to organic chemistry are ubiquitous in the Solar System - Water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen were present on the Hadean Earth. These can form racemic amino acids in the presence of electrical energy (lightning), as shown in the Miller-Urey experiment (1952). The experiment has been criticised for not being an accurate reflection of early Earth conditions however, and it is now thought that the primary energy source was solar UV radiation or heat from hydrothermal vents. - Panspermia hypothesis: amino acids with slight enantiomeric excess have been found on meteorites, which may have been delivered to Earth during the late heavy bombardment. - The cause of this enantiomeric excess is not well understood - one theory is selective photolysis by circularly polarised synchrotron radiation from pulsars in deep space. Prebiotic Chemistry: formation of biomolecules and organic matter from inorganic matter - Hydrothermal vents release chemicals as well as providing heat energy, making reactions more feasible. - Wohler’s urea synthesis (1828) from inorganic salts showed there is nothing ‘special’ about organic matter. - Mineral guided catalysis: minerals, such as borates, can stabilise sugars. Mineral-rich tidal pools could have been sites of heterogeneous catalysis, where wet-dry cycling can lead to autocatalytic cycles which introduce a kind of prebiotic selection. This is the ‘hot spring model’ in the primordial ‘soup’. Macromolecule Assembly - Lipid assembly: carbon monoxide and hydrogen can form lipids in the presence of mineral catalysts. However, lipids are destabilised by aqueous ions, which must have been present for other biomolecules to form. Chelation by amino acids has been shown to re-stabilise lipids and their bilayers. - Protein assembly: proteins form from amino acids in water despite being energetically unfavourable, due to either chemical activation by minerals, or absorption into the hydrophobic regions of lipid micelles. - RNA world hypothesis: Nucleotides polymerise on hot clays to form RNA. RNA acted both as a genetic code as well as an autocatalyst (ribozymes), allowing it to self-replicate while carrying out specific functions. Ribozymes were replaced by enzymes later in the evolutionary process. - Autocatalytic cycle: a self-sustaining set of reactions in which the products catalyse the formation of itself, as well as other reactions in the cycle. This permits self-replication and ‘chemical evolution’. Chemical evolution is thermodynamically favourable in these cases since the molecules are collectively able to dissipate energy gradients imposed upon them into heat, maximising net entropy. - Homochirality: could have occurred at the polymer level (chiral induced spin selectivity) or at the monomer level (asymmetric catalysis). Selection amplified differences in e.e. over time. Protocell Formation and its Subsequent Evolution - Biomolecules can be encapsulated in a lipid bilayer, which forms spontaneously. This would have been an extremely primitive cell (a protocell), and may or may not be considered life. It is not yet clear how metabolism arises in this process: this seems to be the only remaining 'black box' in OoL research. - A protocell forms a prokaryotic cell over time by gradual specialisation and evolution. This represents the first sign of something considered life today. - Endosymbiotic theory: a prokaryote ‘absorbed’ a small aerobic bacterium without consuming it. The bacterium became the cell’s mitochondria, forming the first eukaryotic cells. - Multicellular organisms arose when eukaryotic cells exchanged vesicles containing biomolecules, bringing them close together, a kind of cooperation. - Selective pressures from the environment favoured cells which could tolerate their surroundings, providing the driving force for biological evolution by natural selection. - Speciation occurred when the fitness landscape changed but organisms remain divided, leading them to take diverging evolutionary pathways, creating diversity, such as that which occured in the Cambrian explosion. This process proceeds all the way up to today, with the organisms becoming ever more specialised with each generation. 2 Reply 1 reply @josuejumalon 5 years ago Jim Tour said that it is impossible to create something without the proper environment. The availability of other materials must be present already to create. So, it must be created all together. 4 Reply 2 replies @amargaste3833 4 years ago Few days ago, i told my mom that we are so advanced that can now produce sun in the laboratory ; she replied "but you cannot create life in the lab." 🤐 6 Reply 2 replies @stephenbrickwood1602 1 year ago Saul Griffith's video on self assembling blocks that can only assemble in particular ways is very interesting. Random movement causes the blocks to come into contact in different ways. Only particular ways lock together. His blocks had magnets, and the north or south pole was exposed and particularly shaped faces. In the early earth, the tides and ions in the ocean may have been significant features. ????? 4 Reply 5 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 4 months ago RobertRamirez4965 said in his OP that "there are nine essential amino acids required for life". That's wrong. But I wanted to make sure what he meant, so I asked for clarification, and he replied, "We as humans need about 20 amino acids for life, but 9 are considered essential and necessary for life." Robert doesn't seem to understand that either. In general, all life needs the same 20 amino acids (there are exceptions), but some organisms cannot synthesize all 20 so they have to get the ones they can't synthesize by consuming a source that contains them. Those are the essential amino acids: the ones the species cannot synthesize for itself and must obtain in its diet. What Robert said in his OP is wrong. It is true for humans (and most other mammals), but not for most reptiles or fish; and most bacteria don't have any essential amino acids, because they can synthesize all of the amino acids they need. And Robert is all over the place, ranting like a loon. The video is about the origin of life, and he thinks he is talking about the origin of life, but he talks essential amino acids for humans, and eukaryotic cells. That makes no sense at all. 6 Reply 2 replies @noahway13 5 years ago And it only happened ONCE. No one emphasizes that enough. We.all, trees, clams, and humans, came from a common ancestor. 11 Reply Arvin Ash · 14 replies @timtoolman9940 2 years ago Sure makes sense to me in fact I had a deck of cards on my desk the other day that assembled itself into a house over night. 6 Reply 13 replies @illlanoize23 4 years ago Damn I remember when this channel was at several thousand subscribers, it’s really grown a lot 7 Reply 1 reply @markwise9138 1 year ago Watched the whole video but still did not find a plausible explanation for the origin of life from nonliving chemicals. 2 Reply 1 reply @davisn8052 4 years ago (edited) why doesn’t this same process of chemical evolution from inanimate matter to life continues to occur on earth? 4 Reply 2 replies @stargazer7079 5 years ago You explain everything so well. Your video is amazing as usual.😄 148 Reply 35 replies @gmeadows62 4 years ago It’s so cool to see man figuring out how God did it all. 7 Reply 2 replies @TheBanjoShowOfficial 1 year ago I have to include a personal analogy of mine in addition to the idea of a watch being created out of a stirring vat. Let’s assume that for every part that goes on correctly assembled, we even maintain that part, so that it becomes a cumulative process going in incremental steps. You also have to consider the programming of such systems. In game development, the alteration of a single variable from let’s say 0 to 1, could cause potentially catastrophic implications in the function of the program. Hell, even to the point where the entire system breaks down and is lost. Now imagine with organic chemistry this process. This is an insane amount of functions all operating in unison without suffering catastrophic failure, even if you factor in billions of years of development. Mind you, we aren’t simple single-celled organisms obviously. So with every added iteration, you’re introducing thousands, potentially millions of other factors that could hinder the functions of all other bodily functions. 5 Reply 5 replies @StellaAsh 4 years ago Our urge to put everything in a 'box' is our real failure. 7 Reply 1 reply @crudemocha248 2 years ago Life arising from complex chemicals naturally organizing to more efficiently dissipate energy. That’s such a wild thought. Thank you for this very interesting video. 8 Reply 1 reply @alexanderSydneyOz 3 years ago Mr Ash's explanations of topics are refreshingly clear, and make complex subjects comprehensible to simple folk. :) 5 Reply 2 replies @hitmusicworldwide 1 year ago I never could understand those that separate physics from chemistry and molecular biology. Always at the root of everything there is physics. 0 it seems that even for some of the most advanced among us shaking off magical thinking is very difficult. 1 Reply @edturnbull4446 2 years ago Thank you for this video. This is the best overview of the science of abiogenesis I have seen. I appreciate your ability to present the essential approaches and goals of scientific inquiry into the origins of life. I look forward to more of your work. 14 Reply 28 replies @keegenmacrae 2 years ago That's why some crazy outlandish theories are still even considered possible by scientists over the years because nobody has figured out where life came from, we're learning a lot about biological life here at home but who really knows how big the universe is or even if we can even understand we might have it all completely wrong that's what's so awesome about space and time and black holes it's amazing... 9 Reply @GlenMcGlone 4 months ago (edited) “That can chemically evolve”. And there you have it. Chemicals do not “evolve”. 8 Reply 1 reply @bromleysimon7414 1 year ago (edited) I like learning about chemical evolution. But my search must continue for an explanation of why life cares about living. The will to live is central to the story of abiogenesis, because survival cannot be a consequence of indifference. At some point, at some level, awareness emerged. Otherwise, why would life regard living as precious, and a return to a non-living state as something to be avoided? So thanks for the molecular "how" of the subject. A further and more elusive answer lies somewhere in the "why." Hopefully this too is a province of science, but only if absolutely everything is capable of scientific study. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @philrobson7976 5 years ago Perhaps there are new forms of life coming into existence even as Arvin was talking. Excellent video and as always a very listenable voice. 9 Reply Arvin Ash · 13 replies @TheSebastian5978 4 years ago None of us know what we’re talking about when it comes to this... Actually, we don’t know what we’re talking about with anything for the most part. 8 Reply 9 replies @jamesdevine620 4 years ago the one thing your video proves for certain is that we don't know much....coulda woulda shoulda.... 18 Reply 53 replies @zacharyferreira2469 1 year ago My struggle with abiogenesis is a simple one: why did it emerge only once if it emerged progressively in stages? Why can we not observe the emergence of all the building blocks of life at all stages of biochemical emergence at a single time? Shouldn’t there be chemical and molecular precursors of life and self-replicating proto-life observable to scientists at all stages of chemical emergence present on Earth today in the same way that we can still see single cell life forms and very “primitive” life forms all around us today? It is like trying to imagine hypothesizing evolutionary biology on a planet where microbes cannot be found except in the fossil record. Or I wrong? Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 13 days ago Ever since I pointed out the fact that @michaelportaloo1981 violated his own made-up rule, he has been trying to rewrite history ... trying to change his rule by adding things that weren't in there or changing what he said. His rule was, "one message requires one reply". 1) He later claimed that when his rule says a person is REQUIRED to post one reply to a message, that his rule meant posting a reply is OPTIONAL. So requires means optional??? This is the kind of thing he does. 2) When I said that his rule says one, not exactly one, he replied that one means exactly one. Well then, here too he tries to change something that is supposed required (EXACTLY ONE reply is REQUIRED) to being optional (0 replies is okay). He tries to make exactly one include 0. 3) His rule didn't say anything about exceptions for grouping: that is just more nonsense he tried to add afterwards, because everyone knows he violated his own made-up rule when he posted it. His rule wasn't, "one message requires one reply, unless that one message is in a group of multiple messages, in which case each message does not require a reply, rather the one group of messages requires one reply". 4) His rule didn't say anything about quantity vs units: that too is more nonsense he has tried to add afterwards, because he knows he violated his own fabricated rule. 2 Reply 7 replies @jerryeberts3726 1 year ago The problem with too many evangelicals is an inability to grasp how long a billion years is. The number 6,000 is as high as most can count. 9 Reply 2 replies @averagejoe8839 2 years ago I recently read an article stating the miller-yuri experiment was actually compromised by the use of a man made glass beaker and in fact would not have yielded the results without said flask. Do you think this issue could effect your experiments? I often wondered about the simulated lightning used in that experiment truly replicated reality as multiple lightning strikes of the same intensity hitting the exact same spot happening naturally in nature is a very hard sell. So many random acts had to come together to create life from lifeless matter! I dont buy it but i did like this presentation. Keep making them! 11 Reply Arvin Ash · 48 replies @martin-krzywinski 5 years ago At 0:50, I would never say "only magic." People with no imagination say that. I would say "Hmm, I don't understand how this happened. Let's look into it." 6 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @markusmaximus629 1 year ago Life is chemicals. Any chemical bond can form under the right pressure and temperature. Therefore, life is inevitable, given that the correct range of pressure and temperature exist for all of the necessary components. 1 Reply @SystemUpdate310 4 years ago I like your content very much, but your bias is clearly shown here. You are touting recent speculative and hand-wavy papers (like the one about RNA forming on clay) as solutions for the problem, and it is you who actually simplified the issue. Amino acids don't form functioning proteins by themselves and it's not enough to have either RNA or DNA and lipids and "proteins". It's like saying all you need for a computer is some plastic and sand and wires. You need very specific proteins which don't come by without protein synthesis. It's a chicken and egg problem you failed to mention. DNA and RNA itself doesn't do anything at all, as a molecule they have absolutely nothing to do with proteins. You need very specific proteins, the whole molecular machinery to regulate, parse and decode the information stored in RNA/DNA to build specific functioning proteins, enzymes. 5 Reply 6 replies @adamrspears1981 5 years ago This is the way I see it: Under certain conditions of hostility, chemistry affords a solution to "out sustaining" that period of hostility. Chemistry's solution is to produce a system that has a beginning; can self replicate; & lastly, expire. In this way, Chemisty provides a solution to thriving beyond conditions of hostility. & the outcome of this solution, has evolved into procaryotic & eucaryotic single celled Organisms. & then onto multi-cellular organisms. The solution has withstood the test of time & evolved as a sort of "snow ball" effect....& so here we, as people are! 13 Reply 8 replies @rayray6548 5 years ago The purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide - Mike Russell 30 Reply 5 replies @dragandjordjevic5603 1 year ago Organic matter formed from inorganic matter is a fairly tale.. Abiogenesis did not explain anything, it is saying everything is still "unknown". DNA/RNA complexity and functionally point to only one logical possible origin, intelligent design. 3 Reply Arvin Ash · 5 replies @milandavid7223 4 years ago It's such a shame that every debate on this topic turns into a "christian vs atheist battle", where religious fanatics who take the bible way too seriously argue with non-religious fanatics who also take the bible way too seriously, and in the end every one gets upset over eachothers opinions 6 Reply @tookymax 4 years ago You forgot the 4th necess ary component, CARBOHYDRATES 6 Reply @bondjames652 7 months ago Humans have already proved life was created by creating life themselves. 1 Reply @Scrungge 2 years ago Watched the video. Still don't understand; what "dead thing" suddenly starts to protect itself (survivorship)?? what is the point? 8 Reply 4 replies @dailywebmoments 5 years ago i really love your videos😍😍😍 respect from Pakistan 62 Reply Arvin Ash · 52 replies @rustycherkas8229 2 years ago I really appreciate your brief mention of trillions of "petri dishes" running parallel to one another over millions of years. Thank you... One of the Numberphile guys presented the estimate that there are 10^120 possible games of chess that could be played. Staggering that my daughter and I played one that resulted in the result that it did!! Can you imagine how unlikely it was that we would play that particular game out of all those possibilities!!! A modern bacteria can divide (according to Wikipedia) in 20 minutes. Assuming a day of 1440 minutes, that's 72 "generations" that are possible in a single day. 2^70 'daughters' is ample opportunity for many detrimental mutations to end the bifurcations, but also for one to be more 'fit' than its sisters... That's just a single day in the millions of years that we've allowed. Every organism is a transitional organism. Nature has no need for artificial arbitrary labels like 'species'. God asked Adam to name 'kinds'? An intelligent designer should have known that there's no such thing. It's only silly monkeys who imagine categories. 9 Reply 1 reply @thejackdiamondart 1 year ago Doesn't Abiogenesis violate entropy forming complex organized organisms where things should be becoming more disorganized? 1 Reply 1 reply @derkach7907 3 years ago "well we understand how first life formed, it's just we still don't how it actually did" 15 Reply 16 replies @corneliusteslaru9450 4 years ago Is it just me or 1. You've used an invalidated experiment 2. The presence of organic molecules in meteorites need to be explained anyway? 5 Reply 2 replies @micahshively2831 2 years ago Science: helping humans find ever more complicated ways of saying "I don't know" since the dawn of time. 4 Reply @jaybennett236 1 year ago What is the "primordial soup" made of? How did it accidentally form? Prof. L. Krause says "Because there is gravity, the universe created itself from nothing". I find that unscientific and hard to believe! 1 Reply 1 reply @ronniereeves9877 3 years ago I think you should talk to Dr. Tour, you might learn something! Love you. 5 Reply 2 replies @tinywillis 4 years ago Wait, Rna is catalyzed by clay?! Life was shaped on clay? That's spooky biblical... makes me a little uncomfortable 😥 20 Reply 35 replies @dadsonworldwide3238 4 years ago Origin of life hasn't had any break throughs since the 50s. We've learned how things work and details but that's actually made more things to explain. As it is we require a first complex rna to form and this is literally step number 1 million happening first. Its not as easy as random amino acids algining. 6 Reply 29 replies @daniel-panek 8 months ago There were a couple new things to me. The idea that Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics' entropy principle as an explanation for chemical evolution is pretty interesting. It actually does make sense, on the face of it. Another thing is that people underestimate the quantity and time. If you tell me something is 10^41 likely to happen but there are like 10^39 instances of processes happening at a time for billions of years, then it becomes less "coincidental". People don't seem to understand it. Reply 3 replies @aignise 2 years ago Perfectly logical counter argument to the creationist analogies! Good job! 12 Reply 8 replies @jeromehorwitz2460 4 years ago Digestion started with simple absorption by bacteria and through mutation and natural selection has grown into the elaborate system of eating seen in vertebrates today. 5 Reply @theosib 5 years ago Having all three of lipids, proteins, and RNA come together all at once seems like a major stretch. More likely I could buy the accidental or spontaneous formation of some simple self replicating molecule made of something like a protein or RNA based enzyme. I seem to remember reading reading about some good hypotheses pertaining to simple self replicating proteins that aren’t especially complex. 17 Reply 414 replies @rogercoziol2768 1 year ago (edited) You said "combined in precisely the correct sequence" which is wrong. It does not have to be precise at all. All state happens as accident, keeping what form works at the moment. This is an open, impresisce process, from which emerges a huge variety of forms, explaining constant adaptation and thus evolution. Reply @frankievaccaro3216 1 year ago Where did the INFORMATION that is needed to form proteins come from? 14 Reply 10 replies @josephsurina5367 1 year ago I have to say, I actually love how this video is put together. I am a creationist looking at counter arguments to my position and the honesty/straight forwardness of this video is great. I do disagree with a couple of the starting premises and I could debate on a couple of the points you brought up. But as far as information and intellectually stimulating conversation this is a great video. 10 Reply 3 replies @spacesciencelab 4 years ago This has to be the best video on YouTube. It seems to me now that life is some form of advanced chemistry. 10 Reply 5 replies @michaelportaloo1981 1 year ago It's nice to see a video on this topic that doesn't involve Professor Dave or James Tour having an online spat. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @stephenloukin9915 3 years ago Really well done IMHO. A great explanation of the current understandings of this fundamental question, employing step-by-step logical progressions instead of unexplained and slickly-produced jargon that is all too common in other science videos on YouTube. Although there are holes, it's amazing what you packed into a 15' video.....chapeau, and thanks so much for this. 11 Reply @paulwary 2 years ago Very honest and informative summary. Seems a lot of content teaching theory of abiogenesis is simplistically asserting we have the basic mechanisms elucidated. They are reacting against the 'christian science' people and losing objectivity. Scientists should never hesitate to clearly state 'we really don't know', because, ultimately that's where the authority comes from. 11 Reply @frederikvn 3 years ago Dear Alvin, I generally appreciate your science explanations. This one on abiogenesis is however speculative, and errs in embracing ontological naturalism. I think it would be better to stick to "methodological naturalism", if naturalism is the only choice of world view? While the excellent graphics usually enhances the explanatory power of your lectures, the graphics is this lecture renders unwarranted credulity to biased speculation. 15 Reply 3 replies @grahamblack1961 3 weeks ago It's so annoying that you can't watch a video about abiogenesis without the comment section being filled with angry theists. Abiogenesis is about all they've got left though, the amount of attention it gets is very revealing. Two thousand years ago theists could point to anything from earthquakes to eclipses and say only a God can explain that! Now they're all the way down to abiogenesis. 2 Reply 6 replies @pateralus9 5 years ago You're doing such great work here! I'm certain your channel will continue to grow, & likely quickly. Thanks & keep it up! 😃 11 Reply @smitasitara 1 year ago So well explained! O finally understood something about the origin of life. 4 Reply @demianmakuc380 5 years ago This is absolutely mindblowing! It seems so simple yet so complicated.. i cant imagine that we are the result of some microscopic things merging 4 billion years ago.. thank you Arvin, keep up the amazing work!! 16 Reply 49 replies @OnlineMD 1 year ago Wow, almost a half a million views and almost twenty thousand comments! Goes to show how the origin of life is important to us. For you physicists and chemists, life is nothing but a collection of what I call "Dancing Molecules." :) Book after book, like the two books titled "What Is Life" by Erwin Schrödinger and decades later by Lynn Margulis, are molecule-obsessed books. But go back to over 2500 years ago, when Jains and Hindus decided that Life must have two components: Consciousness (Purusha) and Energy (Prakrithi). Consciousness is impotent without energy, and energy can accomplish nothing without the guidance of consciousness. So there it is! :) Namasthe! Reply 3 replies @ramptonarsecandle 2 years ago Amusing reading the butt hurt comments from halfwit creationists. Carry on as you all sound so knowledgeable! 12 Reply @helmutzollner5496 2 years ago (edited) Beautiful presentation. Great explanation. Target group is not for complete neophytes. Really like your style. You actually reference the study and who did the study and not only use the bland expression 'Scientists'. Thank you. Happily subscribing. Keep up the good work! 5 Reply @petslittleworld 5 years ago Superb video Arvinash!! I feel every process in this Universe is a process of evolution, Big bang to energy, energy to sub-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules, to complex self replicating molecules, to life, to intelligence. Each time process becomes more complex and it keeps becoming more efficient in dissipating energy. The law entropy is reason for something to exist rather than nothing. Absolutely love your work, keep making more such videos. Stay Curious!!! 4 Reply 3 replies @oobrocks 1 year ago (edited) I strongly disagree that abiogenesis isn’t subject to evolution. If that was true, that means god created life. If RNA wasn’t created by evolution, it couldn’t have come about 2 Reply @donovanplayfair9629 1 year ago Mathematical impossibility. Not plausible. Read Drs Sy Garte , and James Tour work on how life could not have come by chance. 5 Reply 9 replies @rodburley 2 years ago Life had an origin long ago, before this world existed, before life as you know it existed in this world, before you took form and became an individual in this world. Life existed with no alternative to life, complete, whole, engaged, all of Creation, magnificent, beyond words and expression, life in the purest form in myriad expressions, creative but harmonious, life that still exists within you at this moment, deep beneath the surface of your mind. But there was a Separation, and the Separation created the manifest universe that your senses report to you. As there could be no alternative to Creation, God created the manifest universe for all sentient beings who would choose Separation—a place to live, to learn and to taste the small pleasures and the great difficulty of living apart from Creation. ~ Marshal Vian Summer, The Origin 4 Reply 2 replies @ErinRaciell 5 years ago Life is the most amazing emergent property of nature. 9 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @dengelbrecht6428 1 year ago (edited) "Propably there is only a combination of ten amino acids necessary to form the precusors of life". How did you come up with a number like that? You asked your magic ball? And what does this quote mean: "Lipid cell walls allow for the concentration of amino acids ... to form proteins." What the study really writes is: "....concentration of the building blocks (of life) at the surface of fetty acid membranes MAY have aided the eventual formation of proteins." Or in other words there are more of this building blocks on the surface of that membrane because they get stuck there, than in the environment (not new, water is a solvent) and that may aid the formation of life. This might slightly increase the chance that anything meanigfull shows up but when ID make propability calculations they for example assume that all oceans on all planets are made up of PURELY aminco acids (no need to further concentrate anything anywhere) and the odds are still impossible. 1 Reply 5 replies @orion9k 1 year ago This is pure speculations, hypothesis after hypothesis, so we basically have no idea how this happened.. God is the greatest 🙏 3 Reply 8 replies @douglaspriore9186 4 years ago (edited) Nice presentation, but too much "could have". This is essentially just story-telling. Even IF you had all the correct chemicals assembled properly, that doesn't come close to emulating or initiating life. 14 Reply 28 replies @darioplant8029 1 year ago Excelent video. Brief and concise. Thanks. 3 Reply @TYJILY 8 days ago So basically it's just "We don't know but it can't be what it obviously appears to be which is designed". Reply @constructivecritique5191 4 years ago Your missing the whole point, that it's even possible for dead material to be combined and coordinated to create life. Where does the potential come from? 5 Reply 19 replies @TheStarflight41 1 year ago Intelligent design is a slam dunk. 4 Reply 2 replies @JaguarBST 1 year ago How did life begin? Science: we have some ideas and working on the problem, but we don’t have any solid proof yet. Religion: Some dude in the sky did it with his magic. Source: trust me bro! 6 Reply 16 replies @armitagejake 1 year ago What they will achieve first? Replicate life formation in lab? Or the final "theory of everything" ? 2 Reply @manuelmartinez-gq4ij 3 years ago Great subject, I like how your shows take my mind to unusual twilight zones. Wouldn’t mind you digging into Dr Shinya Yamanaka’s IPI cell structure. These are amazing times and stimulating to think of the possibilities to advance our ultimate being one discovery and understanding at a time. 👍🏼 24 Reply 1 reply @profskmehta 1 year ago If you think consciousness is an emergent property, then please try to define it. What you are defining is the formation of the bio robot. That is not life. 3 Reply 3 replies @LoVeLoVe-bi2rq 4 years ago Your videos are reigniting my excitement for cosmology and my curiosity and admiration of the mystery and beauty of the universe, thank you! 7 Reply 1 reply @SomeCollege 1 year ago (edited) Interesting. To believe in abiogenesis, and then evolution via cumulative adaptations is the most implausible hypothesis out of all the other hypotheses available. The most logical inference, based on what we observe in living systems is that it had an intelligent cause. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 47 replies @jeancorriveau8686 3 years ago 13:29 "ever decreasing ignorance." Well said! I was an ignorant one. Although I accepted the principles of evolution, I was still a creationist at heart. 18 months ago, spread over a many months, a series of revealing events triggered in me curiosity about microbiology in a way never before. The probabilistic argument is flawed because it only looks at the end result. It completely ignores the rules of atoms bindings thereby calculating probabilities from all possible arrangements, most of which can never occur. This means that they assume that chemical bindings are random, contradicting their own belief for a Designer. The watchmaker argument is also flawed because a watch is created by us, not nature. Nature has no means of putting it back together. Again, an argument that contradicts a Designer because a fluke would be the only way that nature could put the watch back together. The flaw in creationism is that it humanizes nature. I came up with the following proposition. Life is a set of self-sustaining chemical structures that control its entropy despite possible non-intentional increased complexity so that it remains ordered. Entropy is a measure of disorder in a system. The second law of thermodynamics, for which entropy is its measure, says that a system tends toward disorder over time. Life resists that tendency. Should my definition be correct, life needs not possess intelligence or consciousness; otherwise, molecules and even atoms possess those abilities! If there exists a "law for life" in the universe, that law must guide molecules, all of them. But then, life would be the guiding force for the formation of stars and planets. Life should be *everywhere*!! 4 Reply 24 replies @navigatoregy 4 years ago My BMW was also naturally selected, connected and produced. 5 Reply 4 replies @paxanimi3896 5 years ago “ our knowledge is driven by the pursuit of science, and hopefully, ever decreasing ignorance” Hopefully ! Perhaps being superstitious and religious is not an acquired state of mind, but it’s something deeply embedded in their brains. 7 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @JohnBedson 1 year ago (edited) Message to the editor. The background music is way too loud. Anyway, this guy is so engaging that he does not need background music. Quite franky it wrecks an otherwise great video. Reply @donalosullivan9866 1 year ago Really great video! Covered all of the topics I was wondering about and in just the right amount of detail. Thanks! 9 Reply 13 replies @MrDominex 4 years ago (edited) Anyone who thinks that biological evolution is like a tornado assembling an airplane is a crackpot. Evolution proceeds logically like all natural processes. Creationists think that saying "god did it" means no further explanation is necessary-- or even possible. 6 Reply 5 replies @MegaCool30 5 years ago Amazing content Arvin! Can you tell me what is the background score you used? It's very soothing.. 5 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @vincentjeremy709 1 year ago Think of it... We all came from a single cell... Which we all share its DNA. life really is fascinating. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @SantaKask 5 years ago Awesome, thank you! I learned a lot. I used to think it was just about primordial soup and I was happy with that, but you took it multiple levels further. And yet, it was understandable and followable! I had to rewind the first time you rushed over after mentioning amino acids, but luckily you explained it later (it was a bit confusing, but I just had to be patient). And the 1952 experiment you didn’t explain so much, so I had to rewind after watching the video once again in order to remember it well. But the diagram showed electricity+atmospheric gases, so I guess I can live with that. 30 Reply Arvin Ash · 65 replies @Nulley0 4 years ago 2019: Not well understood See ya in the future after 20 years... 37 Reply 27 replies @brucebane1270 5 years ago Indulge me; of what importance is a source code without a cpu or a cpu without a source code? 5 Reply Arvin Ash · 19 replies @MAINFRAMELaboratories 3 months ago Truth is, we have no idea how life formed. But the principle of material causality means that it had to have formed some way or another, and that a god likely had nothing to do with it. 1 Reply 1 reply @ChadMichaelSimon 4 years ago Thank you for your intelligent and approachable delivery that carries with it a simple, no-nonsense tone. This origin has always had the clarity of a bright light to me every since I was a child and first contemplated these things. You repeated the amount of time that was involved, but I would go further to add time as a fifth necessary component. It's too easy for us, with our human perspective of time, to dismiss millions of years as one lump of "before" time. The length of time afforded to these chemical combinations and recombinations is staggering. All it took was one instance, one accidental cluster of the right ingredients, for a microscopic mass to begin replicating. You also referenced entropy and the papers written about the molecules that were best at distributing energy. I would add the endless, rhythmic doses of sunlight as a sixth component. I've often imagined an animation showing day-to-night cycles sped up to show the molecules dancing every day at the touch of radiation, then quieting in the dark. Dancing, quieting, dancing, quieting, until the symphony of ingredients explodes into primitive life that wriggles every day and goes dormant every night for four billion years. That's all the beauty and intervention I need to explain it. Supernatural powers are unnecessary in this history. 4 Reply 3 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 3 years ago (edited) Historically, as one should expect from the poor underlying logic, God-of-the-gaps arguments have fared extremely poorly. Time and time again some "proof" of God's existence based on a gap in the current scientific understanding of nature has been put forward and later utterly demolished. Some examples of many (I mention the ancient Jews, but their predecessors were no better): 1. Lightning The ancient Jews could not explain lightning, so they stuffed God into the gap; the Bible says that lightning is something God holds in His hands and hurls at targets on earth. 2. Origin of the Sun The ancient Jews could not explain the origin of the Sun, so they crammed their God into that hole in their knowledge; the Bible says that God magically created the Sun and put it into the sheet of the skies (the firmament) on the fourth day of creation (which would have been after He had already made fruit trees and other plants – DOH!). 3. Star Formation The ancient Jews could not explain how stars formed (they didn't know the Sun was a star: this was a different gap in their understanding), so they turned to God to fill that gap; the Bible says that God made all the stars, at once, on the fourth day of Creation. 4. Origin of the Moon The ancient Jews could not explain the origin of the Moon, so they crammed their God into that hole in their knowledge too; the Bible says that when God magically created the Sun, and the stars, he also poofed the Moon into existence, and put it into the sheet of the skies (the firmament) on the fourth day of creation along with the Sun and stars. 5. Human Origins The ancient Jews could not explain the origin of humans, so they crammed God into that hole in their knowledge; the Bible says that God magically made the first human out of ‘dirt’ (dust of the earth). 6. Human Embryonic Development The ancient Jews could not explain how a baby could form within a womb, so they plugged that gap in their knowledge with God; the Bible tells us that God knits babies together in the womb. 7. Mental Illness In Jesus’ day, people could not explain mental illness, so they filled in the gap in their understanding with the supernatural (demons this time, not God specifically). 8. Origin of Different Languages The ancient Jews could not explain how different peoples came to speak different languages, so they tried to take care of that gap by creating a myth about people building a Tower and god getting pissed, so he confused their tongues and spread them across the then-known world. And so on and so on. For the earliest humans, there were thousands of gaps in their knowledge and they crammed Gods into them as “explanations”. Eventually, modern science came along and plugged almost every one of them. Today, there are only 2, possibly 3, gaps remaining where religious people can still try to cram their God. But even those holes are being slowly filled, thanks to science. The Gods have been being evicted, and still are being evicted, as science increases our understanding of the world. In fact, in the last 400 years, science has taught us more about life and the universe we live in than all religions combined did in the last 10,000 years. And it’s not even close: science wins that competition by a mile. Science works; religion doesn’t. 13 Reply 11 replies @VoyagerLife826 4 years ago There are no living things "Everything is dead matter moved by the laws of the universe" 19 Reply 42 replies @bathory5026 8 months ago If you look at the effects of sound waves on water or sand, you can see how they assemble shapes. This is just a hunch but perhaps this is key in the arrangement of certain molecules. Reply @robertszontagh1297 1 year ago Abiogenesis is just another chapter in evolutionary storytelling, regardless of what Arvin claims. "Soap Bubble" explanations are just another example of Evolution of the Gaps thinking. 3 Reply 25 replies @mr.mirchenstein6549 2 years ago Love the way you explain & break stuff down. 6 Reply @roadsideturnout9287 3 years ago Awesome video. I'm not sold either way as of yet. (Creation/abiogenesis) There seems to be massive speculations and so far I can't see any definitive proof of either. Keep up the good work! 4 Reply 8 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 9 months ago I was just asked: "why shouldn't Abiogenesis happen today?" Darwin gave one answer: because life exists today. There are other reasons given after a short discussion of Darwin's answer. 1) Darwin addressed this general topic more than 150 years ago. "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." (Darwin, C., 1871, Letter to [Sir Joseph] Hooker. Reproduced in Calvin, M. (1969). Chemical Evolution pp 1-8. Oxford University Press, London: as quoted in "Did minerals perform prebiotic combinatorial chemistry?", Alan W. Schwartz, Chemistry & Biology 1996, 3:515-518). In the above quote, pay attention to the last part: "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." Now that life is ubiquitous, organic molecules would not accumulate in large amounts and complexify over long periods of time, because bacteria or some other living organisms would consume/incorporate them. 2) Another reason we should not expect life to be arising today is that conditions are different today than they were some 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. a. Back then, the atmosphere was largely devoid of molecular oxygen (it is not anymore). b. Back then, the atmosphere is thought to have had a lot more carbon dioxide than is present today. c. Back then, the oceans are thought to have been more acidic than they are today (for example, due to more CO2 in the atmosphere). d. Back then, the oceans are thought to have had much more ferrous iron dissolved throughout them than today. e. Back then, there was more metal adsorbed to clay minerals in the oceans than there is today [3] (metal doped clays can select ribose from a mixture of sugars and can also stabilize ribose). f. There could be other differences (perhaps, as some OoL researchers propose, life arose at alkaline hydrothermal vents, and today there are far fewer than the were back then). If any one or more of those conditions would have been important for the origin of life (for example, for the formation of a self-replicating RNA), then we shouldn't expect life to be originating today. 1 Reply 7 replies @winnyakinyi4584 3 years ago While testing that in the laboratory you have to stop those reactions otherwise they would just continue into something else. Who controlled them? How were the carbohydrates preserved for such a long time without decaying? 4 Reply 1 reply @88marome 4 years ago Pretty ironic that thermodynamics could prove abiogenesis when creationists so often bring up the laws of thermodynamics to try to disprove evolution. 5 Reply @CLAYMEISTER 1 year ago (edited) Thus , in beautiful simplicity, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Ask the questions, embrace the mystery... let it be... 4 Reply 2 replies @charlessoukup1111 10 months ago One spark of lightning into the right "soup" should provide all the energy needed to convert into the right stuff. Given enough soup & enough lightning, it WILL happen, and then no going back. Reply @justwrongright4977 5 years ago Excellent upload Avin! Thank you for the great way you put this info, so that I, a mere layman can understand such amazing theory's. I had heard of the RNA theory but it is outdated\updated now and you have filled all the gaps I had come across! Again my thanks. 👌👌👌 6 Reply @teachoc9482 1 year ago This was the best explanation of biogenesis I've seen so far on YouTube. Others just glance over the details. I am going to watch it again, because "the devil is in the details", they say, and it's those little details that are SO interesting and intriguing and make me want to learn more. THANKS! 5 Reply 5 replies @nicholasivanderstoop4191 3 years ago Avin Ash , you sir are a joy to listen to. Clear concise and no hesitation to admit to gaps in our knowledge 7 Reply 2 replies @jesterlead 8 months ago 2024 update: A recent study has found a "cradle lake" located on volcanic rock. Very high phosphate concentrations, very salty, dolomite, magnesium, calcium are all present in this lake that's about 1-2 feet deep - in the wet season. In the dry season you get this clay / salt brine attached to the rocks....all made of nifty compounds, nearly all you can find inside a cell. Interesting coincidence, huh? It's just a matter of time.... Reply @tomislavhoman4338 5 years ago Great video, thank you for making awesome content. Just one small correction, it's not Newton's second law of thermodynamics, it's just second law of thermodynamics :) 6 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @michaelcorenzwit6860 1 year ago Fascinating post. I learned a great deal of new information because it was explained in clear, understandable language. I believe that electricity played and still plays a critical role in the creation and existence of life. I was surprised that it received no mention. 14 Reply 6 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 10 months ago Isn't it odd that all the people posting negatively about your video just happen to be religious? And isn't odd that none of them can give a better explanation than abiogenesis for how life came to be on Earth? 3 Reply @joemadda 1 year ago Try finding an article from February 2022 - Clays and the Origin of Life: The Experiments Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 (conclusions) are what you want if you want to skip all the crystallography, mineralogy and geochemistry of clays here, on Mars and in the solar system. Reply @M.Bruinsma 4 years ago Love your channel. Very warm and kind voice and understandable. 5 Reply @paulmillbank3617 5 years ago (edited) I love this video, my only complaint is the use of the word trinity. This immediately allows Christians to jump to an association between the trinity of chemicals that is the precursor of life with the trinity of the Christian God. We need to stop using words like the God particle and the trinity of life. 4 Reply 14 replies @roeazy 4 years ago Somebody show James tour this video so he can laugh his ass off 7 Reply 8 replies @stephenzhao5809 1 year ago (edited) 2:20 Some argue that the most important component of this trinity are the lipids, which make up the cell walls. Why would this be the most important? ... because without the wall, or a way to encapsulate certain elements, within the soup, there would just be a soup of material that would just be disorderly and floating aroun in a sea of liquid. It would not be functioning inside something that could potentially self-prelicate. but because these lipid membranes could potentially form around other elements, they could bring disparate parts of various chemical together, that could potentially interact, combine, react and work together to perhaps eventually form a machinery for self replication. So these fatty membranes composed of lipids were critical components for abiogenesis. So any study of abiogenesis should perhaps start with a closer examination of lipids. Lipid molecules have a unique structrue. 3:13 ... 9:01 There are creationist arguments such as the one that says if I put all the parts ... 13:08 Do we have proof that this is how life came about? No ... at least not yet. Is it plausible? ... absolutely. Just like chemical and biological evolution, our knowledge too is evolving in a slow process over hudreds and thousands of years, driven by the pursuit of science, and hopefully ever decreasing ignorance. Reply @danielmadison4451 3 years ago Excellent treatment of the subject. Love your open mind on the subject. 4 Reply @ronmasters751 2 years ago 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy increases) and Newton’s Second Law (F=m x a) are very different. Otherwise, excellent discussion! 7 Reply @stevewilks8141 3 years ago "I don't personally understand it, therefore it must've been God." Religious people, regardless of if they are wrong or not, are immensely arrogant. To claim that they know all about how reality works by saying "god did everything" and never thinking about it again, imagine thinking so highly of yourself. That top scientists who are responsible for us now using computers to watch and write this, are wrong. They are too stupid to realize there is a god and he did everything. "If only they were are smart as me who have realized what everything is about." 4 Reply 4 replies @oilcanshawn4918 1 year ago I'm not ignoring simpler precursor ideas I'm just wanting examples of a simpler precurser..... even a simple cell seems to be extremely complex more than we ever thought Reply 1 reply @thomaswilson1319 1 year ago With respect, while being highly technical, this presentation essentially piles speculation upon speculation upon speculation trying to explain abiogenesis in a way which, to me, violates the tenets of Accom's Razor, which holds that the most obvious explanation for a phenomenon is likely the correct explanation. The idea that the advent of life occurred without a supervising intelligence ordaining it and guiding it is impossible rationally to accept. What is most amazing is the lengths to which some highly intelligent human beings are prepared l go to in order to eliminate the need for an intelligent creator working in the process of creation. To be sure, further scientific research is needed, but, in the meantime, Accom's Razor surely must win the day. 5 Reply 1 reply @zagaberoo 5 years ago Really thorough but concise. Great stuff. 4 Reply 1 reply @DavidCarter-ib3vw 2 years ago This video is quite interesting and enlightening. 4 Reply @Jinxed007 1 year ago On one hand we have some omnipotent creator that whooshes our reality into existence, and on the other, we have ubiquitous, fundamental laws, that endlessly roll the dice of its own creation, without reason, until all manner of possible outcomes are realized, up to and including self-assembling, carbon based, sentient, animated creatures capable (at least in theory) of understanding the totality of itself. At this point, I'm honestly not convinced either of those ideas are less mystical sounding than the other. 1 Reply @iz-dle4856 4 years ago from 1952 Miller-Urey experiment to 2020, almost 70 years and we still don't have anything new? WTF? lol 4 Reply @dt6653 4 years ago Summary: we have no clue. 11 Reply 1 reply @nickb-whistler4431 3 months ago Creationist math: the odds are too high to form a watch by random chance! Therefore, here is an iron-age God without evidence. It is NOT random chance. Entropy and mathematical pressures encourage complexity, perhaps making life inevitable rather than impossible. 3 Reply 3 replies @MrJashuaDavies 1 year ago Lipids are important but if I remember correctly they have a sort of dipole self assembly that is easier to work out, compared to protein folding. Reply @harryshome4588 4 years ago first prove inanimate matter is inanimate, and that it creates life. Which I know you can't no matter what. I love science but I hate seeing people given misinformation under the guise of science. 5 Reply 1 reply @magdyfawzybas 1 year ago what is the chance for the RNA molecule to be stable enough on (clay) waiting for the lipid membrane to capture it? 3 Reply 10 replies @jimbrogan9835 1 year ago "Perhaps", "Maybe", "Maybe could". Why does it sound like you are desperate to deny the existence of a Creator at all costs, even though you don't really have a better explanation? I don't believe in any religion, but to dismiss the possibility of a Creator without a better explanation seems both unscientific and irrational. Just saying. 3 Reply Arvin Ash · 10 replies @Thankgodthereisnogod 7 months ago Amazing way of explaining complicated things 2 Reply @jdavid50 5 months ago This video solidly convinced me that abiogenesis is nearly if not entirely impossible. 4 Reply 6 replies @dmullins301TWM 4 years ago Arvin, I absolutely love your videos. Please keep them coming. 9 Reply @sartajbhullar3782 4 years ago I love your videos but no one can in this world convince me about the evolution or how the life got created by this and that. I so believe a human (or life ) is a work of such an intelligence, that no one can compete / explain it . Now whether you want to call it God, nature or whatever that’s up to you. 8 Reply @Nooneself 1 year ago Yes but....The question is not how a abiogenisus process came about. The question is why did the stochastic laws of physics allow/demands for the complexity of abiogenesis. Reply @shayaandanish5831 4 years ago Sounds like a miracle 7 Reply @eduardofernandes3696 2 years ago When science is based only in believes it just becomes another form of religion 6 Reply @Donald-hv7tw 2 years ago If all this happened by chance surely us as humans could make it happened on purpose and if it happened by chance there should be complex life everywhere in the universe 5 Reply 4 replies @justinwimer707 1 year ago (edited) Question for all. So I have been debating with a creationist and we are on this subject now. He is trying to discredit abiogenesis and keeps saying biogenesis disproves it. Anyways, my question is concerning both biogenesis and abiogenesis.. are both theories? Since a theory is the highest level we can give to an explanation in science..if abiogenesis has been deemed a theory, what does that mean concerning our understanding of biogenesis? And or how can both be theories at the same time? Thank you in advance! 1 Reply 4 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 13 days ago ​ @michaelportaloo1981 said, "One message as part of a group can’t simultaneously be a quantity of one,DKTony." Sure it can. A jury is made of 12 people. Each person of the 12 is one person. Each person is one person, while simultaneously being a member of a group of 12. There is a group of 3 messages. Each message of the 3 is one message. Each message is one message, while simultaneously being a member of a group of 3. 2 Reply 22 replies @redpower6956 4 years ago Amazing video as usual! Can you do a video on quantum biology? I find this topic very interesting. Thanks. 7 Reply @b-m605 4 years ago "our old friend entropy" no entropy is the enemy of both abiogenesis and evolution. 10 Reply 185 replies @kinglyzard 5 years ago Attention all Fundies: Abiogenesis=/=Evolution Abiogenesis also=/=Spontaneous Generation (debunked by Louis Pasteur) 7 Reply @oosakasan 1 year ago What do you think of the hydrothermal vent hypothesis ? Obviously it's one hypothesis among many but ISTM it's a compelling enough one to be mentioned in a section discussing how the chemicals could have come together to form life, at least as an example of a possibility consistent with the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics. Especially if one is going to bring up creationist arguments in that very context, while it is accurate that the arguments are fallacies I think it's more convincing to reply with "actually it could happen, here's an illustrative example to give an idea of the possibilities" rather than "that's an oversimplification, we don't have reason to think it's impossible actually". Reply @alcyone1349 2 years ago Thanks Arvin. This is really inspirational for me; to link between the dead materialistic universe and the purposeful evolving life. 5 Reply 1 reply @luvdomus 4 years ago Creationists' hang ups about atheism have disabled their ability to think clearly about the origin of life. 4 Reply 15 replies @jt5747 3 months ago I'll believe anything this guy says about the origin of life, as long as the answer isn't "God." That answer is unacceptable to me, so therefore, it can not be true. Time can make ANYTHING possible, which means anything is possible (except God, of course). 3 Reply 2 replies @skessisalive 4 months ago If life emerged from dead things then why don’t we see it happening today? Today all the life we see came from a previous life. If life can emerge from the things discussed in this video then it should still be happening today Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @7thangelad586 3 months ago If life can arise from non-living entities, why haven’t we humans in our reckless hubris created it yet? I can believe in God just as easily as I can believe that everything happened by chance. 3 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @janviljoen7001 4 years ago Thanks, I was just wondering if he is going to mention Jeremy England, and then Tally Ho!, he does it. Good piece of science. 5 Reply @sonofode902 3 years ago Random... absent of consciousness. Its too steep for me if this is one of those leap of faith thing, I declined to take the jump. 4 Reply 2 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago (edited) @nashon said, "Without complex, coded and specified information, there is no life. Period. " Is your alleged designer living? If so, where did its complex, coded and specified information come from? 1 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 10 days ago In a differnt message, I posted 4 reasons why I thought it was Michael who tried to get my YouTube channel removed. Turns out I was right. @michaelportaloo1981 said, "I reported misinformation on one of your videos." Oct 13, about 2:01pm eastern Michael is angry and can't contain it, so he 1) has been relentlessly insulting me, for some 3 weeks 2) tried to spread his insults in comments he posted to one of my videos 3) went out of his way to setup his YouTube channel as a mockery of me 4) falsely reported one of my videos (YouTube quickly found his claim was without merit and restored my channel). People like Michael are the reason many adults don't want their children on the Internet. You never know when you will run into someone who can't control their anger and will be relentless in trying to attack you through every means they can. People like that can be dangerous. 3 Reply 19 replies @bdayapraar6673 4 years ago Arvin you continue to excede expectation. I really love what you are doing. 4 Reply @cbreezy 4 years ago Oh man, I’m high Towlie voice 4 Reply @TheCrossroads533 2 weeks ago Biochemist Sydney Fox was on to the solution of life with proteinoid microsphere synthesis back in the 1970s. It appears many researchers got sidetracked with everything from black smokers to RNA along the way. Reply 1 reply @WilbertLek 3 years ago 579 young flat earth creationists only clicked the video to dislike... 4 Reply @mjames7674 5 years ago Primordial soup? Psh. More like primordial suicide mix of soda in a primordial BIG GULP cup bucket from 7-11 6 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @tookymax 4 years ago Four things are needed and. You forgot carbohydrates. 4 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 8 months ago (edited) I am bringing the receipts on James Tour. The YouTube video is, “LIVE Q&A with Dr. James Tour!”, on the channel Dr. James Tour: YT shows the video as “Premiered Sep 11, 2020”. Starting at 6:25, Tour says … “The problem with that is that, so far, no one’s ever gotten RNA to duplicate itself. Gerald Joyce has tried, very sophisticated trying, I mean the guy’s a master with this stuff. I don’t know RNA like he does. And he, with all of his design, has only been able to replicate about 10% of the RNA. So 10% of a replication is not a replication, not at all. And that 10% is too short to act as a replicator itself.” Tour is being disingenuous and/or showing us he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Tour mentions only Gerald Joyce, specifically. Why? Why does Tour limit things to ONLY ONE OoL researcher? 1) Tour is clueless? Maybe it is because Tour is clueless about OoL research. Because … Back in 2013, OoL scientists were able to evolve the ribozyme tC9Y, which could copy an RNA that was 102% its own length. tC9Y could polymerize 206 nucleotides, whereas the ribozyme itself was 202 nucleotides long. The ribozyme could not copy its own sequence in full (without going back and reading the paper, I assume because the sequence was too highly structured), but it could copy other sequences that were longer than itself. (In-Ice Evolution of RNA Polymerase Ribozyme Activity. James Attwater, Aniela Wocher, and Phillip Holliger. Nature Chemistry. Vol 5. December 2013. pages 1011-1018) And that is not the only example. A couple years earlier, in 2011, OoL scientists evolved the tC19Z ribozyme, which could copy an RNA that was 51% its own length. tC19Z could polymerize 95 nucleotides, whereas the ribozyme itself was 187 nucleotides long. (Ribozyme-Catalyzed Transcription of an Active Ribozyme. Aniela Wochner, James Attwater, Alan Coulson, and Philipp Holliger. Science. 8 April 2011. Vol 332, Issue 6026. pages 209-212) But even if we stick to just Gerald Joyce, Tour is still not totally correct. The following paper, which has Gerald Joyce listed as an author – was published in February of 2020 -- some 7 months before Tour’s video was “premiered” on YouTube. In the paper, they discuss the evolved 38-6 polymerase ribozyme, which can copy complex, structured RNA sequences, with some listed as being 40 and 61 nucleotides long: “The 38-6 polymerase was selected based on its ability to synthesize functional ribozymes from NTP substrates. This polymerase is able to synthesize its own ancestor, the class I ligase, in the form of three fragments that, following purification, can self-assemble to give an active complex. This is the most complex ribozyme ever synthesized by a ribozyme from mononucleotide substrates, and it suggests that further improvements in activity might enable the polymerase to synthesize itself. … In the present study, the class I ligase [95 nucleotides] was divided into three fragments that assemble to form an active complex that has only slightly reduced activity compared with the contiguous molecule. Excluding the primer regions, the number of nucleotides that must be synthesized to produce these three fragments are 40 + 30 + 25 = 95. It is likely that the 38-6 polymerase [nearly 200 nucleotides] similarly could be divided into fragments that assemble noncovalently to provide a functional molecule.” (An RNA polymerase ribozyme that synthesizes its own ancestor. Katrina F Tjhung, Maxim N Shokhirev, David P Horning, Gerald F Joyce. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Feb 11;117(6):2906-2913) Some simple math: the 38-6 ribozyme is about 200 nucleotides long and it can copy complex, structured RNA sequences at least 40 nucleotides in length. That is about 20% of its own length. But there’s more. From the same paper … “The synthesis of more complex RNAs shows even greater improvement. The RNA-catalyzed synthesis of yeast phenylalanyl tRNA, starting from a primer that contains the first 15 nucleotides and requiring the addition of 61 nucleotides, was barely detectable even after 5 d using the 24-3 polymerase, with a yield of 0.07%. In contrast, the 38-6 polymerase yielded 2.4% full-length product after 5 d (Fig. 2B).” A ribozyme (38-6) that is almost 200 nucleotides long, being able to copy 61 nucleotides of a complex, structured RNA (phenylalanyl tRNA), has the ribozyme copying an RNA that is about 30% of its length. And again, this paper is from Gerald Joyce’s lab, specifically, and was published 7 months before Tour’s YouTube video premiered. 2) Tour is being disingenuous? If Tour is not clueless and does know that OoL scientists – including Gerald Joyce and his lab - have been able – more than once – to evolve new ribozymes that can copy RNA sequences that are more than 10% of the ribozyme’s own length, then Tour is being doubly disingenuous by (1) limiting his statement to one specific OoL researcher, for no reason, and (2) misrepresenting what Gerald Joyce had been able to achieve up to that point. Reply 5 replies @asanti3748 5 years ago (edited) This is starting to be my new favorite channel, like subscribe and hit the bell 🛎 4 Reply @barrycharlesbrebner 3 months ago oh sure, "non-living matter" became living matter...NOT! But so then, if you really think so, explain how the non-living matter became matter? Are you going to imagine some more things that are not true and not possible and then lie and tell everyone that it is true, like you have done already in this video?❤ 3 Reply 1 reply @tannerexp 2 years ago Don't believe it😂 takes much less faith to believe in God, this is just silly. 4 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @miguelfalcao 1 year ago You know it is B.S. when someone talks about the UREY-MILLER experiment and doesn´t say only left-handed amino acids are necessary to form a protein. Reply 1 reply @ElParacletoPodcast 1 year ago N O N S E N S E 4 Reply 1 reply @lovepeaceisneverguaranteed7385 5 years ago ' this type of videos which induce existential crises smh but this video doesn't make sense tho. 5 Reply 1 reply @user-iz9hm9lp1s 3 months ago If you believe this nonsense: I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for you. 3 Reply 2 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 has tried to claim his rule, "one message requires one reply" was not a rule. So let's get this straight. Michael was stating what is (allegedly) REQUIRED for people to do, and also indicated that if someone does not abide by the rule then they are in the wrong. But it wasn't a rule?!?! This is the same person who said that replying is optional ... even though his rule says it is required. This is the same person who said, "One message is not one message when it is three messages". Uhm, what? One message is always one message (1 = 1). And one message is never three messages (that would require 1 = 3). This is the same person who said, "An elephant is not an elephant when it is a donkey". Uhm, what? An elephant is always an elephant, and an elephant is never a donkey. This is the same person who said that "exactly one" includes 0. Michael says silly things, then when I point how silly the things he says are, then he tries to claim he MEANT something else. He tries to add words, redefine terms, ignore this or that, etc. If Michael meant X but said Y, he's at fault. Simple. 1 Reply 10 replies @n.s334 2 years ago Abeogenesis My Ass 4 Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @shambo8171 1 year ago It will always take intelligence far greater than mans intelligence to create life from non life. These people wasted there money studying this garbage. It had to be formed by intelligence. Far beyond what we can comprehend. 3 Reply Arvin Ash · 33 replies @visancosmin8991 3 years ago Materialistic mumbo-jumbo. 4 Reply 60 replies @kimsahl8555 11 months ago 1) Creating life has never been observed. Many hope and desire, fantastic theories and chemical reactions don't make the inanimate nature go for the animate nature (or vise versa). 2) In the fairy tail, the impossible is possible. Don't mix 1) and 2). 1 Reply 3 replies @ivanz6368 1 year ago Admit God created everything for the Christ sake 3 Reply Arvin Ash · 10 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 10 days ago Another trick michaelportaloo1981 uses: 2) Say contradictory things (which then allows him to play sleight-of-hand tricks) Example: a. Michael said that something cannot be simultaneously on its own and in a group. b. Michael agreed that each one of my 3 replies to him was one message, and even that each one was one message on its own But Michael also claims that those 3 messages must be considered a group, and cannot be considered what they actually are: 3 individual messages each on its own. He is all over the place. PS: By saying contradictory things, he gets to play sleight of hand tricks, picking which one of contradictory claims he can use in a particular case. 2 Reply 22 replies @Mark1Mach2 1 year ago Good Info and attempt Arvin but the video still doesn't answer the question what made the chemical molecules to group and go through the act of preserving themselves and reproducing. 1 Reply 1 reply @MrUFCFan12345 1 year ago What about lightning striking oceans playing a factor? liquid Water+matter+energy+mild temps+time is the concoction for organic life Reply @CLAYMEISTER 1 year ago Ask "how" all you want, for this is human nature... it engages our minds to the uttermost. However, "why" is the more important question because without it "how" lacks meaning and joy. Knowlege is sterile by itself, but love gives life. Reply 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 13 days ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 said, "Each one of your messages (note the use of plural) was one message, ..." @michaelportaloo1981 said, "They were each one message as part of a quantity of three ..." Being in a group of three messages does not stop each one of the messages from being one message. You yourself have said so more than once. Your rule is "one message requires one reply". Let's apply your rule to those three messages of mine, each of which was one message ... as even you have finally admitted. Message 1. This was one message - even you have said so. Your rule is, "one message requires one reply". By your own rule, you were required to post one reply to that one message. You did. Message 2. This too was one message - even you have said so. Your rule is, "one message requires one reply". By your own rule, you were required to post one reply to that one message. You did not. You broke your own rule. Message 3. This message was also one message - even you have said so. Your rule is, "one message requires one reply". By your own rule, you were required to post one reply to that one message. You did not. You violated your own rule. You posted a rule, and as soon as you did, you violated it 2 out of 3 times. 2 Reply 6 replies @JanzenMexico 1 month ago So ...where or what documented lab experiment(s) demonstrates this automatic process?? To create life?? 1 Reply 2 replies @aljongreat1900 8 months ago One of the most debatable and hard topic to discuss is this. We are all curious about this Reply @finemeister6980 1 year ago (edited) I have a biology degree, and I understand that Biology is incredibly complex. I cannot, however, fathom the infinitesimal probability of life. 2 Reply 3 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago People posting comments cannot stick to abiogenesis, always trying to bring God into the discussion. Right now I am "debating" someone who belief in God devalues human life: life doesn't matter to him. Living for 80 years, marrying someone, having children, helping the poor and oppressed, trying to improve society, helping protect the environment, etc., have no meaning to him, because life eventually ends. That seems silly to me. A religious idea of an afterlife devalues human life. "[T]he more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition [of capital punishment] has taken its firmest hold in post-Christian Europe, and has least support in the church-going United States. I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian, death is no big deal." (Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, as quoted in Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, Susan Jacoby, Henry Holt/Owl Books, 2004, p350) Did you catch that last part: “… for the believing Christian, death is no big deal”. And importantly, note the context: that statement is not talking about the death of only oneself, but the death of others too. OTHER PEOPLE's deaths are no big deal to a believing Christian. Has this Christian view ever reared its ugly head in history? Yes. As one example, in the Albigensian Crusade, some “good” Christians were trying to eliminate some “heretics” (Lord knows if someone dares to not share your “one true” set of religious beliefs, you’ve got to kill them). But who among the thousands of people in the town were the few “bad guys”? The Christian conquerors couldn’t tell. The solution? An abbot proclaimed, “Kill them all, God knows his own”. So that’s what they did. Slaughtered everyone: including thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Remember, the abbot and the people who carried out his bloody command KNEW that they were killing thousands of men, women, and children who didn’t deserve to die. These Christian terrorists ‘justified’ their atrocity based on their Christian beliefs. How can Christians ‘justify’ their killing someone? Because of their belief in an afterlife and their view that this life is of little concern. They devalue the one life we know we have in favor of an imagined life to come. Another part of their belief system is that “God knows his own”, and He deals with people appropriately once they die. Will the person who died spend eternity in heaven or hell? God makes that decision, not the person who did the killing. Thus, it is not the person who causes the death of “only” the body that does true harm to the person, but God, based on whether or not the person who was killed had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. The person doing the killing is outside of all the eternal heaven or hell decisions and is killing merely the temporal physical body, not the eternal soul. No big deal, as Justice Antonin Scalia might say. And Jesus might agree .. "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28) So what real harm is there in killing someone’s body? If they were going to go to heaven, they'll just get there sooner. If they were going to go to hell, what's another year or two when compared to all of eternity? 1 Reply @wolpumba4099 1 year ago Introduction: The Enigma of Life's Origin - 0:00: Magic-like transformation of Earth from 4.5 billion years ago to now. - 0:15: Evolution explains the diversity of life, but what about the initial spark? - 0:33: The question is how did life originate from non-living matter? Abiogenesis vs Evolution - 1:17: Abiogenesis is the origin of life from inorganic material, different from evolution. - 1:36: Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Trinity of Life Elements - 1:46: Fundamental elements of life: nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids. - 2:23: Importance of lipids in forming cell walls. The Role of Lipids - 2:41: Lipids help encapsulate essential elements for self-replication. - 3:02: Lipids should be closely examined in abiogenesis studies. - 3:27: Lipids self-assemble in water due to their hydrophilic and hydrophobic parts. - 4:00: Lipids can be formed from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Challenges with Lipid Theory - 4:23: Presence of ions like salts can disintegrate lipids. - 4:48: Amino acids can stabilize lipid structures. DNA and RNA: Self-Replicating Molecules - 5:27: RNA possibly predates DNA, according to the "RNA world hypothesis." - 6:14: RNA is composed of sugar ribose, bases, and phosphate. Problems with RNA Formation - 6:23: Issues with replicating how ribose bonds with RNA bases in a lab. - 7:06: Some catalysts like clays may have facilitated RNA base bonding. Role of Proteins - 7:58: Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's experiments showed organic molecules could form naturally. - 8:18: Amino acids likely existed in early Earth. Gaps in Understanding - 8:48: No clear mechanism for how all components combine to form a living cell. - 9:01: Current challenges in explaining the abiogenesis process fully. Creationist Arguments and Counter-Arguments - 9:05: The "watch in a vat" argument and statistical improbabilities. - 9:45: These arguments often ignore incremental steps and the likelihood of simpler precursors. Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 10 months ago An interesting quote from a recent paper on OoL. "[T]he observations that protocells with bilayer membranes composed of single-chain amphiphiles spontaneously self-assemble under alkaline hydrothermal conditions, that these bind to mineral surfaces, and that cysteine-coordinated [4Fe–4S] clusters with redox potentials equivalent to ferredoxin form spontaneously at micromolar concentrations are all consistent with the hypothesis that protocells could promote CO2 fixation and their own autotrophic growth in far-from-equilibrium hydrothermal systems." (Life as a Guide to Its Own Origins. Stuart A. Harrison, Hanadi Rammu, Feixue Liu, Aaron Halpern, Raquel Nunes Palmeira, and Nick Lane. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. August 22, 2023. 54:327–350) 1 Reply 29 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 13 days ago Each ONE of those messages from me to you was part of a group of 3 messages. Being in a group of three doesn't stop each ONE message from being ONE message. One message REQUIRES one reply, according to your rule. You were required to post three replies. ONE MESSAGE. You were required by your rule to post one reply to that ONE MESSAGE. ONE MESAAGE. You were required by your own made-up rule to post one reply to that ONE MESSAGE. ONE MESSAGE. Your rule required you to post one reply to that ONE MESSAGE. Two out of three times in that exchange you didn't follow your own rule that requires one reply for one message. 2 Reply 10 replies @baraskparas9559 1 month ago A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 3 weeks ago @michaelportaloo1981 said, "One message is not one message when it's three messages" LOL. No, DK Michelle, one message is not three messages ... ever. One is one, and three is three, and one is not three. Go back to pre-school and start over, paying attention this time. 2 Reply 21 replies @climbeverest 1 year ago Hello sir, why are the scientists not including that the complex starting chemical compound that started life could have originated in a supernova? Meaning why would a supernova only create heavier elements? Why not somewhere a compound that started life somehow amalgamated in that violent explosion? Reply @fghelmke 1 year ago (edited) I am amazed! The intricate engineering of photosynthesis in very early life forms evoluted from what? Did the program simply put itself together, just like Microsoft Windows starting all by itself? 1 Reply 4 replies @anyariv 1 year ago How was it that DNA and RNA just happened to be on Earth and DNA can store insane amount of information and be passed on? 2 Reply 1 reply @Sams.Videos 1 year ago Life is either a miracle or an anomaly. If it was a common thing it would arise everywhere, all the time, from nothing. We would constantly see non living matter transforming into living matter. The appearance of life only happened once at a very specific place and time. Reply 1 reply @scienceexplains302 1 year ago “Complexity therefore God” is self-defeating If complexity requires a creator, then that creator would be even more complex and would all the more require its own creator, thus an infinite regression of ever-greater creators. Creationists usually try to break the loop by claiming that God is by definition not created. That is special pleading and contradicts the claim that complexity requires a creator. 1 Reply 5 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 said, ""I've already pointed out, DK Tony, that saying 'replying is optional' would qualify as stating the f' in' obvious." Nope, it's not optional: Not according your made-up rule. Your fabricated rule is, and I quote, "one message requires one reply". REQUIRES. That means it is NOT optional. So you have claimed: 1) one message is sometimes three messages 2) what is REQUIRED is optional. My position is: 1) one message is one message. 2) If something is required then it is not optional. 1 Reply 3 replies @Bryan-fn6lp 4 weeks ago I enjoyed this video and I appreciate that it was presented as possibilities, not near certainty as some others on abiogenesis/evolution do. I still have a pile of questions, though. Didn’t the speaker say that it was necessary for the precursors to be enclosed in a lipid membrane to protect them from degradation or damage or dissipation? If that’s so, then the precursors would be limited to only interacting with what was within that single membrane. With no way to bring more precursors into the protocell, would the development stall? Would conditions inside the protocell support the formation of RNA? What would the RNA accomplish in that environment to further develop the cell toward life if all it does is serve as template that allows nucleotides that are present in the protocell to connect to it and maybe form a “mirror image” if the strands eventually break apart? Also, would the membrane permit enough energy to enter the protocell to drive necessary reactions but not enough to damage the molecules? How much salt is needed or acceptable in the water to support the reactions? How long could the membranes be expected to last and would they sink, float or have neutral buoyancy? He said that proteins could form within the lipid membrane. What good does it do to have some random protein molecules trapped like that? What drives the lipid molecules together and what holds them together once they form a membrane? My biggest question is what is a plausible developmental pathway from a protocell to a true living, reproducing cell? Even if the RNA strands in a protocell mutate and gain complexity, how does that help the cell? I could draw a highly complex schematic, but with no way to translate the schematic into functional hardware, it’s a worthless dead end. Even if I draw trillions of super complex schematics over millions of years, all I would have is a trillion dead ends. So I don’t think pure chance can get the job done. That suggests that there would have to be some innate tendency for chemistry to produce life. Is that possible? If so, then why can’t we observe it today just by replicating prebiotic conditions in a lab and letting it do its thing? So many questions, so little time! Reply 4 replies @TheEyez187 1 month ago 11:47 - It always comes back to physics!! 1 Reply @DariusBalaj 9 months ago What do you loose when a cell dies? What is lost when a person dies, Since all matter forming these bodies is still present? Reply 2 replies @goodcat1681 1 year ago One Question, All the components of a computer are made from natural existing elements and electricity. Would I be correct to say Computers evolved from natural elements, with the help of electricity, to semi-intelligent machines? Reply 1 reply @michaelbryanlaodvm4344 1 year ago so if you put proteins, nucleotides, and lipids in a solution, could you form a cell that can replicate? 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @tedkrasicki3857 7 months ago A few links (some repetitive) on where research is at recently. The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg&t=3s Energy and Matter at the Origin of Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEZJdK5hhvo How Life Evolves with Professor Nick Lane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJimi8ocg5Q The Whole History of the Earth and Life 【Finished Edition】 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ4CUw9RcuA&t=1249s Nick Lane: The electrical origins of life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLaTU-t1CQM The Poetry of Reality with Richard Dawkins Christmas Lecture 01 thru 05 Reply @jeffreya.faulkner8367 1 year ago Gibb's free energy equation shows that increasing enthalpy and decreasing entropy of chemicals is not favored. Some information or intelligence is required for opposing Gibb's law. Reply 2 replies @frankk2231 3 months ago Genesis 1:1 That's the way life began. You can think, you can feel, you can do good things, you can do bad things. You have a global, absolute moral standard after which you can be judged. Fairy tales and imaginary animations wont help you out. ️️ Jesus is the way, the only way ️️ Ask for forgiveness and let Him pay for your guilt. 2 Reply @FrancoisTremblay77 1 year ago It's not logical or scientific to assume that life happened by abiogenesis, which you seem to promote or any universities. It's good to try to explain how far we can go, which makes sense but then assuming that magically something can replicate and become alive is the opposite of science. Unless you are truly able to prove it, the logical question is why do you believe life came from abiogenesis? It's like talking about before the big bang but without proving it. It could be interesting but it doesn't have any scientific value beside the elements you can prove. Reason tells us though that it's not possible to observe the phenomena from no life to life beside from life itself. It becomes a belief, not a fact. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @JustNow42 8 months ago (edited) There are and were an enormous amount of chemical reaktions. However the only one we notice is the one that reproduced itself and became life. This is not in any way strange it needed to happen, here we even learn that there exist the building blocks with a proclivity to form usefull parts. Reply @radiancelux 1 year ago Great breakdown of agenesis. Probably the best I've seen! Good job! I have one question though, where are the replicating pre-life chemical compounds. Until we identify these it's just a theory (a belief grounded in logic) I wouldn't call those who subscribe to the intelligent design hypothesis ignorant until this is proven experimentally. 1 Reply 2 replies @ncedwards1234 10 months ago Suddenly I feel the need to accelerate entropy 1 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 13 days ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 said, "They were each one message as part of a quantity of three, which is not a quantity of one. Three ones are three, DK Tony." I am glad you finally agree with me. Yes, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and one message + one message + one message = 3 messages, and each message in the group of three is one message. All as I have been saying and you have been arguing against relentlessly. Being in a group of three messages does not stop each message from being one message. You just said so yourself. Your rule didn't say anything about exceptions for grouping: that is just nonsense you've tried to add afterwards, because everyone knows you violated your own made-up rule when you posted it. Your rule didn't say anything about quantity vs units: that too is more nonsense you have tried to add afterwards, because you violated your own fabricated rule. Your rule didn't say anything about being optional (in fact, it says required): that also is nonsense you've tried to add afterwards, because you broke your own rule. Your rule was "one message requires one reply". And you just said that each one of those 3 messages was one message. Message 1 was one message, as even you have finally admitted: And "one message requires one reply." You were required to post one reply to that one message. Message 2 was one message, as even you have finally admitted: And "one message requires one reply." You were required to post one reply to that one message, but did not. Message 3 was one message, as even you have finally admitted: And "one message requires one reply." You were required to post one reply to that one message, but did not. By your own rule you were required to post a total of 3 replies to my 3 messages, each one of which was one message, and so required one reply. But you didn't. You violated your own made-up rule when you posted it. This should end the "debate". You were wrong, all along. But you never admit when you are clearly wrong (trolls never do), and you will just make up some new excuse or keep trying your existing failed attempts (basically, that when you said it was required you meant it was optional, that one message is sometimes three messages, that exactly one includes zero, etc.). 2 Reply 7 replies @floridaesq 1 year ago So there’s no justifiable explanation for the spontaneous formation of the core building blocks of life, yet it’s ignorant to believe in creationism? Seems to me that both are equally based in hypothesis and in fact being that there is no rational explanation for how life could be created or why life would create itself spontaneously, it makes more sense to me that in order to bring life into non-life, there must be an intentional creation process. I don’t understand the zealousness of the “abiogenesists” to undermine creationism when all of these decades of scientific testing reveal that it defies logic and mathematics for life to exist spontaneously and without creation. Literally no part of this explanation resulted in a conclusion supported by reason, science, or math. 1 Reply 1 reply @realeyesrealizereallies6828 1 year ago As far as we can tell, all of life is related, meaning it only started once..Such a mystery, I wouldn't exclude Panspermia from the conversation, atleast a mention.. Reply 1 reply @moses777exodus 1 year ago (edited) A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Darwinian Evolution and Abiogenesis Hypotheses, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.” Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess. Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred." One of the reasons that Darwinian Evolution and abiogensis are merely a "hypotheses" and have not advanced to the status of being "scientific theories", is that Darwinian Evolution and abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Darwinian Evolution (Common Descent from a Single-Celled Ancestor) and Abiogenesis Hypotheses have passed the scientific method process zero (0) times. Reply 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago @michaelportaloo1981 said, "You can’t even read. I said ‘one message is NOT one message when it is three messages’." And thereby said that one message is sometimes 3 messages. You used the pronoun IT. The only possible antecedent for that pronoun in your statement is ONE MESSAGE. Therefore, IT means ONE MESSAGE. You said, "one message is not one message when IT - i.e., ONE MESSAGE - is three messages." If you can't write what you mean, that is your problem, not mine. I cannot read your mind: I can only read what you write, and interpret it under the assumption that you know basic English. That assumption apparently does not hold. 2 Reply 3 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago (edited) @alafan123 said, "The probability numbers (such as 1x10to the 45 against forming a single amino acid)" LOL Amino acids form naturally: we've found lots of them in various different meteorites, for example. And they included non-biological amino acids too, so you can't try to explain the presence of amino acids in the meteorites as terrestrial contamination from bacteria. Reply @feminico2613 11 months ago even if we don't know something, we should not jump to conclusions based on faith alone, scientific theory or god is not exempt from this. Reply @blitzchamp3854 10 months ago This just proves that life is so damn rare that it can't replicate on other planets... Reply 1 reply @Mr.BVogel 2 months ago 0:53 “This seems to many people utterly impossible” There lies the problem with all discussion of abiogenesis from any scientist to the layman. There has to be a simple way of discussing it to the public for nice discussion, expression of theory, etc. - so they must express it this way. I don’t necessarily blame them for it. Followed up with “it’s very hard though” - a pitch to admit difficulty, but a clever disguise to the true improbability. But if it was made clear the profound complexity of chemical processes that need to take place together, and in sequence, while staying stable, and then stable long enough for the next step. If more people understood how chemistry works and what is required for possibly starting life. If it was shared how many chicken-or-egg paradoxes there are for starting a single cell of life. If the mathematics were shared to the improbability of a single functional protein x multiple of them needed with specific functions to make machines. And how incredibly crazy and exciting that the implications of what that math means. Then these discussions would be even deeper and more intriguing. But the totality of the complex issue is never addressed all at once, even in this well done presentation here. It’s easier to talk in theories. Reply 1 reply @TheStarflight41 7 months ago They are clueless... the complexity and interdependence is mind boggling. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @toobaaaapi 11 months ago Great presentation, just one question, complex lipid molecules only form inside living organisms, so where did the first ever phopholipids come from to form the first cells? Reply 2 replies @baraskparas9559 4 months ago (edited) A new book to be published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth on 21 June 2024 describes the chemistry and physics of abiogenesis as well as the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome up until the modern cell. 290references, 6 information tables, 50 illustrations. A molecular natural selection formula is proposed with a worked example for ATP. Reply @jdog5362 11 months ago This is the hardest thing for me to grasp, religious fanatics say how does something as complex as an eye form? I think evolution and genetics are pretty easy to understand but to go from molecules to a single cell with RNA, self replicating and metabolism is insane to me. Whats even more surprising is how the first cells took less time to form than multicellular life. Absolutely insane to comprehend. Reply 1 reply @abelardo9528 1 year ago WOW WOW WOW...how incredibly intensively insightfully interesting. Reply @Forest-jj7pj 1 year ago The two main points 10:50 and 11:20, start with a few chemicals producing new ones step by step, and chemical evolution from chemicals that don't exist now. Reply @blakiwhite5664 1 year ago Got here from falling down the rabbit hole caused by Veritasms latest video on entropy Reply @effectingcause5484 7 months ago 8:50 Arvin says here... "If I'm being honest, this is currently not well understood." Reply @mdmahmud5374 1 year ago You explain basic science really well but when you are defending the probability your math is not quite clear. You are talking about multiple places, could you please do the math and add that math in your explanation. Every single place will have very similar odd. Without "Chemical evolution", how do you explain evolution. What is LIVING MATTER in physics????????? If you think you understand the definition of life, please make a educational video on the definition of life in physics. There is no fine line between the living or non-living matter according to understanding of modern science. 1 Reply 1 reply @shaneyoung3549 7 months ago my question is, after all this happens, which i belive happened in some way, how did it got from that to reproduceing itself? Reply @muthukumaranl 1 year ago Awesome! Thank u so much!....so underrated! 2 Reply 1 reply @klasgroup 1 year ago Elsewhere, it is argued that probability of a protein molecule with about 150 amino acids is 1 in 10^168. Means it is virtually impossible that proteins were formed by mere random interactions 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 21 replies @randyrobinson5870 1 year ago If interested, Dr James Tour has an excellent series regarding the chemistry of Abiogenesis. He is a chemist so looks closely at the chemist's claims in this field. 2 Reply 2 replies @AB-gf4ue 1 month ago God, i hate that discussions about abiogeneses have to include creationists. Let us have fun science, damn it!! 1 Reply 1 reply @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago ‘A person can't be simultaneously on their own and in a group" - Me TonyTigerTonyTiger: ‘Sure they can’ 2 Reply 11 replies @aydnkurt8854 10 months ago Sulphur colloid was widely present on Earth. Sulphur colloid molecules were bombarded with hydrogen atoms (protons) and carbon atoms at very high temperatures (methylation). The spin movements of protons differed in the regions where diamagnetic elements such as silver and magnesium were concentrated. In these different magnetic fields, methylated and magnetically differentiated sulphur colloid molecules came together. The change in their composition caused the phospholipid-like structures to hold on to these areas. These differences resulted in the formation of the first living cells on Earth. 2 Reply 1 reply @pridefulPashtoon 1 year ago my question is how aminoacids blindly arrange to form fuctional protein and structural protein to help maintain and lead to cell . Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @Tall-Cool-Drink 1 year ago So what came first lipids or amino acids? Doesn't cells require specific types of amino acids and enzymes? What came first RNA or DNA? Can you have one without the other? ================== So, add a little bit of this, and little bit of that, add a little warmth and allow about 2 billion years and VOILA! you have first cell..... 1 Reply 4 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago @michaelportaloo1981 You claimed your made-up rule, where one message requires one reply (and posting more than 1 reply should never be done), was a youtube system rule. That's not true, and everyone knows it's not true. 1) YouTube just allowed me to post 3 replies to your 1 message. I did so in another thread where we are "debating", where I posted my third reply less than 5 minutes ago. The YouTube system allows 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. replies to a single message. Everyone knows this. So why would you make the silly claim that the youtube system has a rule that you can't make more than 1 reply to 1 message??? 2) Please provide a link to the YouTube rules/policies page where it states that one message requires one reply. You can't do that. What you said is simply not true. 3) If I violated a youtube system rule by posting 3 replies to your 1 message, as you claim, then why not report me to YouTube, complaining that I posted 3 replies to your 1 message. Then we can see what happens. You know what will happen ... nothing. Because what you claimed is a youtube system rule is not. And everyone knows it. 1 Reply 5 replies @alenezi989a3 1 year ago You completely glossed over the RNA part the theories you mentioned do not give any conclusive understanding. 1 Reply 1 reply @mellowrage4892 1 year ago (edited) Thank you for your very informative presentation. Where did earl earth, and salty water already existed, and is this common in our known universe? 2 Reply @thestatpow5 11 months ago Has there been anything new on this in the last 4 years? Any interesting experiments, results, papers? Reply 3 replies @keithcastillo5434 1 year ago Abiogenesis is separated from the evolution theory I suspect because of the heavy burden of proof it requires. One of the questions you did not addressed in your video is how long did the amino acids and the lipids maintain their structures in the lab? Reply 1 reply @eliaspap8708 3 weeks ago Well that’s hard to swallow but even if i have an open mind an agree it’s plausible we still have to overcome the irreducible complexity of the cell design. Reply 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nashon said, " And information has only been observed to come from an intelligent source. " False. Many rocks that formed through purely natural processes contain information, such as how long ago they formed, under what conditions, and what life was around at the time. 1 Reply 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 11 days ago @michaelportaloo1981 said, "If you don't like the way youtube operates you shouldn't be on it." LOL Coming from you! The person who got upset because I did what YouTube allows. You should take your own advice. 2 Reply 15 replies @mayurpatil4102 2 weeks ago This is just the "How" part. God comes into picture when you ask "Why" Reply 1 reply @ProfessorV. 9 months ago As an engineer and former professor of technology with over 35 years experience in design and troubleshooting, I can say for certain that no complex physical system ever came into being by random chance plus time. In fact, time is the enemy of such processes occurring gradually because no constituent component will ever last long enough for the next part in the product sequence to come along before the processes of decay undo the entire effort, and organic molecules don't last that long in a primordial soup. The watch argument and probability arguments from Fred Hoyle and others against the chance formation of complex organic molecules and life itself are not invalid because they are "simple" as suggested in this video. That is a straw man argument. It is precisely their simplicity that gives them the force of truth so that even the lay person can appreciate the insanity of believing that dumb blind chemicals can magically order themselves into higher and higher levels of complexity that are magnitudes of order greater than anything our best science can achieve today, let alone even understand. Moreover, it would require outside forces and energy to direct each and every molecule into endless positions to fabricate all the different mechanisms needed to construct a self-replicating cell made of millions and millions of sub-components in just the right order. Who or what is providing the information and directions for any of this to even begin to happen? This is pure fantasy! The real smoke and mirrors here is the over-simplification of the insurmountable problems proponents of abiogenesis have to overcome to even come close to making their case credible. Atheists evidently have their own miracles and faith, but for us who believe in a creator, it makes a lot more sense to see God's finger prints in life (design) than impossible events that magically overcome real physics with no plausible explanation. Isaac Newton once said, "In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence". Dr. James Tour, who is a world renowned chemist and nanotechnologist, has more than addressed these pro-abiogenesis claims and for anyone truly interested in considering his expert thoughts on the matter, I challenge you to check out his Youtube channel. He is also a professor at Rice University in South Carolina and has recently and very publicly addressed this issue with a number of leading scientists in the field including Dr. Lee Cronin. Reply Arvin Ash · 14 replies @skywalkertxrnger5805 1 year ago Takes a lot of faith to believe in all these “could have been”, “possibly “, “might be”… Real solid. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 3 weeks ago @michaelportaloo1981 " So now you agree with me" Nope. I don't agree with your claim that 3 messages is 1 message. 2 Reply 9 replies @jamgill9054 4 months ago Great explanation. Keep it up. 2 Reply @glenliesegang233 1 year ago (edited) Life arose with 2 unique genomes which manufacture via unique code sequences, proteins which work extremely differently to copy DNA, modify RNA, and perform translation in prokaryotes vs archaea. To add more amino acids to a simpler form so the new proteins now cooperate in new complex ways (examine ribosome structure and function) seems impossible without intelligent intervention. What kind of IQ is necessary to envision how all these parts will produce the desired results of metabolism, production of more precursor molecules with correct stereo chemistry, segregate the DNA, and then divide without bursting to make daughter cells? I do not see how random processes can do this. Reply 9 replies @YochevedDesigns 4 months ago (edited) OK smarty pants, how did the nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids come to be? Abiogenesis is just a fancy word for "we don't know, we're just guessing." While you're at it, please tell me what existed one minute BEFORE the Big Bang. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @Randy-po8bk 11 months ago What did the first cell consume for energy? How long could a single cell survive on its own? Where did information come from ? 1 Reply 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 month ago 5 years and there are still anti-science people saying "God did it!" 2 Reply 130 replies @GregBacon-q6k 5 months ago Where is this primordial soup or once life evolved the soup disappeared? Where are these collections of millions of amino acids now-Oh now that life exist the amino acids disappeared? 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @shaunmcinnis566 6 months ago We don't really have a clue how it happened, but we know for sure it wasn't a creator. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 13 days ago Bill works at a zoo where he feeds animals. There is a group of three birds. Bill needs to feed them. Bill knows the rule at the zoo, "one bird requires one handful of food". How many handfuls of food is Bill required to feed the group of three birds? Tony: 3, because each one bird is one bird and requires one handful of food. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. Michael: 1, because each bird is not one bird, it is one group of three. A bird cannot simultaneously be one bird and part of a group. 2 Reply 7 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 3 weeks ago @rickcrume739 said, "It brakes [sic] the second law of themaldianamics [sic]" Reply @jamesstamp8567 2 months ago Well, that was unconvincing. 1 Reply @effectingcause5484 7 months ago Atheist: How did God come to be? Creationist: He brought forth Himself. Atheist: scoffs at creationist's belief Creationist: How did life come to be? Atheist: Life brought forth itself. Creationist: scoffs back 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 6 replies @timklunk2073 1 year ago $2.00 Thanks,Great Video!! Highly charged particles from space probably provided the final spark of life. 1 Reply @memphisakan4691 1 year ago The number three is indeed special Reply @Benieg83 1 year ago So where did all of these components for life come from? Reply 2 replies @MoGuac 4 months ago Arvin, I like the way you help us understand the concepts of science simply. Appreciated! But I have to say that your conclusion is too optimistic. You don't give enough weight to the difficulties of the issues you bring up. Here's one over-simplified statement you made at the 2 minute mark: "DNA, or its simpler form, RNA... are self replicating molecules". They are not. If DNA (or RNA) were to exist in a warm prebiotic pond by itself, it would not self replicate. It needs a lot of help. In living cells, many other complex molecules help it along. DNA is unzipped by Helicase. The replication process is begun by Primase. The new strand of DNA is created by DNA Polymerase. In the prebiotic pond, DNA could only replicate if it had such equivalent helpers. Even the so-called 'RNA World' experiments, which claim to have made self replicating RNA do not make self replicating RNA. The scientists and their expensive equipment are the 'helpers'. 1 Reply 1 reply @JP-qt7yd 1 year ago Totally agree with your first premise, all magical thinking. Reply @bathory5026 8 months ago You had mentioned sugars, but can sugars even exist before an organism? Reply 3 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 13 days ago michaelportaloo1981, you sometimes try to count my 3 messages to you as 1,. not as 3. That is one of your (failed) attempts to try to get around the fact that you violated your own made-up rule as soon as you posted it. But if my 3 messages to you count as only 1, then I didn't violate your fabricated rule ... because I posted only "1" reply to you, not 3. 2 Reply 8 replies @tompowers8495 7 months ago The ground state of information is understanding not ignorance....... Reply @doc2590 1 year ago the self-replicating DNA is so friggin complex, how did this molecular machine come into existence in the first place. Is there a good video I can watch on this? Putting aside the God did it answer. 1 Reply 2 replies @C-130-Hercules 4 months ago What if we live in a special section of the universe where life is the exception. Because everywhere else it's the norm. 😮 🤔 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @biggbbear6300 1 year ago Sooo DNA learned complicated codes out of nowhere just like if I left a hard drive out long enough it would develop software makes sense. 1 Reply 2 replies @toddduchesne1749 1 year ago This is so unbelievable! 1 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @StarLander6 said, "why is there none of this unique primordial self replicating RNA not being seen made by natural process today?" Darwin addressed this general topic more than 150 years ago. In the quote at the end, pay attention to the last part: "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which wouild not have been the case before living creatures were formed." Now that life is ubiquitious, organic molecules would not accumulate and complexify over long periods of time because bacteria or some other living organisms would consume/incorporate them. That ignores any other differences that might prevent things that occurred some 4 billion years ago from occurring today. For example, back then the atmosphere was largely devoid of molecular oxygen (it is not anymore), and the oceans had much more ferrous iron dissolved throughout them than today. If either of those was important in self-replicating RNA forming, then we shouldn't expect it to occur today. "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." (Darwin, C., 1871, Letter to Hooker) Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 said, " An elephant is NOT an elephant when it's a donkey." Good lord, now you think there are cases where an elephant is a donkey. The correct statement is, "An elephant is not a donkey." 2 Reply 9 replies @artofnarure 1 year ago spoiler alert !!! i feel stupid to say this but...THE EARTH IS 5783 YEARS OLD!!!!!!! 1 Reply 2 replies @smiith7996 7 months ago (edited) You missed the crucial problem. Did the triacyglyceride molecules engulf the chemicals that led to amino acids being trapped within the lipid skin or did the lipid skin form first and allow the amino acids to enter? Furthermore the skin had to develop pathways to allow material to enter the skin to allow metabolism to kick start itself and metabolism leads to waste matter i.e. crap. This had to be expelled from the membrane. So the pathways has to work in two directions, in and out. What would be the process that would allow this to happen? That is the amazing event that needs to be explained. I don't think it was a spiritual occurence but it needs explaining. Reply @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago Imagine suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect to such an extent that you argue with someone in a youtube comments section for nearly two weeks due to your inability to understand that if someone is referring to single units, as part if a quantity greater than one, the words EACH or EVERY are used, NOT the word ONE. Baffling. 1 Reply @ronysmith1 7 months ago One day I decided to ask ChatGTP, "Why couldn't Louis Pasteur prove Spontaneous Generation? It responded, "Life does not spontaneously arise from non-living matter." So I asked, "What if I gave it more Time?" It responded, "No..." I then asked, "What if I had a special liquid of non-living matter? "No...", it said. Then I asked it, "What if I waited millions of years and had a 'pre-mordial' soup?" - "No..." Finally, I asked ChatGTP, "How did the first Life on earth arise? It answered, "Scientists propose that Life emerged from non-living compounds billions of years ago..." 🤔🤔🤔 2 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago Hoyle again? LOL One of our anti-science fans posting here recently said ... "Astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe in their book Evolution From Space (Simon and Schuster, 1981) calculated the chance of getting all enzymes needed for a cell at 1 in 10^40,000" Let me address that. 1) Logical fallacy: appeal to (illegitimate) authority Neither Hoyle nor Wickramasinghe are or were origin of life researchers. 2) Hoyle went a bit off the deep end at times. And even in his own scientific field, he obstinately clung to his alternative to the big bang theory long after his steady state theory was untenable. When he ventured into biology, he made a fool of himself a few times (as one example, laughably claiming that Archaeopteryx was a fraud). That is why scientists in one field don't get a say in another field (for example, if the consensus of quantum physicists is that quantum tunneling occurs, a zoologist cannot override them and say it does not). 3) Wickramasinghe is a borderline quack. He has made quite a few claims that border on quackery. For example, he has written that octopods (octopusses) came from outer space. This is another good example of why scientists in one field don't get a say in another field. 4) And the above matter, because Hoyle and Wickramasinghe vomited out a HUGE straw man logical fallacy in what you referenced. OoL researchers say there were no enzymes required for the origin of life. None. That is, OoL researchers hold that catalysis would not have been performed by genetically encoded proteins (as occurs in modern cells, back to LUCA and possibly back a bit more), but by ribozymes and simple, very small peptides that could form by chance. This is where Hoyle messed up badly. "Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." and "Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?[9]" Hoyle is laughably talking about EVOLVED cells, such as modern cells. He is completely off the mark, once again (as he often was, especially when he tried to speak about biology). 1) Origin of life scientists hold that the vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of what occurs inside even the simplest of cells today, did not occur in the first living thing. DNA was not what stored genetic information, RNA was. DNA was not replicated, or transcribed. There were not yet ribosomes that synthesized proteins using the "universal" genetic code. There were not a multitude of different metabolic pathways. The cell membranes did not have all the protein channels and pumps that modern cells do. There was no cytoskeleton as in modern prokaryotic (or eukaryotic) cells, there were no flagellum, pili, etc., as occur in many prokaryotes today. And so on. As Nick Lane showed on a slide in one of his presentations dealing with the origin of life, "The evolutionary distance from the origin of life to a simple bacterial cell is similar to the [evolutionary] distance from a tiny bacterium to a dinosaur". So Hoyle's looking at evolved cells, with 2000 or more enzymes, is WAY off the mark. 2) Origin of life scientists hold that 0 --- that's right, NO -- enzymes were required for the origin of life. They hold that the role played by (proteinaceous) enzymes today - that of catalyzing chemical reactions - was originally performed by ribozymes (catalytic RNA molecules) and short peptides that could form spontaneously. Hoyle's calculation/argument is referred to as Hoyle's Fallacy, because it is so fallacious. He used a completely invalid model for his calculation, which completely invalidates his results. 1 Reply 1 reply @richardhora6639 1 year ago In 1954 Watson and Crick performed an experiment in which they synthesized principle amino acids from what they approximated to be a primitive Earth atmosphere. In 1962 I replicated their experiment in my High School, which got me admitted to Yale University. Since then, and I have been watching, no one has demonstrated the next step in abiogenesis. Missing in all these discussions is the fact that the code of life is digital, and contained in DNA. Ones and zeros. It has been said that given and infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters you will get King Lear. An infinite number of monkeys is more than all the particles in the Universe - by far. Likewise an infinite number of typewriters. King Lear is a small small fraction of the New York phone book, The DNA code of the human genome takes two New York phone books to publish. We have an impossible-imponderable raised to the impossible-imponderable power raised again to the power of 1,000. In the Watson Crick experiment proteins appeared in less than an hour. Life appeared perhaps 500 million years after the crust of the Earth solidified. Multi cell life appeared about 2 billion years after that. Virtually all sophisticated creatures appeared almost simultaneously a billion years later. It is a digital code, you cannot proceed from mere Chemistry. 1 Reply 2 replies @OfficialGOD 1 year ago love your thumbnails 1 Reply @magdyfawzybas 1 year ago How did nature select only the right amino acids essential for life and not other ones? not mentioning the right Levo isomer? 1 Reply 18 replies @jim6798 1 month ago He says perhaps, could have and potentially quite a bit. In other words, we just don’t know. Reply 2 replies @jimfoard5671 1 year ago I think your basic error is "all credible proposals show that life under natural conditions by a slow processes of chemical and molecular evolution could plausibly result in simple life forms over a long period of time.". Actually all credible proposals do not show that life under natural conditions by a slow processes of chemical and molecular evolution could plausibly result in simple life forms over a long period of time. Mixing wishful thinking and imagination and presenting that as science is not helpful. 1 Reply 2 replies @FalseHope61 1 year ago Idk man. If that was the case. We’d still be witnessing that. 1 Reply 3 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 10 days ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 said, "A person can't be simultaneously on their own and in a group" Okay, let's try that. My 3 separate standalone messages to you were 3 individual, self-contained messages, each on its own. By your statement above, we can't consider them as being in a group. 2 Reply 16 replies @blakiwhite5664 1 year ago If you shine a light on a clump of cells for long enough. Don't be surprised if a plant forms. Reply @shishir1670 1 year ago What if life emerged as a result of asteroid strike? or may be dark matter particles or neutrinos ...etc played a role in life origin Reply @RfdMusicOfficial 1 year ago Great video! I feel the answer to how everything lined up perfectly for life to start simply must be, alot of time and alot of "tries". Scientist have tried for a couple of decades, earth had 100's of millions of years of stuff randomly bumping into each other. The latter must be a bigger probability for life to start! Reply 1 reply @banto1 1 year ago You have to love the circular logic offered here, when he claims one possible avenue is organic compounds arriving on meteorites - without offering an explanation on how they got on the meteorites and where they came from. If you believe this statistically impossible explanation, you might as well believe it was the hand of god, since both are equally plausible. 2 Reply @maxtabmann6701 1 year ago (edited) The search for the origin of life, always - like here too, tries to start with the biomolecules we see today. I consider this a fundamental flaw of science. Usually, like here too, the conclusions are that a) the formation of life is very unlikely and b) that evolutionary principles played no role. It gets even worse when inconsistent theories get salvaged by claiming life came from outer space - therby only deferring the problem to other places. All those who arrogantly claim to know the origin of life are just guessing, but have nothing to prove their unlogical speculations. A much better guess is that life did not start with lipids or RNA but with simple self replicating molecules. Self replication is the key to forming tons of identical molecules that may transform through evolution to anything that life needs to sustain. Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 It is the same set of 3 different messages that you want to change the meaning of the word "one" for. 1) If those 3 different messages from me to you are 3 different things, then you violated your own made-up rule, "one message requires one reply", because you didn't do what you yourself said is REQUIRED. My first message to you was ONE MESSAGE, so you were REQUIRED, by your own rule, to post one reply. And you did. But then for my second message to you - which was also ONE MESSAGE - you were required by your own rule to post one reply. But you didn't. So you violated your own rule. And then for my third message to you - which also was ONE MESSAGE - your rule required you to post one reply, but you didn't, again violating your own rule. 2) If those same 3 different messages from me to you are supposedly somehow considered just "one message" (your trick to try to make it so that you did not violate you own made-up rule), then those 3 different things are somehow magically just 1 thing ... so I posted only 1 reply to you, not 3 ... and therefore I did not violate your modified made-up rule. In the first case, we both violated your rule. In the second case, neither of us violated your modified rule. In neither case am I "guilty" and you "innocent". 1 Reply 11 replies @pgvinny 1 year ago They dont know how life began . If they claim they do they are lying to us and themselves. 1 Reply @pgvinny 1 year ago Life did not come about by natural processes , the only explanation is a supernatural all powerfull God . 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @mitchellpierce6233 1 year ago Are you ignoring a HUGE gap in this theory? You claim that RNA could have somehow spawned on the surface of clay. Please explain how it would magically contain the blueprints for putting together life? Even if it did create RNA, wouldn't that RNA be essentially blank? Ok, let's say eventually one of those RNA has a successful print for life, that complicates the math even further. You discounted the mathmatical argument because there would be so many chances in the entirety of the ocean but when you account for a successful blueprint within the RNA and then the chances that it gets together with the lipids and then the proper protiens come around, mind you the simplest single cell organism on the planet has over 300 proteins in it, doesnt the whole idea kinda fall apart after a while? The probability just drops off precipitously. It seems like you fall back on having "faith" that its right rather than a rational argument. Wouldn't it make more sense to proceed as though we dont know for sure and test all possible variables. Different forms of science even help to substantiate the possibility. String theory for instance shows evidence that we live within a simulation. If its a simulation then wouldnt it had to have been designed by someone. 1 Reply @nickb-whistler4431 7 months ago I've always found the whole "watch self-assembly criticism" to be rather silly. Yes, watches are complex and everyday items, but watch components don't interact with each other like elements and molecules and organisms, et al. Sarcastic strawman: "If I put two non-reactive gasses in this test tube, look, nothing happens! Therefore, God!" My biggest irk is that these anti-abiogenesis people are almost always fundamentalist religious nutjobs who explain away anything with an ever more complex, confusing, calamitous, conjuring, and coincidentally uncompromising premise. Great video. Thanks for the simplistic explanation. Reply @jamescheddar4896 1 year ago what if abiogenesis is the outcome of concentrated potential energy? Reply @jeanseigfried9339 1 year ago Hydrogen is very volatile and will eventually evolve to become heavier elements in the main sequence of the chart of elements until they must be split to create the radioactive and heavier ones. Reply @GB-9666 11 months ago (edited) These theories beg the question of how did the most basic elements come into existence. Science has not answered that question and will probably never answer it. The belief in intelligent design cannot be proven either, but is the most widely held. Reply 3 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nahshon9998 said, "Life only comes from life. And the first life had to come from a super natural entity, known as God." 1) So your god is not living. You said the first life had to come from God, so God cannot be living, or else he would be first life. 2) "Life only comes from life" is trued for evolved life: rats, frogs, flies, paramecia, algae, E. coli, etc. That doesn't mean it applies to the first living thing, which would have been orders of magnitude simpler than the simplest life we know of today. 3) Calling upon an alleged invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard does not solve any problems, it just creates even bigger ones. 4) God of the gaps arguments are one of the worst-faring forms of argument across human history. It is bad logic, and its track record proves that it is. Reply @benjaminhahn979 2 months ago Extremely interesting. But this beautiful presentation raises more follow up questions. What is minimum necessary to create a reproducing cell? It's pretty briefly explained above, but what characteristic does the necessary protein need to have to realistically facilitate a cell to be able to reproduce. The rna needs to be copied, this could be pretty easy if i assume right, with the right elements inside of the cell membrane. But then the membrane needs to be split for the cell to be able to copy itself. Is this realistic to expect a non living basic mixture of things to be able to do? How big would this protein need to be. Very difficult to find detailed explanations about this. 1 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago @michaelportaloo1981 Your made-up rule was, "one message requires one reply". Which one of my 3 messages to you was not one message? None. Each one of my three messages to you was one message. Using your own rule, replying was not optional, it was required: and your rule required you to reply one for one ... "one message requires one reply". If you meant to say something else (funny how you keep trying to modify your original rule, trying to make what was required optional, trying to change the "cardinality" from one-to-one, trying to claim that exactly one includes 0, that one message can be three messages, etc.), the fact that you didn't say what you meant to say shows you are at fault, and have been all along. 1 Reply 11 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 13 days ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 said, "You can’t even read. I said ‘one message is NOT one message when it is three messages’." And thereby said that sometimes one message is 3 messages. You used the pronoun IT. The only possible antecedent for that pronoun in your statement is ONE MESSAGE. Therefore, in your statement, IT means ONE MESSAGE. You said, "one message is not one message when IT - i.e., ONE MESSAGE - is three messages." If you can't write what you mean, that is your problem, not mine. I cannot read your mind: I can only read what you write, and interpret it under the assumption that you know basic English, such as antecedents and pronouns. That assumption apparently does not hold. --- I had already told you multiple times that you said that sometimes one message is three messages, and not once did you reply that you didn't mean what you wrote, and that it was supposedly a reductio ad absurdum. However, after the first time I laid out the above logic that shows what you said does in fact mean that you said sometimes one message is three messages, only then did you try to start claiming you didn't mean what you wrote, and it was supposedly a reductio ad absurdum. Once again, you said something silly, and after I rubbed your nose in it, then you tried to go back and rewrite history. The problem is that you don't know basic English. You said something that sounded correct to you, but to anyone who knows basic English (such as the basics of pronouns and antecedents) it sounded nonsensical. Only later did you try to make up the excuse that you meant it to be silly all along. 2 Reply 6 replies @fullerming 1 year ago First, thank you Arvin Ash for your presentation. Yet, I do differ. The level of organization by chance is impossible. The phrases "could have" and "possibly." And the fact that the Stanley-Miller experiment is still being referenced is sad. At least at 8:50 the speaker admits that the organization into a simple self-replicating x "is currently not well understood, and there's no experiment or smoking-gun evidence, right now, that points to a precise mechanism of how this could have happened." (8:50). He then attacks Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's calculation as being over-simplified because a simpler self-replicating molecule has to form first. He then goes on to state ideas that are strictly out of our imagination because he is committed to abiogenesis being natural, by chance, strictly inanimate matter coming together based on the basic forces of physics and chemistry. He explains that there had to be simpler precursors and trillions of amino acids reacting in countless places over millions of years. His idea would make life common in the universe, not just on Earth. His "one amino acid amount 1 million water molecules" is made up starting with the phrase, "even if." Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and others base their idea on random statistical models. Thus, Arvin Ash's commitment to this process being 100% natural is the problem. From this perspective, it HAD to happen because we are here and all we have to work with is inanimate matter and the forces of physics and chemistry. I'm not convinced that a plausibility argument can be made. I don't have the engineering and chemistry background Arvin Ash has but I do have a computer science background and one of the three components - RNA - is a type of information storage/transmission mechanism. In addition, Newtons 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really gets in the way. Jeremy England’s calculations don’t help the cause in that it is a mathematical model, like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's. To reject pure chance mechanism based on mathematical models and accept one that narrows chance to physical forces seems reasonable but is still based on a philosophical commitment to naturalism. Karo Michaelian’s paper is based on RNA and DNA already existing, just like Natural Selection does. Ash’s arguments are a long way from RNA and DNA. Ash admits that his presentation and that the scientific community does not have proof. I also want to decrease ignorance and I don’t want to base my life on ignorance, but the fact is, we are ignorant of a great deal of things and to build an argument of plausibility from a sci-fi novel is not my idea of a good place to start. Abiogenesis is not macro evolution by natural selection as Arvin Ash pointed out in the beginning of his presentation. Yet, mathematically, even with sexual reproduction in place, there is not enough time to get from simple insects (500,000 million years ago) to the diversity and complexity of animal life on this planet. (Note his statement of how biological evolution occurred relatively quickly). Yet, the commitment to naturalism screams loudly that both had to happen since we are obviously here. I agree that abiogenesis is “…the biggest hill to climb for life to have occurred earth.” Yet, he admits we really have no idea how it got started and his arguments attempt to build a plausibility structure based on a priori reasoning. His biased epistemological framework comes out clearly in this presentation. Why not stay open to other possibilities? Humankind has bill killing each other in wars and greed and power struggles since the earliest records of civilization. If Ash’s plausibility arguments reflect actual reality, then none of this matters. Hey, maybe it doesn’t – we live, and we die; oh well! 1 Reply 2 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @StarLander6 said, "and yes most decomposition rates can take on up from10 mins to 8 hours to decay or decompose, speaking of organic OoL chemistry": A few quick google searches found several counter examples to your claim: peptide bonds have a half life of some 100 years, uracil have a half life of about 12 years, ATP has a half life of about 2 years, and phosphodiester bonds between RNA nucleotides have a half life of 7 days to 41 days. I stopped after finding those 4 counter examples: there are likely more. 1) The half-life of a peptide bond is some 100 years at neutral pH and room temperature. "The average half-life for hydrolysis of a peptide bond is on the order of 10^2 years at pH 7 and 25 degrees C, and the half-life of an RNA phosphodiester bond at 30 degrees C is estimated to be less than one years under the same conditions." (Estimating the Capacity for Production of Formamide by Radioactive Minerals on the Prebiotic Earth. Scientific Reports. 8. Article Number: 265 (2018)) 2) The half life of Uracil under prebiotic conditions is about 12 years. 3) ATP has a half-life of 2 years at 25 degrees C and pH 8. "This is exemplified by the kinetic stability of ATP which has a hydrolysis half-life of 2 years at 25 degree C and pH8." (A Prebiotic Precursor to Life's Phosphate Transfer System With An ATP Analogue and Histidyl Peptide Organocatalysts.) 4) The half life of a phosphodiester bond between RNA nucleotides is about 35 days under some conditions, 41 days under others, 22 days under others, and 7 days under yet others. "In parallel, we estimated the extent of RNA backbone cleavage27,30 by monitoring the degradation of a FAM-labeled oligonucleotide [5a (Table S1)] by gel electrophoresis and fluorescence imaging. The average half-life of a phosphodiester bond (t1/2) was determined to be on the order of 35 days, when oligonucleotide 5a was incubated in citrate buffer at pH 3.6 and 60 °C (Figure​Figure22C,D and Figure S5). Remarkably, inclusion of Mg2+ in the reaction mixture did not accelerate the rate of phosphodiester cleavage (t1/2 = 41 days). On the contrary, the t1/2 dropped to 22 days when oligonucleotide 5a was heated at 90 °C at neutral pH (citrate buffer, pH 7.1) and further decreased to 7 days in the presence of the divalent metal catalyst." (pH-Driven RNA Strand Separation under Prebiotically Plausible Conditions. Biochemistry. 2018 Nov 13; 57(45): 6382–6386. Published online 2018 Nov 1. Angelica Mariani, Claudia Bonfio, Christopher M. Johnson, and John D. Sutherland) Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @StarLander6: "Ool research hardly has anything to begin with ... for example explaining how nature could have made a polypeptide in water" Why would a polypeptide need to form in water in order for abiogenesis to occur? I have asked you that question multiple times, and you never did answer. Why not? Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981, let's go with the "thousand ants" thing you like to use sometimes. There is a nest of ants, and there is a total of 1000 ants in it. Our friend "Billy" believes the idea that you can feed ants uncooked rice and that will unalive them, and he says "one ant requires one grain of rice" to unalive it. Billy needs to eliminate this nest of ants. Based on Billy's rule, how many grains of uncooked rice are needed? 1000. --- Ant #1. This is one ant. One ant requires 1 grain of uncooked rice. Total grains of uncooked rice needed: 1. Ant #2. This too is one ant. One ant requires 1 grain of uncooked rice. Total grains of uncooked rice needed: 2. Ant #3. Again, this is one ant. One ant requires 1 grain of uncooked rice. Total grains of uncooked rice needed: 3. ... Ant #1000. This is also one ant. One ant requires 1 grain of uncooked rice. Totals grains of uncooked rice needed. 1000. Based on Billy's rule ("one ant requires one grain of uncooked rice"), if there are 1000 ants, then 1000 grains of uncooked rice are required. Based on Michael's rule ("one message requires one reply"), if there are 3 messages, then 3 replies are required. This "1 = 1" position represents my position ... unlike Michael, who had said that sometimes one message is three messages. My position hasn't changed at all during my "debate" with Michael. Michael is the person who keeps trying to change things (sometimes wanting 1 = 1, sometimes wanting 1 = 3, etc.) because he knows I am right, and based on his rule, he violated his rule when he posted it: I posted 3 messages to him, each of which was one message, so he was REQUIRED to post 3 replies ... but he didn't, he posted only 1 reply. 1 Reply 2 replies @sssssnake222 1 year ago Nah, life didn't spontaneously appear, it began in the atomic dimension, and built its way up. Reply @daMillenialTrucker 1 year ago Dr James Tour has entered the chat Reply @jeanmoise9570 1 year ago You certainly know some principles of chemistry ,precisely the principles found in the mendeleev’s table and it’s influence in the formation of the multiple kinds of molecules ? These principles (properties?)show mathematically ,the interaction of the electron of valence upon the formation of a substance (molecules).For exemple Argo ,phosphorus are hardly or never associated with other chemicals particule.Likewise the pairing of the DNA bases -Adenine,Guanine,Cytosine and Thymine -requires a certain number arrangement (which are real properties)for the DNA to exist .(sine qua non conditions).These properties also allows the replication of the chromosomes , the transcription of the codons in protéines .without these properties the ADN could not exist.So how come these properties preceded the randomness mechanism of evolution ?why are these properties already present in the number systems for the number system doesn’t evolve So what can we concluded except that the number systems is related to reality.Who or what puts these properties in the number systems is another question And a big one. Reply @rogelioorta-martin9003 1 year ago Arvin, I admire and follow you, and I love your videos. You have the ability to explain difficults subjects in a simple and easy-to-understand way. However, and while I agree with the postulates of this video, renouncing the possibility of intelligence creation, when there are so many, recognized, unknowns is a little pedantic. And equating that beliefe with ignorance is offensive for so many people, including scientists, who believe in some form of Divinity. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @paulmicks7097 2 months ago Yes , the protective membrane made it all possible. Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) Poor @michaelportaloo1981 doesn't know the basics of English. He doesn't know about nouns of direct address, about pronouns and antecedents, and doesn't know to capitalize the first word in the sentence. On top of all that, he thinks that sometimes one message is three messages, and that there are cases where an elephant is a donkey. 2 Reply 4 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago The god people are back ... "Oh now, it was the invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard, who magically went POOF!" 😂🤣 Reply 1 reply @tedkrasicki3857 9 months ago The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg&t=3s Energy and Matter at the Origin of Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEZJdK5hhvo How Life Evolves with Professor Nick Lane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJimi8ocg5Q The Whole History of the Earth and Life 【Finished Edition】 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ4CUw9RcuA&t=1249s Reply @mnjraman 1 year ago Just as a pot cannot materialize by itself from a heterogeneous mixture of clay, water, potter wheel etc, with out the potter deciding to bring them together, no amount of waiting can result in organisms showing up by themselves -- under sterile biginnings -- without an intelligent all powerful being (who has the ability to bring out life from the Unmanifest)! This can even be seen -- in a limited way -- accounted for by ashtamāsiddhis (or even in the Einstein's E = mc². The so-called proof for God particles can't imagined without Man (who ticks because of the Super Consciousness pervading everywhere)! Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg -- that is operating over a fraction of time imaginable; even billions of years represent only a tiny window into time. In astronomy, man talks of billions of light years with his limited intellect. Sure the scientists have achieved a lot; but that is only a tiny fraction of what the Universe has to offer... Any and all achievements of man may get wiped out overnight by apocalyptic events over which ordinary man can have no influence! But let us continue to delude ourselves perpetually... 1 Reply @junanougues 1 year ago And not a word about how we are killing life and collapsing ecosystems at a much faster rate than we can accumulate knowledge about them. Typical. Reply @FinderOfTruth 1 year ago (edited) You mentioned that approx 10^45 is the probability of forming the first protein… and tried to say that it need not be formed in 1 step, but that precursors could be formed as intermediaries .. this is already accounted for in the 10^45 probability .. because this is exactly how the 10^45 probability is calculated .. by calculating the probability of guessing a 2-amino acid sequence correctly multiplied by the probability of guessing the 3rd amino acid correctly, etc. Then there’s another complexity .. What is probability that a nonfunctional amino acid sequence that is half the required length for life, persists unchanged for billions of years, waiting for the following un-probable addition of the other amino acids that are needed to generate the first protein ? It gains no evolutionary benefit from surviving, since it is non-functional. 1 Reply 1 reply @ddzl6209 1 year ago No synthetic chemists yet to determine how o group of molecules form a basic life system. Reply @raviakula5449 3 months ago Are new first forms of life still coming into existence as we speak ? Because the chemicals in the soup are still there. Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 8 months ago (edited) effectingCause5484 said, "There would be no enzymes around for genetic information repairs on the strand of RNA. " Why would that be needed? You seem to be thinking of DNA in modern genomes, where there are millions or billions of DNA nucleotides. That wouldn't apply to the first cells. Here is a simplified version of error catastrophe. A genome must be smaller than the reciprocal of the mutation rate. So if the mutation rate is 1 in a thousand, then a functional genome can be maintained only if it is fewer than 1000 nucleotides long (< 1000 base pairs in DNA). If the genome is larger, then replication fidelity is insufficient to maintain function over continued generations, since too many mutations will occur. In cells with 1 billion base pairs, such as ours (ours is about 3 billion, but close enough for this - and let's assume for the moment that there is no junk DNA), DNA replication would have to make only 1 mistake in 1 billion bases copied to avoid the error catastrophe. (Apparently, God sucks as a designer and could not poof a DNA replicase enzyme into existence that had sufficient fidelity!) So in us and other organisms with millions and billions of base pairs of DNA, error-correcting mechanisms do play a key role, in keeping the number of mutations down to an acceptable level. But an RNA replicase ribozyme would likely be only about 200 nucleotides long. Being so small, if a ribozyme that copied it had merely 99.5% fidelity, that would be sufficient to maintain "genetic" continuity between generations of RNA replicases ( while also allowing some mutations on which natural selection could act, improving the functionality of the replicases). In that scenario, there is no requirement for RNA repair mechanism like a form of base excision repair used in our cells to fix errors in DNA replication (or other mutation-causing processed). ------------------------- effectingcause5484 said, "There would be no enzymes to unravel the strand of RNA, nor would there be any enzymes to repack the unraveled strand into a more condensed strand after copying, transcribing, and translation of genetic information, so that the RNA information can split into to identical RNA strands." ------------------------- In your near word-salad, you appear to be trying to allude to the following .... When a long RNA template is copied, the two strands (template strand and the complementary nascent strand) anneal to each other rather strongly, leading to a dead end. The two strands must dissociate in order for any progress to occur, but their dissociation is disfavored since the duplex with the two long strands bonded to each other is very stable. This can be called the strand dissociation problem, the strand inhibition problem, the product inhibition problem, or other names. Several prebiotically plausible potential solutions have been offered. For example, rolling circle replication, and heterogeneous backbone chemistries (for example, a mix of 3’-5’ and 2’-5’ linkages in RNA reduces the melting temperature (and does not destroy catalytic ability), so that hot-cold cycles might be able to lead to dissociation when hot and synthesis when cold). AWIs (Air-Water Interfaces) have also been shown to reduce the problem. Thermophoresis has been shown to reduce the problem, as has the use of other solvents, such as solution of urea and acetamide in water. Some of these discoveries are very recent. Any one of them might be the solution, or maybe a mix of two or more of them is. Or maybe a new potential solution will be discovered 5 years from now. ------------------------- effectingcause5484 said, "Imagine how long that RNA molecule would need to be sir. It would need to be millions of base nucleotides long in order to possess so much information on just one strand, just one entity! ------------------------- Nope. OoL scientists have evolved several ribozymes that are only some 200 nucleotides long that are somewhat close to being RNA replicase ribozymes. An RNA replicase ribozyme might need to be only 200 or so nucleotides long: no OoL scientist says it would need to be millions of nucleotides. ------------------------- effectingcause5484 said, "There would be no enzymes and no ATP in the matrix sir." ------------------------- 1) Enzymes are not required in order for chemical reactions to be catalyzed. There would have been other ribozymes that catalyzed chemical reactions. There could have been oligopeptides that catalyzed some reactions. There could have been combination RNA/peptide molecules that could have catalyzed some chemical reactions. 2) ATP is prebiotically plausible, sir. You are wrong. You should stop making claims of fact when you don't know what you are talking about. ------------------------- effectingcause5484 said, "How can you believe this idea for abiogenesis?" ------------------------- You mean your strawman logical fallacy of abiogenesis? I don't believe your distortion of science. What you vomit out is not what OoL scientists propose. Reply @MahaMtman 1 year ago Why does science work so hard to deny/ ignore the hypothesis of a Programer,, called by many names in many cultures . This aspect of reality recently in Western culture is referred to as the Matrix. Of course the "Western" philosophers of religion want to anthropomorphize this Entity, but that mythological perspective does not disqualify the hypothesis itself. The infinitely high degree of complexity and organizations from subatomic structures on up implies a force behind the forces, or perhaps another quantum level of Consciousness, called Atman/Bhraman in Eastern lore. Which would we start with to try to manufacture life and finally To prove evolutions fundamental tenant/ hypothesis that life could spontaneously emerge from essential.DNA in a "spontaneous" perfect shell membrane surrounding them as the first working cell is still unrealized. Without repeatable experiments to prove the hypothesis the theory cannot be fully/ finally pronounce as valid. In the case of our imagined spontaneous working cell which we know is a an extremely complex organism at this point, which came first the perfect cell membrane or the perfectly formed DNA RNA strands? It is as if one would ask which came first. the fetus of the chicken or the shell around it? 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago (edited) @alafan123 said, "If we ran the numbers using the scenario you are talking about the probability actually get even bigger" Really? Cool! Because the BIGGER the probability, the more likely the event is to occur. Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 month ago (edited) @saqlainahmadmalik said, "Those who believe in the afterlife are not afraid of death. Best of luck." LOL It's atheists who don't fear death. When we die, that's it: we are, you know, dead: we no longer exist. There is not even the possibility for pain or suffering or sadness or despair or anguish. But in a religious worldview, where gods exist and there is an afterlife, if you did not happen to believe in the right god, you will spend eternity in torment. 2 Reply @garymanz3403 1 year ago (edited) Where did matter come from? 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @t2squared 1 year ago You need to talk with Dr. James Tour about this. I have a feeling you will be informed. 1 Reply 5 replies @NyabsinoFyles 1 year ago All you need is one UFO encounter to rethink your hypothesis of limitation. Reply 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 10 days ago @michaelportaloo1981 has a few tricks. 1) Try to rewrite history. One example is his original rule, which was "one message requires one reply." Since then, he has tried to claim: a. that his rule - which says a reply is required - means a reply is optional. b. that one means exactly one ... but zero meets that condition. c. that one message is supposedly treated differently if it is in a group vs being on its own. None of that is in his rule. In regard to his rule, he has also tried treat the same "group" of 3 messages from me as counting as 3 for me, but only 1 for him. He claims his rule doesn't apply to 2 of them, so ignores them (so he tries to count 3 as 1 for him) - but then also tries to claim those same 2 messages he ignores do count when applying his rule to me?!?!?!!?! He could just admit he made a mistake. 2 Reply 19 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nahshon9998 said, "So Arvin, why do you call yourself a scientist if you refuse to go where the evidence leads you? " By all means, cupcake, show us scientific evidence that demonstrates your alleged invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard actually exists. Well, what are you waiting for? Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 3 weeks ago Here is the truth. It's really simple. @michaelportaloo1981 wants to dishonestly change the meaning of the word "one". That's it. That's what all of this is about. Over 100 posts so far, and still going, because he wants to be a troll. I, on the other hand, want "one" to mean one. What a Dunning-Kruger idea, according to him!!!!! LOL That's all you really need to know about his troll behavior, but below is a full explanation. ----- Michael made-up a rule, "one message requires one reply". NOTE: Contra his silly claim, his fabricated rule is not a YOUTUBE SYSTEM rule. NOTE: His rule is silly, as even he admitted by pointing out how silly the result would be if it actually had to be followed. Then Michael tried to apply his fabricated-out-of-thin-air rule to 3 different messages, which were 3 different replies from me to him. Note that it is the same set of 3 different messages that he wants to change the meaning of the word "one" for. It's not 2 different things, like for X the word "one" should mean one, but for Y the word "one" should be one, or two, or three, etc. He wants the word "one" to have different meanings when applied to the same set of 3 different messages: when it comes to me he wants "one" to mean one thing, but when it comes to him he wants "one" to mean one, or two, or three, or four, etc. That's the troll move. Honest adults would look at it honestly, like adults: 1) If those 3 different messages from me to him are 3 different things, then he violated his made-up rule, "one message requires one reply", because he didn't do what he himself said is (supposedly) required. My first message to him was ONE MESSAGE, so he was required by his own rule to post one reply. And he did. Good boy! But then for my second message to him - which was also ONE MESSAGE - he was required by his own rule to post one reply. But he didn't reply. So he violated his own rule. And then for my third message to him - which also was ONE MESSAGE - his rule required him to post only reply, but he didn't, again violating his own rule. 2) If those same 3 different messages from me to him are supposedly somehow just "one message" (his trick to try to make it so that he did not violate his own made-up rule), then those 3 different things are somehow magically just 1 thing ... so I posted only 1 reply to him ... and therefore I did not violate his made-up rule in that form. Either way, he has nothing. So he dishonestly tries to say that my 3 different replies to him count as 3 different things for me, but only 1 thing for him. That's troll behavior. It's really simple to understand what is going on. 2 Reply 14 replies @theultimatereductionist7592 1 year ago Wait.. You have a BChE? I have a BChE! U of Delaware 1986. I just assumed all your degrees were in physics, Arvin Ash. Reply @kevinwall6404 1 year ago The magic of time can never achieve the impossible. This story should have begun "Once upon a time..." 2 Reply 4 replies @phil3.146 1 year ago OOL is in its Infancy. And may never be solved. This is why Crick pushed directed panspermia. Reply @royaniv 11 months ago thank you. What do you think of Doron Lancet's GARD model? Reply @Jeronknight 11 months ago This. Is. Cool. 1 Reply @hbofbyu1 1 year ago And to think, gravity is the magic component that provided the path for it all. Gravity does not seem magic becuase we understand it, but we don't know it. We can't create it. We can't manipulate it. Why does mass warp space? Why and how can space be warped when there is no ether? Reply @colinquinn676 9 months ago (edited) Adding this to my Ancestry 1 Reply 1 reply @maffimukshukran9369 10 months ago what is the genesis of lipids and proteins? Reply @mykrahmaan3408 1 year ago (edited) NECESSARY, SUFFICIENT and SATISFACTORY condition for collection of KNOWLEDGE: Necessary condition: it serves to satisfy need of a being. Sufficient condition: it describes a function of plants, the only immediately accessible creator and sustainer of all life in the entire known universe. Satisfactory condition: all the variables in describing that function are such that any negative deviation of that function is practically rectifable by adjusting them. These conditions necessitate considering seeds, water and fertilizer as the only variables for describing LIFE function as growth of plants, and particle interactions inside the earth as the source of their origin. Once this is done origin of life from matter would clearly be defined with practically applicable evidence that serves to satisfy needs of beings. No need for abstract entities: DNA, RNA, Proteins, lipids, etc. Reply @roccodevillers8860 1 year ago You cite article by J England who argues about putative heat flow in chemical reactions in a bacterium E. coli and self replicating RNA molecules. In my opinion abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with a formed bacterium. The process of attaching a single or several RNA nucleotides by means of a phosphate backbone is also not pertinent. The question should be the ORDER of attachment of nucleotides, ie the CODE and how this code might be tested as “good” or “bad” and corrections then made in a sensible manner to get useful code. The rest is no more interesting than lighting a match. You can’t test this hypothesis with a living cell! Reply 1 reply @mobatyoutube 1 year ago @13:10 Is this hypothesis of the origin of life through chemical evolution falsifiable in principle? Reply @anupamsengupta319 11 months ago Brilliant. Thanks so much Reply @marcintosh4040 1 year ago so it is a probability that has more or less the same chance as the probability of a higher power causing this? 2 Reply 37 replies @dualsportnation751 1 year ago A lot of assumptions still on both sides of this debate for abiogenesis vs design Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 3 weeks ago @michaelportaloo1981 is so clueless that he thinks these two statements are contradictory: a. "It was three messages' b. 'one message is never three messages.' Those aren't contradictory at all. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. There were three messages, each of which was ONE message. Nowhere do those two statements imply that 1 = 3, or anything else contradictory. DK Michelle needs to start over again in pre-school. 2 Reply 12 replies @Coco-hq6ns 1 year ago (edited) ⚠️Existential crisis mode activated: ⚠️ Stand by for further analysis, so what I’m hearing is the soup of life existed. So that I could one day do taxes hate my other living counter parts and be lonely. 1 Reply @markcredit6086 1 year ago Good lord this is painful why don't you get a sheet of paper and a box of crayons and draw it out for us Reply 1 reply @vertbeke7977 8 months ago (edited) Everything points out to engineering on a microscopic subatomic level. The origin of life is there. But can there be engineering without an engineer, without a conscient and intelligent engineer ? Maybe the origin of life comes from a creator, a conscient and intelligent being, at the microscopic subatomic level ? Reply 1 reply @johnhess3886 7 months ago How many tries does it take to align 500 or more amino acids in precisely the right sequence? The guy in the video doesn't understand probability theory. Do you? 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @melvynasplett3399 1 year ago A piece of mercy knows it’s a piece of mercy so how does it know how to combine life is built into every thing even the suns know how to form all the Elements. There is a very big process of life going on Reply @nuriastuti9239 1 year ago Best video 1 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) Poor @michaelportaloo1981, still can't understand how numbers work. He thinks when there are three individual messages, that it is NOT the case that each one is one message. PS: He also thinks that required means optional, that exactly 1 includes 0, that one message is sometimes 3 messages, and even that an elephant can be a donkey. 1 Reply 18 replies @jojosthlm 7 months ago Time to replicate this process in lab. If it is not proven it is not science. 1 Reply 1 reply @aspiknf 1 year ago This was a very good video, thank you. Reply @chriselkins6771 1 year ago Great video and explanation. Reply @allanforce5333 6 months ago It's not that rna is simpler...it's that rna forms the catalytic core of the ribosomes and also can catalyse other reactions...it's both an enzyme and an information carrying molecule... 1 Reply 1 reply @EV-hj6fc 6 days ago Where did the material come from? What caused the big bang? All life came from a single cell? 1 Reply 3 replies @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago One for Sorrow rewritten to conform with TonyTigerTonyTiger logic. Sing along at home. One for sorrow Two for sorrow Three for sorrow Four for sorrow Five for sorrow Six for sorrow Seven for sorrow Each one magpie is one magpie. The ‘rule’ is ‘One for sorrow’. Basic Dunning Kruger logic 2 Reply 14 replies @ahmetnumanduman8653 1 month ago You missed the part that life began very quickly after the earth was formed. Reply Arvin Ash · 8 replies @mutyabaisaac2697 1 year ago Great 1 Reply @dirk.no-whisky.4u 1 year ago I consider myself semi-not-too-dumb if i can grasp these concepts in under 5 repeat views 😊😊 Reply @Christabbaword 1 year ago John 3 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” Reply 2 replies @sdhomeguide6343 1 year ago This is the most severe case of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever encountered. 2 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 8 months ago @luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425 said, ""Here, we estimate the combinatorics of self-assembling the protein constituents of a yeast cell, " Dude, you are making a fool of yourself. Yeast cells are absolutely irrelevant to the origin of life. Yeast are eukaryotes, which are .. yep ... totally irrelevant to the origin of life. Why are you quoting material on yeast cells, when the topic is the origin of life??? Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nashon said, "The problem is that evolutionists are mainly atheist. " Wrong again, Jr. A poll of the general public in the United States found that of those who believe in evolution, twice as many believe in God as do not. Sorry that facts and logic refute you. Reply @skywind007 2 months ago This video was presented backwards. The lipids could not come first. Reply Arvin Ash · 19 replies @alafan123 1 year ago You are using a variation on the debunked lottery winner argument or are being dishonest. The probability numbers (such as 1x10to the 45 against forming a single amino acid) you used ARE assuming every atom in the known universe required for building that amino acid are in one place. If we ran the numbers using the scenario you are talking about the probability actually get even bigger because those molecules would at some point have to be transported to each other. Other than you are categorically wrong in all your statistical analysis, quite entertaining. 1 Reply 2 replies @TheBanjoShowOfficial 1 year ago I have to include a personal analogy of mine in addition to the idea of a watch being created out of a stirring vat. Let’s assume that for every part that goes on correctly assembled, we even maintain that part, so that it becomes a cumulative process going in incremental steps. You also have to consider the programming of such systems. In game development, the alteration of a single variable from let’s say 0 to 1, could cause potentially catastrophic implications in the function of the program. Hell, even to the point where the entire system breaks down and is lost. Now imagine with organic chemistry this process. This is an insane amount of functions all operating in unison without suffering catastrophic failure, even if you factor in billions of years of development. Mind you, we aren’t simple single-celled organisms obviously. So with every added iteration, you’re introducing thousands, potentially millions of other factors that could hinder the functions of all other bodily functions. Reply @lawrencehalpin6611 5 months ago If we can't do it in a controlled lab how did it happen in a vent? Seems odd to me. We have spent billions of dollars and no luck. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @richardpatnaude2484 5 months ago This is a great video! I just watched another one by the History of the Universe, link below. That video was about the origin of viruses and in it he brings up a hypothesis that viruses were actually the precursor to life. Perhaps it could have been possible for early viruses to arise inside the enclosed environments of lipid micelles. These viruses could have much simpler protein shells and just a tiny bit of RNA, which as you stated in this video has been hypothesized to be the precursor to DNA. The process of viruses leaving their lipid micelle to share RNA information with other micelles looks a lot like the process of viruses infecting their hosts right now, billions of years later! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDkvrWt7qN8&t=1167s 1 Reply @nickcunningham6344 5 months ago I always liked the theory that because the universe is so massive (potentially infinite?), then yeah, the odds of all these things coming together to form a living and replicating cell are highly improbable, but in an infinite universe, even highly improbable is guaranteed to occur. Reply @Alann103 1 year ago (edited) #originoflife , origem da vida , origin of life 1 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nahson9998 said, " complex, coded and specified information only comes from an intelligent source." Nope. Biologists know of multiple natural mechanisms that can produce complex, coded and specified information in genomes, such as gene duplication followed by divergence, exon/domain shuffling, and de novo gene formation. So your claim is scientifically refuted. Reply @dangates5095 1 year ago If RNA could replicate inside the membranes, natural selection could work on inevitable mutations & build ever more successful copies, however primitive. 1 Reply @patrickortiz2898 1 year ago Give it up buddy. Life didnt happen accidentally 1 Reply 2 replies @1stPrinciples455 10 months ago (edited) Why do we assume life and non-life? It could be what is perceived life is non-life or what is perceived non-life is already life where perceived life is just another form of life which is perceived as non-life? So, the definition of life makes a difference or creates a misperception. 1 Reply 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981 said, "universe contains one atom. Because EaCh aToM iS oNe atoM. - DKTony logic." I never said that, so, strawman logical fallacy. What you wrote also does not follow from my logic, so flat out dishonesty by you. Applying my logic to your newest attempt to change the topic would be that one atom is one atom, just like one message is one message. Based on your claim about messages, your position on this would be that one atom is not one atom when one atom is three atoms. Which makes no sense, because one atom is never three atoms. 1 Reply 6 replies @ENDI8089 1 year ago Random guy under this video: "ITS FAKE GUYS READ THE BIBLE" when literally no one asked Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago ​ @michaelportaloo1981 "You're breaking the law of non contradiction." Nope, but you did. When you claimed that sometimes an elephant is not an elephant, but is a donkey. 1 Reply 12 replies @scottjensen7555 1 year ago There must be a way that matter organized itself into a living cell through the unalterable laws of physics alone, given that cellular life exists in the universe. This follows from the starting assumption that the universe itself is mindless. Considering that all these ideas exist within minds, human minds, including existence itself, one can argue that without mind there is no universe to exist. 1 Reply @jeffreydobbins866 1 year ago We dont have any other life thats found to use as a guide to how common or similar to the self replicating system of life we see on earth. So we just dont know. Frankly i think non water based life is possible under the right conditions. Life that uses vompletely different process with different elements. I think its possible there could be some form of life on our gas giants that live in the dense clouds or liquid seas. Maybe that life can only emerge and sustain under the emense pressures. Could be it makes energy from radiation thats emitted from planet like jupiter. We just dont know. Reply 1 reply @felix-s2g2q 1 year ago Creo que hubo un creador y tiene nombre, se llama jehova 1 Reply @KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi 1 year ago This wonder is on words 'beginning' & 'end' not regarding from 'birth' to 'death' but from both ends of a spectrum where either pray or eaten, & between where not defenseless. Re. retrocausality. I'll explain this in layman's terms using nature as a guide rather than machines & particles & scientific terms which I tend to think keeps people in the dark. I"m said to take an interest in quantum' mech. I wonder it's actually quantum that took an interest in me. No one seems to be able to tell the difference. Suits me just fine. So here goes..✍️😉🌞✍️ The feathers over some birds, & the human head of hair come speckled, meaning rings of glowing light expand & retract upon it under sunlight as an observer approaches or backs away. We appear as though we're (1) watching an observer with eyes in our blind spot as does a butterfly & (2) are an observer between ourselves & an observer, shadowing them, as retracting & expanding rings give the illusion something without body be same proximity to them whether we remain still or not or whether they're backing away or drawing near. Does a butterfly which can't see have circles that look like eyes on its wings, to compensate for those wings making it appear bigger than its body & the colours they are making them look more spectacular in the daylight to be eaten for, then what is it we can't do when we be an invisible shadowing creature besides ourselves? Perhaps we can't see we live in a uni-multirealm of different sized same universe, not unlike the expanding & retracting rings of light in our hair. Are Alpha & Omega proximity relative & not relative to birth & death? The way we're born relative to the way we die may not be relative to life as lived about the uni-multirealm which has neither beginning or end besides at what point observed at. If God & our & the uni-multirealm be expansion had used deduction & vice versa (expansion & retraction both are once when 'beginning' just means from when so close observing us our shield be active, & 'end' mean where from we're observed from either too far or so close it inactive, then does it make sense that one would die should they see god if to die is all there is left to do besides begin & end as in expand & retract which go on forever? Is to be Alpha & Omega (as in expansion & reduction both) proximity relative & not relative to birth & death, however is birth & death also proximity relative otherwise but have to do with when too far or too close we're able to be observed? A predator stalks its prey from a distance the light ring defence be down, to race close enough to that prey the light ring defense be down too. Our only seeing this one universe & not the uni-multirealm of different sized same universe, might this mean we're either too close or too far from it or both, & that 'beginning & end' to who see their home as theirs alone & defenseless could only mean 'birth to death'? Is that we're blind to what & where we are proven by the rings of light we not observe ourselves being other than ourselves, the way that the butterfly being colourful & larger than itself proves it's blind to how it's observed & as to its proximity? So. Once were blind & now we see? Or is it we're like the butterfly, with defence mechanism respective & irrespective of we're born prey, where beginning & end could only mean from birth to death? ️️ All I write is free Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nahshon "So what are the odds of a single protein, say 150 amino acids." It doesn't matter, because no OoL researcher says that proteins 150 amino acids long were required for the origin of life. Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 2 weeks ago (edited) Imagine being @michaelportaloo1981, who (1) made up a rule and immediately violated his own rule, (2) laughably claimed his made up rule was supposedly a youtube system rule, (3) claimed that sometimes one message is three messages, (4) that if something is required it is optional, and (5) that exactly 1 includes 0. 2 Reply 8 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 11 days ago (edited) @michaelportaloo198 again used a logical fallacy of false analogy. This time he used an irrelevant example where ONLY one x requires one y. The word ONLY was not in his rule. When it comes to wedding rings, the "rule" (if there was such a thing) would be that ONLY one finger requires a ring. Michael's rule didn't say anything about ONLY one message requiring a reply. 2 Reply 3 replies @jazzophis 1 year ago (edited) Excellent video but this still seems far fetched to me. Even if you can get RNA to form it has to have the information. A few years ago they did this with a computer and made the first synthetic cell. This is really cool, but I don't see how this can happen naturally. That is a lot of very precise information that is needed. 1 Reply 4 replies @MyMy-tv7fd 1 year ago (edited) oh dear, Arvin has left out of his list of 'macromolecules of life' the polysaccharides. Starch, glycogen, etc - energy sources, and structural in combination with cell walls, membranes, muco-polysaccharides, glycans, etc. (I am not the first to note this, see others below.) Reply 1 reply @jameshotz1350 1 year ago The first living cells were plants, then animals evolved. Reply @strummy77 1 year ago Oh, some organic molecules got trapped in a lipid bubble and then a miracle happened! Rudyard Kipling would be proud of that one. A lipid bubble for potential life, is more a tomb than incubator. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 39 replies @Radrook353 1 year ago Where does the information in DNA come from? Who was doing the coding of DNA? Water? How did water know that the DNA needed self-repair molecular machines to repair its mistakes? How did water know that the DNA needed an RNA molecule to read the DNA information, and transmit it to molecular MACHINES that would carry out the instructions? How did water go about assembling such molecular machines? Suggestions of long periods of time does not provide an answer nor does it magically make the impossible possible. Reply 1 reply @paulbrungardt9823 3 months ago Albert Einstein believed there was a God--" It has been my life's work to catch God at his work".--Are you smarter than Einstein ? 2 Reply 7 replies @thomasheideman6103 1 year ago The lipid bilayer of cells does not self assemble. It needs enzymes to form properly. Lipids are hydrophobic so pockets of lipid molecules could bubble out. But the specified structure of a cell membrane is considerably more difficult to produce. 1 Reply 18 replies @timothyunderwood7880 1 year ago Life cannot originate from nonliving matter without the creation of God. That's how life began. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 5 replies @commandvideo 1 month ago So there must be many first cells occured again and again and started to evolve . After all earth age is 5 billion years Reply @peterstabler2321 1 year ago Who creates the creator? 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 8 replies @truth409 1 year ago S?ooo desperate to prove a lie......I.D....is truth 2 Reply @benjaminmiller3032 6 months ago That was a really good video Reply @laika5757 1 year ago Fantastic...👍👍👍 Reply @MahaMtman 1 year ago Why does science work so hard to deny/ ignore the hypothesis of a Programer,, called by many names in many cultures . This aspect of reality recently in Western culture is referred to as the Matrix. Of course the "Western" philosophers of religion want to anthropomorphize this Entity, but that mythological perspective does not disqualify the hypothesis itself. The infinitely high degree of complexity and organizations from subatomic structures on up implies a force behind the forces, or perhaps another quantum level of Consciousness, called Atman/Bhraman in Eastern lore. Which would we start with to try to manufacture life and finally To prove evolutions fundamental tenant/ hypothesis that life could spontaneously emerge from essential.DNA in a "spontaneous" perfect shell membrane surrounding them as the first working cell is still unrealized. Without repeatable experiments to prove the hypothesis the theory cannot be fully/ finally pronounce as valid. In the case of our imagined spontaneous working cell which we know is a an extremely complex organism at this point, which came first the perfect cell membrane or the perfectly formed DNA RNA strands? It is as if one would ask which came first. the fetus of the chicken or the shell around it? Reply @MahaMtman 1 year ago Why does science work so hard to deny/ ignore the hypothesis of a Programer,, called by many names in many cultures . This aspect of reality recently in Western culture is referred to as the Matrix. Of course the "Western" philosophers of religion want to anthropomorphize this Entity, but that mythological perspective does not disqualify the hypothesis itself. The infinitely high degree of complexity and organizations from subatomic structures on up implies a force behind the forces, or perhaps another quantum level of Consciousness, called Atman/Bhraman in Eastern lore. Which would we start with to try to manufacture life and finally To prove evolutions fundamental tenant/ hypothesis that life could spontaneously emerge from essential.DNA in a "spontaneous" perfect shell membrane surrounding them as the first working cell is still unrealized. Without repeatable experiments to prove the hypothesis the theory cannot be fully/ finally pronounce as valid. In the case of our imagined spontaneous working cell which we know is a an extremely complex organism at this point, which came first the perfect cell membrane or the perfectly formed DNA RNA strands? It is as if one would ask which came first. the fetus of the chicken or the shell around it? Reply @mohitsinha2732 1 year ago Has the possibility of RNA/DNA embedded in some inter-stellar space-rock landing on earth been studied? Although I agree, that this thus shifts the foundational question to another star/planetary system dating back further :-) Reply 1 reply @shrugg6593 1 year ago (edited) Maybe talk to Dr. James Tour before you make the same claims as every other science communicator... You don't even address the 4th vital element for life, the carbohydrates... The primordial soup model has not been proven, replicated or even partially confirmed... 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 17 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 10 days ago @michaelportaloo1981, did I number my 3 replies to you such as "1 of 3", "2 of 3", and "3 of 3", to indicate each one of them was in a group of 3? Nope. What I send you were 3 separate, self-contained, standalone messages - each of which was one message on its own - There was no indication whatsoever that they were part of a group of 3. Thy weren't meant to be artificially combined into a single group, and then forced to be treated as a group only, and not as 3 messages each on its own. You are just desperate to combine them into a group as part of a (failed) sleight of hand. Pretend we must consider them as a group - and not as 3 individual messages each on its own - then modify your rule to add into it the idea that one message is treated differently if it is in a group vs being on its own. You need to change 2 things to try to score. Sorry, doesn't work that way. 2 Reply 22 replies @moffattF 1 month ago (edited) I don’t think RNA is less complex than DNA. Both have massive diversity beyond the nucleotides and nucleosides in the form of epigenetic modifications. RNA forms many more 3D structures than DNA double helix. 1 Reply 2 replies @adamsblanchard836 1 year ago How did the alligator snapping turtle evolve to grow a injured worm appendage on its tongue when it lies on the bottom of a lake or river in the current all day and all night and adult Don't doesn't move hardly at all from the time it hatches till the time it's grown, how could/did such mechanisms evolve all to lure fish into his mouth to eat a fake worm that is injured.....make a video on that, if someone has an answer.....it's by design, has to be.... someone or something knew that creature would live that specific way it lives and knew it wouldn't thrive without the help.... And all people into reptiles that really are into them know there is no other animals as cool looking as a juvenile alligator snapping turtle (maybe the eyelash viper and rhinoceros vipers not really the same though, mata mata turtle maybe) with about a 5" to 20" carapace length. 1 Reply 3 replies @markhuru 8 months ago Hydrogen is my grand father, his dad was a quark… Reply @50AHenry 1 year ago I got to 3:49 and gave up. I have always believed in God the Creator and all you've done is agree with me inadvertantly . . . 1 Reply @randomreee2313 10 months ago Alright but where did the floating rocks come from that created us Reply 3 replies @Bryan_Kay 6 months ago If you really want to get the commnets going, cover Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Reply 2 replies @constructivecritique5191 1 year ago Story time! 1 Reply @michaelportaloo1981 13 days ago TonyTigerTonyTiger seems to be having some kind of breakdown due to his inability to understand the difference between 'each' and 'one'. This wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that it has f all to do with the origin of life. I suggest the video owner Arvin intervenes and deletes all of his OPs about it, of which there are many. 2 Reply 5 replies @jmonsh 1 year ago Psalm 14:1 For the Chief Musician. [A Psalm] of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good. 14:2 Jehovah looked down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there were any that did understand, That did seek after God. Reply @HonorV2ultimate1tb 1 year ago answer is.... if u tap the keyboard one key at a time for infinity... there will be 1 sequence of keystrokes that will produce the whole bible in its entirety..... time has been so long that we exist is just merely 1 successful event whereas all the billions of other events failed..... nothing mysterious at all.... if we destroy ourselves....its gonna be awhile before we might ever appear again.......... I am just a man on the street Reply @johnbrandt3252 8 months ago nobody seems to know where nucleotides came from. Reply @healthdoc 1 year ago Anything that is possible will occur given time. The problem we have as humans is the difficulty appreciating how long 3 billion years is. 1 Reply 3 replies @jamesbond8191 1 year ago 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂… all life from rocks! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂 1 Reply @realscientistflanders1688 6 days ago Who's this tonytiger guy and why is he posting so many comments that aren't even about abiogenesis? 2 Reply @miguelfalcao 1 year ago Any group of molecules? Well, guess what, every group of molecules is exposed to some sort of energy. If what this Jeremy England say is true, we would have very little non-living matter in the universe, and the opposite is what is true. Reply @zvorenergy 1 year ago Look at Discovery Institute analyses of the problems of abiogenesis including the information or programming, and the mechanical assembly. Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago So now a religious person (as with other religious people, not being able to stick to abiogenesis) has brought up Pascal's Wager, as if that is supposed to be convincing. 1) Pascal's wager indicates that one should believe in God in order to avoid hell and to make it into heaven. Fearing threats is not a valid reason to believe something is true: neither is expecting rewards. And threatening someone in order to try to make them do what you want is immoral in the first place. And that's what the bible has God doing. There is no good reason to believe that a heaven or a hell exist; there is no valid, objective, positive evidence supporting the existence of either. Pascal's wager uses an unsupported and ridiculous setup to begin with, because based on valid, objective, positive evidence, there's nothing to fear or to gain. But the argument tries to invoke the primitive emotion of fear, because that can override rational thought in weak-minded people. Since the religious cannot use convincing evidence to show that their god exists, they want to scare people into believing, while at the same time dangling a carrot of alleged heavenly bliss in front of their listeners. It’s an attempt at disingenuous emotional manipulation. 2) Even if we assume for a moment - without any good reason to - that a god does exist, it's not a matter of just believing, but of believing in THAT particular god. What if the Muslims are correct, and Allah is god, and Jesus is not? Then Christians would have worshipped a human as god - something that Allah sends people to hell for. What if the traditional Jews are correct, and YHWH is god, and Jesus is not? Again, Christians would have worshipped a human as god - something that the Jealous god of the Old Testament, YWHW, very much hated. What do you think the wrathful, vengeful God YHWH might do to people who break his primary commandments? Of course, Christians also don't get their hoped-for lure (heaven) if it turns out that the Hindus are right, or that the Zoroastrians are right, or that any other religion is right. 3) A loving and/or morally perfect god could not require people to believe an extraordinary assertion for which there is absolutely no good evidence, especially not requiring you to believe it or you will be tormented for all eternity. A god that would do such would be a horribly immoral monster. But if god is a horribly immoral monster, then no one can trust anything that god has said. So Christians' belief that they will be saved evaporates, and they could be tortured for all eternity, even if their immoral god does exist. 4) Pascal’s Wager claims that you don't really lose much if you believe in god and god does not exist. You might lose out on some pleasure, but that's about it. However, you lose something even more valuable: you lose rationality. You willingly choose to be irrational and gullible, believing fantastical claims that lack good evidence, and your beliefs do not line up with reality. You sacrificed reason to believe in the ancient notion of a magic man in the sky - a fantastical being that doesn’t exist. 5) Can a person truly be led by such an argument to an actual belief in God? Saying, "Yeah, sure, I choose to believe, because believing has a better payoff for me", is not true belief. God would be able to see through the flimsy basis - the superficiality - of such “belief”. And such a shallow form of belief wouldn't be enough to save a person (at least not according to many Christians). Note: The idea of Pascal's Wager is not to produce true belief, but to hope to get people headed in the direction of believing in God. But note that that means Pascals' Wager is not an actual argument for the existence of God: it does not provide any evidence or logic that indicates God actually exists. 6) "Why don't you believe just in case there is a god?" For the same reason you don't cover your doorways in garlic just in case there are vampires. If you don't believe vampires exist so don’t cover your doorways in garlic, and vampires do exist, then you lose everything (you will be bitten by a vampire and will turn into a vampire yourself, going on to bite your loved ones and others, turning them into vampires too). If you don't believe vampires exist so don’t cover your doorways in garlic, and vampires don’t exist, then you neither gain nor lose anything. If you do believe vampires exist so do cover your doorways in garlic, and vampires do exist, you have saved yourself from being bitten and turned into a vampire (and have saved your loved ones and others too). If you do believe vampires exist so do cover your doorways in garlic, and vampires don’t exist, you neither gain nor lose anything. Therefore, you should believe vampires do exist. --------------------- Richard Dawkins … “What if I’m wrong? I mean, anybody could be wrong. … You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the Christian faith: you know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith, because you’re not a Muslim, you’re not a Hindu. Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India you’d be a Hindu; if you were brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor; if you were brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus; if you were brought up in central Africa you’d be believing in the Great Juju of the mountain. There’s no particular reason to pick the Judeo-Christian God - in which, by the sheerest accident, you happened to have been brought up - and ask me the question, 'What if I’m wrong?' What if you’re wrong about the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea? " -- Richard Dawkins, responding to a question from an audience member Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" ------------------ Other “My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.” -- George H. Smith. “Atheism - The Case Against God Atheism is the rational position to adopt when it comes to whether or not god exists. What could be more rational than not believing the truly extraordinary claim - that the most extraordinary being imaginable exists – especially when that claim has the least possible amount of good evidence supporting it … 0 … none … nada … zilch. A just god could not punish you for not believing an extraordinary claim that has no good evidence supporting it. An unjust god could, but an unjust god could also not honor his commitments, and could have been lying all along anyway, and could send you to hell. 1 Reply @ASHISKASHYAP1 1 year ago Thank you Sir 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 Reply @Adaminthematrix 1 year ago The bible says this all. Made man from clay, split the light dark from light. 2 Reply 28 replies @hikesystem7721 1 year ago (edited) 7:06 check pronunciation of RPI. Reply @danielmathews63 1 month ago Wow , he even admitted at the end that they really have no idea, and that all this actually proves nothing, but they know it happened 😂 1 Reply 1 reply @stevekluze3094 8 months ago You know, once you encounter God, it will become all too clear how ridiculous these kinds of explanations are, but not everyone figures out how to meet God throughout their entire lives, and are just forced to come up with explanations that fit their worldview. Even people who go to church... It truly is remarkable. Those of you who have actually encountered God, know exactly what I'm talking about. Reply 1 reply @GregBacon-q6k 5 months ago My basic understanding of cell division is the exact duplication of the original cell. So unfortunately some of the copying goes awry and the organism ends up with mutations. Now my understanding is that evolutionists state that these mutations is how new organisms come about and the appropriate mutations that survive the environment they are in are what we see in the different forms of life (natural selection). Really this is what evolutionists are hanging their belief hats on. Hmmmmmmm????? And you honestly believe that your video is truly explaining how life began. Is it reasonable that an intelligent designer created the universe, galaxies, solar systems, earth and life. Who wrote the code--Where there is code there is a coder. 1 Reply 2 replies @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago Poor DKTony. When he sees three magpies together he has thee lots of sorrow. Because eAcH oNe of 1+1+1 is one magpie. 1 Reply 33 replies @lazysingledaisybronwyn8105 9 months ago It seems the idea of "same repel, opposites attract"should be looked at in this instance. Primordially, it seems same was attracting, opposites were repelling, yet at one instance proteins were attracted to an opposite only because they were both non-living, but that made the new experience of opposites attracting. Hmm. Everything is in patterns. Reply 3 replies @jimmycain8669 3 months ago God created everything. 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @glenliesegang233 1 year ago Translation requires information. Novel protein with new catalytic functions from new code combinations ifor the 400+ proteins needed for the simplest self-replicating life is so unlikely the numbers are 1 to the power of 2^5000 1 Reply 161 replies @frankkolmann4801 1 year ago Arwin, you always have my respect, but I think you missed an essential point. You fail to ask the right question. Most of what you say is almost right, but mostly it is not starting at the right place. You look at RNA DNA and amino acids and proteins. You ramble on and ramble on about events that happened much later than self replicating molecules. You fail to notice that there needs to be a source of energy to drive the life process. Before you have anything before you have RNA, you need an energy source. You speculate about random connections between molecules, you could not be more wrong. The energy for all and every form of life is to this very day is driven by proton gradients. Without a source of energy life is not possible. Law of entropy requires a flow of energy for complexity to self assemble. In the deep oceans were alkaline proton energy gradients inherent in flow of deep water ocean vents, the structure of the vents had pores the size of cells. The self replicating molecules had a source of energy in the proton gradients between the alkaline water in the vents and the ocean water. Within the pores the first self replicating molecules formed , essentially they are viruses , then the first cells could form to be released into the ocean. Most of the first cells failed but eventually the cells in the pores of the vents competetivly evolved to be able to survive when they escaped their home in the vent pores. Live self replicating cells are born. Reply @johncastino2730 4 months ago How did the original elements arrive? Where did the specified information (required for assembly) for cells and protein’s come from? Miller Urey experiment has already been discredited. Entropy would have destroyed any incremental progress before anything meaningful was created. You quoted Fred Hoyle - but Fred Hoyle said “it appears a super intellect monkeyed with physics to get life”. I agree with Fred Hoyle. Reply @tomasrusek5247 1 year ago so... have you finally created these parts artificially and combined them into life? Or is this all just assumption without any proof? Bring evidence! Reply @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago Poor DK Tony. He’s still struggling with the difference between ‘one’ and ‘each’…and the concept of context . 1 Reply 9 replies @gamershideout89-ke2vn 2 months ago Anyone successfully make this 'abiogenesis' in a lab?? Reply @moinulhaque4705 8 months ago What is the significant microtiming phase between non living molecules and living reacting molecules!!! .... reaction of molecules means life started !??? But how!!???...which parameters included so that it is begun!!?? Reply @warbrush 1 year ago This is awesome, now I belive intellegent design 2x. 1 Reply 8 replies @cl759 1 year ago here to see whether I can get an inspiration for a sentience joke Reply @johnpro2847 1 year ago Supernatural if you are religious...Natural if you are non religious. Answer is not known..Early days still Reply 1 reply @effectingcause5484 8 months ago (edited) The idea of abiogenesis via chemical evolution from simpler precursors, flies in the face of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The idea of random collisions of swirling amino acids in some primordial pond or soup, coming together by accident and forming a highly organized super-informational strand of RNA which can replicate itself, should be considered by physicists worldwide to be a practical impossibility.. That's because the 2nd law of thermodynamics would never allow for it. Also allow me to mention the fact that there isn't even an RNA molecule around right now today, after billions of years of evolution, which can replicate itself. All enzymes (which are RNA molecules by definition) can only perform one single task, depending on its sequence of amino acids which delegates it's shape and folds. Each enzyme acts as a catalyst to speed up only one very specific chemical reaction or metabolic function and they cannot carry out multiple functions. There is no multitasking for an enzyme or RNA molecule. So it is already obvious just there, that an RNA molecule can never replicate itself without the presence of many, many other helper RNA molecules to perform each step along the way of replication. All of the enzymes must work in coordination to replicate all of the other enzymes. It is a dance floor of activity, and no enzyme or rna molecule could have had this dance all by itself during the creation of life... And even for a single dancing self replicating enzyme to form spontaneously in our universe, is impossible, as disorderly systems like that primordial pond, cannot accidentally and spontaneously produce a more orderly system than what was already there. There must be purposeful intention in the arrangement of molecules before we can get a self replicating molecule. Origin-of-life researchers need a Maxwell's sorting demon in order to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Somebody, tell me I'm wrong.... Reply 10 replies @richardfranks5167 5 months ago Except it didn’t have billions of years. Last I checked the oldest life was around 3.7-4.1 billion years old. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @raysalmon6566 1 year ago right, so we are supposed to believe this ... 1 Reply 8 replies @AnthonyRanch 5 months ago (edited) If true why cant why do the same in a lab, actually engineer life abiogenically? How did these individual components come together with the instructions to feed, to use energy to live and replicate as a whole, all programmed and synchronized at the same time for the first cell to thrive? Talk about getting it right in one shot. This is more unlikely then believing in a creator. Consider a cell is more complicated than a 747 airliner by far. As a scientist omce said. Abiogenisis is less likely to happen than a tornado hitting an airplane graveyard and combining a fully functioning 747. The simplest cells are insanely complex 2 Reply 2 replies @MathewThomasFET 1 year ago (edited) Let him define life. Let him watch James Tour. Why AFTER 70 years of the Miller-Uri experiment, we cannot create life in the lab❓️🤔 1 Reply 1 reply @davefrimml1518 1 year ago Liars 2 Reply @grasonicus 1 year ago You're right; life is incredibly complex, therefore mindless processes could not create it. Here it's explained in more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg Reply 11 replies @anak-e1m 2 days ago (edited) Yay I am used to be a protozoan after all.. Reply @idegteke 1 year ago I learned that intelligence is defined as the ability to find the common in two seemingly entirely different procedure like chemical and biological evolution. A certain level of intelligence could, in addition to smoothening out that current sharp edge between those two procedure into a continuity, also make it possible to predict previous levels of this same evolution, down to the very basics, at which level an earlier stage of evolution created matter, space, time and the natural rules… The reliability of these results would only depend on the level of intelligence used to model them multiplied by the strength of the computer that runs all the necessary simulations and calculations. Reply @anthonybaransky137 1 year ago If your gonna say that even some molecules are self replicating, then you need to explain how this can even possibly happen to any degree. Other wise all your saying is blah,blah, blah Its like me saying devout your heart to God and God will talk to you. One would definately request a more lengthy explanation Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 9 days ago (edited) @michaelportaloo1981, I've been on YouTube for 18 years, and not once have I gone out of my way to change my channel to mock someone, as you did. But then again, I am not an obsessive, vindictive man-child. 2 Reply 18 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 month ago (edited) ​ @saqlainahmadmalik said, "Transition of days and night, laws of physics and the magnetic force that is holding the universe so accurately that it didn't move for billions of years. Name the force that holds the whole universe. It's GOD, and time and space are not for God." LOL This bozo doesn't know that the Earth rotates about its own axis, and instead believes an invisible magic man in the sky makes parts of the Earth dark or light in cycles. I swear, it's like trying to have a discussion with a toddler. Reply @michaelportaloo1981 11 days ago I wonder how many bride’s wedding rings TonyTigerTonyTiger would expect at a wedding? One finger requires one ring. Would he expect eight, or include thumbs and expect ten? Difficult to know. 2 Reply 7 replies @msilver4888 8 months ago people don't believe a baby in the womb is life Reply @MrBobAduke 4 months ago Are you purposely putting words like Trinity and things like rna came from clay to put forward a theory that the Bible and other stories were just explaining abiogenesis? Like God made us from clay and such. Maybe they were just explaining our formation lol. 2 Reply 1 reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 8 months ago -- effectingcause said, "The oldest fossilized cells ... those of the stromatolites and others from the primordial era ..." -- Which would be after the origin of life. You are still not addressing the actual topic. -- effectingcause said, "No energy = no self-replicating" -- There is plenty of energy in the various environments that origin of life scientists propose. -- effectingcause said, "No ATP = no energy" -- False. There is energy in the environment even if there is no ATP. Also, there are other "high energy" molecules that could provide chemical energy for reactions: for example, thioesters. But that is not required, since ATP can be formed prebiotically. -- effectingcause said, "No proton pump = no ATP" -- False. ATP can be formed in a prebiotically plausible process by substrate-level phosphorylation, which does not involve ATP synthase or proton pumps ... acetyl phosphate can phosphorylate ADP, forming ATP, in water. Even inside your own humans cells there is ATP being made by substrate-level phosphorylation (which does not use ATP synthase or proton pumps), during glycolysis. -- effectingcause said, "So for abiogenesis you need the "ATP synthase proton pump motor" in all scenarios of imagination." -- Nope. See above for more than one reason. Also, there is no such thing as "the "ATP synthase proton pump motor"". The proton pumps are not the ATP synthases, and the ATP synthases are not the proton pumps. In fact, there is no such thing even as THE ATP synthase ... there are F-type, A-type, and V-type ATP synthases ... and even among each of those there are differences among the members. Oh, and scientists say the ATP synthase head piece (the R1 part, that makes ATP from ADP and Pi) ... evolved ... by gene duplication ... of genes involved in recombination. So ATP synthase did not exist at the origin of life, but after, once genes existed and recombination and evolution were occurring. "The F- and A/V-type ATP synthases share a common foundational architecture consisting of a soluble cytoplasmic component (R1) connected to an insoluble membrane component (R0) (Supplementary Fig. 1). The hexameric headpiece of the R1 complex contains three copies each of a catalytic (c) and non-catalytic (nc) subunit and is the site of ATP synthesis and hydrolysis. The catalytic and non-catalytic subunits comprising the soluble hetero-hexameric R1 component, are paralogs to each other. They arose prior to LUCA through an ancient duplication of a RecA family protein (P-loop NTPase) followed by the loss of the catalytic function in one subunit 29,32,33,34,35,38,40,43." (ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life. Tara A. Mahendrarajah, Edmund R. R. Moody, Dominik Schrempf, Lénárd L. Szánthó, Nina Dombrowski, Adrián A. Davín, Davide Pisani, Philip C. J. Donoghue, Gergely J. Szöllősi, Tom A. Williams & Anja Spang. Nature Communications volume 14, Article number: 7456 (2023)) 1 Reply @chris24gone 9 months ago so based on entropy, the primary reason for the human race is to dissipate the sun's energy more efficiently. underachievers everywhere rejoice! Reply @effectingcause5484 6 months ago How did the first self replicator fix nitrogen without the nitrogenase enzyme? We know that nucleotide bases which comprise the dna or rna are made of nitrogen which has been fixed from atmospheric N2 into a bioavailable form of nitrogen just to be able to build the bases into an rna or dna chain. What provides the nitrogen fixation?? Reply 5 replies @06rkave 1 year ago Nice theory, with lots of assumptions an not a lot of actual lab data.....🤔 1 Reply 6 replies @LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly 1 year ago (edited) Yes the Trinity is responsible for life, The Father, The Son (John 1:1-5, 10-14), and the Holy Spirit - Genesis 1 "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the SPIRIT of God was hovering over the face of the waters.3 Then God said, “LET THERE BE LIGHT”; and there was LIGHT. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.... John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it. Reply @jacksonmcslapping2937 1 year ago where did the DNA come from Evan if you have the lipids and the axcact proteins are in side these lipids Reply @bluedot6933 1 year ago Maybe God did create the first life form. If its a natural process shouldn't there be multiple origins of life? not just happen once. Shouldn't life reemerge today? 1 Reply 21 replies @williambrewer 1 year ago (edited) Come on man! Do you really believe this stuff? 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @hammalammadingdong6244 10 months ago Good to know some things will never change. Like creationists never learning how stupid they sound, and repeating that same propaganda and nonsense they have for the past 60 years. Reply @greatvidznaga3183 1 year ago Abiogenesis is just a hypothesis coz it has not been proved experimentary!!! 1 Reply 3 replies @mirrasikulislam7344 1 year ago Urey & Miller experiment needed 2 persons their knowledge & will power & then only we had aminoacids It means there is an intelligence behind all this 2 Reply 4 replies @us3rG 5 months ago 2:19 People are so focused trying proof a make believe for the "first cell" they forget it needed an environment in the first place, even if by some magic the cell was made, the cell still needs something to survive on, the environment must exist... plants snimals ..work together to keep life going, nothing on earth can servive on its own in a lifeless place, no single cell has a chance in a lifekess place 1 Reply 3 replies @burningknight7 1 year ago It takes someone with Great knowledge and understanding of all the little parts to explain so much information in such a short time yet clearly. This was a great watch and explains many questions I had about the chemical evolution of the first cell. Reply @jlouis4407 1 year ago Can RNA survive outside of a cell? Reply 4 replies @just-sayin67 1 year ago Brilliant. Thank you! 1 Reply @amelliamendel2227 1 year ago Life did not start on earth. Panspermia is simply more valid. Reply Arvin Ash · 5 replies @favillerussell7330 1 month ago Could have, might have, May have...speculation, assumption, presumption....Matter obeying physical laws, etc, in its limited state needs to be acted on by consciousness (with purposeful direction). Two reciprocal natures always existing in reality. All existing entities (on whatever level) possess these two natures accordingly. Big question is to understand the absolute (one) origin of both.... 1 Reply 1 reply @nostaljiturkce 1 year ago (edited) We can’t even agree on what is alive 😂 I say earth is a child of the universe and we are the children of earth. I don’t know if this goes on to infinity. All I say is something must be alive whatever that is 😂 Let’s keep on observing. We may never truly understand but it is a lot of fun. Reply @steveengard8240 5 months ago Interesting presentation, but any argument for ID is not viable. I find the hypothesis presented by Prof. Nick Lane, in his book, "The Vital Question", a far more likely possibility. The presented experimental evidence is quite compelling. Reply @johnpro2847 8 months ago life could have come from other areas of space like a seed... Reply @Tackitt 8 days ago It can’t. Abiogenesis is nonsense. A literal mathematical impossibility. Life comes from life. Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago (edited) A favorite tactic of Creationists is to use a logical fallacy (false analogy), saying abiogenesis cannot occur because that would be like a tornado ripping through a junk yard and producing a Boeing 747 ... or a computer .... or a cell phone .... or a watch. I will address a Boeing 747 (since that is used in the typical Creationist “counter” to abiogenesis), but the same applies to watches, cell phones, computers, cars, buildings, and other complex non-living things. The parts of a Boeing 747 are rigid, solid units, that are permanently attached through the use of bolts, soldering, or similar. The parts are not held together by complementary shapes and charge distributions, where the bonds between parts can be broken, reformed to bind different parts, broken again, reformed to bind yet other parts, etc., all on their own. On the other hand, the 'parts' of DNA, RNA, and proteins – the entire molecules themselves, as well as their ‘parts’: the nucleobases, sugars, amino acids, etc. - are flexible molecules that have portions that are repelled or attracted to portions of other ‘parts’ due to the presence of complementary shapes and electric charge distributions; and these ‘parts’ can – with no input from humans – repeatedly form bonds, break bonds, form new bonds, break bonds, form new bonds, over and over again, and do so in different combinations. Molecules can also spontaneously self-assemble, unlike the parts of a Boeing 747. If you simply throw a lot of phospholipids into water, they will spontaneously interact with each other and form a phospholipid bilayer, which will then fold to form a hollow sphere: and they will do so every time you perform the experiment. On the other hand, if you simply throw screws, and/or bolts, and/or steel plates, and/or other parts of a Boeing 747 into water – or some kind of mixing machine, even if you add soldering equipment – no repeatable, self-assembled structure will emerge. Another example is that many polypeptide chains can spontaneously fold in vitro to form the protein’s native, functional conformation. Experiments have been done where various proteins (up to 100 amino acids long, or so) are denatured by using special conditions, then those special conditions are removed. The denatured polypeptide chains spontaneously fold back into their correct shape, becoming functional again. What is the parallel in a Boeing 747? There is none. Another example of self-assembly is that of an entire virus – tobacco mosaic virus – which will spontaneously form if its protein coat and RNA are placed in water. The self-assembled virus will have its normal infectious properties. What is the parallel in a Boeing 747? There is none. The above show examples of self-assembly in biological systems at the molecular, macromolecular, and viral levels, but it doesn’t end there. Sponges are not just bacteria, or even unicellular eukaryotes, they are animals. And if sponges are passed through a sieve such that their body is broken down into individual cells, those separated cells can self-assemble back into a living sponge. What is the parallel for a Being 747? There is none. 1 Reply @foundthetruth2003 1 year ago As a Christian, and not a particularly clever one, I still think life comes from a creator. Everything seems so complex and well engineered to me. Reply 36 replies @effectingcause5484 9 months ago 9:40 sophisticated life forms like modern bacteria are the very simplest life forms we know of. The simplest known cell, carrying about 250 functioning enzymes, all highly specifically shaped to perform highly specific tasks, and that is the simplest known cell in the entire animal kingdom. If life arose from simpler processes, then we should see examples of those life forms still today, but we don't. It seems in order to have a living cell at all, you must have at least hundreds of functioning enzymes all working together and packed within the lipid membrane at the same time. This is frankly impossible to happen by chance, since each function enzyme inside of a cell, is much like a car part, a very specific shape with a very specific function and purpose. Reply 13 replies @TonyTigerTonyTiger 8 months ago (edited) @effectingCause5484. Hey, ec5484, you were unable to provide a plausible, testable candidate for your alleged "willful conscious entity with intent" who would have created life on Earth ... you could not support your claim. Here's another chance for you. What non-human, non-living, willful conscious being with intent do you propose created life 4 billion years ago, and what good evidence do you have that this alleged being actually existed? Reply @MathewThomasFET 1 year ago What are the educational qualifications of Arvin Ash❓️Any scientific papers ❓️ Reply 1 reply @patrickortiz2898 1 year ago Dna didnt just put itself together 1 Reply 2 replies @jaybennett236 2 months ago If nucleic acids, proteins and lipids "had to have been present for life to start", where did THEY COME FROM!! "Over simplifications"? You may have just called them stupid! Typical when one has NO ANSWER for an argument! Reply @jmonsh 1 year ago Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 1:17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 1:19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them. Reply 1 reply @davivman6009 1 year ago So bottom line, science still has no plausible mechanism for how life started. Even if everything hypothesized in this video were true (e.g., original life forms were much simpler, and RNA could have assembled by inorganic chemical processes driven by entropy), it still doesn’t address elephant in the room: information and replication. It’s not the RNA molecule that is interesting, it is the information encoded in it that allows for self replication that is interesting. It is the probability of randomly generating a self replicating sequence (even with trillions and trillions of randomly generated molecules over billions of years) that is astronomically small. 1 in 10^40,000 is such an unfathomably small number that even if you chip away at it by adding more molecules and longer time and assuming simpler life, you are nowhere even close providing a rational explanation. A million monkeys typing on a million type writers for a million years won’t produce Lord of the Rings, but Tolkien might. And if one weren’t so completely and categorically biased from even considering that a creator were the author of life, you might allow yourself to consider that there plenty of reasons (e.g., the cosmological argument, the fine tuning argument, etc.) for a rational belief in God. 1 Reply 2 replies @czr-valdez-truhero 1 year ago I know I'm late to the conversation again but.. there's no evidence at all for any this.. why the conspiracy theories? Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @skywind007 1 month ago How can the lipids form first and then the genetic material can't get in? In every one of these theories, everything works except the first step. Once the cell closes and the genetic material is inside, it cannot receive any more lighting strikes because that would destroy the lipid material. You just can't get the first step going. And without step number 1, there is no step number 2. Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @allanwrobel6607 2 months ago Ok you talk about proteans coming into existence, but that's not half the story. Life needs these complex chemicals but it also needs to store, read, write and act on instructions. Someone said, 'Chemistry tells you how ink binds to newspaper, it doesn't give you the headline'. Reply @ElvisTranscriber2 1 year ago (edited) 2:21 Please replace the phrase the most important component of this trinity with The most important of these three components It sounds terribly like useless "christianese" talk I found it again here 5:03 and again 7:52 .... ugh sounds soooo stupid 2 Reply @kartikpareek-nn4fb 1 year ago I think there's no such thing as non living. Even water reacts to love and hate. What makes us think all minerals dont ? Reply Arvin Ash · 8 replies @randyschmidt19 11 months ago Creationists have some dumb arguments 😅 1 Reply @effectingcause5484 9 months ago (edited) I think it's interesting that many-a-scientist will refuse to consider any conscious entity behind the creation of life. They demand that life must have began spontaneously and against all odds, without willful intent, bcus they think that the willful and conscious creation of biochemistry equates to supernatural nonsense, or magic... But a lot of them do easily accept that human beings have willful intent and/or consciousness, yet they don't see anything supernatural or magical about that. Reply 13 replies @watchman9198 1 year ago It’s amazing what people will believe just to try to remove God 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 5 replies @michaelportaloo1981 10 days ago Imagine being lectured about grammar by someone who thinks the word 'one' should be used in place of 'each'. 1 Reply 20 replies @nliebert41 1 year ago With AI neural networks this experiment can be simulated!!!!! We can probably replay the billions of interactions over millions of years in much less time! Reply 1 reply @sinclairj7492 1 year ago Inserting a massive amount of time into any problem doesn’t explain anything nor does it solve anything. Time in this process is your enemy, not your friend. To this day, we have no scientific explanation on how life started on a prebiotic earth. Reply @rickcrume739 3 weeks ago Don't take it too hard God likes to humble the wise 1 Reply 10 replies @josepht614 9 months ago It sounds like a really long Way to say life can't exist without a creator. Scientists keep "discovering" things that were already written in the Bible. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @rickcrume739 1 month ago Your accused me of making things up did you make that up. I'am not forced to believe in any god, I choose to believe in the one that thousands died for rather than deny that they heard and saw him preach. Glad to see you back. Reply 6 replies @edwardgarrity7087 1 year ago (edited) 11:44 Newton's 2nd Law was one of his Laws of Motion, formulated in the 17th century and published in his book "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" on 5 July 1667. The second Law of Thermodynamics was formulated by later scientists in the 19th century. Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @billfoley9011 1 year ago You say the wet dry cycles were conducive to the development of RNA, but they haven't made our any so they don't know what's conducive to the development And the development of the RNA successful only once in 4 billion years led to chemical evolution. Biological evolution depends on chemical evolution, it is the chemicals that change and rejected but few are accepted because it helps with enabling strong reproduction. There is no biological evolution besides chemical evolution, but the biological evolution picks what it can from the chemical evolution Reply @Randy-po8bk 11 months ago Everything is could have. 1 Reply @MolPath 8 months ago Thank you for the video. I think you may have misspoken @11:40 when you said "Newton's second law of thermodynamics". Reply 2 replies @sawboneiomc8809 1 year ago You can’t get more intellectual dishonesty here even if you gave it the same probability of just 1 protein coming together in a world full of magical soup. 1 Reply 13 replies @BrianSmith-gp9xr 1 month ago It is a miracle. Reply 1 reply @Peanutz1208 11 months ago Even the simplest cell (LUCA - Last Universal Common Ancestor) is hundreds to thousands of orders of magnitude more complex than a watch, especially when you take into account the thousands of complex proteins that have to be formed spontaneously and have to work together in perfect synchronicity. For arguments sake, let's say beyond all chance you get a living cell. What are the chances that the RNA/DNA residing in that cell happen to have the exact information to recreate those thousands of proteins to replicate itself? Virtually zero. It is way more likely a computer (which is again many orders of magnitude simpler than a cell) can be created in a dust storm, and IN ADDITION, has the capability of making a perfect replica of itself. As you said, Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate. Abiogenesis is dependent on chance chemical reactions, and no matter how you look at it, even the simplest cell is an amazingly complex machine, and the probabilities do not work. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @EdselDuran-m2k 6 months ago When we "Peter out," we just simply enter another life form (automatically). Life takes many shapes, sizes, colors, and intelligence. First thing that happens, we go into a very deep sleep and it becomes better than sleeping. Next thing you know, BOOM! Suddenly you're in a brand new world in a new body design, It could be many things. It could be a tree, it could be an ant, or a supreme being. The body we had, is no more and we wouldn't know it. It's the cycle of life to infinity. 👽 The stars, planets, galaxies, the universe and the vacuum of space (is) the anatomy of ourselves including (all) life forms. Reply @ironmonk3064 1 year ago there is no such things as 'inanimate matter' , life does not evolve from something devoid of life, life comes from life 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @nasimamitu6197 1 month ago (edited) We are from adam and Hawa (peach be upon them) 1 Reply @pennywise1003 5 months ago No way evolution made an octopus. Zero chance. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @philstrong7812 2 months ago With all the technology we have today, in the very labs of the world we cannot even approach the tiniest step in creating a living cell from inorganic matter. It's insane to propose, as they do, that water plus time = life, yet it is taught in schools as a fact, though not qualifying even as a theory. Since we can make a 'cell' phone, it is far more reasonable to suggest that such a device could occur in the silicone sand of a desert by pure change. Reply 2 replies @RobertoCerv90 1 year ago And how explain the need to replicate of all living thing. Yes I can replicate.... But why I going to do. Why the most simple kind of life looks to perdure. 1 Reply @paulroark1176 1 year ago keeps calling cell membranes cell walls Reply @joeschmoe1794 7 months ago What a great fairy tale! And absolutely no mention of where all the information stored in DNA came from. That magically all happened by chance as well. How absurdly impossible, but let’s go with that lol. 1 Reply 2 replies @FinderOfTruth 1 year ago (edited) You didn’t explain how RNA/ DNA could spontaneously develop a coding/decoding system so that the codes in a sequence of nucleic acid “code” could order the formation of a another “code” (which is the sequence of amino acids needed to form a protein). Science shows us that we need several enzymes (which are in turn very complex proteins themselves), to be able to do so. Reply @ryanranard5187 1 year ago Give thanks to Jesus for giving life 2 Reply @Psycho_synthesis2 5 months ago What's the probability that it was created by a creator? Reply 5 replies @devesh7896 1 year ago God: wait, you can't say that 2 Reply 2 replies @Juscz 1 year ago (edited) There are important issues with your presentation. For example, I'm guessing that the reason why you call the cell membrane a wall (2:25 -- "... lipids, which make up the cell wall.") is because the term wall is more familiar to the average YouTube viewer than is the biologically correct term membrane. But please note that the cell membranes is made up of lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates while, as per biological terminology, the cell wall refers to a rigid, external layer that is specifically formed to provide structural support and rigidity. Indeed, in Eukaryotes (i.e., organisms whose cells possess a nucleus and other organelles) the cell wall is composed of a network of cellulose microfibrils and cross-linking glycans embedded in a highly cross-linked matrix of pectin polysaccharides (but no lipids). The cell wall surrounds the membrane in those organisms (such as bacteria, plants, and fungus) that possess this feature (note that animal organisms do NOT have cell walls). Moreover, at 8:10, I think you meant to say that "In the 1950s experiments by Miller and Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, of proteins, and other organic compounds, out of INORGANIC materials..." (these INORGANIC materials being water, methane, ammonia, and molecular hydrogen). Alas, here you use the term *ORGANIC materials*. Am sure you know that this is an error, but it is a significant one that introduces considerable confusion in your presentation for those who do not recognize it as an error. At 11:46 you talk about Newton's second law of thermodynamics. Please note that it was not Newton (who lived during the late 17th Century to early 18th Century) but rather Scottish physicist William Thomson (also known as Lord Kelvin) and German physicist Rudolf Clausius who developed the second law of thermodynamics in the mid-19th century. Finally, you state at 11:46, "From a physics point of view, one thing that distinguishes living things from nonliving things is its [sic] ability to capture energy and convert it to heat." Is this what Jeremy L. England really said in that 2014 paper you refer to? Certainly there are plenty of nonliving things (such as cement, sterilized soil, rocks, and countless other substances) that can absorb energy (such as electromagnetic radiation) and convert at least some of that energy into heat energy. Are you suggesting that rocks, sterilized soil, cement, the moon's crust, the planetoid Pluto, etc. are living things? Note that Jeremy L. England has advanced the idea of "dissipation-driven adaptation", which maintains that random groups of molecules can self-organize to more efficiently absorb and dissipate heat from the environment. Your summary of his assertion is quite a misrepresentation of what his position is on this matter. Reply 2 replies @jt5747 3 months ago Cliff notes version of this video, "I really have no realistic idea about how any of this came to be, and I have no real evidence for anything that would actually explain abiogenisis, but if you'll give enough credence to my multiple degrees given to me by people who also have no ideas or evidence, then I can spin you a tale that will make you feel more intelligent/informed because you sat through the whole thing and thought you recognized a few words and concepts I'm going to throw around." Reply @gulzarkareem794 8 months ago Dear you say right somewhere it is from nonliving living is evolved or created or made into or by theory of genesis aadam and eve from the heaven made into or God said happen it happened...anyway it is from stars dust to planetary form then by arrange of proper distance of our planetary orbit fusible to life from sun star we are as living ones here this is what almighty eternal revealed and dictated here before one to all. Reply @vsayikiran 9 months ago Why didn't billions and billions of atoms like Si atoms and few metals (used in semiconductor industry to make chips) did not combine together, went through a process of mutations and create a modern computer gadgets we use today. Why it required a intelligent human being behind this act? Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @liberty-matrix 1 year ago Life is the ultimate brute-force hack. Reply @jacobp2751 1 year ago This is FREE????!!! Reply @roccodevillers8860 1 year ago Smallest known genome, mycoplasma genitallium 482 genes, about 382 thought essential. Each gene contains on average around 1000 DNA nucleotide pairs. You do the math on the number of combinations 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @effectingcause5484 7 months ago (edited) "The perplexing phenomenon of homochirality in life, where biomolecules exist in only one of two mirror-image forms, remains unexplained despite historical attention from figures like Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, and Pierre Curie. Reply @jaminson2855 1 year ago 11:42 Pysics Pofessor at MIT xD hahahaha fuaaaark Reply @spamm0145 1 year ago Its amazing that everything in existence is affected by the 2nd law of thermodynamics except evolution where magically it does the exact opposite and moves from extremely simple to unfathomably complex, from nothing, to staggeringly sequenced order. The precision required to encode the information embedded within a human genome causes mathematicians heads to spin, it can be read in multiple directions and contains enough information to fill trillions of flash drives. The sequenced bits have to be ordered with a level of exacting precision that cannot be explained by chance and the probability of this far exceeds the estimated molecules in the entire universe. TIME is the absolute enemy of origin of life, the 2nd law is the absolute enemy of evolution. GOD designed and created EVERYTHING, his signature is everywhere but many people are fixated with a solution that does not require a creator. No rational person who study's the complexity of information within all living things can conclude insanely complex sequenced bits of code can create itself, unless you have no place in your heart for God. It's a shame you are wasting your God given intellect chasing after absurd theories as to how you came into being, when the answer is quite easy, God created you. Reply 3 replies @johnhess3886 7 months ago It is a simple measure of the ability of random mutation to affect change. If a feature, sight, hearing, taste, blood system, heart, anything, is more complex than drawing 155 numbered beads in a row out of a box, then there were not enough random chances in the entire history of the universe. Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @paulenzor6993 8 months ago Fairytale for grown-ups. Totally ignores the fact of the preexisting need of coding information. 1 Reply 1 reply @sailorm79 1 year ago Infinity works it all out Reply @jeanmoise9570 1 year ago Pour expliquer les propriétés des bases numérique, ayant rapport avec l'ADN, je vais travailler avec le plus facil pour un humain, en l'occurence la base décimal .Si on multiplie un nombre de "n" chiffres pat "n" 9 successif, on obtient un produit remarquable qui a la particularité de toujours apparier des chiffres d'une manière spécial, pour toujours aboutir à 9.exemple 2 avec 7;0 avec 9; 6 avec 3.etc.Donc 48690 * 99999 = 4868951310.Il suffit de mettre les 5 chiffres de droite sur les 5 chiffres de gauche pour constater l'appariement. autre exemple 124733965756 * 999999999999 = 124733965755875266034244.Si on met les 12 chiffres de droite sous les 12 chiffres de gauche ,on peut constater encore l'appariement Ceci est valable pour n'importe quel base, et pour n'importe quel nombre "n" de chiffre multiplier par un nombre égal "n" du chiffre de la base choisie moins 1.Si la base est décimale ce nombre est 9 ( 10 - 1).Si la base est quartenaire ce nombre est 3 ( 4 - 1 )etc....c'est la propriété d'appariement! Je précise que ces bases possède aussi les propriétés de réplication, et de translocation. tout est identique aux propriétés de l'ADN. Remarquable non!? PS. Pour obtenir le produit de ces multiplication, il suffit d'enlever 1 au multiplicande, Puis d'ajouter a droite du multiplicande, pour chaque chiffre le complément qui le fait arriver à 9!( Même processus pour toutes les bases .Pour la base quaternaire 0 est associée à 3;et 1 est associé à 2.)C'est sans limite!.exemple 36 * 99 .donne 35 (on enlève une unité) Puis on complète 3564(on ajoute 6 pour 3, et 4 pour 5).c'est pas compliqué, une fois qu'on a comprit.Ces chose sont à interpréter chimiquement pour l’ADN ;Ce qui veut dire que l’unité qu’ faut enlever pour que la “multiplication “puisse donner l’appariement des bases doit être vue sous forme de ions et d’électron de valences comme pour la formation d’une molécule en chimie ordinaire et organique.On peut ainsi décoller un chromosome entier pour la mitose .On peut aussi décoller un exons ,pour sa transcription en protéines.Il suffit d’apporter des ions ou bien d’en enlever ,pour agir sur la cohésion des bases Adénine Guanine Cytosine et thymine.Bien sûr ce sont des idées que je formule pour les chercheurs en biologie,mais je suis certain que cela marche.Ces propriétés des base numérique et de l’ADN sont tellement semblable que je ne vois pas comment on pourrait nié leur relation. Reply @watamatafoyu 1 year ago I wish we how many cells formed that could t reproduce and just loved until they died. And then some started reproducing... Reply @effectingcause5484 7 months ago (edited) RNA molecules cannot form at all unless there is nitrogen in its bioavailable form. The only way this happens is by lightning strikes and an enzyme called nitrogenase, which is only produced by certain bacteria which cannot survive in an oxygen rich environment. In fact there must be no oxygen at all for the nitrogenase enzyme to be able to fix nitrogen. Nitrogenase enzymes would've been necessary for abiogenesis also because the first organism most certainly couldn't survive from sustained lighting strikes. It must have had a way to fix nitrogen to incorporate bioavailable nitrogen into the RNA bases. I think it's safe to assume at least that the first life forms didn't use oxygen and they would have incorporated nitrogenase enzymes as a basic necessity for the ability to replicate the rna information. Reply 1 reply @effectingcause5484 9 months ago The probability of 10 or 20 "functioning" proteins to form and come together all packed within the same membrane is really an impossibility, when you consider that the stats are 10^45 to get just one single protein.... Also, the amount of time required to form one single functioning protein by chance, even in an observable universe where every planet is just literally a giant ball of swirling amino acids, with trillions of interactions taking place every nanosecond, it would still take many, many, many trillions of years to form just one single functioning protein without any intelligent direction if the estimated chances are 10^45. There must be intelligent direction, not saying it's a god, but even thinking in a methodologically natural sense about this, I believe that most certainly something must have awareness in the microscopic world. I believe this is the driving force behind evolution as well, and that evolution doesn't happen by random mutations, but by purposeful mutations carried out by a microscopic intelligence. This intelligence or awareness might be incomprehensible or at least undiscovered by us so far, but it is surely there. 2 Reply 40 replies @seannews 10 months ago God did it. 1 Reply @JoeBlow-tf4cc 8 months ago There's no such thing as non-living matter. EVERYTHING is alive. We are a grain of sand, in a living universe. We are the chickens. The universe, is the eggs. 1 Reply 13 replies @RipRoarin 5 months ago Its very very very hard to believe all this came together naturally by chance. That sounds like an I give up answer. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 5 replies @DarkIceLight 8 months ago Maybe life was allways there? Just as infinit old as dead matter! Reply @DennisCrombie 1 year ago grasping for straws on a whole new level... that's the only evolution here 2 Reply 46 replies @viccourageous 1 year ago Proof of God. Nonliving matter needs an Architect. DNA is coded to perform functions. Functions by definition are created for purposes... purpose is a motivation that stems from Will power. WILL is the omnipresent energy that stems from the Divine. God's Will is like human will except its outside of our realm.. and unbound. 2 Reply 3 replies @petergray-read5671 1 year ago Thank you Jesus creator of heaven and Earth… I love science but I love God’s revelation more… 2 Reply @tikaanipippin 1 year ago What could have possibly happened in the universe 10 billion years before the earth solidified from the primordial solar system. Before soup there was a soup kitchen, and it was not here. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 20 replies @rickcrume739 3 weeks ago Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the earth. Reply 1 reply @rickcrume739 3 weeks ago Did you get my apology? Einstein was agnostic but he felt there was a higher power making laws for the universe Reply 1 reply @effectingcause5484 9 months ago (edited) Billions of years from now, when humans are long gone ... A.I. life forms will question their existence in this universe. "How did we come to be?" one asks... The other replies "Duh, we arose spontaneously billions of years ago." The first then asks, "Do you think there is a creator of life as we know it?" The other replies, "Don't be ridiculous, there is no magical creator or invisible hand or any conscious intention behind the creation of a.i. Everything can be explained by evolution and natural processes. We just haven't figured out yet how the first A.I. came into existence, that's all. We probably grew out of some primordial soup." Reply @kenjohnson5124 1 year ago 0:34 You have too many definitions of evolution to be clear but maybe you don’t want to be clear. Natural selection can’t work without life already present. There has to be a replicator. This replicator has instructions from an intelligence from somewhere. Mutations makes things worse. A polar bear can never change back to a brown bear. New information is needed for more complex life. Just like turning a bicycle factory into a motorcycle factory needs intelligent input. 1 Reply 4 replies @georgeporge7124 1 year ago The fool says in his heart there is no God. 2 Reply 2 replies @stuartmiller6123 8 months ago If i have a THeory the postman takes such and such a route ,with out being able to prove it as a fact it is my Theory .If a theory means something else please show me what you think it is ! Reply 1 reply @johnhess3886 7 months ago The mechanics of chemistry are not completely determined by set laws. That doesn't s what makes DNA possible. Any of the 4 DNA letters can occur. No set order, so there is a random element in the information storage. Who wrote the original book? Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @dannylaw7367 1 year ago I don't buy this one second. YOU say that life can come from this process but fail miserably to show me a TV, a cell phone, a pencil or thumb tack or anything else that came into being like this. Even one thing that is infinitely LESS complex than man came into existence because it never ever happens, but the most complex things in the universe get made all the time like that. Very poor postulate and I don't see the science to give it credibility. 1 Reply 1 reply @effectingcause5484 7 months ago What if there is life inside every single star of the universe? There are all the necessary elements inside any star. Assume for a moment that they evolve heat resistant armor or something. Maybe life inside our star has a species that evolved to send seeds into outer space which then landed on Earth. Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @GonzaloMedel-m4p 4 months ago Statistics put into the toilette? Give up, there is an intelligent design, whatever you want or not. Grow up, give thanks and pray, haha. 1 Reply 1 reply @damonbuttino 1 year ago So if I put a brick on the side walk how long until that brick would turn into an elephant? 1 Reply 1 reply @mrmucro2704 1 year ago God created life. 1 Reply 3 replies @aurelienyonrac 1 year ago I m having a hard time with "Inanimat mater" first i cant find mater that is inanimat. 😅 Second find i cant find that mater is a thing, a substance, anything firm.😅 Am i on to something?😅 Reply 1 reply @shawncalderon4950 1 year ago But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped…[scientists] and [evolution]…and birds and animals and reptiles. Romans 1:18-23 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @jotaone 4 months ago And the huge amount of specified information needed to arrange so complex structures as those of unicellular beings?? Sorry, it seems it requires less amounts of faith to believe that there is a Creator. 1 Reply 1 reply @msilver4888 8 months ago he uses perhaps , could have Reply @robertmcclintock8701 1 year ago Flint printed life they knew since Flintstones cartoon. That is Yaba daba do.:⁠-⁠[ Reply @Alibaba-hd6po 10 months ago One thing is sure life begin in water.. Don't pollute it intelligent fools Reply @saqlainahmadmalik 1 month ago (edited) I always think that how is this possible that everything came into being spontaneously,the universe, the oxygen and the human. But at end there is only one answer "Everything is created by God" yes it is Reply 29 replies @Meerkat763 1 year ago Could've shoud've would've🤣🤣 love it how a bunch of scientist spent decades of their life on research, spent millions of $€£ just to conclude their findings with: Could've Should've Would've Must've Might've And then call it scientific facts. 1 Reply 12 replies @garypugh1153 1 year ago Glad to see a video, whereas you didn't rope me in, then switch to Bible creation crap 😊 1 Reply @matheusbarbosa7594 5 months ago Ok, now tell me who created the quantum fields that creates matter that creates those compounds that creates the molecules and then the organisms. I can't abide there's no creator at all. Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @AuditTheSimulation 3 months ago LOL!!! What a bunch of B.S.!! 2 Reply @moodyrick8503 1 year ago WHT ? Why do all my replies to comments, simply disappear ? CENSORSHIP Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @mathewrichards2713 5 months ago Gen 2:7 Then the Lord formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him. 1 Reply 3 replies @geoffevans9258 1 year ago Nice presentation 👍 you missed the bit on Venter's work on the minimum number of genes for a basic self replicating cell. The probability that this happened randomly is practically zero. Il not religious but the 'must' have statements with no scientific hard evidence and replication either in the lab of by computer simulation, is comparable to a religious belief (sadly). Is it a mystery beyond current human understanding? Yes - but I still love your videos. Thank you👍 Reply 1 reply @FRANCCO32 11 months ago (edited) Arvin you state it must have had a start somewhere from nothing. But science seems to follow one process of thought. May science should make the claim it has always been this way. Evolving yes but has always been and science should search and examine that possibility? I know I will be mocked for my comment. However no one with certainty can prove it incorrect. They can only believe it incorrect by their faith in the science they follow. Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @effectingcause5484 7 months ago If abiogenesis required charged particles, which it did, then it means life required quantum physics. Probability densities and the measurements of collapsed quantum wave functions of these molecular structures that are built on atomic scales, hydrogen ions(basically protons), electron transport channels, capturing of photonic energy and/or electrostatic chemical bonding, all of this stuff is quantum physics before biochemistry. Abiogenesis is the almost impossible chance outcome of an unfathomable number of collapsed wave functions, which perfectly collapsed into the first self replicating organism. Reply @rickcrume739 1 month ago I' am sorry about my spelling, but you do get the point,right Reply 1 reply @Dark-Sentences 3 months ago It's an established fact that the earth is about 6000 years old. God created all life here on earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. Your questions are already answered. 1 Reply @pedrovargas2181 1 year ago (edited) Short answer: God. Long, nuanced answer: Abiogenesis. Thank you, Dr. Ash. Reply 2 replies @radinelaj3932 1 year ago Origin : https://youtu.be/A81dpCBSohY Reply @John777Revelation 1 year ago There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original. Reply 3 replies @emrahaci5124 2 months ago We know aminoacids can not bound together without information. A probablity of single protein forming by chance is 1 in 10^164. The amount of world's all organic molecules and the world's whole age is not enough to that self assembly. Even we had a protein in our hands, it is not enough for a living cell. It requires more and different types of proteins. Not just a protein, we need an assembled DNA which is formed with Adenine-Thymine and Cytozine-Guanine molecules bounded correctly with hydrogene bonds between the sugar-phosphat chassis with the right lineup. This sequence must be in the correct order so that the DNA can fulfill its function for the survival of the cell. We also need and mRNA to copy the DNA by wandering around it. Without an information, the mRNA can not copy the DNA for making protein synthesis. We also that cell wall which is successfully formed by proteins which are must be lined up successfully. And that cell wall also needs a selective-permeable features. AND ALL THESE STRUCTURES HAVE TO FORM IN THE SAME MICRO FIELD AND THEY HAVE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER, KNOW EACH OTHER AND HAVE TO START WORKING WITH EACH OTHER. Impossible... Reply 1 reply @JoeHinojosa-bd9hu 1 year ago Interesting. So protein molecules replicate because it's THE DANCE OF LIFE? Maybe God is their DJ 1 Reply 15 replies @Lambdamale. 10 months ago Just watched a video about RNA/DNA transfer. To refer to RNA as "simple, self replicating" seems a gross over simplification. Literally everything going on in that cell looked like a well ordered chain of events, like a factory line. Reply 2 replies @pennywise1003 5 months ago No way evolution made a seahorse with those puny fins. 1 Reply @rickcrume739 1 month ago Left handed or right handed amino acids Reply 1 reply @kevdernman 8 months ago This guy has a great imagination Reply @maxphilly 8 months ago It's impossible by itself Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nahshon9998 saidm, "Biological information is the main thing! That main thing is the ingredient you don't want to talk about because it points right at a all knowing Creator! " Hold on, pal. Your alleged Creator would have astronomically more information than the first living thing, so where did all of that information come from? Magic? LOL Reply @ericday4505 1 year ago Life coming from nonlife is an idea that comes to the mind from drugs, illegal drugs. That this guy believes this is drug inducing. Like being on crack. 1 Reply 8 replies @MrHelkeys 1 year ago Videos like this are examples of how we are so blind to reality in Totality. We don't think life exists outside of this tiny bubble. Because if we did, videos like this would be considered silly. A book called Magnvism is about to be published. It helps us understand the world beyond our perceived reality. Reply @MathewThomasFET 1 year ago Arvin Ash must check DNA and cell biology ❗️🤣 1 Reply 1 reply @khaliffoster3777 8 months ago The problem with this theory like monkey can create sense word on typewriter, but the monkey is motion to motion, so it can either sense or non-sense, but most or at all time, will be non-sense because it's depend by motion, lead to another motion that is typing, but it is mostly or at all time non-sense motion, the point, it requires motion, so for sense motion, so there's need sense motion within to gain sense motion like typing a letter that make sense, so require actual sense motion, so can't be non-sense motion to sense motion, and more by non-exist motion to exist motion, it requires a pattern that exist, so can't be out of nothing, but can be less than nothing relative, but not as impressively that is monkey create motion on paper with letter, that's base on system in place like typewriter, and a person put typewriter in front of monkey. So, there must be system in place that's from sense motion, so that is intelligent, so can't be non-sense interact, but sense interact so to create water that raise in air, so how would that happen, by putting glass and pour water so it raise, so it can't raise itself by infinity of time, because the interact will be the same since there is no decision, so just by itself, so it requires decision, that's non-sense decision or sense decision, like monkey to input something is non-sense decision with tiny sense decision so monkey is aware of typing to push down, so will push again since can feel the sense and do again, so has desire or decision to do. All things requires interact by interact as intelligent or non-intelligent, so it must exists at first place to make it happen, so 2, 3, and so on, how does 2 come from? Does it come from 0, from A, etc?? It comes from 1 as a system in place so it will repeat the system to higher level, so that low level must be intelligent sense to next intelligent sense, so that is pattern and logical. Reply @TSulemanW 1 year ago Universe fist or earth fist in creation I just to Know thank you Reply 1 reply @atmanbrahman1872 1 year ago God said. Reply @monicalarkin9311 1 year ago This video is all lies. Manmade “ scientific “ claims. The truth is the Biblical account of creation in Genesis. Creation was a spiritual miracle that cannot be explained by man. God almighty spoke creation into existence. Please learn the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Reply 1 reply @timothysparks6949 1 year ago Non-life does not create life... Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @mowman7777 1 year ago Watch some James Tour videos. He’s a scientist that explains in detail how life from non-life is impossible. I guess it’s up to who you want to believe. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 5 replies @rickcrume739 1 month ago Are they not just a mass of cells. Then I have seen them grow. Reply @vatofat 1 year ago Even if the original steps of life were fully known, it still wouldn't preclude the hand of God. Science has an irrational bias against God. 1 Reply 9 replies @eltonron1558 4 months ago How come the premiere biochemist says origin of life research is clueless? Because it is. Not close to creating life. Can't replicate earth conditions either. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 13 replies @astrawboiii1853 1 year ago This theory was already disproven cleanly, for this guy to say that abiogensis is DEFINITELY possible is suspicous. What are you aiming for? Reply Arvin Ash · 38 replies @jeremyallen9624 3 months ago DNA is a set of data and instructions, like a computer program. How do you get a program without a programmer? Thinking abiogenesis is a thing seems akin to thinking that a computer program built the computer. Reply 2 replies @SamuelForjoe 1 year ago 😂😂😂ya'll are all so thoroughly decieved and in this age of information it is every single person's OWN fault for getting decieved. Y'all just purposely WANT to be decieved...cause aint no way 😂😂😂😂 Reply @dakneer5863 4 months ago Life was created by God, not hydrothermal vents 2 Reply 18 replies @billstanford7158 8 months ago Waffling about studies that showed that life cannot be reproduced in a test tube. Here is another point, even if they manage to come up with life in a test tube, it would be because they put together the necessary ingredients in the first place. Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @Harold2124 2 months ago This is honestly laughable 😂😂😂 and I’m no creationist but wow Science: Just trust me bro 2 Reply 7 replies @TheMickeymental 3 months ago (edited) Answer these science questions evolutionists. Abiogenesis is impossible children. Please characterize the chemical and electrical processes which created the first self-replicating cell? Please characterize the chemical, electrical and biological processes which started biological evolution? Please characterize the biological and chemical and electrical properties which created the human mind? The following are caveats along with definitions and research parameters. Any source in the universe may be used to reply. Please take note of the following statement. Abiogenesis is logically and scientifically the antecedent for evolution to occur. Abiogenesis defined as the supposed development of living organisms from non-living matter. If you do not believe evolution needs life to operate then you are illogical and anti-scientific. Speciation must occur at the family level of biological taxonomy or higher, otherwise it is variation within a kind or micro-evolution. The etymology of the term species, "...late 14c., in logic, "a class of individuals or things," from Latin species "a particular sort, kind, or type" 1 Reply 5 replies @nahshon9998 1 year ago ""While there is no single generally accepted theory for the origin of life, all credible proposals show that life under natural conditions by a slow processes of chemical and molecular evolution could plausibly result in simple life forms over a long period of time. Do we have proof that this is how life came about – no. At least not yet. Is it plausible – absolutely.'" No it isn't. Only a fool would buy this book. 2 Reply 52 replies @marscrumbs 5 months ago The head of lipids, glycerine isn’t round. You are hypnotized by your own graphics. Reply @jamesrearick1109 1 year ago Even bacteria have millions of lines of code in their DNA .All DNA must have associated molecular machines to copy and maintain it. More molecular machines are needed to Synthesize ATP and pull chromosomes apart during mitosis. There is not even the faintest chance that Created itself. There is a Creator 1 Reply 3 replies @toobaaaapi 11 months ago RNA world sure sounds like a strange story, I study at a genetic engineering research institute, and they are so worried about RNA samples degrading while carrying out processes stating RNAs are fragile molecules which are very easy to degrade and breakdown and must be handled with utmost care, unlike DNA which is very resiliant. DNA can be extracted from ancient specimens, RNA not so much. Reply @philipadams4343 9 months ago (edited) There are number of problems with this. First, Ash neglects to mention that amino acids cannot polymerize in water, which means protein formation is hardly the slam-dunk he portrays it to be. Also, most proteins degrade within a matter of days, if not hours. RNA degrades in a matter of minutes. That means you don't have millions of years to form complex macromolecules from their component parts, as Ash suggests. Third, given the fact that there are 20 types of amino acids and that the average-sized protein contains about 350 amino acids (some have fewer than 100; some have thousands) the possible permutations (and remember, the order matters) comes to about 4.4x10^44. Even at a rate of a billion different permutations per second over a period of 900 million years, the odds of even one functioning protein forming by random chance is no better than 1 in 1.5 million trillion trillion. The math just doesn't work. Period. Reply 13 replies @steve-dq7hh 5 months ago woulda, coulda, shoulda they're already creating life from nothing at Rutgers....... Reply @michaelportaloo1981 3 weeks ago Poor Tony, he keeps having to use the word 'each' to explain why he can't distinguish between units and quantity. If only I had used the word 'each' instead of 'one' when I wrote about 'one' message he might have a valid point. Never mind. 1 Reply 39 replies @Deathhead6 7 months ago How do you know the matter was dead before? Reply 1 reply @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago Poor DK Tony, can’t detect sarcasm and when he’s being ridiculed so proceeds to argue against his own original argument that a ‘rule’ about receipt of ONE message at a time can be applied to receipt of THREE messages at once. Tragic. 1 Reply 5 replies @willyum1208 8 months ago AI will soon be able to solve this riddle. Reply @johnhess3886 7 months ago Natural selection can't select anything that doesn't already exist. Think about it. 1 Reply 12 replies @booksbrains1249 1 year ago This is all non sense , pure guess but what is sad is that people use these thoeris to justify there isno God ....😢 1 Reply 1 reply @agaroanthony6964 1 year ago Simply put life comes life, so life needs a creator. 1 Reply 2 replies @stevencorey7623 1 year ago James Tour will be flipping his $h*t if he saw this lol. Reply @rickcrume739 1 month ago I will still pray for you. Reply 1 reply @vincentjeremy709 1 year ago So technically the video is all about, WELL I DONT KNOW HOW LIFE WAS FORMED SO IM HERE EXPLAINING IT TO U THAT SOMEDAY WE WILL SURELY KNOW IT! 😂 let life be a mystery to all. What pursuit are you talking about? Technically we have no purpose and everything is meaningless. What will you gain after knowing everything yet die losing everything? 1 Reply 4 replies @SSNewberry 1 year ago I am disappointed with this because it gets so many things wrong on so many levels. I will stick to EvBio. 1. While one EvBio thing is mentioned several other things are not. In no particular order, natural selection is joined by mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. 2. In particular, genetics and epigenetics are not given their due. The problem with selecting alleles is the creatures involved with breeding have to work with what they have. TL;DR: Origin of Species needs to have Descent of Man, Versuche über Plflanzen-hybriden.Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Ver-eines in Brünn, Bd. IV für das Jahr 1865, The Neutral Alleles, and virus replication. Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @michaelportaloo1981 10 days ago @TonyTigerTigerTiger is still trying grasp that when he sent me three messages together it wasn't a quantity of one message, even though each one was one message. Could someone tell him to start taking Omega 3 for his brain? 1 Reply 13 replies @Mm17297 5 days ago A lot of presumptions in your worldview, How do you know the earth is billions of years old? How do you know life came from non-life? How do you know uniformitarianism is correct? How does the motion of atoms give rise to consciousness? Reply Arvin Ash · 90 replies @truth409 1 year ago Fairy tales for adults who cant face reality lol..... 2 Reply 1 reply @fasterpastor1000 11 months ago Science still doesn't know everything about a single bacterium... Reply 2 replies @cathyfinnesgard4013 1 year ago Yes, what about DNA? There’s more to DNA than molecules…They are molecules that contain information. Where does information come from? Intelligence. 1 Reply 2 replies @Mikha335 1 month ago “Once the lipid container has formed an inner factory could spontaneously come into being” by chance. 🧐🤔🤨 Reply @WNYXeb777 1 year ago Has never happened and it never will. I acknowledge that this process has not been figured out completely, nor demonstrated satisfactorily, but what has been done in only 30 years has powerfully demonstrated its plausibility. Yep - same said about Universe origins, stellar origins, solar system origins............never happened except in an atheist's imagination. 1 Reply 33 replies @michaelgreenwell6355 9 months ago Uu forgot to include god and information.so your atheist answer id clearly wrong 1 Reply 1 reply @user-sq8hq9mh9o 3 weeks ago ‏‪1:28‬‏ Reply @captainjoejoe 1 month ago Make a video called "How life came to be, from absolute nothingness"... then I'm listening Reply @GLB2440 3 months ago You have to really be naive to believe this 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @Istandby666 1 year ago Anything that proves theist wrong, I'm all for. Reply @BerkutBang 11 months ago If the theory the life was created by inanimate elements is true, we should be able to replicate it with the technology we have. Reply 1 reply @Gasbecar 2 months ago (edited) Antes de encerrarte en una muralla tienes que inventar la puerta. No me malinterpretéis. No quiero decir que la abiogénesis no es posible. Es que de ninguna manera puede empezar con una barrera. Reply 5 replies @bruinbergmeester8241 1 year ago Read the bible, to find the solution. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @effectingcause5484 7 months ago (edited) RNA information is crucial for replication and evolution of the first living thing thereafter and the RNA requires fixed nitrogen for its bases. The problem is that nitrogen fixation is an energetically expensive process. Lightning strikes, volcanic explosion events, meteorite impacts, etc are the types of energies required to fix atmospheric nitrogen outside of biological contexts. Those kinds of energies are far too great to consider as a steady and reliable, non lethal source for nitrogen fixation. Replicating the genetic RNA information of some first entity could be defined as the beginning of abiogenesis, since this allowed for the little critter to copy itself many times over and evolve through its many generations of daughter cells/entities, via natural selection. A steady and reliable source of nitrogen fixation is a fundamental requirement for the replication of RNA nucleobases. The fixation of nitrogen for the purpose of RNA replication cannot be supplied with sustained lightning strikes, comet strikes, etc for obvious reasons. Well that would kill whatever first colony was trying to evolve there by copying and reprinting RNA bases. Since high energy sourcesike that aren't viable candidates, that leaves one other possibility for nitrogen fixation - Nitrogenase. This is the only enzyme in the entire animal kingdom that can fix atmospheric nitrogen into bioavailable nitrogen for the purpose of RNA replication. It's done in a stepwise fashion, very controlled and very energetically non-harmful tithe fragile genetic rna material that is being replicated. Nitrogen fixation is yet another perplexing mystery, upping the ante once more for this almost-impossible dance of molecules, this incredible temporary reversal of entropy that would need to take place for abiogenesis ! Reply 1 reply @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago Poor @TonyTigerTonyTiger, he's still trying to argue that the word 'one' is equivalent in meaning to the word 'each' and can therefore be used in its place. Never mind. It keeps him off the streets. 1 Reply 12 replies @jimreimer6140 1 year ago In the beginning God created. Reply 5 replies @anyariv 1 year ago So these lips NATURALLY happen to act in the perfect way to create structures ? 1 Reply @mattdennison8346 7 months ago Considering the number of times you say "potentially" and "could have," I'm thinking that even you are pretty sure that this hypothesis has been debunked. But, thank you for your honesty in admitting that there is no proof! Reply 1 reply @natsofatso1969 1 year ago DNA is information. Information comes from language. Language comes from intelligence. Also DNA is irreducibly complex. Which means it all existed at the same time. The DNA trinity did not evolve. GOD IS REAL FOLKS This video simply proves that God did not ‘Poof’ life into existence. He used a scientific method. 2 Reply 3 replies @effectingcause5484 7 months ago (edited) This primordial soup theory appears good.... Until you find out that phospholipids are NOT found in nature, outside of biological contexts. The already-living cell has special enzymes that build these phospholipid structures with heads and tails. They do it with very special enzymes that would need to exist FIRST. How do we have the phospholipids on early Earth before we had a living cell with the complex enzymes required to assemble the phospholipids? Phospholipids are not found in salty oceans with amino acids in their presence allowing them to become stable lipid bubbles, because phospholipids are very specialized, complex structures which are only synthesized by enzymic activity within biological systems. They don't just float around the oceans or near hydrothermal vents doing their own self-assembly, you see, because they cannot even exist in the first place until they have already been synthesized by multiple necessary enzymes, one special enzyme for each step of the building process of that head-tailed structure which is designed to encapsulate biological systems from the outside world. These phospholipids don't just happen in nature all by themselves like that. Reply @fessah3467 1 year ago How did the long part and the round part of the lypid get together. They are smart. A DNA strand contains a complex code, or language so to speak. Where there is a language, there is intelligence. Reply 1 reply @hosoiarchives4858 8 months ago Abiogenesis is not possible Reply 3 replies @erikschiegg68 10 months ago It's basically alchemy. Leaving basic key questions as how to form polypeptides, polynucleotides, polysaccharides, specified information, and a functional cell in an abiotic enviroment of the proto-planet earth unanswered in the land of I believe somehow and imagination. Reply 17 replies @WaqasAhmad-ei2ki 10 months ago Miller urey is outdated sir Reply 12 replies @user-sq8hq9mh9o 3 weeks ago ‏‪9:21‬‏ Reply @jacksonmcslapping2937 1 year ago see if you guys can make life in a lab trying as hard as you can than come on here and say its possible than we might believe it could have happened by accident 1 Reply 2 replies @jb-qi8fz 1 year ago The ideas of this theory are easily smashed. In the 4.5 billion years of the Earth there was simply not enough time, even if a single cell had arisen, for it to try out all the possible sequences of DNA that would give the one sequence that would allow even one cell division. There had to be intelligent design at work. 2 Reply 8 replies @PlansG50 8 months ago 00:20 thats conjecture! No one can say for sure that 'natural selection' created all the different life on earth. Reply @MichaelHolman-i4n 2 months ago Abiogensis has never been observed Reply Arvin Ash · 18 replies @rickcrume739 1 month ago I don't make stuff up, I just share what I know. Reply 1 reply @jaybailleaux630 1 year ago Fat chance. We guess at stuff we cannot duplicate. Just as well place God in the gap of lack of knowledge. Makes more since. Reply @rickcrume739 1 month ago Maybe you know what it is? Reply @ericjohnson6665 1 year ago All very interesting processes that likely happened as described. And I'm glad Arvin admitted that there's been no proof yet of the viability of the theory of abiogenesis. [Virtually identical to the theory of spontaneous generation, which was proven false.] There's just one minor detail. Life has the ability to "adapt," which implies some degree of intelligence. And life is animated by this intelligence. Now, I'm sure all the scientists mentioned in this video knew they were intelligent, but apparently not smart enough to realize intelligence is not a function of their brains. Having just watched a video on slime mold that shows obvious intelligence at work without the benefit of a brain, clearly intellect is not a function of the brain, (and it's even likely that the brain exists as a result of intellect). This is one of those proverbial black boxes, that in charts it says "magic happens here". This leaves us with the question, where does "intellect" come from? Do atoms have it? No. Does electricity have it? Not unless you're watching a Frankenstein movie. Could it be that there's more to reality than just matter and energy? I think we have to conclude that there is. Intellect, no doubt has a source which would have to be intelligent itself in order to be able to bestow it on a global common ancestor. But as Arvin pointed out, the probability of all those chance chemical reactions, which don't have the benefit of enzymes to facilitate them, is extremely low, to the point of being statistically impossible. But that source for intellect would only bestow intellect on something sophisticated enough to be able to survive, thrive, multiply and evolve, right? Some order of intelligence, like a Life Carrier corps, would need to be the ones to assemble all those elements together in order to arrive at a cell worth animating. As it happens, some Life Carriers wrote a paper on this exact process: https://www.urantiabook.org/058-Life-Establishment-on-Urantia/#58_4 Reply 1 reply @robertramirez4965 5 months ago This is a very misleading video in my view. He simply adds amino acids and proteins into the lipid bilayer cell conveniently avoiding the fact that there are nine essential amino acids required for life and all of then must be of the L variety (chiral). How can one of the nine spontaneously synthesize inside a lipid bilayer envelope without contamination much less all nine? He also avoids the information problem required in DNA and RNA to produce functional proteins, enzymes, etc. necessary for life. Then he actually mentions the Miller Uray experiment, really? This experiment has been rejected for a number of reasons and has been for many years. This video is full of "probably", "may have", "we can't explain" "we do not yet understand", etc. He ends the video stating that this scenario is plausible, but I assure you that it is not! It is simply impossible for any one of the nine amino acids necessary for life to self-synthesize under any circumstances, this has been attempted in the most advanced labs in the world today by origin of life scientists, and to date zero success...because the chemistry is just impossible hence extreme improbability figures of there ever happening randomly. This video is nothing more than an attempt to sway the uninformed to believe an unprovable narrative by presenting inference, inductive reasoning, conjectures, and just plain guesses as fact. 1 Reply 62 replies @LagunaTuna-xe7xt 5 months ago Anything to denigrate the supreme ruler of universe by heathens 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @tolotolo2380 1 year ago Gimme a experiment that proves it 1 Reply 35 replies @walkerpercy8702 6 months ago Abiogenesis is statistically impossible. There's not enough time for a protein to form by chance. And even if it did, since it wasn't directed, more info would be added to it to turn it into jibberish. Reply 2 replies @platzhirsch4275 1 year ago I wonder you really studied this or just making a film for entertainment reasons because your conclusion that abiogenesis is established to explain the origin of life. The topic addressed was research into self-replicating RNA, an essential component of the RNA world hypothesis. Tour pointed out that anytime chemical methods are used, the RNA nucleotides, RNA’s building blocks, hook up in the wrong way, and chains also include unnatural branching. Further, he stated that investigators have only been able to create RNA molecules that could copy a small percentage of themselves. Farina again responded by quickly displaying several research papers whose titles suggested that Tour was mistaken, and again Farina’s portrayal of the studies was false. The experiments only succeeded in linking RNA strands together or copying a small portion of themselves. In all cases of polymerization, the wrong linkages and branching ensued. The true replication was performed by complex molecules borrowed from modern cells under carefully orchestrated experimental conditions. Therefore, none of the studies had any relevance to what could have occurred in nature, as Tour detailed in previous videos. During the discussion about RNA, Farina made his most outlandish accusation. He claimed that Tour did not properly interpret a graph of 13C NMR spectra of the products from one of Steven Benner’s experiments related to the formation of ribose, a sugar used in nucleotides. Farina’s assertion was the equivalent of claiming that the head of a radiology department could not properly interpret an x-ray. The motivation for this desperate attempt to discredit Tour was obvious. Tour exposed how the reaction Benner used to generate ribose also generated many other molecules. The ribose could never have separated from the other molecules to drive the production of nucleotides in non-trace quantities. Consequently, RNA molecules sufficiently long to self-replicate could never have existed. The research would have no relevance to life’s origin even in the ideal scenario where only the four nucleotides formed in high concentrations. The smallest RNA that could possibly self-replicate is around 200 amino acids. The challenge is that the number of possible nucleotide sequences that long is over 10120, and the percentage of sequences that could perform self-replication must be miniscule. Benner acknowledged in his article “Paradoxes in the Origin of Life” that sufficient RNA could never have formed for even one to have the correct information to self-replicate. The RNA world hypothesis is a nonstarter. 1 Reply 6 replies @RandallGrubbs-r6h 8 months ago The existing gasses on early earth with heat and lightning produced amino acids. Amino acids mix together and through dehydration form Thermal proteins and those upon contact with water self organize into Protocells as shown by Sidney Fox! Nucleic acids formed in Protocells and began forming RNA which produced the first Modern Proteins! Reply @TrevoltIV 1 year ago Answer: it can’t arise on its own. You’re welcome for the saved time 2 Reply Arvin Ash · 20 replies @karanarora1468 4 weeks ago (edited) 👍 Reply @frandrumming 1 year ago and where did the lipids form? if only the cell produces it Reply 1 reply @paulmeyer612 2 months ago You are deaming. Natural selection does not add to the DNA [neither does mutation]... the genome. You gloss over the most important thing. You have to find a machine that adds to the genetic material new information all Darwinian evolution is dependent upon that. . 1 Reply 2 replies @robertwinchell4392 8 months ago Plausible? But not likely.... Genetic code, i.e. the information that drives all life, is just too complex and precisely organized to have occurred on its own in some primordial soup. But, you all keep doing your research, because the more you learn the more evidence gained that points to a designer. The coded information is a PERFECT method to begin and diversify all past and current live forms. You want a new life form...the designer just needs to download new genetic information/code into the basic building blocks. 1 Reply 5 replies @peacecraft3449 4 months ago Ah, so that's how God did it. 1 Reply @SpicyTexan64 1 year ago The short but complete answer is It can't. 1 Reply 1 reply @paulmicks7097 11 months ago (edited) Nature has a physical presences and a nature field presences where the instructions of "life" imminate. Our consciousness also occupies or is connected to the field in a one-way manner, everything we see, hear, feel or think goes to the nature field which is storage of all natural data. Reply @madtscientist8853 1 year ago So basically what you said is chemicals evolve to create organisms that evolve to create animals which then create humans. And in the beginning there was radiation from the sun which then started the whole Process. Evolution evolution evolution I don't know how many times you have to say it Reply @jasavast6905 1 year ago Inget ya kita tidak diciptakan 😂😂 Reply @sampoornamkannan 1 year ago Or it will create its own chatgpt4 and pose intelligent posers! chatgpt will ask itself the same questions till something better comes along!! Reply @johnhess3886 7 months ago Then how did all those amino acids manage to line up just right all on their own? Reply @michaelsherron7815 9 months ago By the way, that BIG BANG you heard, was God's voice saying, "Let there be....." Genesis Chapter 1 KJV The Holy Bible. Reply @TheControlPhilosopher 1 year ago Self-assembling lipids, proteins, RNA & DNA molecules are all fine. These exist identically within the dead & living. Life means the presence of Consciousness. Unless all the above molecular assembly is given "life" by consciousness, they will still be non-living. Reply 1 reply @johnhess3886 8 months ago If you fill the universe with hydrogen atom (10^111) and allow every one of them to react as fast as physically possible (plank time 10^43 times per second) for 15 billion years, you get 10^162 possible chances. This is the total number of random events that could have occurred in the entire history of the universe. This is not enough to draw 155 numbered beads out of a box in order. There is no way that random chance could form even the simplest cell. You throw a bunch of numbers but refuse to complete the problem. 12:16 Reply 30 replies @MagnumInnominandum 1 year ago What is life? Anything? Can you weight or measure a collection of molecules and know they are alive? SEE: Abioism. Makes short work of what is essentially a useless conjecture Reply 3 replies @artax7664 8 months ago Drinking game - every time he says “possibly” “probably” or “could have”, take a drink. 🍻 🤢 🤮 Reply @mikeman9784 3 months ago This is such BS. Well done, you made me lose 50 Iq points .... 1 Reply 1 reply @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago I wonder if DK TonyTiger has learned the difference between 'one' (a quantity), and 'each' (the individual units within a quantity) yet? Probably not. He'll just keep typing 'eACh OnE meSsAge Is OnE MeSsAgE', guaranteed. 1 Reply 10 replies @jimmahbee 9 months ago This guy is dreaming…there’s no way that what he’s saying could even be possible, and every credible scientist knows it 1 Reply @zeevgilman9460 1 year ago Where inanimate matter came from? 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 8 replies @kethib52154 4 months ago evolution assumes abiogenesis.......they avoid abiogenesis because they know it is absurd. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 101 replies @EdKidgell 1 year ago Yeah. Good luck with that..... Reply @effectingcause5484 7 months ago There could be complex life forms evolving in those supercomputer universe simulators the researchers like to run, with all the fundamental constants. Trillions of galaxies and formations of stars and planets and elements and molecules. Theoretically speaking, there should be complex life evolving within most of those universe simulations if they are truly accurate! Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nahshon You made the (silly) claim that it would take millions of proteins for the origin of life. Show us any peer-reviewed scientific paper on the origin of life published in the last 50 years in a scientific journals that says it would take millions of proteins for the origin of the first living thing. You've made these claims before, and I've pointed out before that they are false. You keep repeating them. You are a liar. Reply @michaelportaloo1981 2 weeks ago DK Tony is STILL trying to argue that using the word ‘one’ can imply a value greater than one. He needs urgent help. 1 Reply 50 replies @AgainstTheGrain1991 2 months ago Abiogenesis- skip how chemicals came about (like the god of gaps) and assume they will interact in such a way to create life. And boom, definitely not magic Reply 1 reply @theeverythingelectronicsst3897 2 months ago Arvin, complete waste of time.. Your video still doesn’t go far enough to explain it all.. 1 Reply 1 reply @waynesmith733 8 days ago Shalom, whosoever believeth in YAHUSHUA the messiah son of YAHWEH shall have ETERNAL LIFE, shalom Reply 99 replies @unclearthur2024 6 months ago If earth was one trillion to the 9th power ( 1e+108) , life wouldn't have had time to start from non-organic. It's possible life can't form that way regardless of time but it's a sure thing it didn't in the young age of earth. Reply @Rafalstratford 1 year ago 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 Reply @Woodlandswoes 10 months ago These graphics are lovely and appreciated. But Mr. (not Dr.) Ash's explanatory narrative, taken from early hypotheses, have been largely disproven. The abiogenesis "Primordial Soup" hypothesis has been disproven (presumed atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen and methane was actually not present (the subsequent "geothermal vents" model also disproven); also, the once extolled amino acids formed in the Miller-Urey experiment have been more recently shown incapable of generating life (mix of L and R forms of the produced amino acid actually negate each other, as only the L form works in protein formation); the mRNA World hypothesis has been disproven; and the absence of any credible theory by any scientist as to how the enormous amount of "information" or "code" (code that Bill Gates has attested as more sophisticated than any computer code we have today) that governs the structure, reproduction and activity of the cell could have been created out of an inanimate Earth, have left biologists at a virtual dead end in their quest for a credible theory for abiogenesis. So much so that Richard Dawkins suggested during one interview that first life must have been delivered to Earth from outer space. Please be wary of Mr. Ash's rebuttal to this reply, extolling certain scientists who still cling to old theories; and investigate the many 21st century publications by the world's foremost PhD scientists (Dembski, Shapiro, Behe, Lennox, Tour, for example), who are now investigating theories of systems biology, synthetic chemistry, and epigenetics in seeking out new explanations for abiogenesis. Also, please be aware that Mr. Ash's initial declarations regarding the (neo-Darwinian) process of Evolution (mutation and natural selection) is also a theory in decline (i.e. macroevolution, not microevolution). So much so, that in 2016, the Royal Society convened a conference titled New Trends in Evolutionary Biology, assembling 300 of the world's leading scientists in an effort to arrive at consensus for a new theory for the developmental path of life on Earth. Instead of the slow, steady and gradual process of evolutionary development as postulated by Darwin, and supposedly demonstrated by the fossil record. Palentology has instead found that there have been many inexplicably "abrupt" changes producing new forms of species. Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard) once confessed that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontolgy". And Niles Eldredge stated, "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of slow adaptive change, knowing all the while that it does NOT." Indeed, the popular and time-honored theories of Abiogenesis and of Evolution are now both highly suspect in light of recent discoveries in science. Reply 10 replies @philipbuckley759 1 year ago life is way too complicated to have started, in a random way....even if you had infinite amt of time.... 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @theeeway7 6 months ago Hmm. Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. Praise Elohim! "Potentially". "Perhaps". "Hypothesis". "Could have". Your words say it all. Other than that, a good start! Reply 2 replies @50AHenry 1 year ago All this guessing and all these assumptions - don't you get tired of it ??? I know I do ! ! ! 1 Reply @DartNoobo 8 months ago Finaly someone who is able to answer to Dr.Tour's objections! Now go and show him, drain that creationist swamp! Reply 15 replies @skurbanvintr0 1 year ago The Zerooo !! Reply @mattjohnson9753 2 months ago Everything breaks down over time. Sort of a problem, no? Reply 2 replies @carloisidoresalcedo6325 6 months ago Please solve Dr. James Tour's challenge on natural formation of polysaccharide, polypeptides and poly nucleotides. Reply @KEW-pd1jn 1 year ago Like dirt and clay. And the rib of a man Reply @lettherebedots 6 months ago Abiogenesis does not disprove life can only come from life. Reply 2 replies @rudilambert1065 11 months ago Since we can't define life, we can't define non-living either. It's pointless to try to figure out how two things you can't properly define originate from one another. All the evidence indicates that consciousness is primary. Reply 1 reply @effectingcause5484 7 months ago There's no such thing as non-living cell walls. Phospholipids are built by highly tailored protein enzymes. There can be no cell membrane , living or nonliving, without first having these worker enzymes to synthesize the phospholipids. Reply @ananas4264 7 months ago Bro you still haven’t proven how the first cell came out of non organic matter😂 1 Reply 1 reply @vivianwiseJUSTUS 8 months ago WOW. From nothing to something. Nonliving matter? To living matter? that is another miracle. I am able to discuss this with you because of Nonliving matter? WOW. It took a machine of sorts? with a bunch of lipids. I find it interesting how it took thought to heat it up and get together with ions, amino acids. etc. WOW, The RNA bonds is not understood. OOOOOH! I see you really do not know. Reply 1 reply @waynesmith733 2 months ago Psalm 14:1 Reply @agaroanthony6964 1 year ago Simply put life comes from life, so life needs a creator. Reply 2 replies @THEMAX00000 1 year ago Dr. James Tour Reply 2 replies @xf_jaguar1162 6 months ago Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace are renowned for their contributions to the theory of evolution by natural selection, However, they did not directly address the origins of life itself. The question of the origin of life remains a separate field of study known as abiogenesis, which explores how life may have arisen from non-living matter. While Darwin and Wallace laid the groundwork for understanding biodiversity, they did not address the ultimate origin of life. "In the realm of Particle Physics and Particle Chemistry, a captivating debate surrounds the fundamental constituents of matter, specifically focusing on the intricate building blocks of Quarks: Up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom. Leptons: Electron, muon, tau, electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino. Gauge bosons: Photon, gluon, W and Z bosons (mediators of the electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces, respectively).Higgs boson: Associated with the Higgs field and gives mass to other particles. Can we unravel the profound essence of these particles and their interactions, which ultimately sculpt the very fabric of our universe? Delving into the heart of this discourse lies a fundamental question: What are the elemental particles that constitute quarks, electrons, gluons, etc, and how do their dynamic interplays delineate the fundamental architecture of matter? Let's delve deeper into some of the scientific origins and compositions of these fundamental components like: 1. **Ammonia (NH₃)**: Ammonia is a compound composed of one nitrogen atom bonded to three hydrogen atoms. - It is primarily produced through the Haber process, where nitrogen gas (N₂) and hydrogen gas (H₂) react under high pressure and temperature in the presence of an iron catalyst. Alternatively, it can be produced biologically through the decomposition of organic matter by bacteria. 2. **Phosphoric Salts**: Phosphoric salts, such as calcium phosphate (Ca₃(PO₄)₂) or sodium phosphate (Na₃PO₄), consist of phosphorus atoms bonded to oxygen atoms, along with cations such as calcium or sodium. - They are commonly found in nature as minerals, and they can also be synthesized through various chemical reactions involving phosphorus-containing compounds and metal salts. 3. **Heat**: - Heat is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms and molecules in a substance. - It is typically generated by the conversion of other forms of energy, such as chemical energy (e.g., combustion), electrical energy (e.g., resistance heating), or nuclear energy (e.g., nuclear fission). At the molecular level, heat is manifested as the kinetic energy of particles, causing them to vibrate and collide with each other. 4. **Light**: Light is electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths visible to the human eye, ranging from approximately 400 to 700 nanometres. - It is produced by various natural and artificial sources, including the sun, stars, incandescent bulbs, and lasers. At the atomic level, light consists of photons, which are packets of energy that exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviour. 5. **Electricity**: Electricity is the flow of electric charge, typically carried by electrons in a conductor. - It can be generated through various processes, such as chemical reactions (e.g., batteries), electromagnetic induction (e.g., generators), or direct conversion of energy (e.g., solar cells). At the atomic level, electricity involves the movement of electrons between atoms or molecules, creating an electric current. These fundamental components have diverse origins and molecular compositions, ranging from chemical reactions to physical phenomena How do the fundamental components of ammonia, phosphoric salts, heat, light, and electricity originate, and how are their molecular compositions and formation processes brought them into existence ? As we probe deeper into the subatomic realm, we unravel the mysterious dance of quarks, the elementary particles that make up protons and neutrons. Are they truly indivisible, or do they harbour deeper complexities awaiting discovery? Likewise, electrons, the enigmatic carriers of electric charge, stand as solitary entities, yet their behaviour perplexes even the most astute physicists. How do these particles, seemingly devoid of internal structure, exert such profound influence over the properties of matter? And then, there are gluons, the mediators of the strong force binding quarks together within the confines of atomic nuclei. How do these elusive particles govern the stability and structure of the very matter from which life itself emerges? In the grand tapestry of existence, proteins and sugars, the very building blocks of life, find their genesis in the intricate arrangements of these fundamental particles. Can we decipher the profound implications of these subatomic constituents on the macroscopic world, shedding light on the origins of life itself? Thus, the discourse unfolds, as we delve into the depths of particle physics, seeking to unravel the mysteries of existence through the lens of quarks, electrons, and gluons, and their profound implications for the nature of reality and the origins of life." The intersection of science and spirituality has long fascinated scholars and thinkers alike. As we delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe through scientific inquiry, we often uncover awe-inspiring complexities that evoke a sense of wonder and reverence. Some argue that the more we uncover through science, the more we perceive the intricate design and orderliness of the cosmos, which hints at a guiding force or intelligence behind it all – what many refer to as "God." The elegant precision of physical laws governing the cosmos to the intricacies of biological systems, scientific discoveries continually illuminate the grandeur and sophistication of existence. Each revelation unveils a new layer of understanding, prompting reflection on the profound questions of existence, purpose, and the origins of life itself. In this light, some view the pursuit of scientific knowledge as a journey toward uncovering the handiwork of a divine creator. They see the intricate web of interconnected phenomena and the delicate balance of nature as evidence of an intelligent design imbued with purpose and meaning. For them, science is not just a tool for understanding the natural world but a pathway to deeper spiritual insight and appreciation. However, it's important to acknowledge that not all interpretations of science lead to the same conclusions about spirituality or the existence of a higher power. Science operates within the realm of empirical evidence and testable hypotheses, while matters of faith often transcend the boundaries of empirical observation. Therefore, while science may provide insights into the mechanisms and processes of the universe, it can not definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. Ultimately, the relationship between science and spirituality is deeply personal and subjective, shaped by individual beliefs, experiences, and interpretations. In essence, the journey of scientific exploration can indeed deepen our appreciation for the mysteries of existence and inspire a sense of awe and wonder that some interpret as evidence of a divine presence. Yet, the quest for understanding is ongoing, and whether one finds God in the revelations of science or elsewhere remains a deeply personal and profound journey of discovery of the origins of life. "All aspects of the phenomenon are attributed solely to the cognitive processes within his imagination. "In scientific terms, one could state: "The phenomenon is exclusively contained within the neural networks of the individual's brain, Charles Darwin characterized by imaginative constructs that remain unexplained or rejected by many current scientific understanding" Reply 13 replies @fibonaccisrazor 3 weeks ago "Use your own dirt" comes to mind here , and "To really create an apple pie from scratch, you must begin by creating your own universe" - Carl Sagan. Like buildung a toy house with Lego bricks, the hardest part was producing the bricks. This video is extremely manipulative and is a product of a weird agenda. "Anything is plausible" is the weakest argument ever deduced. Reply 2 replies @gmb7200 10 months ago Praise God!!! Reply 1 reply @stevemeisternomic 1 year ago Dazzle them with bulshit! You did give me a good laugh though with how certain you are in yourself. 1 Reply @GlenMcGlone 4 months ago Uhhh, Dr James Tour will see you in his office. Reply 1 reply @krishram6954 5 months ago The background music is utterly annoying. Reply @T3rm3nator 1 year ago Am guessing to be an atheist, one must have a crisis with the creator, like some grudge, once that grudge is available he needs to find good enough made up excuse that the creator does not exist, ''ohh, will say we happen to exist by pure chance'' lame and irresponsible. 2 Reply 2 replies @Randy-po8bk 11 months ago He said it! Magic without intelligence! Reply 1 reply @gilberrocal1363 10 months ago Thanks Arvin, I understand that which you have said, so at what point does the proteins decide, hey let’s build something different from what we already have, something must trigger further evolution, these particules and then molecules can’t think on their own, something must ( push) them to further evolve, hmm , what can that be, the force of the creator, you cant have inanimate things to animate things without something guiding it to happen, that force is GOD , all knowing, all seeing beyond all humans comprehension, that life force existing beyond all of our time, aybe GOD knows how to do everything because it’s been here for so long, maybe the universe isn’t as old as we think it is, probably way much older than we can imagine , ponder this, If GOD has been around for so long, maybe we’re just a product of lets say 1000 trillion years of testing,GOD may have made many mistakes, and after eons started to work out the bugs (so to speak ) and finally we are where we are, all these things have been trial and error, even for GOD , nothing in this universe is perfect, maybe not even GOD. 1 Reply @generalsub7 1 year ago They will convince themselves to believe just about anything, except a higher intelligence above them... The arrogance lol. 1 Reply 4 replies @rogerhall4716 1 year ago Oh - SO MANY assumptions... so very wrong. So blind. Well spoken, highly educated and articulate, well meaning gentleman - has it SO wrong. He glosses over numerous facts, seems married to his narrative and simply will not see the implausibility of his own rhetoric. How sad. Reply @Brokefootchuck 1 year ago How in far fetched, dreaming hell is 1x10/40000 "over simplistic"? Or the watch thing? I would think that putting watch Parts in a tumbler and hoping they come together with a functioning watch at the correct time and date would be easier then all those molecules and atoms doing what this guy's talking about. A bunch of I "don't knows" and "maybe probablies" is like faith. So basically this is a religious sermon. 2 Reply 5 replies @billbissenas2973 8 months ago James Tour Reply 1 reply @michaelportaloo1981 3 weeks ago @TonyTigerTonyTiger seems to be having some kind of breakdown because he still hasn't googled the difference between unit and quantity and still thinks that the word 'one' should be applied to a quantity of units greater than one. Because three ones are all still one...or something. Reply 25 replies @peterrichards931 6 months ago If there were precursors to cells, then they should all still be around, correct...? It's not like one species dying off as competition exists with its newly-advanced evolutionary descendants for food, and so on. What process existed to only select a modern-day cell and get rid of what came before it, and what previously got rid of what came before that, and so on... Reply 4 replies @kenjohnson5124 1 year ago 10:47 Numerous trials won’t do it! There’s not enough time for life to go from one cell creatures to multicell whales so life forming from non life to life is a non starter! Reply @andyburns8551 11 days ago Mr Avis if your the slightest bit honest its not understood in any way and you know it. Reply 1 reply @bobbykins 8 months ago I know for an absolute fact that God put carbon, and carbon dioxide on the planet so governments could tax it. Reply @MyCat-ui8vl 6 months ago Everything is possible.Remember The almighty is the creator of every possibility and we need to submit to the necessity he created . if you think you don't need a necessity then STAND without out your two legs . By the way a man in a desert who did not know to read and write told his companions . Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then god separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?. -Quran 21:30 Ask him to forgive you Indeed my lord is the most forbearing and forgiving Reply 3 replies @sbgtrading 4 months ago Arvin...you are a good philosopher, and orator...but not a good scientist. You missed one of the most important elements of DNA, the 4th compound you need is carbohydrates. DNA backbone is D-pentose sugar. And forming carbohydrates are extremely difficult. The only known synthesis is the formose reaction, which is complex and engineered, and it requires formaldehyde (a biological compound which is NOT easy to create, even in controlled processes). And synthesis of lipids is not nearly as simple as you described. You glossed over the details. Lipids that are formed are extremely small...you need large lipids to form...and that has not been demonstrated. And "simpler precursors" to proteins? LOL...proteins only form with the help of other proteins, which are information rich and specifically ordered enzymes. Sorry...the Origin of Life is not from natural processes. 1 Reply 11 replies @BobbyJenko 1 year ago So scientists don’t know for sure? God done it. Reply 2 replies @rickcrume739 3 weeks ago I believe you to be wrong, all the great scientist approached science from a religious stance. Reply 1 reply @rickcrume739 1 month ago He had to purchase the chemicals,combine them so I would say that that is nurchering Reply 4 replies @hogg4229 8 months ago You have to have a certain set of characteristics for life to even exist. It could only be so simple and be considered life. Also, millions of years is not good. Most of these things, if formed, degrade in weeks, or days. It absolutely looks as if life is directed, especially as we learn more about how complex a simple cell is. If you really sit down and think about it, spontaneous life coming into existence from nothing, and then somehow surviving, reproducing, and seemingly fighting every, single thing in the universe (because those things are trying to stop life in its tracks) by becoming more complex and adapting is virtuously impossible, and requires as much faith as believing in a creator, nay, more faith. Reply 3 replies @jonnyfevertv3170 1 year ago “2+2 is 4 quick maf” Big Shaq … definitive proof! Reply @ericphantri96734 1 year ago And now to perform antimater is to use inverter technology to alter the foundation frequency of day , month , and years then anything had DNA can be altered , created , or anihilation Reply @aaron1983 4 weeks ago Statistically impossible, aptly magical. Reply 2 replies @غرائبوعجائب-ب7ك 1 year ago what is evolution? a hypothesis based on hypothesis based on hypothesis with 0 percent of science and empirical evidence, that's what you can call a myth Reply Arvin Ash · 7 replies @nikolaiRojo1986 1 year ago This still doesn't explain anything 🤔......😠 1 Reply @astrawboiii1853 1 year ago FUN FACT: the bible has 2500 prophecies in it and 2000+ has been fulfilled to the letter, including the Euphrates river drying up today( the remaining 500- is still in the future). Don’t let videos like this distract you from the truth. I was also a victim before. 2 Reply 1 reply @urnotaman4444 2 months ago Looks like the church of Scientology I thought you guys didn't like religion?😂😂😂 1 Reply @l.m.892 1 year ago Blah Blah Blah. When will Mr. Ash explain about the information bound in the specific proteins and RNA/DNA sequences? Proteins are manufactured by all life forms, but they are very specific to the organism. Reply @_JohnRedcorn_ 10 months ago And hows that working out for you now? 😂😂 1 Reply @jameshale6401 2 months ago Atoms are not life UNTIL...... Atoms dont live or die but there you are To quote richard petty dont put a question mark where GOD puts a period Reply @rolandgo6744 8 months ago Abiogenesis only possible thru computer graphics and some weird explanation. Reply @scottdetter 11 months ago The problem with science in this area is that there is no science at all. Only Wild, dreamy thoughts. Reply 1 reply @cebro648 10 months ago Forming lipid bilayar and encapsulating materials inside the bilayar is an excellent way for life to not form. The materials inside of the bilayar will only form sludge and tar based on the chemical reactions. A lipid bilayar needs trans membrane proteins that reguate what's encapsulated . Otherwise, the bi products would be useful. That is why this theory is terrible. The cells have riboneucloprotein complexes that are purpose driven. Your explanation is just glossing over the detail. Reply 8 replies @j7odnorof777 7 months ago It's been a billion years and nothing still hasn't created anything. 💯 Reply @TonyTigerTonyTiger 1 year ago @nahshon "That is to get a single protein. And you need millions of them. " Nope, not for the origin of life. I've told you all of this before. Since you keep repeating claims you've been told are false, and that you can't support, you are lying. Reply @nedanother9382 1 year ago I beg to differ on the watch analogy...the F'ing universe, even without a bag of parts (limited thinking creationists), did the exact very thing you described as whatever to the power of 20000 against...I'm wearing a watch right now, ticking away, where in the heck's beck do you think that came from!? I discount ALL human beings that separate themselves from nature and the universe. The thinking depth of oil floating on water. We are NOT that special. Like a marine hero once said when he was informed that the enemy had completely surrounded them...."well I guess that simplifies things doesn't it." If you start your thought process about the universe from an appropriate point, the worlds burning questions are less complicated. People suck....all of you excepted of course. Reply @hakheoyeh 10 months ago 🤭 "The chance, to get all the needed stuff in a cell-membran at the right time, is the next best thing to impossible", said a great mathematican. And that this happened inclusive evolution of millions of different kinds of animals in 13,5 bilions years, is the next best thing to absolut ridicolous... Reply 6 replies @astrawboiii1853 1 year ago Next up, explain the impossibility of the 2500 prophecies of the bible, 2000 happened exactly to the letter(the remaining 500 is still of the future) 1 Reply 1 reply @Seabass1206 10 months ago or heres a crazy thought, maybe we where created on purpose 😂😂😂 u fools Reply @RockHudrock 1 year ago This is a distortion of the creationist hypothesis. You have to understand information theory, as well as the fine-tuned physical constants that are indispensable prerequisites to a universe suitable for life. Abiogenesis and evolution are not incompatible with creation. It’s just that proponents of abiogenesis, panspermia, an infinite multiverse and/or natural selection tend to be atheists, so they take an unnecessary and unwarranted leap to presume that “science” is incompatible with religion. Religious leaders compound the problem because of they become hostile and defensive towards atheistic scientists when they’d be much better served by sincere inquiry and consideration of the compatibility / reconcilability of Deism and science. Reply 4 replies @SamKang-d8y 9 months ago If one starts with the premise “there is no Creator” then anything seems probable. In reality the ideas in this video are not possible. Open your eyes and see the God of the Bible in all creation because all of it shouts His glory. Col. 1:16-17 1 Reply @mikeyant2445 1 year ago Yeah…Toure may be bombastic but many of his points are legit. I also don’t see a path for abiogenesis to happen. I think you’re full of “just so” stories. Reply 5 replies @truth409 1 year ago Schizophrenia Reply @rickcrume739 1 month ago Is that where your anger comes from. Some day you may be in a situation where you will have to ask for God's help,so be careful Reply 9 replies @freeamerica779 1 month ago Days of our Lives is more believable than this. God did it. Reply 4 replies @simppuful 1 year ago Its the natural force that are the natural evil. To have the force thinking or sense to do like you know you shouldnt. And when we have advanced to this human being we are now, we seek for the force or the evil to blame. We are the result of a force that did against any good and smart. Like a defency child. The natural force are in other words our natural will to do against normal senses. When you forbid a child to eat cakes from the flat on the table, the child do eat them, if you dont forbid the child truly dont, he dosent notice it. Thats the reason we belive in god. We like to know something care for us. If there are no higher force, we feel disastered. Thats why we need other of our own kind. To not leave a sister or brother behind. Some young people are think that if a higher being than us, attac us, we got the force to win and they run back to where they came from. Reply @ChaseTheHeat 1 year ago Lol. Wildly amusing Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @doubleedgeweldandfab-tp7dj 1 year ago You will have a lot of time to figure it out in the lake of fire 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 5 replies @oakdogfu 11 months ago 5:40 “ could pitentially”, “potentially”, “theoretically “🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂. TALKING FAST DOES NOT CREATE TRUTH. 😂🤣😂🤣 Reply Arvin Ash · 2 replies @maple2361 1 year ago (edited) all things points to God, who will knit all atoms non living matter together? obviously a very intelligent Creator does this, it is possible after knitting all atoms together it is still non living, until God breaths life to it 2 Reply 2 replies @BlueSky-v4d 4 months ago Alright, let's set aside the idea of God for now. The key issue is information. According to Penrose and Susskind, consciousness might be the key, as information is pervasive through it. This could be our answer. Reply 4 replies @burnsloads 3 months ago Please just go and read a little more bc this is utter crap. These 'experiments' conveniently disregard the fact that there's an experimenter, among many other convenient omissions made by this presenter. 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @fasterpastor1000 11 months ago This video must have happened by accident. Given enough time. Reply 1 reply @MrTobywinks 5 months ago Absurd on its face😖 1 Reply 6 replies @aaron1983 4 weeks ago Statistically impossible within the time frame required. Overreachjng, aptly described as magic. Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @matthewn2559 1 year ago "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. " Romans chapter 1 verses 18 through 21 The Trinity that is necessary for life is the Triune God of Israel. Life comes from life and God is the eternal life who supplies all other life. The Bible clearly describes how God created the world and life in Genesis chapter 1 and 2. The best thing the speaker said " if I'm being honest this is poorly understood" when referencing how the conditions and materials for life to begin assembled and formed living things. Reply Arvin Ash · 6 replies @ErroneousMonk1 1 year ago I think it’s incredibly premature to try and provide ridiculous “evidence” for abiogenesis when life, the function of cells, and everything that exists in the universe follows a “universal” set of laws that none of you have even dared question. Where do the laws come from? Why do they exist? Why are they so complementary/necessary? Maybe answer how life can exist in the first place before going off on these fantastical science fiction journeys on HOW life began in a primordial soup, huh? 1 Reply 50 replies @AlbertoTaure 7 months ago Dr. James Tour says NO Reply 1 reply @RandyStimpson 1 year ago Funny stuff Reply @John3.16.17 1 year ago Genesis 1:1❤❤❤ Reply 2 replies @captjon1959 10 months ago Sounds like a great creation myth that requires lots of faith. But where did the information required for life come from? You make a far fetched arguements for how components might have assembled, but nothing about how it was encoded. I know, I know, just sprinkle on the fairy dust of billions of years and bam! Most reasonable people will see how much spinning is being done here and how weak this theory is. Still, keep experimenting. All good science is really just uncovering the mechanisms God uses in his creation. This guy overstated his case but does admit there is much they can't explain. I'd love to see all the cell walls they've supposedly build. I'd guess the number is zero because they can't. 1 Reply 88 replies @John3.16.17 1 year ago John 1:1❤❤❤ Reply @sammy2840 7 months ago Nonsense! 1 Reply @wrippley103 8 months ago Well then, it should be a breeze for you to replicate your hypothesis in a strictly controlled laboratory environment. Reply @scottogden8509 1 year ago As we know life only gose in one direction. Eventually breaking becoming non living matter. It only gose one way. But you are saying once and once only and neverm since in all the billions of years, it went the other way... but has never done this ever since. Reply 2 replies @EdGein542 10 months ago (edited) Absolute Nonsense. Nothing gets built and nothing functions without proteins being created first to then build a living cell. A living cell capable of dividing requires a genome (473 genes minimum), a form of metabolism and a functional phospholipid membrane with proteins. Hundreds of proteins are first required to build the machines of a cell so that it can then begin to make proteins. None of the parts exist outside of a living cell so the whole cell must be created at the same time. It’s impossible to randomly create a single useful 100 amino acid protein by random chance because there are 20^100 possible configurations and only one folds correctly. Proteins only work as systems so multiple proteins must overcome these odds at the same time in the same place. Impossible. The consensus in biochemistry is random mutations cannot create new useful proteins. There was no RNA world….RNA degrades is a matter of hours at room temperature. This whole video is a waste of time because it cannot explain protein creation. Reply 72 replies @rickcrume739 3 weeks ago There I made you look silly with a historical book that includes a world wide flood. Reply 1 reply @douglaskennedy6940 1 year ago He has jumped light years ahead of everything what is the mathematical probability of a single proteins coming to being by chance just the protein answer that Reply @astrawboiii1853 1 year ago Cold case christianity: Origin of life is a proof of GOD This video is a scam Reply 18 replies @jerryhufnagel5733 1 year ago Ha ha ha ha Reply @edwardlewandowski5473 1 year ago 🌃😯!!?✋🎂 Reply @jamest4670 2 months ago (edited) Presentation 8 out of 10 Lost marks with should , could , may,possibly, chances are, possibly etc plausible? Not sure Explanation 8 out of 10 Research data. 6 out of 10 Science activity demonstration 7 out 10 Time of the gaps mmmm? Primordial soup ? Interesting ! Life from non life 0 out of 10 You brother have just re unforced my faith in Intelligent design cause I don’t have enough faith to believe in your explanation it stretches for me as far as the east is from the west but Thank-you for your hard work keep up with Science let me know when you can make a blade of living grass out of chemicals and I will remark your findings no cheating though ! Reply @fohponomalama5065 8 months ago Now that’s a fairytale, and true scientists know it. Reply 2 replies @ericphantri96734 1 year ago Motion of moon earth , and sun are the first creator of DNA of life on earth Reply @Acts412jc 1 year ago God created life 1 Reply 13 replies @adamcannon6331 8 months ago This was quite the web. Lots of coulds is a big bag of nothings Reply @Lookup70 1 year ago Lol…nonsense Reply @accousticdecay 1 year ago Here is a link to a more scientifically accurate explanation: https://youtu.be/VIPYG5E3Nzs Reply Arvin Ash · 15 replies @abbiebeast 8 months ago Nope, Once upon a time, long long ago..... just a bedtime story. This is not scientific and the goal posts reproducing it have moved light-years further back the more actual discovery has been made. The scientific evidence concludes this an impossibility; time and math and chemistry dictate otherwise my friend. Reply 4 replies @oakdogfu 11 months ago Arvin could potentially, given millions of years, grow a brain? OF COURSE….but this is not proof of that. Reply @holgerjrgensen2166 1 year ago How did Life begin ? The Eternal Life, have No beginning, No Name, No Meaning. There is Only the Same Eternal Life, Life can't origin from nonliving matter. Reply @gagandeepsingh2518 1 year ago God created us. Let's burn all science books Reply 1 reply @stephenpeppin5537 1 year ago And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:10-12 Reply 3 replies @bstlybengali 1 year ago so atheists beleive a rock became a humam being. good to know 😆 🤣 2 Reply 2 replies @nahshon9998 8 months ago Life sure didn't happen by time and chance. Even today our best scientists can't create life even if given every ingredient they want. In fact no scientist today can ever begin to give an explanation for how life could arise from non-life. And no scientist today can create life in a lab. Not even close. "The origin of life is one of the most important mysteries in all of science. When did life begin? How did life first evolve from chemistry? Where did life get started? In some primordial soup or somewhere else? Let’s journey back to the origin of life, as best as we know it, from the RNA world do the last universal common ancestor of everything alive today." Rna world is a sham. And they know it. And there is no LUCA. Nor is there some primordial soup. So when they say "Let’s journey back to the origin of life, as best as we know it" they are lying to you. They have no clue. They make up scenarios that have no factual basis to them. They have never, ever, created life in a lab. They can't produce life in a lab but they seem to want you to think that life from non-life is possible. It isn't and they know it very well. They are lying to you. They have no clue. Reply @rabbitsfoot8 11 months ago lmao this has literally never even been proven to be possible..its like discussing how we came to be via teleportatation Reply 2 replies @oakdogfu 11 months ago Just AMIT IT……YOU DON’T KNOW Reply 1 reply @Randy-po8bk 10 months ago Abiogenesis is logically ridiculous! 1 Reply 29 replies @elitemindset9581 1 year ago Too many dramatic assumptions being made here. Reply @thechristisrisen4391 6 months ago (edited) The more I learn about these things the more it gives me faith in God’s goodness if he’s saying the generous ballpark for life coming about is 10^45 and that’s only the probability of life coming into existence on a planet that allows it when there’s millions of planets and stars and many solar systems that can’t sustain it. It really shows how improbable life is to just pop up without awesome precision that our minds couldn’t even begin to understand. Reply 133 replies @mickywinters8451 2 months ago Jesus did it Reply @platzhirsch4275 1 year ago There is no way that a coding system can develop in successive stages to be optimized. If any workable coding system did come into existence by some incredible fluke, no significant change in the basic code could thenceforth occur because the code and the decoding system (reading machinery) would have to change at the same time. So the optimized code cannot be explained except as another incredible fluke of ‘nature’, right at the supposed beginning of life. Not just a coding system, but information Not only does the origin of the coded information storing system need to be explained, the information or specifications for proteins, etc., stored on the DNA has also to be explained. Revisiting the simplest cell, derived by knocking out genes from a viable free-living microbe to see which ones were ‘essential’, this minimal cell needs over 400 protein and RNA components. Specifications for all these have to be encoded on the DNA, otherwise this hypothetical cell cannot manufacture them or reproduce itself to make another cell. It would take a large book to print this information coded in the four ‘letters’ of the DNA. The problem is similar to a computer program. How do we explain the existence of a program? There is first the programming language (Python, Fortran, C++, Basic, Java, etc.) but then there is the actual set of instructions written in that language. The DNA problem is likewise two-fold; the origin of the programming language and the origin of the program. Proposals for something simpler that ‘evolved’ into this simplest cell need to demonstrate the route from their hypothetical simpler start to the first living cell. Enthusiasts for abiogenesis often appeal to ‘billions of years’ as a hand-waving approach to solving the problems, but this provides no mechanism. Reactions that are going in the wrong direction are not going to reverse and go in the correct direction by adding more time. Reply 20 replies @effectingcause5484 9 months ago (edited) Dna and rna, cannot replicate without enzymes to do this work of copying strands. But enzymes cannot be here without the information for how to build the enzymes, which is in the dna or rna. You must have dna or rna AND enzymes at the same time AND a lipid membrane.... Can't have rna without enzymes, can't have enzymes without rna, can't have none of it without the lipid bubbles.... It is impractical to think that rna AND enzymes had formed spontaneously inside the same lipid bubble by chance, and to think the enzymes, just so happened to be the correct machinery needed to replicate that first strand of rna.. There's a telling issue here i think, in that abiogenesis and what is necessary to take place for that to happen, seems to prove a purposeful intent. It is not the simplest answer to assume this improbable event happened spontaneously, and then relying on anthropic principles to more readily accept such improbable chances of this ever happening without controlled intentions from somewhere in the micro-world. Reply 24 replies @castelbergtom2252 1 year ago „Not well understood…“😂😂😂😂 We don‘t have any clue whatsoever, would be more honest. Reply 1 reply @keep_walking_on_grass 1 year ago Wrong from the beginning to the end. DNA doesn't contain the code for life. it contains the parameters of the life form. is it a tiger or a fish? what fish? a big one or a small one. has the life form 5 fingers or 3. and so on. The code for life is a different story. a mystery, perhaps the biggest ever. Next and biggest problem: "Abiogenesis. Origin of life from nonliving matter" is not a fact, it is wishful thinking because we don't have a better assumption. isn't that ridiculous? it has nothing to do with scientific facts. but imagine for a minute that it did happen for real: "Then evolution takes over". ? No. This is the next "problem". because evolution describes adaption. like breeding of dogs. a dog with thick fur is the fittest in cold areas. that's right. survival of the fittest makes sense - right. But there is no evolution, from one kind into another. it will always be a dog, and never evolve into a bear. I don't say that I know the right answers. of course, I don't have them. We haven't found the answers to these questions yet. why spread assumptions and wishful thinking as scientific facts. Reply 3 replies @samuilplamenov4749 10 months ago If the current theory were true, in that life started with millions of simple precursors then why are all life forms using the same code, same pattern, same DNA? Wouldn’t we have evolved into multiple complex branches and types of living matter? Some with DNA, others with another flavour of genetic coding we don’t even know. Something doesn’t add up. If there is only one way to achieve life then it’s too much coincidence. This must be by design. Reply 40 replies @luigiluigi2098 1 year ago Seems utterly impossible because it is...lol 1 Reply Arvin Ash · 12 replies @Bearfacts01 1 year ago God Reply 1 reply @nahshon9998 1 year ago "If it gives you comfort to believe that life came from an intelligent source, then who am I to rain on the parade? But there are more rational science-based possibilities that do not require the invoking of an unseen and unsubstantiated, supernatural force." What a lame answer. It is you that is trying your best to make up some completely unsubstantiated claim that life arose from non-life. Fine. Back it up! Or take down this ridiculous post! Take up some different career. 1 Reply 17 replies @hrishikeshtata 1 year ago And they say religion demands more faith than science....😂😂😂 Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @fasterpastor1000 11 months ago The real answer is, you'll never know what happened. The Bible has the intelligent answer. Reply 4 replies @MrBeGorda 1 year ago people wondering how life was created like it came from inert stuff when actually inert stuff comes from live.. how was inert stuff created in the first place? what if everything was alive at some point? lmao Reply @loriclark505 11 months ago God trinity hello lol I love physics but dear Lord Jesus smacks you in the face here and people still don't believe uggh Reply 1 reply @johnhess3886 7 months ago Arvin, someone is lying to you. You have believed the old "give a monkey a typewriter and billions of years and he can type out the complete works of Shakespere. There isn't enough time in the history of the universe for that to happen. Quit throwing out nonsense and do the math. 1 Reply 4 replies @andyburns8551 11 days ago Mr Arvin why not shut people like James Tour and other loonies up and just make a simple cell. You sound like a very clever man so use some of your would of`s could of`s` is it possibles and may be`s and MAY be get your self a Nobel prise. Reply @pukwaan 2 months ago Sounds like utter garbage. Reply @rickcrume739 1 month ago An no won has seen a star born Reply 1 reply @kenjohnson5124 1 year ago 10:42 You think there’s no intelligence that is transcendent to guide all this in a cosmic laboratory, but then only pantheism can explain our existence and YouTube videos trying to explain it are part of God, if your explanations have any meaning! Reply 39 replies @jaigurudeva1084 1 year ago Is it here that God comes into play Reply Arvin Ash · 9 replies @patricknovak3408 1 year ago Plausible….. is grossly misleading Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @jessicawinslet684 1 year ago Yes religion is clearly stupid, but this lol come on. Magic powers of a super being or science fiction lol 😆 😄 humans lol 😆. I love how humans think inbinary absolutes. Left or right, ligjt or dark.on or off. Sigh.... 1 Reply 3 replies @michaelportaloo1981 3 weeks ago 'It was three messages' 'one message is never three messages.' @TonyTigerTonyTiger argues against himself. Reply 11 replies @jamescasey4643 9 months ago Virus? Reply 1 reply @ronsirman6867 2 months ago No dna no life lol Reply 3 replies @thekingofbohemia1 8 months ago Absolute nonsense. Reply 1 reply @sharifmahmud9583 1 year ago I think !😂🎉😅 This guy wasted my time!! Who can guess? How he lost his hair early life ?? Reply @xf_jaguar1162 6 months ago 😂😂😂 It is profoundly astonishing how individuals lacking in competence fail to grasp the essence of the text they read, yet they readily pose irrelevant inquiries in response to questions about subjects on which they possess no genuine knowledge or understanding. Reply 6 replies @Erik-pd9hr 1 year ago Nonsense... chicken before the egg Reply 3 replies @astrawboiii1853 1 year ago (edited) Lets say there is a BRICK WALL 10ft high, do you think its possible that over time pieces of bricks would find one another and form this 10ft wall would a billion years make a difference? How about i multiply that complexity by a million or much more? How much more complicated is a lifeform that could duplicate itself. No skeptic would buy this theory Reply Arvin Ash · 10 replies @rimkongwapangwapang4469 1 year ago 🤣🤣 Reply @roysmith8071 1 year ago That would be cool if true And combine it with reincarnation there are so many people I want to be reincarnated into the seat im farting into daily. Reply @buildingproject7199 8 months ago Stop lying Reply 1 reply @rajvirdee1317 1 year ago Who gave INTELIGENCE to all beings grom ann atom to big bad universes. Reply Arvin Ash · 1 reply @PedroHenrique-x17 9 months ago The correct title should be "How did life begin? We have no clue, give us money" Reply 3 replies @fjccommish 10 months ago Abiogenesis is similar to evilutionism - all life evolving from LUCA - in that both are fantasies. Reply 6 replies @LagunaTuna-xe7xt 11 months ago (edited) Unproven speculation Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @JUAN_OLIVIER 1 year ago At this point it takes less faith to believe in Santa then this. I just dont have such a massive amount of faith. Reply 2 replies @Guitor972 11 months ago Evolution is full of problems Reply 23 replies @adenubipeace2394 1 year ago Humans. We haven't even stepped off this planet yet but we think we know how the entire universe, something so vast we can't see where it begins or ends, came to be. Ask any human scientist, they'll tell you all their suppositions are theories. Theories that keep changing every hundred years. Reply 1 reply @richiejourney1840 1 month ago Love your pseudo-sci-fi-religion mythologies and miraculous fantasies! Reply Arvin Ash · 6 replies @johnpatmos1722 8 months ago What BS. Reply @sylvaind5303 7 months ago Nice story, it reminds me of the babylonian mythology, but rewritten to correspond to the modern Gaïa worshipping cult. Reply 2 replies @esotericist 2 weeks ago utter non-scientific BS Reply Arvin Ash · 4 replies @erikschiegg68 10 months ago You are alchemists and give insolent answers when asked scientific questions about your hypothesis. You , as a community, lost all scientific respect. You are not scientists, but alchemists. Reply 7 replies @Thesonsofman 1 year ago The only trinity for life is the father, son and Holy Spirit. Reply 3 replies @earthdust1233 1 year ago Moving into the area of BS. Reply @petehuckleberry5068 11 months ago There is only one singularity, one infinite energy that it, and has been forever. That is God. All things exist out of God. This universe and reality that we are perceiving is all illusion. We are thoughts in Gods mind. Reply 2 replies @alphaneuf6336 7 months ago Nonsense by any other name is still nonsense. Good luck explaining the impossible. That life exists is beyond science. Reply Arvin Ash · 3 replies @stuartmiller6123 8 months ago Count how many times he says i(it can,it could have ) how many times is this man going to tell you what was available when he keeps using theories .Check out the site Answers in Genesis if you are fair minded.Not like this guy telling you what was possible all he does is theorise ! Reply 1 reply @Paul-zf8ob 1 year ago What a load. Reply @garybryson1900 1 year ago Life cannot come from non-life. Reply Arvin Ash · 21 replies @wernervannuffel2608 1 year ago The trinity of elements comes from the... Trinity. Reply Arvin Ash · 6 replies @resons 5 months ago 1 in infinity Reply @astrawboiii1853 1 year ago If you like this, look up JAMES TOUR, he is much more expert in this field Reply Arvin Ash · 6 replies @Billy-u8s 1 year ago It couldn't and it didn't!!! Reply