Anatomical decision-making by cellular collectives reveals that cells are far more than isolated, passive units; they operate as intelligent, cooperative agents that actively shape the body’s form and function. This collective behavior is like a biological democracy, where cells communicate, coordinate, and make complex decisions to construct tissues, organs, and entire organisms. Instead of simply following rigid genetic instructions, cells engage in dynamic dialogues through bioelectric signals, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces. They gather information from their environment, assess their position, and collectively decide on actions like when to divide, differentiate, or migrate. This process enables astonishing feats of development and regeneration, such as how an embryo shapes itself from a single fertilized egg into a fully-formed organism, or how certain animals can regrow entire limbs.This phenomenon challenges our traditional understanding of intelligence, suggesting that decision-making doesn’t require a central brain but can emerge from the coordinated interactions of countless individual components. It highlights the remarkable plasticity and adaptability of life, where cellular collectives act as self-organizing systems, capable of sculpting and repairing complex anatomical structures. By decoding this decision-making process, we might unlock new possibilities in regenerative medicine, synthetic biology, and the creation of artificial life forms.
This video attempt to address some of the problems and paradoxes of the initial naturalistic occurrences leading to the forming of a first self-replicating proto-biological systems, extremely simplified precursors to the development of prokaryotic organisms. And yet it is still so forlorn, even with the formation of à most uncomplicated prototype cell, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
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.
I think you are elevating Darwin's genius and the "warm little pond" is much less likely to persist for sufficient time when compared to the 30,000 years of a mid-ocean alkaline vent (exhausting to an acidic ocean) arising from a serpentinization reaction and planetary convection currents. But then I am watching this video for the first time...
@@simonmasters3295 You might have missed the point I was making by quoting Darwin. --------------------------- 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. ---------------------------
No one can provide a better explanation than abiogenesis for how life arose. No one. And here is a test for you before you claim you have a better explanation. Below is most of the abstract of a paper supporting abiogenesis. Now it's your turn. Provide your candidate for a better explanation than abiogenesis for how life arose, and provide a quote from a scientific paper in a mainstream science journal that experimentally shows proof of principle of some part of that alternative or that overcomes some hurdle that has stood in the way previously for that alternative. " Before the advent of protein synthesis, genetic information was most likely stored in and replicated by RNA. However, experimental systems for sustained RNA-dependent RNA-replication are difficult to realise, in part due to the high thermodynamic stability of duplex products and the low chemical stability of catalytic RNAs. Using a derivative of a group I intron as a model for an RNA replicase, we show that heated air-water interfaces that are exposed to a plausible CO2-rich atmosphere enable sense and antisense RNA replication as well as template-dependent synthesis and catalysis of a functional ribozyme in a one-pot reaction. Both reactions are driven by autonomous oscillations in salt concentrations and pH, resulting from precipitation of acidified dew droplets, which transiently destabilise RNA duplexes. Our results suggest that an abundant Hadean microenvironment may have promoted both replication and synthesis of functional RNAs." (Ribozyme-mediated RNA synthesis and replication in a model Hadean microenvironment. Annalena Salditt, Leonie Karr, Elia Salibi, Kristian Le Vay, Dieter Braun & Hannes Mutschler. Nature Communications volume 14, Article number: 1495. 17 March 2023)
To the troll hosoiarchives ... What is your better explanation than abiogenesis? It needs to be at least as plausible, at least as testable, and have at least as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it. So what is it? PS: And no, “The invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard poofed life into existence!” is not more plausible, is not as testable, and does not have as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it.
evidently there is. the planet was dead for 700,000,000 years before life emerged. Either that process was by natural means that science can investigate ....or it was magic! good luck with magic. here's a comprehensive list of all natural observed phenomena successfully explained by an appeal to the supernatural> ready? 1. .
I Really Wonder how long it will take to Allow Mice to regrow their legs limbs and get that finally Proven and published ... and then identifying the Correct Triggers to set up human trials... to regrow their limbs... so that tissue Regeneration Can become possible and then the ongoing fda process... commercialisation and until it gets into patients who want to reclaim back their Whole body that they were born with. It is hard to know if this will be 5 years or 10 years or 50 years or longer until this Becomes a Reality Reaching the hospitals and clinics to help Wounded Patients. Yes there is a horrendous Amount of suffering injuries and diseases and birth defects WorldWide and much more. However The human foreskin Prepuce is not a birth defect. It is a vital component to forming Healthy Socièties. However the whole biological Harmony of the planet has been Energetically Damaged and Badly impacted simply bcuz Over a Billion or 2 billion of all the people in the world have been Sexually Mutilated. Circumcision is Sexual destroys which very Subconciously biologically destroys families and societies. It's the oldest surgery in human history. All mammals have foreskin... but about a Third of human Males are circumcised and the maternal infant and Child bond has been deeply wounded on a Massive Global Scale This is Quietly the biggest Problem in the world... Bcux of how invisible it is. This is how the world operates... systematically... the biggest problems in the world are logically the most invisible,camouflaged, ignored and dismissed. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hLYjC_hD44s.html This RU-vid video Above cannot be UnderEstimated...That is if you Truly want to help Recover the highly damaged Harmony of the planet...on an Energetic Level ,
18:53: "There is actually an explicit representation of a future goal-state." In other words a design. But don't go there, we don't want to give those religious people any ideas...
Yes they would love to say I told you so. But to some extent it starts to become more believable to have some design pressure on life. Life seems to get harder to describe as time goes on. With this theory, it is plausible to have intelligence without a physical being to house it.
The Earth was once considered by people to be the centre of Creation, and the Universe that their God created. Scientists dispute this. Fair enough. Sadly, these Scientists cannot seem to grasp that in the 3.5 billion years that we can establish that living things have inhabited the earth, the Universe already had had 10 billion years (i.e. about 3 times longer) to allow life to develop elsewhere, maybe in many places, and that Meteorites, Comets etc., landing on Earth may come from outside the Solar System and the thesis that life developed on Earth is much less probable than that it developed somewhere else. Thus looking for prebiotic conditions on Earth is searching the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong conditions, so it is going to be a wild goose chase.
Believing themselves to be wise, they believe in ancient mythology about fantastical beings, from a book that is scientifically refuted, morally refuted, historically refuted, archaeologically refuted, and logically refuted.
@@Billy-u8s The obvious example being Sokal's paper on "Transformative Hermenuetics of Quantum Gravity". The aim was to critique pseudo intellectual nonsense in "culture studies"- not peer review itself. Let's hear you critique some of Szostak"s work. I'll wait.....
Also to the creationists. What is your better explanation than abiogenesis? It needs to be at least as plausible, at least as testable, and have at least as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it. So what is it? PS: And no, “The invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard poofed life into existence!” is not more plausible, is not as testable, and does not have as much scientific/experimental evidence supporting it.
For the creationists out there. Tell you what. I will show you a peer-reviewed scientific paper, in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, explaining an experiment that demonstrates some step that would be required for a purely natural origin of life, and you show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper, in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, explaining an experiment that demonstrates your invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard created life magically. And we go back and forth, and whoever runs out of scientific experimental evidence first loses. Deal?
The main issue in all OOL research is the origin of all programmed information. To understand what that means understandthat YOU where initially just one cell. That cell started dividing, thousand, million and billion times until YOU where there! So how did all billion subsequent cells "know" exactly where to go in your body, how to differentiate, what function to fulfill, and how to look like? Where did the information come from to exactly build up your brain, nerve system, eyes, liver, kidney etc by the process of cell division and build up? It means the initial cell had all this information stored in it an gave the information to all subsequent cells to control the complete build up of YOU!!!!! That kind of information is so astronomical in density, quantity and quality that our intelligence will even fail to understand the complete implication of such an ingenious biochemical information and control process and it shows especially intelligent people that only a super- intelligence could design and create such a system.
"To understand what that means understandthat YOU where initially just one cell" Human cells are completely irrelevant to the origin of life. The first human was born some 3.5 BILLION YEARS after life already existed on Earth. I've told you this a dozen times. Even something as unintelligent as a rat can learn from its mistakes, so why can't you?
Instead of basing money out of debt why not base it out of an organism created in a lab that will eat us if we spend too much or use it unfairly. A biological algorithm to maintain world economic growth as a corollary.
1. What was the function of the protein that was first coded by RNA or DNA from which a selection could be made? 2. If the fewest genes that a cell can have to sustain life is around 400 but it has to have additional DNA to have reproductive function how can RNA or DNA have primacy ? 3. If a flatworm can be multiploidy and maintain function and morphology how does DNA have primacy? 4. How is it that a cockroach and rats can reproduce, after nuclear radiation,with mutations such that they become multi ploidy in order to maintain morphology and function and RNA or DNA have primacy or a selective function? 5. Why are a dog and a dingo or completely different genetic plants nearly identical? To what are they “converging “? 6. There can be any number of ways that a thing in nature can be the shape of a sphere but how many possible ways are there that a thing in nature can be the shape of a Mandelbrot set? Why is the brain a Mandelbrot set? How is a Mandelbrot set selected for from an infinite number of fractal patterns?
I watched for about 5 seconds. Im absolutely done with these garbage zoom meetings. Its so god damn unprofession. Fix the damn audio, normalize IT, prerecord and DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. LAUGHABLY AMATURE PRODUCTION...your science wont be missed if you dont fix simple these things because only thise already working on it will put up with things like this.
Unless I misunderstand his work, it implies that aberrant energy fields, such as radiation, would change cellular expression in improper ways(i.e. cancer). It would also imply that correcting the energetic signals would be able to be used for treating cancer.
When I comme to a suppose science channel and one is wearing a mask, well well, we know who those lunatics are, if you think that MRNA is something good you’re going to burn really soon my friend, those things you call vaccines to deceive the whole world… beware friends out there. Revelation 18 23 “… all nations were deceived by your sorcery (pharmakeia)! May our Lord in Heaven have mercy on the deceived
The hopeful spawn de la Rodolfo Llinás. The conclusion of consciousness starts between two cells arriving, then, to us. Will the entire body be renamed the brain?
Amazing time we live in! JWST and THIS! So, after development do this cellular networks just sit idle (besides repair our tissues)? No evidence of course.. But maybe when you have a "gut feeling", your gut is really part of your cognition?!! I mean, ever notice that you have to sleep on things" Gut cognition takes time lol...Also, what if plants really can *think*?
Playing God has consequences, open your eyes and just watch the consequences happening all around you. Our Father’s vengeance is at the door, repent you lunatics, the pit is deep and hot for the idolaters. May our Lord have mercy
