Can Science Explain the Origin of Life? 

????? Ajahqjqqhqq good one

Especially the applauding. :D

You spoiled it!

ahghaghghgahgahgahagahaghhga ok boomer

I think you just broke me

@@dembears95 just something to think about 😂

ok, r u ready, where did the aliens come from ? thx for nothing... lol

@Richard Fox exactly 😂

@@jam9235 they were always there O_o

your mother tickled me

Sean Andrews ha ha ha you got the whole squad laughing

"I made pee without peeing" got me.🤣

@@seanandrews5329 LMFAOO PLSS

I think the two most important differences between religion and science is that: 1. It's okay to say "we don't yet know" in science. Religions are about using once guessed explanations as "knowledge". 2. When measurements show that the written "knowledge" doesn't match with the reality, the "knowledge" is fixed.

"The more I study science," he remarked, "the more I believe in God." -Albert Einstein “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” -Isaac Newton “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” -Bill Gates “With odds standing at 1 chance in 10164 of finding a functional protein among the possible 150-amino-acid compounds, the probability is 84 orders of magnitude (or powers of ten) smaller than the probability of finding the marked particle in the whole universe. Another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specified particle among all the particles in the universe.” --Stephen C. Meyer. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” -Charles Darwin

+Thrall079 Meanwhile the evolutionists believe it is logical to believe that we literally came from a rock.....because the universe suddenly banged into existence, it rained heavily on the rock surface of the earth, and the chemicals leaked from the rock into the waters.....and bodabing bodaboom....life starts!

+Todd Johnson Obviously we don't have a sufficient explanation for abiogenesis... but magic is what you're going with to explain it? A being that is all-powerful, knows everything, and is capable of conscious thought and decision making? And this being cares whether you masturbate or not?

Thrall079 So you have zero idea how life started, or what MY beliefs are....but you call me "fucking retarded"? That tells me all I need to know about you.

***** Yeah you are right, waste of time.

+Todd Johnson And you believe a magical man in the sky "created himself from nothing" and spontaneously made, over 100 different standalone chemicals, millions of species, and trillions of stars in an entire universe spanning over a million light years wide, that watches EVERY persons moves all at once, and if you don't bow down to him and live by him your "soul" (somehow magically created through sexual reproduction) will suffer an eternity in a firey place and burn for all eternity. All documented in a book written and edited by Kings to their liking nearly two thousand years before science started becoming extremely advanced? Yet our heads are stuck in a ostrich's behind. Ok.

Right, we know enough to know that the more we learn the less we actually know, and the more unlikely naturalistic abiogenesis looks.

@@dave1370 Therefore Jeebus Saves! Uh-huh. Sure.

@@chikkipopsounds like ur coping lol

@@dave1370 That comment is the logic of a grade school child. If you try with a better syllogism, you might make sense.

I miss old Discovery channel so much ... same as "History" channel.

+fides5566 don't forget "MTV!" remember the days when they used to play music videos and have news about the music industry? yeah, me neither... ok, well barely. :/

because those claims are not proven, so they can't be said to be science. and they are not religious either. So!

Science "proves" nothing. It gives theoretical models to explain facts observed in natural world. The best model to explain biology is the Theory of Evolution.

It's part of the evolution. From without internet to having internet access for the masses. So those Discovery Channel, History Channel, and MTV (aka traditional TV) will or have to be phased out to some degrees. It's more convenient for the internet and smartphones. It's almost "natural selection". You discard useless "traits" to survive and adapt useful "traits" to survive. Discovery Channel, History Channel, and MTV had to change in order to adapt as well, or they will die out. Evolution and natural selection are everywhere.

Yeah so many retards here.

The first life is still a big ? to scientist all the theories having to many weaknesses and flaws and now to work on the math of creating life from randomly throwing inorganic materials together and now for alternates created by crazy people 1 We have fanatics' that believe a large impact on mars accrued around 4 billion years ago and that a fragment of mars landed on the earth during this period and began life on the earth 2 Origins of life on earth began after the evacuation of the intellect life from mars who stopped by the earth on their way out of the solar system and then pulled down their pants and took a large dump beginning life on the earth thus we are forever known as the living turd planet.

@@billy9144 can you believe how many people actually believe the evolution garbage ?

@@studygodsword5937 Evolution is a fact. LOL. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Imagine being this stupid that you deny science by default in favor of unfalsifiable myth supported by no evidence whatsoever. LMFAO!!!!

@@billy9144 *5 undeniable facts* Abiogenesis is totally impossible ! Life is far to complicated to be formed by accident ! even if it did form "accidentally" what would it eat, how would it know it needed to eat, how would it have the ability to eat ! it would be the first life form ever ! How would it have developed those properties ! Please don't wast my time with that franken-life altering existing life, and calling it new life ! Or that dead stuff experiment, forming lifeless amino acids ! *your theory can't even get to evolution ! *continued !*

What do you mean no falsehoods, he completely ignores the Cambrian explosion, and where the genetic information came from for species changing ie fish to mammal. Darwins theory only explains Micro evolution which we see in Natural selection . For example different types of cats, from a domestic cat to a Lion. What Darwin did say in his work The Origin of species in 1859 that eventually the fossil record will show the transition species . Here we are 160 yrs later and no transition species and we have millions of fossils. Like gives birth to like, the genetic information is just NOT THERE to jump from one species to another. If Darwin was around now he would refute his own theory.

You hit the nail on the head with "extremely simplified". Simplification allows you to omit vital details, like why we have found half a million fish fossils but not one single transitional form, why there are no transitional forms for plants, or why DNA cannot produce any usable new information. Why do you think Gould & Eldridge have been pulling their hair out over this for decades.

Theres a lot of pseudo facts. There's no evidence of spontaneous creation of self replicating molecules. The assembly of molecules like ARN are impossible to happen spontaneously.

@@edit8826 it's ARN in my native language

@@edit8826 hear*

rushy scoper After studying astronomy, my conclusions where a little bit different than yours, and maybe more depressing... There are several cases in the universe where something looks to be in perfect balance, but the truth is something called "survival bias". It was not in balance in the beginning, but it just happened that the universe got rid of everything else. If I apply it to humans and evolution, I do believe we just survived according to evolution, but this still doesn't explain the origin of life. The wish to live has to come from somewhere. After reading a little about the chemical evolution, it looks possible for cells to start randomly, but what would make it have the wish to survive? That's where I associated with the survival bias in the universe. If billions of random "fat blobs" were created, and a few of them just randomly had something inside that made them survive, or even divide for random reasons, after some time (aka million years) it could possibly have had one key mutation, making it stay existing. If all the billions of blobs died, then I'd say the "key mutation" is what we call the will to survive. I mean, even unicellular bacterias seems to have the will to survive without having a single brain cell.

Tadashi Mori yeah i have thought about it once. i have to say your answer is very logical we have a very similar pattern of thinking. to some level i am with u in your conclusions in why life have survival bias to add to that its even explain one of my oldest question (if survival is the key why speics fight each other instead to survival as a whole). in another hand i would say that this is my final answer but i still have one question that it don't explain why we don't live for ever like Turritopsis dohrnii instead we design to die. anyway i really like your way of thinking if u have any idea about my question feel free to share

rushy scoper Sorry, I didn't see that you replied my answer earlier. Giving a thought about the question about dying x surviving forever, indeed this question can lead to so many other questions... It's kind of a key to understand how evolution works. I was trying to find out an answer, but there's no obvious answer. Of course the general idea would be that mutations are good to experiment different patterns and find the best genetic code for the ever changing environment, one "imortal" being would not have the same capabilities to adapt. Still.. this answer is so vague I can't even consider it an answer. What lead the living beings to divide in male/female? Even more, there are living being that didn't divide at all and are still living today, so it's not a key mutation. Man... this is really interesting. I'll research more about it!

+rushy scoper As Tadashi said, if an organism doesn't die it also doesn't change. If you look at complex life (non singled celled forms) you'll find that they normally live long enough to reproduce and then it starts to die off. In some species that produce many young in one go (salmon for instance) it reproduces just once and dies. In other extremes where it's normal for a single offspring then the organism will normally live long enough to reproduce 4 or 5 times, possibly more, ie enough to ensure the continuation of the species. This means a shorter life span gives a more rapid "turnover" in evolutionary possibilities if you will. So any organism that does not reproduce will be out competed for resources....maybe not by it's generation but by it's competitors a few generations down the line......this is why nothing lives for ever.

They actually do. Some bacterias kind of "run away" from while cells inside our bodies. I'm aware that it's some sort of simple water concentration difference, but it clearly selected the right things to "run away" from.

You sound like a true believer. What branch of science? And who is going to do that? I have my doubts. All subjects have as their basis a point of first assumption. In man's technology this is usually weak and nonfactual. So it would be very interesting to know what that point exactly is in this case. Since you are so convinced, any idea?

Gunter Raffel Science is a process. The process is not restricted to functioning within branches.

Gunter Raffel It may be that science already has explained the origin of life here on Earth, as there are theories of abiogenesis which explain quite well how life could have gotten started on a planet like this one, and very likely how life did start on many planets much like this one, but since we can't travel back in time to see exactly how life on this planet started, we wouldn't necessarily recognize an explanation of how life on this planet started if he had one. That does not mean we can't come up with an explanation. It simply means we may not know for certain exactly when we have done so. It's a bit like if I were to foll a six sided dice a million times, and then ask you to theorize what numbers came up on the first three rolls. You know they were each in the range of one through six, so you have one chance in six of getting any one of them right in a single try, and if you guess each of those possible values once as the first number that came up, you are certain to have gotten that first number right... but on which guess? Of course, the kind of life we have on this planet tells us quite a bit about the possibilities for its origin, as do other factors such as the chemicals available on our planet to work with, the size of the planet, the distance from our local star, details about the Earth's moon, and so on. However, if life on this planet was planted here by life from somewhere else, instead of happening through abiogenesis, how would we know that? The answer is that we wouldn't know for sure unless sufficient evidence had been left behind, and that does not appear to be the case. If life had been brought here from another planet, for example, we would not expect to find something like the Cambrian explosion, UNLESS the life brought here had been si simple that the evidence left behind would likely give us no clue that life had not formed here on its own, while we would definitely expect an event of that type with abiogenesis forming primitive life, because random changes would at first have little or no distinct advantages or disadvantages, and the early structured multi-cellular life forms would have likely had too much simpler life around it to consume as food for any meaningful competition to begin. If the origin of life matched any religion's creation story, since all such stories (at least that I'm aware of) involve higher order life forms being made at about the same time which were quite different from each other, rather than evolving out of more primitive forms, we should see evidence as such in the fossil records, which we do not. Of course, it is possible that some such story is true but does not go into enough detail, for example leaving out any mention of evolution being used in the process over long time scales, but if that were the case then we should see evidence in the fossil records of life having come about in the order mentioned in such a story. Again.... we do not.

You have added nothing meaningful or new. The video presentation already said it all that is to be said. So why repeat it?

Gunter Raffel I wasn't repeating. I was answering the question. And no, the video did not say it all, nor did it actually answer the question.... so I did.

Evolution indeed is very interesting! In fact, it's one of the topic containing diverse arena of subtopics which intertwine together to reveal mystery behind our existence in the universe.

Agreed.

An open what?

Simple and easy to understand because it's a bunch of garbage lol

@@ashtonmmton1554 Do you have a better suggestion?

@@VaughanMcCue yes a creator

+Clorox Bleach Where's your proof to show that evolution isnt possible? Because you havnt been able to witness a multi-million year change in the course of your pitiful lifetime? Get the fuck out of here.

***** Show it to me please?

***** Wow that's really good evidence!! By the way that isn't evidence, it's a claim.

+Clorox Bleach If you learn about the world a little bit and all its different cultures and then also learn about the past civilizations that predate the bible and quran. You would see that humans are just gullible and ignorant creatures that'll believe in anything they been taught since a young age to explain the unexplained. There's is no designer, life just happens naturally. Scientist even proved they gotten the simplest forms of life from chemical reactions from non-living compounds.

***** Well what you said literally is no where near evidence whatsoever. "Things are sophisticated so it must be a magical invisible man who did it" Like yeah ok.

Bible is JUST A FUCKING BOOK THATS A FAIRY TALE. CREATIONIST FUCK OFF

Its like us christains pointing a sword at you, you by saying that you dont believe in our sword doesnt stop us from stabbing you with it. The bible is a historical document, not a book of science

Jake Forster the bible is a fairy tale, written by 40 different, racist, sexist, and homophobic men.

Nebiru next joke please, you just sound like a butthurt atheist with no evidence to support, since when was moses scared of gay men

Self Fulfilling Prophet you also forgot the 10 commandments were not even written by a human hand, its god's law on stone

wooe true, we can't go past what happened before the big bang or what really caused it, there are many questions about our bodies, atoms, space, etc but since we can't give proper evidence, and this is all just theory they go with some fairytale concerning someone named 'god' but yet god is also a theory and there is no evidence at all he is real, what if the bible was written to be a children's boom?

Wooe i have no problem with science, i view it as a handy tool to find the true nature of the universe. Science tells me that there are laws in nature, laws of attraction and replusion, laws of motion, laws of gravity and many many others. We are told that if any of these laws had any different values than the ones they have that galaxies, stars, planets and even matter would not have formed. All of nature exists in harmony from the smallest quark to entire universe itself and if you can't see the intelligent design in it your faith in chance is much bigger than mine is in God. The video says they can form RNA in the lab and can coax a reaction from it with iron. But they then tell you that RNA can't even live without DNA to give it instructions. When you consider the incredibly large amount of information stored in even the smallest forms of DNA, how can you believe hundreds of thousands of molecules, consisting of trillions and trillions of atoms, all came together at one instant of time by chance and in just the right order? Again, your faith has to be stronger than mine, scientifically speaking.

To sum up the video: Science doesnt know how life began. Athiests have my permission to shit themselves.

We are not shitting our pants. Just calling out bullshit as is our right and our responsibility. :)

We do know, or we wouldn't make such a fuss

Holy shit, that is some really groundbreaking stuff.

Stubborn people don't really want to know the origin of life.

There is an explanation of the origin of life. Some just choose not to accept it. What I don’t understand is if evolution is true, why are humans still humans?

@@SiSCrafting You do realize that evolution is slow and gradual process right ? right now there is no evolutionary pressure for our species to change, although small changes do occur people before weren't able to digest milk but now most people can digest it , and that is all of the result of random mutations, when creatures reproduce they don't make a perfect copy of themselves something always is changed

@@debildebilov7504 evolution is an impossible process, with numerous obstacles it cannot cross !

ArchetypeGotoh yeah that’s right

shutup

@@Nicky-cc2tr you too

Yep, incredibly complex structures are explained so simply. Wow and they call Christians simple minded ?

So those two created the eukaryote?

Marcus Moody It has been observed that larger prokaryotes engulf smaller unicells and instead of "digesting" them, use them for other metabolic functions. The same with plastids or small cyanobacteria. This endosymbiosis is thought to be the start of early eukaryotes. There's a lot of geological time involved here and not enough space to detail the rise of endoplastistic reticullem, ribosomes, various vesicles etc. - Find a university level text-book to argue against (Campbell's "Biology" would be my choice). There are many gradual steps on the emergence of 'true cells', but we have very good evidence of how prokaryotes became the cells that all multicellular life arose from.

Martyn Jones I know that they would engulf mitochondria, but an entire class of cell entirely? Interesting.

Marcus Moody They weren't mitochondria at that stage, just an engulfed smaller prokaryote that eventually served an energy process within the cell. Similar were indentations of the cellular membrane to give rise to other organelles, also initially redundant, but eventually useful.

Lol.

They speak English?

*cellphone bwahahaha* Hilarious! look at that chunk of atoms trying to assert how it came to be and how it didn't come to be.

I thought that but how did the aliens come to be

Why aliens always think about us not about themself that how the hell the came into existence.

That's pretty sad. You're a teacher, and you're showing this massive speculation as science?

@@dave1370 I’m going to teach that humans and chimps share more than 95% of their DNA, show me that this is a “massive” speculation

@@dave1370 it’s science. The full answer isn’t known and no one claims it is. Throwing your imaginary friends into the equation explains precisely nothing

Damn! Probably the most interesting comment and nobody commented back. You sir/madaam/chemicals/meaningless being/ have legit questions that actually need answering.

Advaita Vedanta 😪

How can life come from material that’s not alive

How does organization come from chaos

How does the earth we live on have everything it needs to support life

Truth is stranger than fiction.

@Winston Grettum Why assume he didn't?

BlacksmithTWD -because this video doesn’t comport to his bible magic worldview...

@@edit8826 but is does conform with your science fiction world view, right? Well there you go your emotions say it's true therefore it must be so, right? Hope you enjoyed the cartoon.

@@edit8826 Worshipping ones Creator is not a waste of one's life. Worshipping the false gods of science fiction, which you do, and being a proud member of the Church of Scientism, which you are, that qualifies! And I'll remain angry at the lies of modern science as long as I wish, without apology!

No! Follow Christ!

​@@MrGreen-fi5sg Jesus is a fictional character.

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS How. Their is literally historical records of him. You people really have no argument. 😒

@@MrGreen-fi5sg 😄 Lots of claims. But claims are not "historical records". You failed.

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS If it's recorded then YES it's historical. That's what historical literally means. 😒 I failed nothing for we are close to the end times!

😭😭😅😂

@@toyosioyejobi309 laughing at your own ignorance?

@@Mark-Wilson No at you!

@@toyosioyejobi309 cus of your ignorance?

@@Mark-Wilson.

energy randomly distributed will destroy unless it has a receiver

sammy strain What? How in the world would you expect energy to destroy anything without being received?

Donald Kronos it needs a mechanism to utilise the energy or the mass release of energy will only be destructive . The recipient needs to be in place before the energy is released

sammy strain Absolutely not true. Just because humans have learned to take advantage of the ability to arrange things to behave in ways that we can predict, does not mean that nature needs to behave like we do in order to do anything non-destructive. You're jumping to a false conclusion. Not bad for an understanding of macroscopic mechanics as utilized by humans, but not an accurate overall picture.

Donald Kronos the second law of thermodynamics

The first life is still a big ? to scientist all the theories having to many weaknesses and flaws and now to work on the math of creating life from randomly throwing inorganic materials together and now for alternates created by crazy people 1 We have fanatics' that believe a large impact on mars accrued around 4 billion years ago and that a fragment of mars landed on the earth during this period and began life on the earth 2 Origins of life on earth began after the evacuation of the intellect life from mars who stopped by the earth on their way out of the solar system and then pulled down their pants and took a large dump beginning life on the earth thus we are forever known as the living turd planet.

You people are foolish

If you want some real science and not pretty pictures, watch this. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_zQXgJ-dXM4.html

he isnt male

trustedlogamers Good point. I personally prefer God to be a women. And who is to say that there is only one God. Some tell us that there are many, and even gods above the gods of universes. This makes more sense and for a much better game, for sure. If there would only be one then he/she would certainly go mad quite soon. Just imagine being The Only One. No game at all. Wouldn't that drive anyone crazy, goods included. I don't know about you guys, but I have no doubt about that. And as far as the universe (physical) is concerned, built on nothing but destructive force, I think that it is a dope head's universe. If I were to be God I and together with a few other decent fellows could have build a much better one. Don't be shy. Think about it.

***** Not really. Those men tried to explain things the best they knew then. And, quite frankly, I would also not put it past them to also be politically motivated by the 'need' to control people. As to male of female, I propose we put it to a vote. :)

So a process with no will or reason to create life out of no where makes more sense? Whats the origin of the meteorite? How does it come into existence?

***** I'm just saying we may never truly know or at least not yet.

That's not on our current list of projects but it is a good idea for an article at least. I'll see if one of my entomologist friends would have time to do a breakdown of the evolution of metamorphosis.

+Stated Clearly you should explain how the caterpillar knows how and when to build a cocoon and stay in it for a certain amount of time without ever being instructed how to do so? "the memories came in it's DNA from its parents" then why don't we get memories passed to us from our parents? and why would its ancestors ever start making cocoons? or how do birds know where to go when they migrate? how were flowers pollinated before bees existed? how did snakes spiders and other organisms that use venom randomly develop it? how does an animal randomly start producing deadly acid that it then knows how to use?

+Arthur Oberemok (somebodyepik) we have memories passed on to us. drop a baby in the water for example. How dose it know to hold it's breath in water. There are many more like that if u do some research.

***** So what, are we once upon a time aquatic apes or something?

+Arthur Oberemok (somebodyepik) Butterfly metamorphosis is quite well studied and understood. The cells that become wings are not fully activated until the penultimate instar (chrysalis), similar to a human chin not growing a beard until nearly two decades of life, (and never in females). Metamorphosis is explained by delayed timing of gene expression especially in climates with marked seasonal changes. There is little qualitative difference in metamorphosis and the complex mechanisms of development in embryology.

My man could only get 7 likes in 7 years

Unfortunately, the evidence seems to indicate that life arose very quickly -- early in the geological history of Earth. That was a very, very long time ago, and much of what happened then is absolutely lost forever; even many of the rocks are gone or inaccessible.

BarbarosaAlexander Indoctrination starts young.

@@Wolfhammered Warning: Idiot on the scene

@@Wolfhammeredthat would be religion, this is education

it is for to end

That was not the question

@@funquay2219 couldn't find the video buddy

Flat Earthers from the four corners of the globe all agree the world is SQUARE

It's actually a toroid.

To believe that life self-assembled itself = belief in flat earth

say that again, but slowly......

@Mike Bready Any chemist would argue otherwise; I'd rather take the word of an expert, than that of a crazy nutjob that denies reality to get attention.

+CPTANT also it;s not that you need a whole strand of dna to form in a single step. the smaller components have an affinity for one another. and the even smaller components also do. so you start off with very simple small molecules. and they slowly group together, and form more complex structures, until you end up with something that resembles dna...

DNAunion Yes you are right about those odds with these particular numbers, however every chance approaches 1 as the number of attempts approaches infinity. Hell, perhaps the universe did throw 10^770 times or more. Even if that were true we wouldn't know of all the failures since we are a product of the occurrence itself. This is an extreme case aproach, I can't quantify the odds of life originating on a planet. It is meant to show that even events with the tiniest of odds will happen if we throw often enough.

+DNAunion What if you considered all events and all places possible- surely the chance of life approaches 100%?

DNAunion I'm not making a claim, simply asking a question.

DNAunion Considering the universe is vast, infinite maybe, wouldn't the chances of a suitable place for life approach infinite too? Even with a small chance of life, an infinite amount of planets should negate the small chance of life forming, wouldn't it? I heard somewhere that if the universe was vast enough there would be an exact copy of you. Simply because the probability approached 100% as the size and amount of matter in the universe approached infinite.

Yeahhhh magic mushrooooooms maaaannn

THAT'S not true.

@@dave1370 why?

This could be the most important thing I have ever learned

+lokustic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

Nope, but that's no reason to stop trying

+lokustic No. Of course that science/reality always need more and more evidence, except those ridiculous religious fairy tales.

+GG2K7AU05 give me one peice of evidence AGAINST creation Side note not for evolution but against creation

edwin myrick give me one piece of evidence against my claim that you have been killing people & making them look like accidents(e.g car crash, avalanche, earth quake, etc) with your supernatural power.

true

@@lukeabs9333 Yes, sir

And it will never exist because the idea that non-living, non-conscience atom molecules managed to form living cells and DNA, and somehow these cells managed to change the DNA to evolve into complex conscious multicellular organism like humans is just so unthinkable

Great Value Bleach we have observed rna molecules spontaneously forming on their own, we have observed lipids spontaneously forming on their own as well as forming lipid membranes, and we have observed amino acids forming on their own. The only people who think it’s unthinkable are ignorant people.

@@carlboi5652 your vision is so narrow so of course someone like you would never be able to think it

@jia khan What made god and where is this magically enchanted beast?

Read quran

@@atikurpranto3190 No it’s fake.

@@Rryan8065 u can read my brother

You are free to believe that which is impossible (abiogenesis). You can refuse to believe the obvious if you like also. But yes, God is the answer.

Tim Spangler Is it really impossible?

Manard Is it possible that it is really impossible?

Tim Spangler I wouldn't say so.

It's not billions of chemical reactions, its trillions of them. =)

+Simon Ring as with most who must explain origins in a materialistic and natural way, you begin in the middle with both feet planted in mid air. You glibly assume the warm sunbeams and primeval caves, the waves and even the earth as given but offer no rational explanation for their origin.

Poly Merase ????? It's just part of a poem by Erasmus Darwin, I thought was rather nice. It's not even supposed to be an actual explanation or argument.

+Poly Merase As opposed to religions that begin with an invisible deity who can create trillions of stars by magic, yet somehow his existence revolves around whether his amoeba-like creatures believe in him or not. You can't get any more hypocritical than that - or any more fucking stupid.

+MrPlanx WHA ?.

***** That's not even a word. Try again and use a full sentence.

Who cares?

Yes, understanding where we come from and learning things is so overrated... Who needs it when they when you can be a flathearther creationist or a stripper?

Tangiia Unu lOl Good one 😀😀

This is satire, right?

I'm a theist, and I love studying science, and this is exactly how I feel. There is so much order, even in the most basic cells. It's like every organalle inside a cell has a purpose and it's playing its role, and whatever it does is useful to the other components of a cell in some way or the other. Without any one of the components, a cell wouldn't function. It's the order that gets me, and we know from science as well as our common sense, that order requires intelligence. Randomness and chance does not produce order and purpose. Intelligence is a great requirement, something which many people don't realise. Anyways, it's nice to see that someone else sees it the same way that I do.

I've been scrolling thru the comments hoping to find one like yours. Its a pity it took so long. I wish everyone would do as you recommend. Billions of years doesn't actually aid the cause of abiogenesis. In reality it probably makes it worse. I don't see what's so threatening about considering the role of a higher intelligence. It's really the only thing that makes sense.

what?

That is haow a human do.

riding a spinning rock around a tiny star in a vast empty cosmos ..

HENNI Mohamed Just curious. What kind of rock in what universe are you riding on? My universe is not so vast really and definitely not empty. Come over and have a look.

Gunter Raffel After thorough inspection I have come to conclude that I reside in what consists of but endless stretches of nothingness, albeit the odd collection of mere particles held together by the weakest, though most unresistable force. This universe can be described as vast in a way that is barely accessible to our understanding. Furthermore its emptyness may be reckoned as the physical quality that made it possible for such a consciousness too evolve without being wiped out by a collision between any two objects in said universe. In a more philosophical manner, it can be defined by the inability of this consciousness to find other beings apart from those in its immediate surroundings. Sincerely Marrus Quinn

@sbmphr i know

the universe is not a person,so you want me to believe something that doesn't make sense to me,that is called faith.

@sbmphr Be sure to attribute that quote to Neil deGrasse Tyson, something the original poster forgot to do.

The universe owes nothing to anybody

u are actually a descent person

The more that’s learned the further scientists get from understanding how a cell works.

@@EdGein542 Hopefully scientists figure out how life started.

@@DomainofKnowlegdia We are very close to that. Dr. Jack Szostak and research team may be only a decade or two away from deciphering the process.

@@DomainofKnowlegdia We already know it had to be created. Proteins that build a cell cannot randomly form.

@@maylingng4107 Can science explain how a non living thing like a body become a conscious living organism that would later go on to produce much of the life please do let me know.