Jack Szostak: Physics and the Origin of Life, from Chirality to Membranes to Information 

This scientist is brilliant. Thank you for your video!

Interesting.

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.

Read about Origin of Life in the NCMR Inventing method book Discovery chapter.

why do we se faces of only the non speakers ?

Beautiful, but the problem is only one, and it seems nobody understands: entropy in chemistry produces organisation and complexity.

I tried to FOLLOW THIS ,but my membrane Collapsed.

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?

Good luck with that! Please forward your address as it's apparent you are in need of more straws!

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.

So let me see if I got this right. Life happens very easily and spontaneously. We just can't quite figure out how to do it. This is like one of those infomercials where if you persevere to the end you can't believe you just wasted all that time there must have been something worthwhile in there somewhere. Only guess what? There wasn't.

He starts with an assumption that RNA just appeared from no where to be used by the first life form. Unfortunately for him he has totally ignored the fact that RNA is information/code and he totally ignores the more important question of where the information came from? he is like a guy who copied a pop rivet from an aircraft carrier and claims, therefore, he knows how to build an aircraft carrier. First answer where the information came from and I might start listening to your yarn.

ah chirality, the missing link in nearly all discussion of abiogenesis - James M. Tour is quite good on this

There is no abiogenesis

Consciousness is the origin of life and has been experimentally verified.

Believing themselves wise thay became fools.

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?

Dream on sweet potatoes!!!

Why is the bald dude who never says anything always on screen? lol.

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.

3:55 is a lie

I am always amused that universally pro-entropic processes are completely ignored when trying to persuade the audience of informatics self assembly, in other words 'self assebled' systems, if ever occured, are permanently subject to degradation at any point of progression .

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.

Per reviewed really means nothing now days. It's all political!!!

When a scientist goes to prove life formed by abiogenesis, he is right. When someone claims Jesus saves, they are right. How can this be? Two opposing beliefs, yet they both are true? That is the one takeaway, you are here for to make your dreams come true!

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.