Life might be more common in the universe than we thought 

The proposed collision with a planetesimal to create the moon would yield similar results. Naming the collider Thea was ok, but Pasteure may be a better name?

same! Laughed out loud :D

@@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515 The moon will henceforth be known as _the Pasteurizer._

Maybe it was never a molten ball - Dr Thomas Gold thought that the Earth accumulated from a random infall of stony, metallic ,carbonaceous and icy micro meteorites (particles, gas, clumps, chunks etc but all being at the comic background temperature plus only a few degrees AFTER the sun became radiative . The radioactive elements would have warmed the mixed up mass slightly and as it grew in size the gravitational compression resulted in adiabatic (?) heating -atomic motion creating friction I guess it could be called . the infall was initially at walking speed proportional to the mass and gravitational attraction --virtually no heating effect and any that was ,radiated into space from the surface (conduction into the interior would seem to be minimal ) The resulting mass was undifferentiated since it had not been molten so not allowing the heavier elements to fall to the centre or for volatiles and water to evaporate to space -they were effectively trapped . As the ball grew larger the infall velocity increased and so did the kinetic energy that became heat but without any 'greenhouse' effect from an atmosphere that was mostly radiated back to space .(and each impact was only local heating again radiated into space from a gigantic ball ) At some point the mass had significant compression at the core and the radioactive elements decay adding heat -he proposed that the CORE thus melted first and then settling of the heavier elements could begin (Uranium or higher being at the very centre -maybe this provided the heat to continue melting the interior and creating the magma . His theory was that the surface, and the crust down to many kilometres depth, remained UNmelted and still a random collection of whatever the cosmic debris was composed of . The heat FROM THE CORE was moving upwards rather than the molten blob cooling from the outside as in the given theory. He maintains that the Earth was therefore never "Pasteurized" and this difference has enormous consequences for his (and Fred Hoyle/Wickramsinghe et al ) conception of how life arose on Earth. That trio were the modern proponents of Panspermia based on the expectation that 'bacterial' life was ubiquitous in the universe in the interstellar medium gas clouds and anywhere other than on stars or such (not fully agreeing with their ideas or the extension to the origin of pandemics etc but Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle DID unarguably contribute greatly to cosmology, nuclear synthesis etc etc -even to the physiology of hearing -googling reccomended before dismissing their more iconoclastic ideas....) Gold extended his basic thesis to the origin of hydrocarbons, oil, helium and the existence of the 'hot,deep biosphere' - otherwise inexplicable by conventional theories. If the Earth was NOT "Pasteurized" and life IS abundant in the universe then the starting point becomes massively more likely --the origin of the 'seeds' is still not resolved but at least billions of more years and genesis sites are provided. (incidently I SAW the fall of the Murchison meteorite on a Saturday morning in 1969 as a 16 year old while walking the wing of a glider in the morning -through the only gap in the trees surrounding our airfield (at Mildura - several hundred kilometres away ) -no one else did until the news reported it I was not believed... The Murchison meteorite is world famous for containing a string of amino acids not thought to be possible then -there is a book titled "The Genesis Stone" about this ) Perhaps Dr Hossenfelder could devote an episode to an assessment of the work of Dr Thomas Gold and possibly the deep earth biosphere 'problem' ,abiogenic origin of oil (also a Russian hypothesis) and the interelated subjects like source of the oceans ... I always enjoy reading Dr Hossenfelder's 'tutorials' and her reliably enlightening plus thought provoking ways of elucidating subjects -- I am sure she could add much to the contentious but largely forgotten scientific debate that the other named physicists ignited in this field. That would be very appreciated.

It took you- yes you three years of studying biology to understand how cells could have come to be did it? At which university was that?

@@vhawk1951kl Actually it takes three years of curriculum, namely: Introduction to biology and evolutionary biology in 1st year, celular biology and genetics in 2nd year, and finally microbiology in 3rd year. Of course, we get far more than the basics depicted here, though she summarised the grasp of it pretty well.

@@podemosurss8316 I was not asking about 'it, but about you

@podemosurss8316. _…” 3 years of studying biology to understand how cells come to be “_ ??? Try again, podemos. Add up all the PhDs who have worked on this issue since Miller & Urey ( or since Shroedinger’s book “What Is Life”) and you get hundreds of thousands of years & we still don’t know how to do it.

@@teefkay2 Kind of? We know what constituting parts are fundamental for a cell, and those 3 years are for understanding the basics, not for knowing all about the topic.

Thanks for this important piece of information.

That is not the only reason. The other reason why Pasteur used the swan neck flask was because his critics claimed that boiling in a sealed jars spoiled air, destroying the Vital Force (vitalism) and thus prevented spontaneous generation. However, using an open system boiling, that used a fluid air lock, avoided these criticisms (vitalism persisted in England and Germany well after Friedrich Wohler synthesised Urea, which proved to most scientists that life is not made of special matter). In fact, Lazzaro Spallanzani also boiled broths and sealed the broths in jars in 1765, showing that the sterilised broths did not spoil, but his findings were eventually rejected because other scientists failed to rigorously repeat his experiment (they did not boil the broths sufficiently to kill durable bacteria spores, and the small spores were not visible under 18th-19th century microscopes). Also, vitalism resurged in popularity in the 18th century, so his critics also claimed boiling damaged the vital force and prevented spontaneous generation. In the end, Pasture's experiments did not end the belief in spontaneous generation, it remained accepted dogma among a stubborn circle of scientists in England and Germany, in particular, well after his seminal experiments; the British holdouts also rejected Darwinian Evolution (indeed, the brilliant Irish scientist John Tyndall repeated his experiments in Britain with great rigour, but even he failed to convince several stubborn influential British scientists). Rather, the belief in Spontaneous generation gradually faded towards the end of the 19th - early 20th century because scientists began to understand that life is extremely complex and even the most simple of organisms could not spontaneously form by chance. There was also, particularly in Britain, a growing belief in Evolution, which convicted many scientists that life gradually evolved from a simple to more complex forms, see Darwin's Warm Little Pond letter to J. D Hooker: "My dear Hooker, ... 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 &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." - Charles Darwin, 1871 The final end of Spontaneous Generation is considered to have occurred in 1924 upon the publication, by Alexander Oparin, of his influential hypothesis on the origin of life ... as a natural, gradual and stepwise process, a ladder of creation very similar to what we believe today. Oparin, A. I. Proiskhozhdenie zhizni. Moscow: Izd. Moskovskii Rabochii, 1924. (in Russian) English translation: Oparin, A. I. "The origin of life", translation by Ann Synge. In: Bernal, J. D. (ed.), The origin of life, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1967, p. 199-234 Refs.: Farley, J., 1972. The spontaneous generation controversy (1859-1880): British and German reactions to the problem of abiogenesis. Journal of the History of Biology, 5(2), pp.285-319. Farley, J., 1977. The spontaneous generation controversy from Descartes to Oparin. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

​@@DiamonddavejOMG... Did you copy paste wikipedia..?!??😆

​​​​@@martf1061 Us science guys often paste from Wiki. Just to make quick comments to clarify things for Joe Public. I post to dozens of videos every day

@@martf1061 I read a book. Farley's 1977 book, is one of best books I read. Really interesting to understand how many very good scientists explored and debated very difficult problems.

How reassuring, life has no meaning.

@@jayr526 well, it certainly is liberating.

@@jayr526 life has all the meaning we give it. Life is meaning.

​@@jayr526 would you rather have life have a meaning that you completely disagree with?

Metabolism cannot exist without a cell. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

Beauty is an evolved characteristic for survival. We are attracted to beauty as evolution leaves nothing important without an instinct. Being attracted to our surroundings makes us pay attention to them to find food and not be another's meal. We are attracted to the sky to tell what the weather is doing.

​@@bobs182evolution didn't happen!

@@iamBlackGambit Evolution doesn't "do" anything. Evolution is entirely passive as some living organisms survive while others don't survive.

@@bobs182 ok forget about the origin, dna exist you think order in dna is a product of evolution and chance?

@@iamBlackGambit DNA is a chemical process that acts the way it does in a specific set of circumstances. All atoms/molecules act in specific ways. Hydrogen and oxygen "know" how to combine forming water which has the emergent characteristic of wetness. Chemistry and physics are not chance, they describe specific ways that matter acts. Why don't you concern yourself about how a creator could have specific capabilities yet you can't accept that material knows how to act. The specific capabilities of your mind are due to the actions of the brain and the actions you attribute to god are an innate aspect of matter. You think your mind and brain are 2 independent entities so you want to separate the world into mind and matter. Everything is a noun and a verb as there is no object of matter without action of matter.

I don’t understand what you mean by being “the many worlds interpretation of organic chemistry”. In a “metaverse” made up of an infinite or near infinite number of universes, anything, including life will happen. In other words, everything including the unlikely event of life emerging, is explained purely in terms of time and chance. The emerging view of how life originated covered by Sabine in this video is that life is a result of natural and universal processes which occur when ever the right conditions are met, but not in multiple universes, but in this particular universe governed by particular laws of nature. This is why life in our universe may well be much more common than commonly believed. In other words, the emergence of life is not the result of some incredibly unlikely event occurring, but as a result of natural processes that can and does occur on a regular basis throughout this particular universe.

​@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913You left a great comment about "the many worlds interpretation" but then I see my reply below that suggests you posted something illogical, or that RU-vid slapped in the wrong name. So if you are not religious or illogical, I apologize. If you maybe said something resembling dogma, read on... Oh no! I just noticed the "pastor" in your username! 🤣😭🤪🤪 You probably also don't understand Pew Research's finding that USA's atheists are MORE RELIGIOUS than Western European CHRISTIANS. How to end these delusions? Get local control out of USA public schools. "Quickest way to prejudice, join a religion and everyone else is wrong. Modern Religion, groups exclusively male inventing traditions to control women, mostly, and everyone else. Religious people, science discovered, feel uncomfortable with ambiguity and prefer authoritarians like preachers, pundits, Popes, Trump, Hitler etc. That's how the incredibly religious community of Uvalde Texas got such stellar performance from law officers while a teenager slaughtered nineteen mostly ten year olds inside their school. - Steampunk Mark Plimsoll"

@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913 I think the analogy works roughly like this. The existence (or non-existence) of a "metaverse" doesn't adequately explain origin. Similarly the various approaches Sabine described are tantalisingly close but don't adequately resolve the origin of life question.

​@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913 The emergence of life may very well be common but *multicellular* animal lives' emergence is probably very rare.

@@solconcordia4315 Wasn't actually evolution from single cell to multicellular organism clearer process not looking that complicated? There are colonial organisms...

Right, hydrogen atoms. ANYTHING but intelligent design. And if there is intelligent design, its only ok of its aliens doing it. But never God. If its God, it means there are requirements apparently. If aliens wsntvus as slaves, we can live with that. But a God giving us 10 commandments means total rebellion.

Enters Optional Chronology : " Dear Cena , John, just wait and see those 15bln.+ hydrogen atoms start undoing themselves...oooooppsssiieee...."

@@aleksandrpeshkov6172 Nothing of what you just wrote makes any sense haha. Good job.

@@JohnCena8351 Enters Anti-Turing Test : " Dear John, Test Passed , Congratz..."

@@aleksandrpeshkov6172 passing an "Anti Turning Test" would make me a computer tho. And although the Ladies often call me one, I'm certainly not a machine.

I dont think they have opposite viewpoints necessarily, but simply gone over different data and evidences

If you torture the data enough, it will confess to anything

@@The0Yapster Another way to say that is if you are a bad scientist you can find ways to make the data fit your model, regardless of what the data says. That’s one of the defining traits of pseudoscience. But if you are a good scientist, you create falsifiable hypotheses and honestly try to evaluate if the data supports your model and if it doesn’t you try different hypotheses

If you’re talking about the same Anton I’m thinking of, he puts out a lot of bad science in general.

@@wallissimpson5414Anton Petrov? how so?

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

@@nadsenoj8719 It has been over ten years since I had a television plugged into an antenna and watched broadcast TV. It is long dead already for me.

it's simply dying out as the old generation dies.

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

Why would you watch TV, when you have RU-vid?

💯

Thanks, much appreciated!

@@SabineHossenfelderI know I’m late to this conversation, and I’m a simple man, not a professional scientist by any means. I do have a question though. If life is so prevalent then why from what I understand does it seem that all life on this planet has a single origin, so I’m told. I’ve heard the explanation that that life either prevented other life or out competed the others, but that doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. Even today, with a world that is teaming with competitive life it seems all the time I am hearing of new discoveries of ecosystems that have been isolated and evolved independently for many years. like in caves or deep underground or even isolated under many feet of ice, yet they all seem to be related somehow. As I said at the beginning I am a simple man, but I haven’t really heard a reason for this that seemed to make much sense to me. Just curious. Thanks for the video.🤗

​@@aaronwernz5788- Well, they developed on a long time-scale too. The first bacteria were born in a world full of simple proteins and free-floating organic compounds to consume, so they did. Once they came onto the scene, there were a lot less raw materials floating around for it to happen again. Also, although isolated ecosystems happen at our scale, many species of single-celled organisms are pretty much the same over the entire globe. Why? Because the wind carries them for miles.

Same here, pleasantly surprised to be reminded of those ideas! “We the expected”

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

We should think of autolytic networks as inevitable due how these chemicals interact. They are widely distributed because these chemicals always self organize in this way

She puts her sources behind a paywall on her Patreon :(

@@deithlan oh... Didn't know that thanks, I guess it's not a big deal since everything is mentioned on the videos but I don't know if there are exceptions that are in the Patreon's page

unfortunately, we're not seeing new microbes or whatsoever, every now & then, thru autocalytic processes yes, zero evidence

If you really want to understand the origin of life problem, take a look at some of the RU-vid videos produced by Dr. James Tour who is a Biochemist.

@@SpotterVideo James Tour is a hack who denies all science which does not agree with his interpretation of the bible don’t waste any time listening to that fool.

@@muzaffarkrylov2365 What? You follow religious nutcases poking holes in real science? That's how you advise others to spend thier time? I cannot believe you know or practice science, with your mean-spirited "kill the messenger" reaction to an interesting and provocative subject, published fearlessly in our religiously deluded endangered world (at least the biosphere, or maybe just crop-producing ecosystems...). Show us your sense of humor, if just as a sign of intelligent life.

​@@SpotterVideo that dude has already been exposed to be an idiot by professor Dave.

@@SpotterVideo Tour's religious agenda makes his conclusion suspect.

One has to aim at the top of the mountain in order to make the climb and receive the view !!

Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Miss, are you VEGAN? 🌱

​@@TheWorldTeacher vegetarian, as she mentioned in 'LOST IN MATH'. But vegan? She talked to much about cheese for that

​@@TheWorldTeacher a question we are able to formulate and ponder because our ancestors ate meat.

Yes, it's a pleasure 😊

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

I can sum everything she said in one sentence. We haven't a clue.

@@PlanetEarth3141 um, actually, we have a few clues, doomer.

​@@PlanetEarth3141 wow, you're a genius? Can you give me the recipe for the stuff you smoke?😮

@@MrAdamo Don't come for planet earth like that pls, she's got a lot on her plate rn

@@Thomas-gk42 No. Neither can anyone make you smarter.

It was stunning? It was stunningly stupid. Read the Bible before it's too late. Maranatha

​@@gerardmoloney433 dude no one cares about the bible anymore. we see it for what it is, garbage.

@@gerardmoloney433 It was no more than a repetition of a much-heard atheist story, which she supposedly explains scientifically.

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

@@hyperduality2838 what about just asexual creatures.

The core mistake was the belief the Greeks had that they could understand nature through intuition. You can't really blame the Greeks, because it's natural for all humans to assume that our intuition, our eyes, our ears, etc are reliable tools. Which is why Greek explanations for natural phenomenona survived for so long. It's only when the scientific method was born (that we can't trust our human intuition, senses, eyes, ears, etc), that real progress began to be made.

@@tylerdurden3722 The shadow of Aristotle loomed large for very long. It was not until real science began to be done in the Renaissance, that it was allowed to disagree with the great wise men of antiquity, Aristotle in particular. 'Ipse dixit' (he said it himself) was a common expression used by medieval scholars to justify their positions.

@@juanausensi499 Ah, so the original form of Source: I made it the fuck up

It’s the same problem now. Origin of life researchers (non-chemists) try to sell to the public and the media that they have the slightest clue on how life began, but real chemistry experts like Dr James tour debunk their claims pretty easily and makes them look like the fools they are ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-r4sP1E1Jd_Y.html

Yeah just like macro evolution today.

@Sal Spencer This argument makes no sense. Chemical reactions not generate computer programs, but take place in a completely natural environments.

@Sal Spencer The computer is a poor analogy but assuming that it somehow doesn't completely break down in 6 billion years, something may indeed happen. Cosmic rays do cause random bitflips in computers. Over such large time scales it is not crazy to think that some self replicating structure may spontaneously arise: -The memory will be full of random stuff due to the random bitflips accumulating. -The program counter will move randomly over it (usually just advancing forward, ocassionaly jumping when it hits a jump instruction or when a bitflip happens in the program counter itself). -So if any sequence of instructions that does make a copy of itself to other position and calls the copy exists anywhere in the memory (that can be written in surprisingly few instructions and can also happen in many different ways, infinite ways if you count superfluous instructions in between, not hard to happen at random), it will eventually run. -Once you have a self replicating program, it will continue running but bit flips due to cosmic rays/radiation will continue happening, most of them will not be beneficial and that copy won't run and will likely be eventually overwritten by copies that do run. -If some change makes a copy of the program more efficient, it will eventually dominate over the less efficient versions overwriting them in memory. -That may not only mean removing the superfluous instructions, but adding ones that target competitors, that make the program more resilient by for example writing it to disk. That adapt the behavior depending on the behavior of other copies. That keep track of the beneficial adaptions and pass them to the next copies. That indeed won't result in anything that looks like an operating system we are used to, but would look like quite similar to life. There is a whole area in computer science devoted to genetic algorithms in which programs do learn to do stuff in a vaguely similar way. Of course not by filling the computer memory with random stuff, that is too inefficient and we want fast results. But it still validates the idea that random changes+self replication+environmental pressures is enough to rapidly advance towards fairly optimal solutions.

@Muzaffar Krylov The chemical reactions in your body are also happening totally mindlessly without any direction. You are following a circular argument that makes no sense.

@Sal Spencer I heard that statement long ago, I'm a computer science student and I know many ways a program could evolve from simple rules and time. It's not a good argument and it makes real computer scientists look bad. Why is the layman always looking into science to confirm god's existence, why do they need that? Isn't enough to blindly believe it like the scriptures say?

@Muzaffar Krylov You say all these absolutes as if you’ve tested all possibilities. How arrogant of you to assume that a deity exists, and that it is your version out of the seemingly infinite versions. Science draws conclusions about the origin of our world and makes no claims about metaphysics. Whether a god exists or not, I’m sure they would want us to know as much about the universe as we can instead of drawing baseless conclusions, right?

Welcome!

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

I still have the book. It was one of the first comprehensive Theories for Abiogenesis. Oparin's proposed made brilliant educated guesses based in what was known at the time (1924 I think). Brilliant Soviet science.

😂 exactly.

Indeed, science has no clue only assumptions. Thank You Lord for creating this beautiful universe with the Earth, this wonderful place for us to dwell in. Thank You Lord for giving us life, the breath in our lungs, the wonderful capabilities of our bodies and brains, all praise to You and to Jezus Christ Your Son and through faith, our Lord and Saviour, and the Holy Spirit which You send down to us to dwell in us and help discern between right and wrong according to Your will for ever amen.

It confirms we have quite some ideas of how life could have originated. From cell level on it's a certainty the diversity of life on earth exists because of evolution.

@@kedrednael Can you prove that all life came from evolution of one miracle cell that was created? Whales, plants, insects, trees, birds, etc?

@@kedrednael actually no; no evidence has been provided for a universal common ancestry between all living organisms on Earth, not even between humans and the supposed common ancester with chimps or other apes. You are making a claim that not even the most knowledgeable scientists in the field of genetics or biology can truefully assert.

​@@gsincs All evidence points towards a common ancestor: - Fossil record shows species change over time. There are layers of rock in which currently living organisms are not found. The animals that are found seem to be changing quite gradually. Just look up bird or whale evolution, we have found a lot of interesting fossils of intermediate species which do not exist today anymore. - (Useless) genetic mutations are passed along certain lineages and can be tracked. - The way in which similar functioning organs work points toward the fact that they evolved in certain lineages and were passed down, with changes, to descendants. For example, life already split into different branches before eyes evolved for Cephalopods (squids etc) & vertebrates (mammals+birds+amphibians etc). Eyes evolved in both (and more than those 2) branches separately. In all those squids the retina is orientated in the sensible way, and they focus their eye by shortening/squishing their entire eye. In the other branch eyes evolved in such a way the wiring (axons) from the retinal neurons goes into the eye first, so these block light a slight little bit and it requires a hole in the retina for the wiring to pass back into the head into the brain, giving us a blind spot in each eye. And we focus by squishing only the lens of the eye. From evolutionary point of view this makes total sense. The organ performs its function well enough and are dependent on the ancestors, but the genes and its components/ how it achieves the function are different between branches. From a theological point of view it makes no sense. Religious people often point towards the eye as a perfectly designed organ which can't exist in another way and can't evolve step by step. But evidently that is false. We see intermediate steps of eyes in many organisms, and we see different ways in which eyes can exist. If God loves humans so much, and makes us in his image, why do humans have arguably worse eyes than some other animals? Why can our eyes suffer from retinal detachment so easy compared to the squids? From our lineage there are also examples of better eyes. For example, eagles can see sharper, some species can see polarization of light. If God is just making all life at once, why do these animals have organs that do the same thing, but they work in a different way depending on their apparent genetic lineage? If God wanted us to gaze upon its creation so much, why can we not even see all the colors/pigments that flowers have? Flowers and birds have ultraviolet pigments that are invisible to us, but visible to the birds. - Evolution just works. All you need is: 1. Some stuff that determines properties and can copy itself. 2. The copies sometimes contain mutations. 3. The properties determine copy chances. Evolution is not some crazy concept which is "just a theory". There is a whole field of effective machine learning with 'evolutionary algorithms' which apply those three steps and the results are things that we can not program ourselves. And we are also applying evolution in basically all fields of biology: Crops, domesticated animals, anti-biotics, virus investigation. But a common ancestor for plants and animals separately is harder to prove. All I can say on that part is, the scientist who spend their life work on analyzing the genetic code of organisms and other evidence conclude the evidence points toward a common ancestor for all multicellular life. Second (I hope you're still with me).. It wouldn't be a miracle cell; evolution also works on things smaller than a cell if the three rules I said above apply to them. Like quite short, loose RNA strands for example.

For a moment I thought you referred to her as Mrs. Hasselhoff... That would've been hilarious.

@@akapilka Ewww

@@numbersix8919 Germans love David Hasselhoff. It's a known fact.

… which proves my theory: germans love David Hasselhoff!

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

The bottom up approach _is_ what she humorously refers to as the many worlds interpretation of organic chemistry. Other than that I agree with you.

@@lucofparis4819 My point was that there *is* a preferred solution in principle when trying the bottom up approach (or possibly a couple), and these could be experimentally verified in a way it's not clear you could do with the many worlds interpretation. It's an issue of finding a needle in the haystack with costly guessing experiments rather than an issue of "we're not sure we can test this even in principle".

@@TheMelnTeam Wait, are you talking about the actual many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics rather than the joke Sabine made? In which case you may or may not be right. I say this because it's not entirely clear that the most likely chemical pathways that we eventually find - the proverbial needle - do not end up being several possible solutions that equally fit the data. In other words, it's not yet clear that there couldn't be multiple branches of possible pathways that could start out under the same initial conditions and environment, effectively mirroring the degree of theoretical underdetermination found in quantum mechanics.

Another problem is that it's probably not a single "crucible" giving rise to everything. There are a vast number of environments on Earth (even early Earth), and it's likely that chemical products from many different sources needed to intermingle together in order to get the necessarily complex chemical mix for life to kick-start. Any single experiment with a single set of conditions (thus producing a limited number of reactants) is unlikely to ever suddenly have proto-life appear in it, unless it's a LOT simpler than we currently know.

Plausible answers aren't authentic answers.

The RNA hypothesis isn't plausible. RNA needs to be kept at minus 80 degrees to prevent it from spoiling. At room temperature, RNA breaks down as fast as milk. Within a hours it is rotten and useless.

​@@sentientflower7891 Plausible answers aren't **confirmed** answers. But they're the first step in that direction!

RNA world might be the answer to the hypothesis of how the modern form of life evolved from a more primitive form. However, it fails in the life-origin hypothesis.

@@KalebPeters99 Medical science is packed with the skeletons of plausible answers later found to go nowhere. A plausible answer is NOT an answer.

Yup! I'd like to go out for a beer with a few of those people. Would make for some really interesting conversation. Finally got some people smart enough to shift away from this insane focus on reproduction. Reproduction might be something that came about (later?) for energy-conservation purposes, but I don't think reproduction or evolution are key criteria for classifying something as life. I can easily imagine a lifeform that is the only one of its kind, and immortal. It may even evolve, but doesn't need reproduction for that. Metabolism is a key criterion. Stuff like growth, response to stimuli, maintenance of homeostasis, adaptation to the environment (for one organism) could be seen as aspects of metabolism. Take, for instance, reptiles. They are cold-blooded, so in order to maintain homeostasis they have to bathe in the sun for heat, and if it's too cold, they hibernate. There's response to stimuli, maintenance of homeostasis, and adaptation right there. And it all has to do with intaking, consuming, and conserving energy. We can self-thermoregulate to a certain extent, but if your metabolism is slow (like, if you have hypothyroidism), that capacity is reduced. Growth is likewise trivially about energy. Meaning when you strip all these things down, they can be subsumed under metabolism.

Does she really make it less profound though? Or does she just make it more understandable? The more I understand this stuff, the more profound it seems.

I think this is a sincere compliment ..??

@@koho I think you’re right, but his comment could be perceived either way, based on the wording.

I wonder if it is a zero sum game. Once one approach to life takes hold, it dominates making it difficult for other approaches to take hold.

That is a true and has concerned me too, there should be new forms of life emerging daily!!

Life replicates and consumes resources while doing so. The first forms would dominate then compete with each other -- not leaving behind much for new experiments.

@@audiodead7302 That's probably what happened. Or it could be we just don't notice other stuff, like Archaebacteria weren't discovered for a long time.

@@tomspencer1364 Classic 'first mover' advantage.

Ok, thankfully I'm not the only one.

Or "It's Alie!"

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

it appears the odds of those favourable aspects individually, that current science and technology can detect or guesstimate, are somewhere in the range of better than 1/1000, with some more likely than 1/100. Even if the odds of all those aspects combining for a planet are somewhere in the range of 1/100,000 to 1/1000,000,000, then if they are enough for life, there is a plethora of life in the universe. However, assuming the speed of light is a hard limit, then time and distance is a huge (insurmountable in our life times) obstacle to detecting it unless we get fantastically lucky. That's just assuming life must be similar to the stuff on Earth, which as very sound, for now, Best Wishes. ☮

Venus many of those conditions for some time, and Mars had many of them for a very short time. Life is likely more common on icy moons than it is on terrestrial planets, due to tidal forces with their host planets, liquid water sub-oceans, and thick, protective ice doing similar work to that of a magnetic field. In fact, our sun may not be the best type of star for life, as K-type main-sequence stars may be slightly better.

The "how" question is rather important.

Oh they're still getting their talking points to be faux outraged about today from NewsMax and Twitter, soon they'll go-to RU-vid and then they might see this and get triggered more. I'm sure Answers in Genius, Flashpoint, and Ken Ham will be picking at this soon enough.

Me too!❤❤❤❤

Chemistry and physics...

​@@binkwillans5138 To out-pedant you: Chemistry IS Physics. It's just another term for "the physics that happens between atoms"

Yet we can't reproduce it in a lab. No reason to think it is inevitable.

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

Micells form spontaneously from lipids in water, and they tend to enguld RNA.

RNA is insanely fascinating and certainly played an enormous role in the origin of bacterial life. Not only is it an information storage molecule, some RNA molecules (ribozymes) have catalytic abilities, and others are part of protein synthesising machines (ribosomes) or play other roles in protein synthesis (transfer RNA). It's no wonder that RNA is becoming an increasingly hot topic in the life sciences as well, given the boubdless potential for new RNA-based therapies.

Top down is dual to bottom up synthesizes RNA. A is dual to T, C is dual to G -- DNA bases. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- hydrogen bonding. The double helix should be called the dual helix as the code of life is dual. Yin is dual to yang. Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle, plants, trees) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle, higher lifeforms, mammals). Bi-stability implies duality. Multi cellular life is synthesized from single cell life via the Hegelian dialectic -- the duality of the Krebs cycle. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children or offspring. The Hegelian dialectic explains why there are two dual sexes in nature. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. DNA is built from hydrogen bonds or water -- Duality.

@@tonyabrown7796 James Tour is an ignorant creationist who has been totally debunked by Professor Dave Farina with the help of the very most top notablers in Genetic Evolution. You're deluded.

@@tonyabrown7796 James Tour... the guy who's been decimated on the subject of abiogenesis by multiple scientists working in the field... 'should watch'... lol