Origin of life research is a scam | Lee Cronin and Lex Fridman 

Absolute facts.

Lee Cronin was wrong with his prediction....buhuuu...Yet he still contributes to solve the mystery regarding the ool by putting in actual research work. He activly investigates the pathways by which abiogenesis may have occurred over millions of years on a prebiotic Earth. The task of origin of life research is to elucidate plausible pathways in which each step can have taken place, and firmly demonstrate their plausibility. That is what Cronin does on a daily basis. Whereas Tour...misrepresents said research and appeals to the God he happens to believe in: "I don't know the details I know what the scriptures say that everything has been created by Him everything and the details of this I don't know.”…..” I don't know enough about an atom to know really what's happening here but there's no doubt that he sets this things up “ Jimmy Tour “If you are a believer and you have never believed really in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ just a spiritual I'm calling you right back to what the scriptures say we must believe in his resurrection and his resurrection was not a spiritual thing it was a physical thing so physical that the disciples died because of this died for this testimony it is physical and if you've drifted away from the Lord I'm calling you back this day the Word of God is true every word in this book is true every word let everything else be a lie this book is true long after you're dead and gone this this word will remain because it's true this book is true this was a prophecy and it's just piled upon fact upon fact evidence upon evidence how much more would you like to understand that this book is true to bow before God and to say Lord thank you for your word oh how I love his word oh how I love the Bible it is true every word in the Bible is true” Jimmy Tour Jet he pretends that it is all about science...when it is demonstrably not. You are ok with this? What exactly is your problem with Cronin that trumps the mendaciousness and infamy of Tour?

@@derhafi I must have been out of town the day they announced the monumental contributions to science made by Cronin.

@@Jim-mn7yq Did I say "monumental contributions" no, I did not. Cronin contributes to solving the actual mystery, whereas Tour managed to provide us with misrepresentations, lies and irrelevanvies in regards to ool research. How is it that you more time and passion for intelectual vandalism than for actual science? How is it that you close your eyes before the mountain of lies Tour told?

@@derhafi 100 years from now, people such as Cronin will be viewed very much the way we currently view alchemists. And as far as a "mountain of lies" it was Cronin not Tour whose mouth cut a check that his scientific bank account couldn't cover.

@@Jim-mn7yq Cronin leaned a bit too far out of the window with his anouncements...Tour is a demonstrable liar. When Tour lies about "peptides can not form in water" and peer-reviewed papers are presented that outline Tours lies, does your brain just shut off? When Tour got asked: "Do you agree that this research shows replicators that evolve by natural selection, because it does?!" and Tour straight out publicly lies, whilst confronted with the research...Do you just doze off? What about the time Tour lied about Lee Cronin's quote? Cronin made a not serious comment "OOL research is a scam" in an article. Reading the article clearly showed the comment wasn't serious. A week later Cronin clarified further in an interview the comment was a humorous "tongue-in-cheek" one. Tour read the original article, saw the interview but still pushed the lie as if Cronin actually thinks OOL research is a scam. Classic lying by Tour. There is really no way for you or Tour to justify such wilful dishonesty. But you found one, didn’t you? When he whines in length about how "we are nowhere close to understanding "because every year we find out the cell is more complex than it was the year before" as if modern cells have anything to do with the topic. What exactly in going ion in your head at this moment? What exactly are you thinking when Jimmy Tour insists that in order to substantiate abiogenesis as a viable process, we need to build a living cell from scratch using exclusively prebiotic chemistry. He likes to show slides with eukaryotic cell in his sermons at this point, something which didn't evolve until at least 2 billion years after live existed on Earth. Are you thinking at all in those moments or what is going on? I'm genuinely asking! When he lied about "not being able to vet" the age of the earth...even though , before he has given himself to the Discovery Institute, he has described that the questioning of radiometric dating as "unscientific" and "unfair". In the same Article btw in which he publicly announced his lack of scientific integrity when it comes to faith. What about when he lied about "red blood cells" found in dinosaur fossils and how the scientific community "wants to keep that a secret" because of its alleged implications? It is a blunt lie again. All those findings are published and up for scrutiny by specialists, as it is custom in a scientific enquiry. These palaeontologists have identified a chemical pathway - well known in food science but not seen before in palaeontology - that may be the key to long-term preservation of soft-tissue structures. He makes it sound as if there was still a juicy steak on the bones. When in reality it was in fact soft tissue structures and some collagen fibres. This is enough for Tour to act, in a clear attempt to misguide his audience, as if this is enough to overturn all dating methods at our disposal. Which is nonsense and not how science works, which he knows. He continues saying that he “hasn’t seen a good explanation for this” Well, that is what happens when you don’t look for one. Are those enough lies or shall I go on. There is plenty more?!! - Why has Tour shown to be incapable of understanding how to read a Ribose-Borate spectrum? - Why does Tour not know how soap works? - Why did Tour continue to insist college level textbooks portray the primordial soup model as a sludge which self assembles into creatures that slither from the prebiotic pool? - Why did Tour call Szostak a liar, misrepresented his nature article, pretend to have apologized, and subsequently call his work nonsense without substantiation? - Why did Tour lie about Donna Blackmond her paper on homochirality? - Why did Tour quotemine Cronin, misrepresented Cronin's use of the classic formose reaction, and utterly lied about his tweet? - Why does Tour pretend to be an open minded scientist when he actively dissuades from going into the field of OoL, calling it nonsense, despite getting everything wrong? Could it be because of his ties to the Discovery Institute: The Christian creationist pseudoscience organization responsible for the wedge strategy? Tour has his own dedicated page there linking to his religious sermons and podcasts whining about abiogenesis and evolution. He signed their pseudoscientific dissent from Darwin. Even in the debate, he deceitfully redefined what constitutes a valid scientific hypothesis by smuggling in gapless proof and DI vocabulary: "Specified Information". Tour thinks God made this universe and life itself, he believes every word in the bible to be true and he publicly said that his faith and belief trump over scientific evidence. If you think this is irrelevant to his demonstrable lies he spills out, over specific fields of science that contradicts his belief...than you are delusional. He is a lying apologetic with a degree practicing intellectual vandalism.

As far as the Standard model is concerned, we got there on the 12 of July 2012

@@derhafi no, we're still looking for gravitons.... and that might change when we fiy discover unification theory

@@yassasloan7308 Yes...however my point stands, besides the many things we don't know, there are some things we do know-and that includes the identity and behaviour of all of the pieces underlying the world of our everyday experience. We don't we need just one more particle and we're there. We are there.

Exactly. Wishful thinking.

the two felds of study have an origin in their establishment which is that theyre made up for lack of a betteer way of saying it. They try to blend real physics with their metaphysics and thry try to blend abiogenesis with modern biology.

I almost made this exact same comment but decided to check if someone beat me to it. Fun fact: First person to ever drive a car (over a significant distance) was in fact a woman. Carl benz's wife Bertha

@@CHURINDOK who knew she was part asian

Lee knows they are clueless on the OOL. At this point he just pretends they know more than they actually do because he's too proud to admit that his entire career has been absolutely worthless. I feel for him.

He's not. he's a scientist. ID is pseudo scientific nonsense.

@@magnetar28 There's always science.....there's a case there that doesn't involve presupposing a deity. ID is pseudo science- there is no case to be made.

lmao watch his debate with James Tour he just had. The guy sends so many mixed messages.

No, you are just thinking in a fallacious way. Lightnings were once produced by an invisible man in the sky. Now life is?

@@alexnik1181 FICTION: lightning bolts can strike a pool of prebiotic minutiae and manifest a quaternary 4 billion unit self-correcting self-replicating bioinformatic system complete with ribosomes, vesicles, enzymes, proteins, ATP. You probably thought some scientist somewhere has a coherent theory about how biology began! 😂 too much funny

I was thinking the same. You know what tho, I respect Lee way more now for taking it on the chin and getting back up.

The demonstrable liar James Tour taught us all a lesson....which was: He will stick to his script of lies no matter what. hH is deliberately misleading his audience, and his rhetoric always follows the same pattern. This molecule? Nobody knows how to make it. Oh they made it? Well they can’t make the building blocks. Oh they can? Well they aren’t enantiopure. Oh, homochirality has been explained? Then they bought their starting material. Irrelevant? Well their setup isn’t prebiotic. Oh it is? Then I’ll just baselessly call the study “hype” so that the viewer will reject it on faith without having a clue what it says. Jimmy Tour will always redirect to his desperate script in order to avoid addressing research that is inconvenient for him, just like any other creationist.

James Tour always likes to pretend he wins debates and breaks people. He usually just ends up embarrassing himself.

@@chbu7081 You’re a hater bro! It’s ku tho. We hold these truth to be self evident, that you are made by your creator with certain unalienable rights. No creator, no unalienable rights….you want to live in a world where your rights are a privilege? Tsk talk tsk.

​@@MR-G-Rod hehehe, watch James Tour at Havard. 😂😂😂 Oeffff. That was painful to watch. He really doesn't have a single clue and he doesn't have good intentions.. But he... as long as you can believe in a God that made it all, everything goes.

What does that mean? I am new to this subject.

Yes we never ever ever discovered something in the lab.... Oh... wait... 😅

@@inajosmood Life will never be recreated in a lab in the way scientists fantasize about abiogenesis. They arent even close.

Lol no. He explains why the scam thing is about stimulating research and breaking specific habits of biochemists he otherwise absolutely respects

And how does that apply to everywhere else. whatever that “else” may be? You assume a uniformity that maybe can’t be provided.

i will give you all the ingredients needed to make a cell.. sadly i can not give you the software to run it. that can only be given by God..

He has been on

@@jankopandza1072 Which God would that be? humans have invented literally thousands up to this point.

@@bradwhelan4466 i believe you are talking about deities = those that are part of our material real = those with birth and death trough out many cultures .. God in terms of singular and in terms of genuine God = the creator of material structure by default can not be bound to it.. it would be like saying that when i as human make a TV or a Radio i am bound to it or that the radio can define me or explain me :) i believe you are indeed talking about deities = beings that we humans have made up trough out his story ..i am talking about the spring the source of all not bound by its creation but outside of the creation same like you are out side of everything you create as a human being.. and we have created many many things so far.. are you bound to them ? do they define you ? can they define you ? .. see my point.. its easy..

Yes, but you can reverse engineer stuff that's been engineered. We need to keep that in mind.

If you reverse engineer it, who engineered it in the first place?

We can barely even sequence a genome and this dude thinks we're going to create a cell from prebiotic chemicals lol

Do you think one failed prediction by one reseracher adds any merit to the idea that some ill-defined mysterious deity had a hand in the origin of life? Seriously?

@@derhafi just wanted to emphasise the reliability of statements made by Lee Cronin, see his "assembly theory" which Dr Zanil dismantled a week later, if you see any gods there it's your problem...

It doesnt need to be an outright scam to be a disingenuous enterprise by all its leading figures.

Once thought about literally every bit of technology we have today.

Almost like Elon Musk with Mars, Hyperloop, solar roofs, Tesla Semi, Cybertruck..... Oh, and full self driving 🤣😂🤣😂

It was a scam, pay attention

A good thinker will respond to the ideas, not the person who gave the ideas. I expect better thinkers from Lex’s community

Now he says “artificial life” using pre-existing life to make life? Even I know, Is not life.

@@517hectorhernandez Artificial life in the market place!

Glad to see somebody see somebody here sees through Mr Cronin's bullshit. Agreed

It might not be absurd, but Cronin more or less admits they are nowhere close. That's the jist of his analysis. He said there are so many requirements that haven't been met yet.

@@Chris-qg8ss "It might not be absurd, but Cronin more or less admits they are nowhere close" Even if there was no progress for the last 50 years at all in this field...abiogenesis would still have no credible alternative. Chemistry would still be real and the natural world would still be all that has a demonsreable correaltion with reality.

@@derhafi Very sad Rob. It’s clear he’s saying abiogenesis has produced nothing because the chemistry doesn’t work. There is no more evidence for life starting on its own then God so you can stop that nonsense. Did you not catch him saying there is a lot more information outside of the genome that is required for life? That’s design more than bling luck. Hate to tell you but creation always is always shown through science not the other way around.

@@tedbundy2379 well chemicals are real. god is not. so....

@@seeya101oliASWHDFIL "when you see things that have this type of complexity, you know it was seeded by intelligence of some kind" Complexity is not the hallmark of design and you are making a textbook arfument from personal incredulity here. "Any other conclusion is ignorance" Adorable, but this is fallacious and simply epistemological garbage. "That's the most rational conclusion until we can gather evidence to prove otherwise." Sure....according to you, some ill-defined God/metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.........is the "most rational conclusion" here....do you sometimes listen to yourself? " until we can gather evidence to prove otherwise" undetectable fantasies with no demonstrable correaltion with reality are not responsible until we have evidence for anything else...sory buddy but that is not how anything works. "Why is it so hard for you folks to admit the obvious?" The only thing obvious here, is that you have a mind severely damage sense of realty.

Or those in the third camp seem to be supporting intelligent design

@@miguelatkinson Good point.

in addition, replicating life is not quite the same with replicating the origin of life

@@bogdanpopescu1401 Bingo!

So that he can run through his script of demonstrable lies?

@@derhafi right, so that you'd have the opportunity to ruin his career with an angry comment under the video.

@@krypteral Tour has ruined his carreer over the last few years with his unhinged YT videos in which he choose to publicly lie about 2 entire fields of science. This man really did not need anyones help to obliterate his reputation. Religion poisons everything...Tours mind is on that list.

Just wait for next 15 year

Professor Dave Farina.

Dave Farina and the data gathered by people that have decades of experience in the biology and Nobel Prizes under their belt, you know those who wrote the 30+ peer review papers which, linked to Farinas video which clearly renders Tour as the liar that he is.

We do not know the exact chemical pathway...is not the same as: Abiogenesis, the notion that life arose by natural means, has a cedible alternative. Because it has not.

back then we also didnt know what bacteria was, it does no harm to understand the universe and our own existence just bc we dont know smth doesnt mean we shouldnt look into it and make up a fairytell

@@derhafi again internet individuals trying to make not understandable things as understandable.. let me destroy your premise with facts. even if we knew and we do not know how.. so even if we knew what CHEMICAL process is needed in order to make the HARDWARE for life.. we have not got a CLUE about what RUNS that hardware.. aka the software behind the hardware.. i do understand that like so many maybe you think that all we need is a hardware :) and that is to some point cute .. but when you pass age of puberty in certain science fields then you understand what exactly do we know and what exactly do we have NO clue about. also here is a fun fact. from 2003 onwards over 83 % of science pier review papers in the world are today proven to be false / falsified aka not repeatable . why is that so ? well when corporate money comes from corporate hands then "scientist" in order to keep getting the founds just use falsified data. That is how the science "world " works mate. All here are written indisputable facts . Easy to check !!

@@bakedwafflesss back then we used to think the world was flat.. recently we believed in evolution .. things change the only question is can you handle the new discoveries ore are you stuck in old ideas , theories.. today we understand that theory of evolution is a religion. to be more exact it is by far more hard core religion then most mainstream theological religions . this religion is ready to cancel people to shit their work down to remove intelligent people from speaking... so a very dangerous religion to be honest

@@derhafithat’s simply just your own conjecture. It’s ok to say “we don’t know”.

10/10 😅😅😅

Except that it no more matters that "god' created us than it matters that a child creates a painting. A greater mystery than abiogenesis is why so many people think God comes pre-fitted with his own significance...like we are supposed to care? How could intelligent design matter when the designer obviously doesn't care about us?

The standard explanation for your query is that once cellular life emerged, it ate all the precursors. Convenient but plausible.

Your comments provides several interesting possibilities.

"How comes with all our knoladge we cant create life from scratch " There are many things we can't do...The fact that we don't know the underlining chemical pathways and processes might be the main reson why. We don't even have a universally agreed upon definition of life yet. Further are we talking about a peocess that most likely took a vast time span....so, how is this puzzeling you? "how can someone possibly say it actualy happened as accident billion years ago?" Because there are things we actually DO know...like the age of the earth, the age of the oldes fossils...literally all the evidence points to life naturally happening billions of years ago.

​@@derhafi just curious what do you think in approximately how many years scientist will able to recreate first self replicating evolving cell in lab

@@pauldirc.. Possibly never. I neither know nore care.

" I think the nature of life's origin is so generically inevitable, that even neutron stars have some and that it precedes the creation of the universe itself"And an what exactly do you base this rather bold thought on? Also, what credible alternative do you have to chemistry, when it comes to life?

​@@derhafi Hi and thankss for calling me out. Needless to say my comment was highly speculative, but it was not completely detached from reality lol. The reason I said the things I said comes down to my attempt to simulate abiogenesis in the abstract ie without some a priori chemical/physical basis. Basically I instantiated a "self evident" general information selection paradigm which I thought imbued information evolution with something similar to natural selection to the point certain domains of information had no choice/upper bound but to entropically trend toward something lifelike. Eliding the details, the abiogenesis sim seem to have aspects of cosmogenesis eg multiverse inflation, dark energy matter, emergent physics, so It seemed fitting to attribute life like potentialities to all orders of information given the same principle was implicit in all too. To show it was not just my imagination - although there is some of that - the various sims made some interesting predictions like fundamental coupling value optimizing inflation is around 1/24, that dark matter is an information relic from inflationary epoch, dark matter and energy are different information phases of the same thing, that cores of black holes are equivalent information wise to information outside of a universe etc Ultimately I'm kind of saying deep down abiogenesis and cosmogenesis are somewhat equivalent at the information level, and I'm still trying to test it computer wise like a lunatic lol...

@@blengi "my attempt to simulate abiogenesis in the abstract ie without some a priori chemical/physical basis............" Sounds as if you make things much MUCH more complicated than they need to be.....abiogenesis was a particular set of chemical reactions. That's it and this notion, that only chemistry happened back then, has no credible alternative. Every so called “alternative” to natural causes for the life we see today relies on the existence and interference of some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. " I'm kind of saying deep down abiogenesis and cosmogenesis are somewhat equivalent at the information level" Why wouild you make such a unfounded claim? No they are not. Well, both are part of the natural world, both are origins of a sort but that's about it. Again, you make things much MUCH more complicated than they need to be...Without knowing exactly what's going on in either, I assure you: Chemical reactions are on a different level than whatever physics happenes when an universe forms. Tell me, you don't have any formal scientific education, do you?

​@@derhafi Hi again. It's not complicated at all, sim is based on 3 axioms instantiated via a smallish code loop which essentially randomly partitions a generic object abstraction which is an implicitly recursive representation of reality per the axioms. The power of entropic compactification of information naturally sorts things into different domains of complexity some self perpetuating others less so implying darwinian like natural selection over variation before chemistry or physics even come to be in various partitioned domains . Fortunately my "unfounded claims" ie what my sims produces, makes testable predictions per the monte carlo statistics they generate eg the 1/24 fundamental coupling (not dissimilar from some mssm models) which optimizes inflationary rates of cosmogenesis and other information integrations and phase transitions eg dark matter being an information relic from inflationary phase and dark energy phase transitions initiating pre big bang inflationary dynamics... Obviously you don't have to believe me lol, but that won't stop my simulations evolving interesting information configurations from simple first principles on my computer for me to interpret and mathematically analyze....

@@blengi "It's not complicated at all" I did not say that it is complicated...I said you make it more complcated that this needs to be and you are still doing it it seems. "Obviously you don't have to believe me lol" Obviously...yes. How about you pack it into a paper and submit it to peer review? I genuinly wish you good luck with that!

hmmmm, what do you mean by novel life. I'm not sure what the oldest organism is but lets say the first cell/bacteria is the oldest life. do you mean new life with no derivative that isn't a cell or bacteria?

@@MrDreadEnd Yes exactly, why aren't new derivatives being created, with no genetic lineage to us. Or even, why isn't the first ever organism being recreated over and over but with slightly different constituents. I'm asking that rhetorically btw, as asking that question should lead to a much more productive framing.

@@FightTheByte_ I think we don't see knew derivatives because they are likely displaced by current derivatives. Like a bacteria optimized for its environment isn't going to give way to a less evolved spontaneous counterpart. I also think Settings for new life to emerge are not accessible

@@FightTheByte_ All life on earth is related. Evolved life on Earth is always going to be related to us. The first single-celled organism at the bottom of the oceans has long been outcompeted by more viable forms. Life only appears due to reproduction, there's no way for it to be "created", again and again. How was it then "created" the first time? It evolved from a more rudimentary set of self-replicating molecules. Well, that's one of the hypotheses anyway.

In what way?

Tour is a moron.

Do you think one failed prediction by one reseracher adds any merit to the idea that some ill-defined mysterious deity had a hand in the origin of life? Seriously?

No we have to believe in the certainty of science as it pertains to our origins because if it were ever to be shown or even considered that we are wonderfully made by a loving creator, then it might lead to pesky little things such as inalienable rights and our globalist elite cant have that!

That is, after all, what he does.

What do you meran by "information problem"? Information is a derived property. Information is what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. Nothing more. In the case of DNA it is a sequence of nucluides which contains the information for protein sequences. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and ribonucleic RNA determines the amino acid sequence of proteins. Proteins are macromolecules made of amino acids. An amino acid is made of even smaller units called codons. Different orders of codons will lead to different amino acids. Different chains of amino acids will form different proteins. That’s it. Seems there is only an "information problem" if you imagine one.

_"And information problem is still the biggest challenge"_ Why? You don't need to start with 'Information' - just a random sequence of symbols - if they do something useful, they are preserved and *become* Information - otherwise they disappear. *Origin of Information.* Here the term *'Accidental Choice Remembered'* comes to mind. As with 'Self-Replicating Systems' no intelligent agent is involved. Stephen Meyer often references Information Theorist, *Heny Quastler* when talking about the origin of information. In the book published the year after he died, Quastler describes in a section called _'Emergence of Information',_ how a _'prebiological polynucleotide system'_ could create new information by a natural process: *the preferential polymerization of complementary double-stranded polynucleotides (like RNA or DNA), which will be more stable if they pair with a complementary strand.* This natural, *accidental* process *creates new information.* Quastler, writes: _"...[T]he primarily meaningless [nucleotide] sequence _*_acquires very definite meaning_*_ as soon as it becomes imperative that it be followed faithfully; _*_information has emerged through the accident_*_ of a particular single strand becoming the ancestor of the system..."_ In other words - as soon as a particular new nucleotide sequence has become an integral part of the RNA/DNA strand - it will be passed-on to all descendants. He finishes the section: _"It must be emphasized that _*_the emergence of information out of noise_*_ is not the same as the unmasking of information present in noise... In the latter case, the information was there, although hidden; in the former, it was not there at all. ....the necessity for faithful complementation would exist even if the choice of the original sequence were _*_completely random._*_ The _*_'accidental choice remembered' is a mechanism of creating information_*_ and very different in nature from mechanisms of discovering information."_ Remember that term *'Accidental Choice Remembered'.* Quastler's work foretold later work by 'origin of life' researchers who have since discovered that short RNA strands will assemble when nucleotides come into contact with the surfaces of *Montmorillonite clay* that act as catalytic templates. When any random but non-IethaI sequence of nucleotides arises - it represents *new genetic information* for later generations. No inteIIigence needed to create it - and none needed to use it - all of a cell's 'molecular machinery' (ribosomes, heIicase, polymerase, etc) - simply produce output molecules (proteins, m RNA, etc) based on the input sequence - just as the pattern on fabric is output when holes punched into a card are fed into a Jacquard loom. Quastler gives a simple analogy: _"A humble way of originating information furnishes an exact analog to the presumed situation in the case of the nucleic acid system: this is the instance of information emerging by the choosing of a number-combination to unlock a safe. It does not matter how the combination was originally selected - wisely, by culling it from a table of random numbers, or unwisely, by using a guessable sequence such as birth date or telephone number. What matters is that before the combination is set into the lock, every number sequence is exactly as gѻѻd as every other one (namely, no gѻѻd!), and after it has been set, one sequence is useful and all others are useless. _*_Thus the choice of a sequence and the subsequent implementation of the choice by setting the lock have created information."_*

@@derhafi Actually it’s a the biggest problem that they have 10 million $ in Evo 2.0 as prize for who answer the origin of life and genetic information

That's not what he said at all...

Apparently you either didn't actually listen to the video, or you have serious issues with comprehension.😢😅

The Bible tells adults children’s stories to make sense of the sky and death and stuff. Pointless comparison.

@@stemfourvisual you’ve been hurt, it’s okay. There’s a lot of interesting stories from past religions

Maybe if you were studying geology or evolution this conflict would be more apparent.

Other religions give other answers to a why question. How do you decide which one is correct?

@@stemfourvisual And what is science? :P

@@moneyxl00 Then life should be spontaneously happening from scratch in nature, all the time, without the intervention of scientists. Matter should turn into organic life all by itself. And that is not what scientists witness. Only then it will have been proven that it araised by itself. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't completely exclude that life on earth could have started by alien intervention.

That is an interesting way to say "I don't know how scientific experiments work. I can put water under conditions it will turn to ice in my freezer….according to your “reasoning” that proves that it takes an intelligent agent to make ice…That’s how mo++++c your line of “reasoning” is.

@@Sams.Videos " Then life should be spontaneously happening from scratch in nature, all the time, without the intervention of scientists." Yes buddy....should that happen nowadays, there is something here that wasen't when life originated: Other life which considers it food. NOt to mention that the conditions on earth have changes a bit in the last 4 billion years. Remind me...what is your alternative to a naturalistic origin of life again? Does it involve an ill-defined metaphysical entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science??

​@@derhafi What you fail to understand is that life doesn't spontaneously appears randomly from scratch in nature. You need specific laboratory conditions to make it happen. Water on the other side freezes all the time in nature. You don't need a lab to make it happen under strict conditions. Water freezing is an observable process that continuously happens in nature. The appearance of life from scratch is not such a thing. It has never been observed in nature as such. Another thing is that it lacks understanding to compare water freezing to the the appearance of life. Both are completely different occurrences. One is way more complex than the other. One is just water, the other is a living organism. I doubt you consider your life of equal value to the ice in your soda. 🙄

@@Sams.Videos "What you fail to understand is that life doesn't spontaneously appears randomly from scratch in nature." I did not even imply anything like a sponatniouse appearence of life, neither does anyone in ool research. But, nice strawman you got there. "You need specific laboratory conditions to make it happen" Yes. Laboratory conditions, in this case, are the closes approximation to the conditions on earth when life first appeared. What you fail to understand is how experiments work. One simulates the natural condition in a lab..if you want to see when nature changes the state of aggregation of water from liquid to solid you recreate those conditions in a lab, you freeze it down. You are right, you don't need a lab in that case but YOU NEEN TO RECREATE THE CONDITIONS the water experiences in nature. That's what labrotories are for. Laboratory: A facility that provides controlled conditions in which scientific or technological research, experiments, and measurement areperformed. OOL researchers do the same with their work, they recreate the conditions we most likely had on a prebiotic earth and see what the available chmicals where up to under said conditions. AGAIN: That is how experiments in a lab work...science 101, I'm really buffeled that such an moro**c argument gets repeated wothout reflecting on it for about 2 seconds. "Another thing is that it lacks understanding to compare water freezing to the the appearance of life." I am using this example to let you in on the obviouse fact that recreating natural conditions is the job of a lab in this instance, given that you display severe problems in understanding this simple fact. You should be embarrassed that you are not getting this. Not to mention that there is a lot of work done in the field, in hot springs and underwater volcanoes due to their simularity of a prebiotic earth. " One is way more complex than the other." Maybe that's why we figured out the ice thing already. Could this be the reason, what do you think? OOHH the ORIGIN of life "has never been observed in nature as such" really? Are you surprised that nobody was there to watch THE FIRST LIFE on this planet. If only we had special institutions that would let us allow to recreate the conditions from back then under a controlled enviroment to step by step figure out possible chemical pathways from chemicals to biological systems.....hmmmm

"Our science is currently set up to work with dead matter and not life" Finding out how matter managed to become alife is what abiogenesis does. "The spiritual scientists have known this a long time" There is no such thing as a "spiritual scientists "

​@@derhafi there are many scientists who believe in a creator. If you are saying that a "real" scientist cannot believe in a creator, is that not a dogma? Or a doctrine? Why can you not be both? Unless science in general has become a faith based religion in its own right. This is an actual question. Not a correction. Im just curious what you mean by that.

@@ericlove8716 No matter who, or how much somebody believes in a "creator" that does not make this "creator" real. "If you are saying that a "real" scientist cannot believe in a creator" No, I'm saying the moment you appeal to something with no demonstrably correaltion with reality, that is the moment you stop doing science. "Why can you not be both?" Because science does not deal in fantasies...because science is the exact opposite of a " faith based religion " It is a method to seperate truth from fiction based on emperical evidence.

Nature did not start with nothing.

@@derhafi What did nature start with? And where did that come from?

@@robertlester4569 Nobody knows in detail...so why are you making things up about it?

@@derhafi What did I make up about it?

@@robertlester4569 You are right, you did not. If you believe in an alternative origin of life, to a naturalistic one, you believe in nonsense other people made up.

Probably. And then it could come to a point where we start thinking we’re also lab made. Just like the simulation theory. If we can make it, we could have been made too. As much as I understand your concern as its kinda scary to artificially produce life in labs, it’s 2022 are we really surprised?

@@djclarkcant9880 Not surprised, as I remember Dolly the sheep back in the day. Science will give us everything and also inadvertently take it away I fear. Everyone seems to be more worried about "if" we can do something instead of "should" we do it.

Well, they are trying to make a damn living cell. A lot smaller than what your question might entail.

Exactly..like a lying, misleading, savage without a trace of scientific integrity.

That is laughably untrue, James Tour has been exposed and even humiliated on multiple occasions.

Sort of the opposite.

People are the root of all money. The line between good and evil runs down every heart. ☦️

Because Tour is a lying fraud.

Ler Cronin should have tought Dave his nonsense on face

Dave won, you mean. If any of the Tour's critisms had any value scientifically, he should write a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal. He doesn't. You know why? Because he will get trashed by the scientific community. Instead he debates a YT-er (Farina) who just represents the body of work that OOL researchers have already done.

obviously. winner of the debate was person who write more stuff on the chalk board with prettier handwriting and not the person who showed mountains of evidence that we are not clueless

@@JazzyArtKLtour already addressed this. He doesn’t write papers on it, because he believes his job is to explain the holes of OoL to the layman. That’s how science works, we have people who argue for a proposition and people who argue against a proposition. This is how we advance science in a safe manner. - sincerely a double major in mathematics and physics.

@@spatrk6634except Dave admits he didn’t know the contents of specific papers whenever James challenged him on it. Example is the 30-70%, 3-5 vs 2-5 compound claim that Dave tried refuting with his papers but couldn’t.

That's because it's a theory with absolutely zero evidence at the moment.

@@mmhoss there's plenty of evidence like the placebo effect, joe dispenza (the guy who literally healed his spine injury by reconstructing it with his own mind)

"when scientists begin to even remotely consider that it's possible that consciousness and matter are somehow interconnected," That is not even debated...consciousness is always housed by a material brain. What do you even mean by "most fear the idea " ? Do you really think this is some kind of revelation, some revolutionary insight? You seem to be under the impression that consciousness is some kind of magic ingredient that needs to be sprinkled over material to function. That is utter nonsense. Consciousness is the result of a certain way our material components are arranged and interact with one another. It is housed in brains and brains are made from matter. Like anything else relevant to us it is made from the particles and their interactions as they are described in the Standard Model of Physics.

@@derhafi yeah apart from all the fillers and nonsense you said, you also made a baseless conclusion in the end "consciousness is a result of certain way our material components are arranged and interact with one another", this has not been proven in any way, theoretically or practically

@@nextgenfootball69420 You keep ignoring that the natural world is all there is, demonsatrably so...we figured that out. We know what reality is made of, the identity and behavior of all of the pieces underlying the world of our everyday experience is conclusivly known. That includes our bains and thus consciousness. It includes in fact, everything we will ever experience. This is not up for debate, an opinion or a gut feeling, that is a scientific fact varified with a sigma 5 certainty on the 12 of July 2012, sprinkled with a Nobel Prize one yera later. Is there anything else you think you know, that those thousands of physicists from all over the world, with different cultural backgrounds and religions, at CERN, who checked the data missed and want to call a "baseless conclusion " ?

hmmmm. not at all. James Tour is yelling like a kid with a tantrum

What led you to that (speculative) conclusion? To me, it sounds like this guy is saying a bunch of nothing, or you know, nothing interesting, nothing worth saying. Like the metaphor with cars going back to wheels. That is how life is being looked at. From the height of complexity (mammals for example) to the basics (bacteria, archaea), addressing the developmental path, and the genetic changes along the way.

It’s definitely not.

That is.. the opposite.

You clearly didn't get it.

Sounds like someone didn't watch the clip. There's nothing intelligent about "design". If there was intelligent design, whales wouldn't have arm and finger bones, for instance. Your god doesn't exist. Sorry, not sorry.

The demonstrable liar James Tour taught us all a lesson....which was: He will stick to his script of lies no matter what. hH is deliberately misleading his audience, and his rhetoric always follows the same pattern. This molecule? Nobody knows how to make it. Oh they made it? Well they can’t make the building blocks. Oh they can? Well they aren’t enantiopure. Oh, homochirality has been explained? Then they bought their starting material. Irrelevant? Well their setup isn’t prebiotic. Oh it is? Then I’ll just baselessly call the study “hype” so that the viewer will reject it on faith without having a clue what it says. Jimmy Tour will always redirect to his desperate script in order to avoid addressing research that is inconvenient for him, just like any other creationist.

i conjecture that consciousness is another dimension (or multiple dimensions, just as there are multiple dimensions of space) that all matter occupy to varying levels, and that in the case of human beings, by virtue of the brain, somehow, someway, are better able to traverse these dimensions. Our bodies traverse space and time, our minds, time and consciousness. I can't prove any of this. It is just a belief. In a way this implies the entire universe (even multi-verse if indeed there is such a thing) has dimensions of consciousness. Hence even stars, planets, moons, asteroids have some semblance of conscious awareness...even the chair I'm sitting on and the car I drive. For me the idea of consciousness being additional invisible dimensions of existence is more plausible than consciousness simply emerging from chemistry alone. This idea also spills over into the idea of a God. It wouldn't be a stretch to then "re-imagine" God as the very dimensions that envelop all of existence, that is the sum total of the abstract dimensions of space, time, consciousness and any other dimensions there might be...In fact the way I see it, a God that indeed IS what we regard as abstract dimensions of space, time (and consciousness) is the most plausible God. Not a man in the clouds, but the dimensions of space, time (consciousness and any other dimensions there may be). As such, we could think of the "building blocks" (for want of a better term) of God simply being the various dimensions themselves, not what they envelop. In my definition, God would be all space, all time, all consciousness, immeasurable, sustaining and creating all things simply by virtue of himself, existing. As such, our own existence and that of our universe would be a natural side-effect, and dare I say, inevitable...and, to dot the "i", it didnt start with our universe, and it will not end with it either, simply because God (according to my definition above) transcends that which he "contains" and by his very "nature" radiates creation...perpetually. If he is the spatial dimensions, things cannot but physically exist. If he is the dimension of time, things cannot but traverse time. If he is the conscious dimensions, things cannot but be conscious in one way or other. Everything would be an inevitable side-effect, by-product of his very nature. Now that is a "god" I can believe in. A god that transcends "your little prayer".

@@Moriadin You speak of the spiritual.

@@Moriadin consciousness being a result of the brain and body is equivalent to a genie being the result of an inanimate lifeless bottle.

@@fireofhislove3395 Spirituality would just be a natural side-effect of the existence of conscious dimensions, just as skyscrapers are a natural side-effect of the existence of a "vertical dimension".

@@AlwaysSoldierOn This is my point. I don't think consciousness emerges entirely from the observable material realm. I think consciousness mostly supplements it (rather than purely emerges from it) by virtue of there being dimensions of consciousness. Everything occupies: 1) space, 2) time, 3) conscious dimensions. It's weird I know. And as I say its just a belief/suspicion that I have. I can't prove any of it. Certain "machinery" may be more suitable for traversing conscious dimensions, just as certain machinery is more suitable for flight. bicycles do not fly. Their machinery cannot easily negotiate the "vertical dimension", but they still exist in space. We cannot fly either. Our machinery cannot easily negotiate the vertical dimensions. However weCAN negotiate the conscious dimension(s) with ease. We have the plumbing to do so in the form of the brain (and possibly more...).

Did he? I don't think he implied a creator.

@@1guitar12 You’re asking me to prove a unfalsifiable proposition that I don’t believe? Let’s use the scientific method here. I assume you believe in a creator/god, right?

@@1guitar12 You’re the one making the positive claim here. As an Atheist, I reject the notion and the proposition that a god(including yours) doesn’t exist, due to lack of evidence, and failure to provide justification like yourself. It matters because that’s the whole point of this conversation. If it wouldn’t matter then why are you engaging in this conversation? Why do Theist like yourself behave in that manner? Wouldn’t you want to have conversations to see if one can prove their point? Through rational arguments and philosophical premises, you can achieve this. All I’m simply asking is why are you convinced of something you can’t demonstrate to be true. That is all I want to know.

@@1guitar12 It’s also pretty self evident that you can’t provide evidence for your own proposition. What god are you even defending here?(As if an all mighty, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god needed your help). It’s truly sad to know that you whole heartedly defend your case, without any evidence to substantiate it.

@@frisco9568 Exactly 👍If the burden of proof doesn't lay with the person making the claim then we would have to actively disprove everything including Bigfoot, Gnomes, etc. Theists wrongfully equivocate not being convinced of the God claim as the same as asserting that no God's exist.

Designed by "god?" 😂😂😂

@@simplylethul Precisely.

On the flip side it we can look at that same thing and say it doesn't look like anything designed that we've ever seen.

Was that supposed to sound coherent?

@@genericusername8337 asking the reason why humans grieve the dead is incoherent? Need your hand held?

"A species or more grieves the dead. Why?" Because we, and other who do so, are social species...behaviour which is best expleined by its evolutionary benefits. It reall is not that hard to explain in naturalistic terms...it also would not add any credibility to some supernatural nonsese if it coud not be explained like that.

@@derhafi not exactly an empirical explanation. That's OK b/c the best minds in our existence can't explain consciousness either. Microtubules is the latest fad, like String theory of old. Supernatural is a red herring. Darwin and Einstein and Wheeler and Planck were spouting "supernatural" missives in their day. It's hubris to think we have the slightest clue.

@@richardcarbery7035 "not exactly an empirical explanation" Ha, please look up "emperical" , both biological evolution and social evolution are based on emperical data. It does not get more emperical than that. Sure we don't know every detail of "consciousness" like with most things...that does not mean we know nothing. One of the things we do know, is that the supernatural is bogus and not part of our reality.

Not necessarily. The lab - it is used to speed up what might have happened by chance over a long time period. Like using a super computer to crack your Windows computer password with high speed trial snd error. But they still have huge problems. 1. Time makes the problem worse. 2. Contamination there before and there after any polymerization creates problems. 3. The earth is young. The Sahara desert is only about 5000 years old. Population numbers should be much bigger if humans evolved 200 000 years ago. Fossilised trees vertically linking sediments of different ages proves the sediments are not old / different ages. Soft dinosaur tissue (collagen and red blood cells) have been discovered over several times inside fossils.

"If you make ice in a freezer it completely contradicts the idea it can come about naturally without anyone manipulating the environment/everything else." That should give you a hint on how much sense your statement makes.

​@@derhafi I think purpose of origin of life research should we to prove that we don't need any magical creator to make non living matter into living and also we don't need any f****** soul which will be punished in hell or rewarded in heaven

Man cannot create life and never will be.

James Tour doesn't work in OoL research.

@@mcmanustony EL OH EL go read James tours opening Wikipedia paragraph, realize what a world class scientist he is, and ask yourself if you can trust his opinion, or that of "professor dave explains" on the current state of OoL research.

@@brandonmacey964 I don't trust anything he says outside of his field as he is utterly and demonstrably dishonest. No one doubts his prowess as a scientist. What is doubted, and for very good reason is his character- and his expertise outside his speciality. You need to wrap your head around the notion that expertise in one filed does not magically confer expertise elsewhere. Tour is a materials chemist, not a biochemist, not a geneticist, not a molecular biologist, not an astrochemist, not a geologist, not a mineralogist..... Jack Szostak is also a world class scientist researching the origin of life. He is more distinguished than Tour- unlike The Rev Jim, Szostak is a Nobel Prize winner. According to you that would make Szostak more trustworthy than Tour. Given Tour's outrageous slander of Szostak to a braying claque of scientifically illiterate fundamentalists why trust him on anything? You present a false dichotomy: Tour or a RU-vid channel. If you want to know about current research in OoL READ THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN IT. Read Professors Nick Lane, Jack Szostak, Robert Hazen, John Sutherland, Nita Sahai, Addy Pross, Lee Cronin......and not Liar For Jesus Jim Tour......

@@mcmanustony so basically, bulverism.. let me translate, "James tour is a liiiiar! He doesn't even knowww, about ANYTHING that isn't his main field of studyyyy! Do you denyyyy?!?!" Blah blah blah. Everything he says about OoL you can look up for YOURSELF. Should be pretty easy to take a lying scientist down, if there was actually any evidence that he is lying about one single thing. you just don't actually listen to Tour. You attack Jesus, not what Tour says about OoL. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. Nobody can talk about that. Because all those points are LEGIT, and have zero to do with Jesus. Bless the reverend James tour, I hope he keeps crushing pissants like you and professor Dave explains. Being one of the foremost scientists that he is. Professor of RICE U, the same university that JFK gave his moonlanding speech from. He was recruited to be professor there by a NOBEL PRIZE WINNING CHEMIST. Look stuff up. Doofus

@@brandonmacey964 there's no need to translate. What I wrote was clear enough without your childish histrionics. Tour is a liar. His continued slander of Jack Szostak is an utter disgrace and will shame him daily for what remains of his career. "blah blah blah.." or "shit, better have a meltdown....I can't address anything this guy says"....he seemed to say.

@Null Pointer Can you define unlikely? Even diehard evolutionists know it is impossible. Life is designed, design needs a designer, Neo-Darwinian evolution is also dead, and random errors destroy information and never create it. Random errors and time equal chaos.

Exactly. Error gives rise to error correcting code and its complementary interpreter.

Please link!

@@joshk7286 This is textbook headline reading. Buddy in the video explained why those headlines of "scientists create life" are in fact untrue.

Scientist's cannot create life from scratch, thats a straight up lie.