I tend to spend a lot more time viewing, listening and learning from people like Mr. Lane who possess this quality of personality!

@@eyeq7730 🍻

S o interesting he speakers in the ways. . times and chance.

Bullshit. People like Nick Lane study the chemistry, physics, thermodynamics involved in the origin of life. Robert Hazen studied mineral catalysis of biomolecules, Lee Cronin studies autocatalysis.....etc. There is no stubborness involved in these researchers or any of the others of whose work you've read nothing: Addy Pross, John Sutherland, Matthew Powner, Eric Smith, George Whitesides.... This is science. You can play with your invisible friends elsewhere.

+frankhuggins9733: Exactly. I totally agree with you, hence why I do not accept "abiogenesis" as "a solid fact." I would like to share my thoughts. From what I have learned, DNA is very unstable by itself, and it is useless without something to give instructions to. Without the system already there, DNA will quickly begin to degrade, but not as quickly as RNA. I do not think that even with DNA and RNA present, a cell can form. A cell is composed of multiple components to produce a complex structure. I think that when talking about "mindless and purposeless processes," the process of trying to create life would have expectedly failed every time because any error would ruin it, referring to mutations in genetic material outside of a whole system (cell). One problem I think there is in "abiogenesis" is the amount of time. According to Wikipedia, "In bacterial cells, individual mRNAs can survive from seconds to more than an hour. However, the lifetime averages between 1 and 3 minutes, making bacterial mRNA much less stable than eukaryotic mRNA. In mammalian cells, mRNA lifetimes range from several minutes to days." So, in a mindless, primordial soup, I do not think there would be adequate time for all this material to gather. tRNA, as another example, is unstable in all conditions. RNA usually lasts no longer than a few days, and that is inside functioning, complete cells. Plus, what about the presence of molecules that would damage the genetic codes or cease the process entirely? Besides, molecules do not have minds and do not wait for certain molecules to react with them, they react with whatever they encounter. Plus, the chemicals necessary to produce DNA (guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine) are susceptible to oxidation and hydrolysis. If we assume abiogenesis is possible, another problem for producing DNA-repairing mechanisms would be that the genetic information (RNA and DNA) would deteriorate long before this mechanism could be produced. The creation of such a mechanism would be far from simple, especially if we are talking about "mindless and purposeless processes." Since the RNA and DNA would degrade, oxidize, hydrolyze, or bond with "unwanted" molecules, there would be nothing to correct. And that is not even addressing the issue of how such a DNA-protecting tool would be formed. I think scientists present it as more simplistic than it actually is. To create such a complex mechanism that can _recognize errors in the DNA/RNA and understand how to repair them_ is a massive obstacle that not even leading scientists have resolved. In a random clump of molecules, there is nothing to control what happens. No scientists are there to protect the genetic material from deterioration. In the Miller-Urey experiment, I think they got no further than just amino acids. They got nowhere close to creating life. My response to your valid inquiries is that these processes *_do not know_* errors and how to manage them. Again, in a random, mindless soup of chemicals, it just would not work.

What would this 'designer' have designed? The first cell, the universe? Does it just design something every few billion years then just leave it be? The gap between such a designer and a god that is involved in human lives is even bigger than the gap between chemistry and biology.

You must be very well versed in biochemistry to so categorically disiss this as fantasy. Please enlighten us all on where Dr. Lane's understanding fails and why.

@@spacelemur7955 - it is fantasy. Him knowing biochemistry doesn't magically make his fantasies into non-fantasies,

@@johnknight3529 Once again you dismiss him with a flick of a wrist. Thus, you must be profoundly well trained in the science. Please provide a _scientific_ rebuff, unless---of course---you are a scientifically ignorant religious troll. Which are you, Shinola or its infamous comparator?

He is very clear that it is speculation based on evidence. That is still science - you make a hypothesis, research it, and try to prove or disprove it. Why are you angry? What do you want him to do? Far less credible examples of story telling out there. Religion, for example.

@@POWWOWMIK - "He is very clear that it is speculation based on evidence." Like I said, it's Science fantasy. "Why are you angry? I'm not angry. Yer trippin' too. (Nothing award worthy I don't feel, mind you, just run of the mill projection/reality conflation it seems to me). "What do you want him to do?" Producing some sort of "protocell" in realityland would be a good start . . Never mind producing any sort of living cell, which is so far beyond anything these guys are even trying to do, despite now being able purchase any and all the component substances they want (harvested from actual cells), that they have to hawk "speculation based on evidence" with regard to purely hypothetic "protocells" as if a big deal. To keep the grant money flowing, and the worshipful public worshipping away, I suppose. I guess eventually I'll be watching them hawking authoritative speculation about hypothetical pre-protocells they can't make or find either . . Sad state of affairs. (I'm saddened seeing this stuff, that's true) Heard about a survey done out of a university (with an oversampling of college degreed respondents), that blew my mind, so to speak. . About two thirds believed scientists had already made single celled life in the laboratory. About one third believed they've also made "simple" animals, like amphibians and mollusk's. Oh well, Siants (sounds like science ; ) slithers on, I guess . . Enjoy the show, he's a good one, best I've seen so far.

Life is just an exothermal reaction: Just letting off steam

Why debate a delusional freak?

DNA is basically RNA: just a couple minor changes. DNA could evolve from RNA. The 2' hydroxyl group on ribose in an ribonucleotide gets deoxygenated (deoxyd) to produce a deoxyribonucleotide. That's most of the difference.

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger from the standpoint of chemistry RNA and DNA aren't two different things. Chemistry doesn't want or need either.

@@sentientflower7891 Uhm, what? In chemistry, RNA and DNA are two different things.

@@sentientflower7891 "from the standpoint of chemistry RNA and DNA aren't two different things. " YOU treated them as 2 different things. You talked about an RNA world, then said DNA arrives later.

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger in biochemistry they are in different things, in chemistry neither exist anywhere throughout the entire Universe.

If you have sufficient randomized RNA sequences then the codons make the bound proteins non-random. This inherently leads to selection *towards the prebiotic machinery* that he was talking about. What’s the problem?

@@nixedgaming you should first learn what is DNA information. KZfaq has a lot on it. 'DNA against evolution', and 'Intelligent design'

@@ievgeniipolozov3818 What do you mean by information? You haven't a clue, do you?

@@mcmanustony and do you know what is DNA and what its functions are? You haven't a clue, do you?

@@ievgeniipolozov3818 don’t be such an idiot. Rather than making a fool of yourself sneering at the person asking the question, why not deal with the fact that you can’t answer it.

PLEASE YELL LOUDER I CANT HEAR YOUR FOR JAMES IS SPEAKING

@@johannessievers6759 James who?

@@mcmanustony what?

@@johannessievers6759 you said: James is speaking. I asked James who?

There is no scientific way to analyse something psychologically.

Psychology is a science and uses empirical evidence and careful observation. Universities all describe it as a science. It may be more complicated than that but that’s the short answer.

@@rodneynewburn545 psychology might arguably be a science, but not one that can determine the intention behind someone's words with any more accuracy than an averagely perceptive person's intuition.

Everyone needs to stop paying their psychologist then.

@@rodneynewburn545 not necessarily. One can have great insight and offer great advice without being a scientist, or the advice having any scientific basis.

They are actually both words.

Your favorite pastor certainly is.

I assume you are CONvinced you are utterly right! I presume you are unable to emotionally accept otherwise.

@@rodneynewburn545your failure to identify where anything is actually wrong in the presentation is noted.

@@rodneynewburn545And still we wait …

He says ,”we will never know how life started” . What is complicated about that! The rest is supposition based on the bios of his own beliefs. The Big Bang is still! A theory . What caused it and what was ther before it etc.