Excellent presentation! Bravo! Thank you.

Q: What did they Archaea say to the Bacteria when they came upon an an abandoned orphan virus? A: Youcarryit.

I have never understood the need to cut in shots of people fidgeting in the audience... 😝

Excellent!! Thank you Dr Sahai for the wonderful talk with clear visuals!

Excellent speaker, thank you!

Shortly after the talk, Dr. Sahai was instructed to write "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." on the blackboard 500 times.

That is PRETTY GOOD...I'll have to write that one down. :)

Awesome talk!

Wow! what an amazing talk and grasp of the buildings blocks of life. Why have I not heard of Dr. Sahai, ever! Thank you so much.

Awesome video! I want more!

a rare piece of knowledge that can answer my curiosity. may the almighty provide you great health to continue your work.

You are the best I have ever heard thanks

I don't think we have a chance to understand the origin of life until we find a second genesis to compare to. We need probes to the ocean worlds of the outer solar system to look for a second genesis!

It amazes me how so many people who know the answer to everything scientific before they even hear the problem come to proclaim the wisdom of pre-Iron Age myth-makers (who explained how the Creator separated the water in the sky from the water below the earth. Shouldn't you guys be working on the problems in your field, like how a benevolent all knowing and powerful creator ended up with a world full of evil? Or is that explained by a woman eating a fruit?

"You need not only genes..but also the mutations that lead to evolution (diversity)"

Dustology, is an up coming science about particles and time. just a new way to investigate life as it is.

subtitles, please. english is not my native language.

It is truly bizarre to me, to say that "progress has been made" in figuring out how life began from minerals/chemicals and such. Progress has been made in understanding how incredibly complex life is, no doubt, but in turn how far we are from figuring out how it could have "self-assembled". Simply put, we now know/understand that we are much further away from understanding how a living thing could have arisen from chemicals/minerals self-assembling, than we knew/understood we were before the "origin science" specialty field was initiated. But, talk is cheap ; )

Interesting decision to give up tenure at Wisconsin Maddog to go to the University of Akron, working hard and producing lots of papers there so good for her and her collaborators.

Yeah - boiling point for h2o was around 250c in archean due to much higher atmospheric pressure ..

Reading all the comments below it amazes me that so many people seem to think that an invisible immortal wizard in the sky decided to create everything in the universe because he was lonely and bored is actually MORE plausible than a natural sequence of events over billions of years.

RNA finding a place in a free floating membrane is one thing, creating code for future membranes is another.

nice lacture but I have little problem how lipid are servive before origin of life

The Hadean world was not a bare surface as was the moon; it would have been completely invisible beneath an envelope of massive billowing cloud; The waters of all the oceans, and every drop, of water on Earth was suspended in the atmosphere. The thunder and lightening was continuous and of a scale unimaginable on our modern world.

+MosheMYY M "What have you seen evolution do?" For obvious reasons, very little as far as in my life time and actually witnessed. " If it is possible to get evolutionists to be logical, rational and honest, they might just come to their senses." Unlike religion, we are logical and honest. It's called science. In other words, not discluding evidence despite it not following what you expect. Reply

Blank stares from the audience wondering why there is no mention of miracles, magic, or gods.

Great

Which came first? Metabolism or replication? Enzymes need DNA and DNA requires enzymes...

In the beginning GOD......!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you're like me and wondering what everyone is fussing about, go to 48:40 and listen for a couple of sentences. She stumbles over the phrase "we need to use intelligent design" and then is corrected by someone in the audience with "careful selection." It is kind of sad that she can't even say it.

The Origin of Life is Chemical Synthesis.Marine algae(green seaweed):Cellulose is a cell

In the primordial soup, before there was life, there was selection. .. More stable organic molecules were selected for. .. Read it again.

Check out James tour Waterloo lecture

Eureka! I've got it! We'll call it... ...the Theory of CAREFUL SELECTION! 48:55

This topic is really deeply interesting.I never considered that geochemistry could be on a continuum with biochemistry.Where do the biogeochemical cycles fit into all of this?

Excellent presentation. Anyone questioning the 'scientific method' or the natural and spontaneous origin of the molecules of life (vs mythology) should remember two things (1) While all the answers are far from being 'in', look at how much has been figured out and not by means of some mystic but by science (2) While the exact mechanisms and sequences have not been unravelled (most people don't even know much about their own family tree back, say 10 generations) think of the various hypothesis that can now be eliminated by this research - my point being that its complicated and we have lost all most all of the evidence through billions of years and yet we are still making progress. Nita got it right with the key step - hope. Unfortunately, just as we are on the brink of understanding our molecular origins, more energy and funding is going into our mutual self destruction. Please do not vote for Trump. Time is very limited. Climate change must be addressed - now. Cheers.

'...we need to use intelligent...not intelligent design'. No, we must stick to the dogma and not consider all possibilities...it seems.

Accepting a Great Designer for all the extraordinary designs you see in nature will require you to accept the logical, rational thinking that is normal to conscious intelligent beings. Believing that a blind, mindless process can design anything is the most stupidest belief ever!

Nick Lane suggested, in his book: The Vital Question, that a vital clue to life's origin might be the universality of chemoosmosis --the separation of charge across membranes -- first proposed by Peter Mitchell. Lane suggests that this electrochemical transmembrane gradient could provide the energy needed to drive the assembly of chains of monomers into oligomers. Such gradients could form in alkaline vents. Have you examined this in any of your hypotheses or experiments?

She is so beautiful but the essence of the talk is: "we have a lot of ideas, we just can not get any of them to work. But if we get a lot of funding then we can work on them to eternity." The RNA-model has already been rejected, and mathematicians combined with biologists have proven that the chances of getting any of the functional chains compared to all those that does not work is so small, that even if all possible combinations had been tested since the beginning of the universe, the most likely outcome is not to find just one useful chain until this day - not to speak of producing any complex life form. Mathematically, such a chance scenario simply does not work. There is a good reason why there is no other life in the universe.

And I must say, I stand in AWE of the MASTER ENGINEER!

You need proteins, enzymes and genes...how do you get them from a simple monomer...

Oh she’s so very pretty :)

Okay, lets just say this, no biologist should be allowed a degree until they take a semester in mathematical probability or statistics. She seems to be constantly saying, well we have so many places and lots and lots of years, and since we are here and since, well, we can't have been created by an intelligence, and well, you know, like I said, well lots of stuff, and, hence--origins. AND THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENED!

To evolutionists *What have you seen evolution do? If it is possible to get evolutionists to be logical, rational and honest, they might just come to their senses.*

Watched.

Well, I see all the arguments below between the "Creationists" and the "Evolutionists". LOL! But for me, I don't care how Dr.Sahai got created! Gawd damn! I am gob smacked! I am now into some serious Sahaiology!

The best explanation so far is Mr James Tour… 15 episodes…

1 hour of ignorance displaying... waste of time

R NA, DNA, protein Mutualism under RNA, =DNA=protein but at the RNA is basic Evolution of Ribosomes Fundamental RNA and DNA might Might have remixes at point of origin of life.

I'm glad they mentioned the partner Universities, because "The Origins Science Scholars Program" of "The Institute for the Science of Origins" *really* sounds like crypto-Intelligent Design.

I think the good dr was, for a sec, confessing she had to use intelligent design (careful selection) in the lab but quickly caught herself before the high priests of evolution fired her...shame on you dr. 50 hail Darwins and an act of contrition.

Wow. A whole room full full of dumb people. I'm an engineer. I design, build, install and fine tune very sophisticated machine systems. My machines often integrate electric power, steam, hydraulics, pneumatics, and logic controllers. They do work, perform tasks, perform diagnostics and often speak to the operators. I can't imagine any of my designs assembling themselves by random chance and I certainly haven't figured out how to make them self replicate. My intelligently designed machines are like junk compared to a single celled living organism. And over time my machines will breakdown. I'll say it again, WOW! A whole room full of dummies. Highly educated dummies. I'd ask any of them to show me their inventions. I have hundreds. I'm just an engineer. I'm sure glad I wasn't held back by being educated in the same fashion as these people.

The very prominent synthetic, organic chemist James Tour truthfully refuted of all of this in his video also called The Origin of Life. Look it up on KZfaq if you want the truth.

Creation and evolution are both theories. It depends on which one you believe in will be the one you can accept.

What's lifestyle 🤔 circle.....geowhether ?step of nature's organics

I think the theory of evolution could be extended right to the beginning , where amino acids were automatically formed. It makes more sense to believe that the formation of cell was a process which happened simultaneously everywhere on earth, thus increasing the chance. Perhaps good conditions existed, heavy rains and lighting or meteor showers, abundance of organic minerals or compounds. Think of zillions tons of membrane , peptides and amino acid molecules floating around in land and water. Out of the zillions, few trillions got organized, rest disintegrated. Those which remained were of the same configuration. Then few billion tons of perfect protocell were formed, rest just dissolved. Suddenly the odds look good enough for simultaneous evolution of millions of tons of bacteria and multi cellular life. The point is everything looks impossible on a small scale, like in a laboratory experiment. But earth is big and the time scale is 4.5 billion years. A lot can happen and lot did happen. And everything happened on a large scale. What laboratory cannot possible replicate is the time period and the scale of experiments. The question that what came first,whether it was cell membrane, DNA or Mitochondria. How about if all came together at one point of time.

They have NO IDEA or are even close to explaining the Origin of Life. Dr. James Tour shows us that The Emperor has NO Clothes. If they say they do, they are lying through their teeth.

NCMR Inventing Method book Discovery chapter Consciousness is the origin of life and has been experimentally verified.

"Some progress had been made". On a scale of one to a billion we're at negative one thousand.

_"This is still an outstanding question"_ about sums it up.. since the whole idea is based on spontaneous assembly of order from disorder contrary to the second law of thermodynamics!

We are all of this planet every tree animal mold every thing is a product of earth and space it was created by the two we are all very similar

What a name, the institute for the signs of origin, or was it Oregon? No one knows how life started. And I suspect, unless someone replicated in the lab, no one will know

Very vague about everything

Eric Wood ... "No one shall disagree with evolution, physics, bio, chem and all that intelligent and superb mankind stuff or thy shall burn in the accretion disk of the nearest black hole". Hawking's Letter to Flat Earthers, chapter 9, verse XXII.

Remember the 'lung-fish' that can survive without 'aquatic oxygen'. Cat-fish and 'snake-head' can bury themselves in mud and stay alive.

In the beginning (Time) God (Cause) Created the heavens (Space) And the earth (physical) You're welcome! To book me for an event just use the contact form

Claiming that the problem of RNA or DNA can be solved if we could find a way of making RNA chains a few thousand nucleotides long, as needed for any useful function, rather than the present best of about 50 long is like saying we could write a useful iPad app if we could just get enough programming instructions to appear in a line. It’s a false summit, we will still need the proteins to replicate it, read it, a membrane to protect it, and the chain of RNA to actually have useful instructions that make sense and can make a cell that can survive and make a copy of itself. This is jumping up on a rock and saying “look, we are nearly at the top of the mountain”.

Watch at 48:30. She slipped. Like all of them. COSMIC AUTHORITY SYNDROME right there. xD

Make rna in the lab and im with you bacteria is advaced life how did lipids carbohydrates membranes made this is a simple lecture 70yrs after miller exp and rna has not been made in the labwith supercomputers this is everywhere on earth but how do you get the proteins to match no we dont know if mars was suitable for life we dont know what life is how did bacteria start

Did life originate on Earth only once? Could there have been more than one LUCA? More than one tree of life? If life could have originated more than once, must it necessarily have been DNA/RNA based? Could there have been another means of heredity and evolution? Why aren't there new trees of life "originating" now?

She does not say how the first cell came about !!

First bacteria 3.5 bya

Nature can create a crystal. A picture (Mona Lisa) is more complex than a crystal (it contains information). However, it cannot replicate itself. A computer program is more complex than a picture because it can create a picture. It contains both information and instructions to replicate something. However, it was created by a programmer who told it what to do. DNA (life) is much more complex than any computer program. It can replicate itself and it can build a complex organism. It seems to me that (DNA) life would require something much more than a programmer.

I think she is fine.

Aaaaaand James Tour obliterated Abiogenesis.

"We take it as an assumption there is a natural process by which you can go from geochemical simplicity to biological complexity" No such process has been demonstrated to date September 2022. On emergent complexity consider stars and galaxies.. well that also failed to even get a suitable mathematical model; STAR FORMATION Dr David Wallace 2009: _"So: suppose we consider a large, cold gas cloud. If the total energy of the cloud is positive, expansion will always increase its entropy; this is probably unsurprising, as the average velocity of the gas particles exceeds the escape velocity. If it is negative, it may be entropically favourable for the cloud to contract somewhat, but the effect is not normally that marked: for instance, on this model even a cloud which begins at absolute zero will only contract to half its initial radius before reaching its maximum-entropy state."_ And gravity presents another problem.. BIG BANG Gravity Problem: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created after the expansion of space.. The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D. Then Sir Fred Hoyle wrote 'The Mathematics of Evolution' SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution: 1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist 2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution) 3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection; 4- “Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...” 5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution 6- Concerning new genes “Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.” 7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said “The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.” 8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle 9- “we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process" The probability = 1e-120 ? 10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem 11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a falsification!

In 2021 Dr. James Tour has debunked all popular OOL scenarios.

Sorry, but this is a story. Ask a chemist in private and they will tell you this.

Brilliant You are a goddess

What's with everybody pigging out in the audience I thought that this was to be aa scientific lecture not a restaurant

All these cuts to people in the audience are unnecessary and detract from her message.

Too simplistic

There is no way a single complex cell can develop by any means except by someone designing it

Huh, not sure if this helps the debate or hurts it. Got to have something to put in those textbooks though I guess. I watched the James tour vids as well but I'm sure he's not considered a scientist due to his belief. All his education useless because he doesn't believe we came from a rock.

Audience should not eat at a lecture.

Can you imagine the olympian exercise and the utopy to try to explain the origine of life without an Intelligent Designer

Life arising from unliving materials is a statistical impossibility. But lets say that it did happen by some miracle, how did the first life live long enough to evolve a way to self replicate? And I'm not coming at this from a religious point of view.

bwahahahahahahaha....this is the same crap you would here in a high school science class taught by a substitute teacher with a hangover

oohhh I am in the weird part of youtube

Consciousness/Spirit came from God. God created life. We will NEVER be able to create what God has CREATED. We can on replicate from what God has given us. We can not CREATE life from nonlife. We con only replicate life from life.

"We don't really know which organism came earliest"

Trying to do it for 45 years... When genes came first? Mineral played a role? Self assambled... that's the way..

Okay what she is really saying is " How did life start ??? We have no Idea ".

How the hell does something "self assemble?" And you thought the concept of Mr Potato Head was funny...

Naturalism is pushed by biologists who believe that abiogenesis is possible because they have no indepth knowledge of the field. Abiogenesis is purely molecular interactions which is understood by chemists, the problem is chemists all understand that life by pure chance in nature is impossible.

Why did the Y chromosomes come out to be so similar between them and us? Let's take a look. When they make statements of Neanderthal DNA vs. human DNA in their comparisons, it is misdirection. In actuality, it is common gene expression between us. Neanderthals WERE human with mere gene expression modification differences with NO implied evolving of DNA mutations being involved. It's sleight of hand. Actual tabulation of our DNA sequences with theirs showed a result of 99.84% commonality. We are 99.90% identical to each other. Why the 00.10% difference between each human being? It's mutation load. Why the 00.06% difference between us and them? Again...its the mutation load accumulation over the thousands of years since we co-existed. Subtract the thousands of years, then we would be 99.9% identical All this is evolution-impertinent. What is pertinent about the disseminators of evolution information and the resulting confused public who selects to listen to them? It shows misdirection and propagandization. It's control of the information to make a false impression of 'evolving DNA mutations'...general evolution to the fans of evolution. The problem? Genes modify by chemical tagging, largely by methylation, ABOVE the DNA sequences without mutations to them. It's a 2nd information code called the 'epigenome'. Purveyors of evolutionary theory makes it seem there is only ONE information code, being the DNA code. It's lying by simplifying, accidentally for many who only memorized what their professors wanted for a passing grade, and pass on this misdirection to others. For a pretty good paycheck, too. Want to know another misdirection? It's implying that chimpanzee's DNA sequence 'similarity' to humans of '98.5%' would be from the same scientific method applications as the 99.84% Neanderthal-human similarity. Is it? No. The chimpanzee comparison is between similar genes while EXCLUDING the non-coding DNA regions. With the Neanderthals, it's comparing ALL of the DNA sequence. Not ending there, the chimpanzee's Y chromosome in the sex-specific regions was compared to us, the pro-evolution researcher was surprised to find they were missing 33% of the total human genes. He said the difference was 'horrendous'! He said the difference between us and them was as large as the difference between a chicken's Y chromosome and ours. So how TODAY'S male chimp offspring be 98.5% similar to human's male offspring when 33% of the genes are missing? The scientific prediction before the study was done, the two Y chromosomes should have been 98%+ similar. What was their rescue excuse to this intelligent design-friendly finding? What is the rescue excuse for just looking at a fraction of the chimp DNA, not the entire sequence, for the 98.5% similarity? Why imply just DNA in Neanderthal comparisons when it's common gene expression instead? It looks like a degree in evolutionary biology and theory is made of misdirection and memorization of rescue excuses. 'Evolution' is misrepresentation of gene expression, epigenetics, and the epigenome's capabilities and claims of gene degeneration causes evolutionary generation. What is the root of this claim of degeneration leading to generation? It is in the above sentence! it's taking these epigenome-derived gene expression capabilities and THE ASSUMPTION OF EVOLVING DNA MUTATIONS when...by definition...no mutations happen with this biological system. What else does this epigenome's capability do? It makes adaptations to changed environment, diet, or new threats for hundreds of generations, if needed. It can do it for one or two generations if the change switches back. This includes the Darwin Finch beaks WITHOUT the theorized 'engine' of evolution. This is a post-2014 new-info THIRD ASPECT of epigenetic ability. Thusly, it is an intelligent design signature by its logistics and common sense when no bias is applied. The science-specific information above is web search retrievable and verifiable. Why does people like me have more scientific information than the innocent consumers of the evolution theory do? It is because the evolution-unfriendly information is withheld or piecemealed. It shows propagandization, not rationalization. It shows people like me gets the truth demonstrated while others take it dictated by their mentors they selected to listen to. There you go. There's your science. Evolution is not happening. We are a creation. The creator? Jesus Christ beyond doubt. I have put decades of research in this truth demonstrated to me. The 'dots of the picture' that the theory of evolution gives is the illusion of there being no God. It produces a much higher suicide rate in kids raised in this fatalism. The accompanying depression is not good in trying to foster a successful civilization to pass on to our children. The 'science' of evolution disrupts the sciences of other applications of science such as in psychology and social science aspects. It has selfish political science benefits to those who push the theory.

From already formed life to fantasy on other worlds, sprinkled with some analogies that don't match.

After watching this, you can now say with confidence that "fairies did it all!" and you would be just as correct as the scientists.

Haha... don't use your intelligence.... The whole video is deceptive and without intelligence.