Origin of Life – How Life Started on Earth

Origin of Life – How Life Started on Earth


They’re dazzling, priceless… at times, even glowing. How can one not fall in love with rocks
and minerals? I mean, the colors, the shapes… …and they’re the
building blocks of modern civilization. We wouldn’t have televisions, we wouldn’t
have automobiles, we wouldn’t have buildings without the mineral riches
that we have. But could rocks and minerals also solve the greatest mystery
of all time? The origin of life. The rocks we pick up
tell a story that life couldn’t have occurred without rocks. Could cold,
lifeless stone hold the key to every living thing on Earth? From Australia, to Morocco, Nova goes around the world and back in
time to investigate the origin and evolution of life. Look at a rock and you think ah, well, nothing. but this holds the signature of life. From its first spark… People were saying
they’ve made Frankenstein in a test tube… …To the survival of the fittest. These were immense creatures. Sharks that
may have been 50 or 60 feet. Was it the secret link between rocks and
life that made the difference? Life’s rocky start. Right now, on Nova. The ancient market of Marrakech, a chaotic, colorful gathering place
teeming with life for thousands of years, the perfect place to ask how did this
exotic, beautiful and sometimes bizarre thing called life, begin? How did Earth go from a lifeless, molten
rock… to a living planet? Full of diverse and spectacular creatures. it’s a question that has long perplexed
scientists. Now, Robert Hazen, a geologist, is trying to
show we are missing an essential ingredient in the recipe for life. -look at that vein of calcite… Rocks. Nothing seems more lifeless than a rock. it’s inanimate, it’s the antithesis of a
living thing, but we’re beginning to realize that rocks played an absolutely
fundamental role in the origin of life. Hazen is out to expose a secret
relationship between rocks and life that helped drive both the origin of life and
its evolution into complex creatures. This is a very new set of understandings
and the more we look, the more we see that life depends on rocks, rocks depend
on life. This has been going on for four billion
years. As a geologist, it’s no surprise that Hazen is searching for answers
written in stone. But is he right? Are rocks the missing spark of life? The history of Earth is unimaginably
long. If it were sped up to the equivalent of
a single day, all of humankind from the earliest skeletons to the invention of
the iphone would have occurred in only the last four seconds. Dinosaurs were still roaming earth about
20 minutes before that, but the creation of our planet occurred
more than 23 hours earlier, two cycles on this clock or 4.5 billion years ago. Comprehending Earth’s vast history is a
formidable task. It is four and a half billion years of change, but you can
divide it into half a dozen ways of describing Earth through time. Bob Hazen has come up with another way
to visualize Earth’s long history that reveals this special relationship
between rocks and life. He has divided it into six stages, each
represented by a different color to understand how we ended up with green
earth, the planet we now know, requires us to turn the clock back to before there
was any life at all. Stage one was the creation of black
Earth. Back in Morocco, Hazen and Adam Aaronson, a
meteorite expert, seek out a small rock from the beginning of our cosmos. -Wow look at this pile here.
-yeah. These are meteorites. Rocks that have fallen from space. -This is Tamta. This is the one that fell
20 kilometers up the road from here. People saw it fall. A recent meteorite fall in Siberia was
captured in videos that have shown up on Youtube. Other space rocks have ended up
for sale here in Morocco. -Say you’d buy this without doing tests… -I’ll drop the
cash right now here and give me a good price. Meteorites here can sell for tens of thousands of dollars. That
may seem a steep price for a lump of rock, but these are some of the very
oldest objects in our solar system. This is the oldest object you could ever
hold in your hand. It’s 4.6 billion years old and is formed before Earth formed.
This is the very first solid material, the very first rock in our solar system
and these came together to build all the planets. Our Earth was created out of the rocks and
dust present at the start of our solar system. Over time, small fragments of orbiting
rock collided, coming together into the planet circling the Sun. At first, Earth was molten with
temperatures in the thousands of degrees, but in the cold vacuum of space this hot
rock began to cool and change. Nothing. Not a speck of dust is believed to have
survived from the period of black Earth. It was a hellishly unpleasant time. Volcanoes spewed hot lava from deep
inside the planet. When it cooled, it covered Earth with its
first rock called basalt and it was black. It seems like a desolate landscape, but
some ingredients that life will need are already here in these rocks. Look inside and you begin to understand
how intriguing even an ordinary rock is. Every rock, you slice it open you look inside, there’s something
special. Rocks are made up mostly of minerals, which are crystals like quartz or diamonds. Looking through a microscope at super thin slices of a rock lets you
see its mineral composition. This is the rock Peridotite, made up of
small crystals, including olivine and pyroxene. Even a simple black basalt rock,
spewed from a volcano, becomes a patchwork of colorful minerals. It’s sort of like a fruitcake, you know I
slice it open, there’s nuts and there’s dried fruit and maybe some lemon peel. It’s made of lots of little things
and it is not until you slice into that fruitcake that you see all the stuff inside that
makes it special. What makes them special is not only
their beauty. Minerals have remarkable chemical and physical properties and are
a source of many of the elements – nature’s building blocks. That is why they are essential in our
modern world to make everything from skyscrapers taller – mobile phones smaller. Extract the element molybdenum from the
mineral molybdenite to make steel stronger. Or add a pinch of cobalt and your iphone
battery will last longer. Minerals are the fundamental building
block of societies. We wouldn’t have televisions, we wouldn’t have automobiles,
we wouldn’t have buildings without the mineral riches that we have. So, were the remarkable chemical
properties of minerals also key in creating life? If so, Earth would mean more than it
started with It’s estimated that the meteorites that
formed Earth had only about 250 minerals, sort of a chemical starter kit,
containing many of the elements. Then, in the intense heat and pressures in the creation of our planet, new minerals began to form. This changed the appearance of our Earth from black to gray. Yosemite national park is a relatively
new piece of Earth, but the kind of rock that makes up these
dramatic cliffs goes back much further. These huge walls are granite containing
minerals like quartz and feldspar. Granite became the foundation of our
continents, leading Earth into the gray period. At this point, earth is still a long way
from the glorious diversity of plants and animals that makes Yosemite so
picturesque. But the stage is set for the next
character in our planet story: Water, which will turn Earth blue. Water
plays a central role in every model for the origin of life. That’s because water is such a great
solvent. All these different kinds of molecules can be floating around the
water and then they have the potential to interact together. The starting point is
the water. So when did Earth cool enough to have
liquid water, this element key to life? One of the biggest unknowns in this
whole idea of going from black to gray to a blue water-covered earth, is how
quickly it happened. The timing is a big mystery. The Pilbara in Western Australia is one
of the oldest places on Earth and so, one of the best places to solve
the mystery of the planet’s first oceans. Hazen joins an all-star team of
geologists, including Martin Van Kranendonk from the University of New South
Wales and John Valley of the University of Wisconsin. Valley is collecting rocks that could
hold clues to when water first appeared. We could get zircons and other
minerals that date all the way back to 4.4 billion years old. Hopefully. Some rocks here contain sand-sized
grains that wheathered from even older rocks. one in a million, literally, is a crystal
called zircon, one of the longest lasting materials in nature. Zircon is a popular gemstone, but the
microscopic zircon found here is even more precious. Zircon crystals are especially amazing. Gemstone zircons of course are valued, but these tiny ones the geologists value are microscopic that make a lousy ring, but they tell an incredible story. To tell that story, John Valley must
first find the tiny crystals, the ultimate needle in a haystack. If you want to find a needle in a
haystack, the first thing you do is you burn down the haystack. Then you sip through the ash to look for the needle. Rocks are pulverized into sand sized grains and sorted by weight in a machine developed to pan for gold. The gold that Valley is looking for are
heavy zircon crystals which get channeled into different tracks. Then, grain by grain, with a very steady
hand, thousands of small crystals are sorted
and analyzed. The chemical structure of a zircon crystal holds evidence of both the environment and the age when it formed. Some of these tiny crystals go very far
back, just over a hundred million years after
Earth formed. They are the oldest pieces of Earth ever discovered. So they could shed light on what our
young planet looked like. It’s totally amazing. To hold this
grain of sand in the palm of your hand is literally to see back through time. It is a time machine. Valley expected these crystal time
machines would confirm the long-held view that the young Earth was covered in
molten lava, still cooling after its violent formation. I think the zircon on the left looks
very promising. So what he discovered was shocking,
because this type of zircon created 4.3 billion years ago could only have formed
in the presence of liquid water. But how could there be water if Earth
was still hot and hell-like? The implications were that the early Earth
had water, it was cooler and it was wet. It’s starting to look very much more
familiar. And if water is a key starting point for
life could there be life that early too? The science of the zircon is telling us
that the Earth for a very, very long time was a habitable environment, not
necessarily that there was life then. We don’t know that yet, but there’s no
reason why there couldn’t have been life as early as 4.3 billion years ago. So, if life were possible that early, it
begs the question: how did life begin? In 1871, Charles Darwin speculated in a
letter to a friend that a warm little pond might be life’s birthplace. A warm soup of chemicals bathed by
energy from the Sun would have been, well, comfortable for molecules to come
together in new ways and create life. Darwin was way, way ahead of his time. A nice little warm soup is gonna get you
a long way. Jeff Boda of the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego has spent his career working to understand the early
Earth’s soup of chemicals. He began under the direction of perhaps
the most famous scientist in origin of life research, Stanley Miller. There are in the history of science
turning points where we suddenly see the history of Earth and life differently. In
the early nineteen fifties, Stanley Miller, the eager graduate student, and
Harold Urey, the Nobel Prize winning mentor at the University of Chicago
conducted this astonishing experiment where they made an early Earth
environment. It looks like this sort of a
Frankenstein type apparatus, but actually it’s a very carefully thought out design.
Boda sets up a modern-day test of the nineteen fifties experiment on Miller’s
original lab equipment. One flask contains water. That’s to
simulate the ocean. The other flask has just got the gases in it,
so this is the atmosphere. Just as it does in nature, water from the
ocean evaporates and rises into the atmosphere, where it condenses and
returns to the ocean. Miller simulated what he believed to be
the atmosphere of early Earth with different gases like ammonia and methane. Then he added a spark of genius. Miller and Urey decided to use a spark
to simulate lightning, because that’s such a ubiquitous process in the
atmosphere of the Earth. That was the real inspiration. These
little electric sparks that acted like simulated lightning. The energy from the
spark of lightning breaks down the gas and water molecules so they can undergo further chemical reactions. To their astonishment, when they turn this apparatus on, after only a couple of days, you started seeing this pink color
developing. In a few more days, black oily goo is forming around the
electrodes. The electrodes get covered with new
substances. Organic compounds, usually associated with life. And it wasn’t just any organic compound. It was amino acids that make proteins, the ingredients for life. Amino acids are the building blocks of
life. They form proteins, which are the key
component of muscles and other tissues. People thought “aha!”. This is a key step in the origin of life. And you really believe that you can bring life to the dead? That body is not dead, it has never lived. I created it. The experiment raised a fear that a
Frankenstein creation, like in this classic film, was just around the corner. People were saying they had made
Frankenstein in a test tube. Had Miller and Urey cooked up life in a
test tube? many of the news headlines were saying “life created in the laboratory”, “life created in a test tube”. Of course, that was wrong. The real news was, he made these
compounds that are part of life. By creating amino acids, the Miller-Urey experiment seemed to confirm that Darwin was right. Life must have begun in a shallow pond. But then, 24 years later, a shocking discovery radically challenged that idea. On a dark ocean floor, more than a mile
below the surface, explorers found hot, mineral rich
hydrothermal vents, like underwater volcanoes. Temperatures reached more than 600
degrees and yet here, life was thriving. Not off the Sun’s
energy, but through chemical energy from the vents. No one realized that life could thrive
without sunlight. Here you have this extreme temperature and extreme pressure and so you have to shift your perceptions and realize that just
because it’s extreme to us doesn’t mean it’s extreme to those microbes. Instead of the warm shallow pond, could this dark and unlikely environment
be where life began? To answer that, Hazen decided to try creating life’s
building blocks in the conditions of a deep-sea vent. My first thought was “why don’t we
do a Miller-Urey experiment but do it at high temperature, high pressures?” Hazen’s laboratory is at the Carnegie Institution for Science, which is famous
for experiments that simulate the intense pressures deep inside Earth with
powerful tools called pressure bombs. They’re called bombs for a reason,
because things can explode. Hazen and his colleagues adapted these
pressure bombs to model the environment of the deep sea vents in a small gold
tube. What they discovered came as a surprise. Nothing happened. You can take basic
gases. Nitrogen, CO2, maybe some sulfur compounds, you can mix those, you can put them in a gold tube,
you can heat them up, you don’t get much much that is very interesting. Simply squeezing and heating the
ingredients had little effect. Hazen was missing the spark like in the
Miller-Urey experiment. The thing that kick-starts the chemistry. So he said, what’s going on?
What’s different? Well, look at the natural environment.
There is all these rocks and minerals. Let’s try putting some rocks and
minerals in. They recreate the early Earth cocktail,
but this time grind in powder from rocks and minerals. But will Hazen’s beloved rocks do the
trick? They run the experiment again. And this time, the atoms reform into new
organic molecules, including amino acids. As soon as you put powdered rocks and
minerals into the gold capsules then all sorts of really amazing things started
happening. You made organic molecules, they became
more stable, they lasted longer, and it really pointed us in the direction of “aha”,
this has got to be part of the story. While scientists still argue if life
began in shallow ponds or deep sea vents, both sides wonder what part of the story did rocks and minerals play? One possible answer may be found in
London in the powerful properties of mud. Most people will be familiar with
the material. It’s very gungy. That’s a British word that refers to something which is soft and unpleasant generally. Peter Coveney of University College, London is busy playing in mud at a very sophisticated
level. He has created powerful computer
simulations that can track the precise movement of up to 10 million atoms. Mud can contain clay, which is made up of
some of Earth’s most common minerals. What makes it so gungy, and perhaps
essential in the origin of life, can be seen deep in its atomic makeup. You can see
here the basic structure of any play is comprised of a large number of stacked
sheets like a deck of cards. Sheets of clay have spaces between them that fill
up with water and other molecules. These extensive surface areas can help
create more complex molecules, potentially even RNA, an essential part
of life’s genetic code One of the most challenging questions in
the origin of life is how we get from the simple building blocks to the
complicated structures we know are fundamental to living systems. Clays provide a clear mechanism for
achieving that. These simulations show that the secret
to clay lies in its surfaces. The surfaces of these minerals are
incredible. They do all sorts of chemical tricks. Hazen says minerals like clays
illustrate a fascinating aspect of chemistry, because the surface where
reactions take place can be as important as the ingredients themselves. The most exquisite chemistry occurs at surfaces Your body, your cells are almost entirely
surfaces on which chemistry takes place So when we think about the origin of
life, the minerals is where we place surfaces you have in your body that do that
chemical work. We are finally beginning to understand
the secret role minerals could have played in life’s origin. They provided some of the ingredients.
And surfaces, where important chemical reactions take place. So, when in Hazen’s color phases did all
this happen? One of the best places to figure that
out is back in Australia where Hazen and team are now searching for signs of
Earth’s earliest life. I can’t believe these rocks are three
and a half billion years old. They would maybe form last week. Martin Van Kranendonk leads the team
to a very unusual rock formation. You get your eye casting up. You see them all
wrinkly, laminated, black and then if you look a bit further back, you see a
very large domical structure. There is no obvious way that a chemical or physical
process would form that. Exactly. These strange shapes are fossilized
remnants of life, called stromatolites, beautifully preserved in these ancient
rocks. This is an amazing spot. We’re actually looking down on the
surface of the ancient Earth here. This was the seafloor 3.4 billion years
ago. I can see it in action, it is like a snap
frozen in an instant of time. But billions of years have taken their toll. To really understand stromatolites, we
have to go nearly 800 miles away. David Flannery, a geologist, has come to
Shark Bay in search of their very distant descendants. Just below the
surface, he finds a series of round, black
mounts – living stromatolites. Modern environments like these they’re very rare, but they are really the
key to interpreting what we see in the very early fossil record. Without environments like these,
we wouldn’t know how stromatolites were built. Stromatolites are
something like coral, a hard mineral structure that has been built, layer by
layer. A closer look reveals the builders: Microbes – single-celled life. The living part of a stromatolite is
only the surface. With a living microbial mat that is building up the
structure layer by layer, less than a millimeter per year. The top layer of these stromatolites is
alive with microbes that perform a remarkable trick. They capture minerals
and sand in the water and biologically cement them, layer by layer, into the
solid mounds. The results can be seen in Shark Bay
today and in the ancient fossils. Let me introduce you to this
outcrop. It’s just spectacular to be able to see this. And this outcrop
is unique. Van Kranendonk has dated this stromatolite to 3.5 billion years ago. This is the very oldest fossil of life
on Earth. We all want to know where we come from,
where life originated, how long ago in what form and this is the oldest direct
evidence we have for life on Earth. But while stromatolites are the earliest
fossil of life we’ve found that does not make them the very first living thing. In fact, Van Kranendonk thinks that by the time stromatolite appeared, life’s party
was already in full swing. There are whole communities and colonies that are
building fantastically complex structures. So, we’ve actually come in pretty late to
the game, there’s a lot that’s gone on before us to get to this stage. And it’s
this complexity that tells us that life probably originated on Earth very early. So if these very early fossils are too
complex to be the oldest form of life, is it possible to find something earlier? That is what Ruth Blake, a geologist at
Yale University, is trying to figure out. By turning to the geological equivalent
of a crime scene investigation. The crime has been committed, the
criminals gone, but they’ve left behind some indicators, because they’ve changed
their environment. Blake is analyzing some of the oldest
rocks on Earth, like this ground up one from Greenland that formed at the bottom
of an ocean She’s looking for a chemical signature
of life, left by microbes, including bacteria. What we start with is our ocean, trapped
in a rock, and our file signature is somewhere in here. We have to get it out. In the lab, Blake and her team dissolve these rocks and extract molecules that
are the chemical signature left behind by ancient microbes. Old life, like these microbes, consumes
nutrients to produce energy. The leftovers carry the chemical
footprint of life. Even today, we humans leave behind
chemical footprints. When we breathe, for example, we’re taking
in oxygen and we are exhaling CO2 and water vapor And water vapor interacts with your
environment. Amazingly, rocks from 3.5 billion years ago,
at the time of the stromatolites in Australia, also carry a strong chemical footprint
of life. But when Blake analyzes the Greenland
rocks from 300 million years earlier, she makes a tantalizing discovery. As far back as 3.5 billion years, we see
a strong biological signature and the older rocks are approaching that, but not
quite there, but we do believe that we see something there. Blake believes she has detected the faint
signal of life at 3.8 billion years ago, only 700 million years after Earth was
created, early in the blue phase. There is still much that we don’t know
about our early planet, but some things are becoming clearer. If you could transport yourself back in
time, about 4 billion years, parts of our earth
might not look too different than this Southern California beach minus the surfers
and Google. You could stand on cliffs, probably of granite,
overlooking oceans that were increasingly rich with minerals and early microbial life. But you would quickly die in a great deal of pain, suffocating in the heavy atmosphere,
rich in nitrogen and carbon dioxide, but lacking in life-giving free oxygen. Then, something truly astonishing
happened. Those harmless-looking microbes, floating
in the water or on stromatolites, started to change everything, turning
Earth red. Wow! Oh my god, this is amazing! There aren’t many places on Earth you can
see something like this. A remnant of red Earth can be seen in Australia at the
Hammersley Basin in Karijini national park. In these rocks, Hazen finds a
startling consequence of early life as it began to thrive and evolve. What we’re seeing here is one of the
greatest tricks that life ever figured out. And that was how to take sunlight and
convert it to energy. Microbes, like those in the stromatolites at Shark Bay, eventually began to live off the Sun’s energy through photosynthesis. That led to a dramatic rise in a gas
that Earth was not accustomed to. Oxygen. While to us, oxygen is a life-giving
benign gas, to a world not accustomed to it, oxygen created a dangerously corrosive cocktail. The early oceans were filled with dissolved iron. The new oxygen reacted with that iron and it began to rust and sank to the bottom of the sea. These little microbes they’re
microscopic things and you wouldn’t think they could do all that much, but when
they produce that oxygen, the oxygen reacts with the iron in the oceans. You
get the world’s largest deposits of iron, thousands of feet, covering hundreds of
square miles. these formations cover a vast area with
trillions of tons of iron ore. That is an unimaginable consequence of trillions
upon trillions of microbes breathing. it’s a fundamental change in the
chemistry of Earth. It’s the consequence of the rise of
oxygen. The rise in oxygen that rusted iron and sent Earth into the red phase also created many new minerals As a mineralogist, when I look at Earth’s
history, I see big transitions. I see the moon-forming impact, I see the formation
of oceans and so forth. Then nothing, nothing matches what life and oxygen did
to create new minerals. Some estimate that the meteorites that
formed Earth began with only about 250 minerals. Today, there are more than 5,000. Hazen believes that two-thirds of all
the minerals that now make up our planet, were created by the introduction of
oxygen and most of that was in turn created by life. It’s mind-boggling. Rocks create life,
life creates rocks, they’re intertwined in ways that are just now coming into
focus. But the road ahead for life and for
rocks would not be easy As we head into the next phase of Earth,
new continents formed and broke apart which may have created dramatic extremes
in the climate. Earth plunged into an icy freeze, turning it white. In these frozen conditions, life was
nearly wiped out. Fortunately, active volcanoes still
poke through the icy veneer, billowing out carbon dioxide, or CO2. Like a thermal blanket around our Earth,
this kept heat in and rescued life. Life all but shut down and then the CO2
rises and rises and the greenhouse effect gets hotter and hotter and suddenly the
planet melts. Cycles of these snowball hothouse conditions had profound consequences for life One result was more oxygen, which
eventually allowed for bigger animals The dramatic changes during white Earth
would bring us to the present phase, starting about 540 million years ago. A living planet. Filled with diverse plants and
spectacular creatures. But those life forms are pitted against
each other in a survival of the fittest. And rocks can make the difference
between life and death. That struggle can be seen back in Morocco at
the edge of the anti Atlas Mountains. Here, Bob Hazen and Adam Aaronsen are
looking for evidence of an evolutionary trick that shows, once again, how life and
rocks took a big leap forward together. 520 million years ago, this valley was a
shallow ocean, filled with new forms of life. This is when the diversity of life on
Earth exploded, all thriving in a living sea. So, if you were a scuba diver, and you dove
down to this reef, you’d see all kinds of life swimming around. It would be really amazing, probably very
colorful too. There is one creature that dominates
this ancient reef that Hazen wants to find. Nothing there, nothing there, and nothing there. Fossil hunting is a game of luck and
persistence but it doesn’t take long for Hazen to strike geologic gold. Whoa! Geez, look at that! That is amazing. The trilobite. Hey look,
there’s another head there, and a head there. Two more. Boy, this is rich rock. The trilobites here are amazing because these are the oldest animals that you can find. They’re preserved as what you think of as a fossil that you can hold in your hand. Some trilobites were like horseshoe crabs, scurrying about the ocean floor. The reason they are found as fossils
today, is because they developed an astonishing evolutionary trick: Shells. Trilobite shells were made of calcium
carbonate, the same mineral found in limestone, the rock that built the
pyramids. In effect, life itself began to make rocks
for its own advantage. And the idea went viral. If you had a shell, you’re gonna survive a
lot longer than that soft body animal that doesn’t have a shell. The trilobite had an advantage. It’s
survival of the fittest. The trilobites’ mineral shell heralded
a new phase in the evolution of animals, catapulting our planet into the present
stage: Green Earth. One that is rich in diverse life. From humans back to trilobites, we owe our evolution and survival to the
world of minerals. With shells, then eventually with bones and teeth that
paved the way for life to grow taller and stronger. All are evidence of life co-opting minerals for its own
evolutionary advantage. We’ve thought for centuries animals,
minerals, they’re separate kingdoms, right? But it turns out they overlap, they’re
intertwined, they co-evolved, that life makes minerals and minerals has led to
new life forms. You can’t separate the two. Life and rocks are totally intertwined
through billions of years of Earth history. One of Hazen’s favorite places to see
this intertwined history of life and minerals is at the Calvert cliffs
along the Chesapeake Bay He and his wife Margy pick up shells
and sharp teeth from a time 18 million years ago, when massive sea creatures
swam here. That’s nice. You find teeth
along the beach that are five, six, sometimes seven inches long with
serrated edges, razor-sharp teeth. These were immense creatures. Sharks that
may have been 50 or 60 feet long. These giants of the sea would have
dwarfed today’s great whites and it was the bones and teeth, created with minerals, that enabled them to grow so large and powerful. They were feeding on whales. Dolphins
would have been a snack. They are just one small part of a story
of coevolution, stretching back to Earth’s beginning. The life, the rocks. It’s all part of the
same story. Step by step throughout Earth’s
evolution, minerals and life have sparked chemical reactions that sculpted the
planet into what we see today. And helped create the life we know. At this place you get a sense of the immensity of time and the constancy of change. Life is creating and sculpting our surroundings in ways that are quite wonderful, and just to recognize the power of life
to transform a planet. Of course, humans transform the planet too. We
build cities, we build roads, we change the composition of the atmosphere and
change the composition of the oceans. There are going to be global changes. These changes, whose consequences are now beginning to unfold, are the latest chapter in Earth’s epic
story. A story that began four and a half billion years ago with a rock.

100 thoughts on “Origin of Life – How Life Started on Earth

  1. @ Enlightened: Your original post was a blunder: "Looking with your naked, caveman eyeball shows that a worm’s handling of soil is synonymous with that of the handling of our modern agricultural equipment when it comes to IRRIGATING soil: aeration, sensory detection, consumption…"
    And none of your examples had anything to do with water and its controlled as needed application to plants. How embarrassing!
    You had to delete your 'irrigating soil,' and replace it with 'enriching soil.'

  2. Enlightened thinks that modern agricultural equipment enriches the soil through CONSUMPTION. Wow. That's a train wreck.

  3. Enlightened thinks that modern agricultural equipment enriches the soil through STORAGE. Wow. That's lunacy. Maybe she's thinking 'dump truck?'

  4. Enlightened thinks that modern agricultural equipment enriches the soil through EXCRETION. Wow. So farm tractors need restrooms?

  5. Enlightened thinks that modern agricultural equipment enriches the soil through DECOMPOSITION. Wow. So farm cultivators chew up the soil and spit it out like an earthworm? Wow, that's ridiculous, Enlightened.

  6. Internet link required, Stuart. Anyone should be able to verify your citation with a simple mouse click, Stuart." REASONING IS FUTILE
    Did you forget where you provided a link to the abstract and I provided a link to the full paper miss? I'm not insinuating you're a lying
    savagely angry troll with an inferiority complex who'd kill for just one 'gotcha' moment, of course, heavens to betsy no.

  7. ​ jebstuart : "Synonymous because we can use the same description miss(sic)? So rocks and zebras are synonymous because they both have weight and volume?" No, Stuart, both cells and computers execute energy driven processing functions associated with digital information the same way. And these synonymous functions can only be traced back to a mind.

  8. Because our earth is red means too hot, in that condition water would not be found if it then it suddenly evaporates and turned into gases

  9. @Enlightened: You allowed your 'irrigating soil' blunder to be posted for over six hours until your intellectual superior read it, had a good belly laugh, and then pointed out your error. It would still read, 'irrigating soil' had I not intervened, prompting you to delete and revise with great embarrassment. And the new version featuring 'enriching soil' is not much better. What incompetence!

  10. "No, Stuart, both cells and computers execute energy driven processing functions associated with digital information the same way"
    No they don't. Not even close. But as explained, we CAN exploit our word usage to make things appear "synonymous with", rather than "analogous to".

  11. The Discoverrhoid's watchmaker analogy is an argument for atheism because if you compare a computer, a bible or a rhubarb pie to nature you can clearly see that the computer, bible and rhubarb pie were designed by apes and that nature very obviously wasn't. This is why the Discoverrhoids have to try and convince the world that there were "prebiotic minds and brains" which is impossible by definition. FUTILE… absolutely FUTILE.

  12. To even suggest that 100% natural, random, unplanned, unguided, not designed nucleotide copying errors that can be directly observed and repeatedly tested "are designed" is impossible by all definitions of the English language. Seeing that the bible literalists have been shown this means only one thing, they're are proven wilfully habitual and compulsive liars with no morals.

  13. Futile thinks that a cell’s storage of digital information is done in the exact same way as a computer. What, do cells have teeny, weeny, rigid rotating disks coated with magnetic material, complete with magnetic heads and an actuator arm? “Not Analogous; Synonymous” is her best joke yet.

  14. Futile thinks that a cell’s proof reading of digital information is done in the exact same way as a computer. What, do cells have teeny, weeny little word processors built into their OS, complete with spellcheck and grammar suggestions? “Not Analogous; Synonymous” is her best joke yet.

  15. Futile thinks that a cell’s transmitting of digital information is done in the exact same way as a computer. What, do cells have teeny, weeny little modems and routers for establishing an internet connection with other cells out there? “Not Analogous; Synonymous” is her best joke yet.

  16. Re: 'God of the gaps' Since it can't be shown that blind chance and necessity could ever have poofed life on Earth 4 billion years ago, it's a MOOT POINT to even talk about a 'gap.' There never will be a body of knowledge, set of chemical reactions, or any natural law or principle that you can plug into the origin of life dilemma that materialism faces. Anyone who has even a decent knowledge base of organic chemistry, biochemistry, and cell biology can come to appreciate the Catch 22 paradoxes facing abiogenesis.

  17. "There never will be a body of knowledge, set of chemical reactions, or any natural law or principle that you can plug into the origin of life dilemma that materialism faces" Spoken by a true Luddite and science-phobe.

  18. I referenced a paper yesterday which overturns several so-called 'paradoxes' of prebiotic earth that the fundies adhere to. I was told "Good luck with your paper. I'm not paying for a subscription" I guess we'll have to ignore it in the traditional fundie way and continue to believe these 'paradoxes' are real and insurmountable.

  19. I wonder what Christian headquarters at the Vatican thinks about this new US Christian movement declaring to the world that no one knows the origins of life?  Face psalm.

  20. Although I can understand the important role of religion in the evolution of human sociology towards maintaining order and encouraging ethics, I think a modern person living today would have to be falling prey to the phenomenon of emotional reasoning in order to take parables seriously. I have no problem believing that nature has its own order and process apart from whatever model I attribute to reality as an individual. I'm fine with the logic that physically expressed phenomenon must necessarily have a cause with a physical basis. I also believe such chemical, atomic, and subatomic causes can be reliably studied and tested consistently in a controlled environment. It doesn't seem farfetched to me for human life to possibly be a result of Earth's early atmosphere having conditions which naturally created amino acid proteins that formed the basis for microorganisms whose DNA instructions eventually evolved into the human genome.

    If people don't wish to believe this that is their right. At the level of human psychology, tendencies for open mindedness may be inversely correlated to one's extent of emotional/psychological trauma. A person suffering loss is going to need to find a way to cope and sometimes the tradition of religious practice can provide direction of a kind to some. If my great grandparents were religious and they're no longer here, it could feel disrespectful to their memory and affect someone deeply on an emotional basis to think that the understanding of reality they had and wanted for their family may have been misinformed. Understanding this, I can see why it would be hard to have a reasonable discussion about the nature of the world with everyone. Too many people have been influenced by the indoctrination of the past and have had relatives who've seen the extent of their lifespans devoutly believing religious ideas such that objective reasoning is in arguably many ways no longer reasonably attainable to them. Instead it is rendered unlikely by the cognitive dissonance which defends the memory of their family members and the cherished beliefs they attribute to them about the nature of existence and consciousness.

    That being said, for those with the ability to see beyond the immense persuasiveness of human social influences, believing that one is more intellectually gifted or discerning than another is a reason for the former person to grant the latter person more sympathy or empathy, not less. I believe smart people have an ethical duty toward the good care and treatment of those who have not been 'blessed' with those gifts at least in consideration. Having ostensibly more accuracy in one's observations does not give anyone the right to bully anyone else or be ignorant to their suffering. The nature of bickering tends to be due to repressive denials by those who engage in it. There is something hypocritical in finding fault in someone else and/or their views while I am not myself aware of what my choice to focus specifically on those qualities of them says about me.

  21. It's like When you are saying that airplane with all the wiring and the electronics etc and all the parts that work together as a whole to make it fly and say it was a random and proof it wasn't random

  22. It's not necessary to see or touch or taste any thing to prove it . You can notice it's effects . For a while there wasn't anything called radio waves and then they noticed it by its effect. And you can notice the effect of a universal intelligent

  23. "Spoken by a true Luddite and science-phobe." Spoken like a materialist who believes that mother nature is magical.

  24. @ jebstuart : "Yet all you ever do is scream that if we haven't "cracked the case" yet, we never will. LOL, what a sad sack Luddite you are." Name calling won't help your futility with the intractable abiogenesis hypothesis, Stuart. Why don't you just help us all out and actually list the ingredients and recipe for how prebiotic mother nature produced the first cell on Earth 4 billion years ago, and maybe then there won't be any more Luddites? Hmm?

  25. If I had to compute a number of equations in multiplication and division, others involving exponents, roots, logarithms, and trigonometry, I could provide you with absolutely the correct answer and you wouldn't know whether I had used a computer or a SLIDE RULE!
    Computers and slide rules are functionally the same with respect to these mathematical operations. Your whining about the underlying physical mechanism performing the operations is irrelevant. It is axiomatic that energy driven integrated systems of digital information processing always trace their origin to the design and implementation activities of intelligence.

  26. Flower Bee: "And you can notice the effect of a universal intelligent"
    Yoda: "Such as?"
    Flower Bee: "Such as your complicated body how it works as a whole"
    Yoda: "All demonstrated by natural explanations i.e. biology."
    25 SOCKS ARE FUTILE: "You will now give a detailed 'natural explanation' using nothing more than chance and necessity accounting for just how your decision to post your incredible nonsense came about, and the unique informational content of your incredibly nonsensical post."

    🤣 So it is obvious 25FutileSocks is now claiming that biology does not explain how the human body works 🤣🤣🤣

  27. @ jebstuart : "Can you say "cart before the horse" dilemma?" And yet you have no evidence for the presumed order of synthetic chemical steps in abiogenesis, so you're dismissed.

  28. @ Enlightened: Sadly for you, a cultivator is a type of farm implement! I could just as easily referenced a seed drill, a swather, or a combine, and that's right off the top of my head! Doesn't matter which implement I pick, it's idiotic to claim that any of them enrich the soil through decomposition.

  29. @ Yoda “25FutileSocks is now claiming that biology does not explain how the human body works.” BLUNDER!!! You just claimed that you could use 'biology' to explain, using nothing more than chance and necessity – biology – could account for just how your decision to post your incredible nonsense came about, and the unique informational content of your incredibly nonsensical post – and when simply asked to back up your claim, you wallow in stupidity and run away!
    If I'm wrong, then you should be able to explain both your decision to post on You Tube and the way that the informational content of your post actually came to be. Otherwise, you can grovel at my feet with an apology.

  30. @ Enlightened: Your original post was a blunder: "Looking with your naked, caveman eyeball shows that a worm’s handling of soil is synonymous with that of the handling of our modern agricultural equipment when it comes to IRRIGATING soil: aeration, sensory detection, consumption…"
    And none of your examples had anything to do with water and its controlled as needed application to plants. How embarrassing!
    You had to delete your 'irrigating soil,' and replace it with 'enriching soil.'

  31. @ Gary Bell: "Poor Miss Giggles (sic) is just cow kicking her (sic) own stupid bible literalist straw man as scientists at least by 1983, as I'll show, knew that RNA wasn't the origins of life. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/"

    Then why don't you have a little chat with ENLIGHTENED, Bell?

  32. Classic origin of life scientists grasping at straws and dissing the RNA world hypothesis: ”From a purely chemical standpoint, it is difficult to imagine how long RNA molecules could be formed initially by purely nonenzymatic means. For one thing, the precursors of RNA, the ribonucleotides, are difficult to form nonenzymatically. Moreover, the formation of RNA requires that a long series of 3′ to 5′ phosphodiester linkages form in the face of a set of competing reactions, including hydrolysis, 2′ to 5′ linkages, 5′ to 5′ linkages, and so on. Given these problems, it has been suggested that the first molecules to possess both catalytic activity and information storage capabilities may have been polymers that resemble RNA but are chemically simpler (Figure 6-93). *We do not have any remnants of these compounds in present-day cells, nor do such compounds leave fossil records. Nonetheless, the relative simplicity of these “RNA-like polymers” make them better candidates than RNA itself for the first biopolymers on Earth that had both information storage capacity and catalytic activity.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

  33. If I had to compute a number of equations in multiplication and division, others involving exponents, roots, logarithms, and trigonometry, I could provide you with absolutely the correct answer and you wouldn't know whether I had used a computer or a SLIDE RULE!
    Computers and slide rules are functionally the same with respect to these mathematical operations.
    Their functions are SYNONYMOUS!

  34. If anyone watns actual science on the probability of a single protein being created by chanse.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQoQgTqj3pU

  35. Describe your proposed intelligent creator.
    Fundie: The cell is an intricate… digital… error processing… computer-like…
    No, I mean, explain this intelligence.
    Fundie: You need to make me a cell…
    No, let's get back to your claim of a creator.
    Fundie: The first cell needed ATP and proteins…
    Your creator thingy? Anything? Anything at all?
    Fundie: The cell is an intricate…digital… error-processing..

  36. @ Bluebottle 99 : "@Yoda Yes she is a first class hypocrite, Mr Yoda. I concur." And now your puppets are talking to each other. Nice.

  37. Want positive confirmation of the lying strategy of Miss Futile?
    I referenced a paper that overturned several of her claimed "paradoxes". These are her protests (pay particular attention to the last two)
    Statement 1) : "This tabloid promo merely speculates about ONE THING, a cell membrane, Stuart."
    Statement 2) : "You and your shiny penny article are summarily dismissed!"
    Statement 3) : "NO, LIAR, there was no mention in the peer reviewed paper of any prebiotic paradox being solved"
    Statement 4) : "The actual paper by Corell et al is, "Prebiotic amino acids bind to and stabilize prebiotic fatty acid membranes." No mention of any paradox being solved, Stuart."
    Statement 5) : "Carbohydrates were conveniently omitted, as was phospholipid bilayer cell membrane"
    Statement 6) : "Well, good luck with your article, because I'm not paying for a subscription to allow me to log in. Duh"
    Statement 7) : "Still not paying for a subscription, Stuart. You're on your own on this one."

  38. It didn't start here, it came here trapped in water as ice, not my theory, can't remember which university came up with it, or who.

  39. The following 23 YouTube accounts belong to just one user:

    RESISTANCE IS FUTILE; Magnus Carlsen; Hydrogen Peroxide; Dragon Slayer; The Terminator; Cerebral Independence; Nuclear Fallout; Wolf 1.0; 事実は事実です; интеллектуальные победы дизайн; Suddenlyitsobvious; Dr len; Urban Skeptic; Peritrichous Dominatur; 633459; Maria Bonito; Peyton Manning Matchlock(space)fun; ergo no mover; The Celestial Coffeepot; Extant Frodo2; Necromonger Nation and Chocolate Coated Reason

    She has no shame in admitting, "I am proud to operate with numerous accounts" because she can "kick any atheist comments to the bottom of the page", proving she is just another a butt-hurt creationist troll whose comments are nothing more than meaningless whining.

  40. Still not a peep from the Christian DI anti science movement positing a single atom of evidence for prebiotic brains, in fact the entire world is struggling to discover any post biotic intelligence at the DI. "Come at me!" LOL!

  41. Poor FUTILE is just haplessly cow kicking her own stupid bible literalist straw man for no effect as scientists at least by 1983, as we'll show, knew that RNA wasn't the origins of life. As far as I know no scientist states that RNA was the origins of life, it was just an inevitable natural step along way as you need RNA to synthesise proteins for DNA. So stop lying FUTILE. 
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

  42. So who's lying? Is it every scientist lying about their observable, testable and publicly verifiable natural explanations of the evidence or is it imams, rabbis, priests and gurus who have no evidence and no explanations whatsoever?  This is the question that all versions of creationists should be asking themselves.

  43. Cannot let a day go by without picking-up and examining a rock. The Rice Museum of rocks & minerals in Hillsboro, Oregon, is fascinating for any geology aficionado.

  44. Yet another problem for abiogenesis is that, at the functional epicenter of the genetic code, is the charging of tRNAs by one of twenty different aminoacyl tRNA synthetases. For this digital information processing system to have developed spontaneously in prebiotic earth, dozens of different tRNAs, each containing a unique RNA anticodon, would have had to be synthesized DE NOVO and readily available. You can't argue that ANY of these tRNAs "came from meteorites" or comets, etc. But at the same time, for those tRNA molecules to actually function within the genetic code, unknown random processes needed to spontaneously generate 20 different PROTEINS…. catalytic ENZYMES… known as aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (aaRS), and these enzymes would have to – further – develop and persist in having a TRIPLE CHEMICAL AFFINITY: 1) with one of 20 amino acids, and to no other amino acid, just one; 2) with an adenosine triphosphate molecule through a covalent bond right at the amino acid's carboxyl group; 3) with anywhere from one to four different anticodon-bearing tRNAs that, again, had to appear DE NOVO. Moreover, the RNA triplet in any given tRNA anticodon could NOT, in the supposed natural origin of life, possess any direct chemical affinity with any given amino acid. The mapping of 64 anticodons to the 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases had to occur completely by chance 4.1 billion years ago, forming a complex chemical network! And in the process give birth to a completely new, heretofore unknown form of chemistry! Further still, the highly specific molecular structure of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase would almost certainly have had to have been specified in turn by DNA within an already functioning genetic code. No plausible prebiotic chemical pathway has ever been shown to permit the unguided, natural and spontaneous formation of complex protein enzymes with the requisite 3 dimensional folding structure necessary to catalyze chemical reactions. FINALLY, each aminoacyl tRNA synthetase enzyme would have to exist before the molecular conditions existed for it to be synthesized in the first place!!! Can you say 🐓 "chicken and egg dilemma?" 🐔

  45. Paley's watchmaker analogy was merely an analogy. Sadly for you materialists, modern empirical evidence shows that the cell's handling of digital information is synonymous with that of the handling of our desktop computer's handling of digital information: storage, copying, error correction, proof reading, transcribing, editing, transmitting, and decoding. NOT analogous. SYNONYMOUS. Therefore, intelligence is a rational inference for the origin of the first cell on Earth.

  46. Whew! Thought we lost you there miss Futile. But you've been caught in lies about reading papers many times before, your skin is thick as a hippo's, I'm so glad you have no sense of shame to impede your crusade. Welcome back.

  47. PROOF THAT LIFE ARISING FROM INANIMATE MATTER IS IMPOSSIBLE!:

    “PROTEIN CANNOT FORM UNLESS THE CELL EXISTS AS AN INTEGRAL WHOLE” by Harun Yahya

    Darwinists can write as many deceptive books jam packed with formulae, produce as many false fossils as they like, make as many demagogic assaults on the scientific evidence for Creation as they choose, or stick posters up full of fantastical illustrations and present these as exhibitions of evolution all over the place, but none of this will ever change the fact of their fundamental defeat. Because the worst nightmare for Darwinists is the very beginning of life. Darwinists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE EXPLANATION of how just one protein came into being. This is an expression of the despairing situation into which, Dawkins, Futuyma, Tim White and all other Darwinists now find themselves. None of this demagoguery can resolve this great and stupendous rout in the face of a single protein. A SINGLE PROTEIN HAS TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM.

    One important feature of Darwinist demagoguery is that Darwinists always tended to reduce the question of the origin of life to the very simple, despite all the complexity of life, by portraying everything within it as very simple. That is the reason for such myths as “the cell emerged from muddy water” and “DNA spontaneously began replicating itself.” Darwinists imagined it would be easier to deceive people in this way. But they have now seen that the time for such deception has passed. Not only do people now know that a single protein is far too complex ever to come into being spontaneously, they are also aware that neither a protein, DNA, RNA or any other minute component of the cell WILL SERVE ANY PURPOSE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CELL AS A WHOLE.

    This fact is of great importance in terms of the defeat of Darwinism:

    • DNA is essential for a single protein to form.
    • DNA cannot form without protein.
    • Protein cannot form without DNA.
    • Protein cannot form in the absence of protein.
    • Sixty separate proteins are needed for a single protein to form.
    • Protein cannot form in the absence of any one of these.
    • Protein cannot form with no ribosome.
    • Protein cannot form with no RNA.
    • Protein cannot form without ATP.
    • Protein cannot form without the mitochondria to manufacture ATP.
    • Protein cannot form without the cell nucleus.
    • Protein cannot form without the cytoplasm.
    • Protein cannot form in the absence of a single organelle in the cell.
    • And proteins are necessary for all the organelles in the cell to exist and function.
    • There can be no protein without these organelles.

    This is an interconnected system that has to function simultaneously. You cannot have one part without the other. Even if one component exists, it will still not function in the absence of the others. In short, THE WHOLE CELL IS NECESSARY FOR A PROTEIN TO FORM. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SINGLE PROTEIN TO FORM IN THE ABSENCE OF THE WHOLE CELL, with its perfect complex structure we see today, but of which we understand only a very small part. Even if this protein did form spontaneously (which is, in any case, impossible), it will still serve no purpose. It will just wander around alone and die.

    Therefore, Dawkins’ claim of “a spontaneously replicating molecule” is utterly ludicrous and solely intended to deceive. NO MOLECULE IN THE HUMAN CELL POSSESSES THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE ITSELF SPONTANEOUSLY WITHOUT THE HELP OF ANY OTHER MOLECULE.

    The Cambridge University Professor of Philosophy, Stephen C. Meyer, describes this in his book, “The Signature in the Cell”:

    “Following the elucidation of the structure and function of DNA during the 1950s and early 1960s, a radically new conception of life began to emerge. Not only did molecular biologists discover that DNA carried information; they soon began to suspect that living organisms must contain systems for processing genetic information. Just as the digital information stored on a disc is useless without a device for reading the disc, so too is the information on DNA useless without the cell’s information-processing system. As Richard Lewontin notes, ‘No living molecule (i.e., bio-molecule) is self-producing. Only whole cells may contain all the necessary machinery for self-reproduction… Not only is DNA incapable of making copies of itself, aided or unaided, but it is incapable of making anything else… The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.’” *

    These statements once again reveal the inconsistency of these accounts by Dawkins, who has recently converted to the religion of outer space. The Earth is the most ideal environment in all of space for the survival of the living cell. But not even these ideal conditions by themselves make it possible for the cell to be able to form spontaneously. Dawkins has looked for a new explanation in the face of this and now maintains that a molecule capable of replicating spontaneously formed in space and subsequently made its way to Earth. The first insoluble problem here is that no such living molecule can form spontaneously. The second is, as set out above, that no living molecule can replicate spontaneously, not even on Earth. Aware of these insoluble problems, Dawkins eventually had to admit that such a molecule was created by a sublime intelligence.

    * Stephen C. Meyer, The Signature in the Cell, Harper One, 2009, p. 132-133

    ( http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/works/19966/Protein-cannot-form-unless-the-cell-exists-as-an-integral-whole )

  48. I thought The Hobbit was vastly superior to this fantasy. A protein cannot form without instructions. Not ever. There is no escape from this simple fact…. try as you might. Intelligent design is a slam dunk. The very definition of a no brainer. All the rationalization and mental contortions you can conjure up will only provide temporary comfort. Ultimately you will always find yourself coming back to square one. If your not in denial that is. There is great beauty in the simplicity of the theory. The praetorian guard will have a knee jerk reaction of course … having been well inoculated against reason and logic.

  49. Some people think that all these were just accidentally happened. There must have been a creator for all these here and may be at some other places in universe. And I call it God.

  50. @ Hare Krishna in the Movies: Your list of 15 points confirming the molecular prerequisites for biological protein synthesis are 100% correct and represents a solid refutation of the fairy tale known as abiogenesis (actually, not Darwinism, as you've stated). Your 15 points confirm, along with comments from Stephen Meyer and Richard Lewontin, with solid experimental empirical evidence to back them up, that the first cell on Earth would have been, like all life thereafter, IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.
    What we can emphasize further, is this: since, as you’ve stated, “DNA cannot form without protein,” prebiotic chemistry would have needed several ATP powered enzyme proteins working with coordinated precision to even synthesize the DNA double helix polymer in the first place.
    Prebiotic nature needed the information in DNA to code for protein enzymes, while at the same time needing protein enzymes to synthesize DNA. For simple prebiotic chemistry, this is an unsolvable chicken-and-egg dilemma that renders abiogenesis as a stillborn idea. No wonder origin of life science is at an impasse.
    Only the foresight of an advanced intelligence could have overcome the chicken-and-egg dilemma and constructed a truly irreducibly complex living, metabolizing, dividing CELL.
    (Here is a list of your 15 points):
    • DNA is essential for a single protein to form.
    • DNA cannot form without protein.
    • Protein cannot form without DNA.
    • Protein cannot form in the absence of protein.
    • Sixty separate proteins are needed for a single protein to form.
    • Protein cannot form in the absence of any one of these.
    • Protein cannot form with no ribosome.
    • Protein cannot form with no RNA.
    • Protein cannot form without ATP.
    • Protein cannot form without the mitochondria to manufacture ATP.
    • Protein cannot form without the cell nucleus.
    • Protein cannot form without the cytoplasm.
    • Protein cannot form in the absence of a single organelle in the cell.
    • And proteins are necessary for all the organelles in the cell to exist and function.
    • There can be no protein without these organelles.

  51. That's a relief. I was beginning to think you might have some kind of conscience, or a need to preserve dignity miss Futile. I was wrong, welcome back.

  52. @ Mitch Goodfellow : "and finally such a deity must be Jesus Christ the son of the Judeo Christian faith to be accepted on Faith, rather than any scientific evidence" INCORRECT. The prebiotic paradoxes, including that which DNA synthesis would have needed enzyme proteins while simultaneously enzyme proteins needing instructions in DNA to be synthesized can be constructed on empirical experimental evidence – NO JESUS CHRIST OR BIBLE NEEDED.

  53. Something's not quite right here… now what can it be?
    "You and your shiny penny article are summarily dismissed!"
    "NO, LIAR, there was no mention in the peer reviewed paper of any prebiotic paradox being solved"
    "Carbohydrates were conveniently omitted, as was phospholipid bilayer cell membrane"
    "Well, good luck with your article, because I'm not paying for a subscription to allow me to log in. Duh"
    "Still not paying for a subscription, Stuart. You're on your own on this one."

  54. jebstuart : Your response of "The first bacterium-like cell was followed by …" is a solid indication that you've accepted the intelligent design of that first cell and abandoned the irrational view of abiogenesis. Well done, Stuart!

  55. *"jebstuart : Your response of "The first bacterium-like cell was followed by …"" is what we refer to as a QUESTION. One that is never answered by your good christian self miss, we all notice.

  56. Miss Futile : Your response of "Oh, and no… adult animals did not form at the same time 4 billion years ago. The empirical fossil record doesn't support that contention." is a ROCK SOLID indication that you've abandoned your intelligent design argument

  57. 2 days ago miss Futile was lying about what a paper (that she could not access) said. Today she's lying about my acceptance of ID because I said "bacterium-like" cell. And there I was, actually CONCERNED for her mental health after being caught out (yet again) and running away. Does any fundie have a shred of dignity?

  58. jebstuart : Certainly a computer and genetic material are not "synonymous"." Except that you refuse to be truthful. I'm not discussing mere 'genetic material, Stuart, I'm discussing the well known ATP energy driven integrated systems of digital information processing in the cell.

  59. "I'm confirming that adult animals didn't appear at 4 billion years in the past. Instead, you'd have to look at about 541 million years ago, when the fossil evidence shows the geologically abrupt appearance, not only of animal life for the first time"
    So miss Futile HAS accepted evolution, and rejected a one-off interference event by an intelligent entity (several events? Hundreds? Millions?).
    But I see we're back to that old humdinger "There were no animals in the precambrian NOT ONE"

  60. So let's recap Miss Futile's claims.
    The first cell was much the same as a modern bacterium.
    It was plonked on earth by an intelligent designer.

    Later, this designer plonked down a multitude of other single-celled taxa.
    Later, this designer plonked down some porifera, some early primitive bilaterians, and later still, some animals that resemble modern taxa.
    Later, some plants.
    Laer, some dinosaurs, mammals and later again, humans.

    Seems legit. And the evidence for all this will be coming soon (unless it's a secret?)

  61. @jebstuart : "And as told you, a computer and an organic life-form are NOT synonymous." MORE DISHONESTY! Instead of dodging about with terminology that only obliquely hints at the cell's energy driven integrated systems of digital information processing, why can't you actually use the phrase, "the cell's energy driven integrated systems of digital information processing" and demonstrate even an atom of intellectual integrity, Stuart?

  62. @ Mitch Goodfellow "…some of these items were not part of the first functioning cells…" You will now list those 'items,' and then give a detailed explanation how a cell could be functioning without them, please & thank-you. Mitch Goodfellow "…some of these items were not part of the first functioning cells…" You will now list those 'items,' and then give a detailed explanation how a cell could be functioning without them, please & thank-you.

  63. @ Mitch Goodfellow "Krishna 15 points main rebuttal is that it took 4billion yrs of evolution to produce the complexity of today's biological cells…with all its organelles…" No, eukaryotes appeared 2.7 billion years ago. You can't refute the paradox that, FOUR billion years ago, you would have needed DNA to synthesize enzyme proteins, yet simultaneously needing those same enzyme proteins to synthesize DNA in the first place.

  64. why does it matter where we are from? does not it matter more where we are going? anything that happened before the 1800s is almost pure speculation anyway ( oh someone gets paid for all the views) it so amazes me money actually destroyed the value system..especially the moral part of it ….you want to see a real paradox? look to the future by way of the present and see what is coming via global warming and Yellowstone …the real research is free…think, people.

  65. A blind, spontaneous, natural fairy tale hypothesis for life's origins on Earth has to get around the CATCH 22 PARADOX that you need DNA to make protein enzymes, while at the same time needing protein enzymes to make DNA.
    That's game over, unless you're a willfully ignorant, stubborn materialist who won't dare leave the little bubble of his prebiotic fantasies about one-trick pony ribozymes, Miller-Urey sludge, and mineral geochemistry masquerading as cellular metabolism.
    Nice. 🤦🏾‍♂️ (face palm) 🤦🏾‍♂️

  66. @ jebstuart: “Your response of "The first bacterium-like cell was followed by …"" is what we refer to as a QUESTION.” Yes, Stuart, but your statement (“the first bacterium-like cell) establishes the context. And the context of your question is that there was a "first bacterium-like cell ," one that I've maintained was intelligently designed, and your insertion of this "first bacterium-like cell" phrase without qualification or disclaimer into the flow of the discussion demonstrates that you've clearly moved on and accepted its appearance – like I’ve easily shown – as due to the primordial activities of a higher INTELLIGENCE, capitulating to the takedown I've made on abiogenesis and the inference that only a higher INTELLIGENCE would have been capable of solving several prebiotic chicken-and-egg dilemmas!

  67. The following 28 YouTube accounts belong to just one user:

    RESISTANCE IS FUTILE; Magnus Carlsen; Hydrogen Peroxide; Dragon Slayer; The Terminator; Cerebral Independence; Nuclear Fallout; Wolf 1.0; 事実は事実です; интеллектуальные победы дизайн; Suddenlyitsobvious; Dr len; Urban Skeptic; Peritrichous Dominatur; 633459; Maria Bonito; Peyton Manning Matchlock(space)fun; ergo no mover; The Celestial Coffeepot; Extant Frodo2; Necromonger Nation, Chocolate Coated Reason, Ten Ton Steamroller, John Wick, Evolution Is Blind Chance, TrashtalkFun & Dozy Bill Nye

    She has no shame in admitting, "I am proud to operate with numerous accounts" because she can "kick any atheist comments to the bottom of the page", proving she is just another a butt-hurt creationist troll whose comments are nothing more than meaningless whining.

  68. There's been many centuries of Judeo/Christian scientists and yet there's not a single science manuscript describing one atom that was ever created by their gods. In the history of science never has a theory failed so utterly and so comprehensively as the godsdunnit theory. So why? What obvious fact could explain this devastating theological disaster?

  69. In living cells, most catalysts are protein enzymes, composed of amino acids, but in the 1980s another kind of catalyst was discovered. These are RNA molecules composed of nucleotides that are now called ribozymes. Because a ribozyme can act both as a catalyst and as a carrier of genetic information in its nucleotide sequence, it has been proposed that life passed through an RNA World phase that did not require DNA and proteins.  The Discoverrhoid straw man lie utterly destroyed.

  70. If evolution theory actually has any validity, why do evolutionists go out of their way to hide the truth?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u__Zm4stnug

  71. @ Gary Bell : ""Yes Bell, you need RNA to synthesise proteins for DNA." FUTILE refuted her own chicken and egg mental problem." No refutation exists, Bell. For abiogenesis to be true, you would need prebiotic RNA to synthesize the very enzyme protein, RNA Polymerase, that is necessary to transcribe RNA from DNA IN THE FIRST PLACE… that's yet another chicken-and-egg dilemma, thanks for the clarification, Bell.

  72. Gary Bell : I can just as easily assert that, "the funny part is that materialists are the ones insisting that life arose "spontaneously from simple molecules by magic" and the world continues to belly laugh at this materialist futility."

  73. ROFL!  So the religious goalposts have been shifted once again to "you need DNA to transcribe RNA in the first place" (fundie caps optional). Has FUTILE frantically waved away the RNA World First hypothesis or is she just a science illiterate desperately grasping at straws that are nonexistent?  No post biotic brains detected at the DI.

  74. You need prebiotic RNA and prebiotic DNA to have prebiotic brains… oh hang on a minute you don't because this is just religious codswallop, oxymoronic, baseless imagination and utterly impossible juvenile ravings from someone with a very tenuous grasp on sanity.

  75. The Discoverrhoids are forcefully trying to push their movement, huffing and puffing, grunting and groaning and still nothing solid has been produced. Just a lot of immaterial hot air and nonphysical wind which certainly is irrelevant to all science.

  76. Enlightened thinks that modern agricultural equipment enriches the soil through CONSUMPTION. Wow. That's a train wreck.

  77. Re: 'God of the gaps' Since it can't be shown that blind chance and necessity could ever have poofed life on Earth 4 billion years ago, it's a MOOT POINT to even talk about a 'gap.' There never will be a body of knowledge, set of chemical reactions, or any natural law or principle that you can plug into the origin of life dilemma that materialism faces. Anyone who has even a decent knowledge base of organic chemistry, biochemistry, and cell biology can come to appreciate the Catch 22 paradoxes facing abiogenesis.

  78. @ Gary Bell: Sorry to break it to you, Bell, but right now in that ancient body of yours, millions of RNA polymerase enzymes are synthesizing RNA transcripts from DNA using A, C, G, and U to specify the digital sequence in the transcript. And the RNA nucleotides feature D ribose as the carbohydrate. In a prebiotic world, your 'RNA' could be a dog's breakfast of L ribose, D lyxose, L arabinose, R xylose, etc. for the carbohydrate, and any assortment of non canonical nucleobase analogs. What a total mess.
    In a living cell, RNA transcripts contain sequential digital nucleobase information that can actually code for a peptide or regulate cellular function. But a prebiotic ribozyme is, information wise, nothing but jibberish. What a total dead end. Too bad for you, Bell.

  79. Of course FUTILE is ignorant of what she does 30 times a day just like she's ignorant of everything else. God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke godunnit (or a variant) in order to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. Let's observe as she tries to spam and slap her way out of another corner that she's backed herself into.

  80. "The prebiotic paradoxes…" REASONING IS FUTILE
    But your only defense of this "paradox" claim is to PRETEND to read papers that overturn them, and then LIE that you know they're wrong. Something's not quite right. Know what I mean?

  81. "I'm confirming that adult animals didn't appear at 4 billion years in the past. Instead, you'd have to look at about 541 million years ago, when the fossil evidence shows the geologically abrupt appearance, not only of animal life for the first time"
    So miss Futile HAS accepted evolution, and rejected a one-off interference event by an intelligent entity (several events? Hundreds? Millions?).
    But I see we're back to that old humdinger "There were no animals in the precambrian NOT ONE"

  82. Guys, PLEASE! If you want to make replies, keep it to one comment chain. Press the reply button, that's what it's there for. That way the person you're replying to can get a notification and a chance to respond, and ON TOP OF THAT: You don't end up spamming the shit out of the comment section. There's pretty much only two guys arguing with some christian and it's taken up the entire comment section.

  83. @ jebstuart: ​"If you think an intelligent designer that skips the need to be designed itself isn't magic, you have a problem." I can just as easily assert that if you think simple prebiotic chemistry is allowed to skip numerous chicken-and-egg dilemmas, you have a problem, I can help you find the correct alternative inference to the best explanation of Earth's first life.

  84. Origin of life studies have slowly progressed since this video was compiled, here is a fresh example: "First cells may have emerged because building blocks of proteins stabilized membranes" Date: August 12, 2019 Source: University of Washington Summary: Scientists have discovered that the building blocks of proteins can stabilize cell membranes. This finding may explain how the first cells emerged from the primordial soup billions of years ago: The protein building blocks could have stabilized cell membranes against salt and ions that were present in ancient oceans. In addition, membranes may have been a site for these precursor molecules to co-localize, a potential mechanism to explain what brought together the ingredients for life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *