The First Life on Earth: What Science Actually Knows (And What We Don’t) #evolution #life #science

Comments · 53

• LI

  @Life_science-p4b · 5 days ago · pinned

  The biggest question isn’t simply:<br><br>“When did life begin?”<br><br>It’s:<br><br>How much can the evidence actually tell us?<br><br>In this episode, we separate three things:<br><br>🔬 What the evidence strongly supports<br>🧩 What scientists infer from that evidence<br>❓ What remains uncertain or debated<br><br>So I’m curious:<br><br>What do you think is the biggest unanswered question about the origin of life?<br><br>Was it the first self-replicating system?<br>The first metabolism?<br>The first cell?<br>Or something we haven’t even identified yet?<br><br>And if you noticed a scientific claim in the documentary that you’d like to examine more closely, mention it below.<br><br>Let’s keep the discussion evidence-based.<br><br>— The Science of Life<br><br>From the First Cell to Homo sapiens.

• CO

  @coolnameproductions2180 · 13 hours ago

  Excellent video. I love the emphasis on all the things we don&apos;t know....yet. Hopefully this is inspiring to young scientists - there are so many amazing discoveries still to be made.

• FE

  @fekinel · 3 hours ago

  ❤

  1

• GR

  @groundtruthchannel0 · 2 days ago

  love your video, i suggest you add animation

• JA

  @jamestweedy2478 · 2 days ago

  Hopefully we can get more insights from studying the planets and moons in the solar system by sending probes and robotics. Europa, Mars, etc might hold the key to further understanding the origins of life.

• GU

  @gumslinger11 · 1 day ago

  Excellent video, very informative and honest! Anyone actually interested in this subject could gain some real perspective about how science approaches these questions. But unfortunately creationists will still click the video and comment &quot;nuh-uh cuz god.&quot; Without watching or learning anything.

  1

• GR

  @greg3412 · 2 days ago

  This becomes even more complex when you consider cell theory. The experiments culminating with Pasteur show over and over that cells only come from cells. &nbsp;If cells gradually came from non life this would be an exception to cell theory. &nbsp;But in order for it to be scientific one would have to demonstrate that it can happen. As a scientist you should be skeptical of life coming from non life since the experiments show otherwise.

• TR

  @TreeDancingCloud · 2 days ago

  Almost no person now living on Earth recognizes some of the simplest forms of life, and how some of them are based on carbon chain molecules in water, not RNA, not DNA. Before anything as complex as RNA or DNA existed, the simpler earlier life forms were molecules. With differently shaped molecules forming through collisions in a large body of water, some of the molecules discovered how to twist and fold and use their zones of electric fields to grab and manipulate smaller molecules. The living molecules assembled copies of themselves by guiding the linking together of smaller molecules available in the surrounding water. Why? One reason is because with enough differently shaped molecule as experiments, eventually it becomes statistically almost inevitable that one of them becomes two. Two become four, 8, 16, 32, 64... That is life. Later, after further competition and after many other discoveries, this leads to RNA and DNA. It later becomes what we recognize more easily as being living systems.<br><br>Here&apos;s the thing. Those replicating molecules at the very beginning ... they would have existed prior to the existence of oceans on planet Earth. Back during the time of heavy bombardment from comets, shortly after the Earth cooled enough to sustain liquid water that was raining down from the sky, the comets crashing into the Earth would have already hosted self-replicating molecules with divergent forms competing for resources. Life on Earth did not start on Earth. It was delivered along with the water that initially formed the oceans. Give it a cute name. Call it what you will. That is the way it happened, and continues to happen everywhere all over this galaxy, and others. Life is absolutely everywhere, mostly unrecognized.

  1

• ST

  @Stanley-r9m · 5 hours ago

  Science is the study of Creation.<br>Evolution is the study of blindness.<br>The IMMEASURABLE GAP between non life to life is occupied by FOOLS.<br>Who disregard reality in order to deny their Maker.<br>What came first…DNA or the PROTEIN to read it?<br>“Somehow earth became a place where there was water”.

  1

• DA

  @DandyAndy123 · 6 hours ago

  The evidence tells us that basic chemicals will not arrange themselves into a randomly generated self replicating molecules. <br>This is uphill chemistry and thermodynamically unfavourable.<br>RNA world hypothesis has been the most widely supported hypothesis for decades and all the evidence tells us it’s absolute fantasy.

  1

• RI

  @richardg.lanzara3732 · 3 hours ago

  Early life had to sense the environment, which is a type of algorithm. What about the Receptor Theory of Consciousness? Many examples from medicine and pharmacology demonstrate that drugs and toxins can alter our consciousness. What about a new understanding of how our biological receptors work? Perhaps the physics of receptors is the missing ingredient for understanding ourselves? At the most fundamental level, we are the summation and interplay of trillions of our cellular receptors. These receptors are poised biochemical balances that interact with our environment and with one another in a grand symphony that has evolved since the universe began. We are currently unique beings who can reflect on the universe and discover our origins within it. We reside upon the cusp of an unfolding creation, like a surfer trying to catch a wave. See the book, Origins of Life&apos;s Sensoria, for more.

  1

• AL

  @albertdepeal9658 · 8 hours ago

  Confuses knowledge with assumptions based on faith in their own dogma.

  1