Evolution’s Grand Challenge

Alicia @ 64 "Cross, there’s a difference between a hypercritical peer-reviewer and the material meant for public consumption." Yes, I know, the former is closer to the truth, the latter is b*llsh*t like: "We have made considerable progress" and "it’s only a matter of time" Keep bluffing. Cheers Cross

Since Alicia is intent on playing the role of clueless. Scientific models are such that they can be tested against reality. This means that a model of the environment of the early earth is not a scientific model of the environment of the early earth if it cannot actually be tested against the actual environment of the early earth. That would require time travel. I'm sure there's a model for that too though. Ain't science grand. Mung

Mapou: But there is no escaping the merciless finality of the combinatorial explosion. Right. It's a "biatch." mike1962

Alicia Cartelli: Mungy, it’s tested every day. There’s an entire field of biology devoted to studying it. Ain't time travel grand! Mung

mike1962, A few people use GAs to solve stochastic optimization problems with a very limited number of variables and ranges. But no solution requires them. The same results can be obtained with a regular randomized optimizer. But there is no escaping the merciless finality of the combinatorial explosion. It would not matter if you had quintillions upon quintillions of parallel universes (which themselves cannot even come to exist stochastically since the CE forbids it). Conclusion: Everything was designed at one point in time or another. Not just living organisms. Mapou

Mapou Ever wonder why genetic algorithms are not used for anything other than cheesy toy applications? We use them in RF antenna design and optimization. (An intelligently designed process, of course.) But with extremely tight constrains towards a certain goal, nowhere in the same multi-verse of requirements that the DNA/ribosome replicator would require. mike1962

The single worst enemy of abiogenesis is called the combinatorial explosion (CE). It kills all stochastic optimizers (which is what abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are) dead before they get out of the gate. Ever wonder why genetic algorithms are not used for anything other than cheesy toy applications? It's the dreaded CE. The merciless exterminator of materialism: Combinatorial explosion. Mapou

Earth to Alicia Cartelli- Geologists would have an easier time showing that Stonehenge is a natural formation than anyone will have trying to show that mother nature can produce living organisms. Abiogenesis is science in that it will falsify every materialistic attempt at explaining the existence of living organisms. Virgil Cain

As always, thanks for the laughs guys.

As always, thanks for the hyprocisy. jerry

Cross, there’s a difference between a hypercritical peer-reviewer and the material meant for public consumption. You can scream “IT’S NOT SCIENCE” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. Abiogenesis hypotheses are tested every day, some falsified, some not. We have made considerable progress in showing how the major biomolecules may have formed over the past few decades and yes, we still have a ways to go. The next steps are even more complicated, but they will be taken, it’s only a matter of time. I wish carrying out research was simpler and that everything could be figured out in a few years, but that’s just not how it works. Until then, enjoy your “IT’S NOT SCIENCE BECAUSE I SAY SO” schtick. Glad I can cheer you up Eug! Alicia Cartelli

Alicia Cartelli:

RNA world is the best we have right now and most likely it will be some variation of it that turns out to be correct.

LoL! There isn't any evidence for a RNA world and if that is the best you have then you have nothing but hope and promissory notes.

I have read about experiments that generated the basic macromolecules of life in model early-earth environments, something you guys would have said was impossible 10, 20, 30 years ago.

No one said it was impossible. You are making stuff up, as usual.

My response is based on our current understanding of evolution which suggests we have evolved over many years from much simpler organisms.

Suggests? There isn't any evidence that we evolved from simpler organisms. The claim is not scientific. As always, Alicia, we are laughing at you and your gullibility. Virgil Cain

Alicia, I keep this thread open to cheer me up when I am back in the office. You are a star! EugeneS

Alicia @ 60 So,the theory that "is bad as a scientific hypothesis","hardly falsifiable and is extremely difficult to verify" (ie not science) and has a "a great number of holes in the most important parts" is just what you were saying! Nice bluff, you must love poker. The bluff won't work forever, sometime in the future you will have to come up with something that actually is possible. It has been fun, thanks to you also for the laughs. Just get back to me when you can fill those giant holes. Cheers Cross

Cross, you picked a paper that says exactly the same thing that I have been saying. RNA world is the best we have right now and most likely it will be some variation of it that turns out to be correct. Pretty much everyone in the field is confident of this, as am I. I have read about experiments that generated the basic macromolecules of life in model early-earth environments, something you guys would have said was impossible 10, 20, 30 years ago. Yes, we have a lot to figure out, but unfortunately for you guys, the knowledge gap is continually shrinking. Yeah SteRus, I don’t “KNOW!” We didn’t know a lot of things 100 years ago, and yet here we are. My response is based on our current understanding of evolution which suggests we have evolved over many years from much simpler organisms. To study abiogenesis we continue this line of thinking all the way back to the origin of life and test, as well as we currently can, the possible mechanisms that may have led to living organisms. And we’ve made significant progress. You couldn’t have gotten the same results “those many years ago” because much of our current hypotheses is based on recent research. But I wouldn’t expect you to be up on that, if you were, you probably wouldn’t be one here. Toodaloo. Mungy, it’s tested every day. There’s an entire field of biology devoted to studying it. As always, thanks for the laughs guys. Alicia Cartelli

Alicia Cartelli: I assumed you guys would understand that when I say “early-earth environments” I mean “modeled environments.” And we assumed you would understand that if it's not testable it's not a scientific model. Mung

Alicia Cartelli, "The first living organisms were nothing like todays life." So you say, but can you show me one of them? You can't! How do you know they existed? You don't KNOW! Your whole response has been worldview driven hot air. The only reason you think there was some other "simpler" versions of semi-life between organic chemistry reaction with a few amino acids holding hands for a dance or two before relentless thermodynamics cutting in and what we see around us that serves as the basis of Mr. Laufmann's criteria for "first life" is because your worldview demands it be in there somewhere, somehow, somewhen. When I was searching for a real case from your comrades those many years ago, I got the same as you are purveying now. So the new information you tout hasn't served to help your case. You still don't have the beef. You still don't understand the real reason you believe in abiogenesis. That is- No other explanation is compatible with your fundamental tenet- natural causation only. You have shown me nothing I didn't already know. I leave the final word to you. Do with it what you may. Stephen SteRusJon

Alicia @ 53 "Cross, if you had read more than just the title, you’d have seen this right in the abstract: “I will argue that, while theoretically possible, such a hypothesis is probably unprovable, and that the RNA world hypothesis, although far from perfect or complete, is the best we currently have to help understand the backstory to contemporary biology.” That article is not what you think it is. You and Boxy seem to have the same issues." Actually I did read it all and I deliberately picked a paper that was friendly to your side of the fence, to show that those working in the abiogenisis field are far less confident than you are. Here is what one of the referee's of that paper wrote (before his worldview compels him to think it must still be right!): "Referee 1: Eugene Koonin I basically agree with Bernhardt. The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis: it is hardly falsifiable and is extremely difficult to verify due to a great number of holes in the most important parts. To wit, no one has achieved bona fide self-replication of RNA which is the cornerstone of the RNA World." I am wondering where your confidence comes despite the evidence so far? Cheers Cross

Alicia Cartelli:

As I have said multiple times now, when talking about abiogenesis, the line between life and non-life is blurred. There is a spectrum and no absolute definition of life, in fact we don’t even have an absolute definition of “living” today.

Yet there is an entire scientific field, called biology, that studies the living.

Everyday more is learned about abiogenesis, and often things you guys insisted were impossible, are found to be quite possible.

For example?

Not only are they possible but require only the right combination of a few simple molecules and environment to create simple nucleotides and even link them together for instance.

True but life, even mere replication, requires more than any ole sequence. Virgil Cain

So Alicia does not want to commit to the "you don't understand evolution" fallacy but does so anyway. Darwinists don't understand because they believe matter can make itself conscious. Hahahaha!!! Andre

Alicia Cartelli:

The first living organisms were nothing like todays life.

Except there isn't any evidence for that, just a need.

It’s your side that needs the smoke and mirrors, my side has science.

Bullscorch. If your side had the science you would present it. Or someone would. OTOH ID has the scientific methodology.

It may be a slow process, but it will always win in the end.

Yes, ID will win in the end. Virgil Cain

Steve, his definition of life is specific to living organisms we see today. As I said though, when thinking about abiogenesis, pretty much everything we know about the living organisms of today has to go out the window. The first living organisms were nothing like todays life. Again, when talking about abiogenesis, life exists on a spectrum, it is not black and white. And well, what exactly have you been shown? I highly doubt the typical layman is up on the latest research. No reading issues here Boxy, I’m afraid the issues are in understanding and they’re all on your side of the table. Every sentence you write demonstrates how clueless you are. Cross, if you had read more than just the title, you’d have seen this right in the abstract: “I will argue that, while theoretically possible, such a hypothesis is probably unprovable, and that the RNA world hypothesis, although far from perfect or complete, is the best we currently have to help understand the backstory to contemporary biology.” That article is not what you think it is. You and Boxy seem to have the same issues. Mikey, unfortunately that’s how science works. We take small steps, learning as we go. Unfortunately, you guys are going in the opposite direction. See ya! Sorry Eugene, I assumed you guys would understand that when I say “early-earth environments” I mean “modeled environments.” Sorry for assuming you guys have more than an ounce of intelligence. And you are wrong. As I have said multiple times now, when talking about abiogenesis, the line between life and non-life is blurred. There is a spectrum and no absolute definition of life, in fact we don’t even have an absolute definition of “living” today. Everyday more is learned about abiogenesis, and often things you guys insisted were impossible, are found to be quite possible. Not only are they possible but require only the right combination of a few simple molecules and environment to create simple nucleotides and even link them together for instance. It’s your side that needs the smoke and mirrors, my side has science. It may be a slow process, but it will always win in the end. Alicia Cartelli

Alicia, "Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments." That is why it is all bust, Alicia. There is no incrementality between life and non-life. It is a huge gap in functional complexity. It is not even steep from all over. The function does not exist anywhere in the vicinity. So there is not even hope for Dawkins' type back door to the top of Mt Improbable. Mt Improbable is just a point isolated by chaos. Not only does Maxwell's demon need to know which molecules to pass through the trap and which others not, it needs also to make purposeful choices in order to create a heat differential. It just does not happen otherwise in our fallen world with the relentless 2nd law. You cannot expect indifferent nature to go against the 2nd law as a fluctuation that codes itself up and creates adapters to decode itself later on. The more control you add to your abiogenesis experiments, the further away you are from what you set out to demonstrate. That is why it is all bluff and smoke in mirrors. EugeneS

Alicia, "Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments." That one is by far your best! How can one demonstrate something that occurred once in the deep past when there was no observer? EugeneS

Box @45 It means Alicia is in full support of eugenics. Kill off those that are less fit. Wonder where I heard of that before? Oh yes Margaret Sanger et Al. ... Andre

Alicia So you believe that those who are fit survive and those that survive are fit? Round and round we go like a merry go round.... Andre

Alicia Cartelli: We have made some of the small steps already, but still have a ways to go. That's like saying, "we have traveled a few miles to Alpha Centauri but we still have a ways to go." Talk about a delusional understatement borne of an ideology. mike1962

//follow up #45// It is obvious that the very first replicator needs to be adjusted to its environment — that lucky lucky thing! That should be added to the impressive list of requirements. Box

Alicia Cartelli @ 40 "Nothing in that post is new or worrisome, it merely says we have more work to do in the lab." Alicia is not worried but others are more honest. "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/ Cheers Cross

Cartellia: Nothing in that post is new or worrisome, it merely says we have more work to do in the lab.

Do you have reading issues?

Cartellia: Natural selection “killing off stuff,” means those that survive are better replicators/translators. It’s the most basic idea of evolution.

Okay Cartellia, so when, against all odds, the very first replicator is produced, you and your ilk are hoping that natural selection steps in and starts wielding its scythe? How does that improve chances? Box

Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments. Ain't time travel grand! Mung

Alicia Cartelli:

Natural selection “killing off stuff,” means those that survive are better replicators/translators. It’s the most basic idea of evolution.

"Better" is relative and eliminating the worst of the lot if very different from selecting the best. That is why that most basic idea of evolution has failed in explaining the diversity of life. Virgil Cain

Alicia Cartelli, Mr. Laufmann has his own definition of life. I don't see that it necessarily makes abiogenesis impossible but I will admit it seems very, very unlikely when defined as he has. But let me inquire, "How does that differ from your definition? Does your definition not seek to make abiogenesis plausible or even likely?" His definition, it seems to me, has the distinct advantage in that it describes that which we routinely observe. Yours tries to suggest that there is something between simple chemistry and Mr. Laufmann's "first life." Some kind of not-quite-life you cannot show me under a microscope because you have not found it. I disagree to some extent that it requires "extensive knowledge of both chemistry and biology" to make an assessment of the evolutionist claims for molecular evolution. I will accept the word of a survey paper that put the bits and pieces of the pathway from individual atoms to the most simple life form we know exist or ever existed. I don't need to understand all the details. I just need to know that the facts presented are true, reproducible, and not worldview driven interpretations, stories of what nature must have accomplished against all the odds or promises of what further research might, someday, yield, especially when past research has not made all that much progress, as far as I have been shown, except to eliminate possibilities. Until molecules are shown to "evolve" as opposed to react, "molecular evolution" is "vaporware." Stephen SteRusJon

HeKS, nice subtle point! A purely neutral "Larry Moran universe". Box

The only thing I'm weeping about is your fundamental misunderstanding, Boxy. Nothing in that post is new or worrisome, it merely says we have more work to do in the lab. We have made some of the small steps already, but still have a ways to go. And in the next post? Natural selection "killing off stuff," means those that survive are better replicators/translators. It's the most basic idea of evolution. Alicia Cartelli

Box, You know, it's funny, because once they invoke an infinite multiverse to explain the origin of life, speculative hypotheses about actual mechanisms of macroevolution become pointless window-dressing. If there's an infinite multiverse out there, then there are an infinite number of universes identical to ours, in which versions of all of us exist, but where evolution arrived at its current state purely by chance. So who is to say that we're not actually in one of those infinite universes? Any attempt to say that we have evidence in our universe to support the idea that some non-random mechanism played a key role is pointless, because there will also be an infinite number of universes where evolution took place purely by chance but where apparent evidence supposedly supporting non-random mechanisms was also derived purely by chance. Infinite universes are fun. Too bad they utterly destroy science. HeKS

Koonin: Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection.

Koonin is correct of course, but not about "natural selection". Think about it, what good is natural selection? Let's say that, against all odds, chance produces efficient systems for replication and translation. *ENTERS natural selection*. How is that of any help? All it does is killing off stuff and making things even harder. Box

Take a look for yourself Cartellia, and weep:

Koonin: Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection. The currently favored (partial) solution is an RNA world without proteins in which replication is catalyzed by ribozymes and which serves as the cradle for the translation system. However, the RNA world faces its own hard problems as ribozyme-catalyzed RNA replication remains a hypothesis and the selective pressures behind the origin of translation remain mysterious. Eternal inflation offers a viable alternative that is untenable in a finite universe, i.e., that a coupled system of translation and replication emerged by chance, and became the breakthrough stage from which biological evolution, centered around Darwinian selection, took off. A corollary of this hypothesis is that an RNA world, as a diverse population of replicating RNA molecules, might have never existed. In this model, the stage for Darwinian selection is set by anthropic selection of complex systems that rarely but inevitably emerge by chance in the infinite universe (multiverse).

Box

Alicia Cartelli:

Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments.

Alleged early environments with each step requiring different environments. Some environments even preclude the products of the other small steps. The shortest RNA capable of being a catalyst is 5 nucleotides. Even that seems to be beyond the reach of chemistry and physics. Joyce and Lincoln's RNAs were 35 nucleotides and needed two to get a sustained replication. And that was with a supply of macromolecules that were half the size of the originals. That is way out of the reach of chemistry and physics. Alicia Cartelli would have us believe that since mother nature can easily produce stones that she can also produce Stonehenges. Virgil Cain

Feel free to take a look for yourself Boxy. Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments. Alicia Cartelli

Alicia Cartelli: When talking about abiogenesis you can’t really have a concrete definition of life, especially with the field of molecular evolution currently in its infancy. A lot of work has been done already and it is promising, (...)

What exactly do you consider to be "promising"? Koonin's desperate appeal to the multiverse? I wouldn't consider that "promising". Terms that come to mind are "cringe-worthy" and "steaming pile of cowchips". IOW it is just "pseudoscientific trash that you and your ilk love to eat right up." Box

Carpathian:

It is obvious you don’t have an answer

And yet I provide answers.

Childish remarks like this one are all you’re capable of.

That is all you and Alicia are capable of, anyway. My retorts just mock you. Virgil Cain

Virgil Cain:

It is obvious that Alicia Cartelli is just a steaming pile of cowchips.

It is obvious you don't have an answer, ...to anything. Childish remarks like this one are all you're capable of. Carpathian

Virgil Cain @30

What else is there?

Nothing, simply nothing. You may want to consider not asking difficult questions that could overwhelm your "nice" (well mannered and polite) interlocutor. That would be unfair and abusive. :) Instead, you may ask this fundamental but easy question about all the evo-devo pseudoscientific literature piled up out there: Where's the beef? :) https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-581219 Dionisio

Alicia Cartelli:

Well of course he has his own definition of life, this allows him to make his argument in a way that makes abiogenesis seem impossible.

Abiogenesis is impossible, Alicia. You can't get the molecules and you can't get life.

A lot of work has been done already and it is promising

Only if you are an IDist or Creationist. Then all work on abiogenesis is very promising to support ID and/ or Creation.

Molecular evolution isn’t just a “coined term,” it’s an entire field of inquiry with significant supporting research.

That's your opinion. Reality says otherwise. The RNA world is a bust. Metabolism first is a bust. What else is there? Virgil Cain

Well of course he has his own definition of life, this allows him to make his argument in a way that makes abiogenesis seem impossible. When talking about abiogenesis you can’t really have a concrete definition of life, especially with the field of molecular evolution currently in its infancy. Lines are going to be blurred, life and non-life exist on a spectrum during abiogenesis. A lot of work has been done already and it is promising, but unfortunately the biological layman will find it difficult to sift through and understand the research as it requires extensive knowledge of both chemistry and biology. Molecular evolution isn’t just a “coined term,” it’s an entire field of inquiry with significant supporting research. Alicia Cartelli

Alicia Cartelli, Except for the condescending tone I am glad you are willing to "focus a bit." I noted the lack of mention of the molecular evolution hypothesis myself. I did not swallow everything Mr. Laufmann had to say uncritically. However, it is apparent, at least to me, that Mr. Laufmann has a definition of life. His list of requirements for "first life" serves as that definition. The definition of life has been fuzzy and subjective. I see nothing wrong with his. Most things which are considered to be life have the characteristics listed by Mr. Laufmann or are dependent on entities that do. So without something corresponding to Mr. Laufmann's "first life" those other "living" things are inert. Molecular evolution is nothing more than chance chemical reactions, essentially, organic chemistry for the most part which evolutionist hope some way or another bridge the gap from non-life to life. The chasm separating chance chemistry from the information harnessing machinery of "first life" is huge. The evolutionist abracadabra words "molecular evolution" are not in my opinion, enough to cover it. I do not see where anyone has even begun to make the case that they are. I am aware of the existence of a number of molecular evolution proposals. I am reasonably sure that Mr. Laufmann is as well. For me, I just don't see it as a plausible stop-gap to cover the transition between non-living energy potential driven chemistry and living information/machinery driven chemistry. I concede there may be a pathway. You are welcome to search for it. More power to you and be sure to let me know when you've cracked the case. I'd really like to know about it. I'll take it into consideration. Until then, don't ask or expect me to accept it as proven fact just because someone coined the term "molecular evolution" because their worldview requires it to be there. Stephen SteRusJon

Alicia Cartelli:

He makes it sound like the first living organism had to be a complex cell similar to organisms we see today, completely skipping molecular evolution.

There isn't any evidence for molecular evolution. And there isn't any evidence that cells were once more simple than what we see today. So what, exactly, is he skipping?

He is simply taking a non-biological approach to explaining biology.

Biologists can't take a biological approach to explaining biology. Look, Alicia, you can't explain evolution nor biology. Evolutionary biologists can't even do that. All of your posts are cringe-worthy. Your entire position is cringe-worthy. Virgil Cain

Fine Stevie, I'll play along. Most of the text you've copy/pasted is just non-biological doublespeak, but he makes many of the same mistakes you guys love to make when talking about evolution. I'll focus on the bit about abiogenesis, which is completely wrong. He makes it sound like the first living organism had to be a complex cell similar to organisms we see today, completely skipping molecular evolution. He most likely does this because he knows nothing about the topic, which is only slightly less than what he seems to know about biology as a whole. He is simply taking a non-biological approach to explaining biology. It's fine for informal and general understanding, but in a debate about the complexities of biology and its evolution, it's cringe-worthy. Alicia Cartelli

It is obvious that Alicia Cartelli is just a steaming pile of cowchips. She can't even rise above play ground level of childish taunts. And she definitely cannot defend molecular biology from the likes of Steve Laufmann. Alicia Cartelli is the poster child for losers. Virgil Cain

Alicia Cartelli, In other words, "I can't point out anything specifically wrong with what Mr. Laufmann has to say but take my word for it, It's crap!" Well argued. NOT! And you just proved my original point in #8. Thanks for the confirmation. Stephen SteRusJon

No need to "do any better," Stevie. Anyone with knowledge in the field of molecular biology can see exactly what this guy's ramblings amount to: a steaming pile of cowchips. Alicia Cartelli

Alicia Cartelli:

In fact, like I said earlier, the big questions have remained the same; such as what was the first living organism?

And yet there are still new questions being asked. Those big questions remain unanswered and new questions are being asked. Guess what that means? Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers.

“Shrinking answers” is his attempt to discredit an entire scientific field,...

Grow up. Virgil Cain

#4 addendum The link posted @4 points to comments @942-951 within the "third way" thread. Dionisio

Alicia Cartelli, You didn't do one bit better the second time around than the first. Typical. Stephen SteRusJon

“Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers" is a summary of what this guy wants you to think. In fact, like I said earlier, the big questions have remained the same; such as what was the first living organism? We attempt to answer these question's by asking smaller questions, slowly working our way to a better understanding. "Shrinking answers" is his attempt to discredit an entire scientific field, a field which he obviously knows very little about. His case is simply a whole lot of nothing. He loads his language with computer science vocabulary and twists things to suit his needs. Like I said, it's just the typical pseudoscientific trash that you guys love to eat right up. Alicia Cartelli

Alicia Cartelli, Thanks for a confirmation of the modus operandi. The quote you presented as "right off the bat" was preceded by the following quote. It was a summary statement of all the thought and analysis that is in the quote and probably much more that was not essential to his case. I specifically paste this long quote to demonstrate your penchant for not addressing the issue.

Enter Information, Stage Right Evolutionary biology was very much like other sciences up until the 1950s, when the information-bearing capabilities of DNA and RNA were discovered inside living cells. These discoveries fundamentally changed biology. And as the information payload is increasingly unraveled, we're seeing ever more complex and interdependent assembly instructions, activation circuits, programming sequences, and message payloads. This information is decoded and operated on by molecular machines of similar complexity, and the whole (information + machines) is self-generating, self-sustaining, and self-replicating. The information has some intriguing properties: It must perform an astounding number of complex functions in order to create, sustain, and replicate life. Each function requires multiple distinct programs or sequences for the various phases of its lifecycle: assembly, operation, complex orchestration with other functions, error detection and correction, replication, and so on. These are functionally distinct types of activities, so it's almost certain that they are encoded separately, perhaps with completely different coding structures and mechanisms. It has no value without a complex collection of molecular machines, yet it must also include the instructions for generating those same machines. The result is an immensely complex choreography of separate but interrelated information and molecular machines. Neither can function without the other -- a ginormous chicken-and-egg problem. It exhibits the design properties of the best human-engineered software systems, yet its capabilities extend well beyond any current human-engineered systems. For example, no human-engineered system is capable of self-replicating both the software that operates on the machinery and the machinery that decodes the software. Further, based on the observed functionality in living organisms, there are many undiscovered types of information that must be present in a living cell, but which haven't been decoded or understood yet. Kinesin offers a fascinating example of undiscovered information in action. What programs and machinery are required to assemble the structure and function of kinesin? What information is needed for kinesin to achieve its "runtime" functions? How does kinesin know where to go to pick up a load, what load to pick up, what path to take, and where to drop its load? How does it know what to do next? All this functionality takes information, which must be encoded somewhere. Indeed, the level of complexity is monotonically increasing, with no end in sight. With no possibility that new discoveries will ever decrease the observed complexity, it may not be long before we see a seismic shift in the research paradigm -- from the study of biological systems that happen to contain information, to the study of information systems that happen to be encoded in biology. Causal Requirements and Causal Forces Aside from the obvious (and intriguing) challenge of understanding the enormous complexity of life's information payload, evolution purports to explain its origins. The origin of life is perhaps the most obvious example of information's formidable hurdle to evolutionary explanations. First life requires all of the following: Sufficient complex programs and sequencing to support first life's complete lifecycle (i.e., the directions have to be complete and correct). Sufficient machinery to interpret the programs and to operate life (i.e., the directions must have proper effect). Sufficient programs and machinery to replicate both the programs and the machinery (i.e., the directions must be passed to the next generation). And all this must be present at the same time, in the same place, in at least one instant in history, at which point the whole must somehow be animated to create life. And all this must occur, by definition, before an organism can reproduce. Without reproduction, there is no possibility to accumulate function, from simple to complex, as required by evolution. Hence, the programs must have contained all the complexity required for first life at inception. By definition, then, the minimal programs and machinery required for first life must have predated any creative capabilities (real or imagined) of Darwinian processes. Further, since the information necessary for first life must have been assembled prior to the animation of first life, the minimal information payload must have predated first life. And it must therefore have derived from a source beyond biology as we know it. This poses a causal quandary for evolutionary biology. For there are only two known classes of causal forces, and these have dramatically different qualities. First, there are physical laws, which include mathematics, physics, and chemistry. These are repeatable (i.e., the same inputs always produce the same results) and purposeless (i.e., the same inputs produce the same results, no matter who gets hurt). Their repeatability makes science effective. But physical laws are not capable of acting with intent, which limits their creative capabilities. Operating within the physical laws are random events that can change the information payload of life in various ways. But these are constrained by the same physical laws, so are similarly incapable of acting with intent. Random events cannot create complex information, except in two circumstances: (a) there is some predefined notion of a desirable outcome, and (b) any "positive gains" toward that outcome are protected from random degradation through some external mechanism. Both of these special circumstances require intention, which the physical laws cannot offer. Second, there are intelligent causes, which are purposeful and therefore not generally repeatable. The creation of complex programming requires non-repeatability. While intelligent causes are capable of generating the right kind of information, it's difficult to pin down when and how their actions occurred, or what their intent might have been. All sciences that deal with intelligent causes (e.g., archaeology) are made more difficult by non-repeatability. An Impending Worldview Crisis The search for a purposeful cause that predates biology as we know it inevitably drives the conversation to metaphysics. And this places evolution (and biology) at the center of a conflict between worldviews. For materialists, the first class of causal force is insufficient and the second is unacceptable. Materialist biologists are thus pressed to find a third class of causal force -- one that works without purpose (required to adhere to materialist philosophy), yet produces purposeful outcomes (required to adhere to the observed world). As yet no reasonable candidate forces have been proposed. So materialists face growing dissonance between their philosophical commitment and biology's complex programming. As the quality and quantity of the discovered interdependent programs and processing machinery increases, the plausibility of material causation gets weaker. So the materialist position is weak, and going in the wrong direction (from their perspective). On the other hand, for anyone not fully committed to materialist philosophy the options are much more interesting. For those willing to consider the second class of causal force, things begin to fall into place and the dissonance dissipates. For theists, the second class of causal force is not only acceptable, but expected. Further, theists are unsurprised to learn that the causal forces in class #1 are finely tuned to enable life, and they have no problem with the notion that random events are more likely to destroy information than create it (e.g., there are far more possible non-functioning programs than functioning programs). Ongoing discoveries about the nature of the information at the core of life present a growing hurdle for the materialist worldview, but are increasingly friendly to any worldview that's open to a pre-biological intelligence with some means to assemble the programs and machinery minimally required for first life. And this sets up a worldview collision. Evolution's Grand Challenge

"Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers." is a summary of the above which is the bulk of the article. It should be understood in that light and the criticism should reference that discussion. Now would you like to engage Mr. Laufmann's case? Or, would you rather mischaracterize it and then dismiss it? I challenge you to point out the weak and missing links in his chain. Stephen SteRusJon

One thing that is undeniable today, is that biology has changed forever. It is never going to be the biology of Darwin or Haeckel again. EugeneS

'I agree with BA77@3, almost poetic . . . so without further ado:' Strange, Tim. I was only thinking this morning I should have written precisely to the effect you have just posted here. Axel

Alicia Cartelli, (despite you a priori atheistic preferences), continually insisting that unguided material processes created the jaw dropping levels of complexity currently being discovered in molecular biology, as Darwinists do, and the chasm growing ever wider and wider for the man on the boat dock, is a perfect metaphor for the predicament Darwinists are currently in.

New Studies Reveal Higher Levels of Genetic Complexity - April 6, 2014 Excerpt: It is not known how many overlapping codes there are. There are multiple factors that determine the opening of the histones. Multiple factors determine which pieces of DNA will be used. A fantastic array of promoters and enhancers and large and small RNAs interact in multiple ways to regulate what pieces of DNA are used. Thousands of different multiple large protein promoters operate in multiple start sites and with multiple proteins either binding to the DNA, or forming large structures by attaching to the other promoters. In some DNA there are two superimposed codes at once. Also, somehow, many different mechanisms are used to repair DNA errors (see post). Eight million factors affect the RNA particles that are made from at least 20% of all DNA (maybe up to 50%). Messenger RNA somehow determines multiple different edits from the same pieces of DNA. Pieces are taken from multiple places, strands are cut out and others sewn together without clear direction. New 3D folding of the RNA also forms a new code. All of these processes create a code of amino acids that the cell knows will form a very specific very complex protein shape. Proteins only work through exact shapes. Although it would take current supercomputers 2000 years to figure out the folding of one 400 amino acid length protein, proteins are actually folded in primary, secondary, tertiary and quarternary structures in a millisecond, with the help of complex proteins called chaperones. Manufactured proteins then affect all the different neuroplastic mechanisms in a large circuit at once. These proteins, also, affect immune cells throughout the body. Where is the regulation and control for all of this? How can anyone say that these overlapping codes involving hundreds of thousands of interacting factors is in any way random? http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-complexity At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the idea of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years: Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637 In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read. Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark): "Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010 Time mag: (Another) Second Code Uncovered Inside the DNA -- Scientists have discovered a second code hidden within the DNA, written on top of the other. - December 2013 http://science.time.com/2013/12/13/second-code-uncovered-inside-the-dna/ To get a sense of the breath-taking complexity this represents, watch this video of J.S. Bach's "Crab canon." It was composed to be played backwards and forwards at the same time, and then with one part flipped upside down on the music stand. http://www.openculture.com/2013/02/the_genius_of_js_bachs_crab_canon_visualized_on_a_mobius_strip.html Design In DNA – Alternative Splicing, Duons, and Dual coding genes – video (5:05 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm67oXKtH3s#t=305 Mammalian overlapping genes: the comparative perspective. - 2004 Excerpt: it is rather surprising that a large number of genes overlap in the mammalian genomes. Thousands of overlapping genes were recently identified in the human and mouse genomes. However, the origin and evolution of overlapping genes are still unknown. We identified 1316 pairs of overlapping genes in humans and mice and studied their evolutionary patterns. It appears that these genes do not demonstrate greater than usual conservation. Studies of the gene structure and overlap pattern showed that only a small fraction of analyzed genes preserved exactly the same pattern in both organisms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14762064 "applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It's just not going to work." - David Berlinski "The very notion that nanotechnology, the functional complexity of which is beyond the ability of modern science to create intentionally, came about mindlessly and accidentally is what is as unbelievably stupid as it is false. If atheistic science knew even one way to build technology from scratch that could also manufacture more instances of itself from available raw materials, then it might be able to begin explaining how such a technological feat could have occurred mindlessly and accidentally, because it would then at least have some idea of what would be required for something like that to take place. As it is, atheistic science insists that that which it has no idea how to make happen on purpose happened accidentally. The stupidity of that is something like jungle savages insisting, even though they didn’t have any idea how to manufacture one, that the laptop PC they found came about accidentally. The functional complexity of life’s nanotechnology is light years beyond our own." Harry UD Blogger

bornagain77

Alicia Cartelli has the integrity of a snake-oil salesperson.

Everyday new information is added to our understanding of molecular biology and its evolutionary past.

That's your opinion. However unguided evolution can't be modeled and adds nothing to our understanding. Virgil Cain

Tim at 11 :) Darwinists on the boat dock

boat dock bloopers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS_ec1jYH-M

IDists on the boat dock

One man boat launch perfection. You got to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld0caNktr04 How to dock like a boss (English version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qHdPhkSSNQ

bornagain77

"Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers" Right off the bat he demonstrates both his lack of knowledge in the field of molecular biology and his bias on the topic at hand. The big questions in the field haven't changed. We work toward answers to these questions by taking small steps forward in knowledge. Everyday new information is added to our understanding of molecular biology and its evolutionary past. This guy is just spewing the typical refuse you guys love to eat right up. Enjoy! Alicia Cartelli

I agree with BA77@3, almost poetic . . . so without further ado: As the boat leaves the dock, he continues those rants, "By hook or by crook, just law and some chance!" How long he'll defend it? Might the splash prove to end it? We watch from the quay, his precarious stance. The gap inches wider, does he argue or dance, As he moves like some Jello in a weird sort of trance? Soon wet he'll be dripping. "You hear something ripping?" "Times almost up, dude, you just split your pants." Tim

Barry, My comment to sean samis was, I guess, rhetorical to show him for what he is. I was mostly thinking back to when I was searching for real answers. Articles such as Steve Laufmann's reinforce the conclusion I reached those many years ago. sean-like technique in rebutting the ID case left much to be desired during my search. sean samis shows they haven't changed tacks. sean samis will not come back with an apology or contrition. He will not come back with anything that can be considered to be an honest critique of Steve Laufmann's presentation. He, likely, has not yet read the piece. He will make no attempt to point out any errors, misrepresentations, invalid inferences or such in Steve's piece. At least nothing that I can chew on. For those who are truly questioning their basic view of the world, as I once did, that should speak to them in a distinct voice as it did to me. Stephen SteRusJon

SteRusJon, There is a school of thought that can be summarized as "ID must necessarily be wrong because it challenges my metaphysical faith commitments." Sean is of this school. It follows that if ID must necessarily be wrong, when it is time to beat it any stick will do. Even if the stick, like the one Sean used in 6, is as rigid as a freshly boiled string of spaghetti. Barry Arrington

sean samis, you invoked a genetic fallacy to dismiss all that Mr. Laufmann has to say on the question- "...why should evolution be so different?" from a prior Granville Sewell article. I read articles such as the one Steve Laufmann did for ENV and they seem to my mind to be thoughtful, reasoned and cogent. I sometimes wonder to myself, "Why doesn't this convince the opponents to ID? What is in it that is false, irrelevant, unfounded? What is lowly me missing?" Since I cannot see what is in error, I would like for some of the opponents to ID to point those shortcomings out to me instead of attacking the messenger. sean samis, if you wish for me to give ear to anything you have to say on these matters, address the argument of Mr. Laufmann. Show me the weak and missing links in his chain of thought. Barry is correct to believe you did not read the piece. Otherwise you would have seen the prediction "it may not be long before we see a seismic shift in the research paradigm -- from the study of biological systems that happen to contain information, to the study of information systems that happen to be encoded in biology." Information systems is exactly where Steve Laufmann's expertise lies. His piece supports his take on the situation quite well, as far as I can see. Can you show me otherwise? Stephen SteRusJon

Sean @ 6: Beg the question much? You did not read the article. How can I tell? Because if you had read it, you would not have asked the question you asked at the end, because it is answered in the article. Here's my grand challenge for Sean: Make a minimal effort to inform yourself about a topic before you embarrass yourself like you did in comment 6. Barry Arrington

This is an interesting double-standard you employ: if someone with no expertise at all in biology opines that because of their unrelated occupation they’ve concluded evolution is impossible, you give their amateur opinion great weight. But if an amateur offers their opinion that evolution is quite reasonable, or even if a practicing molecular biologist offers their expert opinion that evolution is quite reasonable, you will nit-pick those opinions to death. Hmm. Double standard. A Grand Challenge to Barry: tell us why we should care about Mr. Laufmann’s opinions regarding molecular biology? Designing “very large, very complex, composite information systems that are orchestrated to perform specified tasks in demanding environments” is a different area of activity from molecular biology. sean s. sean samis

Well spoken Mr. Laufmann! tjguy

The greatest challenge they have encountered is figuring out how to answer (in a logical, coherent, comprehensive manner) this very fundamental question related to their research papers: Where's the beef? Here's a very recent example: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-581035 Everything else fall into the same category as political elections debates: just "parole, parole, parole" without substance. Hence they fail the other important requirement: Show me the money! :) Dionisio

I like the way Laufmann put that. Almost poetic. bornagain77

When all you have are stories, you tell stories. Mung

Pfft- Obviously Steve Laufmann doesn't understand biology. Come on, just look at the equations: Mother Nature + Father Time + (known and unknown blind and mindless processes) = what we observe Repeated descent with modification + differing environmental pressures + contingent serendipity = the diversity of life It is uncannily Disneyesque... Virgil Cain