Sheldon: What hinders the field presently is an unstated reliance on materialism and its attendant mechanism, when information is manifestly non-material. What we need to make progress in OoL are matter-free tools for manipulating information: understanding its flow, its gradients, and its concentration.
We are reminded that viewers can chat in the combox while the vid is playing.
The author, a science writer, keeps orbiting the topic of moving beyond Darwin. Her survey of the scene suggests that researchers are moving beyond Darwin in a variety of different directions. Not clear how they will all meet up…
Sheldon: As a way out of this [origin of life] dilemma, many physicists reach into the religion bag and pull out spooky QM-at-a-distance. But it isn’t a solution, it is an admission of failure. For if they had reached a trifle deeper into the bag they would have pulled out Genesis 1. Instead, they have loosed this uncontrollable “dark matter”, “dark energy”, “dark QM” chaos god on the ordered universe of laws and purpose.
Topic: Scientists are Clueless about Origin of Life
Interesting podcast in which astrophysicist Bartlett is permitted to question dogmas. The dogma about the One Single Common Ancestor that kicked off Darwinian evolution is the product of a prior belief in life’s sheer Flukiness. If you do not believe that life is a fluke, whatever else you believe, you can discard that One Single Cell doctrine as nonessential and problematic.
“In this interview, Dr. James Tour and Dr. Stephen Meyer discuss science and faith, while getting into the details on the discovery of complex, sequence specific information required for life’s function and origin, and the required fine-tuned laboratory that we call our universe that must exist in order for assembly to occur.” People are taking reality seriously? What next, we wonder?
Harvard’s George Church: And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that’s what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be?
Coppedge: Marshall and the evolutionists he marshals together know full well that any of the basic requirements for life – metabolism, a container and a code – are unlikely to spontaneously form separately, much less together at the same time and place.
It’s basically a rehash of many wishful theories, united by a single drive: To somehow get an origin of life out of a mindless cosmos. The best thing about such theories is their inventiveness.
Rob Stadler: (puncturing the balloon) The fact that it is recognized as a meaningful contribution is a testimony to the desperation to show progress—it stands out only because no meaningful progress can be made in any direction that is actually relevant to life.
At Knowable Magazine: The vent hypothesis is somewhat controversial, but recent experiments lend weight to it.
Note: “Despite our growing knowledge, there remain numerous key challenges that may be addressed by a combined theoretical and experimental approach.” We’ve been hearing that for decades. We’re missing something.
The eternal may-have: “But in the early stages of Earth’s evolution, a young, active sun emitting more cosmic rays and a different atmospheric makeup may have allowed these cosmic visitors to nudge primitive, fragile biomolecules towards their forms we see today.”
From the intro: ” a naturalistic origin is less like winning a long-odds lottery, and more like the chances of an inventor successfully building a perpetual motion machine.”