Open mike: Origin of Biological Information conference: Origin of life studies flatlined
| June 28, 2013 | Posted by News under Cornell Conference |
From the Introduction to the now-published papers, on origin of life:
The origin of life is the most vexing problem facing contemporary science. It has fiercely resisted reductionist approaches to its resolution. All attempts to get life started solely through life’s underlying chemistry have come up short. Could it be that although chemistry provides the medium for biological information, the information itself constitutes a message capable of riding free from the underlying medium? Could such information be a real entity — as real as the chemical constituents that embody it, and yet not reducible to them — and, dare we say, have an intelligent cause? Granted, this is itself a speculative possibility, but in a field so rife with speculation, why allow only one set of speculations (those that adhere to the old perspective) and disallow others (those that open up new possibilities)? The contributors to this volume are not offering final answers. Rather, they are raising penetrating questions precisely where the old perspective has failed to offer a promising starting point for understanding the origin of biological information.
Do you agree with this assessment of origin of life studies?
Mikes are live.
Note: All conference papers here.
See also: Origin of Biological Information conference: Its goals
9 Responses to Open mike: Origin of Biological Information conference: Origin of life studies flatlined
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Denyse,
It is true, as you say, that all attempts at inventing life randomly have come up short, as have all attempts at creating life lawfully. The paradox is that neither chance nor order can explain what we observe. Yet this does not mean that OOL research is “flatlined”, for we are learning a great deal, even as we discover what doesn’t work.
Darwin undoubtedly believed in the fecundity of primordial ooze, yet 150 years of study have shown both the complexity and fragility of that polysaccharide glycopeptide. The biologist Jacques Monod may claim that his OOL research has led him to the Abyss of meaninglessness where a faith in Man’s existence is his only support, but today the Abyss is ever deeper and the supports are ever more divine.
It will be OOL research, I feel, that breaks down the barrier between Intelligent Design and Darwinism. For it is only at OOL that the Darwinist acknowledges the unscaleable odds and his incapacity to conquer them. And it is also only at OOL that the ID acknowledges his own inability to fathom the intelligence that brought this divine design into progressive existence. As I said, the two sides will meet when they both acknowledge their profound infirmity of thought and theology.
And that is why OOL research will never be flatlined.
In a word, no. It is not the most vexing problem facing science. We can manage quite well even if we never solve this problem.
Strange that Neil didn’t say what he thinks the most vexing problem is.
That said, I agree with the OP. Figure out how we got here and many other issues will also be resolved- issues like is there a purpose for our existence- is there something else-> IOW the question of our place in the universe will answered.
There are many vexing problems in all areas of science — far too many to enumerate. I don’t need to pick out a “most vexing” to see that OOL is not even close.
So many that you can’t even give one example.
Strange…
Neil, when you go shopping, if there are too many choices, do you just leave?
as to this comment from the OP:
Actually the fact that,,,
The fact that ‘Information is Information, not matter or energy’ is not nearly as ‘speculative’ as it once was. In fact I hold that it is not speculative at all. We now have evidence from physics that encoded ‘classical’ information, such as what Dembski and Marks have demonstrated the conservation of, and such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘non-local’ (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:,,,
The following put ‘meat on the bones’ to the preceding paper,,
Quantum entanglement is shown to be related to ‘functional information’ here;
,,,And we have evidence that quantum information is ‘conserved’ here;,,,
,, and the fact that Quantum information/entanglement requires a beyond space-time cause is revealed by the following method,,
The following article gives us a small glimpse as to what it truly means for non-local quantum entanglement to be confirmed to an order of ’70 standard deviations’:
Even matter and energy are now shown to both be reducible to quantum information/entanglement,,
The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to quantum teleportation:
Of note: An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving it a net positive or negative electrical charge.
If all that was not bad enough towards the materialist who prefers, for whatever misguided reason, that life have a completely naturalistic (within space-time) explanation, this ‘spooky action at a distance’, as Einstein termed quantum entanglement, is now found to be in life on a massive scale:
Besides DNA, quantum information has been confirmed to be in protein structures as well;
Thus besides the fact that no one has ever seen classical information arise by purely material means, (Abel: Null Hypothesis), IDists now how direct evidence from physics that the classical information and quantum information/entanglement in life is its own independent entity that exercises dominion over, and is not reducible to matter and energy. In fact, to the chagrin of dogmatic atheists, the situation is found to be the polar opposite in that matter and energy both reduce to ‘non-local’ quantum information.
Verse and music:
Well, if by “vexing” they mean “urgent” or “critical to understand” for purposes of solving immediate challenges in the world, then perhaps Neil is right.
On the other hand, if by “vexing” they mean “perplexing” or “intriguing,” then I’d be inclined to agree with them (though I might have softened it by adding “one of”). The origin of life is one of the oldest, longest-researched, most-challenging, problems that has ever arisen in science; and it cuts across several disciplines and has intrigued cultures from the ancients to modern-day man. The fact that there has also been so little concrete progress toward a natural explanation — despite decades of research and tens of billions of dollars — is, at least to those seeking a purely natural explanation, most certainly “vexing.” 🙂
Baffling, yes. Vexing, no. I think if you have cancer, then the cure for cancer is the most vexing problem for science.
Or heart disease.
Or rabies.
Etc.