Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Quanta Magazine: A Dream of Discovering Alien Life Finds New Hope

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Joshua Sokol writes:

One of the many times Lisa Kaltenegger’s dream jolted a little closer toward reality was on a cold April morning a decade ago at an astronomy conference. She was clutching what she recalls was a terrible, just awful cup of coffee, not because she was going to drink any more of it but because she had waited in line and it was warm in her hands. Then Bill Borucki veered in her direction.

She readied herself to tell him to avoid the coffee. But Borucki, head of NASA’s Kepler mission, a space telescope designed to hunt for planets orbiting other stars (or “exoplanets”), had something else to discuss. Kepler had glimpsed its first two Earth-size exoplanets with a decent chance of having liquid water on their surfaces. These were the sort of strange new worlds that everyone at the conference — and possibly most of the human race — had imagined at least once. Would Kaltenegger confirm that the planets might be habitable?

Samuel Velasco/Quanta Magazine

Kaltenegger, at the time an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, started running new climate models before the conference was over, incorporating basic facts like the planets’ diameters and the lukewarm glow of their star. Her ultimate answer: a qualified yes. The planets might be suitable for life, or at least for liquid water; they could even be water worlds, encased in endless oceans without a single rocky outcrop poking above the waves. The caveat was that she would need more advanced observations to be sure.

Kaltenegger has since become perhaps the world’s leading computer modeler of potentially habitable worlds. In 2019, when another exoplanet-hunting NASA spacecraft called TESS found its own first rocky, temperate worlds, she was called on again to play the role of cosmic home inspector. Most recently, the Belgium-based SPECULOOS survey reached out for her help understanding a newfound Earth-size planet dubbed SPECULOOS-2c that’s precariously close to its star. She and her colleagues completed an analysis, uploaded as a preprint in September, showing that SPECULOOS-2c’s water could be in the process of steaming away like sauna vapor, as any seas of Venus did long ago and as Earth’s own oceans will begin to do in half a billion years. Telescope observations should be able to tell within a few years if that’s happening, which will help reveal our own planet’s future and further demarcate the knife’s-edge distinction between hostile and habitable worlds across the galaxy.

In simulating ersatz Earths and more speculative visions of living planets, Kaltenegger leverages the bizarre life and geology found on Earth to develop a more systematic set of expectations about what might be possible elsewhere. “I’m trying to do the fundamentals,” she told me during a recent visit to Cornell University, where she leads an institute named for Carl Sagan, another charismatic Ithaca-based astronomer with big ideas about ending humanity’s lonely sojourn in the cosmos.

Full article at Quanta Magazine.

This very extensive article provides some informative insights into possible bio-signatures that astronomers would hope to see from an exoplanet that might indicate the presence of life.

Comments
Jerry at 12, Interesting assertions but that's it. I don't assume anything. I'm not excited about water on Mars from the standpoint of possible life there. Should humans ever get there, they would need water. And the current rockets offer zero possibility of exploring anything beyond our solar system. So, let's look at Mars. Microbes to plants. That's it. And likely underground. The surface is too cold and dry. Next up is Europa, a moon orbiting Jupiter. It has an ocean under a frozen ice surface. Fish to plants to bacteria. That's it. Anything beyond our solar system is too far. No need to think about life out there since we can't go there.relatd
November 6, 2022
November
11
Nov
6
06
2022
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
"Earth’s precise mix of atmospheric gases is strikingly fit for life. On top of that (or rather, beneath that), Earth’s active geology and water-rich surface—unique in our solar system—are masterful at helping maintain our life-friendly atmosphere over long ages."
More from Casey Luskin on Our Intelligently Designed Planet—Plus Q&A https://idthefuture.com/1667/ Today’s ID the Future continues geologist Casey Luskin’s presentation about how Earth is fine tuned in numerous ways for life, a talk he gave at the 2022 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith. Here in the second half, he highlights the many ways Earth’s precise mix of atmospheric gases is strikingly fit for life. On top of that (or rather, beneath that), Earth’s active geology and water-rich surface—unique in our solar system—are masterful at helping maintain our life-friendly atmosphere over long ages. Luskin argues that these and other finely tuned characteristics of planet Earth strongly suggest intelligent design. He then offers an additional design argument, this one aesthetic in nature, and then takes questions from the audience. Part 1 of his talk is here. Casey Luskin on the Intelligent Design of Earth for Life https://idthefuture.com/1666/
And again, in regards to how Earth has changed through time, interestingly Dr. Hugh Ross, in his book “Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home”, has found that the way in which the Earth has changed through time is of specific benefit for technologically advanced civilizations such as ourselves,
Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Presents The Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNPSZwxEFME Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home – Hugh Ross – 2017 https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801075432/ref=sr_1_1
bornagain77
November 6, 2022
November
11
Nov
6
06
2022
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
It is assumed that alien life means intelligent life. But that is nonsense. Most ID people assume that some form of DNA based life could exist on other worlds. After all it exists on Earth in some very hostile environments. What is begged is that the existence of life in any form will lead to a form of life that has the characteristics of humans. This is so far from inevitable that to assume it is absurd. People fail to understand just how different humans are from even the highest intelligence of any other species on Earth let alone simple one celled life. We cannot explain how humans appeared let alone how this will be inevitable in some other system of which the odds of favoring complex life is a probability beginning with a zero and then several zeros after the decimal point. Aside: some here will proclaim there is an inevitability of intelligent life once life began somehow/somewhere and that the odds are overwhelming that there is intelligent life on other planets. Then they will argue that there could not be some intelligence in the past as a reason for why intelligent design is baseless because there was no other intelligence than humans.jerry
November 6, 2022
November
11
Nov
6
06
2022
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
So how much immaterial 'positional' information is needed to explain the origin of a ’simple’ cell? Well, the information needed to be imparted into a system, by an intelligent ‘observer’, in order to bring a system far enough out of thermodynamic equilibrium in order to sustain life, is found to be immense. The information content that is found to be in a 'simple' one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be around 10 to the 12 bits,,,
Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit
,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. 'In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong - The Creation-evolution Controversy 'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." - Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
Moreover, besides the OOL requiring a vast amount of immaterial 'positional' information, the immaterial 'positional' information needed to explain the 'form' of an adult organism is found to be orders of magnitude more immense than that of a 'simple' cell. Since bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.
Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small - about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells. https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html
And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells within the average human body,
Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body - 2016 Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg "reference man" to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533
Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within the books of all the largest libraries in the world. Needless to say, that is a massive amount of positional information that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method (J. Wells). As Sabatini stated in the following TED video states, “the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.”
In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017 Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,: [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/
Verse:
Psalm 139:13-14 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.[a] Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
While we are on the subject of immaterial 'positional' information and life, it is also interesting to note that, long before Darwinists even realized that it is immaterial information, (not material particles), that is ‘running the show’ in life, Christianity ‘predicted’ that life had an ‘author’.
Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
I would call that a pretty amazing 'scientific' prediction for Christianity to get correct. Of supplemental note. Here is my defense against the claim that 'repetitive' information within an embryo can explain the massive amount of immaterial positional information that is needed to explain an adult biological form.
December 2021 - Thus in conclusion, although ‘repetitive information’ may indeed have some negligible effect on lowering the total amount of ‘positional’ information that is required to explain why life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, I hold that my “rough ballpark estimate” (of ‘positional information’ required to explain the human body) “of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica”, (since the constraining of ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ by immaterial information must occur at atomic scale resolution), to err far more on the side of being correct than not so. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/evolutionary-biologist-richard-steinberg-does-darwinian-evolution-have-direction-and-purpose/#comment-742718
Also of recent note as to empirically establishing the reality of the immaterial soul,, via reference to the 'non-local quantum information' that is now found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology.
Oct. 2022 – So since Darwinian Atheists, as a foundational presupposition of their materialistic philosophy, (and not from any compelling scientific evidence mind you), deny the existence of souls, (and since the materialist’s denial of souls, (and God), has led to so much catastrophic disaster on human societies in the 20th century), then it is VERY important to ‘scientifically’ establish the existence of these ‘souls’ that are of incalculable worth, and that are equal, before God. https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/what-must-we-do-when-the-foundations-are-being-destroyed/#comment-768496
Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77
November 6, 2022
November
11
Nov
6
06
2022
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
As to,
LM: "That’s because the information of where everything goes does not reside in the genetic code. It can’t reside there. There isn’t nearly enough available material to encode the information required. The information for the form, function, and placement of everything in the organism has to reside in the cytoplasm and membrane of the egg or cell as well as the nucleus ."
Yet even all the 'positional' information that is encoded in the entirety of a single germ cell is not nearly enough information to explain 'where everything goes' in an adult organism. As referenced previously, at about the 40:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Jonathan Wells, who specializes in embryology, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates, (via "Relational Biology"), that during embryological development ‘positional information’ must somehow be coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into their multiple different states during embryological development.
“The problem in embryo development is: How do cells become different from each other in highly specified ways? We saw that DNA does not specify the original membrane pattern much less the subsequent ones. A relatively recent branch of biology, called “Relational biology” attacks it (this question) in a formal way. Most modern biology is an exercise in molecular dynamics. It focuses on molecular dynamics and neglects their arrangements or patterns – their relations – and it assumes that those relations can be reconstructed from their constituents. But they cannot. In contrast, relational biology focuses on the patterns, and sets out to model the transformations of those patterns into other patterns. Relational biology uses a branch of mathematics called “category theory”, (first developed in the 1940s), to model pattern transformations. Category theory is a generalization of set theories. In set theory elements of one set are transformed to elements of a new set. In category theory, the relations in one category are transformed to new relations in a new category.,,, (All the information required for embryo development is not in the fertilized egg). (The transformation of patterns in one cell is transformed into new patterns in a new cell), And neither pattern is specified by DNA. Obviously we have to add information to the system (to explain the new pattern). (And every subsequent transformation of patterns in the cell requires the addition of even more information). Now, what is the nature of this information? Generally speaking, I would say that information in embryo development is that which produces form. (In this case we are talking about the form of the membrane pattern). Obviously this information is not material, it is not carried In the original fertilized egg. (Nor is it being added by the water in which the embryo sits). So the information,, is clearly not material. It does not come from matter. So where did the information come from? As a biologist I (simply) can’t tell (you) where the information is coming from. As a Theologian I might say that ultimately, the information (must) come from ‘divine ideas’.” Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (40:00 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2424
To dive a bit deeper, the specific 'form' that any individual organism may take is, (besides not being reducible to the information in DNA), is also not reducible to cells of the developing embryo. In the following article it is noted that, "Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern."
What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean
Nor can the environment explain 'form'. The following article notes that 'a brief time-lapse video can teach more about embryonic development than any amount of reading.” And further notes that “it is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment.'
Criticality in morphogenesis - September 17, 2013 Excerpt: In many regards, a brief time-lapse video can teach more about embryonic development than any amount of reading. It is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment. While it had been hoped that concepts borrowed from statistical mechanics or the ideas of self-organized criticality could help to create some kind of physics-based theory of development, much of what has been done lies only at the level of metaphor. In a paper just released to ArXiv, William Bialek and his colleagues from Princeton University, have taken their search for the signature of criticality in a more specific direction. They looked at a particular set of transcription factors in Drosophila embryos which control spatiotemporal development. By analyzing fluctuations in the expression levels of these so-called gap genes, they found evidence for critical (fine) tuning in this particular network. http://phys.org/news/2013-09-criticality-morphogenesis.html
In fact, (as the fairly dramatic 'loss of form' that happens at the moment death clearly illustrates), the 'form' that any individual organism may take MUST BE deeply tied to some immaterial principle, and/or 'immaterial power', that is completely independent of the material organism itself. The burning question is, as Stephen L. Talbott rightly asks, "the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?"
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
Clearly, whatever 'immaterial principle', and/or 'immaterial power', that is holding off the 'loss of form' until the moment of death must be deeply tied to entropy in some way. And indeed, immaterial 'positional' information and entropy are now found to be intimately linked. As the following 2010 experiment found, “they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”
Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) turns information into energy – November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
As Christopher Jarzynski, who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information’, stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”
Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform
In. short, it is now experimentally shown that, when dealing with immaterial 'positional' information, we are not dealing with some abstract, ethereal, entity that has no causal effect on the material world, but we are in fact dealing with an immaterial entity that has a quote-unquote “thermodynamic content”, i.e. that has a 'real effect' on the material world. Moreover, and even more antagonistic for Atheistic materialists, advances in quantum information theory have now shown that, quote-unquote, “an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer”
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011 Excerpt: The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
And as the following article 2017 stated, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
To repeat that last statement, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.” That statement is simply completely devastating to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian atheists, and is a full vindication of the presuppositions of Intelligent Design where it is held that only an Intelligent Mind has the capacity to create the (positional) information needed to explain why life, (and/or biological form), is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.bornagain77
November 6, 2022
November
11
Nov
6
06
2022
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
BA77 @ 3
“The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.” – Alexander Tsiaras – Conception to birth — visualized – video – 7:25 minute mark https://youtu.be/fKyljukBE70?t=443
That's because the information of where everything goes does not reside in the genetic code. It can't reside there. There isn't nearly enough available material to encode the information required. The information for the form, function, and placement of everything in the organism has to reside in the cytoplasm and membrane of the egg or cell as well as the nucleus . The membrane has sensors that tell the cell what its environment is that then allows differentiation to occur appropriate for that environment. Differentiation occurs by response to the sensorome by the proteome and metabolome with oversight control of the genome. All together these cooperate to result in the organisms form. The totality of the cell is required to generate the organism's final form. To think that the first living cell which could reproduce itself came about in a random haphazard accident is sheer lunacy.Latemarch
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
String theory? Scientists need to explore new ideas to get to actual answers, meaning good, workable models of reality. So, speculation occurs, imagination occurs. That is good, but only when it describes everything accurately. Until then, more speculation, like string theory. Other scientists examine the various other theories to see how close they are to observed phenomena. And sometimes, even bad theories can inspire further thinking, and perhaps, an insight leading to a better theory. Evolutionary biology? Pleez. What a joke. Yeah, our brains are keyed for reproduction only and truth, of any kind, does not matter. The Selfish Gene as the Selfish Brain? No evidence for it. There are so many human behaviors outside of scientific understanding. Consciousness, imagination, creativity and others.relatd
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
ChuckyD, so you have Sean Carroll, (who is of highly questionable intellectual honesty),
Sean Carroll’s Dishonesty: The Debate of 2014 - By Ronald Cram - April 15, 2020 Excerpt: (In his debate with William Lane Craig), Carroll was dishonest on two important points. Carroll claimed BGV theorem does not imply the universe had a beginning. Carroll claimed that quantum eternity theorem (QET) was better than BGV theorem.,,, Carroll,, knows that QET is not really a theorem at all and so cannot honestly be described as better than BGV theorem. Conclusion Uninformed viewers of the 2014 Carroll-Craig debate may think that Carroll won the debate. After all, Carroll is a cosmologist, he’s brilliant, confident and likable. He attacked and undermined BGV theorem, the science upon which Craig often bases his arguments. Carroll even enlisted the help of Alan Guth to undermine his own theorem. Then Carroll sprung the quantum eternity theorem on Craig, who was caught off-guard by the term since it had never appeared in the scientific literature. Informed viewers of the debate came away with a different view. Carroll’s denial that BGV theorem implies the universe/multiverse had an ultimate beginning was shocking and dishonest. Also, informed viewers saw it as rather underhanded for Carroll to claim “quantum eternity theorem” was a recognized theorem that implies the universe is eternal into the past (since the term had not even appeared in the scientific literature at that point). On the basis of the science, Craig was truthful with the audience and Carroll was not. Truth will win out as they say. Carroll’s (dishonest) behavior can only be seen as harmful to science. https://freethinkingministries.com/sean-carrolls-dishonesty-the-debate-of-2014/
,,, and who is also apparently a card-totting materialist according to the quote at the top of his site,, which reads "in truth, only atoms and the void",,, you have this guy trying to take down my referenced Hugh Ross 10^1032 calculation for requirements to sustain intelligent physical life? Really?? Perhaps Carrol might of helped his case against Dr. Ross immensely if he had not first referenced the pseudo-science of string theory before he launched into his empty rebuttal against Ross?
Carrol: "According to Reasons to Believe, the chance of life arising on a planet within the observable universe is only 1 in 10^282 — or it would have been, if it weren’t for divine miracles. (Don’t tell them about there are 10^500 vacua in string theory, it would ruin everything.) "
FYI ChuckyD, string theory is "not even wrong" as a scientific theory.
Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong - 2017 Physicist, mathematician and blogger Peter Woit whacks strings, multiverses, simulated universes and “fake physics” By John Horgan on April 27, 2017 Excerpt: Peter Woit,,, says the problems of string theory have become more severe since he critiqued it more than a decade ago in his book Not Even Wrong. The problems include “the complexity, ugliness and lack of explanatory power of models designed to connect string theory with known phenomena, as well as the continuing failure to come up with a consistent formulation of the theory.” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/ The part of the book ('The Trouble With Physics') I found most interesting was the part which tells how the string theorists were scammed by Nature (or Mathematics). Of course, Smolin doesn't put it exactly like this, but imagine the following conversation.--------- String theorists: We've got the Standard Model, and it works great, but it doesn't include gravity, and it doesn't explain lots of other stuff, like why all the elementary particles have the masses they do. We need a new, broader theory. Nature: Here's a great new theory I can sell you. It combines quantum field theory and gravity, and there's only one adjustable parameter in it, so all you have to do is find the right value of that parameter, and the Standard Model will pop right out. String theorists: We'll take it. String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, our new theory won't fit into our driveway. String theory has ten dimensions, and our driveway only has four. Nature: I can sell you a Calabi-Yau manifold. These are really neat gadgets, and they'll fold up string theory into four dimensions, no problem. String theorists: We'll take one of those as well, please. Nature: Happy to help. String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there's too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one. Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you'll be all set. String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now! Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly. String theorists: It does? Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you'll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests. String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory. ---------- Okay, I've taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin's book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it's hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H7GVX4BUQQ68/
So ChuckyD, since you have appealed to someone who believes in the 'not even wrong' theory of string theory in order to try to counter Dr. Ross's calculation, (a conservative calculation which is based on empirical evidence, and have thus failed in your endeavor), perhaps next you will appeal to phrenology to try to counter the astronomical evidence that Dr. Ross presents? Shoot ChuckyD, you might as well do that. According to Jerry Coyne himself, Darwinism itself ranks "far closer to phrenology than to physics"
"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture. The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior.",, - Jerry Coyne http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200004/0012.html
bornagain77
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
CD at 5, Reasons to believe evolutionists have no evidence to show evolution happened as advertised.relatd
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
BA77 Apropos Hugh Ross: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/10/09/reasons-to-believe-creationists-are-crazy/chuckdarwin
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Seversky at 2, You've got to be -- kidding, or something. First, you AND SCIENTISTS have no idea how or where aliens, if they exist, would communicate. None. Scientists are engaging in science-fiction, not science. They have zero evidence, right now. NONE. End of story.relatd
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Sev: "Were we all designed and created de novo or are we all the outcomes of the natural cycle of human physical reproduction?" First off, empirical, (and mathematical), evidence falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution at every turn.
November 2021 – ,,, the evidence from the fossil record refutes Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740239 November 2021 – ,,, the evidence from genetics, (and the mathematics of population genetics), when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal as Darwinists are prone to do, actually falsifies, instead of supports, the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245 November 2021 – ,,, Human exceptionalism also refutes Darwinian evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249
Secondly, Darwinists are clueless as to what it actually takes for an embryonic cell to transform into living, breathing, human being of some 30 trillion cells. As Alexander Tsiaras states at the 7:25 minute mark of the following video,,, "The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity."
"The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity." - Alexander Tsiaras - Conception to birth — visualized – video – 7:25 minute mark https://youtu.be/fKyljukBE70?t=443
As to providing us with a real clue as to exactly how an embryo might actually achieve its adult form, at about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Jonathan Wells, who specializes in embryology, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that during embryological development ‘positional information’ must somehow be coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into their multiple different states during embryological development.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484
Thirdly, Darwinists are also absolutely clueless as to why I, or anyone else, should ever come into existence as a unique 'person'. A unique 'person' with an individual subjective conscious experience. In fact, within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, Darwinists are forced to claim that my sense of self, my “I”, my 'personhood', is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’.
The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker – Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University - per academic “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,, – Alex Rosenberg – Professor of Philosophy Duke University – The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 Sam Harris: “The self is an illusion.” – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1) https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267 etc.. etc.. etc…
This claim that our sense of self is a neuronal illusion is simply self refuting nonsense. As David Bentley Hart noted, "illusions are possible only for conscious minds."
“Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart
And as brain surgeon Michael Egnor put it, “if your hypothesis is that the mind is an illusion, then you don’t have a hypothesis.”
– Naturalism requires us to believe that our minds are an illusion. But, as neurosurgeon Michael Egnor says, “if your hypothesis is that the mind is an illusion, then you don’t have a hypothesis.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hush-the-universe-is-learning/
And as Eugene Wigner himself noted, "The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied.",,,
“The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
Of supplemental note:
Oct. 2022 - So since Darwinian Atheists, as a foundational presupposition of their materialistic philosophy, (and not from any compelling scientific evidence mind you), deny the existence of souls, (and since the materialist’s denial of souls, (and God), has led to so much catastrophic disaster on human societies in the 20th century), then it is VERY important to ‘scientifically’ establish the existence of these ‘souls’ that are of incalculable worth, and that are equal, before God. https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/what-must-we-do-when-the-foundations-are-being-destroyed/#comment-768496
Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
You are an incredibly complex arrangement of uncounted trillions of sub-atomic particles. What are the odds against just such an arrangement coming together at this time and this place? What are the odds against 8 billion such incredibly complex arrangements coming together at this time and this place. Were we all designed and created de novo or are we all the outcomes of the natural cycle of human physical reproduction? Ross finds 816 parameters required to sustain intelligent life on this planet. I assume that he is aware that the vast majority of this universe is utterly inimical to life such as ours, that we live in a thin film of atmosphere on the surface of this planet, that even in this niche we subject to threats from volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, plagues, famines, etc, to name but a few, let alone bombardment by planet-killing bodies from outer space which appear to have wiped out almost all life on Earth on several occasions. Factor in all those circumstances and our survival looks a lot more like luck than judgement. As for SETI, I think that radio waves simply won't cut it as a means of interstellar communications. Broadcast signals will attenuate and fade into the background radio noise of the universe long before they reach even the nearest stars. Narrowly-focused beams can reach out farther but where do you aim them? And are we prepared to wait the decades or hundreds of years for signals to travel back and forth? How could you hold a conversation with even the nearest stars when it would be nine years before you get a reply to your "Hello?".Seversky
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Kaltenegger hopes to find biosignatures on exoplanets that match biosignatures that would have been present on the early earth prior to the build-up of the oxygen levels that are necessary to support the metabolic activity of higher life-forms.
The goal at the time was to compare spectra from rocky, temperate planets to what Earth’s spectrum would look like from far away, seeking conspicuous signals like a surplus of oxygen due to widespread photosynthesis. Kaltenegger’s objection was that, for the first 2 billion years of Earth’s existence, its atmosphere had no oxygen. Then it took another billion years for oxygen to build up to high levels. And this biosignature hit its highest concentration not in Earth’s present-day spectrum, but during a short window in the late Cretaceous Period when proto-birds chased giant insects through the skies. Without a good theoretical model for how Earth’s own spectrum has changed, Kaltenegger feared, the big planet-finding missions could easily miss a living world that didn’t match a narrow temporal template. She needed to envision Earth as an exoplanet evolving through time.
Yet, in regards to how Earth has changed through time, interestingly Dr. Hugh Ross, in his book "Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home", has found that the way in which the Earth has changed through time is of specific benefit for technologically advanced civilizations such as ourselves,
Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Presents The Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNPSZwxEFME Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home - Hugh Ross - 2017 https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801075432/ref=sr_1_1
Moreover Dr. Ross, via Brandon Carter's 'anthropic inequality', argues that the extremely long amount of time it took to prepare a suitable place for technologically advanced humans to exist in this universe, for the relatively short period of time that we can exist on this planet, is actually a point of evidence that argues strongly for Theism:
Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross ?Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974),13 noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).14 Carter formalized this enormous imbalance between the time required to produce the possibility for human life and the brevity of the species’ (potential) survival as the “anthropic principle inequality.”15,,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions.16 Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency. Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.17 These figures demonstrate that the inequality is extreme. The survival time for advanced intelligent physical life is only a millionth as long as the time required to produce the conditions necessary for its survival. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/facts-for-faith/anthropic-principle-a-precise-plan-for-humanity
As well, Dr. Ross and company have also found that 816 parameters are required to be met in order to sustain intelligent physical life:
Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life: Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf
Of course atheists can and do argue that all this apparent preparation for humanity, (and the many parameters that are required for intelligent life to even exist on any planet), are just a big ole series of coincidental accident, (i.e. "Lucky us"), but as Eric Metaxas rightly asks, "At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?" and also asks, "Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?"
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone? - By Eric Metaxas - Dec. 24, 2014 Excerpt: Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life —every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being? http://inters.org/files/metaxas-science-increasingly.pdf Eric Metaxas - Does Science Argue for or against God? – (2015) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjGPHF5A6Po
Of supplemental note, as Paul Nelson and others have pointed out, when SETI researchers look for ET intelligence, they are looking for something that only intelligent minds can produce, namely meaningful information. As Dr. Nelson pointed out, "some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for."
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause,, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, ,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html?
And although no SETI researcher has ever received any message from any ET, some researchers, with apparently no hint of the irony involved, have claimed to have found the SETI "Wow! signal" in the genetic code.
In the Planetary Science Journal Icarus, the “Wow!” Signal of Intelligent Design – March 12, 2013 Excerpt: “The ‘Wow! signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code.” Their paper has been accepted for publication in the prestigious planetary science journal Icarus, where it’s already available online. Their title comes from a curious SETI signal back in 1977 that looked so artificial at first, a researcher wrote “Wow!” next to it.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/a_wow_signal_of069941.html ?
This all would be very humorous if it were not for how sad their 'intellectual blindness' towards God makes me.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
bornagain77
November 5, 2022
November
11
Nov
5
05
2022
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply