Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An article at MSN news suggests that Darwin might have been wrong (!)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It’s just a conventional story in favor of hydrothermal vents for the
origin of life, as opposed to Darwin’s “warm little pond”:

Dr Sean Jordan said, “In our experiments, we have created one of the essential components of life under conditions that are more reflective of ancient environments than many other laboratory studies,”.

“We still don’t know where life first formed, but our study shows that you cannot rule out the possibility of deep-sea hydrothermal vents.”

The researchers also point out that deep-sea hydrothermal vents are not unique to Earth.

Rob Waugh, “Charles Darwin ‘may have been wrong about where life came from’” at MSN

So we should look for them on exoplanets if we are looking for life.

Some of us can remember back to when most such stories would begin by announcing that they had proven Darwin right. Funny how the rhetoric is changing.

And David Gelernter still has his job at Yale despite dumping Darwin.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: Origin of life: Could it all have come together in one very special place?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Seversky 34,36 So you position ultimately is a position of faith and I have no problem with that if you wish to BELIEVE nature did it thats fine as long as you are honest and accept its a position of faith you hold not a position of fact. Personally I BELIEVE universe`s coming from nothing, a universe with design ,life without design,etc etc much more problematic and harder to believe than the counter position.Marfin
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
Jawa @ 46: Here's UD link to Boston Globe article (behind paywall) announcing Harvard OOL initiative with Szostak from Aug 2005. So, he's in at least the 14th year of his 3 to 5 year plan to figure out OOL. (Reminds me of the Chinese 5 year plans. they never end) - but, it's a good way to continually mislead your donors to think something will happen very soon - but, no one would ever do that, would they? http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_of_life_launched/es58
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Apparently UD has lost internet traffic lately, according to Alexa ranking: UD 828,206 SW 1,022,449 PT 1,617,067 TSZ 3,829,518 PS 6,720,129jawa
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
All I see here, at least for the most recent comments, are people trying to belittle each other. Doesn’t sound like a constructive way to have a discussion.Reapers Plague
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
15 yards and first down for piling on. :)Ed George
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
However, that is how interlocutors like Ed obfuscate.john_a_designer
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
. correct Edit: ...and it doesn't matter whether the topic is morality, empirical observation, or the recorded history of science. Ed's views are to be protected from any examination.Upright BiPed
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
UBP “I don’t answer loaded questions” Translation, I don’t answer questions that require me to acknowledge the logical implications of my position. Vividvividbleau
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
UBP
I asked you directly: “She needs a consensus to know for certain that its valid, doesn’t she” — and again, you refused to answer.
I don’t answer loaded questions.Ed George
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
. By the way Ed, attempting to sell your refusal to answer as some violation of conversation etiquette would have been a lot more compelling if you had been willing to answer my "on-topic" questions -- but you weren't willing. You might remember:
If a woman is being raped and murdered, in those few moments before she dies — oh ye bright wizards of enlightenment — she will need the consensus of the group in order to be absolutely certain that the brutalization she feels is valid. It is only in the context of that consensus ...
I asked you directly: "She needs a consensus to know for certain that its valid, doesn’t she" -- and again, you refused to answer.Upright BiPed
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
. Ed, I was responding to this comment: “When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, we have no problem concluding that it is a duck”. You were asked if these comments you made were germane to the conversation you were having. Your answer was "yes". The reason you won't answer the question is because of its content, not its timing.Upright BiPed
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Ed George:
And my response was on target.
Only if the "target" was in another time zone from reality.
Your other question about DNA was in a discussion about morality.
The question was posed to demonstrate that you don't know jack about a duck being a duck. And it succeeded.ET
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
UBP
Oh Ed, you missed by a country mile. I didn’t ask you anything general (as your interesting interpretation suggests), I asked you something very specific.
No, I was responding to the following comment.
Ed, anyone who takes the position that people should exercise reason in debate, then steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the critical points of the opposing position, is insulting.
And my response was on target. Your other question about DNA was in a discussion about morality. As it was not relevant to the discussion on morality I chose not to respond. People here often choose not to respond to my questions and comments. As I am not so self-centred to believe that people should respond to my every question, I am not insulted by the lack of response.Ed George
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Ed George is a scientifically illiterate coward. He will never engage in a discussion on science. He will only spew some nonsense and then never back it up.ET
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
.
OK, so anyone who disagrees with you, doesn’t accept your reasoning, or refuses to respond on demand to off topic questions, is insulting you.
Oh Ed, you missed by a country mile. I didn’t ask you anything general (as your interesting interpretation suggests), I asked you something very specific. You made the comment that “when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck”, you have no problem in just calling it a “duck”. I question this image you see of yourself, and provided a duck in order to prove the point. Did Von Neumann describe a system of symbols and constraints as being fundamental to open-ended self-replication, or did he not, Ed? Did Crick and Brenner demonstrate a non-overlapping reading-frame code, or not? Is the establishment of that code physically separate from the reading of the codons? You just don’t want to deal with the fact that scientists have already used the language of physics to describe (in detail) the multi-referent symbol system in DNA. Clearly, if it doesn’t serve your purpose to do so, you wouldn’t call a duck "a duck" even if it were predicted, discovered, carefully confirmed, and quacked at you.Upright BiPed
November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
Jawa@46 https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/08/its-alive.html This is a blog post from 2007 where they also say 3 to 5 years and quote szostak. . I believe he's been saying it since he started his project but haven't been able to document it earlier. Perhaps using way back? I think this line of work will give job security - for his great great grand children.es58
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
Interesting discussion: Argument for evolution?
The irreducible complex flagellum is made up of 25 proteins, 23 of which are found elsewhere performing different functions.
Upright BiPed @ UD
How many of them have to be specified in an irreducibly complex system of symbols and constraints before they ever appear on Earth in the first place? Are there any ID critics willing to address that question in earnest? If these proteins were likely to be specified in order to appear in the first place, and further, if they are also expected to be variable and evolve over subsequent generations, wouldn’t that entail that they be specified in a system that a) creates subsequent generations, and b) is capable of not only describing and producing whatever protein that it’s currently making, but also any variation of that protein as well? (You know, like how the known extant cell does it). Anyone? Wouldn’t that system — one capable of those things — also have to be self-referential as well, describing both its constraints and its variable products, like these proteins being discussed here? No?
Martin_r @ UD
in 2014, Suzan Mazur interviewed Jack Szostak – who is a Nobel laureate and worldwide known for his origin-of-life research. Harvard professor and Nobel laureate Jack Szostak said: “Life in Lab” In 3 – 5 Years … And more likely within three years.” again, Szostak said that in 2014. Now is almost 2020 and Szostak has nothing … Moreover, Szostak retracted his 2016 NATURE paper on origin-of-life research… RetractionWatch.com: “Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal” “A Nobel Laureate has retracted a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry that explored the origins of life on earth, after discovering the main conclusions were not correct. ” https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/05/definitely-embarrassing-nobel-laureate-retracts-non-reproducible-paper-nature-journal/
PeterA @ UD
The same physical principles and even basic components are used for different functions in unrelated systems. The same microprocessor codes are used for different functions in different applications. The same assembler language instructions are used for different functions in different applications. The same C# or Java or C++ or another software development language syntax is used for different functions in different systems. But all the above cases are intelligently designed, at least the last time I checked it. ???? The question is how can we assemble step-by-step the machinery underlying the flagellum? Has anybody done it yet in a lab? How did they do it? How easy it was to get it done?
  But haven't seen any serious response to the above questions.  jawa
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
The same physical principles and even basic components are used for different functions in unrelated systems. The same microprocessor codes are used for different functions in different applications. The same assembler language instructions are used for different functions in different applications. The same C# or Java or C++ or another software development language syntax is used for different functions in different systems. But all the above cases are intelligently designed, at least the last time I checked it. :) The question is how can we assemble step-by-step the machinery underlying the flagellum? Has anybody done it yet in a lab? How did they do it? How easy it was to get it done?PeterA
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
UBP, OK, so anyone who disagrees with you, doesn’t accept your reasoning, or refuses to respond on demand to off topic questions, is insulting you. You must get insulted often.Ed George
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
. Ed, anyone who takes the position that people should exercise reason in debate, then steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the critical points of the opposing position, is insulting. Anyone who speaks about the best practice of reason, those which he says save it from being a mere intellectual game, then turns around to do the very things he opposes, is indeed insulting. You may not consider it insulting to others to be disingenuous, but I think many would disagree. By the way Ed, do you ever say anything here that is not merely rhetorical in nature? Let me help you understand the point. Below is a post to you from a week ago, where, much like Sev, you were touting what a Paragon of Reason you are. So I asked this question about your treatment of evidence, which you refused to engage in earnest:
Ed, a high-capacity symbol system was predicted to be fundamentally necessary for open-ended heritable self-replication. The system eventually discovered to be responsible for heritable self-replication in living beings was found to use a system of quiescent non-dynamic memory tokens, organized in a linear reading-frame code (like a language). It was then recorded in the scientific literature that, yes indeed, the gene code and symbolic language structure (including mathematics) are the only two examples of such a physical system found anywhere in the cosmos. You can quite easily follow this line of understanding from Charles Peirce to Alan Turing to John Von Neumann to Francis Crick to Howard Pattee. You can further flesh this out with the work of persons such Marshal Nirenberg, Sydney Brenner, Mahlon Hoagland, among many others – all dutifully recorded in the scientific literature. Ed, is the gene system that enables Life on Earth a symbol system using a high-capacity language structure, i.e. a reading frame code?
Upright BiPed
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
@Ed: I started following this site the year before Dover. In the few years after that, things changed. Then I checked out for a long time and when I came back a few weeks ago I couldn't remember my site name. That was like 3 laptops ago :-) The vast majority of people who were here at that time are long gone. But of the few who are left, only 2 or 3 routinely insult people. Seversky is not one of them.DerekDiMarco
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Ed George:
He certainly disagrees with people but I have never seen him being anything other than polite and civil when he does so.
That settles it, then. :roll:ET
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
UBP
But don’t worry Seversky, none of the design proponents you come here to insult...
Do you have any examples of Seversky insulting anyone? He certainly disagrees with people but I have never seen him being anything other than polite and civil when he does so.Ed George
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
. You are not going to do it in earnest, are you Sev? No, of course not. Your “Yes, but” answer is likely the best you can do. As protective and disingenuous as it may be, it's still a tacit concession to the empirical evidence you always deny. But don’t worry Seversky, none of the design proponents you come here to insult will actually expect you to remember this little concession the next time you say 'there's no evidence’ of design in life. We all realize that you are too old and worn-in to get real about the evidence now. If it wasn’t for your steady contribution to the damage of science, it is likely that no one would care either way. ------------------- EDIT: By the way Sev, von Neumann himself can answer your question. His goal was to understand the necessary conditions whereby the process of replication would “proceed in such a manner that each automaton will produce other automata which are more complex and of higher potentialities than itself”. So the answer is clearly “Yes”, he most certainly envisioned substantial changes over time, including entirely novel functions and structures not found in the original replicator. It was his specific goal to understand the logical and organizational requirements of a system where those kinds of entirely open-ended changes could occur.Upright BiPed
November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Tell us, did he specify using a process to store and copy the “blueprint” which would mutate at random away from the original specification such that descendant replicants would bear little or no resemblance to the original?
So your answer to my question is “yes” the gene system is a multi-referent symbol system and a necessary set of interpretive constraints; and indeed “yes” that symbol system was the whole point of the organization enabling autonomous open-ended self-replication. Is that right? When you verify, I will get to your counter question.Upright BiPed
November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
seversky:
I see no persuasive evidence for an omniscient and omnipotent Intelligent Designer or God so the only alternative is some natural process.
Total nonsense, as usual. Natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could not have produced nature. Also ID does NOT require an omniscient and omnipotent Intelligent Designer or God, so it is clearly an alternative to that scenario. And finally what seversky doesn't see is irrelevant to reality.ET
November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Marfin@ 27
Seversky -Why do you believe that the origin of life was just a product of nature without any design , we can all see the science does not point to that conclusion so why do you believe it.
I see no persuasive evidence for an omniscient and omnipotent Intelligent Designer or God so the only alternative is some natural process.Seversky
November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
seversky:
Do you know for certain that there is an intelligent being some call God who created this entire Universe out of nothing?
Intelligent Design does not require God. But yes, the overwhelming evidence says the universe was intelligently designed.
Do I know that life developed from inanimate matter by some natural process? No, I don’t. Do I know that such a thing is impossible?
There isn't any evidence that it could and there isn't even a way to test the claim. It is a claim based on faith and ignorance.ET
November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Marfin@ 26
Seversky at 16 – By that twisted logic nothing is impossible , virgin births, raising the dead , walking on water , lead into gold,time machines,flying pigs,something coming from nothing , everything is possible given enough time. This makes a mockery of the scientific method as any experimental failures can be brushed aside with, we just need more time, so nothing is falsifiable, and science becomes pointless in this bizaro world of yours.
Do you know for certain that there is an intelligent being some call God who created this entire Universe out of nothing? I would say that, whatever you might believe you don't know. I note that it is impossible by definition to get something from nothing. Do I know that life developed from inanimate matter by some natural process? No, I don't. Do I know that such a thing is impossible? No, I don't and neither does anyone else. The only way to find out is through science.Seversky
November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
seversky:
Tell us, did he specify using a process to store and copy the “blueprint” which would mutate at random away from the original specification such that descendant replicants would bear little or no resemblance to the original?
Too bad DNA isn't such a blueprint as DNA does not determine form.ET
November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply