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

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 6, 2019

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

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:
It is far too soon for us to say with any certainty that it could not have happened so there is no reason not to continue with the research.
Nonsense. We know the life was designed with the same certainty that we know Stonehenge was designed. We know that nature cannot produce life from inanimate matter with the same certainty we know that nature cannot produce Stonehenges.ET_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Martin_r@ 25
Are you saying, that lets give biologists (natural science graduates) enough time, and one day, these biologists will show us how very sophisticated autonomous self-navigating flying systems can self-design ?
No, I am saying there is still so much that we do not know yet. It is far too soon for us to say with any certainty that it could not have happened so there is no reason not to continue with the research.Seversky_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed@ 21
Hey Sev, when John von Neumann successfully described the fundamentals of autonomous open-ended self-replication, didn’t his prediction include a multi-referent (high-capacity) symbol system and a necessary set of interpretive constraints? In fact, wasn’t the processing of symbolic memory the whole point of the organization being described, Sev?
Yes, I'm aware of von Neumann's work on self-reproducing automata. 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?Seversky_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Darwin was wrong about the OoL. Darwin was wrong about the descent of man. And Darwin was wrong about natural selection. Darwin was good at barnacles and pigeons.ET_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

It is very telling that Ed George and hazel always run away from discussions pertaining to science.ET_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

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.Marfin_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

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.Marfin_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky, did i get you right ? (English is not my first language) Are you saying, that lets give biologists (natural science graduates) enough time, and one day, these biologists will show us how very sophisticated autonomous self-navigating flying systems can self-design ? :) :) :)martin_r_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

. Ed, I then went on to ask a second question. Are you able to submit any of the things you say to logical or evidentiary questions?
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? (...like how the extant cell does it).
Upright BiPed_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

. Ed, are you unable to address the question posed to you in #10. It is directly related to your comment in #5.
Ed: The irreducible complex flagellum is made up of 25 proteins, 23 of which are found elsewhere performing different functions. UB: 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?
Upright BiPed_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

. D, This obviously has not occurred to you, but a fusion reaction does not use a reading-frame code to specify itself among alternatives, which is the core organizational condition of living (and evolving) cell. Since your subject (the living cell) has nothing in common with your counter-example (fusion reaction), one is then free to replace the topic with whatever one wishes, and happily reach the same conclusion as you have here. In other words, your comment is meaningless.Upright BiPed_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

. Ah, the famous Seversky Shuffle. Allow me to translate: When Seversky says, “Oh dear, we just don’t know anything yet, we’ve only begun to look”, he is actually saying “I cannot stand what we know. Damn science! I must ignore these things at once and never speak of them”. Hey Sev, when John von Neumann successfully described the fundamentals of autonomous open-ended self-replication, didn’t his prediction include a multi-referent (high-capacity) symbol system and a necessary set of interpretive constraints? In fact, wasn’t the processing of symbolic memory the whole point of the organization being described, Sev?Upright BiPed_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

seversky:
Dr James Tour is an eminent synthetic organic chemist. He has no idea how life may have arisen from inanimate chemicals.
Life has never arisen from inanimate chemicals.
If we take divine creation as an alternative explanation, do we have any idea how a god might have done it?
No, but at least we know it was via Intelligent Design. And that alone tells us quite a bit.ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Nice question-begging, Derek. What happens when it takes a mind to produce H and He?ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

No scientist, with all their time and resources, has been able to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction. But if you have a mindless clump of 10^31 kg of H and He, it happens inevitably. It follows quite obviously that just because a scientist hasn't reproduced it in the lab, doesn't mean a mindless process can't create it.DerekDiMarco_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Seversky, you might have saved yourself a needless post if you would have read posts 2 and 3 before you made your comment. Not that the truth ever stop you from repeating falsehoods, but anyways,,bornagain77_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Martin_r@ 14
even if world’s best scientists have all the cell’s components needed, nobody on Earth is able to assemble a simple cell FROM SCRATCH using these pre-made components, and under controlled conditions, in a lab ???? But they hope and BELIEVE that the cell somehow self-assembled, out there, e.g. near hot vents or wherever ????
Dr James Tour is an eminent synthetic organic chemist. He has no idea how life may have arisen from inanimate chemicals. He says no one else does either. We agree. He's right. Does that mean that a god did it? No, it means we DON'T KNOW. If you accept any of the findings of science then this universe is about 13.85bn years old. The earliest signs of life detected on Earth so far are from around 3.5bn years ago. If abiogenesis occurred then the universe had around 10bn years to find out how to do it. Modern science has been working on the problem for perhaps 150 years at best and you are complaining that we haven't cracked it yet? If we take divine creation as an alternative explanation, do we have any idea how a god might have done it? Do believers even ask that? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO. The difference between the two sides? One is trying to find out, the other apparently couldn't care less.Seversky_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

hazel:
This is off-topic, but this also pertains to ID, so I thought you guys might be interested: flagellum
Most of us know and understand Nick Matzke's equivocation and anti-truth agenda, hazel. The article you linked to just proves that he is incapable of learning, incapable of conducting science and incapable of honesty.ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Bornagain@2 that is a good point, most evolutionists even don't realize how desperate the situation is (for them), even if world's best scientists have all the cell's components needed, nobody on Earth is able to assemble a simple cell FROM SCRATCH using these pre-made components, and under controlled conditions, in a lab :) But they hope and BELIEVE that the cell somehow self-assembled, out there, e.g. near hot vents or wherever :) So, who believes in miracles ? :) So let me repeat this one: Dr. James Tour (TOP 10 chemist in the World): “So the gedanken (thought) experiment is this. Even if I gave you all the components. Even if I gave you all the amino acids. All the protein structures from those amino acids that you wanted. All the lipids in the purity that you wanted. The DNA. The RNA. Even in the sequence you wanted. I’ve even given you the code. And all the nucleic acids. So now I say, “Can you now assemble a cell, not in a prebiotic cesspool but in your nice laboratory?”. And the answer is a resounding NO! And if anybody claims otherwise they do not know this area (of research).” – James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained – 4:20 minute mark (The more we know, the worse the problem gets for materialists)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y&feature=youtu.be&t=255martin_r_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

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/martin_r_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

. 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?Upright BiPed_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

. 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?Upright BiPed_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

.
The irreducible complex flagellum is made up of 25 proteins, 23 of which are found elsewhere performing different functions.
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?Upright BiPed_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke is back with his basic equivocating nonsense- HT Hazel- Evolution or intelligent design? Except that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. It's sad that Nick refuses to understand what ID is and what is actually being debated. Neither hazel nor Ed have the slightest idea...ET_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

seversky:
My impression is that the hydrothermal vents hypothesis has been around for a while. Besides this is about abiogenesis not evolution.
How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. Blind watchmaker evolution only rules if spontaneous generation ruled the OoL. An Intelligently Designed OoL means that life was designed to adapt and evolve.ET_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
The irreducible complex flagellum is made up of 25 proteins, 23 of which are found elsewhere performing different functions.
And? Do you realize that it isn't just getting the right proteins, you need to have the correct quantities of each one. Some have thousands of subunits. Not only that you need to get them all at the right time. Then you need to get them to the right place and finally you need to get them configured properly. Not to mention that no one can show that blind and mindless processes can produce the genes required in the first place.ET_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Glad you liked it. I think if people are interested they should click on the link, though, partially because of the nice pictures.hazel_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Hazel, nice article. Maybe it would be better if you just pasted the entire article here in two or three comments. :) The irreducible complex flagellum is made up of 25 proteins, 23 of which are found elsewhere performing different functions.Ed George_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

This is off-topic, but this also pertains to ID, so I thought you guys might be interested: flagellumhazel_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

As should be obvious, having the correct sequential information in DNA is not nearly enough to explain the construction of the 'simple' cell. Besides the sequential information in DNA there is also a vast amount of ‘positional information’ in the cell that must be accounted for as well. That is to say, there is a vast amount of information that is telling the molecules exactly where to be that must be accounted for as well. The positional information that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be on the order 10 to the 12 bits,,, which is several orders of magnitude more information than the amount of sequential information that is encoded on the DNA of a ‘simple’ bacterium.
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. http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm
,,, Which is the equivalent of 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
And in finding out exactly where this vast amount of positional information, (that must somehow be accounted for in order to give an adequate account for the Origin of Life), came from, in the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, it was demonstrated that knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position converts information into energy.
Maxwell’s demon demonstration 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
And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “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
And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,, 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.”,,,
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/
Again to repeat that last sentence, “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.”” Think about that statement for a second. That statement should send a chill down the spine of every ID proponent. These experiments completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, (presuppositions about information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), entirely out of the water and also directly show that information is a property of an ‘observer’ who describes the system and is not a 'emergent' property of the (material) system itself as Darwinists adamantly presuppose. On top of that, ‘classical’ sequential information is found to be a subset of quantum positional information by the following method: Specifically, in the following 2011 paper, researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) 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 (in quantum information theory) 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: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,, 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.,,, No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
Again, to say that “entropy is always dependent on the observer” is completely antithetical to the entire reductive materialistic presupposition of Darwinian evolution in which it is held that life, as far out of thermodynamic equilibrium as it is, somehow spontaneously emerged completely free from any intelligent observer. An ocean of ink has been spilled by Darwinists arguing against Intelligence. Much less will Darwinists ever concede that an Intelligent “Observer” is necessary for the Origin of Life (nor for the subsequent diversification of life). In fact Intelligent “Observers” don’t even come into play in the Darwinian scenario until long after the origin of life. And even then Darwinists have argued, via population genetics, that our observations are illusory and therefore unreliable. (Donald Hoffman) Of course, Darwinists could, like Dawkins and Crick have, appeal to Intelligent Extra-Terrestrials in order to try to ‘explain away’ the Origin of Life and avoid the obvious Theistic implications that follow from these recent developments in quantum information theory, but that evidence-free act of desperation on their part, number 1, concedes the necessity of Intelligence in explaining the Origin of Life, and number 2, only pushes the problem back into the imaginative past of untestable speculations. So to circumvent that "ET" act of desperation on the part of Darwinists, and to further establish that the Designer of Life must be God, it is necessary to point out that “quantum information” is, number one, found to be ubiquitous within life:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
And number two, it is also necessary to point out the quantum information and/or quantum entanglement requires a non-local, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain its existence: As the following article stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – October 28, 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and member of the team. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm
Darwinian materialists simple have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to in order to explain the vast amount of quantum information that is now found to be ubiquitous within life, whereas Christian Theists do have a cause:
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Bottom line, these developments in quantum information theory go to the very heart of the ID vs. Evolution debate and directly falsify, number one, Darwinian claims that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from some material basis. And number two, these experimental realizations of the Maxwell’s demon thought experiment go even further and also directly validate a primary claim from ID proponents. Specifically, the primary claim that an Intelligent Designer who imparts information directly into a biological system is required in order to circumvent the second law and to therefore give an adequate explanation for the existence of life. And number three, due to quantum non-locality, a beyond space and time cause must be appealed in order to explain the quantum information that is ubiquitous within life. In short, in any coherent explanation for life, and far as the empirical science of Quantum Information theory itself is concerned, God, Who is, by definition, beyond space and time, must ultimately be appealed to in order to give an adequate causal explanation of the origin of life (and the subsequent diversification thereof I might add). Of course, since this is empirical science instead of the usual unrestrained imagination of Darwinian 'just-so story telling', don’r expect Darwinists to be honest with any of these rather remarkable developments in science any time soon.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply