Intelligent Design Origin Of Life Thermodynamics and energy

At Evolution News: Did Life First Arise by Purely Natural Means?

Spread the love

Walter Bradley and Casey Luskin write:

Major scientific magazines and journals often feature articles on the “Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Science”1 — and the origin of life is almost always on that list, sometimes as the number one mystery.2 In this and coming posts we will explore key challenges to a natural, chemical origin of life. We’ll examine the formation of the essential functional polymers of life — proteins, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and RNA (ribonucleic acid). How might these extraordinarily complex molecules have formed in oceans, lakes, or ponds from simple, naturally occurring molecular building blocks like sugars and amino acids? What is life? How does it operate? Could life originate by strictly natural means?

Three Scientific Discoveries

Darwin’s theory of evolution and the development of the second law of thermodynamics by Boltzmann and Gibbs are two of the three major scientific discoveries of the 19th century. Maxwell’s field equations for electricity and magnetism are the third. The second law of thermodynamics has had a unifying effect in the physical sciences much like the theory of evolution has had in the life sciences. What is intriguing is that the predictions of one seem to contradict the predictions of the other. The grand story of evolution teaches that living systems have generally moved from simpler to more complex over time.3 The second law of thermodynamics teaches just the opposite, a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity in the physical universe. Your garden and your house, left to themselves, go from order to disorder. But you can restore the order if you do the necessary work. In the winter, when it is cold, the interior of your house will gradually drop in temperature toward the outside temperature. But a gas heater can reverse this process by converting the chemical energy in natural gas into thermal energy in the house. 

True Everywhere in Life

This simple analogy illustrates what is true of all living systems: they can only live by having access to energy and a means of converting this energy into the alternative forms of energy or work required to oppose the pull toward thermodynamic equilibrium, from complexity to simplicity. Living systems are much more complex than nonliving systems. Like a lawnmower with gasoline as a source of energy and an engine to convert that energy into movement of a blade to cut the grass, living systems must have access to sources of energy and systems to convert the energy into the needs of plants and animals.

Nonliving objects in nature exist without any complex functional systems or any energy flow requirements. They are generally made of simple crystalline or amorphous materials.

The second law of thermodynamics is a law of nature (like gravity, everyone is subject to it). Living plants and animals can survive only with energy flowing through their systems. Nonliving objects such as mountains, rocks, sand, rivers, and soil have no need for energy flow, nor do they have the complexity to utilize energy toward some goal. 

To Utilize and Store Energy

To summarize, plants can utilize solar energy to levitate above thermodynamic equilibrium. Nonliving objects such as mountains, oceans, rocks, sand, and soil have no need for such complexity; they do not store chemical energy like plants do; nor can they process solar or other forms of energy. Living matter is much more complex (e.g., RNA, DNA, protein, etc.), needing as it does to be able to utilize and store available energy from the sun or from the consumption of plants and animals. 

Notes

  1. See for example Ronak Gupta, “The 7 biggest unsolved mysteries in science,” Digit (May 26, 2015), https://www.digit.in/features/general/7-greatest-unsolved-problems-in-science-26132.html (accessed November 18, 2020).
  2. See for example Philip Ball, “10 Unsolved Mysteries in Chemistry,” Scientific American (October 2011), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-unsolved-mysteries/ (accessed November 18, 2020).
  3. Technically the official line from neo-Darwinian evolutionists is that evolution knows nothing of “progress” and does not necessarily move from “simple to more complex.” Nonetheless, it is also true that the grand arc of the evolutionary story moves from simpler organisms toward more complex ones. In this evolutionary story, biological and organic systems began with a single self-replicating molecule and ended up at us. Evolutionary theorists sometimes try to trivialize this clear progression by calling it “bouncing off the lower wall of complexity,” but it cannot be denied that their story entails a march towards greater complexity. See for example Stephen Jay Gould, Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin (New York: Three Rivers, 1996). 

Full article at Evolution News.

96 Replies to “At Evolution News: Did Life First Arise by Purely Natural Means?

  1. 1
    Red Reader says:

    The origin of life is a mystery only if one chooses to believe that “something” comes from “nothing”.
    Since the concept flies in the face of all observable reality, one must disconnect what one knows and observes from the study of physics and embrace that which one imagines out of thin air.
    One willfully disconnects half of one’s brain from the other half and one becomes subtly insane.
    All manner of insanity follows. For example—with apologies to anyone who might be offended by biology—it’s no great leap for such insanity to insist that biological men can have babies.

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    i am an engineer.

    i never understood these origin-of-life experiments… These OOL-scientists look to me sort of naive, or stupid, or both —> you take some chemicals, you mix it, then you heat it up a little, you cool it down a little, then you wait a little, and then you expect that millions of not billions of molecules start working together for a purpose in a very complex way ?

    How absurdly naive/stupid is this idea ? Are these people really insane ?

    No wonder that the OOL-research did not make any progress in 150 years (and it NEVER will) … Because the whole approach is non-sensical/stupid.

    I am pretty sure, that our Creator uses/used completely different means/tools to put together such complex molecular systems as we see inside the cell. I am 100% sure, that our Creator hasn’t used a common chemistry …

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    The only way it could happen as perceived is through the absence of all laws of physics. Since the laws predate the universe, there can be no absence of the laws to make it happen without God.

    Since God does not live in the physical universe, the laws do not apply to God. With God, all things are possible, including life from no life, energy that cannot be created, and matter that must have an origin. Without God, there are limitations in place preventing life from no life and matter from no matter.

    The laws of physics cannot be denied. They exist and govern the universe. They cannot be broken, which would have to happen for life to begin.

  4. 4
    Alan Fox says:

    The laws of physics cannot be denied. They exist and govern the universe. They cannot be broken, which would have to happen for life to begin.

    well, they are observed and described by humans. They appear to be inviolable and the properties of the universe appear to be consistent and regular, wherever we look. In idle moments, I sometimes wonder if this is evidence against an intervening deity. Since smartphones have become ubiquitous, miracles have become exceedingly scarce.

  5. 5
    martin_r says:

    BobRyan @3

    The only way it could happen as perceived is through the absence of all laws of physics. Since the laws predate the universe …

    in my previous post @2, i have suggested, that the whole OOL-research approach is wrong.

    I have suggested, that life wasn’t created using common chemistry. So, i have no problem to believe, that our Creator just temporarly “switched off” the laws of physics/chemistry/ or whatever was needed in order to create complex molecular systems. So various molecular parts/subsystems even single molecules don’t interact with each other during cell design process (as they do using common chemistry by human chemists/OOL-researchers). I could imagine that, and i wouldn’t be that surprised … or there is some other means (yet undiscovered) how to assembly molecules – except the common chemistry …

    Like i said in my previous post, i am 100% sure, that our Creator used other means/tools than common chemistry … This is the reason why after 150 years OOL-researcher struggle to create even the simples cell’s part from scratch … Obviously, their approach is wrong …

  6. 6
    relatd says:

    Martin_r at 2,

    Jesus took a few loaves and fishes and multiplied them to feed a multitude. How about turning water into wine? Any explanation? No, of course not. Physics and science as we understand it, can be manipulated by God since he understands all things, and He can create without material substance – from nothing.

  7. 7
    relatd says:

    Martin_r at 5,

    What is wrong with you? You take some brainwashed scientists who think living things are just mechanisms with parts, like a car. If they find the right parts they can duplicate a car or a living cell. Simple, right?

    🙂

  8. 8
    Belfast says:

    @martin
    Viola Lee, in a different post, wrote, “ID routinely starts with design by human beings as the analog by which to infer design by non-human designers…” [VL was not necessarily giving this as an opinion but was put in the context of identifying inconsistency in an argument]
    I think I see a commonality with VL’s remark in your 2 & 3, namely, there is no reason whatever to assume cause-and-effect laws and principles in design, physics and chemistry had the slightest role in setting initial conditions – matter/energy from nothing and life from non-life.
    Is this the case?

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    No one knows how life may have arisen from non-life by natural processes, just as no knows how a Creator fashioned a Universe out of whatever preceded it or how Jesus was able to turn water into wine and feed a great crowd with a few loaves and fish. Yet many people will reject one for lack of a credible explanation of how, while accepting the others without question and see no contradiction. This is how religious belief can undermine science.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Seversky @9,
    More baloney. Religious belief doesn’t undermine science. Scientific understanding is (at least supposedly) based on disciplined experimentation, observation, and measurement. Religious belief is based on human experience, witness accounts, culture, philosophical coherence, and tradition. Science and Religion are in two different magisteria. They don’t conflict.

    Artistic beauty is in a third magisterium. You never say that appreciation for beauty undermines science, do you?

    However, Darwinism is shrouded in slow motion, deep time, and ignorance. It’s a mysterium of the Church of Darwin. It has no experimental evidence demonstrating life spontaneously generating from non-living matter and evolving into increasingly complex structures. It’s a scientific mythology based on faith.

    -Q

  11. 11
    Belfast says:

    Once more, Seversky jumps in with his vacuous pre-formed Tu Quoque declarations. This time with his ‘nobody knows’ mantra.
    But evolutionists DO know how life began,, Seversky, and they call it ‘chemical evolution’ – it has been the case for over 150 years starting big-time with Huxley and Tyndall in 1869 and 1874 respectively, and reaffirmed to this day.
    Time to update your cut-and-paste collection.

  12. 12
    Alan Fox says:

    But evolutionists DO know how life began, Seversky, and they call it ‘chemical evolution’.

    I’ve not seen any “evolutionists” making this claim. Sure, some origin-of-life ideas are optimistic, but “chemical evolution”? First time I’ve seen that phrase is in your comment.

    I wonder what Google will find.

    ETA:. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

    disambiguation needed!

  13. 13
    Marfin says:

    So Sev if someone says, I used science thus my conclusion must be correct ,would you agree with them. Its akin to someone saying I used maths thus my conclusion must be correct .
    Both disciplines are just methodology’s to find the correct answers not absolutes in and of themselves.
    Christians dont deny science we just deny some of the conclusion reached by scientists , because maybe they are wrong, you know well not every scientific idea , theory, or hypothesis is correct or is it only you atheists who have the liberty to know that.

  14. 14
    Alan Fox says:

    Seversky can speak for themself but science is the study of aspects of reality whereas mathematics is the study of numbers, which some mathematicians believe (discussion is ongoing) are fictional, human inventions. There’s no denying mathematics is a powerful tool used in the pursuance of science. Constructing mathematical models and testing their predictive power against reality is the major way science advances. But anyone can do science. You don’t have to believe everything scientists say. You can make your own observations, do your own experiments, construct your own mathematical models and offer your own hypotheses and theories. Science is democratic. All you really need is curiosity.

  15. 15
    martin_r says:

    Relatd

    what i wanted to say, was, that i am 100% sure, that our Creator hasn’t designed the cell using a common chemistry like OOL-researchers trying to do … i am not a chemist, but even a layman with basic knowledge of molecular biology/chemistry can see, that when you keep adding more molecular subsystems to your existing molecular system, you will destroy/alter the molecules already in place – using a common chemistry …

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 9,

    This is how religious belief can undermine science? Wow. And what “science” was undermined today? Nuns protesting outside of research labs? You apparently live in Seversky Land where you make up accusations – and more accusations – as you go. Sad really.

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    Querius/10

    More baloney. Religious belief doesn’t undermine science.

    It can if religious dogma takes priority over scientific explanation where there is any conflict between the two.

    Scientific understanding is (at least supposedly) based on disciplined experimentation, observation, and measurement. Religious belief is based on human experience, witness accounts, culture, philosophical coherence, and tradition. Science and Religion are in two different magisteria. They don’t conflict.

    Again, they can if religion makes claims about the nature of the physical world which are also subject to observation, measurement and experimentation. If there is conflict between the two, which should take precedence?

    Artistic beauty is in a third magisterium. You never say that appreciation for beauty undermines science, do you?

    The appreciation of beauty makes no claims about the nature of objective reality, only our subjective response to it, so there is no conflict.

    However, Darwinism is shrouded in slow motion, deep time, and ignorance. It’s a mysterium of the Church of Darwin. It has no experimental evidence demonstrating life spontaneously generating from non-living matter and evolving into increasingly complex structures. It’s a scientific mythology based on faith.

    The theory of evolution says nothing about the origins of life on Earth. If it began through naturalistic processes – which is the only obvious alternative to Creationist accounts – we don’t know how.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, “It can if religious dogma takes priority over scientific explanation where there is any conflict between the two.”

    Seversky, you do realize that Darwinism itself is a religious dogma that is impervious to empirical falsification do you not?

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00138329

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo/

    Evolution as a Theological Research Program – by Cornelius Hunter – August 2021
    Abstract
    Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution interacted with non-empirical factors including a range of theological concerns. The influence of these theological concerns is typically modeled as secondary to that of empirical evidence. In both Darwin’s thought and later development of the theory of evolution, theological concerns have been viewed as serving in a range of possible roles. However, the theological concerns have consistently been viewed as, ultimately, subservient to empirical science. In the end, science has the final say regarding the content and evaluation of the theory. Here, this paper demonstrates the failure of this model. Theological concerns do have primacy over the science. They motivate the development of evolutionary theory, and they control the interpretation of the empirical evidence and justification of the theory. It is more accurate to view evolution as a theological research program.
    Introduction Excerpt:
    ,,, theological claims are common in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), where they are essential to his science. The religion is not a tangential message, and one need not read between the lines to see it. In the Origin, it would not be an exaggeration to say the religion drives the science. Darwin’s religion is not merely present, it is prominent and has primacy over the science. The religion is foundational.
    The importance of religion in Darwin’s theory is also apparent in the science he presented. As Section 5 shows, Darwin did not have sufficient scientific arguments and evidence to advance his theory. Finally, as Section 6 and Section 7 demonstrate, these roles and relationships between religion and science persisted after Darwin. This religious foundation was by no means peculiar to Darwin’s thought. It has remained foundational since Darwin in motivating and justifying the theory. What we find in Darwin continued in later evolutionary thought. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that evolution is best understood as a theological research program.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/694/htm

    Devil’s Chaplain: Evolution as a “Theological Research Program”
    Michael Flannery – September 10, 2021
    Excerpt: this research program’s principal investigator was Charles Darwin, and the epithet he chose for himself, “a Devil’s chaplain” — which he shared in a letter on July 13, 1856, to his close friend and confidant Joseph Dalton Hooker — is revealing:
    “What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”
    Hunter answers claims of Darwinian orthodoxy. They are as follows: Darwin’s religious views preceded (not followed) his transmutation ideas; Darwin’s theological premises are essential (not peripheral) to his argument; Darwin’s references to theology attach direct significance to the theory itself — he is not practicing reductio theology, employing it merely for its contrastive heuristic effect — the theology and the theory are inextricably intertwined; the epistemic assistance received from theology is central to the theory itself (the “scientific” evidence marshalled on its behalf is pretty thin); and finally, Darwin’s theological claims persisted well into the period of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (1930s and ’40s) and after. Readers should examine the article itself to see how Hunter establishes each point, all supported with extensive references.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/devils-chaplain-evolution-as-a-theological-research-program/

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    Seversky, you might want to ‘remove the beam from your eye” before you claim that Christians are putting their religion above what the empirical evidence actually says.

    Here are a few falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply ignore because it conflicts with their religious dogma of Darwinian atheism.

    1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”

    9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Darwinism vs. Falsification – link to defense of each claim
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/

  19. 19
    relatd says:

    Martin_r at 15,

    I understand. The problem is brainwashed scientists who believe everything, including life, has a natural, meaning non-God, explanation. Living cells are made of parts and those parts are made of chemicals, right? So “all” they have to do is find the right chemicals and make a living thing. You know, like getting the ingredients to making a cake. It’s that easy…

    🙂

  20. 20
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 17,

    I watched online as atheists “celebrated” when the Church “accepted” evolution. They were making a reference to statements made by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996. The problem was that they left out the part where the Pope referenced “theories” of evolution. That’s right – more than one. You seem to think that the Church only deals with spiritual matters. That is not true. She is competent to evaluate scientific information as well.

    When an Op-Ed appeared in the New York Times titled Finding Design in Nature by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, a few scientists were alarmed that he favored actual design in nature. They sent a letter to the Vatican cautioning that the Church would be ‘on the wrong side of history’ regarding this. Well, the Church tells us there is actual design in nature. Truth claims are not limited to scientists.

  21. 21
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/10
    Gould’s magisterium model (NOMA) has been rejected by both atheists and theists for the obvious reason that the conflict between religion and science continues unabated. It permeates this blog and the comments. IDers, especially those at the Discovery Institute, don’t like being hemmed in by NOMA because their whole raison d’etre is to make science a tool of religion rather than an independent path to knowledge. Look at Meyer’s book on the so-called “God Hypothesis.” Look at BA77’s comments shot through with religiosity, Bible quotes, etc. Look at the internecine war between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos. Despite ID’s ongoing attempts at historical revisionism attempting to make all of Western science the progeny of Christianity, the battle between science and religion seems to be getting worse. More, not less polarized, just like everything else today…..

  22. 22
    relatd says:

    CD at 21,

    Wow. Just look at that battle… Ba77 has made a convincing case that “science” can’t be done without the right approach, and that does mean Christianity. However, the atheist runs from God and religion. He holds up the words of men as the only source of knowledge. Religion is just old superstition. It’s not. God is real.

    Yes, the real battle I’m watching is men today who want sexual perversion. Who want to do everything they want. To make everyone call it good. And if you think this is something new, keep in mind that men have two choices only: right and wrong, good and evil. That is it.

    Isaiah 5:20

    “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

    THAT is the conflict today. The falsely called “culture wars” between good and wrong ways to live. I suggest you face that.

  23. 23
    Viola Lee says:

    Relatd quotes the Pope about “theories” of evolution. The full quote is

    And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.

    When the Pope says “theories of evolution” he is talking about metaphysical interpretations of the science, not the science itself. As he says, “the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Science itself can’t resolve the metaphysical interpretation issue: that goes beyond science into philosophy and theology. Some have materialistic interpretations, some theistic, and some with many other variations of metaphysics.

    The Pope then goes on to say,

    With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator’s designs.

    That is, the theory of the evolution of the physical human being is not in conflict with the religious theory of the spirit of man.

    You can read the whole thing here.

  24. 24
    relatd says:

    VL at 23,

    Respectfully, you are not reporting on this correctly. When Pope Pius XII wrote about evolution in 1950, he made a few comments.

    “37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

    You are not exhibiting an understanding of what the Church teaches or proper scholarship.

    From Communion and Stewardship:

    “64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

    The following needs to be emphasized: “… including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

  25. 25
    Seversky says:

    Belfast/11

    But evolutionists DO know how life began,, Seversky, and they call it ‘chemical evolution’ – it has been the case for over 150 years starting big-time with Huxley and Tyndall in 1869 and 1874 respectively, and reaffirmed to this day.

    No, we don’t know. “Chemical evolution” is as much of a placeholder for an as-yet-unknown explanation as “God did it”.

  26. 26
    Caspian says:

    To Seversky @25:
    Any “as-yet-unknown explanation” for the origin of life cannot contradict already established principles of how nature works. For example, we know that if two “macrostates” of a system have the same energy, the one that is most likely to occur is the one with the most microstates. Apply this concept to the attempt to form any complex, functional bio-molecule, and the probability of its natural formation fades into impossibility when compared with the nearly innumerable useless ways its constituents could be arranged. Knowing what we know about nature, and seeing the phenomenally complex, functional molecular workings of the cell suggests an unnatural origin. You could call it intelligent design or God. Granted, we don’t know how a designer could have made living systems, but our knowledge of the natural world argues that life could not have arisen naturally. Sure, we don’t want to unnecessarily jump to a “God did it” conclusion, but when the evidence from our study of nature points in that direction, who’s to say that it’s unreasonable to believe it?

  27. 27
    Belfast says:

    Seversky, @ 25. Bluster gets you nowhere. Chemical evolution is no “placeholder”.
    Millions are spent each year on the hypothesis of chemical evolution; see the latest from NASA on 24th August last, “The topic of chemical evolution and the origins of life is a primary focus of astrobiology, and is an essential part of understanding life’s origins on Earth and the potential for life beyond our planet. These studies cross disciplines, from prebiotic chemistry to astrophysics, and are relevant to fields that cover the breadth of research funded by the NASA Astrobiology Program….”
    Chemical evolution is the only horse in the race of a “natural means” explanation – the only one getting funding.
    “Placeholder,” ranks well below “hypothesis’’ – even below “guess” – it is a WORD that will do for now.

  28. 28
    Alan Fox says:

    Caspian

    …when compared with the nearly innumerable useless ways its constituents could be arranged.

    Ah, the assumed denominator.

  29. 29
    Viola Lee says:

    Realtd writes, “Respectfully, you are not reporting on this correctly.”

    I am pretty much just quoting the Pope, so I don’t see how that could be incorrect reporting. Your quote from Communion and Stewardship repeats some of what I quoted, and brings up again the theistic interpretation that does indeed give to “divine providence a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe”, which I discussed earlier in respect to TE.

    So what specifically is incorrect about my reporting?

  30. 30
    relatd says:

    VL at 29,

    No offense meant but don’t you get it? The idea that there were no true men before Adam? Don’t you see what that means? No pre-humans. No ape-like ancestors. I’ll stop there.

  31. 31
    Viola Lee says:

    This is a new point on your part, although what I have quoted so far hasn’t brought that up. There are, I believe, different Catholic views on this, one being that humans came about by a special spiritual infusion of the soul: the physical creatures were there but they weren’t “true men”. The church believes their is an “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a physical line of descent.

  32. 32
    relatd says:

    VL at 31,

    I don’t think you read my post or, if you did, you are only focusing on what you want to draw the conclusion you want.

  33. 33
    Belfast says:

    AF @12
    I missed your comment earlier
    ‘I’ve not seen any “evolutionists” making this claim. Sure, some origin-of-life ideas are optimistic, but “chemical evolution”? First time I’ve seen that phrase is in your comment.”
    Such an admission suggests some other forum is better suited to you.
    Oparin raised the concept clearly over 80 years ago, and Nobel Laureate Melvin Calvin wrote “Chemical evolution: molecular evolution towards the origin of living systems on the earth and elsewhere.” about 50 years ago.
    Professing personal ignorance to hint unreliability doesn’t work.

  34. 34
    Viola Lee says:

    Relatd, I did read your post: one can’t respond to every point someone makes, and I had very little time, but I have more time now and will respond at more length:

    The first quote you offered was from 1950 and was about the nature of Adam. I am primarily interested in metaphysical perspectives and the nature of causality, so theological dogma about the role of Adam is not of much interest to me. The 1950 document says that Adam was the first “true man”, and that all human beings are descendants of him and Eve.

    However, the 1996 document says that “Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”. Therefore, the 1996 document focuses on the spiritual aspect of mankind rather than the physical, on the “ontological leap” to the human.

    However it is not clear if the 1950 document means “true man” physically, which would imply special creation, or, as the 1996 documents implies, might mean a spiritually “true man” with spiritual qualities that fall outside the purview of science.

    Since other documents, which we have discussed, accept that God’s providence can work within our world of both necessary and contingent causality, more and more religious people are accepting that there is a physical, biological continuity between humans and creatures that lived before them, and the creation of mankind in the image of God is a spiritual event.

    The 1996 document, (which is now 25 years old) seems to accept the possibility of a physical continuity between humans and earlier creatures. I don’t know if there are any more official Catholic statements about this since then. Do you know of any?

    And to be clear, all of this discussion rejects a materialistic interpretation of events. From a philosophical or theological perspective, which the 1996 document says is essential, there is no reason why a biological continuity of creatures before humans leading up to the infusion of spirit in the first man couldn’t be as God willed.

  35. 35
    Belfast says:

    AF@12
    I should have started with Darwin himself who mused on life appearing in a pond that had certain chemicals present, plus ‘electricity’.
    And over 150 years ago, Professor Ernst Haeckel promoted origin of life by chemical evolution. He suggested carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulphur reacted to form simple organic compounds. These condensed and self-organised into protoplasma which somehow came to life. Huxley, whom I mentioned earlier, ran with this notion.

  36. 36
    Sir Giles says:

    The origin of life is one of the biggest mysteries. Positing a naturalistic origin or a Devine origin does not make it any less mysterious. Both postulates suffer from the lack of any compelling evidence, or even any plausible evidence.

  37. 37
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Catholic Church is not the true Christian Church. Study history . Catholic Church derailed from original teachings of first 7 Ecumenical Councils. Illusion was maintained mainly by its existence on western world and being very rich and powerful. Eastern Ortodox Church is the true Christian Church.

    Sir Giles
    Positing a naturalistic origin or a Devine origin does not make it any less mysterious. Both postulates suffer from the lack of any compelling evidence, or even any plausible evidence.

    Well…you seem to use reason. Reason come only from Reason not from chemicals.

  38. 38
    Alan Fox says:

    Oparin raised the concept clearly over 80 years ago, and Nobel Laureate Melvin Calvin wrote “Chemical evolution: molecular evolution towards the origin of living systems on the earth and elsewhere.” about 50 years ago.

    These ideas from 80 years ago and 50 years ago are not being developed or relied on these days.

  39. 39
    Belfast says:

    You don’t know what you are talking about and don’t care what you write.
    You originally said you had never heard of chemical evolution, now you write it’s not being done ! 1 !
    There is considerable research being carried out, as just one example, at Harvard University by Nobel Laureate Professor Jack Szostak.

  40. 40
    Alan Fox says:

    I said Oparin’s and Calvin’s ideas are not being developed or relied on. Stostak is an impeccable scientist mentoring cutting-edge research at his lab. I’ve not seen any mention of Oparin, Calvin or “chemical evolution” in Szostak lab publications. Have you? Have you a citation?

  41. 41
    Belfast says:

    You wanted to support Seversky and blundered by trying the snooty, “first I ever heard of it” ploy as though you were widely read and would have expected to hear of chemical evolution if it were so.
    Then you got caught out, so switched and used the “it’s out of date ploy” not realising the conflict in approach as well as confirming you knew nothing about chemical evolution.
    Now you’re gingerly feeling your way by asking how chemical evolution plays a part in “RNA world” research, which you should know is a stage in chemical evolution, if you knew anything about it. Forget it.
    Next time let Seversky fight his own battles.

  42. 42
    chuckdarwin says:

    Caspian/26

    Any “as-yet-unknown explanation” for the origin of life cannot contradict already established principles of how nature works.

    This is not necessarily true. “Established principles” are always subject to revision and, in some instances, displacement by newly discovered principles or evidence; what Thomas Kuhn describes as a paradigm shift. Sometimes that shift modifies or subsumes “established principles” such as relativity subsuming Newtonian mechanics. Sometimes newly discovered principles or evidence contradict and replace “established principles” as when heliocentricity completely up ended geocentricity or germ theory up ended demonic possession or “ill vapors” as the cause of disease. Or the round earth replaced the flat one. The history of science is replete with the bones of “established principles” just as evolution is replete with the bones of our forebearers. The history of science is also replete with deniers that reject newly established principles, like flat earthers or young earth creationists or germ theory deniers, etc.

    Granted, we don’t know how a designer could have made living systems, but our knowledge of the natural world argues that life could not have arisen naturally. Sure, we don’t want to unnecessarily jump to a “God did it” conclusion, but when the evidence from our study of nature points in that direction, who’s to say that it’s unreasonable to believe it?

    It may not be an unreasonable “belief” from a psychological standpoint, but it is not reasonable from a scientific perspective. In fact, from a scientific perspective, belief shouldn’t even be a factor. So long as natural explanations for phenomena are not impossible, they cannot be ruled out nor ignored. “[O]ur knowledge of the natural world argues that life could not have arisen naturally.” (Emphasis added) There is a difference between evidence and argument, just like there is a difference between probabilities, possibilities and certainty. And, as you yourself point out, “we don’t want to unnecessarily jump to a ‘God did it’ conclusion.” Yet, that is precisely what many members of the Discovery Institute have done. To them, this is a closed book, they purport to have found what they were looking for–the Christian God at the end of their chain of causation……

  43. 43
    relatd says:

    VL at 34,

    You are confused. I will no longer reply to your posts.

  44. 44
    relatd says:

    CD at 42,

    Faith based statements. Natural here means non-God. In my view, the Discovery Institute is doing better than natural science.

  45. 45
    Viola Lee says:

    Interesting, relatd: instead of explaining what I am confused about and what you think is the correct description, you just bow out of the discussion.

    Two questions, which don’t involve my confusion, but rather ask you to clarify what the correct position is:

    1. Do you believe that mankind, via the first man Adam, was created by special creation, with no biological continuity (no common descent) with any other creatures? Simple yes or no, unless you’d want to qualify your answer.

    2. Is it established Catholic doctrine that mankind, via the first man Adam, was created by special creation, with no biological continuity (no common descent) with any other creatures?

    If so, can you point to any recent documents that describe that as the Catholic position?

  46. 46
    relatd says:

    VL at 45,

    You pick and choose what ‘concerns’ you. That is not scholarly or helpful.

    1. Yes.

    2. Humani Generis (1950) and Communion and Stewardship which references Humani Generis in part 64.

    “In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

    Again, you pick and choose what ‘concerns’ you. That is not the right way to deal with any argument.

    Over and out.

  47. 47
    Viola Lee says:

    Your quote in 2 does not address whether there has been special creation or common descent of our physical being. Yes there are metaphysical interpretations that are incompatible with the Catholic faith, but that is different from the issue I am addressing. There is no doubt that there are such incompatible metaphysical interpretations, but I am not talking about those.

    Let me parse and comment on the following quote, which I originally posted at 23:

    1.

    With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? 

    That is, the Pope asks the question: is the ontological spiritual leap to mankind incompatible with the physical continuity of the physical body, which is what research in evolution studies is about.

    2.

    An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. 

    The Pope says “no” to his own question. These two different points of view (a spiritual ontological leap and physical continuity via common descent) might seem irreconcilable, but they are not.

    3.

    The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way.

    With ever greater precision, science has sketched a timeline of “the many manifestations of life.” The “moment of passage into the spiritual realm” is beyond the scope of science, but that doesn’t imply a break in the timeline of the physical manifestation of creatures via common descent, which is what the Pope is referring to here.

    I think this is a reasonable interpretation of this passage, It certainly does not make any definite statement about special creation for the physical form of mankind.

    I’ll repeat a question: other than these documents, to you know of any other recent documents, post 1996, that address the special creation vs common descent issue?

  48. 48
    Alan Fox says:

    Now you’re gingerly feeling your way by asking how chemical evolution plays a part in “RNA world” research, which you should know is a stage in chemical evolution, if you knew anything about it.

    I was offering you the option to support your claim that “chemical solution” is a thing in general and that Jack Szostak and his lab. are using the term and the concept in particular.

    I’m pretty sure you are mistaken.

  49. 49
    jerry says:

    The question of the origin of man is a silly one.

    The Christian God could do whatever He wanted to. He created the universe and all life.

    The Church is trying to avoid a Galileo episode by hedging it’s bets. No one can know for sure how humans arrived. Just that they are incredibly different than any previous species.

  50. 50
    Alan Fox says:

    Just that they are incredibly different than any previous species.

    Not that different from chimps and bonobos, genetically speaking

  51. 51
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 49,

    And what do you base that on? Galileo? Again? I am sick and tired of seeing that stupid reference. The Church does not bet. It has a deposit of faith that includes spiritual truths and truths about reality as it is.

    And then you post an appeal to ignorance. Very bad.

    “No one can know for sure how humans arrived. Just that they are incredibly different than any previous species.”

    The Bible is right out? The Catholic Church has said nothing?

  52. 52
    jerry says:

    Not that different from chimps and bonobos, genetically speaking

    You have no clue what the differences are.

    They are massive in the expression of genes that cause neurological development.

    Aside: what does genetics have to do with Evolution? Answer, DNA, the basics of genetics has little if anything to do with Evolution.

  53. 53
    hnorman42 says:

    AF @50
    Genetic similarity between humans and bonobos is powerful evidence that there’s something else at work besides genetics.

  54. 54
    Alan Fox says:

    You have no clue what the differences are.

    I suspect I have more of an idea than you, Jerry, based on your previous utterances.

    They are massive in the expression of genes that cause neurological development.

    Well, maybe, depending on what you mean by “massive”.

    Aside: what does genetics have to do with Evolution?

    Joined at the hip since the modern synthesis. Population genetics has quantified evolutionary processes.

  55. 55
    Alan Fox says:

    Genetic similarity between humans and bonobos is powerful evidence that there’s something else at work besides genetics.

    Maybe. I think cultural evolution is now a more powerful engine of change in humans than biological evolution. But perhaps you are thinking of something else.

  56. 56
    jerry says:

    Population genetics has quantified evolutionary processes

    Wrong!!!

    Population genetics has quantified genetic processes

    Genetics does produce some change but is extremely trivial compared to those seen in Evolution.

    what you mean by “massive

    I mean like massive- nothing even remotely close to it in all of life except for humans. Much bigger than huge. There are reviews that list them.

  57. 57
    Alan Fox says:

    Genetics does produce some change but is extremely trivial compared to those seen in Evolution.

    Genetics and evolution are names we give to ideas. Genetics doesn’t produce change; it is the study of relationships and inheritance. Change in allele frequency produces phenotypic change in populations of organisms.

  58. 58
    Alan Fox says:

    I mean like massive

    Oh I thought you meant massive “like huge”.

  59. 59
    Belfast says:

    AF @48
    Your ‘out-of-date’ ploy was wrong. You were wrong. No qualifications, partial restatements or interpretations can change this. You were not a tiny bit correct or adequate in a different form, or relatively valid occasionally. You were totally wrong.
    Now you are setting yourself up for the old, “I am still waiting for you to provide….” ploy. It doesn’t work.
    In Harvard’s plain man’s guide to origin of life – 2022 edition (a near copy of it 2019 edition) this appears.
    “life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously:
    Simple organic molecules were formed.
    Simple organic molecules, similar to the nucleotide shown below, are the building blocks of life …
    RNA and DNA molecules — the genetic material for all life — are just long chains of simple nucleotides. Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.”
    In case you don’t know, ‘organic molecules’ are chemicals containing carbon. Nucleotides are chemicals. They are not fairy dust, or ‘information’, or alien by-products, they are chemicals. Chemical molecules that acquired the power of replication.
    In 2006 Harvard set aside $100,000,000 to find origin of life by natural means – the above is the natural means – chemical evolution. Szostak was later part of it and in June ‘14 predicted life in the lab in 3 to 5 years, probably 3.
    But Harvard is not the only one, nearly every major university has an origin of life section. Working on Darwinian principle they of (essentially) common descent they reach bacteria and archaea and presume it was organic molecules that preceded life – chemical evolution. The only game left.
    Now go start a vortex of clarifications and definitions and demands with some other commenter.

  60. 60
    Viola Lee says:

    to relatd, for the record:

    Back at 43 relatd said I was confused, and that he would no longer reply to my posts, although he did reply once. The particular issue we are discussing is whether, according to Catholic doctrine, it is acceptable to believe that human beings, in respect to our physical bodies (but not our souls), are connected by common descent with previous existing creatures of human beings in respect to our physical bodies, as opposed to the alternative of special creation.

    In post 47 I analyzed a key passage from a 1996 document by the Pope that supports my contention that it is acceptable Catholic doctrine to accept the God-guided evolution of physical human beings as part of His all-encompassing providential role in causation.

    I’ve done some further research to support my position, which I offer here without much further comment. Relatd may not want to discuss this anymore, but I think I’ve established that I’m not confused. He may not agree with my analysis, nor with his fellow Catholics who support a position of what is commonly called theistic evolution, but I think I’ve shown that special creation is not the only acceptable Catholic position, and that theistic evolution is an acceptable Catholic position.

    1. From the Catholic Exchange, A Brief Exploration of the Catholic Position on Evolution here

    John Paul II, in 1986, wrote,

    ”There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings [i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity].”

    John Paul II, “Humans are Spiritual and Corporeal Beings”, April 16, 1986.

    2. From the article Adam, Eve, and Evolution, from Catholic Answers:

    People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. ….

    Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God [theistic evolution], and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

    Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

    While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

    [My emphasis]

    3. From CatholicBridge:, How did God create the human body and soul?

    The Church does not have an official teaching on the origin of the human body. There are several faithful Catholic positions which are not contrary to Catholic theology.

    1. Special creation: God directly created human beings.
    2. Theistic evolution: God designs the laws of the universe, so that they will produce the human body through natural processes (like a sculptor uses a chisel as a tool to create a statue – Indirect design).
    3. Intelligent design: God designs the laws of the universe and intervenes directly in histor, to create life in general and specifically the human body.

    A Catholic is free to believe that God formed the human body out of the dust of the earth in an instantaneous action or by a series of steps. Any of these theories may be accepted by a Catholic until God reveals to us otherwise. The important thing is the human soul. Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI says:

    “We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary — rather than mutually exclusive — realities.”

  61. 61
    Alan Fox says:

    @ Belfast

    Your comment 59 adds nothing but waffle. My original point to you was that “chemical evolution” is not a thing in general and that Jack Szostak and his lab. are not using the term and the concept in particular.

  62. 62
    Belfast says:

    You are a loser – your “original point” in fact was that you had never heard of chemical evolution. Strike one.
    Your next point was that (though you never heard about it) you asserted that the concept is not used today! Strike two.
    Your third was that (though you knew nothing about chemical evolution) you assert that Szostak and his lab were not working within the paradigm. Strike three.
    If you would like a strike 4 here is Szostak himself in his own bio.
    ‘However, in at least one way, the study of membranes composed of PREBIOTIC BUILDING BLOCKS such as fatty acids was perfect for me, since this field was filled with important yet technically addressable questions.”
    [Prebiotic building blocks (and fatty acids) are chemicals involved in origin of life theories]

    EOM.

  63. 63
    Alan Fox says:

    Ha ha. Belfast finds that Jack Szostak is not using the concept “chemical evolution”. “Pre-biotic building blocks” =/= “chemical evolution”.

  64. 64
    kairosfocus says:

    Belfast, strike 5 is trying to suggest in teeth of correction that R/DNA does not have coded algorithmic information, an antecedent of proper protein synthesis and so too of metabolism and self replication. I have drawn attention to a famous textbook Lehninger, in correction:

    “The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.” [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

    See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/

    KF

  65. 65
    Alan Fox says:

    You are a loser – your “original point” in fact was that you had never heard of chemical evolution. Strike one.
    Your next point was that (though you never heard about it) you asserted that the concept is not used today! Strike two.

    I hadn’t heard the term “chemical evolution” before. And that is because “chemical evolution” is not a concept in current use by biologists or biochemists working today and that includes Jack Szostak. Evolution (in the biological sense) assumes self-sustaining self-replicators. Origin-of-life hypotheses cannot use the concept of selection in pre-biotic conditions so evolution, biological or chemical does not feature.

    By all means carry on claiming apples are oranges.

  66. 66
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, pre biotic building blocks are not all of chemical evolution, they are a part, you are using a failed of exact equivalence symbol, KF

    PS, on Chemical evolution:

    https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/chemical-evolution-and-the-origins-of-life/

    [NASA] Research Highlight
    Chemical Evolution and the Origins of Life

    [Aug. 28, 2020]

    The topic of chemical evolution and the origins of life is a primary focus of astrobiology, and is an essential part of understanding life’s origins on Earth and the potential for life beyond our planet. These studies cross disciplines, from prebiotic chemistry to astrophysics, and are relevant to fields that cover the breadth of research funded by the NASA Astrobiology Program.

    The journal Chemical Reviews has published a thematic issue dedicated to ‘Chemical Evolution and the Origins of Life,’ which provides a resource concerning the current state-of-the-art in origins research. The issue includes numerous contributions from researchers supported by the NASA Astrobiology Program, with Nicholas Hud (Georgia Institute of Technology) and Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy (Scripps Research Institute) serving as editors.

    The special edition discusses research regarding the inventory of elements and molecules on young planets that can self-assemble into systems that evolve into what could be considered life. The issue covers current understanding in a variety of topics, as well as unsolved problems and challenges as researchers address the question, “Can the origins of life be demonstrated or understood experimentally?”

    Of course, the list of begged questions and a priori ideological impositions is long, as is the want of substantial evidence for spontaneous origin of cell based life. And there is a subtle attempt to redefine both life and evolution.

    BTW, August 2020 by any reasonable standard is current, especially regarding a core matter for a significant research focus for NASA so the outdated vocab trick fails. Notice, a primary focus of NASA’s Astrobiology Program. Apollo was a Program.

    More can be said.

    KF

  67. 67
    Alan Fox says:

    More can be said.

    Go on then. Frinstance tell me how replication and selection work prior to self-sustaining self-replicators.

  68. 68
    jerry says:

    We are interested in the chemical and physical processes that facilitated the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution on the early earth

    The Szostak Lab

    https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

        Such fools we are

  69. 69
    Alan Fox says:

    Well done, Jerry. I was wrong to suspect the Szostak lab of not using the phrase “chemical evolution”. From the article you found.

    Our view of what such a chemical system would look like centers on a model of a primitive cell, or protocell, that consists of two main components: a self-replicating genetic polymer and a self-replicating membrane boundary.

    They seem to be describing what I would call biological evolution.

  70. 70
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinists in this thread have tried to suggest that there is scientific evidence, particularly genetic evidence, that proves that humans evolved from some ape-like ancestor. Yet, as with everything else within Darwin’s theory, we find that the supposed genetic evidence that humans evolved from some ape-like ancestor evaporates upon close scrutiny.

    First off, when we look at the ‘big picture’ of genetic evidence across all species, (instead of just looking at human and ape genetic evidence), the ‘big picture’ genetic evidence across all species simply does not line up with what Darwinists predicted of a gradually branching tree.

    As the following article explains, “In 1965 one of the most important scientists of the last century, Linus Pauling, and biologist Emil Zuckerkandl, considered by some as the father of molecular biology, suggested a way that macroevolution could be tested and proved: If the comparison of anatomical and DNA sequences led to the same family tree of organisms, this would be strong evidence for macroevolution.7 According to them, only evolution would explain the convergence of these two independent chains of evidence. By implication, the opposite finding would count against macroevolution.“
    So what were the results? Over the past twenty-eight years, experimental evidence has revealed that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, and at many points. They do not converge.”

    Jonathan Witt: Why Is Common Descent A Better Explanation For The History Of Life Than Common Design?
    Excerpt: “In 1965 one of the most important scientists of the last century, Linus Pauling, and biologist Emil Zuckerkandl, considered by some as the father of molecular biology, suggested a way that macroevolution could be tested and proved: If the comparison of anatomical and DNA sequences led to the same family tree of organisms, this would be strong evidence for macroevolution.7 According to them, only evolution would explain the convergence of these two independent chains of evidence. By implication, the opposite finding would count against macroevolution.“
    So what were the results? Over the past twenty-eight years, experimental evidence has revealed that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, and at many points. They do not converge. Just as troubling for the idea of macroevolution, family trees based on different molecules yield conflicting and contradictory family trees. As a 2012 paper published in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society reported, “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species” (emphasis in original).8
    Another paper, published the following year in the journal Nature, highlighted the extent of the problem.9 The authors compared 1,070 genes in twenty different yeasts and got 1,070 different trees.10
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-witt-why-is-common-descent-a-better-explanation-for-the-history-of-life-than-common-design/

    The genetic evidence simply does not fall into a ‘tree-like’ pattern like Darwinists predicted.

    As Richard Buggs, (an evolutionary biologist who specializes in analyzing DNA sequences), states, “The lay-person reading this, or watching the (Richard Dawkins) video above, is given the clear impression that every gene or pseudogene in every living organism gives essentially the same phylogenetic tree, when analysed with its homologs from other species. This is simply not true.,,, Dawkins’ statements are simply wrong. Gloriously and utterly wrong.”

    “The lay-person reading this, or watching the (Richard Dawkins) video above, is given the clear impression that every gene or pseudogene in every living organism gives essentially the same phylogenetic tree, when analysed with its homologs from other species. This is simply not true.
    If this were true, then phylogeny building in the genomic era would be a walk in the park. But, as many of my readers will know from personal experience, it is not.
    If this were true, terms like horizontal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, introgression, and molecular convergence would be rare curiosities in the genomic literature. But they are common (click on the links in the previous sentence to see searched for these terms on Google Scholar).
    If this were true, commonly-used phylogenetic software like ASTRAL, ASTRID and BUCKy, designed to deal with gene tree incongruence, would be seldom used. But they are used often.
    I hardly need to labour my point to the present audience. Dawkins’ statements are simply wrong. Gloriously and utterly wrong.”
    – Richard Buggs, “Obsolete Dawkinsian evidence for evolution” at Nature: Ecology & Evolution – 2021
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dawkinss-claim-every-gene-delivers-approximately-the-same-tree-of-life-contested-at-nature-journal/

    And this falsification of Darwinian expectations, (i.e. expectations for how the genetic evidence should line up in a tree like pattern), as Winston Ewert has now shown, has been a ‘hard falsification’ of Darwinian expectations that has falsified Darwinian expectations by multiple orders of magnitude, and by no means is it to be considered simply a ‘soft falsification’ of Darwinian expectations with only minor anomalies in the genetic evidence at the periphery of Darwin’s theory.

    As Dr. Cornelius Hunter (PhD Biophysics) explained, when looking at “a total of nine massive genetic databases”, “Darwin could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory”.
    The intelligent design model falsified the Darwinian common descent model by 10,064, 40,967 and 515,450 bits respectfully, and this is where 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence for a model.

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph (intelligent design) model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.,,,
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

    Thus, given the fact that the ‘big picture’ genetic evidence across all species has, rather dramatically, falsified Darwinian expectations of a tree like pattern, we have more than sufficient reason to be more than a little skeptical of Darwinian claims that the ‘small picture’ genetic evidence between apes and humans somehow establishes human evolution as an undeniable fact.

    And indeed, when we zoom-in on the ‘small picture’ genetic evidence we find much reason to be very skeptical of Darwinian claims.

    For instance, according to a Darwinist who studied the methodology of how one of the original 98.5% Chimp-Human DNA similarity comparisons was derived, (and because of the sheer shoddiness of the study), stated that the 98.5% comparison “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,

    The Rise and Fall of DNA Hybridization – Jonathan Marks – 2011
    Excerpt: the technique of DNA hybridization had devolved into being doubly “tricky” – but more significantly, the outstanding charge of data falsification was there in black-and-white in the leading science journal in America. It seemed as though nothing more needed to be said for the “wheels of justice” to begin turning. Yet they didn’t.
    In 1993, I was asked by The Journal of Human Evolution to review Jared Diamond’s book, The Third Chimpanzee. Noting that the book’s “hook” was based on the Sibley-Ahlquist work, which Diamond was still touting uncritically, I said:
    Perhaps you recall Sibley and Ahlquist. In a nutshell, their results were: (1) chimp-gorilla DNA hybrids were more thermally stable than chimp-human hybrids; (2) the differences were insignificant; and (3) reciprocity was very poor when human DNA was used as a tracer. Unfortunately, the conclusions they reported were: (1) chimp-human was more thermally stable than chimp-gorilla; (2) differences were significant; and (3) reciprocity was near-perfect. And they got from point A to point B by (1) switching experimental controls; (2) making inconsistent adjustments for variation in DNA length, which was apparently not even measured; (3) moving correlated points into a regression line; and (4) not letting anyone know. The rationale for (4) should be obvious; and if (1), (2) and (3) are science, I’m the Princess of Wales. This work needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years.31
    31Marks, J. (1993) Review of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Journal of Human Evolution,
    24:69-73.
    http://webpages.uncc.edu/~jmar.....isited.pdf

    To further highlight the shoddy methodology of Darwinists, (and in a stunning display of confirmation bias), Darwinists previously had used the human genome as a ‘scaffold’ and/or ‘reference’ to assemble the chimp genome before comparing the genomes to one another in order to arrive at their highly misleading, and similar, percentage figures from genetic comparisons.

    Yet when when the genetic comparisons were done without using the human genome as a ‘scaffold’ to align the chimp genome to the human genome, the percentage figure for similarity dropped all the way to 80%

    New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research
    BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
    Excerpt: The first time they constructed a chimp genome and compared it to humans, they claimed 98.5% DNA similarity based on cherry-picked regions that were highly similar to human. However, an extensive DNA comparison study I published in 2016 revealed two major flaws in their construction of the chimp genome.1
    First, many chimp DNA data sets were likely contaminated with human DNA, especially those produced in the first half of the chimpanzee genome project from 2002 to 2005. Second, the chimpanzee genome was deliberately constructed to be more human-like than it really is.2 Scientists assembled the small snippets of chimp DNA onto the human genome, using it as a scaffold or reference. It’s much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle by looking at the picture on the box as a guide. Since many chimpanzee data sets likely suffered from human DNA contamination, the level of humanness was amplified. I studied the 2005–2010 data sets that showed less human DNA data contamination and found they were only 85% similar to human at best.1
    Just this year, scientists published a new version of the chimpanzee genome.3 This new version incorporated an advanced type of DNA sequencing technology that produces much longer snippets of DNA sequence than earlier technologies. It also involved better protocols that greatly reduce human DNA contamination. And most importantly, the authors report that the DNA sequences have been assembled without using the human genome as a scaffold.
    They also acknowledged the flawed nature of previous versions of the chimp genome:
    The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies.3
    This confirms what many creationists have been pointing out for years.
    Curiously, the authors of the new chimp genome paper said very little about the overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees. However, the University of London’s specialist in evolutionary genomics, Dr. Richard Buggs, evaluated the results of an analysis that compared this new chimp version to the human genome and discovered some shocking anti-evolutionary findings.
    Dr. Buggs reported on his website that “the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”4 Assuming the chimpanzee and human genomes are about the same size, this translates to an overall similarity of only about 80%! This outcome is way outside the nearly identical level of 98 to 99% similarity required for human evolution to seem plausible.
    http://www.icr.org/article/new.....t-research

    Moreover, although some Darwinists may try to argue that 80% genetic similarity is still a pretty high degree of genetic similarity, it turns out, directly contrary to Darwinian thought, that genetic similarity has very little, if anything, to do with overall morphological similarity.

    As James Le Fanu explains, “Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe.”

    Between Sapientia and Scientia — Michael Aeschliman’s Profound Interpretation -James Le Fanu – September 9, 2019
    Excerpt: The ability to spell out the full sequence of genes should reveal, it was reasonable to assume, the distinctive genetic instructions that determine the diverse forms of the millions of species, so readily distinguishable one from the other. Biologists were thus understandably disconcerted to discover precisely the reverse to be the case. Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe.
    So we have moved in the very recent past from supposing we might know the principles of genetic inheritance to recognizing we have no realistic conception of what they might be. As Phillip Gell, professor of genetics at the University of Birmingham, observed, “This gap in our knowledge is not merely unbridged, but in principle unbridgeable and our ignorance will remain ineluctable.”8
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/between-sapientia-and-scientia-michael-aeschlimans-profound-interpretation/
    7. James Randerson, “Fewer Genes, Better Health,” New Scientist, July 13, 2002, 19.
    8. Philip Gell, “Destiny and the Genes: Genetic Pathology and the Individual,” The Encyclopaedia of Medical Ignorance, ed.s R. Duncan and M. Weston-Smith (Kidlington: Pergamon, 1984), 179–87.

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, Dolphins, Kangaroos, frogs, etc.. etc… although being very different morphologically from humans, are, (very unexpectedly), found to have very similar DNA sequences to humans.

    Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2
    5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”,,,
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-2/

    Dolphin DNA very close to human, – 2010
    Excerpt: They’re closer to us than cows, horses, or pigs, despite the fact that they live in the water.,,,
    “The extent of the genetic similarity came as a real surprise to us,” ,,,
    “Dolphins are marine mammals that swim in the ocean and it was astonishing to learn that we had more in common with the dolphin than with land mammals,” says geneticist Horst Hameister.,,,
    “We started looking at these and it became very obvious to us that every human chromosome had a corollary chromosome in the dolphin,” Busbee said. “We’ve found that the dolphin genome and the human genome basically are the same. It’s just that there’s a few chromosomal rearrangements that have changed the way the genetic material is put together.”
    http://www.reefrelieffounders......-to-human/

    Kangaroo genes close to humans – 2008
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise – 2007
    Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,,
    The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.....m-dna.html

    Frogs and humans are kissing cousins – 2010
    Excerpt: What’s the difference between a frog, a chicken, a mouse and a human? Not as much as you’d think, according to an analysis of the first sequenced amphibian genome.
    The genome of the western clawed frog, Xenopus tropicalis, has now been analysed by an international consortium of scientists from 24 institutions, and joins a list of sequenced model organisms including the mouse, zebrafish, nematode and fruit fly. What’s most surprising, researchers say, is how closely the amphibian’s genome resembles that of the mouse and the human, with large swathes of frog DNA on several chromosomes having genes arranged in the same order as in these mammals. The results of the analysis are published in Science this week1.
    “There are megabases of sequence where gene order has changed very little,,,”
    – per nature

    Genetic similarity simply does not line up with morphological similarity as was presupposed within the Darwinian model of ‘genetic reductionism’.

    Moreover, where differences are greatest between chimps and humans, (and between all other creatures), are not in the genetic sequences per se, but are instead found in the alternative splicing patterns of those genetic sequences.

    As the following paper states, “A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    In fact, due to alternative splicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,”

    Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016
    In Brief
    Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,
    Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013).
    http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/.....M_2016.pdf

    This finding of “perhaps a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification”
    is simply completely devastating to the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists, (i.e. to ‘genetic reductionism’).

    As Stephen Meyer stated in the following interview, “it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species.,,, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,”

    An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer
    TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve?
    SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,
    http://www.ligonier.org/learn/.....-conflict/

    The evidence from genetics, when scrutinized in detail, and directly contrary to what Darwinists claim, simply does not support the Darwinian ‘narrative’ that humans evolved from apes. In fact, the empirical evidence actually falsifies their claim in a ‘hard’ fashion.

    Moreover, even if the genetic similarity were as close as Darwinists have falsely claimed it to be for years (98.5%), (and even if the ‘operating systems’ were not ‘species specific’), population genetics has now shown that Natural Selection would be grossly inadequate to explain even that 1.5% genetic difference.

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    And as if all that was not already bad enough for Darwinists, Darwinists simply have no real-time empirical evidence that it is even possible to change one creature into a brand new creature by mutating DNA alone.

    As Jonathan Wells states in the following article, “Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.”

    Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form – March 31, 2014
    Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/

    Response to John Wise – October 2010
    Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,,
    (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes:
    A normal fruit fly;
    A defective fruit fly; or
    A dead fruit fly.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38811.html

    Moreover, starting around the 15:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells reveals that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, (i.e. ‘genetic reductionism’, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”), has now been experimentally shown to be incorrect at every step.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876

    Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution – podcast – April 15, 2016
    On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step. Listen in as Dr. Wells explains.
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2016/04/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/

    Darwinists simply have no evidence that morphology, and/or biological form, is reducible to DNA as is presupposed within their ‘genetic reductionism’ model.

    As the following 2020 article states, “biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,, At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.”

    On the problem of biological form – Marta Linde-Medina (2020)
    Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,,
    At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3

    Much more could be added that falsifies the Darwinian claim that humans evolved from some ape-like creature, but I will it here for now

    So in conclusion, although Darwinists will often try to claim that genetic evidence proves that humans evolved from some ape-like ancestor, we instead find, when scrutinizing the details of that claim, that the empirical evidence from genetics actually falsifies those Darwinian claims. And, when considering alternative splicing patterns, falsifies those Darwinian claims in a ‘hard manner’ by multiple orders of magnitude.

    If Darwinists were the least bit concerned about their personal intellectual integrity, this ‘hard falsification’ of their theory should concern them very, very, much. But alas, for whatever severely misguided reason, Darwinists would apparently much rather cling to their religion of nihilistic atheism, rather than to what the empirical evidence itself is actually saying.

    Genesis 1:26-27
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

  73. 73
    Viola Lee says:

    1. I am not a “Darwinist”

    2. I have not been arguing for common descent for humans. I have been arguing that believing in such is acceptable to Catholic theology, and has been recognized by the Pope as a possible alternative to special creation.

    Sorry to wast your time by triggering you down a path irrelevant to the discussion.

  74. 74
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, you are making my point for me, thank you. KF

  75. 75
    bornagain77 says:

    I wasn’t addressing your claims about Catholicism Viola Lee, but was, primarily, addressing AF’s false claim about genetic similarity being proof that humans evolved from some ape-like creature. (see post 50).

  76. 76
    Alan Fox says:

    Always happy to oblige, KF.

  77. 77
    Viola Lee says:

    I apologize, BA. I haven’t been paying attention to that part of this thread.

  78. 78
    Alan Fox says:

    AF’s false claim about genetic similarity being proof that humans evolved from some ape-like creature. (see post 50).

    Not proof, Phil. Science doesn’t deal in proof. All evidence is consistent with a single branching tree of descent from the last universal common ancestor. There may be better explanations for our observations but nobody here or elsewhere can tell us what that might be.

  79. 79
    Viola Lee says:

    Re 78: So there’s an overlap in these two discussions: if there is not common descent, then special creation is the only alternative idea that I know of. Is this what BA thinks has happened?

  80. 80
    Alan Fox says:

    @Viola

    Hard for me to say. I tend to scroll over BA’s long comments containing random quotes. I sometimes read and occasionally respond to shorter comments in his own words that seem relevant. I’m sure he thinks humans are/were separately created. I assume if you believe you are created in the image of God, being told you share ancestry with other living organisms might be interpreted as insulting.

  81. 81
    relatd says:

    Ba77,

    If God did indeed work in His Creation – and He did -, then He created creatures that would survive under one Earth gravity, be able to breathe our air (which is mostly Nitrogen by the way) and metabolize food (plant or animal), then I think viewing land creatures from an engineering standpoint would be helpful.

    Reusing body plans for locomotion would have been a very efficient approach. Two arms and two legs or four legs. This body plan goes back to the dinosaurs. So, using skeletons as the starting point, and a 3-D rendering program to visualize it (for us here), the Creator would just need to add length and thickness codes, as appropriate, to build any land creature. Birds would get wings of course. A tail, or equivalent, might be added as appropriate. Insects would get modified body plans.

    This is Intelligent Engineering, or Intelligent Design. God, in His wisdom, created.

    It’s important to add the Biblical account about Adam. Adam was created from “the dust of the Earth.” Eve was, in a sense, even more special. She was literally created from Adam’s side by God.

    The connection between Jesus and Adam is explicit, and with His mother, Mary, with Eve.

    1 Corinthians 15:44

    “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”

    15:55

    ‘Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’

    15:56

    “But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.”

    15:67

    “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.”

    “CATHOLIC: When we give this high honor (in Greek called hyperdulia) to Mary, we do no more than Paul did. In Galatians 4:4–5 Paul says, “When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Why would Paul think it necessary to emphasize that God’s Son was “born of woman”? On a purely physical level, it is obvious that any man is born from a woman. But Paul is saying something deeper. By speaking of the woman, he is alluding to Genesis 3:15, which says, “I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The woman in Genesis 3:15 is clearly Eve, and Paul is drawing a parallel between Eve and the woman from whom God’s Son was born.”

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    AF falsely claims, “All evidence is consistent with a single branching tree of descent from the last universal common ancestor.”

    To rephrase Buggs’s response to Dawkins’s falsely claiming the same thing that AF is now claiming, “AF’s statement is simply wrong. Gloriously and utterly wrong.”

  83. 83
    Alan Fox says:

    @ BA77

    You mean Richard Buggs, professor of evolutionary genomics at Queen Mary College, University if London, I guess. Are you saying Professor Buggs disputes common descent? I’ve had some brief exchanges with Richard Buggs in the past that would lead me to question that claim.

  84. 84
  85. 85
    Alan Fox says:

    Now I come to think of it, there was a thread at TSZ with both Dennis Venema and Richard Buggs participating. I may have overlooked the subtext. If anyone is interested, I could try and find the exchange.

  86. 86
    bornagain77 says:

    You got much bigger problems than just Buggs AF, it is the empirical evidence itself that is contradicting you. And contradicting you on many different levels.

    And in science it is the empirical evidence itself that has final say. (no matter how much Darwinists may try to ignore what the empirical evidence itself says)

    But be that as it may, and seeing that honesty towards the evidence is apparently in very short supply on AF’s part, I’ll let my posts at 70, 71, and 72 stand as stated.

    I have much better things to do today than chase a Darwinian troll’s tail around in a circle.

  87. 87
    Alan Fox says:

    Good grief, BA77, as I said, I usually scroll over your long posts of highly selected (heh) quotes. Taking a look, 70, 71 and 72 are a veritable Gish gallop of questionable claims. It’s the weekend and social events call. I’ll see if I can find time to respond. Richard Buggs deserves a closer look, definitely.

  88. 88
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, the oh you are quote mining stunt gets old, esp coming from you, proved to evade, pick and twist. In short, the telling evidence is you are confessing by projecting. KF

    Let’s outline:

    A: Refusal to acknowledge that it is a commonplace starting with Crick, to recognise that the genetic code is a code used to algorithmically assemble AA protein chains, including trying to pretend to know it is not a code.

    B: Refusing to acknowledge that a few lines below writing DNA is like a code, Crick wrote DNA is a code, underscoring the is.

    C: Evading cites from Lehninger’s heirs, Alberts et al etc on the code.

    D: Pretending Lehninger was dismissible as dubious, by belittling reference.

    E: Pretending that ellipsis was evidence of quote mining, i.e. mis quoting or misleading selective citation WITHOUT evidence

    F: Refusing to take back such unwarranted accusation when confronted with the full quote and more.

    G: Deliberately, repeatedly conflating the templating used to copy strands DNA > DNA or to create RNA, with coded sequencing of proteins carried by tRNAs on a CCA tool tip.

    H: Doubling down and now trying similar stunts on someone else.

    CONCLUSION, FOR CAUSE: Confession by projection.

  89. 89
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, finally, slandering a decent, dead man now unable to defend himself; who won hundreds of debates by compiling and citing accurate evidence on the dominant pattern of systematic, papered over gaps in the fossil record. Indeed, given context of the debates, books and clear patterns in the actual fossils, the accusatory term is itself part of the papering over the problem issue, compounded by belittling, slander and demonisation. For shame!

  90. 90
    jerry says:

    if there is not common descent, then special creation is the only alternative idea that I know of

    People should decide what they mean before using a term.

    There can be many separate origins of life. Hence theoretically, there could be many first ancestors. Hence, many lines of descent.

    And if special creation starts a life form, then why are not all descendants of this life form not common descent?

    Terms are not used in any consistent way in Evolution discussions. This leads to people talking past each other constantly.

    I assume this is the objective.

  91. 91
    kairosfocus says:

    GRAND FAIR COMMENT: It is hard to avoid the conclusion, given years to have learned better, that with AF, we are dealing with willful trollish misconduct, likely driven by crooked yardstick thinking that demands that what is straight and upright conform to a preferred brand of crooked thinking. KF

    PS, In this context we would be well advised to heed the Lewontin cat out of the bag moment:

    [Lewontin:] . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

  92. 92
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, it likely helps to distinguish limited common descent from universal common descent, even as it helps to distinguish small scale adaptation within a body plan [microevolution] from origin of body plan level macroevolution from universal macroevolution from yet wider grand evolution hydrogen to humans (involving cosmological, chemical, biological, human, maybe more). KF

  93. 93
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 90,

    It’s a lot simpler than not getting terms and definitions right. The whole point of UD is to show that both sides can’t be right. The evolution side is wrong. Ignore all evidence that shows they’re wrong. And ignore all posts that show they’re wrong.

    Their only job here is to promote Evolution. Period. Evidence doesn’t matter showing they’re wrong. They’ve been deployed here to promote a discredited idea – evolution. And will do this forever. Maybe longer. Propaganda is propaganda.

  94. 94
    Viola Lee says:

    So the alternative to universal common descent is some number (how many) of special creation events – true?

  95. 95
    jerry says:

    So the alternative to universal common descent is some number (how many) of special creation events – true?

    Not true!

    There could be multiple origin events. All of which could be natural.

    Aside: I personally believe there were multiple design events and no natural origin events. Call them creation events if you want. In the future it’s possible for some humans to cause a new origin event. Maybe an AI will do it.

  96. 96
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 95,

    There is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence. What is called Artificial Intelligence is a combination of advanced programs that can assist human beings with complex tasks. That’s all. It cannot duplicate human level intelligence. But it’s made to sound like it can, today. False.

    There is another term called “deep learning” which is little understood. It involves algorithms and neural networks. From a 2020 article on another site:

    “In the soon to be published book titled “Deep Learning” co-authored with Ian Goodfellow and Aaron Courville, they define deep learning in terms of the depth of the architecture of the models.

    ‘The hierarchy of concepts allows the computer to learn complicated concepts by building them out of simpler ones. If we draw a graph showing how these concepts are built on top of each other, the graph is deep, with many layers. For this reason, we call this approach to AI deep learning.'”

    So, data is manipulated and the goal is to manipulate more data faster. Why? To make money. In areas like computer vision and automated speech recognition, and image and object recognition. Even in cancer detection. No, we’re not talking about Terminator level intelligence but screening data for desired information without using human beings.

    “multiple design events”? Based on what?

Leave a Reply