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
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
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.
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 …
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.
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.
BobRyan @3
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 …
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.
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?
🙂
@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?
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 …
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.
Querius/10
It can if religious dogma takes priority over scientific explanation where there is any conflict between the two.
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?
The appreciation of beauty makes no claims about the nature of objective reality, only our subjective response to it, so there is no conflict.
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.
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?
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.
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…
🙂
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.
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…..
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.
Relatd quotes the Pope about “theories” of evolution. The full quote is
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,
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.
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.”
Belfast/11
No, we don’t know. “Chemical evolution” is as much of a placeholder for an as-yet-unknown explanation as “God did it”.
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?
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.
Caspian
Ah, the assumed denominator.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well…you seem to use reason. Reason come only from Reason not from chemicals.
These ideas from 80 years ago and 50 years ago are not being developed or relied on these days.
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.
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?
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.
Caspian/26
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.
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……
VL at 34,
You are confused. I will no longer reply to your posts.
CD at 42,
Faith based statements. Natural here means non-God. In my view, the Discovery Institute is doing better than natural science.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Not that different from chimps and bonobos, genetically speaking
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?
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.
AF @50
Genetic similarity between humans and bonobos is powerful evidence that there’s something else at work besides genetics.
I suspect I have more of an idea than you, Jerry, based on your previous utterances.
Well, maybe, depending on what you mean by “massive”.
Joined at the hip since the modern synthesis. Population genetics has quantified evolutionary processes.
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.
Wrong!!!
Genetics does produce some change but is extremely trivial compared to those seen in Evolution.
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.
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.
Oh I thought you meant massive “like huge”.
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.
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,
2. From the article Adam, Eve, and Evolution, from Catholic Answers:
[My emphasis]
3. From CatholicBridge:, How did God create the human body and soul?
@ 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.
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.
Ha ha. Belfast finds that Jack Szostak is not using the concept “chemical evolution”. “Pre-biotic building blocks” =/= “chemical evolution”.
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:
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/
KF
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.
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/
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
Go on then. Frinstance tell me how replication and selection work prior to self-sustaining self-replicators.
https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
Such fools we are
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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”,,,
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%
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.”
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.
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,”
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,,”
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,”
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
AF, you are making my point for me, thank you. KF
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).
Always happy to oblige, KF.
I apologize, BA. I haven’t been paying attention to that part of this thread.
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.
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?
@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.
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.”
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.”
@ 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.
Jerry Coyne says I’m wrong.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/03/08/a-creationist-professor-of-evolutionary-biology-in-england/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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?