Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

BBC’s catechism on the origin of life

Spread the love

Excerpt, from Michael Marshall at BBC:

“The strength of Miller-Urey is to show that you can go from a simple atmosphere and produce lots of biological molecules,” says John Sutherland of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK.

The details turned out to be wrong, since later studies showed that the early Earth’s atmosphere had a different mix of gases. But that is almost beside the point.

“It was massively iconic, stimulated the public’s imagination and continues to be cited extensively,” says Sutherland. More.

Sure. Once we can dispense with Mike Behe’s question, “how, exactly,” we just need to pick a theory that suits our colleagues and ourselves.

Apparently, life was more complicated than anyone had thought. Despite the present chaos, Marshall offers us a revelation:

Some of the people alive today will become the first in history who can honestly say they know where they came from. They will know what their ultimate ancestor was like and where it lived.

This knowledge will change us. On a purely scientific level, it will tell us about how likely life is to form in the Universe, and where to look for it. And it will tell us something about life’s essential nature. But beyond that, we cannot yet know the wisdom the origin of life will reveal.

It will reveal what policymakers want it to, of that we can be sure. Epeially in an age whn science is as corrupt as it currently is.

A friend remarks,

A long post. Undoubtedly in response to some rogue website that claims OOL is insoluble.

Is it coacervates, RNA-world, metabolism first? It’s all the above! Piece of cake.

Yes, especially if sciencecrats have the power to enforce dumb belief and suppress questions.

See also: origin of life

Follow UD News at Twitter!

14 Replies to “BBC’s catechism on the origin of life

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Perhaps Marshall can contact James Tour so as to allay his doubts that OOL is all in the bag now?

    “We have no idea how the molecules that compose living systems could have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biology’s functions. We have no idea how the basic set of molecules, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins, were made and how they could have coupled into the proper sequences, and then transformed into the ordered assemblies until there was the construction of a complex biological system, and eventually to that first cell.
    Nobody has any idea how this was done when using our commonly understood mechanisms of chemical science. Those that say they understand are generally wholly uninformed regarding chemical synthesis. Those that say “Oh, this is well worked out,” they know nothing, nothing about chemical synthesis – Nothing!
    Further cluelessness – From a synthetic chemical perspective, neither I nor any of my colleagues can fathom a prebiotic molecular route to construction of a complex system. We cannot figure out the prebiotic routes to the basic building blocks of life: carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. Chemists are collectively bewildered. Hence I say that no chemist understands prebiotic synthesis of the requisite building blocks let alone their assembly into a complex system.
    That’s how clueless we are. I’ve asked all of my colleagues – National Academy members, Nobel Prize winners -I sit with them in offices; nobody understands this. So if your professors say it’s all worked out, your teachers say it’s all worked out, they don’t know what they’re talking about. It is not worked out. You cannot just refer this to somebody else; they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
    James Tour – one of the top ten leading chemists in the world
    The Origin of Life: An Inside Story – March 2016 Lecture with James Tour
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zQXgJ-dXM4

    Dr. Tour will even spot Marshall a dream team

    Origin of Life: An Inside Story – Professor James Tour – May 1, 2016
    Excerpt: “All right, now let’s assemble the Dream Team. We’ve got good professors here, so let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s further assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated…
    So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start. Moving all this off Earth does not solve the problem, because our physical laws are universal.
    You see the problem for the chemists? Welcome to my world. This is what I’m confronted with, every day.“
    James Tour – leading Chemist
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-design/

  2. 2
    PaV says:

    This is OFF TOPIC:

    BA77: have you seen this article?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    PaV, the link is broken.

  4. 4
    mahuna says:

    “Some of the people alive today will become the first in history who can honestly say they know where they came from. They will know what their ultimate ancestor was like and where it lived.

    “This knowledge will change us.”

    Um, no. Has the writer NO CONCEPT of History at ALL?? There are simply dozens of topics where the answer was “known/settled” for decades if not centuries or millennia. And, in general, finding out that, oh, 85% of the population of Ireland is the original, pre-Celtic Ice Age folk has no effect whatsoever on celebrations of St. Paddy’s Day.

    Or, cosmologically, did ANYONE care when someone named our galaxy the “Milky Way” because we discovered that there was more than 1 galaxy in the universe?

    And how long will this new “ancestor/origin” theory hold? Most of the world (especially outside Western Europe and the US) never fully accepted Darwin’s “humans descended from apes”. And nothing important changed about societies where ape-men were popular. Even Eugenics was about SELECTIVE Breeding as a result of the earliest IQ tests, not Evolution. So if Darwinism is openly replaced by The Next New Thing, who will actually care?

  5. 5
    tjguy says:

    All futureware – bogus unsubstantiated claims filled with materialistic hopes.

    Some of the people alive today will become the first in history who can honestly say they know where they came from. They will know what their ultimate ancestor was like and where it lived.

    This knowledge will change us. …

    That I do believe. Such a worldview WILL change us even more and lead us further and further down the wrong path.

    When a person accepts this worldview, he realizes he is nothing more than evolved pond scum with you real purpose, value, or meaning.

    He realizes his neighbor is simply more of the same.

    He realizes there is no God. He is accountable to no one and that there are no objective moral standards that he is bound to obey. In other words, there is no right or wrong. He is free to disagree with the standards that society has chosen if he so desires because morality is reduced to opinions and likes/dislikes.

    It’s like Nietzsche said in response to the idea that God is dead: “What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. . . . For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe.”

    While I disagree with his view that God is dead, if the concept of a moral Creator God to whom we must all give account does disappear from the world, then yes, I agree with Nietzsche’s pessimism about the future.

    Atheists have this utopian view of such a world, but I’m afraid if such a world comes to fruition – and I don’t believe it ever will, at least totally – it will not be good news for anyone!

  6. 6
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    Triumphalism, empty and void.

  7. 7
    rvb8 says:

    tjguy,

    “In other words, there is no right or wrong.”

    Really? This hoary old chestnut, again?

    Do I have to bring up all the theocracies? All the evidence for slavery and Christianity being soul mates? How supporting slavery and being religious went hand in hand? How Lincoln was so worried by the fact that the South appealed to the same God, and did so much more stridently? How if you were a humanist back then you were 100% likely to be abolitionist, but if you were Godly it was a coin toss? Do I have to remind you of the belt buckle, “Gott mit uns”?

    Do I have to remind you how the modern theocracies of Stalin and Mao? How they replaced the worship of God, with ‘the cult of he personality’? They did this because they knew of humanities’ basic urge to be followers. They feared humanists who said, ‘actually no, don’t be subserviant to any dominant figure, regime, God.’

    I am good, (most of the time) because it benefits me, and those I hold dear.

    Grow up!

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “In other words, there is no right or wrong.”

    Really? This hoary old chestnut, again?

    Yes, it is ‘This hoary old chestnut, again?’ (and again, and again, and again, etc.. etc..). Perhaps, before you lie to yourself about how morally superior your atheism is compared to Christianity, you would care to tell us exactly how objective morality is to based in a worldview that claims morality is subjective and illusory.

    You seem to have skipped over that little ‘objective morality’ detail in your rush to rant against the evils of Christianity.

    As well, you seem to have skipped over the little detail of atheists’s history of being horrifically intolerant of Christians:
    For example, here is one instance, out of many:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)

    Your imagined atheistic utopia, where everybody has equal protection under the law, only exists in your imagination!

    Equality is only possible under a Theistic worldview:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

    On the other hand, Darwin offered no such equality: In fact, the full title of his book is:

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
    http://www.darwingame.org/origin%20annotated.pdf

    And Darwin subsequently stated:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

    Verse:

    Romans 2
    11 For God shows no partiality.
    12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    Here is a bizarre marine creature called “Thetys vagina” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMldmjfiXWY

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8,

    Hoary, yes; chestnut, no.

    Let’s try Plato, in The Laws Bk x, 2350+ years ago:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    Can you answer him soundly and sensibly about where evolutionary materialism leads in terms of morality, by providing a world-foundation level IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT?

    If not, in the end you are indulging the rhetoric of distractive dismissal — oh, I am tired of being reminded of this, in effect — to cover over the fallacy of the ideologically closed and blinded mind.

    On a subject of grave importance for a civilisation in peril of going over a cliff due to a march of folly.

    KF

    PS: Sophia has a word or two for us:

    Prov 1:20
    Wisdom cries aloud in the street,
    in the markets she raises her voice;
    21
    at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
    at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
    22
    “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
    How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
    and fools hate knowledge?
    23
    If you turn at my reproof,[a]
    behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
    I will make my words known to you.
    24
    Because I have called and you refused to listen,
    have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
    25
    because you have ignored all my counsel
    and would have none of my reproof,
    26
    I also will laugh at your calamity;
    I will mock when terror strikes you,
    27
    when terror strikes you like a storm
    and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
    when distress and anguish come upon you.
    28
    Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
    they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
    29
    Because they hated knowledge
    and did not choose the fear of the Lord,
    30
    would have none of my counsel
    and despised all my reproof,
    31
    therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
    and have their fill of their own devices.
    32
    For the simple are killed by their turning away,
    and the complacency of fools destroys them;
    33
    but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
    and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.” [ESV]

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    I wil stop now, as it is plain clarity is not within the perview of ID.

    Morality: I said Christianity is not a prerequisite for morality, you said Plato, the Bible, Christianity.

    Where exactly did you address the fact that Lincoln found it difficult to claim, ‘Gott mit uns’, when the other side was plainly closer followers of the, ‘Prince of Peace’? How do you explain ‘The Lamb of God’s’ silence on the matter of the morality of slavery.

    Every humanist at that point in US history opposed slavery. There were many moral Christians who also opposed it, but it was just as likely Christians would view slavery as a part of, ‘the Saviour’s’ divine plan?

    It is without doubt that Christians in Germany opposed the regime of the 30’s and 40’s, just as it is without doubt that Christians supported this regime; where was their morality?

    Please keep religion out of a subject it obviously does poorly at; morality!

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    rvb8:

    Please keep religion out of a subject it obviously does poorly at; morality!

    Atheism, as lack of religion, fares so much better when it comes to morality.

  13. 13
    tjguy says:

    The details turned out to be wrong, since later studies showed that the early Earth’s atmosphere had a different mix of gases. But that is almost beside the point.

    “It was massively iconic, stimulated the public’s imagination and continues to be cited extensively,” says Sutherland.

    Why does the Miller Urey experiment have value if the details turned out to be wrong?

    Why is this “almost beside the point” in his opinion?

    Why is this mistaken experiment still cited as if it has any connection to reality?

    He gives us the answer in the next quote – Because it was massively iconic!

    It was a useful lie! – just like they said the 99% alignment of the chimp and human genome was in the past.

    It’s not the truth that matters; it is their view of reality that they want to promote in spite of the evidence.

    I mean, come on!

    How in the world can anyone say that an experiment that was admittedly wrong in details has any value?

    Why is this still promoted in evolutionary textbooks as if it has anything to do with reality?

    This is SCIENCE?

    Unfortunately, nowadays, yes, somehow it seems as if it is actually thought to be science. My how science has evolved since Darwin’s time!

    It’s not the evidence, but the paradigm that matters!

  14. 14
    rvb8 says:

    tjguy,

    what do you expect scientists to do? The experiment was based upon scientists being curious, saying ‘what if?’

    They took energy, and molecules and created organic molecules. (‘they took’ and ‘created’ are your cues to say ‘design’.)

    They will continue to do this, and I suppose when they have self replicating proteins in the future, you will still say, design. The scientists will of course point out that these natural forces, ingredients, and conditions are all that is required.

Leave a Reply