Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

Can it really be called science if it is purely theoretical?

Spread the love

Isn’t this origin-of-life speculation more like science fiction than like science?

“The scenario described can be viewed as the ancestor of mitosis,” Attal says. “Having no biological archives as old as 4 billion years, we don’t know exactly what FUCA contained, but it was probably a vesicle bounded by a lipid bilayer encapsulating some exothermic chemical reactions.”

Although purely theoretical, the model could be tested experimentally. For example, one could use fluorescent molecules to measure temperature variations inside eukaryotic cells, in which mitochondria are the main source of heat. These fluctuations could be correlated with the onset of mitosis and with the shape of the mitochondrial network.

If borne out by future investigations, the model would have several important implications, Attal says. “An important message is that the forces driving the development of life are fundamentally simple,” he explains. “A second lesson is that temperature gradients matter in biochemical processes and cells can function like thermal machines.” The paper is open access.

Cell Press, “Origin of Life: The First Cells Might Have Used Temperature To Divide” at (September 3, 2021)

23 Replies to “Can it really be called science if it is purely theoretical?

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    Reality check:

    In 2017 Perry Marshall and other investors announced a $10,000,000 origin-of-life prize. You can learn more here: https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

    If there is anyone who can SHOW how life’s genetic code self-assembled – wins $10,000,000

    But here is what is interesting:

    If you visit Perry’s blog, you will find the following question/comment from In July 2021

    Hello Perry, I’m have followed your work for a while and had a few questions if you had the time. I am a Christian that is interested in the origin of life, and wanted to know a few things regarding the evolution 2.0 prize. Are we close to it?

    Here is what Perry Marshall replied:

    So far as I can tell no one is even close to winning the prize…

    5 years gone, and no one is even close 🙂 Color me surprise. No one will ever win the prize. Can’t be done. Codes, encoders and decoders does not arise without a mind, only Darwinists and other irrational people believe this. Darwinians believe in miracles…

    Here is the comment and original article:
    https://evo2.org/jerry-coyne-not-happy/#comments

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Thanks for the link to the EVO 2 blog. I hadn’t seen it before. Definitely a keeper!

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Speculation, hypothesizing and theorizing are all parts of the scientific process, along with the likes of observation and experimentation.

  4. 4
    EDTA says:

    >“An important message is that the forces driving the development of life are fundamentally simple,”

    A presumption. Since we don’t know how it happened, we can’t know it was simple. But they have to assume simple because it’s all they can get their arms around experimentally.

  5. 5
    Querius says:

    Yes, and science fantasy is now a major part of science!

    One has to be a great writer with a highly creative imagination of what musta, mighta, coulda, or mayhav happened.

    Artistic skills are also essential for this field as is drawing lines between different types of plants and animals according to their appearance.

    Animation skills such as tweening are useful for showing how water bubbles evolved into more advanced cells.

    Incidentally, water bubbles can now be defined as “life” since they can reproduce by fission, they can prey on and metabolize smaller bubbles, respond to their environment via surface tension, have a life cycle as they move to the surface of a body of water, and eventually die due to the thinning of their cell wall.

    Just now, I managed to create life in a test tube by filling it partially with water, stoppering it, and then shaking the test tube vigorously!

    -Q

  6. 6
    Belfast says:

    Seversky can’t see the difference between speculating, hypothesizing and theorising, and fantasies. They surely become fantasies, if they were not before, after more than 150 years of totally failed experimentation and the application of atomic microscopy.
    Can’t get from inert watery chemicals to life? Imagine a ‘stepping stone’, then imagine it having the characteristics it needs.
    DNA is made in the ribosome but the formula to make it lies in DNA. Can’t explain the circularity? Just fantasise the first ever reproducing chemical molecule, and temporarily call the circularity a ‘paradox’. Say, sorry, no explanation today, but there will be one tomorrow.

  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    Seversky,

    Speculation, hypothesizing and theorizing are all parts of the scientific process, along with the likes of observation and experimentation.

    Seversky, are you living on Mars?

    Darwinian fantasies and just-so-stories AKA “Speculation, hypothesizing and theorizing” are being taught as scientific facts. From elementary schools to Universities….

    So what are you talking about ?

    Again, are you living on Mars ?

  8. 8
    martin_r says:

    Darwinists:

    An important message is that the forces driving the development of life are fundamentally simple

    blah blah blah … . so if it is so FUNDAMENTALLY SIMPLE, why you Darwinists struggle to create life in lab ? Or, just a cell membrane, or a stupid hole/ion channel in a cell membrane ? Or a self-replicating molecule, that really self-replicates (in full ) ?

    We hear all the time lots of just-so-stories how everything is simple, but after 150 years Darwinists can’t show a single thing in order to prove that life emerged from some chemical soup … NOTHING … or even if Darwinists have all the life’s chemical needed in one place (e.g. dead cell), THEY CAN”T RECREATE LIFE … so what is so simple ????

  9. 9
    Bob O'H says:

    Martin_r – their argument is that the forces are simple, not that the whole process is simple. There are, presumably, a lot of simple processes.

  10. 10
    jerry says:

    Nothing in any published result analyzes the millions of reactions that go on within a cell every second. What controls these reactions and what drives the appearance of all the necessary materials to just the right spots?

    What happens when the right materials gets to the right place may be relatively simple but the whole coordinated morass is anything but.

    If religious people depended upon such an irrational explanation for its justification, can you imagine the laughter from the scientific community.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob O’H- There aren’t any known naturalistic forces capable of producing living organisms. So it is all just lies.

  12. 12
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    ET
    Earth to Bob O’H- There aren’t any known naturalistic forces capable of producing living organisms. So it is all just lies.

    Yes they are but only initiated have access to them. They are secret for normal people. :)))
    As High Rated Guru Dumbkins once said : Life seems created but this is just a powerfull illusion. How realized Guru that is an illusion it’s a ancient secret only few understand.

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    just a powerfull illusion

    The real illusion is that the DNA model along with selection caused and controls life.

    Yes, it is important but not for life or even evolution other than minor micro evolution processes. Without Darwinian processes there would not be meaningful life because there would be no variety.

    Everyone should read Richard Blume, the most insightful writer on design.

    Aside: whenever some criticizes ID or defends Darwinism it has nothing to do with truth. The critics of ID all know it has logical conclusions and that Darwinian process are essentially bogus. The really interesting question is why they participate in the charade that they do.

    So the conclusion is, don’t criticize people like Seversky. He knows most of what he says is bogus.

    If anything the C19 crisis has pointed out that a large minority has no interest in the truth and how an even smaller minority can scare people into otherwise indefensible behaviors. And then because they are aware of their behavior, they then justify it as right.

    Hello, “Nazi Germany.” The same process happened there, but using very different appeals. A minority shamed the majority into reprehensible behavior which they then believed was the correct behavior.

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Everyone should read Richard Blume, the most insightful writer on design

    Suggested title(s)?

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Stephen, not Richard, Blume- start with “the DNA Delusion”

  16. 16
    jerry says:

    start with “the DNA Delusion”

    Yes, Stephen Blume. I’m sure his books are similar but he make some incredibly insightful points. I started with the “Evo-Illusion.”

    He prefers

    Ingenious Invention and Design: IID

    rather than ID which he finds too limiting. Invention hugely trumps everything else, including design.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Intelligent Design includes invention, even ingenious invention. So I didn’t understand his point on that.

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Thanks for the references. Looks very good.

    As for invention – all design is an invention. So I wonder what he’s saying. Maybe that standard Intelligent Design theory doesn’t talk about that.

  19. 19
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Jerry

    The really interesting question is why they participate in the charade that they do.

    That’s the question – and I wish someone would figure out the answer.

  20. 20
    jerry says:

    Intelligent Design includes invention, even ingenious invention. So I didn’t understand his point on that.

    He discusses it in his books.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    I know he discusses it. Still, ID includes ingenious invention. The genetic code wasn’t borrowed/ copied.

    Look at the definitions of design. To invent is to design something that didn’t exist before.

  22. 22
    aarceng says:

    @Seversky, I agree that
    Speculation, hypothesizing and theorizing are all parts of the scientific process, along with the likes of observation and experimentation.
    Indeed the authors did caution that their ideas needed to be confirmed by experiment or observation.

  23. 23
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    ET
    Look at the definitions of design. To invent is to design something that didn’t exist before.

    How is called when some midget minds try to hack or to reverse-engineer products made by a Mind?
    🙂

Leave a Reply