Granville Sewell on origin of life as a provably unsolvable problem

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 30, 2021

Intelligent Design, Mathematics, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Mathematician Granville Sewell uses a concept from mathematics by which a problem is proved to be unsolvable:

All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false, that a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into libraries full of science texts and encyclopedias, computers connected to monitors, keyboards, laser printers and the Internet, cars, trucks, airplanes, nuclear power plants and Apple iPhones.
Is this really a valid proof? It seems perfectly valid to me, as I cannot think of anything in all of science that can be stated with more confidence than that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could not have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones. In the first half of my video “Why Evolution Is Different” I argue with a bit more scientific sophistication, and a bit more scientific detail, that problem #3 has no solution, but my arguments are still very simple. Unfortunately, most biologists don’t seem to be impressed by such simple proofs; they don’t believe it is possible to reject all solutions to a difficult problem without looking at the details of each. But mathematicians know that sometimes it is possible.
Granville Sewell, “Some Problems Can Be Proved Unsolvable” at Evolution News and Science Today

It’s been said that many biologists are poor mathematicians.

Here’s a vid where he makes the case:

Comments

Seversky: ">Complexity can emerge from simplicity.... stunning beauty of fractal patterns. " Seversky, as EDTA asked you, for how long have you been with us? With you Darwinists it is always the same ... you keep repeating these stupid arguments ... Fractals, snow flakes and other non-sense... Seversky, you misunderstand as much as a Darwinist can .... ID DEFINITION OF DESIGN/COMPLEXITY = thousands of parts working together for a purpose Now Seversky focus and explain to us, in what way are fractals and snow flakes complex?martin_r_{May 2, 2021
May
05
May
2
02
2021
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Sev, >Complexity can emerge from simplicity. Even mathematicians should be able to see that in the stunning beauty of fractal patterns. You have been with us how long? Fractals appear complex, but the rules for generating them are simple. And they don't do anything on their own. They would have to be instantiated in matter to be capable of anything. They are not evidence that life can form spontaneously.EDTA_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

johnnyb's first link available in its entirety here: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.94.171&rep=rep1&type=pdfEDTA_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

150 years of Darwinism and there is a zero progress in origin of life research. A typical lay Darwinist e.g. Seversky will reply - ahhhh, what are 150 years, give us more time and blah blah blah..... so how much longer do you need Seversky to accept that life was created? Thousands years? Ten thousands of years? I bet that if we give Darwinian scientitsts 1 Mil years and there still wont be any success in OOL research, Seversky would say- ahhhhhh, the universe is 14 billions of years old, one million years for OOL research is nothing, give us more time....martin_r_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false, ... Is this really a valid proof? It seems perfectly valid to me, as I cannot think of anything in all of science that can be stated with more confidence...
I haven't studied mathematical logic for a long time, so is this a Proof by Assertion or Proof by Incredulity?Bob O'H_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

From a thermodynamic perspective, the origin of life is impossible. as Dr Brian Miller stated, "No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”
“‘Professor Dave’ argues that the origin of life does not face thermodynamic hurdles. He states that natural systems often spontaneously increase in order, such as water freezing or soap molecules forming micelles (e.g., spheres or bilayers), He is making the very common mistake that he fails to recognize that the formation of the cell represents both a dramatic decrease in entropy and an equally dramatic increase in energy. In contrast, water freezing represents both a decrease in entropy but also a decrease in energy. More specifically, the process of freezing releases heat that increases the entropy of the surrounding environment by an amount greater than the entropy decrease of the water molecule forming the rigid structure. Likewise, soap molecules coalescing into micelles represents a net increase of entropy since the surrounding water molecules significantly increase in their number of degrees of freedom. No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.” – Brian Miller, Ph. D. – MIT – Episode 0/13: Reasons // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?t=1434
And as Dr. Miller also stated in this fairly recent article, “The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.”
Thermodynamic Challenges to the Origin of Life – Brian Miller – March 27, 2020 Excerpt: The thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life have become decidedly more well defined since this book’s first publication. The initial challenges described in the original edition still stand. Namely, spontaneous natural processes always tend toward states of greater entropy, lower energy, or both. The change of entropy and energy are often combined into the change of free energy, and all spontaneous processes move toward lower free energy. However, the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy. Therefore, it must move toward dramatically higher free energy. The chance of a system accomplishing this feat near equilibrium is astronomically small.,,, The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/thermodynamic-challenges-to-the-origin-of-life/
And as if the second law of thermodynamics was not bad enough for Darwinists in regards to explaining the origin of life(OOL), Dr. James Tour, one of the top ten synthetic chemists in the world, recently (March 2021) gave a tour de force lecture on the many insurmountable problems facing OOL researchers.
James Tour PhD. A Course on Abiogenesis - video playlist (March 2021) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-RvMStTkx4&list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr Topics covered 0 – Reasons for this Series: 1 – Introduction to Abiogenesis: 2 – Primordial Soup: 3 – Hype: 4 – Homochirality: 5 – Carbohydrates: 6 – Building Blocks of Building Blocks: 7 – Peptides: 8 – Nucleotides: 9 – Intermediate Summary & a Call to Colleagues: 10 – Lipids: 11 – Chiral-induced Spin Selectivity: 12.1 – Cell Construction & The Assembly Problem, Part 1: 12.2 – Cell Construction & The Assembly Problem, Part 2: 13 – Summary & Projections:
In a nutshell, the main insurmountable problem, (impossibility), facing OOL researchers is information. Specifically, the origin of immaterial information from material processes. Only immaterial minds have ever been observed generating immaterial information. Darwinists, with their 'bottom up' materialistic processes, are approaching the problem of generating immaterial information from the completely wrong conceptual level. As the old joke goes, 'you can't get there from here!'
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Haven't had time to watch the video, but a proof along the lines that Sewell seems to be indicating has actually been peer-reviewed. Biological Function and the Genetic Code are Interdependent. You can also see an engineering perspective in this three-part series: Developing Insights into the Design of the Simplest Self-Replicator (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) (find it in print) Finally, another information-theoretic approach which gives a maximum bound on the probability: The Possibility of Spontaneous Generation of Self-Replicating Systemsjohnnyb_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

BA77
The belief that life will someday be proven to come from non-life, (i.e. spontaneous generation), though directly contradicting known science and the law of biogenesis as laid out by Louis Pasteur and others,,
Just a small correction. Pasteur did not prove that life could not arise from non-life. He proved that complex life already found on earth cannot arise from non-life. But I do agree that the origin of life is an unprovable question. Even if scientists find a natural way in which life can arise, and demonstrate it, we will never know if this is how life on earth arose.paige_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Sev, you don’t seem to understand your own position very well Sev. This is not surprising, because if you did understand it, you probably would stop espousing it. Let me sort it our for you. GS: The claim that “a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into” Apple iPhones is provably unprovable. Sev: I agree, but then that is not what is being claimed, is it? The claim is that life-forms arose from inanimate chemical precursors and they evolved into increasingly complex creatures that could eventually design and build Apple iPhones. Let me clue you in Sev. That is exactly what is being claimed. It is nothing short of astonishing that after having debated in this area for many years, you don’t seem to understand that under materialist principles there is no fundamental ontological difference between “inanimate chemical precursors” and the “animate chemical products” that evolved from them. Guess what Sev. With the words “I agree” you just gave away the entire evolutionary store. BTW, the next time you get the urge to call someone arrogant, maybe you should check yourself, because in this instance you wound up looking like a buffoon when it turned out GS understands the basic proposition on the table and you do not. Barry Arrington_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

seversky:
The claim is that life-forms arose from inanimate chemical precursors and they evolved into increasingly complex creatures that could eventually design and build Apple iPhones.
That claim is right up there with leprechauns and a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. So I understand why you would accept it even though there isn't any evidence to support it nor is there a way to test it.
As for complexity emerging from simplicity, in Big Bang cosmology the four fundamental forces are thought to have emerged from a unified state in the very early stages of expansion.
The universe and those fundamental forces were intelligently designed. There isn't any evidence that they just happened to happen. Evolutionary biologists cannot support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And thanks to evolutionary biology no one knows what determines biological form. Biologists can't even answer the basic questions of life. That said, scientists will have an easier time showing how Stonehenge arose via blind and mindless processes than they will showing the same for life.ET_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

The belief that life will someday be proven to come from non-life, (i.e. spontaneous generation), though directly contradicting known science and the law of biogenesis as laid out by Louis Pasteur and others,,
Law of biogenesis Excerpt: The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life. This very important and fundamental scientific law can be credited to the work of Louis Pasteur and others. The findings rooted in repeated scientific experimentation and observation can be summarized as follows, Omne vivum ex ovo, which is Latin for, "all life is from life." https://creationwiki.org/Law_of_biogenesis Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation - June 21, 2015 "Science brings men nearer to God.,, Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,, I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation." [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.]
,,, The belief that life will someday be proven to come from non-life, though directly contradicting known science and the law of biogenesis, seems to be an irrational belief that is unique to Darwinists. After all, physicists, mainly due to the laws of thermodynamics, no longer believe in perpetual motion machines.
The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rckrnYw5sOA
Yet, Darwinists essentially believe wholeheartedly in perpetual motion machines, in that they believe unguided material processes, as long as they have access to energy, can generate all the information necessary to overcome the second law of thermodynamics in order to have life in the first place,
Molecular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit ,,, 10^12 bits is the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica.
Moreover, Darwinists also believe that unguided material processes, (again as long as they have access to energy), can, all by their lonesome, continue to generate the information in order to create all life on earth,
The information content of the human body,,,,,"the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000." In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017 Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,: [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/
And Darwinists also believe that unguided material processes can continue to generate the information for all future life on earth and the universe into perpetuity (again, as long as unguided material processes have access to energy).
The Future of Human Evolution in Space August 2, 2020 What will humans look like in the distant future? The future of human evolution in space could mean both biological and technological changes for our species. https://thecosmiccompanion.net/the-future-of-human-evolution-in-space/ Sage Against the Machine By Tunku Varadarajan - Aug. 31, 2018 Excerpt: if you believe that “machines can re-create new machines in a steady cascade of greater capabilities that are beyond human comprehension and control, you really believe that’s the end of the human race.” Mr. Gilder rejects the premise. “Machines can’t be minds,” he says. “Information theory shows that.” Citing Claude Shannon, the American mathematician acknowledged as the father of information theory, Mr. Gilder says that “information is surprise. Creativity always comes as a surprise to us. If it wasn’t surprising, we wouldn’t need it.” However useful they may be, “machines are not capable of creativity.” Human minds can generate counterfactuals, imaginative flights, dreams. By contrast, “a surprise in a machine is a breakdown. You don’t want your machines to have surprising outcomes!” https://www.wsj.com/articles/sage-against-the-machine-1535747443
In effect, Darwinists believe in a form of perpetual motion machines that make all of the other absurd claims for perpetual motions machines look sane in comparison. , Darwinists not only believe that unguided material processes can, (all by their lonesome), create perpetual motion machines in the first place, but they also believe that these perpetual motion machines can then create, (again by completely unguided material processes), even greater and more complex perpetual motion machines, which then go on to create, (again via completely unguided material processes) even greater and more complex perpetual motion machines,,, and on and on ad infinitum. (again, just so long as these unguided material processes have access to energy) It is a virtual perpetual motion machines, making other perpetual motion machines, making other perpetual motion machines, madhouse that Darwinists live in! :) Willy Wonka would be amazed and in awe! Might it be too obvious to suggest that Darwinists, rather than basing their assumptions on any known science, are actually living in a "Alice in Wonderland" of pure poppycock? Darwinists, directly contrary to what their, apparently, unrestrained imaginations are willing to believe, simply have no evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can generate the immaterial information that is necessary for life to overcome the second law of thermodynamics.
Evolutionary Computation: A Perpetual Motion Machine for Design Information? By Robert J. Marks II Final thoughts. Search spaces require structuring for search algorithms to be viable. This includes evolutionary search for a targeted design goal. The added structure information needs to be implicitly infused into the search space and is used to guide the process to a desired result. The target can be specific, as is the case with a precisely identified phrase; or it can be general, such as meaningful phrases that will pass, say, a spelling and grammar check. In any case, there is yet no perpetual motion machine for the design of information arising from evolutionary computation. https://web.archive.org/web/20080429222714/http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2903953/k.26C8/Evolutionary_Computation_A_Perpetual_Motion_Machine_for_Design_Information__Apologetics.htm Top Ten Questions and Objections to 'Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics' - Robert J. Marks II - June 12, 2017 Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,, We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice.,,, There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,, Models of Darwinian evolution, Avida and EV included, are searches with a fixed goal. For EV, the goal is finding specified nucleotide binding sites. Avida’s goal is to generate an EQU logic function. Other evolution models that we examine in Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics likewise seek a prespecified goal.,,, The most celebrated attempt of an evolution model without a goal of which we’re aware is TIERRA. In an attempt to recreate something like the Cambrian explosion on a computer, the programmer created what was thought to be an information-rich environment where digital organisms would flourish and evolve. According to TIERRA’s ingenious creator, Thomas Ray, the project failed and was abandoned. There has to date been no success in open-ended evolution in the field of artificial life.5,,, We show that the probability resources of the universe and even string theory’s hypothetical multiverse are insufficient to explain the specified complexity surrounding us.,,, If a successful search requires equaling or exceeding some degree of active information, what is the chance of finding any search with as good or better performance? We call this a search-for-the-search. In Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, we show that the search-for-the-search is exponentially more difficult than the search itself!,,, ,,,we use information theory to measure meaningful information and show there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,, ,,, if the fitness continues to change, it is argued, the evolved entity can achieve greater and greater specified complexity,,, ,,, We,, dub the overall search structure 'stair step active information'. Not only is guidance required on each stair, but the next step must be carefully chosen to guide the process to the higher fitness landscape and therefore ever increasing complexity.,,, Such fine tuning is the case of any fortuitous shift in fitness landscapes and increases, not decreases, the difficulty of evolution of ever-increasing specified complexity. It supports the case there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,, Turing’s landmark work has allowed researchers, most notably Roger Penrose,26 to make the case that certain of man’s attributes including creativity and understanding are beyond the capability of the computer.,,, ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
Verse:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false, that a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into libraries full of science texts and encyclopedias, computers connected to monitors, keyboards, laser printers and the Internet, cars, trucks, airplanes, nuclear power plants and Apple iPhones. Is this really a valid proof? It seems perfectly valid to me, as I cannot think of anything in all of science that can be stated with more confidence than that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could not have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones.
I agree, but then that is not what is being claimed, is it? The claim is that life-forms arose from inanimate chemical precursors and they evolved into increasingly complex creatures that could eventually design and build Apple iPhones. As for complexity emerging from simplicity, in Big Bang cosmology the four fundamental forces are thought to have emerged from a unified state in the very early stages of expansion. As the universe cooled, hydrogen formed and from that simple start the 94 naturally-occurring elements formed and everything else we observe has formed from them. Complexity can emerge from simplicity. Even mathematicians should be able to see that in the stunning beauty of fractal patterns. And if the claim is that biologists make poor mathematicians then the counter-claim is that mathematicians make poor biologists but make up for that short-coming with, in some cases, a well-earned reputation for arrogance.Seversky_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

Yup. Like the origin of the entire universe, both are untestable and unquantifiable. Not worth bothering about.polistra_{May 1, 2021
May
05
May
1
01
2021
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply