Intelligent Design

Great Deal for Materialists! We Will Spot You 99 Yards and 35 Inches in a 100 Yard Dash

Spread the love

To all of the materialist OOL researchers who continue to blither about how we are tantalizingly close to discovering how blind unguided natural forces produced the staggeringly complex nano-technology in even the simplest cell, we challenge you to a 100 yard dash.

And there is good news.  We will spot you 99 yards and 35 inches. 

Here’s how.  Take the simplest living cell you can find.  Put it in purified water free from any contaminants.  At this point you will have every chemical you need for the existence of simple life.  You will have all of those chemicals already arranged so that life can exist.  You need absolutely nothing else.  It is an absolutely perfect chemical cocktail for the existence of life.

Now, poke a hole in the cell membrane.  You now have non-living chemicals.  But as we just described, you have everything you need for life to exist.  In our metaphorical 100 yard dash, you are 99 yards and 35 inches to the finish line. 

Now, cross the line.  We’ll wait. But we won’t be holding our breath.

HT: Granville

18 Replies to “Great Deal for Materialists! We Will Spot You 99 Yards and 35 Inches in a 100 Yard Dash

  1. 1
    Theophilus says:

    Shouldn’t it be 99 yards and 35 inches?
    UD Editors: Indeed. Thanks for the correction Theo.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Barry Arrington, it seems always to be that last inch that kills these schemes. Of course, you have noticed that.

    But many people are fooled. We hear verbiage like “we are on the verge of” [computers that think like people… a correct theory of the origin of life that we can replicate … contacting extraterrestrials… explaining human consciousness… ]

    And not a single one navigates that last inch.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    It doesn’t work quite like that. Reducing a building to its constituent bricks, wood, concrete, etc doesn’t mean it could be rebuilt without all the brick-makers, cranes, cement-mixers, scaffolding and other equipment that were required for its original construction.

    It’s the same old strawman which pretends materialists are claiming that something like a complex modern cell could have sprung into existence from inanimate precursors in one fell swoop. That’s not the materialist claim. If it happened it was through a lot of small incremental steps.

    Of course, if you or Granville or any other ID proponent could explain exactly how your Designer/God did it or at least ask Him to explain how He did it then you would have a way stronger case.. Take all the time you want. We’re in no hurry.

  4. 4
    Belfast says:

    @seversky @3.

    “If it happened it was through a lot of small incremental steps.”
    Don’t need to hear all the small steps.
    What was the FIRST one?

  5. 5
    SmartAZ says:

    Why Physics Can’t Tell Us What Life Is

    The origin of life can’t be explained by first principles.
    There is just something obviously reasonable about the following notion: If all life is built from atoms that obey precise equations we know—which seems to be true—then the existence of life might just be some downstream consequence of these laws that we haven’t yet gotten around to calculating.

    By Jeremy England
    senior director in artificial intelligence at GlaxoSmithKline, principal research scientist at Georgia Tech, and the former Thomas D. and Virginia W. Cabot career development associate professor of physics at MIT

    http://nautil.us/

    Science discovers spirit!

  6. 6
    JVL says:

    Seversky: Of course, if you or Granville or any other ID proponent could explain exactly how your Designer/God did it or at least ask Him to explain how He did it then you would have a way stronger case.. Take all the time you want. We’re in no hurry.

    Oh dear, oh dear, or dear! Clearly you don’t understand that ID is not about explaining the actual mechanism or procedure that brought about life as we know it. Oh no. It’s about having a greater, larger, less definable explanation for life the universe and everything.

    You are setting your standards way too low. You really need to shoot for the stars, figure out how to define your winning target based on your predetermined criteria and then claim to have hit that target. It’s really simple actually. And that makes it a better solution. It covers everything.

    You just don’t get it.

  7. 7
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev,
    “It doesn’t work quite like that.”

    Of course it does not work like that. It does not work when you are spotted 99 yards and 35 inches. And it does not work when you have to go the whole 100 yards either. That you should think that it is more likely to go the whole 100 yards than the last inch says a lot about your unshakable faith commitments, faith commitments that would make a medieval fideist monk blush.

  8. 8
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL @ 6:
    Your sarcasm would have a lot more force if you could demonstrate the “mechanism” by which you, as an intelligent designer, brought about your comment at 6.

  9. 9
    ronvanwegen says:

    We are much closer to creating life than you think!
    Warning: Not for the faint-of-heart.
    I’m serious – Don’t Click!
    https://tinyurl.com/y5qx9umc

  10. 10

    .
    Seversky, the mechanism required to organize the origin of life is well known. The physical conditions of that mechanism are well-documented in the literature, and have been explained to you on multiple occasions. It is a matter of historical record that the mechanism was first predicted to exist through logical analysis, and subsequently confirmed through experimental result. The critical observations are not even controversial.

    When confronted with these facts, you respond with a clear intent to avoid the conversation and protect your worldview from science and reason. You accomplish this protectionist sleight-of-hand through the application of flawed reasoning, which you then refuse to address.

    UB: Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?

    Seversky: I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system.

    What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.

    UB: So the only thing that can motivate a decision away from your preferred position is if it can be proven that the origin of life is not possible by any unknown natural cause.

    We can talk about the posture of your answer in a moment, but first we need to point out the 600lb gorilla hiding behind the curtains. You are using a non-falsifiable condition as your standard of evidence in a scientific question. You’ve set up a situation where the hypothesis you are opposed to must prove a negative or the evidence in favor of that hypothesis is given no value because it does not meet the threshold. Only the proof of a negative is given the capacity to change your position. This is entirely illegitimate reasoning. Of course, no one can force you to use valid reasoning in your beliefs; that is generally something that only comes when it is actually valued by the person doing the reasoning. But you clearly cannot stand firm and suggest that your conclusions were arrived at with anything even resembling sound judgement. That is simply not true.

    Likewise, when you say that you “accept” opposing evidence (such as Von Neumann and others) it is also simply not true. Under your reasoning, the evidence for your opposition can continue to pile up to the rafters while the evidence in favor of your preferred position remains at zero. Until that opposing evidence proves a negative (something it cannot do) then it does not have the power to affect your conclusion. Physical evidence, indeed, becomes meaningless. This is the ultimate protectionist shield against science and reason; demand something that is not logically possible as your standard for evidence. The bonus is that you get to say you are a person of science and reason, while concealing the fact that you’ve completely eviscerated both of everything they have to offer.

  11. 11

    .
    JVL, the mechanism required to organize the origin of life is well known. The physical conditions of that mechanism are well-documented in the literature, and have been explained to you on multiple occasions. It is a matter of historical record that the mechanism was first predicted to exist through logical analysis, and subsequently confirmed through experimental result. The critical observations are not even controversial.

    When confronted with these facts, you respond with a clear intent to avoid the conversation and protect your worldview from science and reason. You accomplish this protectionist sleight-of-hand through the application of flawed reasoning, which you then refuse to address.

    JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems

    UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be?

    JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data.

    UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain.

    Why the double standard?

    JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    JVL: “I just think we’ve pursued this issue as far as we can given our desperate views”.

    UB: Again JVL, we are not disagreeing about a fact in question. The issue here is that you apply one standard to evidence when it suits you, then apply another standard to that same phenomenon when it suits you differently. There is no mystery here. You use a double standard based on what suits you.

  12. 12
    jerry says:

    Oh dear, oh dear, or dear! Clearly you don’t understand that ID is not about explaining the actual mechanism or procedure that brought about life as we know it.

    Bob O’H asked this a couple years ago as have several different people in the past. Here is an answer I provided him two years ago which was based on a comment I made 11 1/2 years ago. Inane comments mocking ID have been around for a long time. Nothing new under the sun.

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/new-book-from-michael-behe-on-how-todays-dna-findings-devolve-darwin/#comment-661275

    Bob O’H

    Yes, I agree that it could be a naturalistic process, but does ID ever ask if it actually was?

    All the time from my experience. It is just when there is no credible naturalistic process that it looks for other alternatives. Stephen Meyer goes over dozens of possible naturalistic explanations in his books.

    This is something else you should know from all your years here.

    “what caused…?” and “what could have caused…?” are subtly different questions.

    Yes, but before one gets to what caused, one has to consider what could have caused and then eliminate the improbable ones. Which is exactly the process ID uses.

    I answered the silliness of this question about the designer with sarcasm over 9 years ago.

    Someone actually wants the laboratory techniques used 3.8 billion years ago. You talk about bizarre. I say a thousand as hyperbole and Mark in all seriousness says there is probably only a dozen. Mark wants the actual technique used a few billion years ago.

    Mark, I got word from the designer a few weeks ago and he said the original lab and blue prints were subducted under what was to become the African plate 3.4 billion years ago but by then they were mostly rubble anyway. The original cells were relatively simple but still very complex. Subsequent plants/labs went the same way and unfortunately all holograph videos of it are now in hyper space and haven’t been looked at for at least 3 million years. So to answer one of your questions, no further work has been done for quite awhile and the designer expects future work to be done by the latest design itself. The designer travels via hyper space between his home and our area of the universe when it is necessary.

    The designer said the techniques used were much more sophisticated than anything dreamed of by current synthetic biologist crowd but in a couple million years they may get up to speed and understand how it was actually done. The designer said it is actually a lot more difficult than people think especially since this was a new technique and he had to invent the DNA/RNA/protein process from scratch but amazingly they had the right chemical properties. His comment was “Thank God for that” or else he doesn’t think he wouldn’t have been able to do it. It took him about 200,000 of our years just experimenting with amino acid combinations to get usable proteins. He said it will be easier for current scientists since they will have a template to work off.

    Hope this answers your question about the designer.

    Mark, in my comment from 10 years ago was an anti-ID person who roamed this site for years and in all his time here could not provide anything of consequence to undermine it. Here is the link to this comment I made 11 1/2 years ago.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-specified-information-you-be-the-judge/#comment-305339

  13. 13
    ET says:

    seversky:

    It’s the same old strawman which pretends materialists are claiming that something like a complex modern cell could have sprung into existence from inanimate precursors in one fell swoop. That’s not the materialist claim. If it happened it was through a lot of small incremental steps.

    You have nothing. You can’t even get to biologically relevant molecular replicators. And given those you run smack into Spiegelman’s Monster.

    Of course, if you or Granville or any other ID proponent could explain exactly how your Designer/God did it or at least ask Him to explain how He did it then you would have a way stronger case.

    We already have much more to support our claims than you and yours ever will.

    Materialists are so clueless. All they have are lies, bluffs and a seemingly infinite supply of promissory notes.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    JVL:

    It’s about having a greater, larger, less definable explanation for life the universe and everything.

    You guys win that, hands down.

    ID’s explanation is the same as archaeologists’ explanation for artifacts. It is the same as a fire investigator determining arson or forensic scientists determining a crime exists.

    So I don’t understand JVL’s infantile response, especially given that they have all of the power to refute ID, just by demonstrating the efficacy of the claims of their own position!

  15. 15
    tjguy says:

    @Seversky ” If it happened it was through a lot of small incremental steps.”

    OK, tell us how incremental steps could happen and/or be selected for before life even existed. There had to be a certain amount of genes, software, machines, etc. in order for life to get started. Even if evolution could explain the growth from the first simple cell to the complex cell of today, still life had to exist before evolution could take over.

    What did the first “simple” cell look like? Is it really logical to think that it came into existence by pure chance? Like I said, we all have faith/beliefs in something.

    How do you know that a so called “simple” cell ever even existed? Simple when compared to today’s cell which has mind boggling complexity, but is it really “simple”? I highly doubt it.

    If you don’t even know what the first “simple” cell looked like, then how do you know it could have come into existence by chance? It’s simply what your worldview demands you to believe, so you believe it, but where’s the evidence?

    The old “simple cell” line is the traditional go to Materialist claim, but there is no evidence for such a cell nor is there any understanding of how it could have

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    As Harold Morowitz (Yale) calculated, “if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000.”

    DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Harold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)?
    http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html

    Of note: Harold Joseph Morowitz (December 4, 1927 – March 22, 2016) was an American biophysicist who studied the application of thermodynamics to living systems.[1][2] Author of numerous books and articles, his work includes technical monographs as well as essays.[3][4] The origin of life was his primary research interest for more than fifty years.[5] He was the Robinson Professor of Biology and Natural Philosophy at George Mason University after a long career at Yale.[6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_J._Morowitz

    If Mr Arrington and Dr. Morowitz, in their thought experiment, spotted Darwinists 99 yards and 35 inches and dared them to go that final inch, then Dr. James Tour, (who is one of the leading synthetic chemists in the world), spotted Darwinists 99 yards 35 and 31/32nd inches and dared them to go that final 1/32nd of an inch in the following thought experiment

    (July 2019) “We have no idea how to put this structure (a simple cell) together.,, So, not only do we not know how to make the basic components, we do not know how to build the structure even if we were given the basic components. So the gedanken (thought) experiment is this. Even if I gave you all the components. Even if I gave you all the amino acids. All the protein structures from those amino acids that you wanted. All the lipids in the purity that you wanted. The DNA. The RNA. Even in the sequence you wanted. I’ve even given you the code. And all the nucleic acids. So now I say, “Can you now assemble a cell, not in a prebiotic cesspool but in your nice laboratory?”. And the answer is a resounding NO! And if anybody claims otherwise they do not know this area (of research).”
    – James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained – 4:20 minute mark (The more we know, the worse the problem gets for materialists)
    https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=255

    In the following recent video, Dr. James Tour went even further than the preceding thought experiment and gave Darwinists everything except the last billionth of an inch.,,,

    In the following thought experiment, Dr. Tour puts the irresolvable dilemma for Darwinists like this,,,

    “But let’s, in this thought experiment, say that we already have a functional, working, cell. So everything is in place. But now the cell just dies. Just died a nano-second ago. Just died. What did we just lose and what would we have to do to get it going again because everything is approximately in place? Have we any idea how to get this cell going again?” (To which Stephen Meyer responds), Well, its the Humpty Dumpty problem right. You got all of these pieces but all those pieces does not a living organism make.”
    – The Science & Faith Podcast – James Tour and Stephen Meyer: Life’s Origin: Lab + Information = Mind
    https://youtu.be/x5tUDJ23Kms?t=1038

    In trying to answer Dr. Tour’s question, I point out that Stephen Talbott holds, (and I agree with him 100%), that the ingredient that goes missing when a organism dies is (immaterial) information,

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
    Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    Paul Davies himself also holds that it must be ‘non-physical’ information that allows life to ‘resist the ravages of entropy’.

    “Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be information.”
    Robert Shedinger, “Hey, Paul Davies — Your ID Is Showing”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-skeptic-robert-shedinger-calls-out-paul-davies/

    In fact, it has been known for several decades that there might be a fundamental connection between entropy and (immaterial) information

    “Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
    Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]?

    In fact, the information content that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be around 10 to the 12 bits,,,

    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.
    http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~a.....ecular.htm

    ,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
    – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy

    ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
    Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus since Bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.

    Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells
    Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small – about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.
    https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html

    And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells within the average human body,

    Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body – 2016
    Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg “reference man” to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533

    Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within all the books contained in all the largest libraries in the world.

    Needless to say, that is a massive amount of immaterial information that is present within our physical bodies.

    As the following article states, 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/

    As should be obvious, it is impossible for the sequential information on DNA to account for this massive amount of ‘positional information’ that is building ‘a human infant, atom by atom’.

    As Doug Axe states in the following video, “there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”

    “There is also a presumption, typically when we talk about our genome, (that the genome) is a blueprint for making us. And that is actually not a proven fact in biology. That is an assumption. And (one) that I question because I don’t think that 4 billion bases, which would be 8 billion bits of information, that you would actually have enough information to specify a human being. If you consider for example that there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”
    Doug Axe – Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video (1 hour 16 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwBaD8-00w&t=4575s

    And at about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Jonathan Wells, (who specializes in embryology), using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, ‘positional information’ must somehow be coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into their multiple different states during embryological development.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

    As well, the preceding finding that information must be coming into a developing embryo for the ‘outside’, fits, hand in glove, with William Dembski’s and Robert Marks’ previous work in ‘conservation of information’

    “Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information.”
    – William Dembski
    https://books.google.com/books?id=pe5nAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT408

    Moreover, in regards to this vast amount of ‘immaterial positional information’ that must somehow be accounted for in multicellular organisms, (immaterial information that cannot possibly be accounted for by materialistic processes), in the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, it was demonstrated that knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position converts information into energy.

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, classical information is shown to be a subset of quantum, (i.e. positional), information by the following method.

    In the following 2011 paper, “researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,,
    The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    As well, and as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    Again to repeat that last sentence, “we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”

    Think about that statement for a second.

    These experiments go to the heart of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate and completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, (presuppositions about immaterial information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water.

    In other words, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, immaterial information, particularly ‘positional quantum information’, is now experimentally shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is a product of an ‘observer who describes the system’. And although it can interact with matter and energy, (interact in a ‘top-down’ manner; see George Ellis ‘Recognizing Top Down Causation’), it is still shown to be its own independent entity that is separate from matter and energy and that has a quote unquote ‘thermodynamic content’ that can be physically measured.

    In other words, Intelligent Design, and a semi-direct inference to Intelligence that is necessary in order to explain why life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, has, for all intents and purposes, achieved experimental confirmation via these recent experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment.

    To further establish that the Intelligent Designer who created, and sustains, life must be God, it is first necessary to point out that “quantum information” is now also found to be ubiquitous within life:

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    What is interesting about finding quantum information to be ubiquitous within life is that quantum correlations are a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, affair that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its effect.

    As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    As well, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    It is also very interesting to note how all of the preceding evidence fits, hand and glove, with John 1:1-4 in the New Testament:

    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.

    That John 1:1-4 should fit, hand and glove, with what was only recently discovered via our most advance science, (i.e. via our advances in quantum information theory and quantum biology), is nothing short of astonishing.

    In a world where Christianity would be given a fair hearing among most scientists, (instead of being unfairly dismissed out of hand as supposedly being ‘unscientific’), this ‘prediction’ of John 1:1-4 about the foundational ‘information’ nature of life should count as a rather dramatic ‘scientific’ confirmation for the truth of Christianity.

    Namely that only Jesus, as demonstrated by His resurrection from the dead by God the Father, truly has life, and more particularly, the gift of ‘eternal life’ contained within Himself.

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Leave a Reply