Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Moshe Averick: What’s keeping the Origin-of-Life Messiah?


From Moshe Averick, author of The Confused World of Modern Atheism, at Algemeiner:

Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah

… In other words, despite the prodigious amounts of energy invested by people like Richard Dawkins in spreading propaganda to the contrary, Darwin provided exactly zero evidence to support an atheistic view of biology. Nothing has changed at all; the awe and wonder of the miraculous design and engineering that characterizes every single living creature on earth points as clearly to Divine creation in our day as it did in the period before Charles Darwin published his famous treatise.

In their heart of hearts, non-believers like Richard Dawkins understand that the Origin of Life problem means that their so called “scientific atheism” stands on a foundation of thin air and wishful thinking. That is why they longingly cast their eyes towards the horizon in hope of the imminent arrival of the atheist Origin of Life messiah who will finally explain how life can come from non-life without the involvement of that annoying Creator. More.

The OOL Messiah means well, Reb, but he can’t seem to get started. We see a lot of those types here where I live too …

Rev. Averick also wishes us all a happy Jewish-and-Gentile New Year.

See also: Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah. I love it! Truthfreedom
Dear MatSpirit, This article is quite old but this is the first time I viewed it. I saw your comment that I was dishonest in the way I presented Dr. Pross' citation. Of course I was aware of the last line in his paragraph. I quoted it in my book to show the schizoid attitudes of atheistic scientists. I.E. He presents in his book a most compelling case for ID and then at the end accuses ID'ers of "peddling their wares". He does not even realize that everything he actually wrote supports the notion that life could never have started by itself. Perhaps you thought I was trying to imply that Dr. Pross supports intelligent design, if that is the way it seemed I apologize. I had no intention of portraying him as a supporter of ID, I just cited his words to illustrate the issue. I try never to marshal evidence for my views from supporters of ID, I almost exclusively use my opponents own words to demonstrate that a naturalistic origin of life is essentially impossible. Here is the full citation in my book: "Dr. Pross and I are in agreement on just about everything he has written: • The notion of a naturalistic origin of life seems “absurd” and “impossible.” • Natural forces push in the direction of chaos and disorder not towards super-sophisticated functionally complex systems like a refrigerator and certainly not a bacterium which is many orders of magnitude more complex. • Not only is the notion of a Creator of life the obvious “common sense” conclusion but it is also in consonance with basic principles of Physics and mathematical probability. • The notion of a naturalistic origin of life seems to contradict the most fundamental principles of Physics. If Intelligent Design is the common sense answer and in line with Physics and mathematical probability why does Dr. Pross feel it necessary to pejoratively describe its proponents as “peddling their wares”? In truth of course, it is just the opposite. It is the anti-common sense, anti-principles-of-physics, anti-mathematical-probability atheistic scientists who are “peddling their wares.” It is terribly disappointing when a man of Professor Pross’ caliber makes such a blatantly self-contradictory and non-scientific statement in order to pay homage to the faith of Scientific Naturalism." moshe averick
bornagain77 @ 25: Great points, as usual. Thank you. bornagain77 @ 24: "MatSpirit, for an atheist who does not believe in objective morality, but only in subjective morality, you certainly waste an extraordinary amount of time trying to prove that Averick ‘sinned’ against some objective moral that is binding to all humans by telling a lie." Priceless! The irony is always lost on these poor fools. They simply cannot comprehend the irony and hypocrisy embedded in almost everything they say. Hopelessly deluded fools! Truth Will Set You Free
Mat. after throwing a fit about a supposed lie told by Averick, horror of horrors, you yourself 'lied' and falsely claimed that OOL 'is the only God sized gap IS all you have left'. Contrary to what you believe, let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science, every displine within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility.,,,
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use naturalism as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, (i.e. methodological naturalism), then everything within that artificially imposed atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. sense of self. observation of reality, beliefs about reality, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasies and imagination.
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy – Sept. 2016 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
And although Theists are often accused of making ‘God of the Gaps’ style arguments, as Mat himself has falsely accused Theists of doing in his post at 22, the fact of the matter is that, as science has progressed, it is the Atheist himself who has had to retreat further and further into ‘Materialism/Naturalism of Gaps’ style arguments. i.e. into “Science will figure out a materialistic answer to that mystery some day” style argument. To clearly illustrate the ‘materialism of the gaps’ style argument that atheists are now forced to use, the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find. These contradictory predictions, and the evidence now found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either materialism or Theism is true.
Theism compared to Materialism/Naturalism - a comparative overview of the major predictions of each philosophy – video https://youtu.be/QQ9iyCmPmz8 1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after 'theory of everything'
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4
Verse and Music:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Evanescence - Bring Me To Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM&ob=av2e
MatSpirit, for an atheist who does not believe in objective morality, but only in subjective morality, you certainly waste an extraordinary amount of time trying to prove that Averick 'sinned' against some objective moral that is binding to all humans by telling a lie. He certainly did not lie as anyone who reads the title of the book, which Averick listed right under the quote, understands. But Mat, what if he did sin in this instance by telling a lie? And what about all the other instances that you, me, he, and everyone else on the face of the planet has committed a sin? Not only the sin of lying but also all the other multifarious sins associated with lusting and hating, and etc.. etc..? Exactly Whom have we sinned against when we break such objective morality? According to Atheists no one has ever really sinned since objective morality does not really exist but is only illusory in nature, i.e. totally subjective based on personal preferences. But please note that you yourself are not acting as if morality is merely subjective, i.e. illusory, in this instance but are acting as if Averick has really broken some overriding moral code that is binding to all humans. So exactly Whom does anyone really sin against when we break such overriding objective morals? The truth of the matter is that all sin that is committed is ultimately sin that is committed against God Himself since it is His objective morality, not our own subjective morality, that has been broken. Moreover, because of our inherent imperfection, it is impossible for us to ever make full restitution for our sin against God. Only the perfection of Christ is able to make full restitution and pay the ultimate penalty for sin which was and is death. Verses, videos, and music
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. John 8:23-24 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins. G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) – poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5 Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything - Centrality Concerns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&index=4&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5 Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=5 "Alive" - W,Lyrics, By Natalie Grant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFpgzjRD44
@22: Wow, talk about a lot of projection, denials, and misrepresentations. ----- Other than the part about the lack of financial support for ID, which has always been a challenge. :) Eric Anderson
BA77: "MatSpirit, why is this false narrative that Averick lied so important for you?" A better question would be why are you so desperately defending his lie? I think the answer is that OOL is about the only God-sized gap in our knowledge that ID has left. However it happened, it happened billions of years ago and left no fossils we know of. If some fossils did by some miracle survive, they're molecules, too small to be seen even in a microscope and are thus unlikely ever to be found. For icing on the ID cake, all the rocks we know of that are that old and might contain fossils have been melted and remelted several times by geological forces. We literally had to go to the geologically dead moon to find intact rocks from that era to date. And face it, that God sized gap IS all you have left. Dembski's been canned, Behe's Irreducible Complexity died before it reached its first birthday and got washed over the Edge of Evolution, the rest of your ID scientists are non entities and, worst of all, the big ID donors have given up and cash is short. The Discovery Institute is laying off! So ID is reduced to keeping it's eyes closed, covering its ears and demanding that science explain exactly how life started RIGHT NOW or ID wI'll declare victory. And while you're doing that, dont mention that the only answer to the OOL problem that Christianity has ever produced was decisively proven wrong back in the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, you've gone back to bluffing with yards of quotes, mostly from IDers or misunderstood scientific articles which have been taken out of context and that's basically not worth arguing with since step one in every argument would be to explain your errors and ID has its eyes and ears covered. So you go back to praising loudmouth know-nothings like the good Rabbi and telling each other how deceived every scientist in the world is and how science isn't even possible without Jesus and atheists believe they have no minds and I'll go back to munching my popcorn and watching the fun. Adios. MatSpirit
MatSpirit: I presume this is the same Pross who proposed the laughable "life is a kinetic state" approach? That was a big red herring rabbit hole Matzke sent us down a couple of years ago. Let me know if you need a refresher on how that discussion concluded. ----- BTW, I would also be willing to cite Pross as someone who understands the problems with traditional OOL scenarios. That doesn't mean his own alternative idea is any good. Eric Anderson
Mat, here are a few more quotes to get your objective moral feathers all ruffled up:
The History of Origin of Life Research in Scientists Own Words by Moshe Averick Excerpt: (1945) Dr. Ernst Chain, Nobel Prize Medicine, 1945- The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, (R.W. Clark, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1985), pg. 148) I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. (1954) Dr. George Wald- Nobel Laureate-Scientific American August, 1954 There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of Gd. There is no third possibility…a supernatural creative act of GD. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in GD, therefore I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to Evolution. (1960) Dr. Gerald Kerkut, Profesor Emeritus of Neuroscience at the University of Southahpton, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry – 1960 The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption…There is, however, little evidence in favor of abiogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed…it is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that abiogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method…happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available. (1962) Dr. Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize Chemistry, 1934-Mentor of Dr. Stanley Miller-Christian Science Monitor, 1/4/62 All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. (1973) Dr. Ilya Prigine, Nobel Prize Chemistry 1977- Impact of Science on Society-1973 But let us have no illusions…[we are still] unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms (1976) Richard Dawkins, [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], “The Selfish Gene,” [1976] The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. There are a number of rival theories, but they all have certain features in common. (1977) Dr. Hubert Yockey, renowned Physicist and Information Theorist -Journal of Theoretical Biology 1977 One must conclude that…a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. (1978) Richard E. Dickerson [Professor of Molecular Biology, University of California, Los Angeles]., “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, No. 3, September 1978, p.77). The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts. The complex genetic apparatus in present-day organisms is so universal that one has few clues as to what the apparatus may have looked like in its most primitive form. (1981) Dr. Francis Crick – Nobel Prize Medicine (1962)- Co-Discoverer of Structure of DNA- “Life Itself”- 1981 Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts. (1982) Leslie E. Orgel [Biochemist and Resident Fellow, Salk Institute for Biological Studies], “Darwinism at the very beginning of life,” New Scientist, Vol. 94, 15 April 1982, p.150). Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic, constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct the evolutionary process are extremely tentative. (1984) Sir Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wichramasingnhe- Evolution from Space (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1984, pg.148) Indeed, such a theory (intelligent design) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brain-washed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it; it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. (ibid, pg. 53) (1986) Andrew Scott [biochemist and science writer], “The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien,” Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.111). Due to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories! But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern ‘standard’ scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigor in this case? Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature – the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want to believe because their arch opponents – religious fundamentalists such as creationists – do not believe in life’s spontaneous origin. It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise. (1988) Dr. Klaus Dose – “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p.348 More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. (1989) Carl Woese, Microbiologist, Gunter Wachtershauser, Chemist – “Origin of Life” in Paleobiology: A Synthesis, Briggs and Crowther – Editors (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1989) In one sense the origin of life remains what it was in the time of Darwin – one of the great unsolved riddles of science. Yet we have made progress…many of the early naïve assumptions have fallen or have fallen aside…while we do not have a solution, we now have an inkling of the magnitude of the problem. (1995) Dr. Christian DeDuve, Nobel Prize, Medicine 1974 – The Beginnings of Life on Earth- American Scientist Sep/October 1995 Even if life came from elsewhere we would still have to account for its first development…How this momentous event happened is still highly conjectural though no longer purely speculative. Wordnet Online Dictionary: Conjecture: A.) noun – a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating…usually with little hard evidence (synonym: speculation) B.) verb: to believe on uncertain or tentative grounds (synonym:speculate) It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes—a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science—it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less, than in millions of years. Even if life came from elsewhere, we would still have to account for its first development. Thus we might as well assume that life started on earth. (1997) “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist – Harvard University, January 9, 1997 NY Times Book Reviews We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (2001) Dr. Franklin M. Harold, Biochemist, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the order of Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pg. 251) It would be agreeable to conclude this book with a cheery fanfare about science closing in, slowly but surely, on the ultimate mystery; but the time for rosy rhetoric is not yet at hand. The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication. (2002) Dr. Paul Davies, Physicist and authority on Origin of Life research, from “In Search of Eden, Conversations with Paul Davies and Phillip Adams” First, I should like to say that the scientific attempt to explain the origin of life proceeds from the assumption that whatever it was that happened was a natural process: no miracles, no supernatural intervention. It was by ordinary atoms doing extraordinary things that life was brought into existence. Scientists have to start with that assumption. (2006) Richard Dawkins, The Gd Delusion, 2006, pg. 164 The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative subject for research. John Horgan of Scientific American writes that scientists are "stumped as ever by the riddle of life." (2011) John Horgan, Senior Writer Scientific American -2/28/11 Dennis Overbye just wrote a status report for the New York Times on research into life’s origin, based on a conference on the topic at Arizona State University. Geologists, chemists, astronomers, and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life. (2011) Dr. Eugene Koonin, molecular biologist – The Logic of Chance: The Nature and origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ, FT Press, 2011, pg. 391) The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science…Origin of Life research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life…these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. After reading all the above, perhaps it is reasonable to consider that the reason the emergence of life seems “almost like a miracle,” is because it is a miracle. https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/09/27/speculation-faith-and-unproven-assumptions-the-history-of-origin-of-life-research-in-scientists-own-words/
As to Mat's claim "mere electrons can play Pac-Man" here are a few notes:
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: ,,,However there are many topics that one cannot understand by assuming this one-way flow of causation.,,, Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics,,, Top-down causation is prevalent at all levels in the brain: for example it is crucial to vision [24,25] as well as the relation of the individual brain to society [2]. The hardware (the brain) can do nothing without the excitations that animate it: indeed this is the difference between life and death. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf Erwin Schrödinger - "Do Electrons Think?" (BBC 1949) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCwR1ztUXtU
MatSpirit, why is this false narrative that Averick lied so important for you? I hold that this moral argument that you are currently, unsuccessfully, trying to use is so important for you precisely because you have nothing else, i.e. no real empirical science, to go on. Yet, ironically, objective morality can only be based in Theism. It is ludicrous to think that some of the actions of chemistry are more morally right than other actions of chemistry. Yet according to Pross's own book, which you are bent on defending from Averick's supposed immoral lie, all of biology ultimately ultimately boils down to mere chemistry. It is a self defeating moral argument for you, an atheist, to be making!
If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM
Since they have no real science to base their claims on, Darwinian atheists constantly use the 'argument from evil', as well as other Theistically based arguments, so as to try to establish the supposed scientific legitimacy of atheism and of Darwinian evolution in particular. Darwin used the Theistically based argument from evil in his book 'Origin' and atheists/Darwinists continue to use such Theistically based arguments today.
Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
Moreover, ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and our ability to comprehend that rational intelligibility. ,,, Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our mind to comprehend it. (July 2016) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/americans-support-dissent-re-evolution/#comment-612345 Moreover, if atheistic materialism were actually true it would result in catastrophic epistemological failure:
Atheistic Materialism/Naturalism – Where All of Reality Becomes an Illusion – video https://youtu.be/At6YNLBa2p0 Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a foundation of illusions and fantasy Excerpt: in what I consider to be a shining example of poetic justice, in their claim that God does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion, the naturalist also ends up claiming that he himself does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion.,,, ,,,basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. sense of self. observations of reality, beliefs about reality, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasies and imagination. Because of such catastrophic epistemological failure inherent within Darwinian Evolution and Atheistic materialism, it would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism turn out to be.,,, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
Basically Mat, you, and all other atheists, need God even to have the ability to deny Him in the first place:
"Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All (Stephen) Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God in order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter – Photo – an atheist contemplating his mind http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg
Verses, Video and Music:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis Hillsong United – Taya Smith – Touch The Sky – Acoustic Cover – Live – HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyl34fHQi3U
"BA77: 1. Averick did not lie as readers can see for themselves." Wikipedia disagrees: (Look up "Lie") "A lie is a statement that the stating party believes to be false and that is made with the intention to deceive." "Lying by omission: Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception." "2. My opinion of Averick is as high as ever whereas my opinion of you has sunk to new lows." This is pretty good.  M.Averick tells a lie, you embarass yourself by passing it on, then you call the person who shows you the lie names and reaffirm your good opinion of M.Averick. I think there are some important clues here to IDs lack of status outside of conservative religious circles..  "(as if mere chemistry can have opinions)." As if mere electrons can play Pac-Man. MatSpirit
Mat, 1. Averick did not lie as readers can see for themselves. And even if he did lie, how can mere chemistry possibly be embarrassed about a lie? 2. My opinion of Averick is as high as ever whereas my opinion of you has sunk to new lows (as if mere chemistry can have opinions). bornagain77
Apparently you missed my message 13. The question I asked is about the subject of this thread, Rabbi M.Averick: "What does M.Averick’s LIE about Pross’s book say about M.Averick?" The OP quoted some of his clap-trap about OOL. I call it clap-trap because I read his first book and know that he's apallingly ignorant about all things biological. Then YOU quoted M.Averick quoting a paragraph from Pross in which Pross, a legitimate scientist, seems to be anti evolution and pro-ID. I've got that book and I knew he'd left off the last line that shows he actually believes the opposite. You were evidently fooled by M.Averick and quoted his deliberate misquotation of Pross approvingly. So the questions now are: 1: How does it feel to be lied to and consequently embarrassed by Rabbi M.Averick? 2: Does this change your opinion of him? MatSpirit
Mat, if the ultimate answer to the salient question of “What is Life?" really were that it is merely "Chemistry Becomes Biology", to what specific chemistry do you, and Pross, appeal to so as to establish what is true and to what specific chemistry do you appeal to establish what is false? Is some chemistry more true than other chemistry, or is all chemistry equally true? And what about consciousness? If the ultimate answer to the salient question of “What is Life?" really were that it is merely "Chemistry Becomes Biology", to what specific chemistry do you, and Pross, appeal to so as to establish what is conscious and what is not conscious? Is some chemistry more conscious than other chemistry? Do you consider yourself fully alive if you are not conscious? If not, then why do you accept "Chemistry Becomes Biology" as an acceptable definition for life? Most work a day Americans consider life to be much, much, more than mere chemistry, and if your materialistic philosophy can't even explain the simplest parts of life, i.e. self replication, much less the most important part of life, i.e. consciousness, why do you think anyone should pay attention to you or any of your atheistic scientists? Your atheistic delusions simply have no connection to the real world! Moreover, you yourself can't even live as if materialism were actually true:
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
For a group that spends so much time and energy complaining about other people's morals, UD is remarkably obtuse about their own. We're not talking about Pross or his book. What does M.Averick's LIE about Pross's book say about M.Averick? It's a pretty simple question. You should be able to answer it in one sentence. I would suggest something like, "He shouldn't have lied." MatSpirit
The answer to my @5 is: None. No scientist I know has ever given me one piece of evidence that persuaded him to believe that live could have originated without an intelligent and obviously more powerful than humans creator. BTW: I was going to ask Jack Szostak that question at one of his public addresses, but they were screening the questions and they snuffed me out... I'm pretty sure though that he doesn't have even one real piece of evidence...but he got a Nobel Prize... J-Mac
MatSpirit, and does not the very title of his book, which is right beneath the Pross quote, make it abundantly clear that he is a naturalistic atheist?
“And here precisely lies the [origin of] life problem…it is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about. Certain basic laws of physics [coupled with mathematical probability] preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function… Biology [i.e. a naturalistic origin of life] and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible” Dr. Addy Pross, professor of chemistry, Ben-Gurion University, Israel. – What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford University Press, 2012 –
What part of "What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology" do you not understand? The implication is as plain as day! If that title does not get the point across that he is anti-ID in his book then nothing will, not even the sentence that you are crying about. Moreover Mat, if all you have got is bitching and whining about how Averick should have quoted Pross for one more sentence after his selected quote, so as to suit your own personal tastes, instead of any real empirical evidence that unguided material processes can actually create life, then you've got absolutely nothing of any real substance so as to counter the claim that 'common sense tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about'. As Averick stated, your materialistic/atheistic theory is based on thin air and you still await your OOL Messiah to deliver you from your delusions. bornagain77
I guess I'll have to make this a little simpler. This is a thread on Rabbi M.Averick and how wonderful and trustworthy an ID supporter he is. Yet, the first paragraph of your first reply reveals that the wonderful and highly trustworthy M.Averick told a whopping pro-ID lie by omission. By leaving out the last sentence, he makes it look like Pross is approving and advocating ID when he's really setting the stage for the rest of the book explaining how he thinks life started and revealing his true contempt for those peddling ID wares. The question I asked is what does this say about M.Averick's honesty? If his pro-ID lies are all right with you, just say so. If not, what kinds of problems does he create for this lauditory thread? Do you still trust his word? MatSpirit
MatSpirit, he admits that 'common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about' and also admits “No wonder the proponents of Intelligent Design manage to peddle their wares with such success!” and you think this is a problem for ID? Since you apparently do think this is a problem for ID, I asked you specifically what your, his, or any atheist's, evidence is that unguided processes can create 'highly organized entities'. I quoted Tour, as well as Shapiro, and I also listed the astonishing complexity of mycoplasma to boot so as to drive the point home as to the severe difficulty being addressed on any naturalistic OOL theory. Whereas you did not list any evidence whatsoever but only accused Averick of 'pulling a fast one'. Now MatSpirit, for you to pretend that OOL is not a severe problem for Darwinists and that Pross, or any other naturalist, has it all figured out, is to truly try to 'pull a fast one.' Since you listed no actual evidence to back up your unstated claim that 'highly organized entities' can 'spontaneously come about', I took the liberty of googling Addy Pross. This review of his book is interesting in that it reveals that he tries to use semantics, instead of any actual empirical science, to skirt around the severe OOL problem:
What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology (Hardcover) If you can find this for around 10 bucks US, the up to date semantic translations between physics, bio and chem are worth a quick read. The author obviously has a lot of experience translating catalysis, dynamic systems, molecular memory and ideas like information storage, frequent in bio, absent in chem, so as a bridge, it's a great little read. Everything else falls apart right around the nucleus of it's value: semantics. The author claims that we can "simply" apply Darwinian evolution to "purpose" in chemical catalysis to understand life. He then allows that Darwin left out all the paths and connections, which is no big deal due to Paleontology. What he misses (in an important Dettmer-Goldblatt The Logical Thinking Process: A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving sense) is that you CAN'T do that with molecular paths-- the devil, and the causes are IN the detail and paths. His missing arrows, ellipses and boxes ARE crucial to life's dynamics, and without them his theory BECOMES semantics, not science. Example: Life isn't design, it is purposive searching for replicative methods using entropy busting kinetic chemical directives to defeat thermodynamic equilibrium forces. He, and his buddy Hawking, miss the fact that search and directives are information and design terms. He calls Intelligent Design types "peddlers" -- then peddles his own semantic version of design! Pross says with all kinds of reverence that dynamic systems will revolutionize chemistry. Please-- this idea is 12 years old and we're far beyond popular press awe now, and into the tough math of softly constrained nonlinear dynamics vs. hard constraint dynamics with inequalities. This level includes triple integrals, matrix calculus and abundant partial derivatives and tensors. Nothing of substance in this book in that regard. There are hundreds of books written on the ODE/ equality - fuzzy constraint side of dynamics by the way, but only ONE covering inequalities and hard constraints that are becoming more and more important in DNA: David Stewart (A Dynamics With Inequalities: Impacts and Hard Constraints (Applied Mathematics). Finally, the author gives the wonderful punchline that, yes, humans really ARE just pond scum, ala his idiot buddy Hawking, but, guess what, because we are NETWORKED, we might be something a little more, and... sit down... why can't we all just get along? (Seriously, that's the ending/ punchline of the book!). Well, yes, reductionism means all arrows point down, but the bend over backward semantics to avoid design just gets silly. You don't HAVE to see reductionism as reverse engineering-- a Divine, Loving Creator giving us each instant to explore His skillfull designs, but at least acknowledge the projective importance of the human observer in creating the mulidimensional code-reality running beneath life! We're going to stop shooting school kids when we see that humans are vast, Godlike beings, not networked pond scum, and if his "hope for the future" is that, even as pond scum, we are bigger because there are a LOT of us... PLEASE! Individuals are NOT important in this bleak view... granted... we're selfish gene machines... and we get "this world" when that's all we think of individual human importance. Fortunately, science acknowledged, we still have spirit telling us each soul is vast and precious, not a collection of autocatalysts seeking enough energy to mate, then die, our purpose achieved. An annoying note: this guy continually adds "Nobel prize winner" to almost all of his citations throughout the book. Tone down the Nobel dispenser, dude! The real geniuses today are the 10,000 nameless Chinese and Indian mathematicians working IN dynamic systems. Get a clue. His European prejudice is almost as childish as my American prejudice, what can we do?
MatSpirit, I guess just writing down a bunch of misleading, incomplete, equations and misleading flow diagrams, and dresses it up in popular press awe, is enough for you to believe OOL is all figured out? I hate to break it to you Mat, that is not called science but is called being gullible. bornagain77
A classic response. I show you that M.Averick is pulling a fast one and you ask why that's a problem for ID. MatSpirit
MatSpirit, and exactly why would you think the sentence “No wonder the proponents of Intelligent Design manage to peddle their wares with such success!” is a problem for ID? Do you, Pross, or any Atheist, have any real evidence that unguided material processes can create 'simple' life?
“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 "To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU) First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation. "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes." http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Bornagain77 @ 1: "I like the quote by Pross that Averick highlighted Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah – Moshe Averick – September 23, 2016 “And here precisely lies the [origin of] life problem…it is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about. Certain basic laws of physics [coupled with mathematical probability] preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function… Biology [i.e. a naturalistic origin of life] and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible” Dr. Addy Pross, professor of chemistry, Ben-Gurion University, Israel. – What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford University Press, 2012 –" I like that quote by Pross too, especially the line M.Averick left out at the very end: "No wonder the proponents of Intelligent Design manage to peddle their wares with such success!" I don't blame you personally for this display of conspicuous dishonesty. You quoted M.Averick accurately and gave your source, so you're in the clear. But what does this say about M.Averick's basic honesty? Do you think HE saw that line? Personally, I'm sure he did. I invite any UDer to read, "What is life?" by Addy Pross. Just don't expect to find any support for Intelligent Design in it. MatSpirit
I have been asking the world's most known authorities on OOL and many evolutionists who seem to be convinced that there are no gods, what evidence persuaded them to believe that life originated without an intelligent creator. Can anybody guess what answers I got from Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Joe Felsenstein, Larry Moran, Nick Mitzke and many, many more? J-Mac
Look, that OOL-M guy is just SLOW, okay? For no particular reason, the band got ahead of him and people started to dance. Like, what do you expect? So when he arrived ... the party ... News
The Confused World of Modern Atheism...one the best book titles of all-time! Thinking themselves wise they became fools. Pitiful creatures. Truth Will Set You Free
For many years Darwinists denied that information was even in the cell. Many Darwinists claimed that information was 'just a metaphor” that they could just as well do without, and as such they are at a complete loss to explain why biological life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. That Darwinian materialists have no real clue as to exactly why biological life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium is made evident by these following two articles:
“We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB -- and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme's active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second. But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." - Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294) Editor-in-Chief of Science (2009-2013). Dr Alberts served two six-year terms as the president of the National Academy of Sciences Flailing Blindly: The Pseudoscience of Josh Rosenau and Carl Zimmer - Jonathan Wells - April 17, 2014 Excerpt: The new animation (like the old) also includes a kinesin molecule hauling a vesicle, but this time the kinesin's movements are characterized (in Zimmer's words) by
"barely constrained randomness. Every now and then, a tiny molecule loaded with fuel binds to one of the kinesin "feet." It delivers a jolt of energy, causing that foot to leap off the molecular cable and flail wildly, pulling hard on the foot that's still anchored. Eventually, the gyrating foot stumbles into contact again with the cable, locking on once more -- and advancing the vesicle a tiny step forward. This updated movie offers a better way to picture our most intricate inner workings.... In the 2006 version, we can't help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it's as if they're trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don't operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd."
But that's not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/flailing_blindl084521.html
In fact, recent advances in quantum biology have left these grossly inadequate 19th century materialistic assumptions of Darwinists in the dust and have effectively empirically falsified Darwinian claims that information is 'emergent' from a material basis:
Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCs3WXHqOv8&index=3&list=PLtAP1KN7ahiYxgYCc-0xiUAhNWjT4q6LD Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Today, Luo and Lo say these curves can be easily explained if the process of folding is a quantum affair. By conventional thinking, a chain of amino acids can only change from one shape to another by mechanically passing though various shapes in between. But Luo and Lo say that if this process were a quantum one, the shape could change by quantum transition, meaning that the protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/ "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
That non-material information should be found to be running the show in biology, while completely unexpected by Darwinian materialists, is expected on the Christian worldview: Verse and Music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Brooke Fraser - Hillsong: “Lord Of Lords” Worship and Praise Song  (HQ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlqDIfS4O3s
Supplemental notes:
Scientific Evidence That We Do Indeed Have A Soul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2P45Obl4lQ&index=2&list=PLtAP1KN7ahiYxgYCc-0xiUAhNWjT4q6LD Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&index=1&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5
Verse and Music:
Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? The Allman Brothers Band - Soulshine - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L3BYTS8uxM
I like the quote by Pross that Averick highlighted
Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah - Moshe Averick - September 23, 2016 “And here precisely lies the [origin of] life problem…it is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about. Certain basic laws of physics [coupled with mathematical probability] preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function… Biology [i.e. a naturalistic origin of life] and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible” Dr. Addy Pross, professor of chemistry, Ben-Gurion University, Israel. – What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford University Press, 2012 – ,,, the awe and wonder of the miraculous design and engineering that characterizes every single living creature on earth points as clearly to Divine creation in our day as it did in the period before Charles Darwin published his famous treatise. In their heart of hearts, non-believers like Richard Dawkins understand that the Origin of Life problem means that their so called “scientific atheism” stands on a foundation of thin air and wishful thinking. That is why they longingly cast their eyes towards the horizon in hope of the imminent arrival of the atheist Origin of Life messiah who will finally explain how life can come from non-life without the involvement of that annoying Creator.,,, https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/09/23/atheists-still-waiting-for-the-origin-of-life-messiah/
Indeed “Certain basic laws of physics [coupled with mathematical probability] preach the same sermon”. The mathematical probability for a 'simple' cell forming spontaneously, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, explodes into gargantuan proportions over the 'rough' estimates of probability when working from proteins alone. From proteins alone, we find this probability:
Signature in the Cell - Book Review - Ken Peterson Excerpt: If we assume some minimally complex cell requires 250 different proteins then the probability of this arrangement happening purely by chance is one in 10 to the 164th multiplied by itself 250 times or one in 10 to the 41,000th power. http://www.spectrummagazine.org/reviews/book_reviews/2009/10/06/signature_cell
Even though one in 10 to the 41,000th power is certainly impressive, Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life 'problem' escalates dramatically over the oft cited 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a thermodynamic perspective:
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)
Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with an already existing cell and came up with this number:
DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold 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
Also of interest is the information content that is found to be in a ‘simple’ cell when working from the thermodynamic perspective:
"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] HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm 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/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm '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 “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
Dr Andy C. McIntosh, who is the Professor of Thermodynamics at the University of Leeds. (which is, I believe, the highest teaching/research rank in the U.K.), states that information “is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy”
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system.,,,
Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information as independent of energy and matter 'resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions'.
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - 2013 Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Of related note, information has now been experimentally shown to have a ‘thermodynamic content’
Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) 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/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html 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.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform Information: From Maxwell’s demon to Landauer's eraser - Lutz and Ciliberto - Oct. 25, 2015 - Physics Today Excerpt: The above examples of gedanken-turned-real experiments provide a firm empirical foundation for the physics of information and tangible evidence of the intimate connection between information and energy. They have been followed by additional experiments and simulations along similar lines.12 (See, for example, Physics Today, August 2014, page 60.) Collectively, that body of experimental work further demonstrates the equivalence of information and thermodynamic entropies at thermal equilibrium.,,, (2008) Sagawa and Ueda’s (theoretical) result extends the second law to explicitly incorporate information; it shows that information, entropy, and energy should be treated on equal footings. http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Information.pdf J. Parrondo, J. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa. Thermodynamics of information. Nature Physics, 11:131-139, 2015.

Leave a Reply