25 Replies to “Origin of life has not been explained

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Yes, we know. It’s still a mystery. Mystery does not automatically mean God did it.

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    Doesn’t mean darwin did it either

  3. 3
    OLV says:

    AaronS1978 @2:

    Good point. Thanks.
    However, empirically it’s evident that the abundance of complex functionally specified information within the simplest cell strongly implies a conscious designer with purpose and meaning.

    To whom this may concern:
    Please, be aware that beyond the deeply mysterious OOL, we have other very difficult outstanding questions about how the functional complexity of the complex functionality in biological systems appeared on the scene and how exactly it works.

    Turing mechanisms have been proposed to regulate a wide range of patterning phenomena in biology. Some of these have later been shown to be controlled in a different way. It is therefore important to remain cautious.

    It is an open question how the branch angles are defined.

    Related to this is the problem of how buds first emerge once FGF10 and GDNF signalling have marked the points of outgrowth.

    Further work is still required to understand how the characteristic shape of different organs emerges from the interplay of epithelial and mesenchymal dynamics, and how mechanical constraints contribute.

    Image-based modeling of kidney branching morphogenesis reveals GDNF-RET based Turing-type mechanism and pattern-modulating WNT11 feedback
    Nat Commun. 2019; 10: 239.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08212-8
    Denis Menshykau,1,2 Odyssé Michos,1,2,3 Christine Lang,1,2 Lisa Conrad,1,2 Andrew P. McMahon,3 and Dagmar Iber

  4. 4
    Brother Brian says:

    Origin Of Life Has Not Been Explained

    Thank you Captain Obvious. 🙂

    AaronS1978

    Doesn’t mean darwin did it either.

    Darwin never proposed any mechanism for the origin of life. He may have commented on it, but I don’t recall.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev @ 1:

    Yes, we know. It’s still a mystery. Mystery does not automatically mean God did it.

    No it does not ‘automatically’ imply that God did it. We would have to put some further scientific evidence behind what we already have. Let’s see is we can help Sev find that scientific evidence.

    In the video, Dr James Tour, (who is very well respected for his breakthroughs in synthetic chemistry, and who is regarded as one of the top ten synthetic chemists in the world), states the insurmountable problem for atheistic materialists as such:

    “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
    https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=255

    What Dr. Tour touched upon in that preceding comment is the fact that having the correct sequential information in DNA is not nearly enough. Besides the sequential information in DNA there is also a vast amount of ‘positional information’ that must be accounted for as well.

    The positional information that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be on the order 10 to the 12 bits,,, which is several orders of magnitude more information than the amount of sequential information that is encoded on the DNA of a ‘simple’ bacterium.

    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 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

    And in regards to this vast amount of positional information that must be accounted for, 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

    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 completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, (presuppositions about information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water.

    In other words, contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, information, particularly ‘positional information’, is now experimentally shown to be its own distinct physical entity that, although it can interact with matter and energy, is its own independent entity. On top of all that, this positional information is found to be “a property of an observer who describes a system.”

    In other words, Intelligent Design has, for all intents and purposes, achieved experimental confirmation.

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

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

    And quantum information in particular requires a non-local, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain its existence: As the following article 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 – October 28, 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,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and member of the team.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

    Materialists simple have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to in order to explain this quantum information, whereas Theists do:

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Supplemental note:

    The failure of reductive materialism to be able to give an adequate account for the basic form, and/or the positional information, of any particular living organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remarked that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings “challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  6. 6
    gpuccio says:

    Brother Brian at #4:

    The problem of functional information is the same for origin of life as for eukaryogenesis or the origin of metazoa or the origin of vertebrates: in all cases, tons of original functional information appear without any possible non design explanation.

    If the neo-darwinian theory could explain the generation of functional information, it could explain that in all scenarios.

    Unfortunately, it’ can’t.

    And even if Darwin did not deal with OOL, all further attempts to explain that mystery have been trying to use some form of darwinian evolution from some imagined simple beginning. So, they are using the same wrong concepts that have been used for the evolution of species and for all other cases of complex functional information in biology.

  7. 7
    gpuccio says:

    Seversky:

    “Mystery does not automatically mean God did it.”

    Yes. But it means that you cannot really even try to build an explanation if you don’t consider the only appropriate explanation: some form of design intervention.

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BB

    Darwin never proposed mechanism for the origin of life. He may have commented on it, but I don’t recall.

    My dear Hooker,

    … It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

    But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

    — Charles Darwin

  9. 9
    Brother Brian says:

    SA, thank you. That had slipped my mind.

  10. 10
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ bb
    I was just being a dip

  11. 11
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1978

    I was just being a dip

    I haven’t heard that phrase since my university days. In my days it was a derogatory term used to refer to kids in a two year diploma stream. I suspect it means something different to you.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    It’s still a mystery.

    It will always be a mystery for materialism. That’s because it didn’t happen via materialistic processes.

    Mystery does not automatically mean God did it.

    True, the overwhelming evince for Intelligent Design does not implicate any God. And that overwhelming evidence for ID is not going to go away.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    Darwin never proposed any mechanism for the origin of life.

    True and yet how life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. Unless someone can show that life arose via blind and mindless process there isn’t any reason to say life evolved via blind and mindless processes.

  14. 14
    OLV says:

    Gpuccio @6:

    “The problem of functional information is the same for origin of life as for eukaryogenesis or the origin of metazoa or the origin of vertebrates: in all cases, tons of original functional information appear without any possible non design explanation.”

    Exactly.

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    AaronS1978 @ 2

    Doesn’t mean darwin did it either

    True, in fact I’m pretty sure he didn’t – unless he was really Dr Who in one of his many guises.

  16. 16
    AaronS1978 says:

    SCREW Dr. Who! That man had issues dealing with a space squid in a hovering trash can wielding a plunger! I would have just tipped them and ran up the stairs. BUUUUTTT NOOOO, the writers realized this was a fatal flaw and gave them hover jets!

    There’s my rant of the day

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    Brother Brian @ 4

    Darwin never proposed any mechanism for the origin of life. He may have commented on it, but I don’t recall.

    From a letter to Joseph Hooker written in 1863

    It will be some time before we see “slime, snot or protoplasm” (what an elegant writer) generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process.—It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 5

    In the video, Dr James Tour, (who is very well respected for his breakthroughs in synthetic chemistry, and who is regarded as one of the top ten synthetic chemists in the world), states the insurmountable problem for atheistic materialists as such:…

    So the point of this video from Dr Tour is that we have no idea how life arose from inanimate matter, if indeed it did. Your other C&P is making much the same point. Fine, we all agree. No one has any idea as yet of how abiogenesis occurred. But is human knowledge on this matter exhaustive, do we know all there is to know on the subject? Far from it. So we are not in a position to insist that the only possible explanation is that God did it. At this time, like it or not, it’s still a mystery.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    But is human knowledge on this matter exhaustive, do we know all there is to know on the subject?

    We know enough to rule out a materialistic origin of life. The only mystery is how the designing intelligence did it. But right now that is akin to asking Amazon tribes who have never seen technology to explain how an iPhone was made.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky appeals to naturalism and/or materialism of the gaps, and yet, via experimental realization of the Maxwell demon thought experiment, we now know that,,,

    “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.”,,,

    And we also now know 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 – October 28, 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,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and member of the team.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

    And these beyond space and time ‘quantum correlations’ are now found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology

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

    Darwinian materialists simply have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to in order to explain these quantum correlations, whereas Christian Theists do have a cause, i.e. an ‘outside observer’, to appeal to:

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    As Hebrews chapter 4 verse 13 states, “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”

    Hebrews 4:13
    And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

  21. 21
    PavelU says:

    The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting the Intelligent Design Hoax
    Rosa Rubicondior

    ID is not a problem for science; rather science is a problem for ID. This book shows why. It exposes the fallacy of Intelligent Design by showing that, when examined in detail, biological systems are anything but intelligently designed. They show no signs of a plan and are quite ludicrously complex for whatever can be described as a purpose. The Intelligent Design movement relies on almost total ignorance of biological science and seemingly limitless credulity in its target marks. Its only real appeal appears to be to those who find science too difficult or too much trouble to learn yet want their opinions to be regarded as at least as important as those of scientists and experts in their fields.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    And yet neither Rosa Rubicondior nor anyone else can demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce the genetic code from the bottom up. They cannot show that those processes can produce a living organism. Nature tends towards the simple so the “ludicrously complex” would be out of its reach. The total ignorance of biological science is of the anti-ID ilk. Theirs is supposed to be all about the how and yet they have nothing. It is only ignorance and wishful thinking based on that ignorance that allows people to hold onto blind watchmaker evolution and materialism. Blind ideology devoid of reason and science.

    To refute ID one has to show that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. Absent that all you have is whining and strawman burning.

  23. 23
    doubter says:

    Based on briefly perusing the material on Amazon, this self-published little piece of trash seems to reveal monumental ignorance of too many areas to bother to list, and limitless credulity in obediently ingesting the standard neo-Darwinian just-so stories. The author’s primary argument seems to be that “the Christian God wouldn’t do it this way”, using various examples of the cruelty and apparent pointlessness of biological nature, especially parasitism. So ID (assumed by the author to be fundamentalist Creationism) is bunk; of course natural selection and random mutations can do absolutely everything.

    Nothing new here, just a little more ignorant virulent hatred of heretical non-believers in the religion of Darwinism, and of Deists in general reserving the most venom for Christians.

    A short quote:

    Natural selection is the most parsimonious explanation both for the appearance of design and for the appearance of a stupid designer. Living things look exactly as you would expect them to look if designed by a utilitarian, mindless, purposeless design process given direction only by the environment in which it operates.

    Now that we can stand on the shoulders of giants like Darwin and Wallace, we can see further than other men. We can now see further than the Bronze Age goat-herder who thought up the creation myth and who couldn’t even see over the horizon – and who thought the earth was flat.

    We can see now that there is nothing supernatural required and nothing supernatural involved, and we need pay no heed to the ignorant gibberings of superstitious simpletons who insist it was all the work of their own small gods, and the clamour of the parasitic charlatans who feed off their ignorance.

  24. 24
    AaronS1978 says:

    To be honest with you I never understood why God always has to make everything with a purpose God doesn’t have to do that

    Now what does seem very evident that is something that God has to do is balance everything perfectly so we can all continue to exist, both the good and the bad

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    D, apparently, he is unaware that Wallace was a pioneer of intelligent design, as can be seen from his The World of Life. KF

Leave a Reply