Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Origin of life: If bubbles were cells, gloves would be hands

arroba Email

Remember Alexandr Oparin and coacervate theory? Now a remake:

Origin-of-life research reported at Penn State begins with diagrams of spheres of various diameters. The headline by Sam Sholtis announces, “Models for potential precursors of cells endure simulated early-Earth conditions.” …

Physicists at the University of Chicago joined in the work on this new coacervate theory. The news, “Study shows how tiny compartments could have preceded cells,” is dressed up with a very sciency picture of the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory. The half-mile accelerator allowed molecular engineer Dean Matthew Tirrell to peek inside the bubbles after wet/dry cycles. Lo and behold! The ingredients were getting concentrated! They were evolving! It’s alive! …

To show that Oparin the Marxist revolutionary is still honored in the origin-of-life field, read this 2012 article for Evolution News where, despite Oparin’s numerous wrong ideas, Nature almost conferred sainthood on him. As for his famous “complex coacervates,” Nature said, “This hypothesis of colloidal assembly has largely been displaced by other concepts of life’s origins.” Oh really? It’s back!

Evolution News, “Sorry, Origin-of-Life Researchers, But Bubbles Are Not Cells” at Evolution News and Science Today

Here’s the joint (open access) paper.

It’s best to see origin-of-life studies today as an upper class science hobby.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

EugeneS, Yes, I remember being taught about coacervates. And then they started wiggling . . . LOL! -Q Querius
Bornagain77 @3
Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Nicely stated, although I wouldn't call them exactly "adrift." No, they're carefully navigating between the boulders and snags of reality to steer a course of their own imagination. There's always an alternate explanation that they can resort to if needed. Ever hear about the two farmers who were bragging about the size of their farms? One said, "My farm is so big, that it takes me the entire day to drive across it!" The other farmer replied, "Yeah, I once had a car like that." My mental picture is of smashed colored glass shards being our scientific observations and facts. Darwinists and those advocating spontaneous generation arrange the shards into a mosaic image of their choosing, liberally slathering the grout of speculation and evolutionary "junk" between the shards. It makes a pretty mosaic, but it's simply not what happened and they cannot generate life in a petri dish even with complete control over the environment and using all the constituents they might need. Miller-Urey tried it and it was celebrated at the time as proving the origin of life. Darwinists also rely on assigning anything that they don't understand as "junk." And the presence of junk is supposed to prove that evolution is true. Wiedersheim's list of human "vestigial organs" was eventually expanded to 180! Darwinists are still clinging to a half dozen or so rather than admitting they don't know how they work. Take a look at the lists, both current and past. -Q Querius
==on this new coacervate theory== Oh, please, not again... )) EugeneS
I seem to remember that a prominent Darwinist, it could have been Eugenie Scott, at one time said that Intelligent Design proponents suffer from a failure of imagination. But as the current 'bubble theory' highlighted in the OP makes clear, the problem is not that Intelligent Design proponents lack imagination, the problem is that Darwinists have far too much imagination, and worse yet, they believe that their, basically, completely unrestrained imagination somehow constitutes empirical proof for their theory. Don't get me wrong, imagination does have its place in science. But that place is strictly limited to the 'guesses' that a scientist makes in forming his hypothesis. And that hypothesis, i.e. 'imaginative guess', is what we subsequently test against the real world to see if that imaginative guess could possibly be true. As Richard Feynman, one of the main founders of Quantum Electrodynamics, stated,
,, "Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Richard Feynman Teaches you the Scientific Method https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/
And in regards to "If it, (i.e. the imaginative guess), disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it", in regards to that, there are multiple instances of the 'imaginative guesses' of Darwinists disagreeing with experimental evidence and yet Darwinists simply refusing to ever accept, or even meaningfully acknowledge, any of those many experimental evidences that falsify their theory, i.e. that falsify their 'imaginative guesses'. Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see 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. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is 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. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
There simply is nothing that Darwinists can point to within their theory, i.e. within their 'imaginative guess', and say, ‘and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a rigorous and hard science instead of a pseudoscience’.
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
As Berlinski noted,
“I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – David Berlinski – A Scientific Scandal – 2005
In fact, instead of properly differentiating what is imaginary and illusory from the real world with experimentation, (as science inevitably does when it weeds out the hypothesis, i.e. 'imaginative guesses', that are wrong), Darwinists, as the current 'bubble theory' makes clear, are in fact heavily reliant on 'illusion' as an explanation in their theory, rather than Darwinists relying on experimentation as a proof for their theory (as all the other hard sciences rely on experimentation), Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
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;
Of related note to the false claim from Darwinists, and others, that science must be based on the assumption of 'methodological naturalism, contrary to that false claim, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the assumption of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the assumption methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Oh my god this guy he was toting this crap like 10 years ago and he still toting the bubbles theory I can’t remember what show he was on but I saw him running around blowing bubbles it was quite possibly one of the stupidest things I’ve seen AaronS1978
That reminds me of an amazing quote I recently ran across:
“I cannot understand how so many distinguished men have been of the opinion that matter . . . was uncreated. That is, was not formed by God Himself, who is the Creator of all things. Rather, they say that its nature and power were the result of chance.”
But the amazing thing about this quote is who wrote it and when: It was penned by Origen, an early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian, in Of First Principles 2.4 in AD 225! -Q Querius

Leave a Reply