Show a naturalistic origin of life and win $10 million

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 16, 2019

Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Origin Of Life}

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

Can chemistry crack the mystery of the origin of life? Or does the information required for Life to begin point beyond naturalistic explanations?
Justin is joined by Perry Marshall who has established the $10m Evolution 2.0 Prize for anyone who can show a natural explanation for life. Lee Cronin of Glasgow University is confident that his experimental research could win it. Denis Noble also joins the conversation as they discuss the nature of life and whether current evolutionary theory can account for its origins.
“Unbelievable? How on Earth did life begin? Lee Cronin, Perry Marshall and Denis Noble on the origins of life” at Premier Christian Radio

More re the $10 million prize.

Interesting to see Denis Noble taking part in the discussion.

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

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

@29 PavelU: 'Here’s the answer to the OOL question': https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article And what is that 'answer', please? 'Science stop your endeavors! The Origen of Life is no longer a mystery!'. Oh wait...Truthfreedom_{January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

PavelU, it is clear that you do not even read your papers that you cite. If you continue to spam us with flagrant literature bluffs, I will request to have you removed from UD. You current claim is:
Here’s the answer to the OOL question:
Yet here is what the paper actually says,
First, a few words about the Millennium Prize that was established by London Clay. It was established in 2000 by the Clay Mathematics Institute with a fund of $7 million for seven unsolved problems, $1 million going to anyone who solved any of these seven problems. For the history of the prize, see [http://www.claymath.org/millennium/]. Since then, only one problem has been solved. It was by the Russian mathematician, Grigori Perelman, who solved the Poincare conjecture and was awarded the prize in 2010, but refused to accept it.
And number 1 on their list of unsolved problems, directly contrary to PavelU's claim, is, you guessed it, the Origin of Life,
1.1. List 1 1. Origin of life
PavelU, unlike your literature bluffs, I am not bluffing in my warning to you.bornagain77_{January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Here’s the answer to the OOL question: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000115PavelU_{January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

PavelU ==Darwin provided the explanation over 150 years ago.== So those who are still working on it (and those who put a prize worth $10mln) are just uneducated villagers, right? ;) ==Lee Cronin, the potential winner== Oh yes, let's wish him good luck getting the prize ;)EugeneS_{December 26, 2019
December
12
Dec
26
26
2019
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Sev, 15 (& attn PU): And the empirically observed undirected blind chance and mechanical necessity driven origin of digital codes, machine languages and associated algorithms with execution machinery is ___________ The observed spontaneous origin of novel cell based life or the equivalent, on blind chance and machanical necessity is _______ The observed spontaneous origin of the 10 - 100+ Mbit genome increments leading to novel body plans [~ phylum level, cf Cambrian fossil revolution) is __________ The observed emergence of free, responsible, actually rational, language using, en-conscienced mind through blind chance and mechanical necessity is __________ The observed production of FSCO/I -- e.g. meaningful text -- beyond 500 - 1,000 bits by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity is _______ (Where, stunts like Weasel need not apply) The Nobel or equivalent prizes for such stunning successes includes ____________ working in the following institutions _______ and replicated by _____________ and here are the headlined splash announcements of said prizes in newspapers of record _________ Bluff on "Salem Hypothesis" called. Show your cards. KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

DRC466, I headlined your comment at 21 KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

OLV, I usually say functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I. KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

Is that guy really a professor at a university in Scotland ? So much nonsense. What prize did he win? I didn’t get that memo.jawa_{December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

For those of you who did not understand it before, here’s a better explanation of OoL by Lee Cronin, the potential winner of the Evo 2.0 $10M prize: https://youtu.be/Mhr9NkOQgwEPavelU_{December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Functional Specified Complex Organization and Information ? Functional Complexity and Complex Functionality ? Here's a recent paper, among many others, that shows that biology research is increasingly unveiling an amazing system, which must be carefully studied in order to be understood well: Ciliogenesis associated kinase 1: targets and functions in various organ systems
Ciliogenesis associated kinase 1 (CILK1) was previously known as intestinal cell kinase because it was cloned from that origin. However, CILK1 is now recognized as a widely expressed and highly conserved serine/threonine protein kinase.

In this review, we summarize what is known about CILK1 functions and targets, and discuss gaps in current knowledge that motivate further experimentation to fully understand the role of CILK1 in organ development in humans.
Regulation of CILK1 by phosphorylation
Little else is known about the mechanism and the effect of the T14Y15 motif phosphorylation in CILK1 and MAK.
Intrinsically disordered but functionally critical non?catalytic domain
intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) Although IDPs lack well?defined three?dimensional structures, they are known to rely on short linear motifs to interact with folded protein domains and facilitate key protein functions Better understanding of the basis for CTD functions merits further investigation.
CILK1 substrate phosphorylation consensus
To date, there are still major gaps in our knowledge about how primary cilia are formed, maintained and function in signal transduction, and the mechanisms associated with ciliary dysfunction are yet to be fully elucidated.

Further studies are required to find out how CILK1 supports ‘catch?up’ growth of intestinal epithelium in response to nutrient deficiency and impacts the pathophysiological outcomes induced by the vicious cycle of malnutrition and infection.

Surprisingly, loss of CILK1 function in brain affects ciliogenesis only in neural progenitor cells, not in mature neurons, suggesting a neuronal cell type?specific effect of CILK1 in ciliogenesis.
CILK1 in lung morphogenesis and primitive alveoli formation
The mechanism by which CILK1 regulates lung morphogenesis and sacculation through ciliary signaling and autophagy is still unclear and awaits future investigation.
CILK1 in skeletal development
the mechanisms underlying these skeletal phenotypes are not fully understood
CILK1 in inner ear development and auditory function
The cochlea in the inner ear is the hearing organ. The planar cell polarity (PCP) signalling pathway plays a critical role in the establishment of cellular asymmetry within the plane of a sheet of inner ear sensory hair cells.

The mechanism by which CILK1 controls cilia morphology and function and the establishment of PCP in the cochlea remains to be elucidated.
CILK1 in cardiac development
Conditional KO mouse models will be needed to interrogate the role of CILK1 in the heart under both normal and pathophysiological conditions.
CILK1 in kidney and adrenal glands
CILK1 has a highly conserved role in regulating cilia function

CILK1 may be involved in the development of adrenal glands through regulating various ciliary signalling pathways.
CILK1 targets in signalling pathways
Further studies are required to address how CILK1 phosphorylation of KIF3A?Thr672 affects IFT and ciliogenesis, and whether deregulation of this phosphorylation event is required for the ciliopathy phenotypes caused by CILK1 dysfunction.
Targeting Raptor in mTORC1 signalling
CILK1 could regulate ciliogenesis and IFT through phosphorylation of Raptor and activation of mTORC1.
Targeting Scythe in autophagy
These observations raise the question whether CILK1 loss?of?function increased autophagy for the elongation of primary cilia in ECO ciliopathy.

Whether CILK1 controls ciliogenesis in part through regulating autophagy via phosphorylation of Scythe awaits further investigation.
Targeting GSK3? in hedgehog signalling
These results raise the hypothesis that CILK1 negatively regulates GSK3? activity through inhibitory Thr7 phosphorylation to suppress cilia formation and Hh signalling.
Conclusions and perspectives
Ciliogenesis associated kinase 1 has an essential role in human development.

Several candidate substrates for CILK1 have been identified, such as KIF3A, Raptor and Scythe but how they mediate CILK1 effects on cilia morphology and function is still poorly defined. How the phosphorylation of these substrates relates to mutant CILK1 ciliopathies and epilepsy is completely unknown.

Although remarkable progress has been made within the past two decades, many significant questions remain to be addressed in future research.
Does CILK1 have cellular functions separate from the primary cilium?
It is likely that CILK1 interacts with distinct pools of substrates and signalling proteins in its various locations within cells. Biochemical isolation and characterization of these mutation?specific CILK1 complexes may expose other, new targets for the diversity of CILK1 signalling.
What are the environmental stimuli that activate or inactivate CILK1?
Primary cilium offers a unique signalling environment. The primary cilium contains many cell surface receptors, including GPCR, RTK, Hh, PDGFR?, TGF?, and WNT. The cilium provides highly efficient signal processing, with a remarkably large ratio of sensing surface to internal volume. This restricted intracellular environment favours generation of high concentrations of second messengers such as calcium and cyclic AMP and protein?protein interactions. How CILK1 is regulated in this unique signalling environment is largely unknown. What extracellular signals impact CILK1 activity? Is CILK1 intracellular localization regulated? We need to move beyond establishing a requirement for CILK1 in ciliary?dependent functions and define with more precision what CILK1 does, and how. The answers to these questions will require tools to track CILK1 activity in time and space under different cellular conditions. Plus, we need to understand how ciliopathy?associated mutations affect CILK1 activation and inactivation, as well as association with and phosphorylation of different substrates, and the effects on these targets.
Do CILK1, MAK, and MOK have similar or distinct functions and mechanisms of action?
The effects of CILK1 and MOK on cilium length both require mTORC1 signalling, but identification of their individual downstream targets and effectors require further investigation.

A key question that remains to be addressed in our future study is whether the ciliary functions of CILK1 and MAK are distinct or redundant, and whether these kinases utilize different targets and pathways to regulate ciliary length and ciliary transport machinery.
OLV_{December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

As a sidenote, there is nothing more irritating than the constant (invalid) refrain from evolutionists of "argument from incredulity". And the variant "God of the Gaps" or "Goddidit" accusations. When a scientist, engineer, or layman for that matter, conclusively demonstrates mathematically or empirically that something is impossible, that is not an "argument from incredulity". It is a proof requiring evidence to the contrary. Say, for example, that I make the claim "Iron doesn't float". That's not an argument from incredulity, that is a positive hypothesis based on experimental observation that contradicts an alternate theory, that iron does float. Now, a clever individual may come along, create a boat from the iron, and say, "Look - iron does float. Your theory is falsified." Which may lead me to restate my theory - "Iron not shaped in such a fashion to capture 'lighter than water' materials within its volume does not float". Again - this is not an argument from incredulity, it is a theory that requires contrary evidence to disprove. So, when Dr. Axe presents mathematical and empirical evidence that new gene and protein folds cannot occur via gradualistic processes, that is not an "argument from incredulity". It requires falsification. Merely stating "yeah, we can't provide you any empirical evidence, mathematical equations, or even realistic computer models that contradict that assertion, but you're wrong because argument from incredulity!" is not just invalid, it's outright offensive. And ignorant. And yet, evolutionists do it all the time! "Organic molecules degrade in 1000's of years not millions. Original organic material has been found in these fossils. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old." - "Argument from incredulity!" "Mutation experiments demonstrate a limit of random mutations before the organism becomes non-viable, and no evidence than mutations can add new information." - "Argument from incredulity!" "Mutation rates in genetic material show that even the millions of years evolutionists claim occurred are insufficient to account for any major phyletic transition" - "Argument from incredulity!" "The time period for the 'Cambrian Explosion' is significantly too small to allow for the wide variety of body plans that appeared during this period." - "Argument from incredulity!" "2 + 2 does not equal 22" - "Argument from incredulity!" It's really tiresome, don't you think? If I ever use the phrase, I hope someone slaps me. If you honestly believe that someone is postulating a theory based solely on whether or not they personally believe something is possible, then you should be able to offer a reasonable explanation of how it is possible, not just hide behind mommy's "argument from incredulity" skirt. So childish.drc466_{December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

blind unguided chance, builds sophisticated systems
As mentioned, there's no evidence of that. Even more, that blind, unintelligent effects can create conscious, rational, intelligent minds. It's beyond absurd and I can't believe anyone can still defend evolutionism. The only way to do it is to be completely ignorant of what is required and what the science shows.Silver Asiatic_{December 18, 2019
December
12
Dec
18
18
2019
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

@Drc466 I agree with your analysis. Feedback loops degrade subsequent outputs with more noise. This seemed like the typical evo hype that has been thrown around for years. blind unguided chance, builds sophisticated systems. I did not like the reference to ID as God needing to intervene. (the typical misunderstanding of ID) God created 1st, and then 2nd, providence. The universe smacks of front loading during the creative event. In the beginning was the word (logos), information. They do not have a driver for these proposed systems.buffalo_{December 18, 2019
December
12
Dec
18
18
2019
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Seversky
the much bigger problem for ID/creationists is why we should observe any variation at all in what should be the perfect creations of a perfect creator
That's a philosophical and theological critique of creationism. You're starting with the claim of a perfect creator and then working back to see if the creation is also perfect. But ID does not talk about the nature or properties of the creator. A discussion about Christian creationist ideas requires a much deeper analysis.. It's a religious argument so you have to be more aware of Christian theology. ID does not require the religious understanding of that sort.
Axe’s case is simply another variant of the argument from incredulity. He can’t imagine how genetic or protein fold pathways to complex organs so they could not have happened.
You mentioned an "unimaginable being" just previously as a problem with recognizing God. But more importantly, if evolutionary theory could actually demonstrate what it claims, there wouldn't be any need for anyone to have to imagine how it could work. Until then, evolution does, indeed require a very wild and vivid imagination.Silver Asiatic_{December 18, 2019
December
12
Dec
18
18
2019
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Earth to seversky- There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. Natural selection has proven to be impotent as a designer mimic. And only the willfully ignorant thing that Intelligent Design means perfect design. It's very telling that not one evo can refute what Dr. Axe presented in peer-review. All you have is imagination and wishful thinking. Neither of those is science, though. And science deals in truth. Obviously you don't know jack about science. Falsify evolutionism? We are all waiting for the testable methodology. Right now there are so may holes and unanswered questions that yours doesn't even rise to the stage of a hypothesis.ET_{December 18, 2019
December
12
Dec
18
18
2019
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

At 15 Seversky proves exactly what I wrote at 12 "Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:" And indeed Seversky simply refuses to ever accept anything as falsifying evidence for his theory.bornagain77_{December 18, 2019
December
12
Dec
18
18
2019
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 12
Too funny, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a science:
Evolution is recognized and accepted as a theory in science by those far better qualified than you or I to adjudicate on the matter - biologist themselves. Unfortunately for you, the philosopher Paul Nelson admitted that ID fell short in this respect:
Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design.
Moving on, however:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.
You should at least try to understand the basics. Darwin knew nothing about the genome so had nothing to say about whether mutations were random or directed. And, no, the vast majority of mutations in the genome are not found to be "directed", certainly not in the sense you are implying.
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 of natural selection offered a naturalistic alternative to creationism which was the only credible explanation for the appearance of design up to that point. It may well be that natural selection is no longer considered to be the primary engine of variation but the much bigger problem for ID/creationists is why we should observe any variation at all in what should be the perfect creations of a perfect creator.
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.
Again, Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He did not propose that "brand new" species would arise just from mutations. He simply argued that descendent species could arise from natural selection acting on variations in the parent species. And there is plenty of experimental evidence for mutations in DNA having dramatic effects on the phenotype.
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
Whether or not you agree with it, you should at least be aware that current thinking holds that the majority of mutations are neutral or nearly-neutral in effect, a much smaller number are detrimental and an even smaller number still are beneficial. The theory argues that natural selection will filter out the detrimental effects leaving only the beneficial to have any effect, the neutral mutations being effectively invisible to selection.
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 the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the 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 was aware that fossilization was a rare occurrence so gaps were to be expected. The sudden appearance of some species could simply be an artefact of the coarse-grained image preserved in the fossil record. On the other hand, significant environmental changes could allow life to flourish relatively rapidly which could appear as an "explosion" even though it lasted for tens of millions of years.
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.”
Axe's case is simply another variant of the argument from incredulity. He can't imagine how genetic or protein fold pathways to complex organs so they could not have happened.
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 modern versions of it.”
How does Loennig show that all these plant species generated organs purely for the benefit of other species rather than for themselves?
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’.
Chalmers referred to the hard problem of consciousness not the insoluble problem of consciousness. No, we do not have a materialistic explanation for consciousness - yet - but our ignorance does not mean that there isn't one.
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!
The theory of evolution is about living creatures. It says nothing at all about the ontology of mathematics or Platonic realms.
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!.
Is a map an illusion? It is certainly not a one-to-one presentation of all the features of a landscape but, as a model created from the abstraction of salient features, it is nonetheless a very useful tool for navigating around it. As for the existence of objective reality being observer-dependent, you still haven't answered the question of, if nothing exists before it is observed, what is being observed in the first place?
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.
What is meant by "information" here because it sounds very much like you are equivocating between different usages?
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!
Science does not deal in truth but in explanations. The truth-value of an explanation lies in the extent to which it is found to correspond to the phenomena for which it is intended to provide an account.
Darwinists, 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.
The difficulty of explaining scientific concepts in non-teleological terms most probably arises from human languages having evolved originally to explain and describe the activities of purposive agents like human beings and other animals. The need for non-teleological terminology is a much more recent requirement. Your problem is that, while there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered, none of the objections listed above, especially those of more tangential relevance, taken either singly or in concert, amount to an irrefutable falsification of the theory of evolution.Seversky_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

More datapoints for the Salem Hypthesis.Seversky_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

So, I actually watched the whole program, and here are my takeaways: 1) Denis Noble's primary (only?) contribution was to emphasize that DNA was something of a "database" of information for a living cell, and that the origin of DNA was not as important as the origin of the cell and its processes. No argument there. His one statement made an implication that I don't think is accurate - namely, that evolutionists are superior because it is better to try to find a naturalistic explanation than just throw up your hands and say it can't be done. I have never heard anyone, ID, YEC, Neodarwinian or otherwise argue that scientists should stop OOL studies - most anti-evolutionists are in much favor of it, since (so far) they only bolster the claim that intelligent design is required and naturalistic explanations are exercises in frustration, futility and obfuscation. 2) For the most part, I found Perry Marshall to be eminently reasonable. He noted that the origin of information as symbolic code to be interpreted was key to the definition of life. Unfortunately, he also made one reference to how he came to his view of "Evolution 2.0" as an engineer that I found, frankly, illogical (additional comment below). He also made passing reference to the disagreements between chemists and biologists on OOL approaches, and made what I felt was a fairly accurate remark that most scientists working on OOL studies try to disingenously re-define life as simply replication, sans the information component. 3) Lee Cronin is a typical OOL scientist. He wants to a) redefine "life" as something other than what we recognize as life, b) propose as "life" a set of chemical reactions that result in a certain type of "salt" replicating until all available chemicals are consumed, and then c) wave the magic "...and extrapolate ad infinitum..." magic wand over the process so that he can then d) declare victory. "Look! A replicator that reduces alternatives and has an 'assembly' pathway! I win!" No explanation of how you get RNA, cell walls, DNA, homochirality, etc. - you know, all the stuff that makes up actual, real life forms. And then he had the nerve to say that James Tour just didn't understand the science and math. Without, you know, actually providing any examples of a single error Tour had supposedly made/said. I suspect that his research will quickly end with his "salt life" experiment, and that he will spend the rest of his career trying to market his results as having some relevance to OOL, which will be quickly and summarily dismissed by the prize committee as merely a trivial experiment in chemical (non-biological) reactions. Overall, I found the program interesting, but not terribly enlightening. If you are looking for a very, very basic description of the problems of OOL, and a potential step 1 of step 1 of step 1 of getting from chemicals to biology, this provides that. If you were looking for any real information on advances in OOL research, or why Lee Cronin thinks his research has accomplished any type of significant measurable step towards a naturalistic origin of the cell, none of that is in here. Coda: I was extremely disappointed in Mr. Marshall's supposed eureka moment, in which he states that, as an engineer, the fact that cells are designed in such a fashion to self-repair, adapt to their environment, etc., somehow contradicts the ID argument. It's somewhat similar to claiming that because a piece of code has exception handling and the ability to execute alternate methods when provided different inputs, that must mean that the code didn't need a programmer to program it! As an engineer myself, I didn't find it particular convincing.drc466_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

^^^^^^^^^^^ Too funny, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a science: Karl Popper stated that “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
And as Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated, “it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution ‘cannot be refuted by any possible observations’ and is thus “outside empirical science.”
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
Moreover, it is not that Darwinism has not already been falsified time and time again. It is that Darwinists themselves simple refuse to ever accept any falsification of their theory. 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 now 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 the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the 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 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! Darwinists, 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.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposed scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
“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
Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science.bornagain77_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Sev
Publicly acknowledging errors when they are pointed out and retracting papers in which they appear is a feature of science not a bug.
And the fact that the errors are identified by other scientists who generally agree with the “paradigm”, and addressed through the process that has been put in place as a check and balance, should lead credence to the process. A more important question would be “how many errors in the thousands :) of ID papers have been identified and retracted”?Ed George_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

"in 2014, Suzan Mazur interviewed Harvard professor and Nobel laureate Jack Szostak who said: “Life in lab in 3-5 years, most likely in 3 years ” again, Szostak said that in 2014 Now, in 2020, Jack Szostak HAS NOTHING …"
OOL hype is like Global warming hype. It is always off in the future somewhere but never materializes.bornagain77_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

. ... so is confronting contrary evidence.Upright BiPed_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Publicly acknowledging errors when they are pointed out and retracting papers in which they appear is a feature of science not a bug.Seversky_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

PavelU i watched Cronin's TED video. It is from 2011. It looks like Cronin was hallucinating during the presentation .... and so are you PavelU. 21st century science HAS NOTHING TO OFFER in order to explain the origin of life. in 2014, Suzan Mazur interviewed Harvard professor and Nobel laureate Jack Szostak who said: "Life in lab in 3-5 years, most likely in 3 years " again, Szostak said that in 2014 Now, in 2020, Jack Szostak HAS NOTHING ... Moreover, this Harvard professor and Nobel laureate Jack Szostak retracted his 2016 OOL paper (NATURE): from RetractionWatch.com: "”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal" "A Nobel Laureate has retracted a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry that explored the origins of life on earth, after discovering the main conclusions were not correct. " https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/05/definitely-embarrassing-nobel-laureate-retracts-non-reproducible-paper-nature-journal/martin_r_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

PavelU, hate to disturb you in your atheistic daydreams for a naturalistic OOL but,,,
since agent causality is ruled out of bounds in science by the artificial restriction of methodological naturalism, and since we are in fact causal agents ourselves, then demonstrating a miracle becomes as easy as falling off a log. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/oxford-mathematician-john-lennox-on-whether-a-scientist-can-believe-in-god/#comment-689662
bornagain77_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Wishful thinking is not scientific evidence, PavelU. In order to get the prize scientific evidence is requiredET_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

It seems like this OOL prize will be awarded soon https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0/update/2770 https://www.ft.com/content/dcb2ea12-83c8-11e9-9935-ad75bb96c849PavelU_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

Perry Marshal should give the prize to both Jack Szostak and Lee Cronin, right?PavelU_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

Here’s a recent presentation on the OOL: https://youtu.be/h1KqvoLEj7cPavelU_{December 17, 2019
December
12
Dec
17
17
2019
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply