Szostak on Abiogenesis: Just Add Water

_{Cornelius Hunter
August 22, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

This month’s Scientific American is another example of evolution’s influence on science. Read more

Comments

Seversky @ 19: “Leaving aside the fact that Darwin’s theory says nothing about the origins of “life, the Universe and everything…” His book is entitled On the ORIGIN of Species, is it not? If he only wanted to extrapolate on the changes noted within species (variations within each kind, such as different breeds of dogs or finches), he probably should have called it "On the Development of Species." Learned Hand @ 6: “Dr. Hunter is quoting from an article in a mass-media magazine. Their language is appropriate to that venue, as Dr. Hunter’s is to his own.” Which does not change the fact that words like “imagine” do not belong in a scientific paper. Either you have the facts on hand through experimentation or calculations or you do not. Guessing doesn’t cut it.Barb_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand, ID is not about supernatural creation. However if Dr Behe, for example, went into a lab a genetically engineered a bacterial flagellum, would that be evidence for ID?Joseph_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
Lucky, then, that the only random thing about evolution is mutation. And that is only random with respect to fitness.
1- How was that determined? 2- There are other random aspects also- finding a mate and accidents are just a couple. 3- Is fitness still defined by the number of offspring? 4- If so do you find that useful?Joseph_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand: "I don’t reject your skepticism because you haven’t “solved the problem.” No one has “solved the problem.” I reject your skepticism because it is ideological in nature and confined to criticisms of scientists who are trying to solve the problem. If you have made any constructive contribution to the effort, I would truly like to know about it." I think LH is making a reasonable request. I enjoy reading Dr. Hunter's articles because they do make me think...but on the other hand I always feel left hanging because I never hear something like "Here's what I think should happen...". There never seems to be any alternative hypotheses, suggestions for experiments or even any speculation. It actually makes for rather negative and depressing reading (and yes Dr. Hunter does unfortunately at times come across as rather bitter). I work for a large IT company and at times not everything runs as optimally as one would like. It's easy to make pot-shots and criticize what is being done, but a whole different matter to offer constructive solutions. Whatever you may think of Szotak and Ricardo - and, yes I agree that much of their hypotheses are probably speculative and not fully formed, they are at least trying to push our knowledge further through continued hypothesizing that they are trying to back-up with lab experimentation. Again, the challenge to Dr Hunter, given that you think so much of evolutionary theory is wrong, what kind of research program do you suggest to steer it in a different direction? Or are you just going to sit on the sidelines and make potshots?JTaylor_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter, This is a protectionist device used commonly by evolutionists. They bring religion into science, claim it to be a fact, and reject skeptics because they haven’t solved the problem. I don't reject your skepticism because you haven't "solved the problem." No one has "solved the problem." I reject your skepticism because it is ideological in nature and confined to criticisms of scientists who are trying to solve the problem. If you have made any constructive contribution to the effort, I would truly like to know about it. Borne, Oh please! Are you giving us the not so subtle old crap that states that “ID theorists aren’t real scientists”? It is evident in your statement and demonstrative of your own erroneous belief that only Darwinists are real scientists! A bogus claim that is older than dino shit. Most ID theorists aren't "real scientists," which is an ambiguous and subjective term. I don't consider blogging to be a "real science." Some ID theorists are "real scientists." I don't know enough about Dr. Hunter's work to make an informed decision about whether he fits my subjective definition of a scientist. What I do know indicates that his religion dictates his perceptions of the natural world, and that he doesn't test his ideas empirically. These characteristics impair his credibility when he complains about scientists who do engage in hands-on research. Are you pretending that Darwinian scientists have empirical evidence of molecule to man evolution? I certainly hope not because Darwinists, outside of basic micro evolutionary experiments, have never once produced a single grain of viable empirical evidence for macro evolution. Dr. Hunter admits that the scientific OOL program has demonstrated that key components of biological life can be generated by inorganic processes. That, in and of itself, is infinitely more empirical evidence than ID theorists have ever generated for the mechanisms of supernatural creation. The relative fecundity of empirical science is at least partially a product of mainstream scientists' willingness to put their theories to the test. ID theorists' failure to do the same is one of the key distinguishing factors that keeps them languishing on the sidelines while empirical scientists publish and discuss their new discoveries.Learned Hand_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Those who denigrate the influence of the concept of information should try to reform modern biology because it is everywhere in this discipline. I recently viewed a Teaching Company course called the Science of Self which is mainly about the DNA of humans. For a while during the early lectures the professor, Lee Silver, a hardened anti ID advocate, used it in nearly every paragraph sometimes several times. He even made the analogy that information is non material and that what you buy on a music CD is the non material information contained on it. So all you die hards who continue to challenge the information concept and biology, you are making fools of yourselves. You are more like the Luddites than ID who uses the latest in science to evaluate causes and effects in the world. I understand that the anti ID people here are essentially Luddites holding on to a fatally flawed 19th century idea about evolution but maybe if it is pointed out to you how behind the times you are, you may have the incentive to learn more about science and modern technology.jerry_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

SingBlue now veers into theology and says: "The only thing I deny is that “God of the Gaps” is a good theological model." Do tell of your expertise in Genesis and explain to me how you got rid of this “God of the Gaps” theological model... As well explain to me how The fossil record, when viewed honestly, is to be viewed as anything other than divine acts of creation for kinds producing after kinds... Do you suddenly know something that paleontologists do not? Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people's attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco https://www.discovery.org/p/chien/ The evolutionary theory would have us believe we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes: Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph Illustration http://lutheranscience.org/images/GraphC2.gif "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History The Fossil Record - Don Patton - in their own words - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4679386266900194790 "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 " Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. Thus SingBlue how is your arrogant appeal to material processes creating all life on earth to be justified as anything more than a fairy tale when the "red herring" of information generation, greater than that found in parent species, is never even addressed by evolutionists, indeed it never can be. but Alas Go back into your little fantasy world (This is not an accusation but a cold hard brute fact of how I see you actually practice science!) But until you start answering the tough questions of science instead of playing games with flimsy evidence that falls apart upon scrutiny you are no better than PZ Myers and his crew of "enforcers" who could care less about what the truth actually is..bornagain77_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Sir - with due respect
Clay occurs naturally. Bricks are made from clay. Some houses are made from bricks. Therefore, houses made of bricks can spontaneously emerge from clay.
House builidng is a mechanical process, no chemistry there. Don't you think it might be more relevant to make an analogy from chemistry? Say how a body is built from a single cell? (And old cells create new cells, no mystery there.)Cabal_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand:
The differentiating factor between ID theorists’ work and that of scientists seems to be something you gloss over in passing.
Oh please! Are you giving us the not so subtle old crap that states that "ID theorists aren't real scientists"? It is evident in your statement and demonstrative of your own erroneous belief that only Darwinists are real scientists! A bogus claim that is older than dino shit. Then it gets worse, "
Is there any ID research program we could look to for experimental results such as those generated by empirical scientists?"
Are you pretending that Darwinian scientists have empirical evidence of molecule to man evolution? I certainly hope not because Darwinists, outside of basic micro evolutionary experiments, have never once produced a single grain of viable empirical evidence for macro evolution. You're way out of date. Do your homework and try to keep up with the rest of the class.Borne_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

You seem fairly cocky as to deny the transcendent origin of the universe as was postulated by theism and to deny Almighty God in doing so…
Huh?! Where are you getting this? The only thing I deny is that "God of the Gaps" is a good theological model. It could very well be that God created a universe with immutable physical laws and does not intervene in those laws at His whim. And thus we are slowly understanding the actual mechanisms He used in the process.
why does/did not life “spontaneously generate” more than once on this earth
I don't know much about abiogenesis, but this explains a lot of your misconceptions. The (admittedly preliminary) theories do not postulate that life suddenly popped into existence fully formed (although ironically some creationism does postulate that), but rather a slow graduation from simple molecules to ever increasingly complex ones.
Do you really and truly find being accountable to God distasteful and would rather blow meaningless rhetoric, hoping to convince yourself of a lie, rather than face the truth that there may be a Creator?
Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about me. Science does not attempt to "remove God." Science only assumes that the physical laws, divinely created or not, remain the same. Science assumes that God is not reaching in and tweaking them from time to time.SingBlueSilver_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT}

bornagain77,
And how is your brand of non falsifiable science to be separated from fantasy
You have a knack for going off track. All I did was point out that Jerry was committing a logical fallacy, and I was mistaken about that. And somehow this leads to a string of accusations hurled at me.SingBlueSilver_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

jerry, Oops! You're right!SingBlueSilver_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen @ 9
Clay occurs naturally. Bricks are made from clay. Some houses are made from bricks. Therefore, houses made of bricks can spontaneously emerge from clay. This is a quintessentially stupid idea, but it is the basic Darwinian argument, and it’s just unimaginably naive in light of what is known about information in living systems.
Bricks can also be made from straw and so is this argument. Leaving aside the fact that Darwin's theory says nothing about the origins of "life, the Universe and everything", leaving aside the fact that Darwin himself wrote thus to Hooker (judicious or otherwise):
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.
this whole debate about the information content of biological systems may be no more than an extended fallacy of reification, as misleading as Paley's analogy to clockwork. A previous post alluded to some thoughts by Australian philosopher of science John Wilkins on this question and it would not hurt to remind ourselves of what he wrote on his blog Evolving Thoughts:
OK, I know that we live in the "information age" and far be it from me to denigrate the work of Shannon, Turing and von Neumann, but it's gotten out of hand. Information has become the new magical substance of the age, the philosopher's stone. And, well, it just isn't. In the article linked, physicist William Bialek at Princeton University argues that there is a minimum amount of information that organisms need to store in order to be alive."How well we do in life depends on our actions matching the external conditions," he says. "But actions come from 'inside', so they must be based on some internal variables." This is a massive fallacy. Really, really massive. Consider what it relies upon apart from superficial authority and technobabble: it means that organisms must be computers, that they must store data in variables, and that nothing can occur unless it is based on an internal program. For gods' sakes, hasn't Bialek heard of causality? You know, physical properties that cause states of affairs? Or is he going to go the John Wheeler route and claim that everything is information (in which case, why care about the information of living systems)? Calling everything information is massive projection, or even anthropomorphism. It takes something that exists as a semantic or cognitive property and projects it out to all that exists. It makes observers the sole reality. In biology, the concept of information has been abused in just this way, but it's a peculiarly twentieth century phenomenon.
And a little later he writes:
But merely because we can employ a model or a formalisation doesn't mean that the system we are modeling or formalising is a formal system itself. Consider game theory - nobody thinks that genes rationally assess their interests and then make choices in interactions with other genes. It just happens that the math is useful to model the evolution of fitnesses irrespective of the cognitive abilities of genes and organisms.
As for
Complex information and information-processing systems don’t just self-generate by random processes. Random processes degrade information, and the more time allowed, the more degradation produced.
Yes, random processes could corrupt information. Lucky, then, that the only random thing about evolution is mutation. And that is only random with respect to fitness.Seversky_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

Szostak may have been under a lot of pressure to make the article look good. It is an issue on origins and OOL is after the universe the biggest origin question and science is essentially no where on it. Szostak is part of the Harvard University’s Origins of Life Initiative which started off with big ambitions over three years ago. One of the lead researchers said. David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard said ''my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention." Well I hope Dr. Liu is saying his prayers every night. So we should expect a lot of unsupported hyperbole in the article. Can you imagine a honest statement such as "we know essentially nothing on this topic yet, except what doesn't work. But we are spending millions of dollars every year for hope and change." Go Harvard.jerry_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

SingBlue, You seem fairly cocky as to deny the transcendent origin of the universe as was postulated by theism and to deny Almighty God in doing so...Do you suddenly have a new material basis as to resort to for the origination of the universe? Will you postulate the logical absurdity of a infinite multiverse? You have no proof of such! And yet I have proof of the conservation of information by the controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics in quantum teleportation! Do you choose logical absurdity over reasoned proof? No one here defends imaginary gods such as Zeus,,,yet you completely blow past all the theistic predictions that have been verified by hard science so as to try to deflect the imaginary world of materialism you live in: Summary of paper: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9&hl=en Just So as to make your ludicrous atheistic obsession to purely material causes plausible.... Ask yourself Sing,,,why does/did not life "spontaneously generate" more than once on this earth since you hold information generation is of no Big Deal for all the life we see around us? Do you truly believe that life has magical access to this ability to generate information (though I can find no instances) while the origin of life should be left without such a information generation pathway anymore? Do you think of such matters very deeply? Or is what is driving you to make such absurd claims for the magical power of brute material processes of a more personal nature? Do you really and truly find being accountable to God distasteful and would rather blow meaningless rhetoric, hoping to convince yourself of a lie, rather than face the truth that there may be a Creator? I have news for you ,,,God is real and is to be greatly respected as well as feared!!!! and to top all that off you shall certainly face him someday, as shall we all,, whether you want to do so or not! This is just a cold hard fact of reality,,, of how it truly is. You can face this truth as a man or you can hide in your play world of imaginary falsehoods of materialistic conjectures,,, but it will not change the fact that you will face God as all men will...My advice to you is to quit playing stupid games and get right with God and accept the salvation of Christ as is clearly laid out in scripture and evidence....Before it is to late!bornagain77_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

"Jerry said “I can’t imagine how…”, which I pointed out is a logical fallacy." I was quoting from the actual article by Szostak. So it is Szostak you are accusing of a logical fallacy.jerry_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand (1):
Your article contemptuously dismisses the authors’ hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. For all the scorn you heap on their theories, though, is your work any more reliable? Do you have anything else to show that makes your theories more credible?
This is a protectionist device used commonly by evolutionists. They bring religion into science, claim it to be a fact, and reject skeptics because they haven't solved the problem. Amazing--it's all my fault! Here's the difference. I'm not bringing religion into science, nor am I promoting explanations as *fact* that make no scientific sense. Folks beware of this protectionism. It opens science up to all manner of speculation and sophistry, and misrepresentation of the science as in the SciAm article.Cornelius Hunter_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

bornagain,
...why should the sudden implementation of highly specified information for the origin of life and the Cambrian Explosion be of such taboo for you...
Jerry said "I can't imagine how...", which I pointed out is a logical fallacy. Greeks could not imagine how lightning, and thus got Zeus. Those who do not remember the past...SingBlueSilver_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

learned hand Its like this - you spend your whole life and millions of grant money operating as a forensic detective trying to prove (because you believe it) Mt. Rushmore came about by natural causes and you even come up with data to fit your hypothesis. You come across without any real apologetic, but only argument for argument sake. It really seems the your "Learned Hand" is quite closed and this is not meant to be an ad hominem. :)alan_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Clay occurs naturally. Bricks are made from clay. Some houses are made from bricks. Therefore, houses made of bricks can spontaneously emerge from clay. This is a quintessentially stupid idea, but it is the basic Darwinian argument, and it's just unimaginably naive in light of what is known about information in living systems. This is not hard, folks. Complex information and information-processing systems don't just self-generate by random processes. Random processes degrade information, and the more time allowed, the more degradation produced.GilDodgen_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver, "It is virtually impossible to imagine…. Argument from incredulity. A logical fallacy." And how is your brand of non falsifiable science to be separated from fantasy, if any conjecture no matter how far fetched is allowed to take precedence over what we know to be supremely likely from a teleological based approach from quantum mechanics? We know for a fact that highly specified information was transcendentally implemented during the process of the big bang,,,thus why should the sudden implementation of highly specified information for the origin of life and the Cambrian Explosion be of such taboo for you merely if we suggest the implementation to be of transcendent teleological origin? I find no reason for you to do as such save for a personal bias of philosophical nature.bornagain77_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

jerry,
It is virtually impossible to imagine....
Argument from incredulity. A logical fallacy.SingBlueSilver_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

jerry: "Isn’t Szostak part of the team at Harvard that was going to solve the OOL problem in a few years." What?! Really? Hahaha! The materialists really do think they are dealing with a 'blob of goo' don't they? Lol!IRQ Conflict_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Here is another exerpt from the SA article from their website. The current issue is all about all sorts of origins, not just life. The last sentence in this excerpt is the essence of the issue. -----------From the website Key Concepts: Researchers have found a way that the genetic molecule RNA could have formed from chemicals present on the early earth. Other studies have supported the hypothesis that primitive cells containing molecules similar to RNA could assemble spontaneously, reproduce and evolve, giving rise to all life. Scientists are now aiming at creating fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the laboratory—essentially giving life a second start to understand how it could have started the first time. Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time. It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago. To be sure, under the right conditions some building blocks of proteins, the amino acids, form easily from simpler chemicals, as Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey of the University of Chicago discovered in pioneering experiments in the 1950s. But going from there to proteins and enzymes is a different matter.jerry_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

If the passage printed on Corneliuss blog is representative of what is in the article then Szostak should be embarrassed. Having read much of what is known about abiogenesis the correct assessment is that they are nowhere. To proffer such an over the top bit of nonsense is an indication of their embarrassment and their need to cover up what they have or more accurately what they do not have. I will have to see if I can get this article online to see what it really says. Isn't Szostak part of the team at Harvard that was going to solve the OOL problem in a few years.jerry_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

What I read was an account of scientists using terms like “imagine”, “every now and then”, and “must have added” which, to a layperson like myself, don’t sound terribly convincing or scientific. Dr. Hunter is quoting from an article in a mass-media magazine. Their language is appropriate to that venue, as Dr. Hunter's is to his own. The distinction is that Drs. Szostak and Ricardo are not merely bloggers; their discussion summarizes and relies upon laboratory work that has, as Dr. Hunter admits, generated substantial results. He may find those results unpersuasive, but it cannot be denied that Drs. Szostak and Ricardo bring more than mere rhetoric to the table. Dr. Hunter calls these scientists' comments "a pathetic and embarrassing example of evolution's influence on science." But their hypotheses reflect one component of the scientific method; they are suggesting how something might have happened, while performing empirical test to determine whether their hypotheses are possible and/or more probable than alternatives. Dr. Hunter's own work, to the limited extent that I am aware of it, omits every part of that process but the hypothesis. He has his own notions about abiogenesis, but what empirical testing has he, or any other creationist, done to determine their plausibility? What labs are investigating the mechanisms of creation ex nihilo? For as long as the answers are "nothing" and "none," I will find Dr. Hunter's fairly bitter complaints about scientists to be fairly ironic. Even a failed experiment produces data, after all; whether or the experiments discussed in the SA article pan out, they will have advanced scientific knowledge. The same cannot be said about the labors of creationists, which remain purely rhetorical.Learned Hand_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

And why should non-teleological processes be given free reign of consideration in the questions of origin, whether it be the Big Bang or the origin of life? It is commonly presumed in many grade school textbooks life slowly arose in a primordial ocean of pre-biotic soup. Yet there are no chemical signatures in the geologic record indicating a ocean of this pre-biotic soup ever existed. The Primordial Soup Myth: Excerpt: "Accordingly, Abelson(1966), Hull(1960), Sillen(1965), and many others have criticized the hypothesis that the primitive ocean, unlike the contemporary ocean, was a "thick soup" containing all of the micromolecules required for the next stage of molecular evolution. The concept of a primitive "thick soup" or "primordial broth" is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support." - Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose on page 37 in Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life. http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php Moreover, water is considered a 'universal solvent' which is a very thermodynamic obeying and thus 'origin of life' defying fact. Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith "Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess of water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all text-books of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenesis ... Has materialistic Neo-Darwinian philosophy overwhelmed us to such an extent that we forget or overlook the well-known facts of science and of chemistry in order to support this philosophy? ... Without exception all Miller's amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous biogenesis. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids which form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions." Sea Salt only adds to this thermodynamic problem. ...even at concentrations seven times weaker than in today’s oceans. The ingredients of sea salt are very effective at dismembering membranes and preventing RNA units (monomers) from forming polymers any longer than two links (dimers). etc...etc...etc... The problem for the "first life" turns out to be the same as with establishing evolution as true in the first place,,namely it is a "information" problem. “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.” Origin of life theorist Bernd-Olaf Kuppers in his book "Information and the Origin of Life". Yet with quantum mechanics we have "information" itself shown to be its own independent entity, which is conserved, as well as free of time and space... Scientific Evidence For God(Logos) Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf It is also interesting to note that we can only “destroy” a photon in these quantum teleportation experiments. No one has “created” a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God is infinite, and perfect, in information/knowledge. Reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its "infinite" information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Thus, this is a direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, energy, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell). The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "location dominion", of a photon of energy by "a specified truth of infinite information", satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar "specified location" fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows "coordinated universal control" of a entangled photon of energy, by transcendent information, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment. Thus "infinite transcendent information" provides a coherent picture of universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. "I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure" Albert Einstein Further reflections on the "infinite transcendent information" framework: Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.). For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum teleportation is concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, "past and future folding into now", framework/dimension of time. This "eternal" inference for light is warranted because light is not "frozen within time" yet it is shown that time does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this "timeless" travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework/dimension of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation the "time not passing", eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework/dimension. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks/dimensions, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus "pure information" is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks/dimensions. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which it inhabits is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). Logic also dictates "a decision" must have been made, by the "transcendent, eternal, infinite information" from the primary timeless reality it inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from infinite possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive. The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal physical framework/dimension does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite, eternal, transcendent, information framework/dimension that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge. "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy - Artwork homepage - music video As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is "information". Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: As well it should be noted that, counter-intuitive to materialistic thought, a computer does not consume energy during computation and will only consume energy when information is erased from it. This counter-intuitive fact is formally known as Landauer's Principle: Landauer's principle Of Note: if no information is erased, computation may in principle be achieved which is thermodynamically reversible,,,, In 2003 Weiss and Weiss came to the conclusion that information processing by the brain has to be based on Landauer's principle. In 2008 this has been empirically confirmed by a group of neurobiologists.,,, Landauer’s Principle has also been used as the foundation for a new theory of dark energy, proposed by Gough (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle This ability of information to "find answers" in a computer without ever, theoretically, consuming energy strongly suggests that the answers/truth already exist in reality, and in fact, when taken to its logical conclusion, is very suggestive that the "truth of Logos (John 1:1)" is ultimately the foundation of reality itself. Michael Denton - Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3zcJfcdAyE Euler's Number - God Created Mathematics - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEb1gTRo74 This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/ John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. 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. (of note: "Word" in Greek is "Logos", and is the root word from which we get our word "Logic")bornagain77_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Indeed barb. Dr. Hunter does us (as well as others) laypersons a great service in differentiating the fact from fiction. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in scientific thinking on origins Learned Hand. The scientists comments are rife with speculation and wishful thinking passed off as the truth. I think it is fine that they speculate on "what might be", however, when you pass commentary and speculation off as a scientific fact I believe that to be incredulous in the highest order. It should come as no surprise that this type of pseudo-science comes under fire from those who know better. Thanks for the post Dr. Hunter. Much appreciated!IRQ Conflict_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand:
Do you have anything else to show that makes your theories more credible?
You know, this has got to be one the lamest arguments I know of and it seems to be a favorite of the Darwinist and atheist crowd. This is like saying, "My theory hypothesizes that unicorns evolved from donkeys and goats. If you disagree, come up with something more credible. Until you can do so, my theory is viable." This is lame to the extreme. Abiogenesis is hogwash on the face of it and there is no need to come up with an alternative theory to show that it is hogwash. It is hogwash whether or not there is an alternative theory for the origin of life. It is hogwash because it does not make sense. It is hogwash because it insults the reader's intelligence. And the fact that it is hogwash means that there is an acute need for an alternative theory. And the only alternative is that life was intelligently designed. Bravo, Cornelius. You're doing a great job at rubbing the dog's nose in its own excrement. This is a lesson that must be repeated over and over for as long as necessary.Mapou_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

I didn't read any scorn in Dr. Hunter's blog. What I read was an account of scientists using terms like "imagine", "every now and then", and "must have added" which, to a layperson like myself, don't sound terribly convincing or scientific. The problem with origin of life theories is answering "which came first?" Proteins can't form withouth nucleic acids, but nucleic acids can't form without proteins. Also, a cell membrane can't form without a protein synthetic apparatus, but this apparatus can't form without a membrane. As far as religion driving science goes, I think that The Jerusalem Bible put it best (Romans 1:20,21,28): " Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity--however invisible--have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. That is why such people are without excuse...They made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened...In other words, since they refused to see it was rational to acknowledge God, God has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behavior."Barb_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply