Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Death Knell for Life from an RNA world

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The RNA world hypothesis, to be true, has to overcome  major hurdles:

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life#3414

1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution
2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth.   In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life.
3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa.
4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded
5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes
6. In order a molecule to be a self-replicator, it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. In the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.
7. Not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.  
8. Over time, organic molecules break apart as fast as they form
9. How could and would random events attach a phosphate group to the right position of a ribose molecule to provide the necessary chemical activity? And how would non-guided random events be able to attach the nucleic bases to the ribose?  The coupling of ribose with a nucleotide is the first step to form RNA, and even those engrossed in prebiotic research have difficulty envisioning that process, especially for purines and pyrimidines.”
10. L. E. Orgel:  The myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential.
11. Macromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules
125. The transition from RNA to DNA is an unsolved problem. 
13. To go from a self-replicating RNA molecule to a self-replicating cell is like to go from a house building block to a fully built house. 
14. Arguably one of the most outstanding problems in understanding the progress of early life is the transition from the RNA world to the modern protein-based world. 31
15. It is thought that the boron minerals needed to form RNA from pre-biotic soups were not available on early Earth in sufficient quantity, and the molybdenum minerals were not available in the correct chemical form. 33
16. Given the apparent limitation of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genomes to about 30 kb, together with the complexity of DNA synthesis, it appears dif¢cult for a dsRNA genome to encode all the information required before the transition from an RNA to a DNA genome. Ribonucleotide reductase itself, which synthesizes deoxyribonucleotides from ribonucleotides, requires complex protein radical chemistry, and RNA world genomes may have reached their limits of coding capacity well before such complex enzymes had evolved.

Comments
PM1 (& others): I remain, for cause, on the points raised in 86:
as we know, Marx said in effect that the philosophers analysed the world, the point is to change it. He was an intentional activist and saw revolution, socialist revolution as key means of change. In that context he weaponised the labour theory of value which in effect accused entrepreneurs and investors of grand, global theft. This set up the sort of hostility that has had horrific consequences across C20; pointing fingers elsewhere does not change that. At the same time Marx was part of the radical skepticism, secularisation and atheism that undermined moral government. The net result is, revolutionary movements which followed his teachings and what flowed from them, opened the door to lawlessness that by objecting to property undermined a directly connected principle — rights [rights are a type of property we inherently have i/l/o our dignity as an order of creature], and more broadly it undermined moral government. This is the precise opposite to what Jesus taught, the two cannot be responsibly compared as thinkers and teachers. Jesus came to fulfill, not abolish, law. The key problem of government is, its natural state is lawless oligarchy, concentration of power in unjust hands. The issue is to entrench and buttress lawfulness, which requires establishing moral government. Next to it, we must recognise the breakthrough of 1776 and its antecedents. Lawful, constitutional, democratic self government is the key to a sound future. Marx and his heirs down to the neo-marxists and critical theorists are part of the problem not the solution. That solution requires sound reformation founded in lawfulness. Where, as a matter of now basic economics, the LTV is inherently flawed, value creation comes from many factors and is best expressed through competitive or at least contestable markets.
The point is, the intellectual leadership of our civilisation, for centuries, have lost their way, ending up in now undeniable incoherence and irrationality. This led to the shaping of radical secularist worldviews and cultural agendas that have shaped policy and history. Too often, in horrific, disastrous, tyrannical, bloody ways. A good test, is attitude to the breakthrough of July 4, 1776, and to the lawful, God-fearing, constitutional democratic, reformation minded [rather than radically, lawlessly revolutionary] order it fostered. Marxism is part of the radical, jacobin movement, and over the past 100+ years, its single most destructive aspect. That is documented history. We need to learn and decisively turn from such. 100+ million dead are more than enough reason. Marxism and all its tendrils must go, period. Beyond, we must have a fresh start that builds on that consignment to the ash heap of history. Going back to core issues, a big part of what has happened is dressed in the lab coat, leading to the dominance of evolutionary materialistic scientism. However, as the information rich nature of life was elucidated and as the fine tuning of the cosmos was recognised, that dominance is under challenge. As a further aspect, such radical naturalistic thought is irretrievably self referentially incoherent. But, again, we are challenging an entrenched establishment. Accordingly, I again highlight from the OP:
Then, let us watch, whether there is a genuine, serious, substantial engagement. That is a diagnostic test as to what we are dealing with:
[OTA, OP:] 1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution 2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth. In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life. 3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa. 4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded 5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes
Now, let us rebalance and move forward. KFkairosfocus
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
PM1/90 PM1, do you make any distinction between between “Spinoza’s God” and pantheism? I know that Spinoza has, at various times, been labeled a pantheist. If (an this is a big if), the Big Bang establishes an absolute beginning of the universe, how do you deal with the origins problem, i.e. that in order to create the universe, God has to exist external to the universe—beyond space and time? I’d be interested in your thoughts.chuckdarwin
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1, Any response to my questions/challenges @70? -QQuerius
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
@96
So, tell us. What is really going on in the world? A list with bullet points will suffice.
I feel I've been enough of an imposition as it is. I'm an interloper here, an uninvited guest, and I've made enough of a nuisance of myself as it is. @97
If you don’t worship God you find men to worship.
So you don't think it's possible for someone to simply not worship anything at all? If so, that's really interesting. @98
No war but he’s right here on the front lines battling a non-existent enemy.
I'm not sure what "front lines" you refer to here, but if you mean my participation at Uncommon Descent: I don't think my participation at UD has any significance or importance at all. It's just a pleasant intellectual diversion.PyrrhoManiac1
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
TAMMY LEE HAYNES @92,
Thank you very much for getting back to the topic of the original post: The Death Knell of RNA World
Agreed and seconded! What the conversation winding up at Marx, Darwin, and Jesus, should demonstrate is that worldviews and POWER are at the bottom of the anthropogenic abuses in political, scientific (science fantasy in this case), and religion. RNA evolving into DNA is a foregone conclusion simply because is MUSTA happened from an ideological rather than a scientific standpoint. Considering entropy, isn't it more likely that RNA devolved from DNA rather than the reverse? https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cloning/cloning-learning-center/invitrogen-school-of-molecular-biology/rt-education/reverse-transcription-basics.html What SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supports either one over the other??? -QQuerius
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
"He has made the ‘culture war’ go away by claiming HE doesn’t believe it exists." Typical Marxist. No war but he's right here on the front lines battling a non-existent enemy. Andrewasauber
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
TLH at 92, Don't you get it? If you don't worship God you find men to worship. Marx, Darwin, and others. Men who were great - according to some. I think it can be said that they were just men who thought they could invent ideas that would... uh... change things. Darwin = Death. Communism = Death. The strongest and most ruthless survive. The weak end up dead or in labor camps.relatd
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
PM1 at 89, PM1 has just performed a magic trick. He has made the 'culture war' go away by claiming HE doesn't believe it exists. Just google 'culture war' to find out how wrong he is. "5. A common theme on this blog, it seems to me, is the idea that there’s some culture war between Atheism and Christianity (sometimes “Judeo-Christianity”, in what strikes me as a backhanded compliment to Jews). I shall be perfectly blunt: I don’t believe it. I don’t believe there’s any such “culture war”, and the idea that there is such a “culture war” is just a distraction from what’s really going on in the world." So, tell us. What is really going on in the world? A list with bullet points will suffice.relatd
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
PM1 at 89, You've hit upon the reason for the ongoing collapse in the cryptocurreny industry. "The Future of Money" has become another victim of human greed. FTX, hackers stealing billions. It's as if such a system can be stolen from at will. And the fake terminology. Like "Over-leveraged." Translation: For every dollar we actually own, we owe 20. See the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, 2008. And "exposure." As in, "We didn't realize we were so exposed." Kind of like a certain gentleman who is scheduled to appear in court later this year. "Exposure" translates as: "Yeah, we bought a lot of their fake money which is now worthless, and/or we can't get back." See Credit Default Swaps. Human beings aren't perfect alright.relatd
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Andrew at 88, I'll vote for Sous Chef.relatd
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Stalin was studying to be a priest, read Darwin and became an atheist. We now know the real utility of Darwin's book. This also explains the disappearance of various people, including high-ranking party members, who were judged to be disloyal.relatd
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Dear KarioFocus@86 Thank you very much for getting back to the topic of the original post: The Death Knell of RNA World Seventy years of the Leading Peer Reviewed Carnival Barkers, and their millions of wanabee flunkies, touting the Miller Urey fraud, (and its copycats), and it's finally coming crashing down. . A better title might have been: The Triumph of Creationism. Isnt it kind of a howl to read all the smokescreens about Marx and Darwin? I mean, when Science has shown Creationism to be correct, we see how our AntiCreationist friends have nothing left but to 1) deny reality and 2) quickly change the subject.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
PM1, Thank you for that qualification @ 90. I like the encapsulation. I don't like what's in it, though. ;) Andrewasauber
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
@88
So, in PM1, we have a persistent and verbose advocate of Emergentism + Marxism. What is that supposed to add up to? Graphic Design? Geologist? Sous Chef?
Spinozism. Or more precisely, my commitment to emergentism with regard to the metaphysics of nature and my commitment to Marxism with regard to political theory are both grounded in my commitment to Spinozism: we can establish with absolute certainty through reason alone that only God exists and that nothing can exist that is not a part of God.PyrrhoManiac1
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
With regard to a few issues that have been raised in the past few days: 1. One cannot understand what Marx meant by his praise of Darwin without understanding both Darwin and Marx. One would also need to consider Marx's quite substantial criticisms of Darwin. (On the whole, my view is that Engels was more deeply impressed by Darwin than Marx was.) 2. One cannot understand Marx at all if not is not able to at least imagine the possibility of a society without money. This is not, as far as Marx is concerned, a return to pre-monetary barter or pre-civilization hunting and gathering but a future state of social development in which everything is so abundant for everyone that it simply does not make sense to make anyone pay for anything. (Think of Star Trek as an example, perhaps.) 3. One can be skeptical about the feasibility of a post-monetary society (I certainly am) but one cannot understand what Marx intended by "communism" without appreciating that Marx was, just like many other late 19th century Victorians, a wild-eyed optimist about what technology could do. (One also needs to appreciate the success and failure of the Paris Commune as a model for what Marx thought a socialist revolution would need in order to be successful.) 4. One can find many faults with Marx and with Darwin -- they were wrong about a lot of things. But those criticisms should be informed by actual understanding, which requires time, effort, and self-discipline. 5. A common theme on this blog, it seems to me, is the idea that there's some culture war between Atheism and Christianity (sometimes "Judeo-Christianity", in what strikes me as a backhanded compliment to Jews). I shall be perfectly blunt: I don't believe it. I don't believe there's any such "culture war", and the idea that there is such a "culture war" is just a distraction from what's really going on in the world.PyrrhoManiac1
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
So, in PM1, we have a persistent and verbose advocate of Emergentism + Marxism. What is that supposed to add up to? Graphic Design? Geologist? Sous Chef? Andrewasauber
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Ford Prefect @
Marx and Darwin’s ideas are no more responsible for Stalin’s and Mao’s acts, eugenics and racism, than Jesus’s ideas were responsible for the crusades, witch trials, indigenous genocides or other atrocities of colonialism. Anyone who makes such claims is either ignorant or disingenuous. Or both.
How am I to read this? Are you making the general claim that in principle there is no connection between an ideology and the actions of its practitioners? Suppose an ideology that states “… kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …" and suppose some practitioners of that ideology follow up on that command, would you then go on to argue that there is no connection?Origenes
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
PM1, as we know, Marx said in effect that the philosophers analysed the world, the point is to change it. He was an intentional activist and saw revolution, socialist revolution as key means of change. In that context he weaponised the labour theory of value which in effect accused entrepreneurs and investors of grand, global theft. This set up the sort of hostility that has had horrific consequences across C20; pointing fingers elsewhere does not change that. At the same time Marx was part of the radical skepticism, secularisation and atheism that undermined moral government. The net result is, revolutionary movements which followed his teachings and what flowed from them, opened the door to lawlessness that by objecting to property undermined a directly connected principle -- rights [rights are a type of property we inherently have i/l/o our dignity as an order of creature], and more broadly it undermined moral government. This is the precise opposite to what Jesus taught, the two cannot be responsibly compared as thinkers and teachers. Jesus came to fulfill, not abolish, law. The key problem of government is, its natural state is lawless oligarchy, concentration of power in unjust hands. The issue is to entrench and buttress lawfulness, which requires establishing moral government. Next to it, we must recognise the breakthrough of 1776 and its antecedents. Lawful, constitutional, democratic self government is the key to a sound future. Marx and his heirs down to the neo-marxists and critical theorists are part of the problem not the solution. That solution requires sound reformation founded in lawfulness. Where, as a matter of now basic economics, the LTV is inherently flawed, value creation comes from many factors and is best expressed through competitive or at least contestable markets. KF PS, the focus for the OP is the breakdown of the RNA world hypothesis. That, too, needs to be addressed. The core of the problem, from the OP:
1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution 2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth. In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life. 3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa. 4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded 5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes
kairosfocus
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
BA #2 I watched those as soon as they became available. It is a treat.EugeneS
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
Ford Prefect claims that I misrepresented what he said. Yet, though I may, for the sake of brevity, have shortened what he claimed, I certainly did not misrepresent what he said. Here is Ford Prefect's entire comment,
PM1, I have really enjoyed your comments on this and other threads. You have a knack for being able to cut through ideological rhetoric and put things in perspective. Marx and Darwin’s ideas are no more responsible for Stalin’s and Mao’s acts, eugenics and racism, than Jesus’s ideas were responsible for the crusades, witch trials, indigenous genocides or other atrocities of colonialism. Anyone who makes such claims is either ignorant or disingenuous. Or both.
And here is what I said,
"Ford Prefect claims that anyone who disagrees with PM1 and him, about the moral and social consequences of Darwin’s theory, is “either ignorant or disingenuous. Or both.”
I'll let unbiased readers judge for themselves, but I certainly did not twist what he said out of context. Shoot, I even referenced the first part of Ford Prefect's quote in my comment at 77. But anyways, to go further in tying Stalin and Mao to Darwin and Marx. First, Marx Himself stated that “This (Origin) is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”
Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Darwin had a significant influence on Karl Marx. Struggle and survival are central to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The full title of The Origin is – On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection and the Survival of the Fittest in the Preservation of Favoured Races. Darwin’s premise on survival and struggle in nature paralleled Karl Marx’s premise on social class struggle. Marx summarized the importance of “struggle” in the first line of chapter one of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848 – “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Karl Heinrich Marx,,, Marx and Engels capitalized on Darwin’s theory to develop a social construct. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species The Origin of Species emerged as Marx’s pseudo-science justification for his emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle (pictured left), on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in the first volume of Das Kapital he sent to Darwin in 1867. Darwin’s theory of natural selection played a crucial role in institutionalizing Communism. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organization, deserve equal attention?” In Honor of Darwin To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital in honor of Darwin. However, Darwin diplomatically replied in a letter to Marx – “Dear sir, I thank you for the honor that you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital, and I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, but understanding more of the deep and important subject of political economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge and that this, in the long run, is sure to add to the happiness of Mankind. I remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, Charles Darwin.” At Karl Marx’s funeral in Highgate Cemetery in London, Engels spoke at Marx’s graveside on March 1883 – “Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.”,,, Communism The American researcher Conway Zirkle (pictured left) explains why the founders of Communism immediately accepted Darwin’s theory – “Marx and Engels accepted evolution almost immediately after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Evolution, of course, was just what the founders of Communism needed to explain how Mankind could have come into being without the intervention of any supernatural force, and consequently, it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy.”,,, https://darwinthenandnow.com/archives/1355/darwin-on-marx/
And Stalin himself, while at ecclesiastical school no less, was also directly influenced by Darwin's book,
Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’ “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed. “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said. “‘What book is that?’ I enquired. “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/
Likewise Mao himself, (as James Pusey, professor of Chinese studies at Bucknell University, points out), was also heavily, if not directly, influenced by Darwin and Marx.
Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China - 2/13/2013 Excerpt: Written by James Pusey, a professor of Chinese studies at Bucknell University in the United States, the article, entitled “Global Darwin: Revolutionary Road,” appeared in the November 12, 2009 issue of Nature. In the article, Pusey explains the influence that Darwin’s ideas had on modern Chinese history,,, Given that China has been ruled for over half a century by a Communist party that has its ideological roots in Marxism, one might suppose that Darwin’s impact on modern China was primarily due to the fact that Karl Marx embraced Darwin’s theory as a satisfying explanation of human existence without the need for belief in a Creator. In other words, Darwin’s influence was somewhat indirect, providing a “scientific” basis for the atheism underlying Marxism and its political progeny Communism. However, as Pusey points out, in fact, Darwin had an influence on China’s political development prior to the advent of Communism. He notes that during the late 19th century, as a weak China faced humiliation after humiliation at the hands of foreign powers, some Chinese political reformers turned to Darwin as a “foreign authority…who had discovered a cosmic imperative for change.” From their viewpoint, Darwinism implied the idea that human history passes through a series of evolutionary stages, inevitably leading towards greater and greater progress. Thus, China had to move on to the next stage in history to become strong and restore its greatness. For Chinese reformers, this meant moving China away from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. After all, “the [evolutionarily] fittest nation on earth, Great Britain, had shown the way.” However, Chinese revolutionaries, perhaps most notably Sun Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen, the future leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party), in contrast with the reformers, sought more dramatic change. They argued that China “could 'lie deng' (leap over stages) to catch up to the West and that civil war was an indispensable precondition of China's evolution or progress.” In the end, the revolutionaries won this debate due to the apparent failure of the reform movement to revive China. However, the first wave of revolution, led by Sun and his follower Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek), still failed to restore China’s greatness. Consequently, a second and more radical revolutionary movement emerged, the Chinese Communists, led ultimately by Mao Zedong. As Pusey says, Mao and his fellow Communists, “found in Marxism what seemed to them the fittest faith on Earth to help China to survive.” He concludes his article thus: "This was not, of course, all Darwin's doing, but Darwin was involved in it all. To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped). One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a 'racial' struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled." Who taught Chinese these things? Marx? Mao? No. Darwin. To me, the greatest irony in all of this is that China, a country that has long prided itself on its cultural uniqueness, has been deeply influenced by ideas from foreigners over the course of its history. A millennium and a half ago, it was the beliefs of an Indian prince (the Buddha). In the past century or so, China has been shaped by the ideas of a German philosopher (Marx) and a British scientist (Darwin). And now, as the Church grows in China, it has perhaps begun to be influenced by the teachings of a certain Jewish carpenter, who taught of the need for an even more radical revolution, that of the human heart. https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china
Thus, directly contrary to Ford Prefect's claim, Stalin was directly influenced by Darwin, whereas Mao was heavily, if not directly, influenced by Darwin. And to chap Ford Prefect's atheistic hide even further, the former Soviet Union experienced a dramatic 'revival' in Christianity after the collapse of the Soviet Union, whereas China is currently experiencing an explosive growth in Christianity after the death of Mao.
Pew: Here’s How Badly Soviet Atheism Failed in Europe In 18 nations across Central and Eastern Europe, religion is now essential to national identity. (massive study based on face-to-face interviews with 25,000 adults in 18 countries} Jeremy Weber - 5/10/2017 Excerpt: “The comeback of religion in a region once dominated by atheist regimes is striking,” states Pew in its latest report. Today, only 14 percent of the region’s population identify as atheists, agnostics, or “nones.” By comparison, 57 percent identify as Orthodox, and another 18 percent as Catholics. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2017/may/pew-atheism-failed-central-eastern-europe-orthodox-identity.html Christians Now Outnumber Communists in China - 12/29/14 Excerpt: Though the Chinese Communist Party is the largest explicitly atheist organization in the world, with 85 million official members, it is now overshadowed by an estimated 100 million Christians in China.,,, “By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University - per breitbart China on course to become ‘world’s most Christian nation’ within 15 years – 19 Apr 2014 Excerpt: Officially, the People’s Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied. Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao’s death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution. Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world’s number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation. “By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule. “It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change.” China’s Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre’s Forum on Religion and Public Life. Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline. By 2030, China’s total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted. “Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this,” Prof Yang said. “It’s ironic – they didn’t. They actually failed completely.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
Thus although atheistic tyrants, such as Stalin and Mao, have tried their damnedest to totally eradicate religion from their countries and to make their countries 'atheistic utopias', it has all been to no avail. Christianity continued to flourish and grow in the face of such brutal persecution at the hands of such atheistic tyrants. Which should not be surprising. Atheists, in their attempts to eradicate Christianity from their societies, are basically fighting against God himself. As Jesus Himself stated, "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the church, Verses:
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Acts 5:38-39 So in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone. Let them go! For if their purpose or endeavor is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God.”
bornagain77
January 13, 2023
January
01
Jan
13
13
2023
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
“There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” -- Karl Marx (1848) “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." --Jesus So. Ford Prefect, do you still insist that the statements made by both Marx about violent revolution are no more likely to inspire violence than the statements of Christ about not resisting a person's enemies?OldArmy94
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 writes:
Ford Prefect claims that anyone who disagrees with PM1 and him, about the moral and social consequences of Darwin’s theory, is “either ignorant or disingenuous. Or both.”
No. But feel free to continue to misrepresent what people say.Ford Prefect
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
TLH 80 “Or how can a sane person be an Atheist, when its known that the first life was made by God?” It’s not complicated Romans 1:18–32 (LEB):For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the likeness of an image of mortal human beings and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to immorality, that their bodies would be dishonored among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God with a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for eternity. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their females exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature, 27 and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was necessary for their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit ?to recognize God?, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do the things that are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greediness, malice, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malevolence. They are gossipers, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, faithless, unfeeling, unmerciful, 32 who, although they?* know the requirements of God, that those who do such things are worthy of death, not only do they do the same things, but also they approve of those who do them” Vividvividbleau
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Dear Jerry @78 5% of the human race iks small potatoes, murder-wise. Here in the good ole USA, our doctors have killed, for money, 20% of our population since 1973. 65 million innocent and defenseless children killed before they could even breathe. Worldwide, its worse. They kill 1/3rd of all babies before they even breathe. Anyhow, aren't you a bit suprised that our Atheist and Anti Creationist friends dont seem to care about the topic here. You would think they would be very upset that RNA World has tanked. RNA World was their last hope. I mean, how can a sane person be Anti-Creationism when its known that there is no alternative to Creationism? Or how can a sane person be an Atheist, when its known that the first life was made by God?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Ba 77, Some arguments here against God portray Him as a bad man. Or the man who did something wrong as if He should have known better. This is what was created standing in judgment of the Creator, as if greater knowledge and better decision-making powers are possessed by men. Romans 1:21 "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." And where can this lead? Romans 9:20 'But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Men who reject God can only turn to other men for direction. Whether it's Marx or Darwin. Whoever it is becomes exalted and chosen by them. A favored man has spoken wise words, or so they believe, and they follow his ideas and use them. 2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions," The quote from 2 Timothy is not meant as an accusation but as something to reflect on. I was on a message board based around a major city. A certain subject was brought up and I objected. One response was "you people don't have the influence you once had." And then I knew that 'people like me' had to be pushed aside so that some people could get what they wanted. So here, sometimes with elaborate words, some will post what is in contradiction to the facts. To history itself.relatd
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
The communists killed about 5% of the human race in a 50 year period. There were others before them that equaled that amount. Timur did about the same, 5% of the human race. There were other mass murders throughout history. It was not uncommon. Hopefully, we are beyond that now but people will probably always kill to satisfy their power needs. Religion is actually a controlling force but as we have seen, frequently violated but not nearly to the same extent as power or ideological based killing. To equate the two is just another bit of nonsense that a couple of commenters have put forth. Aside: from Wikipedia
For Marx, class antagonisms under capitalism—owing in part to its instability and crisis-prone nature—would eventuate the working class's development of class consciousness, leading to their conquest of political power and eventually the establishment of a classless, communist society constituted by a free association of producers. Marx actively pressed for its implementation, arguing that the working class should carry out organised proletarian revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic emancipation.
Sounds like Marx wanted violence to achieve a specific end. An end which could not possibly work because it violated nearly every aspect of human nature. That’s why so many died. Remember, our self appointed expert on Marx and communism didn’t know what the difference between left and right was.jerry
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Ford Prefect claims that anyone who disagrees with PM1 and him, about the moral and social consequences of Darwin's theory, is "either ignorant or disingenuous. Or both." That sounds very similar to Dawkin's attempt to cut off any debate on Darwinian evolution by claiming that anyone who disagrees with him on evolution is "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” - Richard Dawkins
But just as, when faced with the actual facts and evidence, Richard Dawkin's 'argument from authority' fails spectacularly, so to does Ford Prefect's current 'argument from authority' fail spectacularly when confronted with actual facts and evidence. For instance, in Ford Prefect trying to claim that "Marx and Darwin’s ideas are no more responsible for Stalin’s and Mao’s acts, eugenics and racism, than Jesus’s ideas were responsible for the crusades, witch trials, indigenous genocides or other atrocities of colonialism", it is VERY important to note that when people have committed atrocities in the 'name of Christianity' that they were acting in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ, whereas, when people were killing millions of their 'weaker' citizens they were being faithful to the "let the strongest live and the weakest die” and ‘death as the creator’ teachings of Darwin,
How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? – John G. West – January 11, 2022 Excerpt: Death as the Creator A third big idea fueled by Darwin’s theory is that the engine of progress in the history of life is mass death. Instead of believing that the remarkable features of humans and other living things reflect the intelligent design of a master artist, Darwin portrayed death and destruction as our ultimate creator. As he wrote at the end of his most famous work: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”13 https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/ “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species “A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248 Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their Atheistic ideology https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756 Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
As should be needless to say, the ANTI-morality inherent in “Death as the Creator”, and in “let the strongest live and the weakest die”, is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak. i.e. altruism
Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” – Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15
Thus Ford Prefect can try to cut off debate all he wants, by saying anyone who disagrees with him and PM! is ignorant, but the souls of well over 100 million cry out to God for justice from Darwin's "let the strongest live and the weakest die” and 'death as the creator' theory. Darwin's theory is worse than useless as a scientific theory, and in so far as it has influenced global politics it has been nothing less than disastrous for mankind. Quote and Verse
“Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” - Francis Bacon - In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, father of the scientific method Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
bornagain77
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Obviously, PM1 does think that ideas have consequences, or he wouldn't be here promoting the idea of a Pristine Marxism 1. PM1, Thats what his initials represent. ;) Andrewasauber
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
I wrote,
Anyone who makes such claims is either ignorant or disingenuous. Or both.
And, as proof, I give you Bornagain77@74.Ford Prefect
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Remembering Paul Johnson’s Assessment of Darwin Michael Flannery - January 12, 2023 Excerpt: The wonderful historian and journalist Paul Johnson died today at age 94.,,, Paul Johnson at His Best Despite these missteps, Johnson’s analytic powers are at their best when he is assessing the impact of Darwinian theory on society and indeed on Darwin himself. Darwin’s disciples can bemoan the connection all they want, but the materialistic chance-driven world ushered in by their Down House hero had devastating human consequences. “In the twentieth century,” Johnson concludes, “it is likely that over 100 million people were killed or starved to death as a result of totalitarian regimes infected with varieties of social Darwinism” (p. 136). On a personal level the evolutionary theory that Darwin spent much of his life fostering — his “child” — weighed heavily on him in later years. Darwin’s genius — what “genius” there was — came from his powers of observation, not his ability to think abstractly or for that matter particularly deeply. Johnson astutely observes that Darwin “deliberately shut his eyes to the ultimate consequences of his work, in terms of the human condition and the purpose of life or the absence of one. Though he sometimes, in his published works, put in a reassuring phrase, his private views tended to be bleak” (pp. 144-145). It was a fate that his “Bulldog Defender” Thomas Henry Huxley also met over the question of morality in a blind, purposeless nature. Nihilism haunted them both.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2023/01/remembering-paul-johnsons-assessment-of-darwin/
bornagain77
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply