The highly esteemed Franklin M. Harold is the author of a newly-published book: In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life’s Building Blocks, University of Chicago Press (2014). According to the publisher, this book investigates the full scope of cellular history. The content is broad and includes the relationship between cells and genes; the status of the universal tree of life with its three stems and viral outliers; and the controversies surrounding the last universal common ancestor. Extensive discussion is provided of the evolution of cellular organization and the fossil evidence for the earliest life on earth. The publisher explains:
“In Search of Cell History shows us just how far we have come in understanding cell evolution—and the evolution of life in general—and how far we still have to go.”
A review of the book appeared recently in Nature. The author is David Deamer of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who appears to give an outstanding assessment.
“Franklin Harold’s In Search of Cell History is a wonderful book. Harold has for 60 years been an intelligent and clear-minded researcher and observer in the fields of cell and molecular biology. His book is a loving distillation of connections within the incredible diversity of life in the biosphere, framing one of biology’s most important remaining questions: how did life begin?” (p.302)
Yet Deamer’s endorsement is not unqualified. He writes:
“I do have a quibble. Harold argues that, notwithstanding the vast literature, progress has gone little beyond the findings of Soviet biochemist Alexander Oparin and British polymath J. B. S. Haldane more than 80 years ago, when they independently argued that Louis Pasteur’s dictum ‘All life from life’ was wrong. Oparin and Haldane theorized that life may have emerged on a sterile prebiotic Earth through a series of chemical and physical processes. I confess to being more optimistic than Harold. There has been extraordinary progress in understanding the principles by which life works at the molecular level, and that can be applied to the question of how life begins. Over the past eight decades, it has become clear that the basic molecules of life can be synthesized through well-understood chemical reactions.”
I want to suggest that what is a “quibble” to Deamer is actually a fundamental difference of opinion between these two scientists. Harold thinks that little progress has been made in 80 years of research, whereas Deamer thinks that “Over the past eight decades, it has become clear that the basic molecules of life can be synthesized through well-understood chemical reactions.” Furthermore, Deamer writes:
“we know how to encapsulate all those reactions in lipid compartments that mimic cell membranes, and several pioneering laboratories are taking the first steps towards fabricating microscopic systems of molecules that display the fundamental properties of life.”
These differences of judgment are not minor. They are not quibbles. Nor are they the result of ignorance, for Deamer acknowledges that Harold writes about all the research topics Deamer considers important. Yet, Harold claims that “little progress” has been made in 80 years whereas Deamer says “it seems that we have made considerable progress after all”. We should note that these two contrasting views have been with us for some time, but the Deamer stance gets far more attention because of media hype.
Deamer himself has authored a book on the origin of life (OOL) and a review appeared in Nature authored by Robert Shapiro. Deamer made the case for dramatic progress. But Shapiro picked up a caution to make the point that progress has been very limited:
“Because we can get reactions to work in the controlled conditions of a laboratory, he cautions, it does not follow that similar ones occurred on prebiotic Earth. We might overlook something that becomes apparent when we try to reproduce the reactions in a natural setting. This provocative insight explains why the origin-of-life field has been short on progress over the past half century, whereas molecular biology has flourished.”
(Robert Shapiro, “Life’s beginnings,” Nature, 476, 30-31 (August 4, 2011)).
For further comment, go here.
In a more sober moment of reflection, the New Scientist acknowledged that solutions to the problems elude us. This is how an editorial starts, dated 15 August 2014:
“How did early Earth’s inert matter give rise to its teeming life today? That’s one of the biggest questions in science – and has long been one of the hardest to answer. We’ve known for 60 years that life’s most basic building blocks can form spontaneously, given the right conditions. But how did they assemble into complex organisms? Hard evidence to help us answer that question is lacking.”
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the missing element in the thinking of most researchers is information. They think the solution can be found via physics and chemistry, but this has been an unproductive paradigm. Deamer and his colleagues are not converging on a solution, but going round and round in a circle: they are trapped in their materialistic silo. Information is not, and cannot be, emergent from ‘chance and necessity’, but it is a fundamental quality of the world around us and independent of the laws of the material world. This is why design-based thinking is essential for asking the right questions and finding the routes that will deliver answers.
Origin of life: The first spark
Nature, 514, 302–303 (16 October 2014) | doi:10.1038/514302a
First paragraph: Franklin Harold’s In Search of Cell History is a wonderful book. Harold has for 60 years been an intelligent and clear-minded researcher and observer in the fields of cell and molecular biology. His book is a loving distillation of connections within the incredible diversity of life in the biosphere, framing one of biology’s most important remaining questions: how did life begin?
22 Replies to “Two contrasting perspectives on OOL research”
A simple single celled life form requires more than dna, and a membrane to be alive. It also requires a source of food. So not only is it mathematically untenable for a cell to arise spontaneously, it is even less unlikely to survive. No wonder no progress has been made in so many years.
Making any OOL discovery at all is so exciting David Deamer can be expected to be optimistic for his specific area that mostly figures out what kinds of cellular organelles normally self-assemble in and around ocean chemistry. I don’t mind his enthusiasm.
The area of OOL research going almost nowhere is the part that has to explain how these normally produced self-assembling (automatically self-replicating) organelles become controlled by genetic level intelligence systems (that self-learn through time). It’s then predictable that there will be plenty of convergence towards the most successful design solutions, instead of steady divergence away from similarity Darwinian models predicted.
The theory needed to make sense of what is now known was also described by Alfred Wallace who wrote much about it in his final book. More info:
Darwin’s Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design?
The ID movement followed, then since 2011 scientifically demonstrating “intelligent cause” has been a programming “challenge for all” who like experimenting with new computer models like this:
At this point in time there is no real scientific controversy over that, or this year’s grid cell models for cognitive science. Alfred Wallace and ID type science became a group effort that included experts in other forums who help give direction towards original IDeas. For example:
For my labor of love work (that would exist regardless of ID that in some ways did though help it along) I need opinions from cognitive science experts and a friendly world to exchange program code. In my opinion the OOL problem and others are going to be solved with a new model for systems biology and cognitive science that may have religious implications galore but where there are testable computer models and operational theory already doing fine on their own in science I can get away with showing an illustration (not in the online book) that best I can shows what that looks like too in context of Cambrian Explosion and two other similar predictable events:
The reciprocal pathway back up to the behavior of matter level (at the top) was not drawn in. I was not sure whether to use arrows that way or was appropriate to make three more of the same artistic pointers, for what would in a religious sense qualify as a prayer path from our thoughts (out loud expression not here necessary) to our Creator that does not have to be intelligent like we are to be a conscious part of us and the universe.
I’m not a church goer or follow any religion but I would (outside of the theory) rather be clear in regards to where Creator/God/Allah/etc. fits into the science than leave that a complete mystery to everyone. ID theory is now free to help answer the biggest of the big questions, we (regardless of religion) all have.
Who do these guys think they’re kidding?
They write…”We’ve known for 60 years that life’s most basic building blocks can form spontaneously, given the right conditions”
We learned that 60 years ago?
How so? The Miller Urey Experiment?
The amino acids that are the “building blocks of life” are all right handed. The ones that Miller and Urey made where mixed up both left and right handed, like the ones used in making ladies’ cosmetics.
So while Miller and Urey were successful in making the
building blocks of cosmetics, they were failures in making the building blocks of life.
What the Miller Urey experiment did was kill the warm pond idea, something that the New Scientists and about 90% of Academia hasn’t been able to figure out, after 60 years.
Deamer wrote a book on the same topic as well and he is reviewing this book?
Definitely no bias there, eh?
It’s fine to review it and give your opinion, but he does have a vested interest to give it a negative review as do all who are strong believers in the natural origin of life.
And of course, the opposite can be said as well. Those who do not believe in a totally natural origin of life, might be tempted to give the book a more positive review.
Bias affects us all no matter what we say!
That said, bias as I am, I believe the evidence supports the design hypothesis so much better. The problem of chirality was totally ignored by Deamer as pointed out in the previous post – and this is a show stopper. The problem of information is also a show stopper. Evolution never had a chance to even get started!
As to Shapiro’s question,,,
Although, as Chris Haynes has pointed out, evidence that life’s most basic building blocks can form spontaneously is less than impressive to put it mildly, the question from Shapiro, ‘how did they assemble into complex organisms?’, is, none-the-less, a very interesting question to ask. His question is along the very same line of thought as this following question asked of a physicist about electrons,,,
Max Planck, the originator of quantum theory, had this answer to Primack’s question “What is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws?”
Sir Isaac Newton also had the same type of answer for what compels the solar system to follow laws.
Of course, Atheists, in their rush to deny any Design in nature, are infamous for saying that electrons and planets ‘just’ obey the fundamental laws of the universe for no reason at all, but that, as C. S. Lewis has pointed out, is to make ‘it a man and even a citizen’,,,
But back to the basis question that Shapiro had asked, ‘how did they (the basic building blocks) assemble into complex organisms?’,, To get a grasp on just how difficult this question is for the Naturalists to answer, it is helpful to realize just how profound the disconnect is between life and non-life.
it is also helpful, in answering Shapiro’s question, to realize just how complex the ‘simplest’ life on earth is,,,
And although Naturalists are infamous for claiming that once life appeared, however it appeared, it was all downhill from there since Darwinian processes could then take over and create all the life we see around us on earth. But, contrary to how easy Darwinists imagine it to be, the fact of the matter is that it was not ‘all downhill from there’, but was ‘all uphill from there’. In fact, the problem is far worse than ‘uphill’ for Naturalists. Darwinian processes face an insurmountable barrier. A barrier that looks nothing like Richard Dawkins’ infamous Mt. Improbable, for just explaining the orgination of a single novel protein.,,,
And the same type of insurmountable barrier is found for transforming any existing protein into a new protein with a new function.
And please note that these barriers are in place before we have even meaningfully tried to answer Shapiro’s question,, ‘how did they (the basic building blocks) assemble into complex organisms?’,, . Dr. Stephen Meyer puts the ‘real’ dilemma for Naturalists to answer like this,,
Moreover, this inability of Darwinian processes to account for ‘form’, i.e. body plans, occurs at a very deep level. Deeper than even Dr. Meter elucidated in the preceding video. ‘Bottom up’ Darwinian processes cannot even explain how DNA and proteins achieve their final ‘form’, much less can Darwinian processes explain how complex organisms achieve their final form.
Stephen Talbott has done an excellent job in the following article of elucidating just how wide the chasm is between what we observe in life and the Darwinian explanations for Shapiro’s question, i.e. ‘how did they (the basic building blocks) assemble into complex organisms?’,, .
Talbott also had this very insightful observation as to what happens to an organism, at the molecular level, at the moment of death,,,
Thus, Darwinian explanations for Shapiro’s question, ‘how did they (the basic building blocks) assemble into complex organisms?’,, are found to face insurmountable barriers on several fronts, whereas Intelligent Design’s contention that information, which is transcendent of matter and energy, is what is organizing complex organisms into a cohesive whole, is verified by the fact that once an organism dies, and starts the ‘natural’ process of disintegration, information in its biological sense is ‘missing’.,,, But where does this ‘biological information’ that was keeping the organism organized into a cohesive whole, and alive, go upon death??? Well, there are theories in that regards,,, 🙂
Verse and music
Of course they haven’t make any progress in the last 80 years, they are using the wrong paradigm. Example, they believe this is true: “lipid compartments that mimic cell membranes”. Yes, you read that right, they believe that lipid bubbles are in any way similar to cell membranes.
scientifically speaking, Darwinism is on the wrong playing field,,,
WHAT IS LIFE? ERWIN SCHRODINGER – First published 1944 Pg. 28-29
TWO WAYS OF PRODUCING ORDERLINESS
Excrpt: “The orderliness encountered in the unfolding of life springs from a different source. It appears that there are two different ‘mechanisms’ by which orderly events can be produced: the ‘statistical mechanism’ which produces order from disorder and the new one, producing order from order. To the unprejudiced mind the second principle appears to be much simpler, much more plausible. No (a) doubt it is. That is why physicists were so proud to have fallen in with the other one, the ‘order-from-disorder’ principle, which is actually followed in Nature and which alone conveys an understanding of the great line of natural events , in the first place of their irreversibility . But we cannot expect that the ‘laws of physics’ derived from it suffice straight away to explain the behaviour of living matter, whose most striking features are visibly based to a large extent on the ‘order-from-order’ principle. You would not expect two entirely different mechanisms to bring about the same type of law-you would not expect your latch-key, to open your neighbour’s door as well. We must therefore not be discouraged by the difficulty of interpreting life by the ordinary laws of physics. For that is just what is to be expected from the knowledge we have gained of the structure of living matter. We must be prepared to find a new type of physical law prevailing in it. Or are we to term it a non-physical, not to say a super-physical, law?
THE NEW PRINCIPLE IS NOT ALIEN TO PHYSICS
No. I do not think that. For the new principle that is involved is a genuinely physical one: it is, in my opinion, nothing else than the principle of quantum theory over again.,,,”
You’re powered by quantum mechanics. No, really… – Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden – Saturday 25 October 2014
Excerpt: “Schrödinger pointed out that many of life’s properties, such as heredity, depend of molecules made of comparatively few particles – certainly too few to benefit from the order-from-disorder rules of thermodynamics. But life was clearly orderly. Where did this orderliness come from? Schrödinger suggested that life was based on a novel physical principle whereby its macroscopic order is a reflection of quantum-level order, rather than the molecular disorder that characterises the inanimate world. He called this new principle “order from order”. But was he right?
Up until a decade or so ago, most biologists would have said no. But as 21st-century biology probes the dynamics of ever-smaller systems – even individual atoms and molecules inside living cells – the signs of quantum mechanical behaviour in the building blocks of life are becoming increasingly apparent. Recent research indicates that some of life’s most fundamental processes do indeed depend on weirdness welling up from the quantum undercurrent of reality.”
Bornagain, the good news is that even with Cosmic Evolution and other morphs: it has for years been generally accepted that Darwinian theory does not explain the Origin Of Life, which is a whole other area of research that most relies on chemistry theory to develop new theory for systems biology (for atom on up computer modeling of biological systems).
Quantum Mechanics theory is now generally accepted as incomplete, and may soon become obsolete:
The best strategy for UD is to roll with the pioneering changes that are already happening, which lay down the tracks that get us all where we want to go into science:
“Quantum Mechanics theory is now generally accepted as incomplete, and may soon become obsolete”
Interesting claim considering that quantum mechanics continues to verified to incomprehensible levels of certainty,,, for instance,,,
Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008
Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct.
Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,,
(to which Anton Zeilinger responded)
When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate.
And to further solidify the case that ‘consciousness precedes reality’ the violation of Leggett’s inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett’s inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision:
Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011
Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,,
The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:
Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video
Quantum theory survives latest challenge – Dec 15, 2010
Excerpt: Even assuming that entangled photons could respond to one another instantly, the correlations between polarization states still violated Leggett’s inequality. The conclusion being that instantaneous communication is not enough to explain entanglement and realism must also be abandoned.
This conclusion is now backed up by Sonja Franke-Arnold and collegues at the University of Glasgow and University of Strathclyde who have performed another experiment showing that entangled photons exhibit,, stronger correlations than allowed for particles with individually defined properties – even if they would be allowed to communicate constantly.
That quantum mechanics applies to the large, ‘macro’, scale of the universe was established here:
Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics – Brukner, Caslav; Kofler, Johannes
American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, – March 5-9, 2007
Excerpt: for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e. a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems.,,
In the following article, Physics Professor Richard Conn Henry is quite blunt as to what quantum mechanics, specifically Leggett’s Inequality, reveals to us about the ‘primary cause’ of our 3D reality:
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Verified, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations)
Gary S. Gaulin, And exactly what do you think Amplituhedron means for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics??? ,,, Gravity, i.e. General Relativity, has failed to be mathematically unified with Quantum Mechanics since their inceptions (Einstein died trying),,, None-the-less, despite the failure for unification, Quantum Mechanics still takes physical priority over General Relativity in the grand scheme of things,,,
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD – Vlatko Vedral – 2011
Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with¬out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex¬plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental¬ly spaceless and timeless physics.
Moreover, if you want a clue as to how unification is achieved for General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (i.e. QED), then this may help you:
Quantum Mechanics still has some predictive ability. But it’s in no way able to reliably predict anything relating to consciousness and other big questions. It’s best to at least try, but we also have to realize all that is not known that is needed to reliably know either way.
The important thing is that science is marching on with much success now being made, by looking elsewhere for clues.
Quantum Mechanics still has some predictive ability. But it’s in no way able to reliably predict anything relating to consciousness and other big questions.
Really??? I disagree completely with you!!!
A Short History Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness (Jesus) as the true “Center of the Universe”
The scientific reality is that little is even known about how “intelligence” works and consciousness is a whole other level of complexity, to explain after that.
Also, the QM video showing the silicone droplet experiment helps suggest that the speculation about “weirdness” at the slits that is said happens just by our gazing at it may actually be hogwash. The process may all boil down to something very simple, that is best demonstrated observing droplets. The most simple explanation I saw for some errors is that since it takes 1 quanta of energy to get a detector to detect a photon the photon’s energy (and photon itself) ends up powering the detector instead of making it through the slit, therefore it’s impossible to at the same time observe and detect a passing photon.
Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:
Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012
Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.
Of course there is also the fact that if you deny mind is primary then you run into all sorts of insurmountable problems philosophically,,,
But hey, stick with what works for you, I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise.
interaction free measurement is a better refutation of your position than the Radin citation I gave you:
notes on ‘interaction free’ measurement:
Quantum Zeno effect
“It has been experimentally confirmed,, that unstable particles will not decay, or will decay less rapidly, if they are observed. Somehow, observation changes the quantum system. We’re talking pure observation, not interacting with the system in any way.”
Douglas Ell – Counting to God – pg. 189 – 2014 – Douglas Ell graduated early from MIT, where he double majored in math and physics. He then obtained a masters in theoretical mathematics from the University of Maryland. After graduating from law school, magna cum laude, he became a prominent attorney.
The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video
Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester
Excerpt: In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment, proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible. In 1996, Kwiat et al. devised a method, using a sequence of polarising devices, that efficiently increases the yield rate to a level arbitrarily close to one.
Experimental Realization of Interaction-Free Measurement – Paul G. Kwiat; H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. Kasevich – 1994
Interaction-Free Measurement – 1995
Realization of an interaction-free measurement – 1996
As well, The following video also clearly demonstrates that “decoherence” does not solve the measurement problem:
The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
I can see that you are well read on the topic. But now explain how consciousness works in enough detail to answer all the big-questions we have pertaining to afterlife.
“But now explain how consciousness works in enough detail to answer all the big-questions we have pertaining to afterlife.”
“When I was young, I said to God, ‘God, tell me the mystery of the universe.’ But God answered, ‘That knowledge is for me alone.’ So I said, ‘God, tell me the mystery of the peanut.’ Then God said, ‘Well George, that’s more nearly your size.’ And he told me.”
George Washington Carver
but seriously, due to the seemingly miraculous advances in science, solid clues can be gleaned for even deep questions as you posed
I can agree that clues might be found through QM. It has already a valuable step to scientifically getting where we now are. What I am talking about is going past what QM is even for answering, using cognitive based theory that provides the foundation for understanding how consciousness works.
This also pertains to the culture war that ID was supposed to win, which requires ID theory to be useful to culture changers or it changes no culture at all. For example the Black Veil Brides – In The End usefully express the big questions in the Goth/Gothic tradition that has through history been seeking fearlessness and thought as big as they can building giant Gothic cathedrals and all that. What answers do you have to help provide direction into the scientific unknown that starts from where they are now at in science and religion?