Intelligent Design

Two contrasting perspectives on OOL research

Spread the love

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
David Deamer
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

  1. 1
    Peter says:

    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.

  2. 2

    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:;lngWId=1

    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.

  3. 3
    chris haynes says:

    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?
    Sorry, No.
    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.

  4. 4
    tjguy says:

    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!

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Shapiro’s question,,,

    “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.”

    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,,,

    “Joel Primack, a cosmologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, once posed an interesting question to the physicist Neil Turok: “What is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws?” Turok was surprised by the question; he recognized its force. Something seems to compel physical objects to obey the laws of nature, and what makes this observation odd is just that neither compulsion nor obedience are physical ideas.
    Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion pg. 132

    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?”

    “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
    We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    ? Max Planck

    Sir Isaac Newton also had the same type of answer for what compels the solar system to follow laws.

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
    Isaac Newton

    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’,,,

    “to say that a stone falls to earth because it’s obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen”
    – CS Lewis

    “In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.”
    C.S. Lewis – doodle video

    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.

    To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.”
    (Dr. Robert Shapiro, (28 November 1935 – 15 June 2011) was Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)

    “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.”
    – Dr. Lynn Margulis

    it is also helpful, in answering Shapiro’s question, to realize just how complex the ‘simplest’ life on earth is,,,

    “No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?”
    David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Three subsets of sequence complexity

    To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers – July 2012
    Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That’s a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
    ,,,It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell’s lifecycle processes.,,,
    ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore’s Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that’s only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,

    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.,,,

    Stephen Meyer (and Doug Axe) Critiques Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” Illustration

    And the same type of insurmountable barrier is found for transforming any existing protein into a new protein with a new function.

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.

    “Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution’s (non) Ability to Produce New (Protein) Functions ” – video
    Quote: It turns out once you get above the number six [changes in amino acids] — and even at lower numbers actually — but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth.

    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,,

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009) – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video

    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.

    Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) – Talbott – November 2010
    Excerpt: The standard doctrine has it that functionally important sequences, precisely because they are important to the organism, will generally be conserved across considerable evolutionary distances. But the emerging point of view holds that architecture can matter as much as sequence. As bioinformatics researcher Elliott Margulies and his team at the National Human Genome Research Institute put it, “the molecular shape of DNA is under selection” — a shape that can be maintained in its decisive aspects despite changes in the underlying sequence. It’s not enough, they write, to analyze “the order of A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s,” because “DNA is a molecule with a three-dimensional structure.”[14] Elementary as the point may seem, it’s leading to a considerable reallocation of investigative resources.

    Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA – Jonathan Wells – video

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    The Gene Myth, Part II – August 2010
    Excerpt: “It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, (intrinsically disoredered proteins), taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions.
    ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.
    Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy

    Biology’s Quiet Revolution – Jonathan Wells – September 8, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1996, biologists discovered a protein that does not fold into a unique shape but can assume different shapes when it interacts with other molecules. Since then, many such proteins have been found; they are called “intrinsically disordered proteins,” or IDPs. IDPs are surprisingly common, and their disordered regions play important functional roles.,,,
    So it is not true that biologists know all the basic features of living cells and are merely filling in the details. Nor is it true that Darwinian evolution is a settled scientific “fact,” as its defenders claim. Huge unanswered questions remain, and they will only be answered by going beyond the discredited myth that “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us.”

    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?’,, .

    Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,,
    Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling… and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained.
    The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?”
    The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way:
    “The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)”,,,
    And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,

    Talbott also had this very insightful observation as to what happens to an organism, at the molecular level, at the moment of death,,,

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.

    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,,, 🙂

    ‘I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And ‘it’ was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.’ –
    Vicky Noratuk Coast to Coast – Vicki’s Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3

    supplemental note:

    “Are We Really Conscious?”: A Reply to Dr. Graziano’s Brain – Michael Egnor – October 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Our current morass in philosophy of the mind is a direct consequence of the Cartesian abandonment of the Aristotelian-Thomist understanding of the human person. In the Aristotelian-Thomist view, we are composites of soul and body — form and matter — which are inseparable in natural life. Psychological attributes like intelligence, will, perception, memory etc. are powers of human beings, not powers of organs. Such powers are properly applied only to persons qua persons, and not to parts of persons, even such important and fascinating parts as the brain.
    Neurophysiology is the proper study of the activities of the brain, which include metabolism, electrochemistry, etc. Psychology is the proper study of the powers of the human soul (psyche). Cognitive neuroscience is the proper study of the correlates between neurophysiology and psychology.
    But correlates are not causes, and it’s essential that we do not conflate parts with wholes.

    Verse and music

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    In Christ Alone Live – HD

  7. 7
    Edward says:

    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.

  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    scientifically speaking, Darwinism is on the wrong playing field,,,

    WHAT IS LIFE? ERWIN SCHRODINGER – First published 1944 Pg. 28-29
    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?
    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.”

  12. 12

    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:


  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “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)

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    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:

  15. 15

    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.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    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”

  17. 17

    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.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    etc.. etc…

    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.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    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.[2] 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

  20. 20

    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.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “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

  22. 22

    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?

Leave a Reply