We know too many ways life could have got started?

BTW: LP, when you mock ID supporters who use some degree of concealment, understand what happened to the undersigned who requests only respect for his in-box. Hunts all over the Internet, attempts to expose and threaten wife and minor children, threats to utterly uninvolved relatives, slander attacks, behaviour that looks like the perps need to go see a good shrink for all sorts of sociopathic and anger management problems (depending on the case). Multiply by the real deal: lies, false accusations of thievery, conspiracies to distort career achievements to excuse career busting, and worse. In that context LP's behaviour above has to be seen as enabling of agit-prop bully-boy tactics, driven by patent bigotry visible from tone and substance . . . and don't get me started on giving details behind this last. That is what we are dealing with. I hope LP or his creators have enough conscience left to be deeply ashamed. KF kairosfocus

F/N: While a full demonstration of a major case cannot be put in 6,000 words, that is the upper length of a reasonable feature article and no limits on external links is given. So, a reasonable executive summary case can be given [6,000 words being equivalent to a 45 minute lecture], and links can be given elsewhere. I rest assured, that if the evolutionary materialism advocates -- and the abbreviation is obvious -- were in possession of the goods they advertise, such would be present in every corner of the Internet and would be trumpeted from the housetops. In short, the attempt to ridicule the challenge is a disguised dodge. LP continues to show that "he" is not serious. Strike two. KF kairosfocus

LP: As was shown in 26 above based on a specific case -- where you were trying to accuse me of poisoning the well but only succeeded in spewing a string of familiar false and long since exposed accusations, insinuations and name-calling invidious associations -- I have evaluated your actual behaviour. So, you are also demonstrably willfully deceitful in your onward string of accusations, drumming on with a continued loaded misrepresentation. No surprise, on track record of your ilk. If you hope to make any serious contribution at UD, you will be well advised to correct your behaviour in light of the UD weak argument correctives. I will not entertain you in an onward crocodile death roll where you will continue the Alinsky tactic of targetting and personalising; FYI, you now stand on strike one. If instead of worn out agit-prop tactics, you are willing to take up the pro-darwinism essay challenge seriously, you have in hand all the information you need. KF PS: And, the empirical evidence of say an RNA world functioning organism is: ___________ , discovered in _________ location, by: _________ , and published this in: ___________ . The evidence that such or the like could and did emerge in some reasonable pre biotic environment is _____ (with evidence of a prebiotic soup if implied being ______). The onward evidence that such could and did evolve into DNA-RNA-enzyme-ribosome based organisms with coded genetic information is: ____________ , with the code and algorithms, databases for proteins being accounted for on _________ . And that this path to the modern cell actually occured we can be assured on the evidence that _________ . The prizes and recognition for these discoveries are: ________ . PPS: Onlookers, I am of course using the FITB above to underscore what sort of evidence would be required to substantiate claims regarding the Darwinist root of the tree of life. I am quite aware that to fill in such on genuine substance would be quite a challenge. Evo mat ideologues and advocates actually usually hold a "something like this must have happened" view, and project to those who question their extraordinary claims, that to challenge the evo mat view is anti science. That is they equate science to their ideology. kairosfocus

kairosfocus, you can pre-judge me based on behaviours of others that are completely unrelated to me. That's your prerogative to stereotype people. It just means you lost your argument and I don't change my views because you want me to, I change based on evidence and you certainly haven't provided anything remotely acceptable. At least bornagain77 tries though all their posts are flawed. Your groundless innuendo is as I stated poisoning the well. It's a fallacy. Move on. The topic is abiogenesis. There are a number of approaches from science but there is no approach from ID. What is the definitive ID view of the origin of the first cell and nucleic acid ? There is no position other than it wasn't spontaneous. OK if it wasn't spontaneous then what was it and why can't it be spontaneous ? Why can't the designer fine-tune the fundamental constants of the universe at T=0 to ensure that life spontaneously forms at T+9 billion years ? And if that was done then why can't the constants ensure the spontaneously formation of RNA and DNA ? About now bornagain77 will be readying a new copy+pasta that will have highly improbable events but all those tired old calculations show is how it was not done, not how it was done. Do the people saying how it was not done advance any view on how it was done ? Generally not. Key to the start is information. Random streams have information but when it comes to ID at best we get pages of poor maths that does its best to add special sauce to bits to turn them into ID-flavour bits to make them different from random bits. This lack of understanding of information is a systemic problem with ID people. The pump of information from random bits plus natural selection (i.e. the environment or nature) gives us the complex specified information after the fact. This is how genetic algorithms work and even how artificial selection works. The design is in the natural selector and that may be spontaneously formed, or created but in both cases the result is a biased random walk. It is not possible to tell if a node in a search was visited by a biased random walk or by some other algorithm (AKA a designer). From an ID point of view we never will get to see how it was done. Why ? Because ID theorists cannot know. Bits carry no flavour and claims that a suitably large search space is unlikely to be traversed in the time allowed, and thus it must be design, isn't a reasonable argument as no ID theorists can ever know if a biased random walk could or could not search the space unless they try (and fail) a biased random walk. Do they try ? No. And as for asking for some 6,000 word essay on "evo mat" (whatever that is !) is naive. It is assuming that a proof can fit into 6,000 words. The proof for Fermat's last theorem is over 100 pages long and took 200 years. The size of the question is not proportional to the answer and the very fact that a number of words is demanded suggests an ignorance of what is needed. Do we have an ID proof for design ?. No. We have claims of design but no proof. Proofs are hard and may take hundreds of years to develop. The millennium problems show this issue. Do we have evidence as to what ID theorists say the first cell was ? No. Typical ID rhetoric is to cite modern cell mechanisms. Do ID theorists say when the first cell occurred ? No - current science posits an approximate timeframe but on Uncommon Descent that timeframe is attacked but no alternative timeframe is offered. Was the first cell a modern cell ? Unlikely. Lincoln Phipps

"Eating bacon pisses your god off."

No, Lincoln, it is not the actual eating of the bacon, but the rebellion against His commands, in this case, that makes Him angry. I say that because later in the Bible, the special dietary laws that God gave to the Israelites were revoked. It may have been wrong for Jews to eat pork, but it was not wrong for non-Israelites to do so. This was one of the many laws that God gave specifically to the Jews to help set them apart from the surrounding nations as His people. Circumcision was another such law. There were many other laws though that certainly applied to all people. For instance, adultery is a moral issue that applies to all people everywhere regardless whether one is a Jew or not. God is holy and He hates wickedness(& the wicked as well) Sin is defied as lawlessness in the Bible - in reference to His laws, although lawlessness in society also qualifies as sin. It is also wrong NOT to do something you know you should do - a sin of omission as opposed to a sin of commission. Sin can be in word, deed, thought, or motive.

"I imagine that you’ve probably not done everything perfect since birth"

True. We all have messed up, some more than others, but that is not really relevant. The point is that we are all sinners. We have all rebelled against Him and gone our own way, ignoring Him. The penalty for sin is death, both physical and spiritual according to the Bible so we all fall short of His standards which means no one is fit to go to heaven. We have all pissed Him off and He is right to be angry at your sin and mine, just as we are angered by evil in society. The amazing thing though is that He sent Jesus to take the full brunt of God's anger against our sin so that He can forgive us. But if we reject this great act of love and mercy and somehow think that we are good enough on our own to get to heaven, then we remain under His righteous wrath. To reject Jesus is to chose not to go to heaven, because only Jesus, with His perfect sacrifice on the cross, can pay the penalty for your sin. BA would be the first to admit that he is not perfect and that he too is a sinner like you. Some of us piss off God more than others because of active rebellion and/or a conscious decision to oppose Christianity, but still we are all under His wrath because of our sin - even the Pope himself - until we repent and trust in Jesus to save and forgive us. tjguy

Mapou: I think LP needs to face himself (of themselves), other than in an evo mat echo chamber. S/he or the composite it's creators need to understand that the ideologues in lab coats have not cornered the market on the truth, and to however dimly, have an opportunity to begin to see the truth. And, failing that LP is an example for all to see of what the evo mat ideologues have become. As for banning, that is a power held by others, and I think their general policy is that someone like LT is such a self-parody that the result is inadvertent self refutation by dint of being oblivious to self referential absurdities and empty-headed parotting of long since exposed talking points. And, who knows, maybe LP will actually have the courage to take the pro darwinism challenge seriously. KF kairosfocus

kairosfocus, I don't understand why you're playing cat and mouse with Phipps. UD is not supported by government money and free speech is not a right here. Nobody needs Phipps' repentance. Just ban the self-important troll. That's what I would do. Mapou

Onlookers, every thread at UD and every attack comment here and elsewhere that targets UD should be understood in light of the dog that didn't bark when it counted, for a year and more now. KF kairosfocus

PPS: If you are serious, after cooling down, the public invitation to take a free kick at goal of Sept 23 2012 is still open. Cf. the challenge here, and the after a full year composite remarks, here. (This is a case of the dog that didn't bark.) KF kairosfocus

PS: And if you wanted a case in point, you can examine the anti-Christian bigotry and NCSE talking point laced, rhetorical pile-on:

the creationist/ID dogma in that the public face of ID is anti-science criticism, ad hom, and the multi-faced confused evidence-free claims about a designer which vary from God-did-it through to I’m-not-saying with a side-order of Jesus-loves-you

. . . which you just used. (Ironically, this was projected by you as a correction of a caution I made above. All you succeeded in doing was underscoring my point by resorting to an inept turnabout accusation. The good news in this is that you are not likely to be a hard core, just a run of the mill case of the indoctrinated. You may still be composite, but if so you are more like some over-programmed teens or Freshmen in a basement than something cooked up seriously at ATBC etc. You can start on the composite issue with a very unlikely name.) You have plainly been so indoctrinated and polarised that you don't realise just how falsely what you just wrote rings. I suggest that you would be well advised to begin de-programming and turning the hype voltage down with the UD WACs as just linked. KF kairosfocus

LP: Here at UD we have seen a LOT of sock-puppets, trolls, cyberstalking bullies and the like over the years, with Patrick May's improperly appropriated Mathgrrl persona -- there is a real article, a Calculus professor -- being the most notorious of the sock puppets. Your pattern of behaviour fits like a glove. Either change your behaviour to reasonable, serious interaction [start by taking on board the UD weak argument correctives and dropping the zero concession you all are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked pose . . . ], or you will be taken under the rule: if it walks and quacks like a duck . . . KF kairosfocus

Lincoln, I am not a Christian. I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. Thus, disbelief in evolution spreads across the board. Of course, I guess one reason why I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution is because no one can even say what it is. Its the biological theory of anything (but we know its not planned, except when it is). phoodoo

Lincoln, If you say that ID is anti-science, you are a troll. And there isn't any support for unguided evolution. YOU can't even produce testable hypotheses for that premise. And it is obvious that you don't know what evidence is. Joe

I see mapou, jerry and kairosfocus are poisoning the well again. KS makes the usual groundless claims about trolls and sock-puppets which KS has tried before but hasn't been able to substantiate one iota. With a few exceptions the pro-ID/pro-creationists hide behind anonymous nicknames. But that's just them being consistent with the creationist/ID dogma in that the public face of ID is anti-science criticism, ad hom, and the multi-faced confused evidence-free claims about a designer which vary from God-did-it through to I'm-not-saying with a side-order of Jesus-loves-you. What the anti-Evolutionists can't understand is that support for Evolution is across the board from atheist to Christians. bornagain77 claims "In my book, it is very, very, unwise to do your best to piss God off in this life, as Dawkins and other ‘new agnostic’ atheists seem bent on doing, when you have no proof that your preferred belief is true!" What bornagain77 is saying is that we should accept '77 claims so we don't "piss God off". What an intellectually vacuous reason. Eating bacon pisses your god off '77 so I imagine that you've probably not done everything perfect since birth to make it happy. Addressing the point though to start with beliefs from science are not about "truth" but what is more probable. If I was after truths I would be a lot more focused on mathematics but I'm more interested in information theory and the world around us. Does '77 honestly think that god is pissed off because I criticise '77 and the other anonymous posters on Uncommon Descent ? Seriously give your god more credit than that !. Bornagain77 posts pages after page of copy+paste and the intent of that is to swamp the reader and waste their time. Every post is a mixture of poor science, refuted claims, fallacy or a touch of theology. Lincoln Phipps

OT: Different sponge species (of the same genus) have highly specific, stable microbiomes - January 21, 2014 Excerpt: The sea sponge is about as simple as an animal can get, but its associated bacterial community—its microbiome —is known to approach the complexity of the diverse microbiome in the human gut. Now, scientists,, have shown that different species of Hexadella sponges each have a highly specific and stable microbiome, not only in terms of the most abundant members of the associated microbial community, but the rare members as well. "When we looked at what microbial community occurred in a species of sponge, we always found the same community, no matter where geographically and at which depth the sponge [lived]," http://phys.org/news/2014-01-sponge-species-highly-specific-stable.html Hexadella (Genus) http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Animalia/Hexadella_Genus.asp bornagain77

Atheists logic 101 "If I can only create life here in the lab (or in my computer), it will prove that no intelligence was necessary to create life in the beginning" http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/life-by-chance.jpg bornagain77

Interesting article by National Catholic Register writer, Paul Shea, on Supernaturalism and Naturalism, contrasting the reactions of two atheists to witnessing miracles at Lourdes: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/private-revelation-two-stories-and-two-basic-types Axel

The Evolutionist has a simple solution to the OoL problem. It’s exactly like Steve Martin’s advice on How to Become a Millionaire and Never Pay Taxes! “First, take a living cell…”

Shouldn't have been drinking as I read that. Nose burns. Made me "lol". :D TSErik

The Evolutionist has a simple solution to the OoL problem. It's exactly like Steve Martin's advice on How to Become a Millionaire and Never Pay Taxes! "First, take a living cell..." drc466

But, I thought evolutionists weren't concerned about the origin of life. That's somebody else's problem. OldArmy94

The quote Joe provides is very telling. As well as the energy issue raised by BA77. Then there is the real problem. How do we get information? For anyone who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is possible, I have offered, and offer again the following challenge: ----- I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arganine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, cometary clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown so you can keep them around as long as you want. Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge and a significant open question to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all. Now, with all these concessions, what do you think the next step is? Go ahead, what is your theory about how life forms? Eric Anderson

Ouch, typos. kairosfocus

M: A bit5 strong on languag4, but you are probably rigt that we are dealing with at least one troll and probaly a composite sock-puppet. Howbeit, this reveals the inr4ellectual bankruptcy of what we are addressing, especially when it is well past a year where a simple knockout invitation has been put on the table. Put up a 6,000 word essay on the evidential basis for the evo mat view, and I will personally host it here at UD. If you want you can post it at TSZ etc. Since Sept 23, 2012, no serious take-up, I had to put up a composite as much as we can squeeze out response. It is time that we all took due note of what is really going on. KF kairosfocus

Phipps is a freaking troll, in my opinion. Ignore the jackass.

I have frequently said the most interesting thing about the evolution debate is not the actual evidence but the behavior of the individuals involved. Why do they behave as they do? Mr. Phipps is a stereotype anti-ID commenter whose comments usually include ad hominems, irrelevancies, trivialities and some times absurdities. Rarely is there an interest in actual debate or understanding. Nothing new but commenters here encourage this continued behavior. Nearly all Mr. Phipps comments are meant to bait. And like good little fish many take the bait.

Origin of Life Faces Four Paradoxes

While not a paradox, I think most of us will agree the real problem is the building of information. Self replication does not solve that. jerry

Phipps is a freaking troll, in my opinion. Ignore the jackass. Mapou

Lincoln Phipps, since even Dawkins himself is not 100% sure that God does not exist: Ben Stein interviews Richard Dawkins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trUUv_ZDoMo or a 'agnostic atheist' as you say, then why in Blue Blazes is he a 'militant atheist' who acts like he is 100% sure he will never have to face God and who does his best to ridicule Christians and spread disbelief? ,,, If he were truly honest in his agnosticism should he not be more circumspect?? Perhaps a little more circumspect, and humble, like to former leading atheist in the world was?

"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Anthony Flew - world's leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life until a few years shortly before his death The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel (Nov. 25, 2012) - video http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/ee32d/

In my book, it is very, very, unwise to do your best to piss God off in this life, as Dawkins and other 'new agnostic' atheists seem bent on doing, when you have no proof that your preferred belief is true! The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ bornagain77

Lincoln Phipps- You are confused as your position has nothing, not even testable hypotheses. Joe

Abiogenesis is the end of days for the God of Gaps that is ID. At least bornagain77 is reasonably honest here by being open as to what it is but many other ID supporters hide their foundation mythology with weasel wording. The odd part though is how borngain77 assumes others deny the existence of God. To '77 an "atheist" denies god whereas most atheists are agnostic atheists. One day '77 will learn the difference. Lincoln Phipps

Moreover, as if that was not 'spooky' enough, the nature of how the image formed on the shroud, belongs to the quantum world, not to the classical world:

"It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was "lifted cleanly" from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state." Kevin Moran - Optical Engineer The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html

If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image on the Shroud of Turin, I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before.

Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? - article with video Excerpt: "Very often as they're moving through the tunnel, there's a very bright mystical light ... not like a light we're used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns..." - Jeffery Long M.D. - has studied NDE's extensively http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/beyondbelief/experts-death-experience/story?id=14221154#.T_gydvW8jbI "Suddenly, I was enveloped in this brilliant golden light. The light was more brilliant that the light emanating from the sun, many times more powerful and radiant than the sun itself. Yet, I was not blinded by it nor burned by it. Instead, the light was a source of energy that embraced my being." Ned Dougherty's - Fast Lane To Heaven - Quoted from "To Heaven and Back" pg. 71 - Mary C. Neal MD “The Light was brighter than hundreds of suns, but it did not hurt my eyes. I had never seen anything as luminous or as golden as this Light, and I immediately understood it was entirely composed of love, all directed at me. This wonderful, vibrant love was very personal, as you might describe secular love, but also sacred. Though I had never seen God, I recognized this light as the Light of God. But even the word God seemed too small to describe the magnificence of that presence. I was with my Creator, in holy communication with that presence. The Light was directed at me and through me; it surrounded me and pierced me. It existed just for me.” – testimony taken from Kimberly Clark Sharp’s Near Death Experience

All people who have been in the presence of 'The Being of Light', while having a deep NDE, have no doubt whatsoever that the 'The Being of Light' they were in the presence of is none other than 'The Lord God Almighty' of heaven and earth.

In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

Verse and Music:

Acts 26:13-15 at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Revelation 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Evanescence - The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch

bornagain77

Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life - Jan. 16, 2014 Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz' team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb. This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies. So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed. This technique, , allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions. "If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave," Markelz said. "Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don't get any sustained sound." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116084838.htm The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another? Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see' and ‘hear' each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions. ,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRealBioinformaticsRevolution.php

In fact photographs have been taken of humans emitting this 'spooky' biological laser light:

Image - This first image shows one of the test subjects in full light. The middle image shows the body giving off weak emissions of visible light in totally dark conditions. The rightmost image of the subject, captured in infrared wavelengths, shows the heat emissions. http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090722-body-glow-1p.grid-6x2.jpg

Moreover, it is also confirmed to be 'quantum light' that is being emitted by humans:

Evidence of quantum nature of life in human photon emission - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=liIDKLZVRdM#t=1351s Photocount distribution of photons emitted from three sites of a human body - 2006 Excerpt: Signals from three representative sites of low, intermediate and high intensities are selected for further analysis. Fluctuations in these signals are measured by the probabilities of detecting different numbers of photons in a bin. The probabilities have non-classical features and are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons. Measurements with bins of three sizes yield same values of three parameters of the squeezed state. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520060 Humans Glow in (Emit) Visible Light - July 2009 Excerpt: Past research has shown that the body emits visible light, 1,000 times less intense than the levels to which our naked eyes are sensitive. In fact, virtually all living creatures emit very weak light, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32090918/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/humans-glow-visible-light/

Supplemental notes:

Are humans really beings of light? Excerpt: "We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.",,, "There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon... Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions... We are swimming in an ocean of light." http://viewzone2.com/dna.html

As to other observational evidence:

Coast to Coast - Vicki's Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y Quote from preceding video: '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

bornagain77

Moreover, as if all that was not bad enough for the materialists who would like to explain the Origin of Life without recourse to God, it is now found that Photosynthetic life has been on earth for as long water has been on the face of the earth. i.e. we now have evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth.

The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918 When Did Life on Earth Begin? Ask a Rock (3.85 bya) http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/ When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve? - Roger Buick - 2008 Excerpt:,, U–Pb data from ca 3.8?Ga metasediments suggest that this metabolism could have arisen by the start of the geological record. Hence, the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became permanently oxygenated seems well supported. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1504/2731.long

Moreover, there are no prebiotic chemical signature before that time:

Dr. Hugh Ross - Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012696 "We get that evidence from looking at carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis. And it tells us that in Earth's oldest (sedimentary) rock, which dates at 3.80 billion years ago, we find an abundance for the carbon signature of living systems. Namely, that life prefers carbon 12. And so if you see a higher ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 that means that carbon has been processed by life. And it is that kind of evidence that tells us that life has been abundant on earth as far back as 3.80 billion years ago (when water was first present on earth).,,, And that same carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis tells us that planet earth, over it entire 4.5662 billion year history has never had prebiotics. Prebiotics would have a higher ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12. All the carbonaceous material, we see in the entire geological record of the earth, has the signature of being post-biotic not pre-biotic. Which means planet earth never had a primordial soup. And the origin of life on earth took place in a geological instant" (as soon as it was possible for life to exist on earth). - Hugh Ross - quote as stated in preceding video

Moreover, on top of that, it is now found that a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause is needed to explain the how photons are captured in the initial stages of the photosynthetic process;

Quantum Mechanics Explains Efficiency of Photosynthesis - Jan. 9, 2014 Excerpt: Previous experiments suggest that energy is transferred in a wave-like manner, exploiting quantum phenomena, but crucially, a non-classical explanation could not be conclusively proved as the phenomena identified could equally be described using classical physics.,,, Now, a team at UCL have attempted to identify features in these biological systems which can only be predicted by quantum physics, and for which no classical analogues exist. ,,,said Alexandra Olaya-Castro (UCL Physics & Astronomy), supervisor and co-author of the research. "We found that the properties of some of the chromophore vibrations that assist energy transfer during photosynthesis can never be described with classical laws, and moreover, this non-classical behaviour enhances the efficiency of the energy transfer.",,, Other biomolecular processes such as the transfer of electrons within macromolecules (like in reaction centres in photosynthetic systems), the structural change of a chromophore upon absorption of photons (like in vision processes) or the recognition of a molecule by another (as in olfaction processes), are influenced by specific vibrational motions. The results of this research therefore suggest that a closer examination of the vibrational dynamics involved in these processes could provide other biological prototypes exploiting truly non-classical phenomena,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109092008.htm

At the 21:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr Suarez explains why photosynthesis needs a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain its effect:

Nonlocality of Photosynthesis - Antoine Suarez - video - 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhMrrmlTXl4&feature=player_detailpage#t=1268s

Moreover, the overall characteristics of a photon, when examined in detail, gives us strong evidence as to Who this non-local cause for photosynthesis must be:

A few notes on the theistic implications of photosynthesis and on light itself: Excerpt: Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! Light is found in our experiments with special relativity to be ‘eternal’. As well, a photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus 'non-locally', to just a '1 or 0' state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction of the photon to its particle state. Moreover, a non-local, beyond space and time, cause is needed to explain the 'harvesting of energy' in photosynthesis. Energy that all other complex biological life on earth is ultimately dependent on. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints (eternal), as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon and in the non-local quantum coherence of photosynthesis??? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uX1w_iUOD3O8F-GvbkfG2GKuAunQuYRssSMb_t5kB8/edit

Of related note: It is also very interesting to note that once light is harnessed by photosynthesis into ATP, then that light is somehow, amazingly, by some as of yet un-elucidated mechanism, regenerated within organisms as biological 'laser' light:

Cellular Communication through Light Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005086 Biophotons - The Light In Our Cells - Marco Bischof - March 2005 Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism. http://www.international-light-association.eu/PDF/Biophotons.pdf

bornagain77

Not to disagree with Joe's 'Four Paradoxes' reference, in fact it is in complete harmony with the 'Four Paradoxes' reference, but I find one of the main insurmountable 'brick wall' problems surrounding the OOL issue, for materialists, the problem that most directly necessitates the need to appeal to God to explain the OOL issue, is the problem of how to harness energy so as perform useful work, instead of the unharnessed energy increasing disorder as it usually does. Unharnessed energy, despite what Darwinists have adamantly claimed to the contrary with their 'just so' 'compensation argument',,,

Granville Sewell Defends his Arguments on the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Casey Luskin - August 22, 2013 Excerpt: Sewell concludes "The 'compensation' counter-argument was produced by people who generalized the model equation for isolated systems, but forgot to generalize the equation for non-isolated systems." His generalized model would be as follows: "If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/in_bio-complexi075561.html

,,, Unharnessed energy, in reality, despite concerted Darwinian attempts to sweep this monumental problem under the rug through intimidation and censorship,,

How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained -- and How it Can be Challenged - Granville Sewell - September 3, 2013 Conclusion: the journal BIO-Complexity has just published my new article "Entropy and Evolution," which I believe contains the strongest and clearest presentation of my viewpoint to date. The first thought that will occur to many people who read it will be, how could this illogical compensation argument have gone unchallenged for so long in the scientific literature? Well, now you know how. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/how_the_scienti_1076101.html

,,, Unharnessed energy, in reality, greatly exasperates the entropy problem instead of alleviates it. This 'common sense' video gets this readily apparent fact across quite clearly:

Evolution Vs. Thermodynamics - Open System Refutation - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4143014

Yet harnessing energy to do useful work in the cell, instead of increasing disorder, through Photosynthesis, is found to be a breathtakingly integrated process,,

Scientists unlock some key secrets of photosynthesis - July 2, 2012 Excerpt: "The photosynthetic system of plants is nature's most elaborate nanoscale biological machine," said Lakshmi. "It converts light energy at unrivaled efficiency of more than 95 percent compared to 10 to 15 percent in the current man-made solar technologies.,, "Photosystem II is the engine of life," Lakshmi said. "It performs one of the most energetically demanding reactions known to mankind, splitting water, with remarkable ease and efficiency.",,, "Water is a very stable molecule and it takes four photons of light to split water," she said. "This is a challenge for chemists and physicists around the world (to imitate) as the four-photon reaction has very stringent requirements." http://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-key-secrets-photosynthesis.html The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8

At the 6:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production:

Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706

Moreover, photosynthesis appeared multiple times in different bacteria 'with no apparent pattern of evolution'

"The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution. Photosynthetic phyla include the cyanobacteria, proteobacteria (purple bacteria), green sulfur bacteria (GSB), firmicutes (heliobacteria), filamentous anoxygenic phototrophs (FAPs, also often called the green nonsulfur bacteria), and acidobacteria (Raymond, 2008)."

Even the ATP machine itself at the heart of the photosynthesic process is found to be breathtaking in its integrated complexity and efficiency,,,

The ATP Synthase Enzyme - an exquisite motor necessary for first life - 2013 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8m6o0gXDY ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell - Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. Excerpt: In manufacturing terms, the ATP (Synthase) molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television (Darnell, Lodish, and Baltimore, 1996). http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp Your Motor/Generators Are 100% Efficient – October 2011 Excerpt: ATP synthase astounds again. The molecular machine that generates almost all the ATP (molecular “energy pellets”) for all life was examined by Japanese scientists for its thermodynamic efficiency. By applying and measuring load on the top part that synthesizes ATP, they were able to determine that one cannot do better at getting work out of a motor,,, The article was edited by noted Harvard expert on the bacterial flagellum, Howard Berg. http://crev.info/content/111014-your_motor_generators

bornagain77

Origin of Life Faces Four Paradoxes:

We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we’re up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past. The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA — 100 nucleotides long — that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.

Joe

Love it News:

A million ways to bell a cat but not one that doesn’t include dealing directly with the cat.

That is a beautiful analogy News! Too funny! Perhaps if scientists want to explain the origin of life, instead of imagining that a million different ways, that have all resoundingly failed somehow gets them closer to explaining how life arose, they might, finally, come to their collective senses and actually deal directly with One who is the source of all life? You know the One who defeated death on the cross so that we may have eternal life???

Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Perhaps the reason why these OOL scientists (or all men in General) don't ever truly look for the source of all life is for the very same basic reason that the mice don't want to deal directly with the Cat? They fear, deep down, because of unresolved sin in their lives, that God is somehow out to 'get them'? But far from the Cat that would seek to destroy us if we got close to it, God wants us to come near to Him, so that He might forgive us through Christ of, and heal us from, our sin. Our sin that separates us from Him. He who IS the source of all life. The sin that always leads us inexorably to death in the first place.

Jeremiah 29:11 (New Living Translation) For I know the plans I have for you," says the LORD. "They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.

The delusion surrounding all these origin of life speculations, and even the delusion that 'science' may one day figure out how to extend human life indefinitely by somehow overcoming physical death, both run into the same insurmountable brick wall. Namely, the relentless death grip that Thermodynamics presents to any such ill-founded speculation! To give a hint as to how insurmountable this brick wall is, Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life 'problem' escalates dramatically over the 'optimistic' 1 in 10^40,000 figure, that is often bantered about, when working from a thermodynamic perspective,:

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective, with a already existing cell, and came up with this number:

DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html Punctured cell will never reassemble - Jonathan Wells - 2:40 mark of video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo

As to the delusion of overcoming death in general through 'science', as I've often seen expressed from time to time, there once again Entropy says to the delusion:

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

i.e. Science/Medicine surely alleviates suffering, but as to ever dealing with the main cause of bodily death, Entropy, our medicine is, as impressive as some results of medicine may be, forever hopeless as to ever truly dealing directly with main cause of it.i.e. Entropy! Dr. John Sanford, starting at the 17 minute mark going to the 22 minute mark of the following video, relates how slightly detrimental mutations, slightly detrimental mutations that accumulate each time a cell divides, are the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die.

John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PHsu94HQrL0#t=1040s

Here is the main powerpoint slide from John Sanford's preceding video as to the entropy/death issue:

*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.

Here is a very good 20 minute interview with Dr. Sanford on this subject:

Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video https://vimeo.com/35088933

The evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 148,000 mutational disorders.

The Human Gene Mutation Database Total entries: 148,413 http://www.hgmd.org/

Moreover, enigmatically, in a finding that seems to add quite a bit of weight to the concept of 'original sin', most detrimental mutations seem to have occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years

Genetic Entropy in Human Genome is found to be 'recent': Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm

This following video brings the point home to us, personally, about the overall effects of entropy on our material bodies as they grow older:

Aging Process - 85 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk

bornagain77

". . . too many possible mechanisms . . ." Uh, sure. If by "possible" we mean proposed in someone's wild fantasy. But if by "possible" we mean actually possible, or reasonably likely, or believable without taking leave of our senses, or supportable without laughter, then, no, there aren't too many mechanisms. There aren't any. Eric Anderson