News Origin Of Life

Best origin of life quotes from 2015?

Spread the love

Moshe Averick Rabbi Moshe Averick is comprehensively revising Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused, Illusory World of the Atheist (Mosaica Press). He asked if I know of interesting citations from 2015, explaining that he has put quotations in chrono order going back to 1934.

If readers can help, please put the quotes with links in the comments box.

I’d suggest looking at some of Suzan Mazur’s recent work at the Huffington Post, including

Origin of life: Highlights of Suzan Mazur’s interview with researcher Corrado Spadafora


Suzan Mazur: A non-linear language needed for life? Meet Luis Villareal

Origin of Life Circus Her book, The Origin of Life Circus is an excellent source as well.

There might also be something here. The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Best origin of life quotes from 2015?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Hi News,

    Is he asking specifically for quotations regarding the origin of life?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Of interest:

    The Digital Code of DNA and the Unimagined Complexity of a ‘Simple’ Bacteria – Rabbi Moshe Averick – video

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    The existence of linear and digital sequences in life is a fact, an experimental fact, and all biologists acknowledge it. It is equally a fact that linear and digital sequences that direct the synthesis of molecules do not exist in the inanimate world, so it is beyond dispute that a divide does exist between life and matter. It is the divide between the analogue world of chemistry and the digital world of life, and it is not a fiction. The problem is the origin of that divide, not it’s existence.

    – Marcello Barbieri, Code Biology: A New Science of Life, p 12.


  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Dr. Giem has new video on ORFan genes:

    New Genes Are Essential 6-13-2015 by Paul Giem – video
    It has been noted that ORFan genes (genes that are not related to genes in other organisms) are common. Research on fruit flies shows that a substantial portion of those genes are essential for development, raising the question of how so many of those genes can evolve so rapidly.

  5. 5
    tarmaras says:

    From Ashish Dalela’s Is the Apple Really Red?: 10 Essays on Science and Religion, Chapter 5: Impersonalism, Voidism and Science.

    The book was published at the end of 2014, but it’s close.

    “The central difficulty in the philosophies of impersonalism and voidism
    is the inability to explain how the manifest world of forms is created
    from the formless. For instance, if the universe prior to creation
    is oneness, then how is that oneness divided into many parts? If the
    universe is emptiness prior to creation, then what converts that emptiness
    into objects? The scientific counterpart of these questions is: If
    space-time is the fundamental entity from which the universe springs,
    then what causes the random fluctuation in that space-time, which, in
    turn cause the manifest universe? Without such an explanation, the
    theory of nature is incomplete because it cannot explain the origin of
    form from the formless.”

    In recent times, there have been attempts to solve this problem by
    postulating consciousness as a transcendent entity that creates the
    forms. For instance, some New Age thinkers claim that nature is a
    quantum probability wavefunction that consciousness collapses into
    definite states out of its choices. This consciousness, the spiritualist
    claims, is an impersonal cosmic consciousness, the field of choices in
    which the world of experience is created. But this idea of a cosmic
    impersonal consciousness is a misnomer because the idea of choice
    and the idea of oneness are incompatible; choices imply individuality,
    and if consciousness can choose, then it must be an individual. Choices
    without individuality cannot exist. The idea of cosmic conscious
    choices thus leads to inconsistency. However, without the notion of
    a transcendent consciousness, there is no explanation for the emergence
    of form from the formless. In that scenario, the scientific explanation
    of nature is incomplete.

    Science is already being stalked by problems of incompleteness
    and inconsistency which spirituality is supposed to solve. For, if science
    was already complete and consistent, then there would be no
    need for a spiritual alternative. By adopting impersonal and voidistic
    approaches, however, we again inherit problems of inconsistency and
    incompleteness, this time from the spiritual notions.

    It has become customary in science to attribute anything that the
    scientific theory cannot explain to randomness. Thus space-time can
    randomly produce particles, and these randomly created particles
    can randomly combine to form complex molecules, which can randomly
    combine to produce living beings. By injecting the idea of randomness
    into a logical-empirical explanation of nature, such theories
    violate the fundamental goal in science which is to provide predictable
    cause-effect relationships. Those who propose randomness as an
    explanation of currently unexplained facts believe that they are proposing
    a unique scientific idea, but a closer look reveals that they are
    proposing infinitely many unique ideas.

    Most impersonalist and voidist religious philosophies ride on this
    dogmatic approach to science. Just as matter can ‘emerge’ from the
    collapse of the wavefunction or changes to the geometry of the spacetime
    in physical theories, impersonalism and voidism suggest that
    forms are created from something formless. While claiming to provide
    a ‘synthesis’ of science and religion, in so far as the problem about
    the conversion of formless to form is concerned, we would not have
    moved an inch in neither religion nor science.”

Leave a Reply