News Origin Of Life

New origin of life approach gets one thing right

Spread the love

The importance of information:

For life to have begun, something that could encode information and replicate itself was necessary. A molecule—or perhaps a group of molecules—would have done the trick. Once these substances could replicate themselves, it’s believed that natural selection would have stepped in to create new versions of the ‘Great Starter’.

Then it just degenerates into the usual big media Darwinsludge:

According to Lane, the environment that created life would need to be ‘continuously’ producing the building blocks of RNA in ‘large numbers’. ‘Any form of replication is doubling,’ says Lane. ‘So you need an environment that will feed you.’

‘This is one of the problems with a soup,’ says Lane, referring to Darwin’s 1871 theory that life emerged in a ‘warm little pond’—a soup of chemicals showered in light and heat. ‘You simply run out of ingredients very, very quickly—the concentration is too low.’

Matthew Powner isn’t giving up on Darwin’s soup just yet, though.

No. We bet not. It’s a religion.

See also: Origin of life studies stalled without considering information

17 Replies to “New origin of life approach gets one thing right

  1. 1
    Jerad says:

    Is there a particular reason the quotes are not given a reference? I’d quite like to read the rest.

  2. 2
    Box says:

    Jerad, let me google that for you

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    This is an interesting admission from Lane at the end of the article:

    The new science of the origins of life – April 2, 2015
    Excerpt: So the debate rages on. Over the past few decades scientists have edged closer to understanding the origin of life, but there is still some way to go, which is probably why when Robyn Williams asked Lane, ‘What was there in the beginning, do you think?’, the scientist replied wryly: ‘Ah, “think”. Yes, we have no idea, is the bottom line.’
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionat.....fe/6365468

  4. 4
    Jerad says:

    BA77 #3

    But clearly they have some ideas they are working on and progress is being made. It’s not like people are just throwing their hands up in the air and giving up.

    A good article for the general reader updating some of the work that has been going on for decades now.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Jerad, and what do you think of the ‘non-locality’ of photosynthesis? Does it require a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause?

  6. 6
    Jim Smith says:

    Besides replication and “food” you need some way to prevent the malliard reaction from turning everything into tar. Cells are not bags of water or little test tubes, they are highly organized factories, with different areas of controlled environments. Life originating in a “pool” is as likely as a tornado turning rubble into a factory.

  7. 7
    Joe says:

    Scientists would have an easier time showing that nature produced Stonehenge than it will with the OoL

  8. 8
    Jerad says:

    BA77 #5

    Jerad, and what do you think of the ‘non-locality’ of photosynthesis? Does it require a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause?

    I don’t understand what ‘non-locality of photosynthesis’ means. I couldn’t find a reference to it. Perhaps you’d like to explain that.

    Does it require a non-local cause? it’s a chemical/physics reaction. Why would it require a non-local cause?

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Jerad,

    Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Gregory S. Engel, Nature (12 April 2007)
    Photosynthetic complexes are exquisitely tuned to capture solar light efficiently, and then transmit the excitation energy to reaction centres, where long term energy storage is initiated.,,,, This wavelike characteristic of the energy transfer within the photosynthetic complex can explain its extreme efficiency, in that it allows the complexes to sample vast areas of phase space to find the most efficient path.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429397

    Quantum Mechanics at Work in Photosynthesis: Algae Familiar With These Processes for Nearly Two Four Billion Years – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: “We were astonished to find clear evidence of long-lived quantum mechanical states involved in moving the energy. Our result suggests that the energy of absorbed light resides in two places at once — a quantum superposition state, or coherence — and such a state lies at the heart of quantum mechanical theory.”,,, “It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans,” says Scholes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....131356.htm

    Life Masters Physics – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Collini et al.2 report evidence suggesting that a process known as quantum coherence ‘wires’ together distant molecules in the light-harvesting apparatus of marine cryptophyte algae.,,,“Intriguingly, recent work has documented that light-absorbing molecules in some photosynthetic proteins capture and transfer energy according to quantum-mechanical probability laws instead of classical laws at temperatures up to 180 K,”. ,,, “This contrasts with the long-held view that long-range quantum coherence between molecules cannot be sustained in complex biological systems, even at low temperatures.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100210a

    Uncovering Quantum Secret in Photosynthesis – June 20, 2013
    Excerpt: “These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences” says van Hulst.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142932.htm

    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.”,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....092008.htm

    At the 21:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr Suarez, in simple to learn terms, 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.....ge#t=1268s

  10. 10
    Jerad says:

    BA77 #9

    Have you got something other than a YouTube video to support the idea of photosynthesis needing a non-local cause. The other links are interesting discussions of possible quantum mechanical effects but non-local causes?

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Jerad, A. Suarez is more than qualified to speak on the subject and you should be honored that he made a youtube video for the lay audience. Moreover, it is weird that you demand evidence for non-locality of photosynthesis, when Darwinists have yet to provide ANY evidence that unguided material processes can create a molecular machine, despite repeated requests for such evidence so as to back up their grandiose claims.

    But anyways, despite your apparent aversion to the truth that is evident in the attitude of your post, coherence IS a non-local, beyond space and time, phenomena!

    i.e. They found ‘long-range quantum coherence between molecules’ in photosynthesis,,,

    and coherence IS non-local!:

    Coherence and nonlocality
    Usually quantum nonlocality is discussed in terms of correlated multiparticle systems such as those discussed by John Bell in his famous 1964 theorem and then later clarified by GHZ, David Mermin and others.

    But more striking and significant is the qualitative nonlocal phenomena associated with coherent states,,,,

    In fact, theoretically these two kinds of nonlocality have precisely the same basis: the unmeasured singlet state uncovered by EPR is a coherent ‘pure state’ despite its spacial extension, and when the parts are realized in a measurement (a la Bell) this coherence is harvested or cashed in.

    Whereas the “EPR” connections are ephemeral and fragile, some forms of nonlocal coherence are robust.
    http://www.nonlocal.com/hbar/n.....rence.html

    Of semi-related note is this recent paper:

    Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements – 24 March 2015
    Abstract: A single quantum particle can be described by a wavefunction that spreads over arbitrarily large distances; however, it is never detected in two (or more) places. This strange phenomenon is explained in the quantum theory by what Einstein repudiated as ‘spooky action at a distance’: the instantaneous nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction to wherever the particle is detected. Here we demonstrate this single-particle spooky action, with no efficiency loophole, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories and experimentally testing whether the choice of measurement in one laboratory really causes a change in the local quantum state in the other laboratory. To this end, we use homodyne measurements with six different measurement settings and quantitatively verify Einstein’s spooky action by violating an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen-steering inequality by 0.042±0.006. Our experiment also verifies the entanglement of the split single photon even when one side is untrusted.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....s7665.html

    Verse and Music:

    1 John 1:5
    This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

    Evanescence – My Heart Is Broken
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1QGnq9jUU0

  12. 12
    Jerad says:

    BA77 #11

    Jerad, A. Suarez is more than qualified to speak on the subject and you should be honored that he made a youtube video for the lay audience. Moreover, it is weird that you demand evidence for non-locality of photosynthesis, when Darwinists have yet to provide ANY evidence that unguided material processes can create a molecular machine, despite repeated requests for such evidence so as to back up their grandiose claims.

    Sorry but Suarez looks to be a bit of a crank, he’s part of the The Center for Quantum Philosophy (http://www.quantumphil.org/index.htm). Quantum effects are real and modelled with clear mathematics, can be measured in the lab and are NOT indications of some kind of design or guidance.

    But anyways, despite your apparent aversion to the truth that is evident in the attitude of your post, coherence IS a non-local, beyond space and time, phenomena!

    Coherence is a mechanistic phenomena that can be modelled and has been studied for about a century. It’s known and accepted science NOT some divine miracle.

    Gravity is non-local as well. So?

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Jerad, an ad hominem of A. Suerez, and a personal declaration that quantum mechanics does not reflect design or guidance, is NOT a refutation of Suarez’s work nor is it empirical evidence that Quantum Mechanics is not designed and guided.

    Moreover, contrary to what you believe, coherence is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect and cannot be modeled by any ‘mechanistic’, i.e. materialistic, within space-time model. That is why Einstein himself had such trouble with the ‘spooky action at a distance’ of Quantum Mechanics!

    As well, you falsely claimed that Gravity is ‘non-local’.

    As Pauli would have said, you are ‘Not even wrong’!

    Gravity, General Relativity, is notorious for being incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. Moreover, General Relativity is modeled in terms of 4-D space-time/mass and does not refer to any non-local, beyond space and time, effects in its description of Gravity.

    That you would claim otherwise is not only completely wrong but strangely bizarre.

    Thus, in the space of the few short sentences that you wrote, we have a ad hominem, a personal opinion paraded as fact, and two blatant falsehoods of basic physics.

    Definitely not a good reflection on your integrity, nor does it reflect well on your overall understanding of physics.

    Somehow I expected better from you than the average neo-Darwinist/atheist on the internet. I guess I thought wrong.

    Sorry for overestimating your personal integrity in such matters.

  14. 14
    Jerad says:

    BA77

    Suit yourself but I’m going to keep being a bit skeptical of someone who has a presentation called: Is Science Compatible with Our Desire for Freedom

    http://www.quantumphil.org/presentations.htm

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Jerad, as I will be VERY skeptical of anyone’s knowledge of basic physics who claims Gravity to be ‘non-local’. I suggest, after such an elementary mistake, that you humble your own opinion of your own knowledge of physics so that you might actually learn something. You are not nearly as knowledgeable as you present yourself to be!

    That free will is compatible with quantum mechanics is fairly well known, and is also well supported by current empirical evidence.

    How Free Will Works (In Quantum Mechanics) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE

    The delayed choice experiments, in particular, strongly support free will.

    Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
    Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot.....choice.htm

    “Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel”
    John A. Wheeler
    Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment – video
    http://vimeo.com/38508798

    The Experiment That Debunked Materialism – video – (delayed choice quantum eraser)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKUass7G8w

    “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
    – John Wheeler – The Ghost In The Atom – Page 66-68

    Here’s a recent variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights the ability of the conscious observer to effect ‘spooky action into the past’

    “If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.”
    Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000).

    Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
    Excerpt: According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html

    You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video

    Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

    In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,, These experiments from quantum mechanics are simply impossible on a reductive materialism (determinism) view of reality!

    Of personal note, I consider the preceding experimental evidence to be a vast, vast, improvement over the traditional ‘uncertainty’ argument for free will, from quantum mechanics, that had been used for decades to undermine the deterministic belief of materialists:

    Why Quantum Physics (Uncertainty) Ends the Free Will Debate – Michio Kaku – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw

    Of supplemental note: The ‘agent causality’ of Theists is vastly superior, in terms of explanatory power, to the ‘blind causality’ of atheists:

    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
    Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
    If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
    The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
    http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    – per Washington Times

    Also of Note:

    Higher Dimensional Special Relativity, Near Death Experiences, Biophotons, and the Quantum Soul
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XGuV7FWwaDag4T5glstQWjsQNtWHKw3T9qLF14fUHHo/edit

  16. 16
    Querius says:

    Once again, nicely assembled and annotated, bornagain77.

    Unfortunately, there are none so blind as those who don’t want to see. In this case, the denial is even in the face of the science, of demonstrated quantum effects!

    -Q

  17. 17
    NDavis says:

    I also would like to read the rest.

Leave a Reply