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
Is there a particular reason the quotes are not given a reference? I’d quite like to read the rest.
Jerad, let me google that for you
This is an interesting admission from Lane at the end of the article:
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.
Jerad, and what do you think of the ‘non-locality’ of photosynthesis? Does it require a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause?
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.
Scientists would have an easier time showing that nature produced Stonehenge than it will with the OoL
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?
Jerad,
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:
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?
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!:
Of semi-related note is this recent paper:
Verse and Music:
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?
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.
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
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.
The delayed choice experiments, in particular, strongly support free will.
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’
You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video
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:
Of supplemental note: The ‘agent causality’ of Theists is vastly superior, in terms of explanatory power, to the ‘blind causality’ of atheists:
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
I also would like to read the rest.