Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Paul Davies on the gap between life and non-life

Categories
Origin Of Life
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It’s a big one. Theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist Paul Davies talks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn at Closer to Truth about the conundrums: “What is life and how did it arise from non-life? Is it as simple as the random organization of complex chemicals on the early Earth? What are the pathways whereby chemicals turned into life? Is life inevitable? Or extremely rare? What’s remarkable is how little we know. ”

A reader notes that Davies says at 37m30s: “What life makes is consistent with physics and chemistry, but is not dictated by physics and chemistry.” Well, by a process of elimination, doesn’t that leave information? Design? And how are things designed without intelligence? At this point, one can only say, Keep talking.

Comments
Please, let’s ignore each other.
Fine. But I will comment on anything I want to. I mainly ignore anything I believe will not lead anywhere. You have no need to answer anything I write especially if you don't understand it unless you want to ask a question about what was meant.jerry
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PST
Jerry, you have made it abundantly clear, again and again, that the things I write do not make sense to you. Let me tell you for once that the things you write do not make sense to me. Please, let's ignore each other.Origenes
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PST
Suppose there are 3 different genotypes in this population
There are billions of different genotypes within a typical population. Each member of a species possesses a different genome and thus is a different genotype. There are 8 billion humans all different. Now it is possible that some force eliminates all members of the population with a specific allele or combination of alleles. But theoretically such a loss is not irretrievable as future mutations could restore some if not all of these alleles. Natural evolution doesn't care about any situation like this. It doesn't care if a specific path is cut off. The potential paths are almost infinite according to their philosophy. So another one or a very large numbers of potential paths will always be available. That's why Gould said if you rewound the clock you would see a completely different array of organisms. The problem for Evolution lies elsewhere.jerry
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PST
Alan Fox @213
Selection promotes genotypes that work in the niche the population finds itself. First genotypes vary (mutation is not the sole source of variation) then differential breeding success shifts allele frequency. The key is that selection pressure is applied by the niche.
Suppose there are 3 different genotypes in this population: A, B, and C. Next a very cold winter sets in and only genotype B survives. So, we see the much-glorified selection pressure applied by the niche in action. Now explain to me how the elimination of genotypes A and C contributes to finding biological novelties. In your explanation, you may want to address my concern that either genotype A or C, or both, might have been only a few mutations away from some amazing new biological function, but in our example, due to the destructive workings of natural elimination, this will never happen.Origenes
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PST
Origenes, Notice that none of the Darwin trolls even bothered to click on the links you and I provided. Otherwise they would have seen that the University of California at Berkeley website has a page, “Evolution 101,” in which they address the issue of random mutations. The heading in the link reads . . .
Mutations are random
So, why are they doubling down on their assertion after it’s been contradicted by an academic authority on the subject? My answer is that they’re trolls interested only in spreading confusion and disinformation without any intention of learning anything. Their fingers are firmly jammed in their ears and they only want to make noise. They’re not listening. We might as well be having a conversation with a cage full of parakeets. -QQuerius
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PST
Ford Prefect If must be comforting to apply the “Gobbledygook” label to anything that you don’t understand.
:) A bot can't detect the main meaning in a message with multiple competing meanings .whistler
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PST
Jerry at 249, You again have demonstrated your lack of the ability to read minds. There are two sides here. Both sides can't be right. I leave it to you to notice the best evidence. Then notice that regardless of the best evidence, those who are against it keep posting rebuttals. Not because they are the better explanation but if zero rebuttals are posted, people will hear nothing but the evidence for Intelligent Design. So these sorts of non-discussions will continues. Sometimes, certain ideas are repeated only to cause confusion.relatd
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PST
This line of discussion just demonstrates that there is no selection in Natural Selection
see #27 https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/paul-davies-on-the-gap-between-life-and-non-life/#comment-775881 No one here wants answers.jerry
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PST
Alan Fox
AF: The key is that selection pressure is applied by the niche.
Ori: The key to what exactly?
AF: Expression of adaptive phenotype(s) within the defined population.
Ori: Assuming that they are found by a blind search.
AF: Assuming what are found by blind search?
Adaptive phenotype(s).Origenes
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST
Whistler writes:
Gobbledygook
If must be comforting to apply the “Gobbledygook” label to anything that you don’t understand.Ford Prefect
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PST
Ford Prefect Nobody attempts to demonstrate this because nobody claims that mutations are random. The only claim is that they are random with respect to fitness.
Gobbledygook.whistler
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST
Origenes/222 Assuming what are found by blind search?chuckdarwin
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PST
FP @241
The only claim is that they are random with respect to fitness.
Darwinists please get your terminology right. Mutations happen independent WRT fitness. They are either neutral, deleterious, or beneficial WRT fitness.Origenes
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST
This line of discussion just demonstrates that there is no selection in Natural Selection. Mutations happen, then there's the consequences. There's no selection of anything. Natural Selection is poetry, and scientifically meaningless. Andrewasauber
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PST
do you know what an allele is
Yes, I do. Now proceed! Meanwhile, the nonsense goes on. I don’t expect it to stop. It’s why most are here. Nobody wants answers. God forbid! Aside: is the concept called “random” meaningless? Answer: yesjerry
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST
Whistler writes:
Who demonstrated that mutations are random? Nobody
Nobody attempts to demonstrate this because nobody claims that mutations are random. The only claim is that they are random with respect to fitness.Ford Prefect
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PST
Origenes @238, Heh, posted at the same minute! :-) -QQuerius
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PST
Let me provide an example of my observations in @237: A number of Darwinists here repeatedly make unsupported assertions that mutations aren't random. This erroneous statement is falsified by a web page, EVO 101, published by the University of California Museum of Paleontology: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/mutations/ Please do your homework and add support for any assertions. -QQuerius
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PST
Berkeley edu
Mutations are random Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
What is it with Darwinists and terminology? When a particular mutation is "unrelated to how useful that mutation would be", then that mutation is independent of the needs of an organism. It is not random of the needs of an organism. Things are random when the outcome is equivalent to the roll of a dice.Origenes
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PST
Kairosfocus @185 and others.
Instantly, that is because you and other objectors have refused to pay attention and have disregarded calculations or other measurements, whether by me or by others.
Yes, exactly! What's frustrating is that after repeatedly presenting the documented problems and falsifying data concerning the racist, colonialist, and science-denying aspects of Darwinism, the fundamentalist Darwists here simply reset on each new post and relentlessly parrot the same baloney irrespective of their positions previously being destroyed. They don't actually engage with new information or recognize legitimate issues. Instead, they employ one or more of the following strategies to waste our time: a. Move the goalposts or change the subject, often to their issues with God. b. Post recognizable generic trollbot comments. Incidentally, I'm continually adding to my Trollbot Trove (tm) of the best ones. c. Resort to ad hominem attacks, which amounts to an admission of their intellectual bankruptcy. d. Issue vacuous pronouncements, apparently under the conviction that their unsupported assertions constitute irrefutable proof. Thus, when one reads comments by detractors, and one recognizes comments that clearly fit into one of the previous four categories, let me again urge everyone . . . "Please don't feed the trolls." Note that there ARE a few open-minded contributors and skeptics that do engage in a meaningful, two-way exchange of information, objections, and links to supporting literature. Their contributions are most-definitely not a waste of time. -QQuerius
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PST
Jerry, do you know what an allele is? Standard biology takes it to mean a variation of a particular gene.Alan Fox
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PST
Random mutations are just random, and in most cases, a random mutation is bad news for the organism.
Yes. And?Alan Fox
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PST
...there is no empirically detectable mechanism which first identifies what traits would be adaptive under changed environmental circumstances, then generates those traits.
Exactly. Dinosaurs didn't expect the asteroid.Alan Fox
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST
PM1 @231 Random mutations are just random, and in most cases, a random mutation is bad news for the organism.Origenes
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PST
I have a suggestion. Why doesn't everyone agree to get somewhere instead of talking in circles? For example, those who accept the naturalistic evolution of new characteristics, define what you mean by a new characteristic? ID supporters could also contribute so everyone is talking about the same thing. Start by defining an allele. Is the new characteristics just a new version of an allele? Is it a new allele that didn't exist before? Is it a new combination of alleles? Is it new control mechanisms for alleles? What caused either to come into existence? How fast did this happen? Was it caused by a change in the environment? Go and put yourself on the line. If you refuse to do so, then agree to refrain from criticism and just ask questions. There are several more areas that could be added later but the above is a start. Unless someone has a more fruitful area to investigate first. Guarantee that this will be ignored since no one here actually wants to decide anything. It's more about how you waste your own and each other's time. Until this is done, everything is just jawn (Philadelphia slang for anything).jerry
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PST
@229
Who demonstrated that mutations are random? Nobody. Why ID people accept this ridiculous concept is a mystery. Life is an information controlled environment that works with accuracy. Information has nothing to do with randomness.
The only sense in which evolutionary theory takes mutations to be "random" is this: there is no empirically detectable mechanism which first identifies what traits would be adaptive under changed environmental circumstances, then generates those traits.PyrrhoManiac1
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PST
~ Treasure Island ~
In the same vein, consider a search for treasure on an island. If the island is large and the treasure is well hidden, the baseline search may be hopeless — way too improbable to stand a reasonable chance of finding the treasure. But suppose you now get a treasure map where X marks the spot of the treasure. You’ve now got a better search. What was the informational cost of procuring that better search? Well, it involved sorting through all possible maps of the island and finding one that would identify the treasure location. But for every map where X marks the right spot, there are many where X marks the wrong spot. According to conservation of information, finding the right map faces an improbability no less, and possibly greater, than finding the treasure via the baseline search. Active information measures the relevant (im)probability We’ve seen active information before in the Dawkins Weasel example. The baseline search for METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL stands no hope of success. It requires a completely random set of keystrokes typing all the right letters and spaces of this phrase without error in one fell swoop. But given a fitness function that assigns higher fitness to phrases where letters match the target phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, we’ve now got a better search, one that will converge to the target phrase quickly and with high probability. Most fitness functions, however, don’t take you anywhere near this target phrase. So how did Dawkins find the right fitness function to evolve to the target phrase? For that, he needed active information. [W.D.]
Origenes
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PST
:) Who demonstrated that mutations are random? Nobody. Why ID people accept this ridiculous concept is a mystery. Life is an information controlled environment that works with accuracy. Information has nothing to do with randomness.whistler
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST
Evolution is sciency-sounding terms smeared over the lack of an explanation for biology. Andrewasauber
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PST
KF @ 187: I once learned a recipe for a pie crust in the best cook book ever--now either lost or stolen. It was two pages long! Lots of intelligence required. :)PaV
February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PST
1 2 3 4 5 6 12

Leave a Reply