Speculation Presented As Fact (or, Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit)

_{Gil Dodgen

November 13, 2007

Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I don’t watch a lot of television, but I must admit that I enjoy the History Channel. The other night I was watching a program on the origin of the universe and life. At one point the narrator commented (I paraphrase), “And then, unknown chemical reactions caused life to form.”

This is obviously pure speculation presented as fact, and my Carl-Sagan-inspired baloney detection kit went into immediate overdrive. I said to myself: “Self, how do they know that unknown chemical reactions caused life to form? No evidence is presented for this claim. And how did all that complex information-processing machinery come about through chemical reactions?”

Baloney detection is a two-edged sword.

Comments

In any case it would be very interesting to get the technology used by Designer to create proteins. Our own technology is pretty sloppy. Any technology used by Designer to get the World going is pretty nice to have!Shazard_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, The spiritual realms' nce of this physical realm can be discerned by two facts, First the universal constants (spiritual truths) were presumed by materialism to be varying throughout time (since material is naturally given primary authority over everything else in materialism). Yet extensive testing has verified that the universal constants have not varied in the least, (save for the hypothesized inflation period of the big bang) since the inception of the universe. Thus, Theisms' assertion of the "spiritual truths established by God" finds validation upon investigation. As well, quantum non-locality blatantly illustrates the ability of "spiritual" information to defy all known laws of physics and "instantaneously communicate a "spiritual truth" to what seems to be, from our best evidence, anywhere in the universe. Again the spiritual realm finds another line of evidence establishing its do^min^ance over the material realm. Thus the question for science becomes if the information of a "spiritual truth" is enforced at this most basic foundation of our material universe, then how is later complex specified information enforced into this universe in order to account for the origin of life?bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

I wouldn't have had a reaction, because that's too pedestrian to merit a reaction. People say that every day. Similarly, the term "unknown" to describe abiogenesis by an unnamed documentary doesn't mean anything. It's not remarkable, it's not terribly scientific, and it's not important in and of itself. If concern over what I'm seeing and desire to correct it means I'm not welcome, I'll leave. I'm not demanding anyone cater to me.Bugsy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Bugsy wrote: "My big problem is with Gil and the overall tone of this blog degenerating. Count the main posts for the past two months. What percent are about actual scientists and science? How about those about the wording of cable shows" Bugsy, what would your reaction have been if that same show instead stated: "And then, an intelligent designer caused life to form.”?? The darwinist blogs would be lit up like a Christmas tree. And if you don't like this blog, you don't have to stay. I don't like PandasThumb, so I don't post there.shaner74_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

A few points: 1- If science can get away with an unknown cause for the universe then unknown chemical reactions should also be acceptable. 2- Therefore, if science is going to use the "unknown" label then no one in science can reject Intelligent Design- unknown means unknown. IOW you can't say "unknown" and then say "But is wasn't via intentional design." 3- The RNA World- what's newJoseph_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, I assure you, scientists will NEVER find memories stored in the brain, The brain diseases and injuries you refer to only indicate the brains ability to recover memory from the consciousness have been affected and does not in any way establish memories are stored in the brain. You are looking at this problem through "materialistic lenses". And cannot conceive that it is so! Yet I maintain that Materialism is not even a valid theory as far as revealed science is concerned! Again the list: Theistic Philosophy Compared to the Materialistic Philosophy of Science There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man's perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical naturalism and, to a lesser degree, is often even conflated with methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. lets take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been accurate. 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis", Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. 11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms. 12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Thus I hold that the "spiritual realm is not only REAL but is also discernably dom^in^ate of the "material realm"!bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

"getawitness: the topic that began the discussion was a bit silly but some good points have been made nonetheless." True. My view is that the title of the post aptly describes its content. The conversation has been rescued from pointlessness, in part, in the comments. Berceuse [28], Stating that unknown chemical reactions "caused life to form" as fact, when there’s clearly controversy over abiogenesis, is hardly being "honest." And so it begins: a paraphrase of an alleged moment in an unnamed television show becomes somebody "stating" something. The transformation of hearsay into history.getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

I believe the key to unraveling, the origin of life is properly defining information itself. I got in a discussion the other day on PT. Somehow we were discussing information. I pointed out that information is in fact a spiritual quantity. To illustrate this "spiritualness of information", I said, "Well let’s take a closer look (at information),,You write information on a piece of paper, Is the paper or the ink the information? You record the information onto a tape recorder, is the sound information? Is the magnetic tape in the recorder information, You transfer the magnetic tape to a CD, is the CD now information? No we have obviously transfered a constant transcendent entity throughout all those totally different mediums yet the entity of information changed not in the least in its basic structure or meaning! (Thus information clearly transcends the material realm) As such, Are your memories (all the information for your life) definitely stored in your brain? Believe it or not, NO, there is no known definitive location for memories in the brain according to Nobelist Penfield and other researchers." added quote: "For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories inside the brain, so far without success." Pim Von Lomel http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm As well, Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies, as well as, patient robustness after hemispherectomies, offer very suggestive, if not compelling, evidence that memories are stored on a “spiritual basis”. "You Say Impossible? With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible!" In response at PT, I was treated with the usual scoffing and name calling at such a preposterous idea: One of the nicer ones: "Wow… just wow… So, if there were no people around, things would still have meaning? Can you define this meaning? And can you differentiate information from matter and energy? According to your logic, removing part of your brain will have no impact on what you know. So what did Penfield have to say about this? I can’t find anything he said that supports your argument." To which I responded: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/100/2/163 Why Would You Remove Half a Brain? The Outcome of 58 Children After Hemispherectomy Many children who have had hemispherectomies (half their brains removed due to life threatening epileptic conditions) at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, are in high school; and one, a college student, is on the dean’s list. The families of these children can barely believe the transformation; and not so long ago, neurologists and neuro-surgeons found it hard to believe as well. What is surprising for these people is that they are having their overriding materialistic view of brain correlation to consciousness overturned. In other words; since, it is presumed by Materialism that the brain is the primary generator of consciousness; then, it is totally expected for a person having half their brain removed to be severely affected when it comes to memory and personality. This is clearly a contradiction between the Materialistic and Theistic philosophies. According to Materialistic dogma, memory and personality should be affected, just as badly, or at least somewhat as badly, as any of the other parts of the body, by removal of half the brain. Yet, as a team of neuro-surgeons that have done extensive research on the after effects of hemispherectomy at John Hopkins Medical Center comment: “We are awed by the apparent retention of the child’s memory after removal of half of the brain, either half; and by the retention of the child’s personality and sense of humor.” Though a patients physical capacities are impaired, just as they were expected to be immediately following surgery; and have to have time to be “rewired” to the consciousness in the brain, the memory and personality of the patient comes out unscathed in the aftermath of such radical surgery. This is exactly the result one would expect, if the consciousness is ultimately independent of brain function and is spiritually-based. This is totally contrary to the results one would expect if the consciousness were actually physically-based, as the materialistic theory had presumed. In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: “Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications.” This is stunning proof of consciousness being independent of brain function. The only child not to have normal or improved intellect is the child who remained in a coma due to complications during surgery. It is also heartening to find that many of the patients regain full use, or almost full use, of their bodies after a varying period of recuperation in which the brain is “rewired” to the consciousness. II Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent (Our Body), is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. As usual: This response of mine was thoroughly trashed. Yet I maintain, with all that I hold dear, that the spiritual realm is a higher dimension is INDEED REAL, and that it can be fairly easily discerned to interact with this physical realm...Indeed, quantum mechanics absolutely requires the allowance of "higher dimensions" to even be a coherent theory in the first place! In fact Quantum non-locality is my opinion a formal proof of the spiritual realms nce of this realm as far as information is concerned. The question that needs to be thoroughly addressed is not the ignorant question of "How did complex specified information arise by itself in matter...But is How is complex specified information "enforced" or implemented in to different forms of matter from the spiritual realm. A spiritual realm, that I point out, we use everyday, though we don't give any where near proper heed nor respect to it, nor have we defined it in proper scientific fashion in my honest opinion!bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

As I suggested above, the post itself is silly. Someone remembers an (unspecified) TV show but not well enough to know the words in which the alleged speculation happened. A paraphrase is repeated in quote marks in a post inexplicably deemed worth of making it to the front page. It's a myth in the making. My prediction: within a year somebody will hitch the two weird parts of the post together and there will be a full-blown internet story that reads, "Carl Sagan used to say that 'unknown chemical reactions caused life to form.'"getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

There are recent books on the origin of life and one is by Robert Hazen (Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins ) , a committed naturalistic supporter. He also has a Teaching Company course on the topic. While Hazen is generally a very honest researcher and he admits that they are nowhere while he explores several possibilities. But he hides the enormity of the problem. This is just a example of the enormity of the problem. If one were to construct all the possible proteins of length of 40 amino acids, you would exhaust all the matter in the universe. A protein of 40 amino acids is very small with the average protein being over 100 amino acids. The numbers are staggering for just the appearance of simple proteins. How could so many different proteins appear randomly. The answer is it is not possible. RNA molecules are even more complicated than proteins and we are talking about staggering numbers to construct anything by any random process. A ribosome which is necessary to construct proteins consist of a couple thousand nucleotides arranged in a specific order so it functions as a efficient machine. The assembly of such a machine by any process defies imagination except through an intelligence which could do it with sufficient knowledge. And you need to have even more complicated molecules to feed the ribosome to produce the proteins. So if you are new to the OOL (origin of life) issue, the numbers are indeed staggering while current research is looking at how very simple molecules of maybe 20-30 carbon, and oxygen molecules may have been formed by various processes. They need to look at how molecules of 10 of thousands formed and in very specific ways so they can function like a machine. It is like they are now looking at how to make a brick when what they have to do is build the Empire State building and even that is just a starter. One can always invoke the concept of they will eventually solve it but if one is going to do that then one has to be honest and say they are nowhere at the moment and all the stuff we have in text books is just wild speculation and can't begin to scratch the surface of the problem. Unfortunately no such honesty is present which is why I say there is no honest Darwinist or honest anyone in the evolutionary biology field. They will not state the evidence honestly.jerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Yes, The origin of life is highly implausible in the first order. What evidence is found for the first life on earth? The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of “photosynthetic” life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence has been fought by naturalists, since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest known sedimentary rocks (Indications of Oxygenic Photosynthesis,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003). Thus we have two lines of hard conclusive evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest known sedimentary rocks ever found by scientists on earth! The simplest photosynthetic bacterial life on earth is exceedingly complex, too complex to happen by even if the primeval oceans had been full of pre-biotic soup. Thus, naturalists try to suggest pan-spermia (the theory that pre-biotic amino acids, or life itself, came to earth from outer-space on comets) to account for this sudden appearance of life on earth. This theory has several problems. One problem is that astronomers, using spectral analysis, have not found any vast reservoirs of biological molecules anywhere they have looked in the universe. Another problem is, even if comets were nothing but pre-biotic amino acid snowballs, how are the amino acids going to molecularly survive the furnace-like temperatures generated when the comet crashes into the earth? If the pre-biotic molecules were already a life-form on the comet, how could this imagined life-form survive the extremely harsh environment of space for many millions of years, not to mention the fiery crash into the earth? Did this imagined super-cell wear a cape like superman? The first actual fossilized cells scientists have been able to recover in the fossil record are 3.5 billion year old photosynthetic cyano(blue-green)bacteria, from western Australia, which look amazingly similar to a particular type of cyano-bacteria that are still alive today. The smallest cyano-bacterium known to science has hundreds of millions of individual atomic molecules (not counting water molecules), divided into nearly a thousand different species of atomic molecules; and a genome (DNA sequence) of 1.8 million bits, with over a million individual complex protein molecules which are divided into hundreds of different kinds of proteins. The smallest cyano-bacterium known to science has hundreds of millions of individual atomic molecules (not counting water molecules), divided into nearly a thousand different species of atomic molecules; and a genome (DNA sequence) of 1.8 million bits, with over a million individual complex protein molecules which are divided into hundreds of different kinds of proteins. The simplest of all bacteria known in science, which is able to live independent of a more complex host organism, is the candidatus pelagibacter ubique and has a DNA sequence of 1,308,759 bits. It also has over a million individual complex protein molecules which are divided into several hundred separate and distinct protein types. The complexity found in the simplest bacterium known to science makes the complexity of any man-made machine look like child's play. As stated by Geneticist Michael Denton PhD, “Although the tiniest living things known to science, bacterial cells, are incredibly small (10^-12 grams), each is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of elegantly designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world”. So, as you can see, there simply is no simple life on earth as naturalism had presumed - even the well known single celled amoeba has the complexity of the city of London and reproduces that complexity in only 20 minutes. “Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, consists of artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction and a capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" Geneticist Michael Denton PhD. To give an idea how impossible “simple” life is for naturalistic blind chance, Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for just one of any of the numerous types of “simple” bacterial life found on the early earth to be one in 10^40,000 (that is a one with 40 thousand zeros to the right). He compared the random emergence of the simplest bacterium on earth to the likelihood “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 therein”. Sir Fred Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining just one single functioning protein (out of the over one million protein molecules needed for that simplest cell), by chance combinations of amino acids, to a solar system packed full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously. The simplest bacteria ever found on earth is constructed with over a million protein molecules. Protein molecules are made from one dimensional sequences of the 20 different L-amino acids that can be used as building blocks for proteins. These one dimensional sequences of amino acids fold into complex three-dimensional structures. The proteins vary in length of sequences of amino acids. The average sequence of a typical protein is about 300 to 400 amino acids long. Yet many crucial proteins are thousands of amino acids long. Proteins do their work on the atomic scale. Therefore, proteins must be able to identify and precisely manipulate and interrelate with the many differently, and specifically, shaped atoms, atomic molecules and protein molecules at the same time to accomplish the construction, metabolism, structure and maintenance of the cell. Proteins are required to have the precisely correct shape to accomplish their specific function or functions in the cell. More than a slight variation in the precisely correct shape of the protein molecule type will be for the life of the cell. It turns out there is some tolerance for error in the sequence of L-amino acids that make up some the less crucial protein molecule types. These errors can occur without adversely affecting the precisely required shape of the protein molecule type. This would seem to give some wiggle room to the naturalists, but as the following quote indicates this wiggle room is an illusion. "A common rebuttal is that not all amino acids in organic molecules must be strictly sequenced. One can destroy or randomly replace about 1 amino acid out of 100 without doing damage to the function or shape of the molecule. This is vital since life necessarily exists in a "sequence—disrupting" radiation environment. However, this is equivalent to writing a computer program that will tolerate the destruction of 1 statement of code out of 1001. In other words, this error-handling ability of organic molecules constitutes a far more unlikely occurrence than strictly sequenced molecules." Dr. Hugh Ross PhD. It is easily demonstrated mathematically that the entire universe does not even begin to come close to being old enough, nor large enough, to ally generate just one small but precisely sequenced 100 amino acid protein (out of the over one million interdependent protein molecules of longer sequences that would be required to match the sequences of their particular protein types) in that very first living bacteria. If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are (20^100) =1.3 x 10^130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids. This impossibility, of finding even one “required” specifically sequenced protein, would still be true even if amino acids had a tendency to chemically bond with each other, which they don’t despite over fifty years of experimentation trying to get amino acids to bond naturally (The odds of a single 100 amino acid protein overcoming the impossibilities of chemical bonding and forming spontaneously have been calculated at less than 1 in 10^125 (Meyer, Evidence for Design, pg. 75)). The staggering impossibility found for the universe ever generating a “required” specifically sequenced 100 amino acid protein by would still be true even if we allowed that the entire universe, all 10^80 sub-atomic particles of it, were nothing but groups of 100 freely bonding amino acids, and we then tried a trillion unique combinations per second for all those 100 amino acid groups for 100 billion years! Even after 100 billion years of trying a trillion unique combinations per second, we still would have made only one billion, trillionth of the entire total combinations possible for a 100 amino acid protein during that 100 billion years of trying! Even a child knows you cannot put any piece of a puzzle anywhere in a puzzle. You must have the required piece in the required place! The simplest forms of life ever found on earth are exceedingly far more complicated jigsaw puzzles than any of the puzzles man has ever made. Yet to believe a naturalistic theory we would have to believe that this tremendously complex puzzle of millions of precisely shaped, and placed, protein molecules “just happened” to overcome the impossible hurdles of chemical bonding and probability and put itself together into the sheer wonder of immense complexity that we find in the cell. Instead of us just looking at the probability of a single protein molecule occurring (a solar system full of blind men solving the Rubik’s Cube simultaneously), let’s also look at the complexity that goes into crafting the shape of just one protein molecule. Complexity will give us a better indication if a protein molecule is, indeed, the handi-work of an infinitely powerful Creator. In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, that is 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It took 4-5 years to build. Blue Gene stands about six feet high, and occupies a floor space of 40 feet by 40 feet. It cost $100 million to build. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it is estimated it will take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape. "Blue Gene's final product, due in four or five years, will be able to "fold" a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing." Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000 http://www.news.com/2100-1001-233954.html In real life, the protein folds into its final shape in a fraction of a second! The computer would have to operate at least 33 million times faster to accomplish what the protein does in a fraction of a second. That is the complexity found for JUST ONE “simple” protein. It is estimated, on the total number of known life forms on earth, that there are some 50 billion different types of unique proteins today. It is very possible the domain of the protein world may hold many trillions more completely distinct and different types of proteins. The simplest bacterium known to man has millions of protein molecules divided into, at bare minimum, several hundred distinct proteins types. These millions of precisely shaped protein molecules are interwoven into the final structure of the bacterium. Numerous times specific proteins in a distinct protein type will have very specific modifications to a few of the amino acids, in their sequence, in order for them to more precisely accomplish their specific function or functions in the overall parent structure of their protein type. To think naturalists can account for such complexity by saying it “happened by chance” should be the very definition of “absurd” we find in dictionaries. Naturalists have absolutely no answers for how this complexity arose in the first living cell unless, of course, you can take their imagination as hard evidence. Yet the “real” evidence scientists have found overwhelmingly supports the anthropic hypothesis once again. It should be remembered that naturalism postulated a very simple "first cell". Yet the simplest cell scientists have been able to find, or to even realistically theorize about, is vastly more complex than any machine man has ever made through concerted effort !! What makes matters much worse for naturalists is that naturalists try to assert that proteins of one function can easily mutate into other proteins of completely different functions by pure chance. Yet once again the empirical evidence we now have betrays the naturalists. Individual proteins have been experimentally proven to quickly lose their function in the cell with random point mutations. What are the odds of any functional protein in a cell mutating into any other functional folded protein, of very questionable value, by pure chance? “From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny 'X', somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny 'X'. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an 'X'. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other “Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering) Even if evolution somehow managed to overcome the impossible hurdles for generating novel proteins by totally natural means, Evolution would still face the monumental hurdles of generating complimentary protein/protein binding sites in which the novel proteins could actually interface with each other in order to accomplish specific tasks in the cell (it is estimated that there are least 10,000 different types of protein-protein binding sites in a "simple" cell). What does the recent hard evidence say about novel protein-protein binding site generation from what is actually observed to be occuring on the protein level of malaria and HIV since they have infected humans? Once again the naturalists are brutally betrayed by the hard evidence that science has recently uncovered! The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by ) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable. Dr. Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 "Edge of Evolution")bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

"It is being honest however. And it is true that from an evidence based view no one does know exactly what happened." Stating that unknown chemical reactions "caused life to form" as fact, when there's clearly controversy over abiogenesis, is hardly being "honest."Berceuse_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

All: Several days ago, Nov 9, Galapagos Finch posted an interesting tongue-in-cheek picture, of a junkyard with a brand new lime-green hummer allegedly formed by a level four tornado. That thread -- tellingly --received precisely one comment, by yours truly. Namely: _______________ . . . that’s a real front page headline for Nature — ID disproved! [NOT] For those who don’t know the context, here is a classic cite from Dawkins, in turn citing the late great Sir Fred Hoyle’s analogy of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747 by chance. This, reportedly, from The Blind Watchmaker (1987), p. 8:
Hitting upon the lucky number that opens the bank’s safe [NB: cf. here the case in Brown’s The Da Vinci Code] is the equivalent, in our analogy, of hurling scrap metal around at random and happening to assemble a Boeing 747. [NB: originally, this imagery is due to Sir Fred Hoyle, who used it to argue that life on earth bears characteristics that strongly suggest design. His suggestion: panspermia — i.e. life drifted here, or else was planted here.] Of all the millions of unique and, with hindsight equally improbable, positions of the combination lock, only one opens the lock. Similarly, of all the millions of unique and, with hindsight equally improbable, arrangements of a heap of junk, only one (or very few) will fly. The uniqueness of the arrangement that flies, or that opens the safe, has nothing to do with hindsight. It is specified in advance. [Parenthetical note added, in tribute to the late great Sir Fred Hoyle.]
In short, Q: is it reasonable to expect chance plus natural regularities acting without intelligent direction to assemble complex, fine-tuned wholes based on many co-adapted components, even if the components are actually available in the immediate vicinity? ANS: No, on excellent statistical thermodynamics grounds having to do with the accessibility of islands of functionality within the configuration space as a whole. If you want a bit more on this, have a look at my discussion in my always linked, Appendix 1, section 6. __________________ In short, the key issue is that:
1] We have -- ever since at least Plato in his The Laws, Book X -- identified three main causal patterns: chance, mechanical necessity showing itself in natural regularities, agency. 2] As the above implies, where there is high contingency in a situation [e.g. the specific state of items in a digital string of elements, e.g. AAAAA . . . to ZZZZZ . . .], natural regularities are not dominant. 3] Once the relevant configuration-state space is sufficiently large, finding isolated islands of functionality by chance soon exhausts the available probabilistic resources; i.e. once we are at the equivalent of about 500 - 1,000 bits of information storage capacity; which is related to the underlying reasoning that establishes statistical thermodynamics. [Needless to say, 747's, lime green hummers and functioning life forms are well beyond that threshold.] 4] Further to this, in every case of such functionally specified, finely-tuned complex information-processing system we directly know the causal story for, it is the product of agency. 5] Therefore, on empirical induction and the underlying logic and mathematics of the probabilistic issues tied to searching-the config space, it is reasonable to infer that all such CSI-based systems beyond Dembski-type probability bounds, are the product of agents. (For, our being present/absent to observe directly is plainly irrelevant to the issue.) 6] Further to this, our ability to discern the intent or identity of the relevant agent[s] is similarly irrelevant to the message of the mathematics of searching out islands of functionality in large config spaces. 7] So, we have good reason to infer to design by intelligent agent as by far the best current explanation of: the origin of life, the origin of body-plan level biodiversity, and the origin of a life-friendly, fine-tuned cosmos with specific sites for life in it. 8] However, this cuts across the perceptions, desires and institutional dominance of evolutionary materialism and associated radical secularist socio-cultural agendas. So, sadly, it has been hotly resisted, too often by resort to the most indefensible tactics.
I respectfully suggest that if we want to look at evidence and science issues, the just above and the linked [ever accesible through the link in my handle on this blog] would be an excellent place to begin. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: I looked at your link. I'd like to read references 14 and 16. But to generalize, I think Shapiro (an evolutionist) puts it well: "The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time." Except that no one (IMO) has come close to "playing through 18 holes" (i.e., observed a complex, biologically active molecule forming under even intentionally designed abiotic conditions) and the problem appears to be much more difficult than simply getting through an 18 hole golf course. Part of the problem is that unless one has a feel for how molecules actually behave, its easy to imagine (and propose) all kinds of things that are implausible.Chemfarmer_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

You may want to skim it again, ellazimm. The "if this is all true" happens to entail the RNA scenario being false. You know, it isn't skepticism when you only look for interpretrations that bolster the view you want true. That's just partisanism. Or so the data would imply. ;) And I sleep for now. Nice to see so much activity on UD lately. Keep that controversy brewing!nullasalus_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

Whether you may name a certain scenario plausible or implausible depends on statistics. Some people may think that something that has a likelihood of occuring once in every 10^50 instances is plausible, but that would probably strain the meaning of the word plausible. There are many calculations around that purport to estimate the life arose spontaneously, none of them comes even close to a likehood of better than 1 in 10^50. It's more like one in 10^20.000 Is it appropriate to therefore call a naturalistic scenario of abiogenisis plausible?Dutch-cousin_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

Who needs a death knell? It just needs to be pointed out that there's a problem presently, and a variety of people have a variety of views. Is the suggestion that design may have come into play really that terrible? And now you see why "advertising" matters - because sometimes you have to address people's perceptions or misunderstandings to get support, and get more work done. After all, that's why you're here, now isn't it? :)nullasalus_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

Social movements live and die by their ability to demonstrate efficacy and usefulness. Truly vacuous "advertising" that doesn't directly relate to the proper subject of ID, science, is not going to get anyone anywhere. Chemfarmer: A more accurate short version of that article would be "none of the current popular theories, although plausible, are probable. We have hypothesis we think would lead to more probable theories." Hardly a death knell to abiogenesis. Science by misrepresentation isn't going to get anyone anywhere either.Bugsy_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

For what I believe to be an accurate, current assessment of the state of origin-of-life research, see this year's article by Robert Shapiro (an organic chemist) in Scientific American at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7 Short version: none of the current popular theories are plausible, but there are no candidates to take their place.Chemfarmer_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

"How about those about the wording of cable shows, promoting new sites, scoring rhetorical points off of dead children, showing off “funny” photoshopped pictures, and similar?" It comes up because, like it or not, ID is a controversial issue that has a lot to do with public perception, social concerns, metaphysics, and otherwise. Part of the evolution v design v creation v whatever debate is PR - and considering what's been done to 'promote' evolution along with ID, it seems everyone is aware of that but you. You should check out PZ Myers' blog sometime. I wonder how long it'll be until he mixes it up with Scott Adams again. You know, the agnostic guy who draws Dilbert and has made posts joking about evolution? That was a laugh.nullasalus_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

I don't agree with you, Newton, but that's at least a scientific argument. My big problem is with Gil and the overall tone of this blog degenerating. Count the main posts for the past two months. What percent are about actual scientists and science? How about those about the wording of cable shows, promoting new sites, scoring rhetorical points off of dead children, showing off "funny" photoshopped pictures, and similar? There seem to be at least twice as many of the latter. Why is this? Theology may not be entirely on topic, but it at least has a point. The rest of this is just depressing.Bugsy_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

"Baloney detection is a two-edged sword." Block that metaphor! The whole post would have a lot more credibility if you had been able to quote the text and maybe the context instead of paraphrase it. Hey, it'd be nice to know the name of the show! As it is, I'm not going to get my panties in a twist over this particular "pure speculation presented as fact."getawitness_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, Thanks for the quotes! Between those and the ones provided by BarryA, it's evident the speculation about the Origin of Life is all over the map as far as scientific consideration goes. It's discouraging, but even if the state of consensus is in bad shape, it's good to know the leading researchers are well aware of the problem they face.nullasalus_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

Bugsy, Please read and understand John von Neumann’s "Theory of Self Reproducing Automata" to see why an RNA world makes little sense. Cashing out von Neumann’s theoretical point as an actual RNA molecule that allegedly reproduces itself, requires the molecule to produce an exact copy of itself, while the replication operation requires that it modify itself to do it. Noticing that RNA can have, admittedly puny, enzymatic activity, hardly solves this logical conundrum.D.A.Newton_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

When I say "plausibly", I don't mean that it's proven down to the slightest detail beyond a shadow of a doubt and everyone should accept it ever~!1!1!!1! I mean that it's plausible. I don't know what you mean by "tarry sludge" experiments, as I've never heard them referred to that way. I presume you mean the Milley-Urey experiments. It's been demonstrated quite nicely then and since that, for all our ignorance about how things were at the dawn of time, it possible to form some of the basic building blocks of life over eons of random chemical interaction in some environments. It is plausible that this occurred on Earth. Targeting a cable TV documentary as an example of baloney for saying "unknown" without paying attention to the existing scientific evidence and debate isn't a scientific thing to do. It's soapbox street theater.Bugsy_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Bugsy writes: "abiogenesis experiments provide robust support that known chemicals plausibly organized into life." Are you talking about the "run electricity through gas and get tarry sludge" experiements? If so, so you seriously believe these experiments provide "robust" support for the leap from non-living to living matter? Perhaps you know more than the scientists (none of which are creationist or IDists) who said: “The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.” Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, ed. Robert M. Pool (Washington, DC: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), 7. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.” Hubert Yockey, “A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977): 379, 396, 377-98. “There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously – and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible.” Leslie Orgel, “The Origin of Life: a Review of Facts and Speculations,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (December 1998): 494-95, 491-95. “However, it is now held to be highly unlikely that the conditions used in these experiments [i.e., the modeling of strongly reducing atmospheres] could represent those in the Archean atmosphere. Even so, scientific articles still occasionally appear that report experiments modeled on these conditions and explicitly or tacitly claim the presence of resulting products in reactive concentrations “on the primordial Earth” or in a “prebiotic soup”. The idea of such a “soup” containing all desired organic molecules in concentrated form in the ocean has been a misleading concept against which objections were raised early (see, e.g., Sillen 1965). Nonetheless, it still appears in popular presentations perhaps partly because of its gustatory associations.” Stephen J Mojzsis, Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, and Gustaf Arrhenius, “Before RNA and After: Geophysical and Geochemical Constraints on Molecular Evolution,” in The RNA World, 2nd ed. (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1999), 6. If you are not talking about the tarry sludge experiments, please tell us what you are talking about.BarryA_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Well, at least they didn't say who they thought organized those chemicals into life, eh? That would have just been begging for trouble.nullasalus_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Information-processing machinery could have come about by itself from an RNA world, and various abiogenesis experiments provide robust support that known chemicals plausibly organized into life. Is critiquing inaccurate cable TV really that important?Bugsy_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

“Self, how do they know that unknown chemical reactions caused life to form? It must be true because that's what they taught me in Middle School. Anyway, to believe in the "unknown chemical reaction" (UCR) requires much faith. Certainly as much as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.tribune7_{November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply