Home » Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design » The Primordial Goo

The Primordial Goo

In light of the challenge proposed to ID in the previous post (i.e., “The Intelligent Design Zoo”), here is a parallel challenge directed at materialistic evolutionists: Take the goo depicted in the photo below, autoclave it until none of the organic material here belongs to living cells (i.e., till all the cells are dead), and then try to reconstitute life without teleological guidance. Origin-of-life researchers typically focus on trying to obtain more complicated biomolecules from simpler ones. Here you’ve got all the complicated biomolecules you could ever want. Go to it — show us how, out of the material here once autoclaved, to get a living being that has all the characteristics we ordinarily attribute to life (i.e., reproduction, growth, metabolism, homeostasis, stimulus-response repetoire, adaptability to changing environments, maintenance of organizational boundaries).

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

38 Responses to The Primordial Goo

  1. Or just take any recently dead body and make it, well, alive.

    Should be no problem. Forming DNA is the hard part of abiogenesis, right?

  2. er..where did they get the goo?

  3. Ya, where did they get the goo? What’s more, where did they get the energy that comprises the atoms and physical laws that governs the atoms that allow the goo to exist?

    Maybe a better challenge would be to get something, anything, out of nothing as the materialists propose somehow happened.

  4. If a person believes that chemicals have the hocus-pocus wherewithal to organize into living systems, then they will believe in anything.

  5. These people insist that the most complex biological processes and finely-tuned cosmological constants have a naturalistic origin and are always quick to throw out the tired old designer/God red herring. Why stop there? Why not carry their line of argumentation to its rational end? Why not just say that no design can be rationally inferred anywhere–even from human sources? You could try to elucidate the epistemic consequences of their argumentation to them (and, indeed, I’ve tried more times than I should), but in the end you just discover that they’re so completely blinded by their materialist ideology that their critical thinking skills appear to be permanently impared.

  6. We should establish a 24/7 Materialist-only Goo-Watch.

  7. This is totally random, but I was wondering, how do most Design Theorists view the relationship between Neanderthal and modern Homo sapiens?

  8. Then again. Nothing is totally random.

  9. You should have thrown in a lump of clay. It’ll reduce the time required by at least a trillion years – you know how rascally those cell membranes are to start!

  10. … forget the clay! After looking at the photo, it appears large membranes are already spontaneouslyu bubbling up to the top. It even appears the membranes have a common morphology.. something strange is going on here!

  11. a5b01zerobone, “how do most Design Theorists view the relationship between Neanderthal and modern Homo sapiens?”

    I don’t believe that there is any statistical analysis on how many believe what, however, I think that ID theorists break into three general camps:

    The young-earthers – Pretty much IDers aren’t young earthers. Some, such as Scordova, are certainly wide open to considering a young earth perspective.

    The “common design”ers. (I believe Dembski holds to this view.) These guys suggest that one day the designer started with a previous work, and reworked a new species — humans. In this view there was clearly a first human pair — Adam & Eve.

    The “Common descent”ers — this includes all of the front-loaders. It also includes Behe. This community believes that if we trace our origins back, we get to some ape that also was the ancestor of the chimp and the Neanderthal.

    The latter group can be broken up into two clear groups. One group, including the front-loaders believes that the pattern that gets to humans already existed in that common ancstor. It naturally unfolded, just like a flower grows out of a tree. This camp contains players such as Mike Gene (pseudonym), Krause, and Dr. Davison. I believe that DaveScot is also of this mind.

    Another group assumes that there is evidence of active genetic engineering (agency)in the recent lineage of man. They would point to customized human DNA that doesn’t seem mutatable by natural processes such as the HAR1F gene. I believe that Behe falls into this latter camp.

  12. a5b01zerobone wrote:

    “This is totally random, but I was wondering, how do most Design Theorists view the relationship between Neanderthal and modern Homo sapiens?”

    ‘zerobone,
    I’m not so sure ID-ist have any say or consensus view on a relationship between modern man and Neanderthal. However, I can give you one creationist view on the relationship. Man (homo sapien) today and Neanderthal would be equally man (homo sapien) – seperated by ~3000 years. However, man today is more degenerate than man back then (Neanderthal). Dr Cuozzo gives an excellent biblical creeationist’s view on Neanderthal in the book “Buried Alive”. In a nut shell, Neanderthal was superior to us genetically and lived very long lives. Hundreds of years old, just as the bible records for the lineage of men immediately after after the flood (thus the larged jaws and brow ridges etc..) The morphologuical changes are found consistent with M.I.T. studies on how people’s skulls trend with age.

    JGuy

  13. Michaels7,
    We should set up a live webcam on the goo and have it viewable on UD.

    JG..

  14. crandaddy said:
    ” Why stop there? Why not carry their line of argumentation to its rational end? Why not just say that no design can be rationally inferred anywhere–even from human sources?”

    Yes, I think this is where Dawkins is going when he says evolution is not a random, chance process. When opponents of Darwinism object by saying complex structures cannot come about due to chance he always counters by saying Darwinism is not a chance process. I never understood how even a Darwinist could say this since natural selection could not proceed unless chance variation occurs for it to act upon. I think Dawkins is a strict determinist. All events are predestined: there is only necessity and there is no chance or design at any level.

  15. StuartHarris,
    I don’t think design can be escaped with even a determistic origin of life. I think it would only serve as an attempt to camoflauge the design requirement from the public view – by pushing the argument to the cosmological scale. This would take attention away from the inadequacies of a primordial soup of earth. The cosmos is where the public is less aware of the controveries brewing – and far from Dawkins field :)

    Anyway, a deterministic origin for life would simply mean the universe is designed not only to support life, but to make it. Wouldn’t this be simply the current arguments for anthropic fine tuning raised a to the power of some large positive integer? So, rather than wrestling with an intelligent “bread maker”, you end up with a requirement for an intelligent “bread machine maker”.

    A deterministic view in life would end in a interesting position for a materialist, indeed.

    JGuy–

  16. I remember watching Ghostbusters, how Rick Moranis’ character had a little world in his freezer, ruled by Zuul. It occurs to me that given all the things potentially in a freezer–meat and vegetable matter, water, maybe even a lightbulb and sub-freezing temperatures once you turn down the cold–that Zuul appearing in your fridge (after billions and billions of years, perhaps) is far more likely than the universe coming into existence from void.

    Perhaps we can all install cameras in our refrigerators and keep a Zuul-alert.

  17. The Truth is out there:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNGMsJOqSuo

    Maybe. ;)

  18. Shhht! I thought I saw a face and few pimples forming in that ooze. Possibly a goo explosion – equal to the Cambrian!

    Watch closely now! Don’t blink. Just believe.

  19. a5b01zerobone:

    Most people I know view Neanderthal as fully human. The only exception I am aware of is this guy.

    One researcher points out that the mtDNA where humans and neanderthal differ the most is still within highly variable mtDNA regions [DeWitt, D. and Skinner, W. "The Neandertal's Role in Human History," Virginia Journal of Science 51(2):83, 2000].

    AiG also has some interesting info on the cultural aspects of Neanderthal and man.

  20. Pasteur’s Flasks. Been there. Done that. Still on display in the Sorbonne museum. Still sterile after 100 years (and counting).

  21. 21

    Thanks BFast. ID is alot more complicated than I thought.

    Are there any books by Dr. Dembski where he fleshes out his concepts about “common design”?

  22. The fact remains that anyone who expects that someday in the far, far future the little dollop of goo will begin to move about on its own and begin to replicate itself–well, it takes just as much FAITH to believe so as it does to believe in any deity creating the world out of nothing.

    Darwinism is a RELIGION parading itself as science.

  23. a5b01zerobone, I read an article by one of the strategists on idthefuture.com on this topic, however, the post isn’t up any more. Is there someone else who can help a5b1zerobone on this topic? And please, guys, a5b1zerobone wants to know what the Dembski et. el. thinks, not your perspective.

  24. I just saw this like, science show about the life goo on National Geographic Channel that says the reason life evolved was ’cause the moon was closer to earth 4 billion years ago, and it made these, like, humongous waves cause of the gravity, and it like, ‘stirred’ the goo, which made life happen, you know cause of the stirring the goo, so maybe we should, like, put the goo in a blender, you know to make the life come out faster?
    It was a very scientific show. It had all kind of scientists and everything.

  25. a5b01zerobone,

    Mike Gene is someone Dembski has pointed to in the past.

    The link below is an interesting discussion on common design vs common descent.

    http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/?p=35

  26. Dave, my comment about “Materialist-only” goo watch was to slight of hand. I meant there would be no such thing – in my opinion ;-)

  27. Thanks BFast and Michaels7. I will check it out.

    ChunkDZ.

    All National Geographic Channel is doing is “inventing” ways to get rid of God. They have been at it a very long time. Recently National Geographic was involved in the Archaeoraptor scandal.

    Which left Storrs. L Olson (also a Darwinian) of the Smithsonian to say “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism”.

  28. Thank Goodness for good old honest Dr. Olson.

  29. chunkdz, “so maybe we should, like, put the goo in a blender, you know to make the life come out faster?
    It was a very scientific show. It had all kind of scientists and everything.”

    I tried it, I put clay and silly putty and a few strange things into my blender and ran the darn thing ’til the motor burned out. It din’t work!

  30. I put pizza in, and life formed in about 48 hrs.

  31. Quick flash back to the homo sapiens – Neanderthal subtopic — check out this latest not-so-totally new development:

    http://today.reuters.com/news/.....038;rpc=22

    And one fascinating excerpt: “It could be “evolutionary reversal” he said — humans changing back into archaic forms.”

    “Evolutionary reversal”???? The Materialists have added a new tool to their growing kit?? Or maybe I missed the newsflash.

  32. bfast,

    Your blender motor burned out? Wow, proof that it wasn’t really designed. Not for clay and silly putty, at any rate. Everyone knows that silly putty evolved right around the Cambrian period, give or take a few billion years.

  33. LOL

  34. 34

    Fools! Don’t you know about the Hiesenberg uncertainty principal? As long as someone is watching life will never spontaneously happen. Quit looking!

  35. 35

    Ekstasis

    “They could also reflect admixture with Neanderthal populations as modern humans spread through western Eurasia” Zilhao said in a statement.

    Stop trying to derail the ID movement.

  36. 36

    Meaning what?

    Meaning perhaps the Neanderthal and modern Humans interbred.

  37. 37

    “It could reflect a case in which ancient traits reappear in a modern human, or it could indicate a mixture of populations, Zilhao said. Or it simply may be that science hasn’t been able to study enough early modern people to understand their diversity.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2.....ls,00.html

  38. Ekstasis:
    I went to the link you posted. The title of the article is:
    “Skull shows possible human/Neanderthal breeding”

    … but what I found interesting was the inset photo of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt – within the article.

    hmmm…

Leave a Reply