Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution’s Grand Challenge

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Steve Laufmann is a consultant in the growing field of Enterprise Architecture, dealing with the design of very large, very complex, composite information systems that are orchestrated to perform specified tasks in demanding environments. In an extremely interesting ENV article that we commend to our readers, he wites:

Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers.

It’s like the guy who, after untying his boat, finds himself with one foot on the dock and one foot in the boat. As the gap grows, it becomes increasingly hard to ignore. And uncomfortable. And temporary.

And this is evolution’s grand challenge: The complex programs and amazing molecular machines at the heart of life simply cannot be explained by any current or proposed theory of evolution, nor by any other completely material cause. Apologists for materialism cannot hide this fact much longer. Neither the volume of their arguments nor any level of vitriol can change the fact that the data is skewing against them.

Rarely has any field of science had to deal with questions so difficult, or that cut so deeply into the worldviews, minds, and hearts, of thoughtful men and women.

Evolution sits at the center of a front-and-center debate — with too much to explain, in too little time, with insufficient causal power, and with so many watching and so much at stake.

Comments
Alicia @ 64 "Cross, there’s a difference between a hypercritical peer-reviewer and the material meant for public consumption." Yes, I know, the former is closer to the truth, the latter is b*llsh*t like: "We have made considerable progress" and "it’s only a matter of time" Keep bluffing. CheersCross
September 27, 2015
September
09
Sep
27
27
2015
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
Since Alicia is intent on playing the role of clueless. Scientific models are such that they can be tested against reality. This means that a model of the environment of the early earth is not a scientific model of the environment of the early earth if it cannot actually be tested against the actual environment of the early earth. That would require time travel. I'm sure there's a model for that too though. Ain't science grand.Mung
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Mapou: But there is no escaping the merciless finality of the combinatorial explosion. Right. It's a "biatch."mike1962
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli: Mungy, it’s tested every day. There’s an entire field of biology devoted to studying it. Ain't time travel grand!Mung
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
mike1962, A few people use GAs to solve stochastic optimization problems with a very limited number of variables and ranges. But no solution requires them. The same results can be obtained with a regular randomized optimizer. But there is no escaping the merciless finality of the combinatorial explosion. It would not matter if you had quintillions upon quintillions of parallel universes (which themselves cannot even come to exist stochastically since the CE forbids it). Conclusion: Everything was designed at one point in time or another. Not just living organisms.Mapou
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Mapou Ever wonder why genetic algorithms are not used for anything other than cheesy toy applications? We use them in RF antenna design and optimization. (An intelligently designed process, of course.) But with extremely tight constrains towards a certain goal, nowhere in the same multi-verse of requirements that the DNA/ribosome replicator would require.mike1962
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
The single worst enemy of abiogenesis is called the combinatorial explosion (CE). It kills all stochastic optimizers (which is what abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are) dead before they get out of the gate. Ever wonder why genetic algorithms are not used for anything other than cheesy toy applications? It's the dreaded CE. The merciless exterminator of materialism: Combinatorial explosion.Mapou
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Earth to Alicia Cartelli- Geologists would have an easier time showing that Stonehenge is a natural formation than anyone will have trying to show that mother nature can produce living organisms. Abiogenesis is science in that it will falsify every materialistic attempt at explaining the existence of living organisms.Virgil Cain
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
As always, thanks for the laughs guys.
As always, thanks for the hyprocisy.jerry
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Cross, there’s a difference between a hypercritical peer-reviewer and the material meant for public consumption. You can scream “IT’S NOT SCIENCE” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. Abiogenesis hypotheses are tested every day, some falsified, some not. We have made considerable progress in showing how the major biomolecules may have formed over the past few decades and yes, we still have a ways to go. The next steps are even more complicated, but they will be taken, it’s only a matter of time. I wish carrying out research was simpler and that everything could be figured out in a few years, but that’s just not how it works. Until then, enjoy your “IT’S NOT SCIENCE BECAUSE I SAY SO” schtick. Glad I can cheer you up Eug!Alicia Cartelli
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
RNA world is the best we have right now and most likely it will be some variation of it that turns out to be correct.
LoL! There isn't any evidence for a RNA world and if that is the best you have then you have nothing but hope and promissory notes.
I have read about experiments that generated the basic macromolecules of life in model early-earth environments, something you guys would have said was impossible 10, 20, 30 years ago.
No one said it was impossible. You are making stuff up, as usual.
My response is based on our current understanding of evolution which suggests we have evolved over many years from much simpler organisms.
Suggests? There isn't any evidence that we evolved from simpler organisms. The claim is not scientific. As always, Alicia, we are laughing at you and your gullibility.Virgil Cain
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
Alicia, I keep this thread open to cheer me up when I am back in the office. You are a star!EugeneS
September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
Alicia @ 60 So,the theory that "is bad as a scientific hypothesis","hardly falsifiable and is extremely difficult to verify" (ie not science) and has a "a great number of holes in the most important parts" is just what you were saying! Nice bluff, you must love poker. The bluff won't work forever, sometime in the future you will have to come up with something that actually is possible. It has been fun, thanks to you also for the laughs. Just get back to me when you can fill those giant holes. CheersCross
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Cross, you picked a paper that says exactly the same thing that I have been saying. RNA world is the best we have right now and most likely it will be some variation of it that turns out to be correct. Pretty much everyone in the field is confident of this, as am I. I have read about experiments that generated the basic macromolecules of life in model early-earth environments, something you guys would have said was impossible 10, 20, 30 years ago. Yes, we have a lot to figure out, but unfortunately for you guys, the knowledge gap is continually shrinking. Yeah SteRus, I don’t “KNOW!” We didn’t know a lot of things 100 years ago, and yet here we are. My response is based on our current understanding of evolution which suggests we have evolved over many years from much simpler organisms. To study abiogenesis we continue this line of thinking all the way back to the origin of life and test, as well as we currently can, the possible mechanisms that may have led to living organisms. And we’ve made significant progress. You couldn’t have gotten the same results “those many years ago” because much of our current hypotheses is based on recent research. But I wouldn’t expect you to be up on that, if you were, you probably wouldn’t be one here. Toodaloo. Mungy, it’s tested every day. There’s an entire field of biology devoted to studying it. As always, thanks for the laughs guys.Alicia Cartelli
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli: I assumed you guys would understand that when I say “early-earth environments” I mean “modeled environments.” And we assumed you would understand that if it's not testable it's not a scientific model.Mung
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli, "The first living organisms were nothing like todays life." So you say, but can you show me one of them? You can't! How do you know they existed? You don't KNOW! Your whole response has been worldview driven hot air. The only reason you think there was some other "simpler" versions of semi-life between organic chemistry reaction with a few amino acids holding hands for a dance or two before relentless thermodynamics cutting in and what we see around us that serves as the basis of Mr. Laufmann's criteria for "first life" is because your worldview demands it be in there somewhere, somehow, somewhen. When I was searching for a real case from your comrades those many years ago, I got the same as you are purveying now. So the new information you tout hasn't served to help your case. You still don't have the beef. You still don't understand the real reason you believe in abiogenesis. That is- No other explanation is compatible with your fundamental tenet- natural causation only. You have shown me nothing I didn't already know. I leave the final word to you. Do with it what you may. StephenSteRusJon
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Alicia @ 53 "Cross, if you had read more than just the title, you’d have seen this right in the abstract: “I will argue that, while theoretically possible, such a hypothesis is probably unprovable, and that the RNA world hypothesis, although far from perfect or complete, is the best we currently have to help understand the backstory to contemporary biology.” That article is not what you think it is. You and Boxy seem to have the same issues." Actually I did read it all and I deliberately picked a paper that was friendly to your side of the fence, to show that those working in the abiogenisis field are far less confident than you are. Here is what one of the referee's of that paper wrote (before his worldview compels him to think it must still be right!): "Referee 1: Eugene Koonin I basically agree with Bernhardt. The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis: it is hardly falsifiable and is extremely difficult to verify due to a great number of holes in the most important parts. To wit, no one has achieved bona fide self-replication of RNA which is the cornerstone of the RNA World." I am wondering where your confidence comes despite the evidence so far? CheersCross
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
As I have said multiple times now, when talking about abiogenesis, the line between life and non-life is blurred. There is a spectrum and no absolute definition of life, in fact we don’t even have an absolute definition of “living” today.
Yet there is an entire scientific field, called biology, that studies the living.
Everyday more is learned about abiogenesis, and often things you guys insisted were impossible, are found to be quite possible.
For example?
Not only are they possible but require only the right combination of a few simple molecules and environment to create simple nucleotides and even link them together for instance.
True but life, even mere replication, requires more than any ole sequence.Virgil Cain
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
So Alicia does not want to commit to the "you don't understand evolution" fallacy but does so anyway. Darwinists don't understand because they believe matter can make itself conscious. Hahahaha!!!Andre
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
The first living organisms were nothing like todays life.
Except there isn't any evidence for that, just a need.
It’s your side that needs the smoke and mirrors, my side has science.
Bullscorch. If your side had the science you would present it. Or someone would. OTOH ID has the scientific methodology.
It may be a slow process, but it will always win in the end.
Yes, ID will win in the end.Virgil Cain
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Steve, his definition of life is specific to living organisms we see today. As I said though, when thinking about abiogenesis, pretty much everything we know about the living organisms of today has to go out the window. The first living organisms were nothing like todays life. Again, when talking about abiogenesis, life exists on a spectrum, it is not black and white. And well, what exactly have you been shown? I highly doubt the typical layman is up on the latest research. No reading issues here Boxy, I’m afraid the issues are in understanding and they’re all on your side of the table. Every sentence you write demonstrates how clueless you are. Cross, if you had read more than just the title, you’d have seen this right in the abstract: “I will argue that, while theoretically possible, such a hypothesis is probably unprovable, and that the RNA world hypothesis, although far from perfect or complete, is the best we currently have to help understand the backstory to contemporary biology.” That article is not what you think it is. You and Boxy seem to have the same issues. Mikey, unfortunately that’s how science works. We take small steps, learning as we go. Unfortunately, you guys are going in the opposite direction. See ya! Sorry Eugene, I assumed you guys would understand that when I say “early-earth environments” I mean “modeled environments.” Sorry for assuming you guys have more than an ounce of intelligence. And you are wrong. As I have said multiple times now, when talking about abiogenesis, the line between life and non-life is blurred. There is a spectrum and no absolute definition of life, in fact we don’t even have an absolute definition of “living” today. Everyday more is learned about abiogenesis, and often things you guys insisted were impossible, are found to be quite possible. Not only are they possible but require only the right combination of a few simple molecules and environment to create simple nucleotides and even link them together for instance. It’s your side that needs the smoke and mirrors, my side has science. It may be a slow process, but it will always win in the end.Alicia Cartelli
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Alicia, "Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments." That is why it is all bust, Alicia. There is no incrementality between life and non-life. It is a huge gap in functional complexity. It is not even steep from all over. The function does not exist anywhere in the vicinity. So there is not even hope for Dawkins' type back door to the top of Mt Improbable. Mt Improbable is just a point isolated by chaos. Not only does Maxwell's demon need to know which molecules to pass through the trap and which others not, it needs also to make purposeful choices in order to create a heat differential. It just does not happen otherwise in our fallen world with the relentless 2nd law. You cannot expect indifferent nature to go against the 2nd law as a fluctuation that codes itself up and creates adapters to decode itself later on. The more control you add to your abiogenesis experiments, the further away you are from what you set out to demonstrate. That is why it is all bluff and smoke in mirrors.EugeneS
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
Alicia, "Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments." That one is by far your best! How can one demonstrate something that occurred once in the deep past when there was no observer?EugeneS
September 24, 2015
September
09
Sep
24
24
2015
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
Box @45 It means Alicia is in full support of eugenics. Kill off those that are less fit. Wonder where I heard of that before? Oh yes Margaret Sanger et Al. ...Andre
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
Alicia So you believe that those who are fit survive and those that survive are fit? Round and round we go like a merry go round....Andre
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli: We have made some of the small steps already, but still have a ways to go. That's like saying, "we have traveled a few miles to Alpha Centauri but we still have a ways to go." Talk about a delusional understatement borne of an ideology.mike1962
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
//follow up #45// It is obvious that the very first replicator needs to be adjusted to its environment — that lucky lucky thing! That should be added to the impressive list of requirements.Box
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli @ 40 "Nothing in that post is new or worrisome, it merely says we have more work to do in the lab." Alicia is not worried but others are more honest. "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/ CheersCross
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Cartellia: Nothing in that post is new or worrisome, it merely says we have more work to do in the lab.
Do you have reading issues?
Cartellia: Natural selection “killing off stuff,” means those that survive are better replicators/translators. It’s the most basic idea of evolution.
Okay Cartellia, so when, against all odds, the very first replicator is produced, you and your ilk are hoping that natural selection steps in and starts wielding its scythe? How does that improve chances?Box
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Many of the necessary small steps in generating the major biological macromolecules have been demonstrated to occur in early-earth environments. Ain't time travel grand!Mung
September 23, 2015
September
09
Sep
23
23
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply