He said it: Origin of life both one of the hardest and most important problems in science. And the solution is …
| November 13, 2011 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Origin Of Life |
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
- Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391
Koonin bought some peace by wavering toward the multiverse:
The Many Worlds in One version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation might suggest a way out of the origin of life conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), the emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible, but inevitable. (p. 392)
Yeah. Multiverse = Magical Neverneverland Machine He’ll smarten up.
See also: Here’s his recent book again, The Logic of Chance.
11 Responses to He said it: Origin of life both one of the hardest and most important problems in science. And the solution is …
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That type of honesty, though I respect it immensely, is liable to get him in hot water with the Darwinian thought police.
“. . . we still do not have even a plausible coherent model . . .”
But, but, but . . . we’ve been assured over and over on this site by Dr. Liddle and others that folks like Szostak have indeed put forward a plausible coherent model. Oh, there might be a few details needed, but the model has been put forward and it makes basic sense. It’s all right there for the faithful to see, they urge, just go read the literature.
Nice to see Koonin admit what is known to those who follow the field more closely.
Multiverse is such a joke as an explanation for the origin of life, because it doesn’t even address the conditions for the origin of life. There is nothing about the physics and chemistry of our universe that would cause life to form. Thus, the question isn’t whether there are lots of universes with different fundamental characteristics, and our just happens to form life. The question is, given a universe with the fundamental characteristics ours has, what is the best explanation for the formation of life. Ultimately, to even be meaningful the idea requires a near infinite number of universes that happen to have our universe’s characteristics, which simply means that everything, no matter how outrageous or preposterous, will happen somewhere in some universe. Problematic on every level. This “explanation” is equivalent to saying “stuff happens.”
Eric Anderson:
You somehow omitted the key phrase of the sentence you quoted only half of. Perhaps this was an oversight? Koonin writes
And this is not inconsistent with what Liddle or Szostak are saying. Koonin says this is an extraordinary difficult problem. He agrees that a great deal has been learned, and a great deal remains to be learned. And nobody is going to dispute that “judged by the straightforward creterion of reaching the ultimate goal” (that is, actually creating life), current work falls well short.
Picture someone setting out to walk from coast to coast. They’ve been at it for a week, and they’ve gone over 100 miles. Judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching the opposite coast, their journey is a “failure” – so far.
What I find interesting is that Koonin makes the claim that we lack a plausible coherent model, and THEN says
– a statement that simply cannot be made WITHOUT a coherent model to provide the context within which it applies.
In the walking journey analogy, this would be like saying that we do not have any plausible concept of foot travel, but nonethless we “know” that such long walks require extraordinary luck. In other words, Koonin says we don’t know what’s required, and then says the requirements (none of which have been identified, which requires a model) would need a miracle – and he lists the requirements the nonexistent model identifies!
When Szostak lays out a model meeting Koonin’s very requirements, Koonin turns around and deems it nonexistent.
OT: Scot Pollock – Teaching Pastor – Human Body – video
http://vimeo.com/32060271
As to origin of life research, I find that a beyond space and time cause is needed for photosynthesis, which, since neo-Darwinism relies on materialistic causes, rules it out:
Notes:
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 had been fought by materialists 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 sedimentary rocks.
But the most damaging thing to the materialistic/Darwinian belief that life simply ‘emerged’ from some prebiotic chemical broth, besides the extremely ancient age for photosynthetic life, is this finding:
The reason that this ‘quantum photosynthesis’ finding is absolutely crushing to the atheists’s materialistic belief that life simply ‘emerged’ from some prebiotic chemical broth, is that this reductive materialism, which atheists hold is true for how life came to be on earth (neo-Darwinism), is falsified as to being the ’cause’ for quantum entanglement!:
The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Thus since quantum entanglement is found in photosynthesis, it now logically follows that a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause must be supplied to explain the origination of photosynthesis in the first life on earth as well as all subsequent photosynthetic life on earth! This is more than a slight problem for materialistic atheists who believe in neo-Darwinism!,,, The following video gives a hint of just how ‘spooky’, to use Einstein’s infamous word, it is to find ‘non-local’ quantum action to be necessary for photosynthetic life:
To solidify my basis for inferring the necessity of a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain photosynthesis, I would like to refer to the quantum wave collapse of a photon;
It is important to note that the following experiment actually proved that information can be encoded into a photon while it is in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, that was/is held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into a entity that is not physically real but is merely abstract? It simply would not be possible!
Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly , can be encoded with information in its ‘infinite dimensional’ state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0? state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, “Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon???
verse and inspirational video
further notes:
Wow- if we listen to Koonin the origin of life research is as “scientific” as SETI…
I would like to point out that basically Dr. Koonin, in appealing to a never before observed ‘materialistic miracle’ he conjures up with the ‘Many Worlds in one’ hypothesis, clearly illustrates that the materialistic argument, ‘desperately’, appears to be like this:
On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows:
Though purely material processes have NEVER shown the ability to produce ANY non-trivial functional information (David Abel – Null Hypothesis), Darwinists are adamant that material processes produced more information, of a much higher integrated complexity than man can produce, than is contained in a very large library, when it accidentally produce the ‘simplest’ life:
Better link for ‘presently acting cause’;
RC Sproul Interviews Stephen Meyer – Presuppositional Apologetics (and Scientific Argument for ID from presently acting cause known to produce effect in question)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM5J2zTBIzI
Thanks, David.
Your analogy of a man who is walking from coast to coast assumes that there is a viable pathway from point A to B. The analogy would be more applicable to origin of life if, instead of someone walking coast to coast, we had a man (perhaps even with blinders on) who had wandered from sea level to 1,000 feet and then claimed that if he kept going he would eventually get to Mars. Those who can see the landscape more clearly realize it won’t happen, not because of any lack of effort on the part of our intrepid hiker, but because the pathway can’t be traversed in that manner. Giving the hiker more time isn’t going to change the fact that his proposed mechanism of getting from A to B simply isn’t going to cut it.
Also, Koonin is not being inconsistent in his statements. We musn’t confuse a basic list of requirements for a model. Noting that a naturalistic origin of life scenario must explain the “synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation” does not constitute a model of how that could have occurred. If I realize that to get to Mars we need to achieve escape velocity, traverse a great distance of space, time the departure and vector just right, and have some kind of landing mechanism, that just means I’ve made a very simple list of basic requirements, it doesn’t mean I have a “model” of how to do it.
Folks like Koonin who have looked closely at the proposed ideas for origin of life (whether volcanic vents, mud globules, Szostak’s vesicles, or otherwise) realize that there is no coherent model. It is not that the models are on the right track and need just a bit more time and money. The models are actually incoherent — logically problematic — in the same way that our hiker’s attempt to get to Mars is incoherent. [Note, it is a separate question whether OOL research is worth funding and will yield some indirect benefits. I tend to think there is value in some level of continued OOL research.]
There are three main camps of people who propose a naturalistic origin of life: (i) those who think it was improbable in our universe, but we got lucky (Dawkins, Gould, probably most evolutionists); (ii) those who think that life is an inevitable outgrowth of the laws of chemistry and physics (some of the “emergent properties” theorists, certain theistic evolutionists); and (iii) those who have looked at the first two and realized that (ii) doesn’t have any supporting evidence and is logically problematic, and (i) needs *lots* more resources to be taken seriously, so they propose a multiverse in an attempt to get those resources. Koonin seems to fall in this last camp.
It’s embarrassingly obvious, if you understand what natural selection is :
EarthLife [email protected]
A.
Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.
B.
Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed kind of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.
Aromaticity ( Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential also for the Krebs Cycle, for energy production.
(Wikipedia)
C.
Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.
Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.
Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection – self replication of RNAs. ALL Earth life is evolved RNAs. The drive and purpose of EarthLife is to enhance RNAs replication, its natural selection.
Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of EarthLife Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity. Hydrogen Bonding.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/