|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
WHAT WE BELIEVE ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND THE DIRECTION OF EVOLUTION AND RELATED QUESTIONS:
Note; The following statement of beliefs, which while consistent with basic science findings, have not been proven in any laboratory, as is also true for Darwinian macro evolution theory or any hard science which relates directly to the origin of life.
Nobel prize winning physicist E. Schrödinger says on page 4 of his book "What is Life?"; "--enough is known about the actual material structure of organisms and about their functioning to state that, and to tell precisely why, present-day physics and chemistry could not possibly account for what happens in space and time within a living organism." This Nobel prize winning scientists makes a case that life operates beyond the limits of physics with the clear implication that there must be more than a physical explanation.
In his book "Investigations", professor of biochemistry S. Kauffman says on page 23; "no theory is yet established for the general conditions underlying the emergence of life from nonlife." Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis. Perpetuating the double helix: molecular machines at eukaryotic DNA replication origins.
In the book, Mr. Kauffman uses the word "speculate". Speculation is not science, it is at best philosophy. There is, in fact, no science theory which explains the origin of DNA, only speculations. In fact, the early universe was not compatible with the building blocks of life which throws another wrench into purely naturalist explanations.
Another key problem for abiogenic theories of the origin of life is that all known life is very complex. There is no small step series of life forms below the simplest bacteria which are even at the lowest levels extremely complex. There is not even a theoretical path of selectable sub-elements of life which has a probability significantly above zero of progressing to actual life in any reasonable time frame possible in this entire universe. One reason for this is all known life is based on DNA and DNA requires complex molecular machinery to be made, decoded/used, and repaired as needed. This leads to a lower limit at some point in simplicity that can sustain life in real world environments.
If life is, them, some how designed to some degree and that design is critical and determinate, as we believe it probably is, such laboratory proof of the origin may be inherently outside the realm of hard science. It would be interesting, however, if laboratory science found someday that the laws of physics are such that life is inherently reasonably probable under likely environmental conditions of early earth (that would indicate that the laws of physics themselves are "designed" to produce life.) To date, however, most life scientists would agree the reality is most likely that life is extremely improbable when invoking reductionistic physics and chemistry, based on the large amount of information required to be organized and actuated and the extreme improbability of the complex molecules like proteins (much more complex than amino acids) needed for life occurring by chance to begin with. (It is generally agreed that there are seven criteria which must be met for something to be considered alive.) Any claims about evolution and life should be restricted to "life" which meets all those criteria.
Any finding that life could, in any case, be generated in a simple way in any reasonable time frame would be virtual proof of some special organizing principle/law at work and not just selection from random events which are accumulated over vast amounts of time. Any experiment run in a laboratory in any reasonable period of time has a near zero chance of producing even a single functional protein, let alone anything like life as we know it if only Darwinian selection from random mutations is operating.
It may be possible to generate some form of self catalyzing (replicating) molecular system with something similar to DNA or RNA, but the would almost certainly be hyper simple compared to the simplest life known. It would almost certainly not have anything like the feedback control systems, information molecule(s), repair systems, true reproduction system (not a simple crystal growth add on phenomena) nor information content of even the simplest natural life on earth unless there is in fact some form of organizing field which directs life as yet undiscovered by science. There is a massive amount of concentrated and deeply organized information in even the simplest life forms and there is no Darwinian mechanism for the organization of such information to produce a coordinated application of such information to produce life. It may be that only some undiscovered special multivariable field could result in the accumulation of enough information to produce a true life form meeting the seven criteria. To actually relate to life as we know it, it would also have to include both a code and a decoding system similar to DNA and the molecular decoding machinery found in all true life.
Again, ironically, if any kind of truly novel evolution is ever demonstrable in a laboratory, it will be evidence against Darwinism (selection from random variations and long term accumulation of small changes) and instead evidence for a field theory of the origin and evolution of life or something like a field theory which is over and above random variations.
In this essay, we are admittedly just openly speculating as to what may be the truth that is not in conflict with any known science principle. (The articles in Scientific American magazine are similar speculation but virtually never labeled as such.) The same openness will not be found in many if any of the sites which defend macro evolution theory or origin of life sites. Such sites proposing purely naturalistic explanations ignore, and generally do even not discuss, the fact that their speculations are at best marginally supported, if at all, by a significant amount of real hard science. It is important to not confuse speculations with hard science. There is a great deal of such confusion put forward by naturalists on the subject of macro evolution and the origin of life.
We hypothesize, in any case, that the most probable explanation for the origin of life and the novelties of life result from some form of a field interaction (which might be of many types, including possibly a matter field (benign virus like or such).) We believe that the incredible complexities of life point to some form of nonlinear and dynamic underlying guidance field existing at some level of reality, which initiated life (and which now gives direction to the evolution of life.) The essence of such an a life guiding source would be consistent with a belief in God. Unless directly detectable, which seems unlikely if it only effects life, a finding that it probably exists would not be a proof of God's existence as viewed by most people of faith.
We believe that some degree of direct or indirect intervention by design was necessary to get life going to produce all seven criteria of life. We also believe that even macro evolution is essentially determinate in its direction (brief discussion two paragraphs below.) Many other scientists disagree with the atheist scientists who claim evolution has no direction (there is absolutely no proof of this atheist assumption.) Origin & Design link, essay written by a professor of Biology. A link where many scientist names are listed of some who dissent from Darwinism. A Theory of Creation; A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists.
Darwinists typically question the credentials of those who believe that Design with or without God almost certainly has played the major role in the origin and evolution of life. The scientist, however, who says the following has incredible credentials; "If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." His name is J. Tour, professor of chemistry, with a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and post doctoral studies at Stanford and the University of Wisconsin! Professor Tour also says "Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith." This professor is an expert in biological molecules. He also says; "I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation." Darwinists couldn't be more wrong when they make a general claim that the credentials of scientist who question their dogma are not adequate. One could even make a good argument that those indoctrinated in Darwinism and dependent on it for their income are the ones who credentials for objective judgment are questionable.
Another scientist with unquestionable credentials C. deDuve (Nobel Prize winning scientist), says in his book; "Life Evolving; Molecules, Mind and Meaning" on page 183; "there is written into the very structure of genomes, more inevitability in vertical (macro) than in horizontal (micro) evolution, and that the degree of inevitability increases with the progression of vertical evolution.") Mr. deDuve the distinguished biologist goes on to say on page 185 about the evolution of life; ""Rerunning the tape" ---, in any case---no doubt would not produce exactly the same script but might well come sufficiently near the original story to make it perfectly recognizable.") Even a Nobel prize winner believes that evolution has a macro direction.
It is also interesting to note that Darwinists staunchly defend the supposed tree of life and the apparent ancestral nature of all of life because they generally recognize that the origin of life is extremely improbable without invoking God or some unknown and possible unknowable life field (which could also be explained by invoking God's interaction with his creation.) It is at best barely defensible (probably not correct) to assume life happened by extremely improbable chance even once. It is almost certainly not defensible that it happened by extremely improbable chance numerous times. Darwinists must, therefore, assume that a tree of life exists to keep their dogma defensible at all.
Again, we do believe that explaining life and evolution's direction can be best done by postulating some form of field (fields can store a lot of information (TV signal fields for example), and this is the hypothesis most consistent with modern basic physics where field theories represent the most fundamental reality. (Physics has in fact demonstrated that fields are more fundamental to reality than particulate matter models.) Taking into account that fact and the vast amount of information in life, the dynamics/coordination of information in life, and the otherwise extreme improbabilities of the incredible complexities of life even at the cellular level, leads to the probability of some form of coupling to an information field as likely to be the simplest explanation for the origin of life and the origin of new phyla/taxa. (Darwinism still probably accounts to a first approximation for new species with small variations between species.)
We believe that the adequacy of Darwinism to explain the origin and novelties of life can never be demonstrated, since it will always remain possible that some directing/patterning element/field exists but has simply not been detected. We expand on this idea in other essays, but essentially it cannot be proven that any set of information has not resulted from the operation of some rule which is just unknown. We also believe that it is possible that such a life field/directing entity may be so subtle that it also may never be directly detected. What any person believes about evolution and the origin of life will probably always come down to a matter of faith and probabilities.
We do believe that eventually something much more sophisticated than simple Darwinism (except for fine tuning) will be found (as a high probability explanation) which couples the evolution of life to the environment (some subtle and complex system and environment Lamarckian like effect possibly operating at the field level.) Such a field would give life direction and meaning far beyond Darwinian random micro selection contributions. The origin of such a field would have at least some correspondence with most peoples basic belief in God.
In summary form;
1) There are reasons to believe that no simple (survival selection from random gene variations only) reductionistic explanation will be found to explain the origin and novelties of life. Reductionism implies simple addition and subtraction and the nonlinearities and discontinuities of life are not truly fully amenable to reductionism. We believe that basic chemistry acting over even very long time periods faces to large a series of extreme improbabilities to explain the numerous complexities of life. The scientist who wrote one of the mainline books on evolution "Biochemical predestination (Doctorate in biophysics and professor of biology at S.F. State University in Calif.) Dr. Kenyon, has now come to believe that a simple strictly naturalistic explanation of life is not possible.
2) There are reasons deriving from the field nature of basic physics to believe that there is some meta intelligence like field (what most of us would call or attribute to god) or something clearly beyond the purview of laboratory science acting like intelligence which provides a fundamental direction to the origin of life from abiotic molecules and at least part of the overall direction to the process of evolution. This intelligence determines, within limits, the end results of evolution.
3) There are scientific reasons to believe that Darwinian evolution principle is not a significant part of the origin of life nor a major part of macro evolution. There are scientific reasons to believe that underlying laws of the universe, including complex nonlinear complex system effects (chaos), are also just a part of that process. It is probable that an underlying meta field together with environmental effect (fields) directs the complex molecules and systems of life into certain attractor areas (life forms) on the landscape of the world. Such a life field would funnel the adaptive directions of life into certain life niches.
4) We believe that Darwinian evolution is only a very small element in the development of life and that this fine tuning mechanism with its unavoidable random component produces things like disease causing germs, parasites, and other things which are detrimental to life as a by product of the fine tuning which needs some leeway and needs to be present to allow life to adjust to changing environmental niches and survive.
5) We believe that a meta intelligence field (god in our belief) keeps evolution within certain broad bounds and allows a wide range of freedom of evolution within those bounds, so that if “evolution” were run again, the main results (humanoids with intelligence) and non microscopic life forms would come out mostly the same in basic/fundamental respects.)
6) We believe that the directing meta field (probably god) is not directly detectable by science, as is also the case (based on direct science observations) with Darwinian macro evolution (major changes in morphology involving large amounts of coordinated information). We believe that (as outlined in our essay as to what a real proof of Darwinian macroevolution would look like, no direct proof for Darwinian macro evolution exists and if it did, it would be detectable by such tests as we list in the referenced essay.
7) We believe that modern physics is getting closer to the truth that everything is just a form of some field (which include non local reality effects) with certain information content. We believe that our hypothesis relating to life are consistent with this and other meta science in physics.
8) While science does not and should not rely on god as an explanation for life, this philosophy does not prevent science from doing an analysis which would provide some indication as to whether or not such an existence is far more probable than purely mechanistic and reductionistic explanations, as we believe it is.
9) We believe that our hypothesis and all of true hard science (atheistic unsupported speculations by definition not included) are consistent with a belief that god was involved in the creation of life and gives a direction to evolution but that that involvement is now beyond science to address or define in any significant way and may remain so.
10) We believe that there is no scientific reason to believe that science can provide the answers to such fundamental questions as to the origins of the life as we know it to be wonderfully complex and pervasive in this world, truly novel life features, the full nature of or the origin of consciousness, or the possible existence and/or survival of consciousness beyond this universe. We believe that there is no scientific principle which would indicate that science can ever answer such questions. Evidence for field theory of intelligence and life/evolution guidance.
Recent findings represent a major disappointment for those who are grasping at straws and have theorized that life, or at least the complex building blocks came from outer space. From the impact on the comet by the NASA probe, "nothing that looks like a peptide bond stretch, which is the building block of amino acids." Not even a precursor to amino acids let alone a truly complex building block of life was in the comet. One wonders about other reports, however, of finding evidence of amino acids in meteors. Is it possible that the meteor originated from an earth impact of a larger meteor in the past and picked up amino acids that way or after it landed? Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence? Why are no amino acids found on Mars? So far, there are no signs of life on Mars. Actually, a finding of life elsewhere would tend to argue against Darwinism and rather for some sort of "field" explanation.
Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #1
Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life
Do real scientists believe in Creation?
ORGANIZATION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Even the simplest life is incredibly complex
We have heard a lecture by the author of the book; "Genesis, The scientific search for the origin of life." and were very impressed with his knowledge, attitude and faith he represented. While we disagree with him on a number of issues (especially intelligent design), from what we heard, he is speaking as an honest scientist who believes in God and is open to the limits of science even as he seeks to know God thru His creation. He came across as being very open and honest about the very large gaps between what science knows, and may never know, and the complexity of life. That author also now seeks to bring science and faith together. We believe that a dialog between those of faith and scientists of good will should be like the dialog which we heard the author present in his speech and question and answer session. We believe that there is no conflict, with understanding what we can, about the ways in which God creates and has designed the universe, as does the author. We have not read his book, but if it is anything like what he represented in his lecture, it should be well worth reading.
We Are Not Alone. Identifying the intelligence responsible for life's biochemical messages exceeds the purview of science.
Evolution: Debate it. If they have truth on their side, why are Darwinists afraid of a debate in a classroom? Science should not close off debate when the evidence is open to interpretation.
THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY. DOES SCIENCE REALLY KNOW HOW OLD THE EARTH IS IF THERE SEEMS TO BE MORE THAN 1 BILLION YEARS OF GEOLOGICAL HISTORY MISSING IN PLACES?
Unlocking the mystery of life.
IRRATIONAL CLAIMS IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE GENETIC CODE
Making Progress in the Origins Debate
Extraterrestrial Enigma: Missing Amino Acids In Meteorites
A Possible Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design In Nature and the Origin of Life.
Life, the cosmos and everything
The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories
Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?
Origin of life: the polymerization problem.
Age of the earth and universe controversy.
A Scientific Critique of Evolution
ALTRUISM VERSUS "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST"
COMMONALITY VERSUS PROOF OF RELATIONSHIP IN EVOLUTION
BASIC PROBLEMS WITH MACRO EVOLUTION THEORY
NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD
WHAT WE BELIEVE MACRO EVOLUTIONISTS FAIL TO GRASP
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Rebuttal of criticisms of book.
Tree of Life Turns Out to Have Surprisingly Complex Roots (This argues against simple Darwinism operating alone.)
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO DARWINIAN MACROEVOLUTION
Quantum bio-physics in living organisms. Some edge of science stuff at this link, but what if there is even a grain of truth in what they say?
Probabilities for Life on Earth