Epi-Genetic Data and Irreducible Complexity

Self | April 1, 2015 | Alessio Ventura

[allessior]

Atheist physicists often refer to a "primordial soup" as a basis for the development of life on earth. However, they cannot precisely map from that soup, in a mathematical way, into an actual life form. Sure, there are plenty of theories about atmospheric conditions that are "ripe for creating life", but it remains conjecture, although the die-hard atheist physicist presents it as factual. They use the "authority" associated with their title, or their position within a university or other research organization, providing false fodder for young minds full of mush, who could not think critically of their lives depended on it

What is "primordial soup"? Well, ask 10 different physicists or cosmologists or astronomers and you will get (10 choose 2)*100 different answers. You might as well ask an astrologist or a card reader, or a good witch for that matter.

You see, as hard as they have tried, experiments to create spontaneous life have NEVER EVER NEVER created a single life form. Sure, they claim that the "life precursors" are created in the form of proteins and amino acids, but we have yet to see even the simplest single-celled life form spontaneous appear from these experiments, where presumably they have created plenty of "primordial soup".

Now, given their miserable failures to spontaneously generate life forms, even a single one, how on earth will they demonstrate the creation of an irreducibly complex organism? How will they demonstrate the "evolution" of abstract thinking in humans? How will they explain the coordinated, parallel bio-systems development in a human fetus, or any fetus of any species for that matter?

Well, they cannot.

One has to wonder: Why do atheists who are scientists cling so tightly to ideas that have no foundations in actual fact, no foundations in solid theorems backed up with data acquired through lab experiments? After all, aren't these same atheists scientists always challenging proponents of Intelligent Design to backup their assertions with actual data derived from lab work?

Let me put it this way: anyone of you atheists physicists out there who can present a case for evolution from the simplest of life forms to abstract thinking in humans will win an all expense paid trip to the Galapagos Islands. Better yet, I will not only pay for your trip to the island, I will also give you $1000 in spending money.

Remember to present your case using the scientific method: (1) Propose a theorem for evolution from the simplest life forms to a human being with the abstract thinking function (2) Design lab experiments to validate your theorem (3) Describe your test cases in detail (4) Record the results of each test case in detail (5) Map the data to the original thesis (6) demonstrate via data that you have proven the validity of your thesis.

In fact, you will fail. There is no way to evolve a simple life form to abstract thinking. You are doomed.

When you are done with this use case, then let's try this one: how did the first life form come to be?

GOOD LUCK but there is no hope to solve these problems!

One thing we do know is that each cell membrane contains epi-genetic encodings. This means that somehow, in some way, an "intelligence" was able to generate a "programming sequence", or set of parallel programmed sequences, which contained the instruction sets necessary to build a more complex life form. But the problem for the atheist physicist is that unless the "primordial soup" contained actual life forms, there would be no way for epi-genetic programming sequences to actually be executed. But we already have admissions from each and every atheist physicist that the primordial soup was full of "pre-life" conditions, not life itself.

So the impossibility of answering this challenge actually starts and ends at the primordial soup.

But I will give all of you a break. Let's assume that the primordial soup has already successfully done its job and created a single-celled life form. I will let you start from there to show the evolution to abstract thinking.

Read?.....Go!

[allessior]

Atheist physicists often refer to a "primordial soup" as a basis for the development of life on earth. However, they cannot precisely map from that soup, in a mathematical way, into an actual life form. Sure, there are plenty of theories about atmospheric conditions that are "ripe for creating life", but it remains conjecture, although the die-hard atheist physicist presents it as factual. They use the "authority" associated with their title, or their position within a university or other research organization, providing false fodder for young minds full of mush, who could not think critically of their lives depended on it

What is "primordial soup"? Well, ask 10 different physicists or cosmologists or astronomers and you will get (10 choose 2)*100 different answers. You might as well ask an astrologist or a card reader, or a good witch for that matter.

You see, as hard as they have tried, experiments to create spontaneous life have NEVER EVER NEVER created a single life form. Sure, they claim that the "life precursors" are created in the form of proteins and amino acids, but we have yet to see even the simplest single-celled life form spontaneous appear from these experiments, where presumably they have created plenty of "primordial soup".

Now, given their miserable failures to spontaneously generate life forms, even a single one, how on earth will they demonstrate the creation of an irreducibly complex organism? How will they demonstrate the "evolution" of abstract thinking in humans? How will they explain the coordinated, parallel bio-systems development in a human fetus, or any fetus of any species for that matter?

Well, they cannot.

One has to wonder: Why do atheists who are scientists cling so tightly to ideas that have no foundations in actual fact, no foundations in solid theorems backed up with data acquired through lab experiments? After all, aren't these same atheists scientists always challenging proponents of Intelligent Design to backup their assertions with actual data derived from lab work?

Let me put it this way: anyone of you atheists physicists out there who can present a case for evolution from the simplest of life forms to abstract thinking in humans will win an all expense paid trip to the Galapagos Islands. Better yet, I will not only pay for your trip to the island, I will also give you $1000 in spending money.

Remember to present your case using the scientific method: (1) Propose a theorem for evolution from the simplest life forms to a human being with the abstract thinking function (2) Design lab experiments to validate your theorem (3) Describe your test cases in detail (4) Record the results of each test case in detail (5) Map the data to the original thesis (6) demonstrate via data that you have proven the validity of your thesis.

In fact, you will fail. There is no way to evolve a simple life form to abstract thinking. You are doomed.

When you are done with this use case, then let's try this one: how did the first life form come to be?

GOOD LUCK but there is no hope to solve these problems!

One thing we do know is that each cell membrane contains epi-genetic encodings. This means that somehow, in some way, an "intelligence" was able to generate a "programming sequence", or set of parallel programmed sequences, which contained the instruction sets necessary to build a more complex life form. But the problem for the atheist physicist is that unless the "primordial soup" contained actual life forms, there would be no way for epi-genetic programming sequences to actually be executed. But we already have admissions from each and every atheist physicist that the primordial soup was full of "pre-life" conditions, not life itself.

So the impossibility of answering this challenge actually starts and ends at the primordial soup.

But I will give all of you a break. Let's assume that the primordial soup has already successfully done its job and created a single-celled life form. I will let you start from there to show the evolution to abstract thinking.

Read?.....Go!

[FredZarguna]

"Atheist physicists" don't claim that evolution = abiogenesis, even though they're not biologists and aren't experts on either one.

But they do know the difference between a theory and a theorem, which apparently the author of this piece does not.

[Eagles6]

No primordial soup for you, physicist!

[Eagles6]

Very interesting.

[Rockingham]

How could natural processes generate life from non-living materials? Putting aside religion, theology, and philosophy, science looks only at the natural, material processes at work in the physical world and assumes that scientific inquiry pursued on that basis offers the only rational way to identify and understand those processes. Thus science categorically reject supernatural explanations for the creation of life, including human life.

Yet many scientists also believe in God and practice religion with sincere personal faith. In doing so, they recognize that science, even at its best and most powerful, offers only an incomplete understanding of life and of human existence and its ends and purposes. For faithful scientists, the discipline of science can be seen as a way to understand God's rule book for how the natural world was created and works.

We may expect that scientific understanding of the origins of life will continue to progress, perhaps one day even to meeting your demand for an explanation of the precise mechanisms involved. For ultimate meaning though, science is inadequate, leaving that to religion.

[shibumi]

"But they do know the difference between a theory and a theorem, which apparently the author of this piece does not."

With evidence being limited to the text at hand, plus 7 prior posts made over a two year period a fair supposition would be that this person is not a native English speaker.

I'm guessing that the difference between deductive reasoning and empirical demonstrability suggested by those two terms might not be within the faculty of his working vocabulary.

[ifinnegan]

“One thing we do know is that each cell membrane contains epi-genetic encodings.”

No.

Cell membranes are not nor are where the genetic material resides. They are lipid bilayers and protein, mainly.

Epigenetic regulation takes place in the nucleus and is covalent modification of DNA and histone proteins.

[beyondthelimits]

God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”

[onedoug]

Here’s a better explanation:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3274422/posts

[BroJoeK]

Well said!

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "...there are plenty of theories about atmospheric conditions that are "ripe for creating life", but it remains conjecture, although the die-hard atheist physicist presents it as factual."

There are no confirmed theories about the origins of life on Earth, only a growing number of unconfirmed hypotheses, including various forms of abiogenesis and panspermia.
All such hypotheses are based in fact, but none are themselves "fact", and are never presented in science as "fact", claims in this article notwithstanding.

All such hypotheses begin with the fact that under certain conditions, certain organic chemicals will naturally self-replicate, imperfectly.
Another name for imperfect replication is, yes, "evolution".

When, where and how such conditions might have existed on early Earth is a matter of great scientific curiosity, but the fact is the first evidence of pre-life is found in rocks only a few hundred million years younger than the Earth itself.
Further facts include evidence of pre-life becoming certain-life over the following billion years or so.

You could look at it this way: the period of time since the Cambrian Explosion of multi-celled organisms is roughly 500 million years, but before this "explosion" there were seven 500 million year periods during which no such "explosion" happened.
So life on Earth took a very long time indeed, getting its act together and its ducks in a row, before conditions made the Cambrian Explosion possible.

So here is the bottom line:

1. The geological and fossil records are facts, as are results of radio-metric dating techniques.

2. Their interpretation as "evolution" is a many-times confirmed theory.

3. Ideas about how life first originated on Earth are all still unconfirmed hypotheses.

Therefore, differences between "fact", "theory" and "hypothesis" should be clear in everyone's mind, even in those who loathe science for its a priori assumption of methodological naturalism.

[Rockingham]

In trying to puzzle out how life came to be on Earth, we suffer the handicap that the fossil record and our understanding of early conditions are incomplete and subject to revision. Yet the great age of the planet and scientific progress in reading its signs support natural explanations for life as opposed to supernatural ones. So far, nothing has been found that defies scientific explanation.

That does not end the argument though. Consciousness remains deeply mysterious, not least of which in that modern physics finds that consciousness has effects at the quantum level. So far, institutional science seems unable and unwilling to pursue this indication that psychic and even spiritual phenomena merit serious scientific investigation.

[Zeneta]

The Spiritual Brain

A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul

The belief that the mind does not exist apart from the brain dominated the twentieth century. But can we really dismiss our thoughts and feelings, or furthermore, our religious and spiritual experiences as simply outcomes of the firing synapses of our brain? In The Spiritual Brain, authors Dr. Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary present the groundbreaking evidence that the mind cannot be simply reduced to physiological reactions in the brain.

Most neuroscientists are committed to the view that mystical experiences are simply the result of random neurons firing, or “delusions created by the brain.” The Spiritual Brain takes another approach, powerfully arguing for what many in science are unwilling to consider—that people actually contact a reality outside themselves during intense spiritual experiences. Beauregard uses the most sophisticated technology to peer inside the brains of Carmelite during a profound spiritual state. His results and a variety of other lines of evidence lead him to the surprising conclusion that spiritual experiences are not a figment of the mind or a delusion produced by a dysfunctional brain.

http://drmariobeauregard.com/books/the-spiritual-brain-a-neuroscientists-case-for-the-existence-of-the-soul/

[Rockingham]

Thank you for the recommendation. One of my brothers has had some unusual experiences that defy easy explanation as random.

In one instance, he abruptly changed his plans for no clear reason, went home and immediately walked out on the lakefront. Seconds later, he pulled a wandering toddler from the water next door and saved him from drowning.

[Zeneta]

Please be advised.

I am a Christian.

I came to Christianity through a process of elimination. I went deep into mythology and Buddhism which is all about being “spiritual” and relies heavily on “Quantum Physics”. And I must admit that there is a lot to be said for this line of inquiry, however, it left me uneasy.

In the end, they provided me with no answers.

[Rockingham]

I am a cradle Catholic, with a K-12 Catholic education, and I never fell away from belief. For me, science-based speculation about the basis for spirituality is a partial rebuttal to the claims of scientific materialism but is not and cannot be a substitute for genuine Christian faith.

[FredZarguna]

All such hypotheses begin with the fact that under certain conditions, certain organic chemicals will naturally self-replicate, imperfectly. Another name for imperfect replication is, yes, "evolution".

This is not a definition of evolution used by anyone.

You will not find any biologist who believes that the appearance of new taxa arising ultimately from changes in the frequency of alleles in a population is abiogenesis.

Young Earth Creationists use these terms interchangeably with deliberate carelessness. People with scientific training should not.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "Another name for imperfect replication is, yes, "evolution"."

FredZarguna: "This is not a definition of evolution used by anyone."

Well... let's see... first, I'm pretty certain you're correcting me from a strict scientific perspective, right?
You're saying that in strict scientific terms, "evolution" is not described as "imperfect replication"?

Then you're somewhat correct, of course.
But on the other hand, a strict definition of basic evolution processes is: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
So, when some people say, "evolution is a confirmed fact", that's what they're talking about, since both basic processes are daily observed and confirmed.

All I did was take that first process, "descent with modifications" and restate it as "imperfect replication", especially as it applies to non-living organic chemistry.
Then, for simplicity sake, I left out the second obvious process -- as unnecessary to mention -- of "natural selection", since any chemical which replicates itself imperfectly is likely to result in a daughter-chemical which is not viable within its environment.
Such products disappear and, meanwhile, other replication products prove heartier and faster in replication, thus continuing to grow and, yes, "evolve".

FredZarguna: "You will not find any biologist who believes that the appearance of new taxa arising ultimately from changes in the frequency of alleles in a population is abiogenesis."

But, of course, I was discussing abiogenesis, not new taxa.
Nevertheless, the processes is exactly the same: 1) imperfect replication and 2) natural selection, aka "evolution".

FredZarguna: "Young Earth Creationists use these terms interchangeably with deliberate carelessness.
People with scientific training should not."

Actually, I do have enough formal scientific training to consider it important to use the words correctly.
But am still not convinced I've abused any definitions here.

Do you disagree?

[FredZarguna]

But am still not convinced I've abused any definitions here. Do you disagree?

I do.

The term Evolution has a very specific set of requirements in scientific terms. "Descent with modifications" includes two terms of art, and does not mean what it means in ordinary English. [Which could refer to, say, a nude coming down a staircase as she combs her hair.]

In particular, descent with modifications does not refer to "things not alive, becoming things which are."

That is not an evolutionary process, and no biologist would claim that it is.

Young Earth Creationists and other scientific illiterates deliberately confuse these two things. In fact, they deliberately confuse the materialist program in general with "evolution." That is what in fact is being done in the instant case of this article. Why? To suggest that the theory of evolution, which is about as irrefutably established as anything we know in biology should be thrown in with speculations about the origins of life, which are not even working hypotheses, let alone scientific theories yet.

We presently cannot draw a straight line from The Singularity at the beginning of time to human life. That doesn't mean that the physics of everything that's happened within a [conservatively] microsecond after The Singularity isn't pretty well understood. It doesn't invalidate anything we know about the formation of stable structures billions of years ago, and it doesn't void the theory of evolution.

Claiming we know how life began, or how living things "evolved" from non-life is playing into the hands of ignoramuses. It shouldn't be done.

[BroJoeK]

FredZarguna: "Claiming we know how life began, or how living things 'evolved' from non-life is playing into the hands of ignoramuses.
It shouldn't be done."

Certainly we don't know everything, but that doesn't mean we know nothing, or that informed speculation is completely worthless.
What we know for certain is evidence of organic material dating back 3.7 billion years, near the beginning of the Earth, followed by pre-biotic or biotic stromatolite fossils going back 3.5 billion years.
From that point evidence shows obvious life becoming steadily more complex.

Of course, how all this happened, we don't know, but that it happened, we certainly do, and informed speculation currently begins with certain organic molecules which can, under certain conditions, replicate themselves.

I merely pointed out that self-replication, along with natural selection, is the core definition of basic evolution, a definition which can be applied, certainly informally, to most anything, living or not.

Pre-Cambrian stromatolite from Glacier Park, Montana.

By the way, my guide to all this is Addy Pross: