Sunday, December 14, 2014

Origin of Life Research Has Failed to Generate a Coherent and Persuasive Framework

A Maze of Madness

Because while Franklin Harold wonders in 2014 if “we may still be missing some essential insight” (given that a century of origin of life research “has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation” and has “remarkably little to show for” for all the effort expended), it was, in fact, just over a century ago when evolution’s co-founder, the great Alfred Russel Wallace, provided exactly what Harold may be looking for, to wit:

there was at some stage in the history of tile earth, after the cooling process, a definite act of creation. Something came from the outside. Power was exercised from without. In a word, life was given to the earth. … Postulate organization first, and make it the origin and cause of life, and you lose yourself in a maze of madness. An honest and unswerving scrutiny of nature forces upon the mind this certain truth, that at some period of the earth's history there was an act of creation …

But who is capable of such “honest and unswerving scrutiny”? For as I explained in Science’s Blind Spot, this never was about honest, objective scientific inquiry:

Naturalism has no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for the DNA code. This is science's blind spot. If a theory of natural history has problems—and many of them have their share—the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems. … Problems are never interpreted as problems with the paradigm. No matter how badly naturalism performs, when explanations do not fit the data very well, they are said to be research problems. They must be, for there is no option for considering that a problem might be better handled by another paradigm.

The problem with evolutionary theory is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that evolutionists would never know any better.

And so what Harold does not, and cannot, tell his readers is that our problem in figuring out the evolution of life may be more serious than merely “missing some essential insight.” Our problem may be that our methodological naturalism mandate has planted us firmly in the belly of anti realism. Or more simply put, there may be no naturalistic explanation. It may not be that we are missing some essential insight, but rather that there simply is no such insight to be found.

In fact that is what the science has been indicating for a long time. The strictly naturalistic evolution of life, of eukaryotes, of multicellular species, of fish, of reptiles, of amphibia, of mammals, and of a thousand other novelties is unlikely. Period. That is what the science is telling us, like it or not.

But evolutionists cannot say that. They cannot admit to the scientific truth. In fact, quite the opposite and quite unbelievably, they insist evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

Evolutionists say that their skeptics oppose science, present theories that are driven by presupposition and are unfalsifiable. But all of that precisely describes evolution. Why can't we just tell the truth?

[h/t: The Man]

14 comments:

  1. I'm glad you're back from your hiatus:-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Alethinon61. So much data, so little time.

      Delete
  2. The fundamental question that must be answered is this, is it not?

    How can the laws of nature operate in such a way as to create a code? A code is an intellectual concept that requires planning and forsight. Alternatives to the implementation must be considered and the best alternative is then chosen.

    In other words, the creation of a code is a design process. A design process requires a designer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. as to:

    "there was at some stage in the history of the earth, after the cooling process, a definite act of creation. Something came from the outside. Power was exercised from without. In a word, life was given to the earth."
    Alfred Russel Wallace

    There is actually powerful evidence that “Power was exercised from without” on multiple occasions in the formation of life on earth. There is a unique ‘higher dimensional’ stamp of individuality on each unique species. A transcendent ’4-Dimensional’ stamp of uniqueness on each kind of species. A stamp that is not reducible to 3-Dimensional material processes.,,, A transcendent ‘signature’ that each species was created from a higher dimension:

    Scaling of Brain Metabolism with a Fixed Energy Budget per Neuron:
    Excerpt: This suggests that the energy budget of the whole brain per neuron is fixed across species and brain sizes,
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017514

    4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/

    The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology
    Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale
    with body size as power laws of the form:

    Y = Yo M^b,

    where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent.
    A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling.
    http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf

    “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection."
    Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79

    Here is, what a Darwinist termed, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway (which operates as if it were ’4-Dimensional'):

    ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic
    http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to explain a single gene/protein of those ‘horrendously complex’ 4-Dimensional metabolic pathways.

      "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way.
      - Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

      The reason why a ‘higher dimensional’ 4-Dimensional structure, such as a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway, would be, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to a 3-Dimensional process, such as Natural Selection, is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:

      Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Dr. Quantum – video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

      Thus, with apologies to C.S. Lewis,,,

      If I find in myself (a desire) 4 dimensional quarter power scaling which no (experience) 3-Dimensional materialistic process in this world can (satisfy) explain, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.
      C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, “Hope”)

      Of related interest:
      Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the testimony of the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

      Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4

      The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions
      Excerpt: “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.”
      Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video
      https://vimeo.com/79072924

      Verse and Music:

      2 Corinthians 4:18
      So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

      Brooke Fraser – CS Lewis song
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PycBrNP8dXg

      Delete
    2. bornagain77 And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to explain a single gene/protein of those ‘horrendously complex’ 4-Dimensional metabolic pathways.

      Yes, not yet. Which is not the same as 'not ever'.

      On the other hand, a better grasp of evolution by the medical community and the agricultural industry might have headed off the now serious problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria before it happened. Evolution provides a credible explanation of how it occurs. Alternative viewpoints, such as Christian creationism and Intelligent Design do not. They can only postulate a "who" not a "how".

      Delete
    3. Pure nonsense. You are spouting modern genetics which no one objects to including the YEC's.

      The fact that such a bogus objection is raised is evidence of the shallowness of the naturalistic evolutionary approach.

      Delete
  4. bornagain77 (quoting Fodor & Piatelli-Palmarini): The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.

    Not only is the claim wrong, but the reason had been known for a decade when they made the claim. Contrary to Fodor & Piatelli-Palmarini, a quarter-power law is consistent with selection for energy efficiency. The reason it's a quarter-power law is due to the fractal nature of distribution systems. See Banavar et al., Size and form in efficient transportation networks, Nature 1999.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z: ...a quarter-power law is consistent with selection for energy efficiency. The reason it's a quarter-power law is due to the fractal nature of distribution systems. See Banavar et al., Size and form in efficient transportation networks, Nature 1999.

      J: Assuming the correctness of the article's conclusion(s), how do you get from the implications of the fractal nature of distribution systems to your belief that the distributions systems can all be explained by blind natural selection, let alone as constrained by the posited time-frames and lineages?

      Delete
  5. Ok, I have to ask. Why does Lois Lerner's picture accompany this article? Is she an example of the primordial pond scum from which life theoretically arose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When it comes to the hard questions, evolutionary biologists take the 5th.

      Delete
  6. Paul Davies is another evolutionist who sees the problem and admits it. He said something to the effect that if water on a planet is evidence that life evolved there (or will evolve there), then silicon on a planet is evidence that computers have evolved or will evolve there.

    An argument that proves too much proves nothing. I.e., either all such WILDLY-speculative extrapolations are evidential in nature or none of them are. And you never hear the used-car-salesmen-evolutionists arguing that there is good evidence for all of them, because they probably actually know better. But maybe they don't know any better anymore. Maybe they've demolished their own rational capacities.

    ReplyDelete