Would this Origin of life model work?

Yes, actually. I think the fossil record proves that God did not develop life through UCD.

I am not quite sure what your point is here. Regardless of whether it is possible by random means, this would need to be demonstrated empirically in order for it to be considered science.

Well, we were discussing whether my God hypothesis can be ( dis)proven scientifically in the first place. If you are conceding that it can and you want me to proceed further in proving it, then I will do so.

Experiments in quantum physics have confirmed that “the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws.” In other words, the classical world is the same as the quantum world where what happens at the quantum world would directly affect the classical world.
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/57254

In fact, a team of scientists have even succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving. “These experiments show that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as atomic-scale particles”. Thus, you cannot separate the two realms because quantum mechanics is ultimately fundamental.

Scientists supersize quantum mechanics | Nature

I would agree but this does not apply to me.

Well, it just depends on which form of idealism we are talking about here. The one that I am advocating for does allow for it.

A quantum mind must exist to create life on earth

                        OR

A quantum mind must exist to bring life into being on earth

Here’s an experiment showing how a quantum mind does not need to exist to create life on earth by showing how a possible natural condition can create life without it.

Again, A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case.

This is what it means to be “necessary”. This leads me to address your response to this…

I think “random” is the wrong term to use here. What you really mean is “natural law” if I am not mistaken. If so, I would agree BUT the question is whether this natural law was a guided process or not, which we can test, as I showed and explained to you before.

The criticisms raised on Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory of consciousness have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.

For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.

I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences to be scrutinized even more. I have already gave you the source that verifies all this. In fact, here is a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address:

"Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al. found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105).

Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters. With the dedication of these supporters, the quantum theory of consciousness will be gradually completed and will be able to explain the hard problem systematically and comprehensively. As the enigmatic riddle of consciousness has remained intractable, we need more theories and hypotheses to attract enough attention and maintain lively debate. This conflict is the only way for human beings to explore the truth. Since there is no conclusive scientific mechanism of consciousness, as one of the most systemic and convincing theories among various theories of consciousness, the Orch-OR theory deserves our deeper understanding and study."

Do you know of a new peer-reviewed objection of their article after 2019 that they failed to address?

You really will have to explain yourself some time. The fossil record has nothing to do with UCD, as there is no reason to believe that the universal ancestor would have left any fossils, and most of the fossil record is of animals, hundreds of millions of years after any event relevant to the UCD.

I would like to point out that I am in fact a biologist, an actual expert on the subject of evolution. I say that purely because you claim that people don’t understand you because they aren’t experts. That is not the reason.

8 Likes

No, I mean universal common descent throughout the whole fossil record in the form of gradualism.

Yes, but not in every field of biology. such as paleontology.

Yes, but I only meant that in terms of quantum physics. Sorry for the confusion. I went back to change it.

He won’t, you know. He will just go on assuming that when people give up on attempting to reason with him, this means he’s won that round of the argument and it’s time to move on and open a new thread where Deepak-style insights will overturn all of science. As rhetorical strategies go, this is an interesting one, but it’s not a winner, for sure.

3 Likes

That’s not what universal common descent means. I also think you have no real idea what gradualism is or what the fossil record shows. But since you refuse to discuss it we’ll never be entirely sure.

As it happens, my graduate education entailed quite a bit of paleontology. So I do claim considerable familiarity with the relevant subjects and with the technical literature.

4 Likes

Given your reliance on Apologists in general, and your heavy reliance on RTB in particular, I find this quibbling more than a little ludicrous. Hugh Ross has no qualification or experience even remotely relevant to biology. And the relevance of even Fazale Rana background ("… a PhD in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry from Ohio University. He later pursued postdoctoral studies in the biophysics of cell membranes.") would appear tenuous at best.

Does Michael Jones of ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ have any academic background in QM? I rather doubt it (and his webpage certainly doesn’t mention any).

1 Like

You can believe that if you prefer, but the actual reasons are your tendencies to spout gibberish about topics you don’t understand and cite papers you haven’t read.

7 Likes

Nope. The issue is you don’t understand basic physics in the first place.

3 Likes

Moving this topic to Side Conversation, it’s impossible to moderate each post and is, IMO, well past it’s useful life when people start the credentials battle. Posts will not be held for moderator approval so please use the flagging system if there is something that violates the community guidelines so a moderator is alerted.

1 Like

Sure, we will discuss it more later in the next topic. I am just focused on addressing the most fundamental aspect of my overall argument right now so no one will complain about me not addressing past criticisms.

If you don’t want to talk about something, don’t bring it up. That’s one reason people complain about you not addressing past criticisms: you tend to put off discussion until…well, until never. Another reason is that you never actually address anything, just repeat your prior assertions in slightly different words.

That’s a different argument. I disagree, but let’s not go there.

OK, but then you also need to empirically demonstrate that God can create life. That will be difficult! :wink:

I’m not separating, I’m saying it’s irrelevant to the problem of falsification.

It applies to your hypothesis. The claim that it doesn’t apply to you is very strange, but probably not worth arguing about. :wink:

False dichotomy.

I shot this down somewhere above. I think you aren’t reading.

It’s your term. I agree you didn’t really mean random ITFP, but it didn’t seem worth fussing over.

Articles are also published to present ideas to the scientific community for consideration. It does not mean they are proven. Also, it’s still irrelevant to the question of falsification.

2 Likes

Time for a little review, I think. Maybe a LOT of review …

AND it still bears repeating.

This should be a stopper.

AND you agree it is a stopper.

We have.

There have been many fatal blows, you fail to acknowledge them.

Again you agree the objections are valid, and then present a time-travel argument as a dodge? I think that should count as two stoppers.

AND it is increasingly wrong to even pretend you have a hypothesis. You are arguing from a false premise, which is why there are so many easily contradictions.

Another stopper that bears repeating.

This was especially silly, and remains unfalsifiable.

[quote=“Dan_Eastwood, post:76, topic:13971”]

Wrong is another stopper.

I missed this bit about squirrels on the first pass. Yes, squirrels can generate new information too. Stopper.

And you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method.

If God can influence the physical world, there must be matter and/or energy involved in some way. Not a stopper, just wrong.

Pretty sure this stopper was entirely ignored.

AND still haven’t.

I think you are arguing from a false premise. It would explain all of this. (And it’s a stopper).

QM=/=Falsification.

You do not understand Information Theory, at least not deeply. That lack of understanding is making you say some silly things.

Yeah, I’m going back to "moving the GP on this one. Stopper.

If your hypothesis depend on redefining reality, can I play too? :wink:

How simple can I make this. God would certainly be sufficient (contingent on existence), but is God necessary? I think we could name any number things for which God’s direct action is not necessary. Thank goodness you aren’t one of those annoying people who get really pedantic about God being necessary for ever tiny detail!

You can only get away with this because you haven’t defined God, allowing you to wriggle away from ever answering the question of falsifying you hypothesis.

Well that’s good, because you haven’t.

This still remains. Back to the definition problem again. Stopper.

I am glad you agree at least to the constraint of consistency for God. However, this can only be assumed, not proven. Stopper.

AND you haven’t answered yet! Stopper.

Really, what does it take?

This remains true.

Falling back to a definition of Reality seems to be the final fatal blow. It’s really grasping at straws, straws that may or may not actually exist in our reality.:wink:

How?

Sorry for the length, but I think I’m done here. :slight_smile:

6 Likes

I admire your patience, sir.

4 Likes

@Meerkat_SK5 , don’t get me wrong - it’s very pleasant to discuss with you, but I think it topic has run its course, several times over. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

After careful reading of everything leading up to your last response including previous topics, I think you might be on to something with one of your objections that I just picked up on. Here it is…

I just realized that I never fully established that God operates the same way that humans do, which would give us a basis to constrain the hypothesis to human behavior like what we see with SETI and forensic science. I was planning on doing this in the next topic, but I think it’s best if I do it now.

In the past, I argued that this designer mimics the behavioral patterns of modern humans based on the “remarkable similarities we see between genomes and natural languages”:

Lijia Yu et al., “Grammar of Protein Domain Architectures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 116, no. 9 (February 26, 2019): 3636–45, doi:10.1073/pnas.1814684116

Here is the objection to this…

Well, we have experiments showing how the genetic code was artificially created by human minds by infusing information into DNA to get a self-replicating molecule. But, the experiments attempting to show this same information evolved naturally ended up yielding negative results every time.

This suggests that the information we see observationally in DNA was artificially created instead because as you suggested before …

Therefore, we can infer that DNA information and human information are identical (or at least highly similar) based on those experiments

So going back to what you said here…

Thus, we have good reasons to believe that this causal agent is not only an intelligent designer but a common designer rather than a mysterious one. We can test this in accordance to human behavior by allowing human intervention to take place in experiments and have it count as potential evidence for or against the hypothesis. As I mentioned in previous topics, I am not the only who has made this argument for testability:

“On one endpoint, you have a view of God as an intrinsically mysterious agent. Human reason is simply incapable of penetrating into the mysterious God’s motives, mechanisms, and the like. On the other end of the continuum, there is God as a rational God, a God whose motives and mechanisms are analogous to those of human intelligence (a phrase that came up in an earlier talk). In other words, a rational God is a God that we can understand in some important sense of that word."

Can Intelligent Design Become Respectable? | National Center for Science Education (ncse.ngo)

Remember, I am ultimately arguing for the Judeo-Christian God. This means that the designer would be Jesus Christ who was both divine and human according to the facts:

The Resurrection, Evidence, and The Scientist - The Veritas Forum - The Veritas Forum

So there is nothing mysterious or ill-defined about this designer, as you keep suggesting. Besides, you are creating a double standard if you suggest we have to have access to the designer to prove their existence. This is not a requirement from SETI.

No, I think you overstating what I was trying to convey before. In regards to verifying the hypothesis, I am just saying we can’t falsify the prediction that God is still guiding evolution as we speak or after humans were created because we can’t rule out other minds that might of produced the effect. That’s it! Other than this, we can infer from origin of life experiments that a Divine mind was probably the designer for the first life on earth regarding past events.

However, when it comes to falsification of the whole hypothesis, this would not matter.

As per usual, it is hard to discern what you are trying to claim here @Meerkat_SK5.

Please provide a primary-source citations for (i) these “experiments showing how the genetic code was designed by human minds that infuse information into the DNA to get a self-replicating molecule” and (ii) these “experiments attempting to show this same information evolved naturally ended up yielding negative results every time”.

Balderdash. Neither of your above claims (even if true) have anything to do with “human language”, so are a complete non sequitor to your absurd claim of identity/similarity between human language and DNA.

2 Likes

Poliovirus Baked From Scratch | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)

Genetic requirements for cell division in a genomically minimal cell: Cell

Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome | Nature

Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution (PACE): A Guide Focused on Evolving Protein–DNA Interactions (nih.gov)

Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications

"The results of this analysis bolster the analogy between genomes and natural language and show that a “quasi-universal grammar” underlies the evolution of domain architectures in all divisions of cellular life. "

Grammar of protein domain architectures | PNAS

This means that we can infer that the information in DNA is identical (or at least highly similar) to human language since they produce the same effect in those experiments in the form of a self-replicating molecule.

@Meerkat_SK5

if human language == DNA, please translate

“Hello Meerkat_SK5, nice to meet you!”

into DNA.

Thanks!

2 Likes

Analogies collapse and that happens here as well. Its in the paper:

Did you also miss this part in the paper too?:

We see universal common descent for both languages and cellular organisms. Super.

2 Likes