Search This Blog

Sunday, January 15, 2012

What is life? Real science tells us it is not naturally generated. Read and see for yourself!

Life is not able to be naturally generated.   The Law of Biogenesis was well-established by the time Darwinism was beginning to become popularized.   The phenomena of Darwinist/Marxist/Malthusian thought spawned Eugenics, Communism, Fascism and finally those who favored evolution working on organisms originally created by God were convinced to go all in and assert that all of life, all of the Earth, the Solar System and in fact the Universe and all existence had to have had a natural cause.   However, as advances in both technology and knowledge have basically falsified the concept of an eternal Universe and uniformitarianism, many secular scientists have begun to back away from the naturalist table and consider every aspect of evolution as applied to each and every scientific discipline.  

Pertaining to organisms, it is now apparent that the mythical "simple" life Darwinists appeal to as being formed from natural sources is entirely mythical.   The simplest of life forms found on Earth are remarkably complex and obviously support the Law of Biogenesis and make that law immutable.  Darwinism will die from the roots up as the basics in every case will fail to be explained by natural causes.   The below is also from the linked website for the full article:

I do not agree with the concept of a Big Bang.  I believe in the Big Voice of God speaking the worlds into existence.   But understanding that formalism trumps physicality is a start...

Post details: Life is a sustained functional system


Permalinkby 11:20:42 am, Categories: Literature - Articles, 1760 words   English (UK)

Life is a sustained functional system

In the year 2000, an international conference considered the question "What is life?" Every participant was asked to draft a definition, and every speaker was required to address the central question. According to David Abel, who was one of the speakers, no two definitions of life were the same. This finding replicated that obtained by Rizotti who, in 1996, published a book with the title Defining Life. Abel considers that definitions can be grouped into two subsets: one of which perceives life as an essentially physicochemical phenomenon, and the other has an emphasis on coded information superimposed on material systems (developing Hubert Yockey's seminal ideas).
"Yockey was among the first to realize the linear digital nature of genetic control. Many others have appreciated that life was somehow different, but could not put their finger on exactly what this difference is. Ernst Mayr argued that physics and chemistry do not explain life. Monod and Bohr argued the same. Bohr pointed out, "Life is consistent with, but undecidable from physics and chemistry." Kuppers agreed." (p.107)
Hurricane Ivan over the Gulf Coast: ordered but not self-organised (source here)

Abel's review paper argues that life manifests characteristics that cannot be explained by physicodynamics alone, whether the focus falls on chance or on necessity (natural law). This is because biological information governing life processes and organisation is essentially nonphysical.
"The most fundamental distinction is the ability of "life" to exercise formal (nonphysical) organizational and pragmatic control over its otherwise physical interactions (e.g., chemical reactions, molecular associations, electrostatic attractions/repulsions; hydrophilic/hydrophobic tendencies, phase transitions; quantum uncertainty and "information entanglement"). The formal controls are attributable specifically to Prescriptive Information (PI) and its carefully regulated algorithmic processing. More than anything else, the ability to organize, regulate and holistically manage physicodynamics into a formal meta-metabolic scheme that values and pursues staying alive is what defines the uniqueness of life." (p.108)
Some have thought that the genetics of the simplest living prokaryote provides insight into the question "What is life?" Mycoplasma genitalium has a 580-kilo-base-pair genome containing 470 genes. However, sequencing is just the first step towards understanding this free-living cell. Research has revealed unsuspected complexities in the regulation of these genes.
"The number of interacting, formally integrated layers and dimensions of life's Prescriptive Information (PI), even in the simplest known free-living organisms, is mind-boggling." (p. 108-9)
Rather than persevere with the challenge of trying to define life, Abel suggests that it is more realistic and productive to identify the distinguishing characteristic of life. Nine of these are listed. In the main, they relate to familiar characteristics: possession of a membrane, reproduction, metabolism, etc., but expressed using words that identify the biological information requirements.
"All free-living classes of archaea, eubacteria, and eukaryotes meet all nine of the above criteria. Eliminate any one of the above nine requirements, and it remains to be demonstrated whether that system could remain "alive". RNA strands, DNA strands, prions, viroids, and viruses are not free-living organisms. They fail to meet many of the above well-recognized characteristics of independent "life"." (p.109)
Having established this baseline, Abel identifies a number of issues arising from these distinctives that warrant further discussion. However, in every case, Abel counsels caution, because there have been far too many cases of scholars defending pet theories by the selective use of evidences, rather than building theory on well-grounded empirical foundations. "Science must constantly guard itself against Kuhnian paradigm ruts". First, the concept of complexity is in need of urgent clarification. Many scholars appear unable to get beyond the Shannon approach to quantification.
"The place to begin understanding the phenomenon of linear digital prescription is a study of the three different types of sequence complexity. Biologically functional linear complexity lies in the subset of Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC), not Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC) or Random Sequence Complexity (RSC). Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) is a linear string of monomers or composite units that collectively perform some nontrivial function.
Empirical evidence of the purely spontaneous formation of such strings, especially when more than 10 loci are involved, is sorely lacking. [. . .] FSC is a succession of algorithmic selections leading to function. Selection, specification, or signification of certain "choices" in FSC sequences results only from nonrandom selection. These selections at successive decision nodes cannot be forced by deterministic cause-and-effect necessity. If they wee, nearly all decision-node selections would be the same. They would be highly ordered (OSC). Moreover, the selections cannot be random (RSC). No sophisticated program has ever been observed to be written by successive coin flips where heads is "1" and tails is "0"." (p.112)
This leads us to the concept of functional information. Abel distinguishes between two subsets: descriptive (DI) and prescriptive (PI). He refers to a Mercedes automobile to clarify the distinction. DI tells us about the component parts of the car and how they operate together in a harmonious way. PI tells us how to engineer and build that Mercedes.
"Unfortunately, many semantic information theorists make the mistake of thinking of functional information solely in terms of human epistemology, and specifically description (DI). This in effect limits the meaning of "function". DI provides valued common-sense knowledge to human beings about the way things already are. Being can be described to provide one form of function. [. . . ] The term "functional information" as used in peer-reviewed naturalistic biological literature by Nobel laureate Jack Szostak et al. in 2003 can be a completely inadequate descriptor of the "how to" information - the instructions - required to organize and program sophisticated utility. Potential formal function must be prescribed in advance by Prescriptive Information (PI) via decision node programming, not just described after the fact. As its name implies, PI specifically conceives and prescribes utility." (p.114)
Whereas some consider digital information to be crucial for understanding biological evolution via Darwinian mechanisms, Abel is unimpressed. Random mutations are incapable of constructing PI, with or without natural section.
"Life crosses The Cybernetic Cut across a one-way CS (Configurable Switch) Bridge. This bridge traverses a great ravine. On one side is found all those phenomena that can be explained by physicodynamics alone. On the other side are those phenomena than can be explained only by selection for potential (not-yet-existing) function. Traffic across this bridge flows only from the nonphysical world of formalism into the physical world through the instantiation of purposeful choices. Such instantiation requires arbitrary (dynamically inert) physical configurable switch-settings and selections of physical symbol vehicles in a material symbol system." (p.116)
Some have sought an explanation of PI using the concept of self-organisation. They suggest that if snowflakes form exquisite patterns naturally, why not life? The answer is very simple. Abel points out that there is confusion here between self-ordering phenomena and self-organisation. He distinguishes two types of self-ordering phenomena: sustained and dissipative. Sustained structures include crystals and snowflakes, and dissipative structures emerge from chaos, like the vortex that forms as water runs out of a bathtub, or the order observed in a hurricane. But neither of these types of self-ordering deliver organisation. At this point, Abel's clarification of the characteristics of life sets a benchmark to guide our analysis.
"Self-ordering events occur spontaneously daily. But, they do not involve decision nodes or dynamically-inert, purposeful, configurable switch settings. No logic gates need to be programmed with self-ordering phenomena. Self-ordering events involve no steering toward algorithmic success or "computational halting". Self-ordering phenomena are purely physicodynamic and incapable of organizational attempts. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Inanimate physicodynamics cannot exercise purposeful choices or pursue potential function. No model of undirected evolution pursues the goal of future utility." (p.120)
Even the word "system" is widely used without thinking rigorously about what a system actually is. When Abel uses the term, he is referring to a "sustained functional system" that is organised rather than ordered. As an example, consider what is intended when people talk about a weather system:
"It is merely a physicodynamic interface of wind, temperature and atmospheric pressure differential. A weather front may involve phase changes and manifest self-ordering (e.g., a hurricane); but it is not organized. It manifests no choice contingency, no purposes or goals, no accomplishment of function or utility. Weather fronts have no formal components, no computational achievements, no algorithmic optimization, and no intended purpose."(p.118-9)
Throughout the review paper, Abel draws attention to the relevance of philosophy for analysing the various approaches that have been made to answer questions about life. He points to the inadequacy of physicalism or materialism to grapple with data relating to Prescriptive Information. A different paradigm is needed which is more appropriate for engaging with the different characteristics of life.
"Materialistic presuppositional commitments are causing us to turn our backs on a rapidly growing empirical biological reality that hollers into our deaf ears, "Materialism is dead!" We will never understand life under the purely metaphysical imperative, "Physicodynamics is all there is, ever was, or ever will be". Professional philosophers of science rightly respond, "SEZ WHO?" How was that pontification scientifically determined? The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic." (p.125)
This paper is necessary reading for all who have an interest in abiogenesis research!

Is Life Unique?

David L. Abel

Life, 2012, 2(1), 106-134 | doi:10.3390/life2010106

Abstract: Is life physicochemically unique? No. Is life unique? Yes. Life manifests innumerable formalisms that cannot be generated or explained by physicodynamics alone. Life pursues thousands of biofunctional goals, not the least of which is staying alive. Neither physicodynamics, nor evolution, pursue goals. Life is largely directed by linear digital programming and by the Prescriptive Information (PI) instantiated particularly into physicodynamically indeterminate nucleotide sequencing. Epigenomic controls only compound the sophistication of these formalisms. Life employs representationalism through the use of symbol systems. Life manifests autonomy, homeostasis far from equilibrium in the harshest of environments, positive and negative feedback mechanisms, prevention and correction of its own errors, and organization of its components into Sustained Functional Systems (SFS). Chance and necessity - heat agitation and the cause-and-effect determinism of nature's orderliness - cannot spawn formalisms such as mathematics, language, symbol systems, coding, decoding, logic, organization (not to be confused with mere self-ordering), integration of circuits, computational success, and the pursuit of functionality. All of these characteristics of life are formal, not physical.

I recommend downloading and reading the pdf. Allow me to publish this portion to whet your appetite:

3. The Invariant Characteristics of Life

Perhaps a good place to start is a descriptive list of free-living life’s invariant characteristics. Sustained, free-living “life” is any system which from its own inherent set of biological instructions and algorithmic processing of that Prescriptive Information (PI) can perform all nine of the following biofunctions (Used with permission:[105]):

(1) Delineate itself from its environment through the production and maintenance of a membrane equivalent. In theoretical early life, this membrane equivalent would most likely have been a rudimentary or quasi-active-transport membrane necessary for selective absorption of nutrients, excretion of wastes, and overcoming osmotic and toxic gradients,
(2) Write, store, and pass along into progeny Prescriptive Information (PI) (instructions, both genetic and epigenetic/epigenomic) needed for organization; provide instructions for energy derivation and for needed metabolite production and function; symbolically encode and communicate functional message through a transmission channel to a receiver/decoder/destination/effector mechanism; integrate past, present and future time into its biological PI (instruction) content (PI instructions can be implemented now or any time in the future. In addition, according to evolution theory, these instructions embody a protracted history of derivation and former control. PI is thus largely time-independent, a feature that bespeaks its formal rather than physical essence.),
(3) Bring to pass the above recipe instructions into the production or acquisition of actual catalysts, coenzymes, cofactors, etc.; physically orchestrate the biochemical processes/pathways of metabolic reality; manufacture and maintain physical cellular architecture; establish and operate a semiotic system using “signal molecules”,
(4) Capture, transduce, store, and call up energy for utilization (intuitive, useful work),
(5) Actively self-replicate and eventually reproduce, not just passively polymerize or crystallize; pass along the apparatus and “know-how” for homeostatic metabolism and reproduction into progeny,
(6) Self-monitor and repair its constantly deteriorating physical matrix of bioinstruction retention/transmission, and of architecture,
(7) Develop and grow from immaturity to reproductive maturity,
(8) Productively react to environmental stimuli. Respond in an efficacious manner that is supportive of survival, development, growth, and reproduction, and
(9) Possess enough relative genetic stability, yet sufficient mutability and diversity, to allow for adaptation and potential evolution.

All free-living classes of archaea, eubacteria, and eukaryotes meet all nine of the above criteria. Eliminate any one of the above nine requirements, and it remains to be demonstrated whether that system could remain “alive”. RNA strands, DNA strands, prions, viroids, and viruses are not free-living organisms. They fail to meet many of the above well-recognized characteristics of independent “life”.

(The excerpt above is from a pdf downloadable from this site, authored by David L. Abel)

Note that scientists are still making hopeful references to evolution without any evidence whatever that there is any such thing?   But "potential evolution" is a step in the right direction.   Now real scientists are beginning to realize that evolution may not be possible at all.   God is the elephant in the room.   Once you admit that life could not spontaneously generate (no matter what new name you give this concept) then there is no need to bring evolution into the discussion at all.   After all, once you admit that a Designer was required for life, there is no longer a need to restrict His ability to make organisms as complex as He desired. 

"Reality is not ultimately chaotic, but programmed, rational and organized."

Game, set and match!  Or, as I once posted, God trumps Darwin every time!


Jon Woolf said...

"What is life? Real science tells us it is not naturally generated."

Real science can't say anything of the kind. For two reasons:

1) it's exactly that kind of statement for which the saying "you can't prove a negative" was invented

2) to the question "how did life first originate?", there is insufficient information for a meaningful answer.

You can repeat a fallacy as many times as you like, Radar. It won't become less of a fallacy.

AmericanVet said...

Why, Jon, repeating fallacies is all you do. Does that mean you are leaving us?

Do you not understand this research is being done by secular scientists? Do you not understand that the Law of Biogenesis is being underlined here by men who are not YEC? Real science has come to realize that life must have been designed. End of story.

Jon Woolf said...

"Do you not understand this research is being done by secular scientists?"

The source research may be "secular," but the interpretation quoted by Tyler is all creationist -- and all nonsense. I searched the web for the term "prescriptive information," and the only hits that had anything to do with the origin of life came from creationist sources. Highfalutin' terminology like "prescriptive information" makes for a right fancy poke, but there still be no pig inside. Nope, it's just the same old pseudophilosophical claptrap, as pompous and hollow as the postmodernist numbwits that Alan Sokal punctured with his hoax fifteen years ago.

Even if it wasn't doubletalk, it still fails for an entirely separate reason. The argument depends on a single assumption: that new information cannot arise by random genetic variation followed by natural selection. Since that assumption is demonstrably false, the whole argument fails.

What we call "life" is an emergent property of a sufficiently-complex, self-sustaining chemical system. That's all, there ain't no more. How complex is "sufficiently?" No one knows. Quite possibly, no one ever will.

AmericanVet said...

Vacuous answer, Jon. Your claim about life is made up and is in no way evidential. Real scientists who study this issue are realizing natural formation of life is a no-go. There is no reason or process to cause natural matterials to become complex or accomplish the ability to self-sustain. You perhaps are fooling yourself. There is no emergent propery here because there is no force causing it to happen. Magical thinking is where you are at. Things make themselves because otherwise we would need to admit to a Maker.

Jon Woolf said...

"Real scientists who study this issue are realizing natural formation of life is a no-go."

Repeating a falsehood won't make it any less false.

"There is no reason or process to cause natural matterials to become complex or accomplish the ability to self-sustain."

Oh, but there is. It has to do with paradigms, and increasing levels of complexity. But I don't know that you'd even try to understand it, so I see little reason to waste my time trying to explain it. I'll simply leave you with this question: can the behavior of a molecule be understood by analyzing the behaviors of its component quarks?

radar said...

The Adam Sandler definition of life was a highlight of the day!