evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-01--Paper Shows that “Mutational Load” Arguments Don’t Refute ENCODE

When the ENCODE project first proposed , on the basis of direct empirical research , that 80 percent of the genome may be biochemically functional , a huge prediction of intelligent design was fulfilled .
Evolutionary biologists saw the writing on the wall and were quick to fight back .
Perhaps one of ENCODE ’ s staunchest critics has been Dan Graur , a molecular evolutionary biologist at the University of Houston .
He argued in 2017 in the journal Genome , Biology and Evolution that ENCODE ’ s empirically based conclusions could not possibly be correct because “ Mutational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the functional fraction within the human genome can not exceed 15 % .
” What exactly is “ mutational load ” ?
Mutational load is based upon the principal that populations of organisms can only tolerate a certain number of deleterious mutations before they reach a critical level and the population crashes .
If every element of a genome is functional , then every possible mutation stands to have a non-neutral effect , and could be potentially deleterious .
But if only a small portion of the genome is functional , then most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unimportant regions , and this spreads out mutations in a manner that greatly decreases the likelihood of experiencing a deleterious mutation .
Thus , when your genome is filled with “ junk , ” you can tolerate a much higher “ mutational load.
” If one makes certain assumptions about mutation rates , population sizes , and the percentage of mutations that are deleterious , one can estimate our “ mutational load ” — and back-calculate the percentage of our genome that must be functional .
That sure sounds like a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Back in 2017 , Evolution News critiqued many of Graur ’ s dubious assumptions , but assume for the moment that his arguments are all correct .
What are the implications ?
Under Graur ’ s view , in one sense much of the genome is “ junk ” but in another sense his arguments actually imply that every single part of the genome has a very important purpose : to allow the human population to endure a much larger “ mutational load.
” Thus , even if he is correct that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ biochemically functional , ” he ’ d be wrong to say that the rest of the genome has no purpose ; its purpose is to diminish the likelihood that organisms will experience deleterious mutations .
That sounds like a pretty important function , doesn ’ t it ?
But it seems like this thought experiment is probably not necessary because now in 2020 serious criticisms have been made of the assumptions in Graur ’ s “ mutational load ” arguments .
Recently three scientists writing in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there could potentially exist a person with no deleterious mutations in their genome : Our approach is different from previous work that compared mean fitness at mutation-selection equilibrium with the fitness of an individual who has no deleterious mutations ; we show that such an individual is exceedingly unlikely to exist .
We find that the functional fraction is not very likely to be limited substantially by mutational load , and that any such limit , if it exists , depends strongly on the selection coefficients of new deleterious mutations .
By comparing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that of an individual who possesses no deleterious mutations , Graur ( 2017 ) reached the conclusion that , for likely values of the human per-base deleterious mutation rate , the functional fraction must be small .
In this article , we present a different approach to analyzing mutational load and the human functional fraction .
We do not take the fitness of an individual with zero deleterious mutations to be a meaningful value , because in a finite population of realistic size such an individual will never exist .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual likely to exist in a finite population .
We conclude — while making no claims about the actual functional fraction as determined by comparative studies—that a mutational load argument is unlikely to set a low limit on the functional fraction of the human genome , and that any attempt to set such a limit must take into account the fitness effects of new deleterious mutations .
[ Emphasis added . ]
Because no individual can exist with zero deleterious mutations , the maximum realizable fitness of the “ fittest ” person in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A main point of this article is that no individual with the theoretical maximum fitness , given the fitness model , will ever exist in a real population.
” Additionally , they note that mutational load arguments against a highly functional genome are heavily dependent upon selection coefficients of new deleterious mutations .
Only for very high values of these selection coefficients is any meaningful limit imposed on the proportion of the genome that is functional ( f ) .
They thus find that “ when considering the likely maximum realized fitness in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ f [ the fraction of the genome that is functional ] is by no means low.
” They end their paper as follows : Will this be the end of the debate over mutational load and ENCODE ?
Undoubtedly , no .
Graur is an eminent scientist — about whom the journal Science said , “ Graur ’ s atheism inflamed his anger at ENCODE.
” In an online talk , Graur explained what ’ s at stake : He then admits in the talk that his goal is to “ Kill ENCODE.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his honesty , which makes clear that there ’ s a lot at stake here .
We should not expect ENCODE-critics to go away quietly .
But if this latest paper indicates anything , it ’ s that “ mutational load ” arguments aren ’ t the ENCODE-killers that they have been made out to be .

When the ENCODE project first proposed, on the basis of direct empirical research, that 80 percent of the genome may be biochemically functional, a huge prediction of intelligent design was fulfilled. Evolutionary biologists saw the writing on the wall and were quick to fight back. Perhaps one of ENCODE’s staunchest critics has been Dan Graur, a molecular evolutionary biologist at the University of Houston. He argued in 2017 in the journal Genome, Biology and Evolution that ENCODE’s empirically based conclusions could not possibly be correct because “Mutational load considerations lead to the conclusion that the functional fraction within the human genome cannot exceed 15%.” What exactly is “mutational load”?
Mutational load is based upon the principal that populations of organisms can only tolerate a certain number of deleterious mutations before they reach a critical level and the population crashes. If every element of a genome is functional, then every possible mutation stands to have a non-neutral effect, and could be potentially deleterious. But if only a small portion of the genome is functional, then most mutations will happen to occur in functionally unimportant regions, and this spreads out mutations in a manner that greatly decreases the likelihood of experiencing a deleterious mutation. Thus, when your genome is filled with “junk,” you can tolerate a much higher “mutational load.”
Making Assumptions
If one makes certain assumptions about mutation rates, population sizes, and the percentage of mutations that are deleterious, one can estimate our “mutational load” — and back-calculate the percentage of our genome that must be functional. That sure sounds like a lot of assumptions that Graur made in his calculations. Back in 2017, Evolution News critiqued many of Graur’s dubious assumptions, but assume for the moment that his arguments are all correct. What are the implications?
Under Graur’s view, in one sense much of the genome is “junk” but in another sense his arguments actually imply that every single part of the genome has a very important purpose: to allow the human population to endure a much larger “mutational load.” Thus, even if he is correct that most of the genome isn’t “biochemically functional,” he’d be wrong to say that the rest of the genome has no purpose; its purpose is to diminish the likelihood that organisms will experience deleterious mutations. That sounds like a pretty important function, doesn’t it?
Serious Criticisms
But it seems like this thought experiment is probably not necessary because now in 2020 serious criticisms have been made of the assumptions in Graur’s “mutational load” arguments. Recently three scientists writing in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution noted that these arguments wrongly assume that there could potentially exist a person with no deleterious mutations in their genome:
Our approach is different from previous work that compared mean fitness at mutation-selection equilibrium with the fitness of an individual who has no deleterious mutations; we show that such an individual is exceedingly unlikely to exist. We find that the functional fraction is not very likely to be limited substantially by mutational load, and that any such limit, if it exists, depends strongly on the selection coefficients of new deleterious mutations. … By comparing the population mean fitness at mutation-selection equilibrium to that of an individual who possesses no deleterious mutations, Graur (2017) reached the conclusion that, for likely values of the human per-base deleterious mutation rate, the functional fraction must be small. In this article, we present a different approach to analyzing mutational load and the human functional fraction. We do not take the fitness of an individual with zero deleterious mutations to be a meaningful value, because in a finite population of realistic size such an individual will never exist. Instead, we consider the fitness of the fittest individual likely to exist in a finite population. We conclude — while making no claims about the actual functional fraction as determined by comparative studies—that a mutational load argument is unlikely to set a low limit on the functional fraction of the human genome, and that any attempt to set such a limit must take into account the fitness effects of new deleterious mutations. [Emphasis added.]
Zero Deleterious Mutations?
Because no individual can exist with zero deleterious mutations, the maximum realizable fitness of the “fittest” person in a population is not ideal: “A main point of this article is that no individual with the theoretical maximum fitness, given the fitness model, will ever exist in a real population.”
Additionally, they note that mutational load arguments against a highly functional genome are heavily dependent upon selection coefficients of new deleterious mutations. Only for very high values of these selection coefficients is any meaningful limit imposed on the proportion of the genome that is functional (f). They thus find that “when considering the likely maximum realized fitness in a finite population, the limit to f [the fraction of the genome that is functional] is by no means low.”
They end their paper as follows:
Our conclusion is simply that an argument from mutational load does not appear to be particularly limiting on f.
Will this be the end of the debate over mutational load and ENCODE? Undoubtedly, no. Graur is an eminent scientist — about whom the journal Science said, “Graur’s atheism inflamed his anger at ENCODE.” In an online talk, Graur explained what’s at stake:
If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.
He then admits in the talk that his goal is to “Kill ENCODE.”
Dr. Graur should be commended for his honesty, which makes clear that there’s a lot at stake here. We should not expect ENCODE-critics to go away quietly. But if this latest paper indicates anything, it’s that “mutational load” arguments aren’t the ENCODE-killers that they have been made out to be.
Photo credit: Jarrod Doll, via Flickr.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-02--How Water’s Chemistry Helps Make Life on Earth Possible

On a classic episode of ID the Future , we bring you a sample from the documentary Privileged Species arguing @ @ @ @ @ properties that appear finely tuned to allow for life on Earth .
The excerpt dips @ @ @ @ @ Michael Denton explores in much greater depth in his book The Wonder of Water .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .

On a classic episode of ID the Future, we bring you a sample from the documentary Privileged Species arguing that water possesses many unique properties that appear finely tuned to allow for life on Earth. The excerpt dips a toe into what biologist Michael Denton explores in much greater depth in his book The Wonder of Water. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo source: A scene from Privileged Species, via Discovery Institute (screen shot).


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-03--Time to Make Fossil Fuel Industries “Pay”?

Ever since the COVID-19 crisis erupted , commentators have predicted that activists would try to hitch global warming to the ongoing fight against coronavirus — not that this required true prophetic gifts .
Activists think every crisis requires the dilution of national sovereignty , increased regulations , wealth redistribution , and higher taxes — including to combat the obesity epidemic .
Unsurprisingly , and right on schedule , U.N. Secretary General António Guterres contributed an op-ed in the New York Times — filled with the usual global-warming bromides — arguing that the fights against the virus and climate change should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive ” plan .
You like economic suppression ?
You like heavy-handed government regulatory control ?
You like globalism ?
Then , Guterres is your man .
How would Guterres get from here to there ?
The piece is mostly bereft of policy specifics — specifics breed opposition , after all — but there is one point he makes that we should focus on clearly because of its catastrophic certainty ( my emphasis ) : Think about exactly what Guterres is advocating in this mushy paragraph .
By “ polluters must pay for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t referring to the cost of cleaning up oil spills or the remediation of fouled rivers , for which actual polluters are properly held responsible .
Rather , he means requiring fossil-fuel enterprises to pay for all perceived costs allegedly caused by carbon emissions .
If recent history and the statements of green activists are any guide , “ must pay , ” is likely a passive way of saying bankrupting the oil industry , natural-gas industry , coal industry , fracking enterprises , pipeline companies , oil and gas storage facilities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which would be strip-mined of every asset they own in the way asbestos companies ( actual polluters ) were destroyed — with the money used to subsidize industries favored by the would-be planet savers and to pay destitute areas of the world to stifle natural-resource development .
Think about the corruption potential In other words , in the great cause of “ saving the planet , ” open season would be declared against energy industries engaged in perfectly legal enterprises that have been responsible for creating the best standard of living in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a policy would be the obliteration of wealth , the stifling of innovation , and the loss of countless jobs .
Toward the end of his piece , Guterres writes : Baloney .
Authoritarian central planning never works and it wouldn ’ t “ save the planet.
” It would just make us all less prosperous and free .
Photo : António Guterres , by U.S. Mission Photo by Eric Bridiers / Public domain .

Ever since the COVID-19 crisis erupted, commentators have predicted that activists would try to hitch global warming to the ongoing fight against coronavirus — not that this required true prophetic gifts. Activists think every crisis requires the dilution of national sovereignty, increased regulations, wealth redistribution, and higher taxes — including to combat the obesity epidemic.
Unsurprisingly, and right on schedule, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres contributed an op-ed in the New York Times — filled with the usual global-warming bromides — arguing that the fights against the virus and climate change should be joined into one six-point “climate positive” plan. You like economic suppression? You like heavy-handed government regulatory control? You like globalism? Then, Guterres is your man.
He writes:
A recovery from the coronavirus crisis must not take us just back to where we were last summer. It is an opportunity to build more sustainable and inclusive economies and societies — a more resilient and prosperous world.
A Lack of Specifics
How would Guterres get from here to there? The piece is mostly bereft of policy specifics — specifics breed opposition, after all — but there is one point he makes that we should focus on clearly because of its catastrophic certainty (my emphasis):
Looking forward, public funds should invest in the future, by flowing to sustainable sectors and projects that help the environment and climate. Fossil fuel subsidies must end and polluters must pay for their pollution.
Think about exactly what Guterres is advocating in this mushy paragraph. By “polluters must pay for their pollution,” he isn’t referring to the cost of cleaning up oil spills or the remediation of fouled rivers, for which actual polluters are properly held responsible. Rather, he means requiring fossil-fuel enterprises to pay for all perceived costs allegedly caused by carbon emissions.
What “Must Pay” Means
If recent history and the statements of green activists are any guide, “must pay,” is likely a passive way of saying bankrupting the oil industry, natural-gas industry, coal industry, fracking enterprises, pipeline companies, oil and gas storage facilities, oil refineries, etc. — all of which would be strip-mined of every asset they own in the way asbestos companies (actual polluters) were destroyed — with the money used to subsidize industries favored by the would-be planet savers and to pay destitute areas of the world to stifle natural-resource development. Think about the corruption potential
In other words, in the great cause of “saving the planet,” open season would be declared against energy industries engaged in perfectly legal enterprises that have been responsible for creating the best standard of living in human history. The actual outcome of such a policy would be the obliteration of wealth, the stifling of innovation, and the loss of countless jobs.
Toward the end of his piece, Guterres writes:
For years, we have failed our young by damaging the planet and failing to protect the people most vulnerable to crises. We have a rare and short window of opportunity to rectify that — by rebuilding a better world, not reverting to one that is good for only a minority of its citizens.
Baloney. Authoritarian central planning never works and it wouldn’t “save the planet.” It would just make us all less prosperous and free.
Photo: António Guterres, by U.S. Mission Photo by Eric Bridiers / Public domain.
Cross-posted at The Corner.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-04--Online Education and the Evolution Debate

COVID-19 has driven education online , from kindergarten to graduate school , with no clear end in sight .
When will students return to classrooms ?
No one knows .
Universities have already dealt in recent times with significant barriers to freedom of speech .
Now the switch to an online format has brought with it further unintended consequences .
In a Forbes article — “ What Will COVID-19 Mean for Academic Freedom ?
” — Michael Poliakoff , president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni , writes : Will professors and students freely share their opinions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when they know that others may be audio- or video-recording their answers and these could end up on YouTube or Facebook ?
Poliakoff expresses concerns about politicization , and cites the Charles Koch Foundation ’ s Charlie Ruger on this point : “ Inciting harassment against scholars isn ’ t just wrong at a time when many are seeking out new ways to engage their students during a crisis , it ’ s always wrong .
Targeting , intimidating , and otherwise attempting to silence academics chills the open exchange of ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progress.
” He recommends that universities adopt revised free speech policies that cover virtual environments , like that of Cornell University .
Students agree to the following there : I will respect principles of academic freedom for instructors and classmates and will maintain the privacy of the virtual classroom environment : I will not record , photograph , or share online interactions that involve classmates or any member of the teaching team .
I will not enable anyone who is not enrolled in the course to participate in any activity that is associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructor ’ s written permission .
I can not help but wonder what impact these virtual classrooms will have on critics of evolution .
Individuals recording video clips of decontextualized information and using it to lambaste a classmate or professor could have horrific career results for that person .
As much as speech was chilled before the transition to online education , the problem of feeling restricted in discussing biological origins would seem to be heightened now .
This does not bode well for the search for truth .
I hope that during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act graciously toward each other as universities scramble to establish structures protecting diversity .
May we promote unity by giving each other the benefit of the doubt .
That is my wish , but it doesn ’ t obviate the need for vigilance .
A central mission of the Center for Science & Culture has been and remains to secure academic freedom , the liberty to openly consider vital questions about how life and the cosmos arose , without fear of being silenced or intimidated .
Given recent developments in education , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

COVID-19 has driven education online, from kindergarten to graduate school, with no clear end in sight. When will students return to classrooms? No one knows.
Universities have already dealt in recent times with significant barriers to freedom of speech. Now the switch to an online format has brought with it further unintended consequences. In a Forbes article — “What Will COVID-19 Mean for Academic Freedom?” — Michael Poliakoff, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, writes:
In many ways, the privacy and intimacy of classroom conversations, existing only in the present and remaining unencumbered by a digital transcript, have become exceptions to the norm. While there exist many mechanisms to restrict and control speech at the traditional university, until recently, a digital record was not one of them.
Will professors and students freely share their opinions and debate in Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings, when they know that others may be audio- or video-recording their answers and these could end up on YouTube or Facebook?
Revised Speech Policies
Poliakoff expresses concerns about politicization, and cites the Charles Koch Foundation’s Charlie Ruger on this point: “Inciting harassment against scholars isn’t just wrong at a time when many are seeking out new ways to engage their students during a crisis, it’s always wrong. Targeting, intimidating, and otherwise attempting to silence academics chills the open exchange of ideas and, in turn, chokes off progress.”
He recommends that universities adopt revised free speech policies that cover virtual environments, like that of Cornell University. Students agree to the following there:
I will respect principles of academic freedom for instructors and classmates and will maintain the privacy of the virtual classroom environment: I will not record, photograph, or share online interactions that involve classmates or any member of the teaching team. I will not enable anyone who is not enrolled in the course to participate in any activity that is associated with the course. Exceptions require the instructor’s written permission.
Impact on the Evolution Debate
I cannot help but wonder what impact these virtual classrooms will have on critics of evolution. Individuals recording video clips of decontextualized information and using it to lambaste a classmate or professor could have horrific career results for that person. As much as speech was chilled before the transition to online education, the problem of feeling restricted in discussing biological origins would seem to be heightened now. This does not bode well for the search for truth.
I hope that during this unprecedented period students and academics will act graciously toward each other as universities scramble to establish structures protecting diversity. May we promote unity by giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
That is my wish, but it doesn’t obviate the need for vigilance. A central mission of the Center for Science & Culture has been and remains to secure academic freedom, the liberty to openly consider vital questions about how life and the cosmos arose, without fear of being silenced or intimidated. Given recent developments in education, our mission has become more urgent than ever.
Photo credit: Kaitlyn Baker via Unsplash.


The Bioethicist Pandemic

The increasing outsourcing of health-care policy to medical bureaucrats during the COVID-19 crisis illustrates the dangerous temptation to remove control over policy from democratic deliberation in favor of a technocracy , i.e.
, rule by “ experts.
” In health care , such a system would be particularly perilous since the experts placed in charge of policy would be “ bioethicists ” whose predominant views disparage the sanctity of human life .
How does one become a “ bioethicist ” ?
While many universities offer degrees in bioethics , there are no precise qualifications .
Indeed , practitioners are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and , for that matter , barbers .
The most prominent bioethicists are university professors with degrees in philosophy , medicine , and/or law , but even that isn ’ t a given .
For example , because my opinions about bioethical issues are frequently published , I am often called a bioethicist — not a term I choose for myself — even though I took no bioethics courses in school .
Here Is the Terrifying Problem The most influential of our would-be health-care overlords hold immoral and amoral values not shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacted by their policy prescriptions .
For example , most mainstream practitioners reject the belief that human beings have unique value and — unless they have a modifier such as “ Catholic ” or “ pro-life ” in front of their identifier — embrace a utilitarian “ quality of life ” approach to medical decision-making , according to which some of us are judged to have greater worth than others based on discriminatory criteria such as cognitive capacity , state of health , and age .
This ideology leads the field ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1997 , bioethics professor John Hardwig argued in favor of what is known in the field as the “ duty to die.
” Hardwig ’ s advocacy was not published in an obscure corner of the Internet of little consequence .
Rather , it was presented with all due respect in the Hastings Center Report , the world ’ s most prestigious bioethics journal .
That fact alone means that the “ duty to die ” has long been deemed respectable in the field .
Hardwig argues that to “ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or eighty without being ready to die is itself a moral failing , the sign of a life out of touch with life ’ s basic realities.
” Why ?
“ A duty to die is more likely when continuing to live will impose significant burdens — emotional burdens , extensive caregiving , destruction of life plans , and yes , financial hardship — on your family and loved ones .
This is the fundamental insight underlying a duty to die.
” Back in 1997 , Hardwig ’ s denigration of people he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view in bioethics .
But over the years , as the field gained increasing influence , its premier practitioners grew more pronouncedly ideological in the Hardwig manner — arguing often and repeatedly for reducing the moral status of the most vulnerable among us , in some cases even going so far as to redefine helpless human beings as mere natural resources ripe for the harvest .
Here are just a few examples : • Paying women to gestate and abort : Bioethicist Jacob Appel argued in the Huffington Post that pregnant women who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gestate longer before terminating so that fetal organs could be harvested and used in transplant medicine .
That would increase the number of abortions , he admitted , but he said a market in fetal organs could “ bring solace to women who have already decided upon abortion , but desire that some additional social good come from the procedure.
” • Forcing caregivers to starve dementia patients : Prominent bioethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope ( and others ) want dementia patients to be allowed to instruct future caregivers to deny them spoon-feeding when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they want caregivers to be legally bound to starve their patients to death .
This would apply even if the patient willingly eats .
In other words , starvation as the new “ death with dignity.
” • Experimenting on cognitively disabled “ non-persons ” : Writing in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , bioethics bigwig Thomas Beauchamp opined that some cognitively disabled human beings should not be viewed as “ persons , ” meaning that could “ be treated in the same way we treat relevantly similar nonhumans .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as human research subjects and sources of organs.
” • Transplanting organs of unconscious humans into animals : Several authors argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics — based at Oxford University , so it is not a tinfoil-hat Internet site — that unconscious patients should be able to be used in xenotransplantation experiments — e.g.
, removing the human ’ s organs and replacing them with those of animals ( usually pigs ) .
They write sickeningly , “ As the autonomic and vegetative functions of PVS [ permanent vegetative status ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their use would allow the opportunity to fully test the long-term consequences of a solid organ xenotransplantation.
” • Harvesting hearts as a form of euthanasia : An advocacy article published in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation argued that patients who wish to be euthanized be killed by having their hearts removed for transplantation .
The authors write that “ ‘ living donation ’ is the correct term to use , even though this is normally used for people who donate their kidney , and do not die as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Stripping a beating heart out of a patient ’ s body will be 100 percent fatal .
One would think that in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic bioethicists would place their dehumanizing advocacy efforts at least on temporary hold .
No such luck .
The Journal of Medical Ethics just published a piece explicitly aimed at COVID-19 patients by the internationally prominent bioethicists and Oxford professors Julian Savulescu and Dominic Wilkinson .
First , the authors want a license to permit seriously ill COVID-19 patients to be consensually experimented upon — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From , “ Extreme Altruism in a Pandemic ” : That might seem reasonable — assuming the tests would be aimed at saving their lives .
But the bioethicists want to include potentially lethal experimentation in the license that would not benefit the patient : The authors then boldly plunge even deeper into the utilitarian swamp to urge “ organ donation euthanasia ” of COVID-19 patients in places where hastening death by doctors is legal : Savulescu and Wilkinson also want to allow experimentation on nursing home patients — even if they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of medical resources if the patient becomes ill , the authors would restrict the experimentation to patients who had “ completed a living will indicating that they would not wish for invasive medical treatments in the event of becoming seriously unwell , ” meaning nursing home patients could be intentionally infected with coronavirus and then , if they became seriously ill , simply allowed to die .
Meanwhile , back at the Hastings Center Report , bioethicist Larry R. Churchill — who is himself age 75 — advocates a type of duty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Being an Elder in a Pandemic ” : Here ’ s Churchill ’ s awful idea .
Elderly patients — in other words , those most at risk from the current plague — have the moral duty to go to the back of the line for receiving life-saving medical treatment and , when available , vaccines .
If that causes them to die when they might otherwise have lived , that ’ s okay , because it illuminates “ the integrity of elderhood.
” Enough .
My point in writing this isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dehumanizing and invidiously discriminatory proposals — believe me , I have just scratched the surface — that have been made over the years by luminaries in the bioethics movement .
Rather , it is a warning of how profoundly the “ do no harm ” principle of the Hippocratic Oath has been corroded by the so-called experts — meaning that if we yield control of our health-care public policies to a bioethical technocracy , these are the immoral values likely to be imposed on all of us .
For our own safety and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elderly , people with physical and developmental disabilities , and the seriously ill — we must societally isolate from the bioethicist pandemic .

The increasing outsourcing of health-care policy to medical bureaucrats during the COVID-19 crisis illustrates the dangerous temptation to remove control over policy from democratic deliberation in favor of a technocracy, i.e., rule by “experts.” In health care, such a system would be particularly perilous since the experts placed in charge of policy would be “bioethicists” whose predominant views disparage the sanctity of human life.
How does one become a “bioethicist”? While many universities offer degrees in bioethics, there are no precise qualifications. Indeed, practitioners are not professionally licensed as are attorneys, physicians, and, for that matter, barbers. The most prominent bioethicists are university professors with degrees in philosophy, medicine, and/or law, but even that isn’t a given. For example, because my opinions about bioethical issues are frequently published, I am often called a bioethicist — not a term I choose for myself — even though I took no bioethics courses in school.
Here Is the Terrifying Problem
The most influential of our would-be health-care overlords hold immoral and amoral values not shared by most of those who would be impacted by their policy prescriptions. For example, most mainstream practitioners reject the belief that human beings have unique value and — unless they have a modifier such as “Catholic” or “pro-life” in front of their identifier — embrace a utilitarian “quality of life” approach to medical decision-making, according to which some of us are judged to have greater worth than others based on discriminatory criteria such as cognitive capacity, state of health, and age.
This ideology leads the field’s most prominent leaders into very dark places. In 1997, bioethics professor John Hardwig argued in favor of what is known in the field as the “duty to die.” Hardwig’s advocacy was not published in an obscure corner of the Internet of little consequence. Rather, it was presented with all due respect in the Hastings Center Report, the world’s most prestigious bioethics journal. That fact alone means that the “duty to die” has long been deemed respectable in the field.
Hardwig argues that to “have reached the age of say, seventy-five or eighty without being ready to die is itself a moral failing, the sign of a life out of touch with life’s basic realities.” Why? “A duty to die is more likely when continuing to live will impose significant burdens — emotional burdens, extensive caregiving, destruction of life plans, and yes, financial hardship — on your family and loved ones. This is the fundamental insight underlying a duty to die.”
Back in 1997, Hardwig’s denigration of people he deemed “burdens” was a minority view in bioethics. But over the years, as the field gained increasing influence, its premier practitioners grew more pronouncedly ideological in the Hardwig manner — arguing often and repeatedly for reducing the moral status of the most vulnerable among us, in some cases even going so far as to redefine helpless human beings as mere natural resources ripe for the harvest. Here are just a few examples:
Paying women to gestate and abort: Bioethicist Jacob Appel argued in the Huffington Post that pregnant women who want to abort should be paid to gestate longer before terminating so that fetal organs could be harvested and used in transplant medicine. That would increase the number of abortions, he admitted, but he said a market in fetal organs could “bring solace to women who have already decided upon abortion, but desire that some additional social good come from the procedure.”
Bioethicist Jacob Appel argued in the Huffington Post that pregnant women who want to abort should be paid to gestate longer before terminating so that fetal organs could be harvested and used in transplant medicine. That would increase the number of abortions, he admitted, but he said a market in fetal organs could “bring solace to women who have already decided upon abortion, but desire that some additional social good come from the procedure.” Forcing caregivers to starve dementia patients: Prominent bioethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope (and others) want dementia patients to be allowed to instruct future caregivers to deny them spoon-feeding when they become incompetent. In such cases, they want caregivers to be legally bound to starve their patients to death. This would apply even if the patient willingly eats. In other words, starvation as the new “death with dignity.”
Prominent bioethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope (and others) want dementia patients to be allowed to instruct future caregivers to deny them spoon-feeding when they become incompetent. In such cases, they want caregivers to be legally bound to starve their patients to death. This would apply even if the patient willingly eats. In other words, starvation as the new “death with dignity.” Experimenting on cognitively disabled “non-persons”: Writing in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, bioethics bigwig Thomas Beauchamp opined that some cognitively disabled human beings should not be viewed as “persons,” meaning that could “be treated in the same way we treat relevantly similar nonhumans. For example, they might be aggressively used as human research subjects and sources of organs.”
Writing in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, bioethics bigwig Thomas Beauchamp opined that some cognitively disabled human beings should not be viewed as “persons,” meaning that could “be treated in the same way we treat relevantly similar nonhumans. For example, they might be aggressively used as human research subjects and sources of organs.” Transplanting organs of unconscious humans into animals: Several authors argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics — based at Oxford University, so it is not a tinfoil-hat Internet site — that unconscious patients should be able to be used in xenotransplantation experiments — e.g., removing the human’s organs and replacing them with those of animals (usually pigs). They write sickeningly, “As the autonomic and vegetative functions of PVS [permanent vegetative status] bodies can often be maintained for years, their use would allow the opportunity to fully test the long-term consequences of a solid organ xenotransplantation.”
Several authors argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics — based at Oxford University, so it is not a tinfoil-hat Internet site — that unconscious patients should be able to be used in xenotransplantation experiments — e.g., removing the human’s organs and replacing them with those of animals (usually pigs). They write sickeningly, “As the autonomic and vegetative functions of PVS [permanent vegetative status] bodies can often be maintained for years, their use would allow the opportunity to fully test the long-term consequences of a solid organ xenotransplantation.” Harvesting hearts as a form of euthanasia: An advocacy article published in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation argued that patients who wish to be euthanized be killed by having their hearts removed for transplantation. The authors write that “ ‘living donation’ is the correct term to use, even though this is normally used for people who donate their kidney, and do not die as a result of donation.” Yes, indeed: Stripping a beating heart out of a patient’s body will be 100 percent fatal.
A Temporary Hold?
One would think that in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic bioethicists would place their dehumanizing advocacy efforts at least on temporary hold. No such luck. The Journal of Medical Ethics just published a piece explicitly aimed at COVID-19 patients by the internationally prominent bioethicists and Oxford professors Julian Savulescu and Dominic Wilkinson. First, the authors want a license to permit seriously ill COVID-19 patients to be consensually experimented upon — even if the research is dangerous. From, “Extreme Altruism in a Pandemic”:
Competent people now, or in the early phase of their illness when they retain competence, should be able to make advance directives for extreme altruism. This might take the form of consenting now to trials of dangerous drugs. They could also consent in advance to other interventional studies of significant risk, if they would imminently die.
That might seem reasonable — assuming the tests would be aimed at saving their lives. But the bioethicists want to include potentially lethal experimentation in the license that would not benefit the patient:
When a patient will certainly die [Smith: a sometimes mistaken diagnosis] they should be able to consent while competent to experimentation being performed on them for others, even if the experimentation may itself likely or possibly end their life sooner…. even if it would not benefit the patient and may even hasten their death.
The authors then boldly plunge even deeper into the utilitarian swamp to urge “organ donation euthanasia” of COVID-19 patients in places where hastening death by doctors is legal:
Organ donation euthanasia could possibly apply to some cases of COVID-19 where life prolonging medical treatment is either withdrawn or withheld. In those jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal (Netherlands, Belgium, etc.), euthanasia could occur by surgical removal of vital organs under deep anaesthesia.
Savulescu and Wilkinson also want to allow experimentation on nursing home patients — even if they are not sick:
Some residents in nursing homes and care facilities are competent. Some of these may choose to take on significant risks in the war on COVID-19…. They could also be allowed to consent, with full disclosure of risks and no pressure, to take part in risky research which would accelerate the discovery of vaccines or treatments.
To prevent unwanted burdening of medical resources if the patient becomes ill, the authors would restrict the experimentation to patients who had “completed a living will indicating that they would not wish for invasive medical treatments in the event of becoming seriously unwell,” meaning nursing home patients could be intentionally infected with coronavirus and then, if they became seriously ill, simply allowed to die.
A Duty to Die
Meanwhile, back at the Hastings Center Report, bioethicist Larry R. Churchill — who is himself age 75 — advocates a type of duty to die upon the aged. From “On Being an Elder in a Pandemic”:
Does being elderly incur duties others do not have? I believe the answer is, yes, and foremost among these is an obligation for parsimonious use of newly scarce and expensive health care resources.
Here’s Churchill’s awful idea. Elderly patients — in other words, those most at risk from the current plague — have the moral duty to go to the back of the line for receiving life-saving medical treatment and, when available, vaccines. If that causes them to die when they might otherwise have lived, that’s okay, because it illuminates “the integrity of elderhood.”
Enough. My point in writing this isn’t to merely highlight the many dehumanizing and invidiously discriminatory proposals — believe me, I have just scratched the surface — that have been made over the years by luminaries in the bioethics movement. Rather, it is a warning of how profoundly the “do no harm” principle of the Hippocratic Oath has been corroded by the so-called experts — meaning that if we yield control of our health-care public policies to a bioethical technocracy, these are the immoral values likely to be imposed on all of us. For our own safety and that of those we love — particularly the elderly, people with physical and developmental disabilities, and the seriously ill — we must societally isolate from the bioethicist pandemic.
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash.
Cross-posted at The American Spectator.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-05--Listen: Darwinism and Private Life

Listen: Darwinism and Private Life

On a new episode of ID the Future , hear the second half of Discovery Institute ’ s John West @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith .
Dr. West discusses how Darwinism has @ @ @ @ @ the most private aspects of our lives .
Download the podcast or listen to it @ @ @ @ @ morally poisoning effects of Darwinism on marriage , sexual ethics , and religion , such @ @ @ @ @ defended as OK , and no particular culture ’ s ethic is to be preferred @ @ @ @ @ s spiritual purpose has likewise been eroded .
Yet West closes with hope : science @ @ @ @ @ more and more signs of intelligent design and purpose in nature , and young researchers @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be the foregone conclusion of contemporary science .

On a new episode of ID the Future, hear the second half of Discovery Institute’s John West’s talk given at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith. Dr. West discusses how Darwinism has corroded Western culture, including the most private aspects of our lives. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
West examines the morally poisoning effects of Darwinism on marriage, sexual ethics, and religion, such that virtually anything can be defended as OK, and no particular culture’s ethic is to be preferred over another. Humankind’s spiritual purpose has likewise been eroded. Yet West closes with hope: science in our generation is discovering more and more signs of intelligent design and purpose in nature, and young researchers are learning that materialism shouldn’t be the foregone conclusion of contemporary science.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-05--From Pfizer, Scientism and Self-Congratulation

In the race to defeat the coronavirus , good fortune to Pfizer Inc. , among others .
The drug giant said last week “ it will begin testing of its experimental vaccine in the U.S. as early as next week.
” But this new ad from Pfizer goes over the top in its self-congratulation : At a time when things are most uncertain , we turn to the most certain thing there is : Science .
Science can overcome diseases , create cures , and yes , beat pandemics .
Because when it ’ s faced with a new opponent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It revs up , asking questions till it finds what it ’ s looking for .
That ’ s the power of science .
Well actually , that ’ s the power of creative ingenuity in general , a capacity unique to human beings , that is put to use in a range of fields .
Those fields include art , music , philosophy , history , religion , politics , entertainment , natural science , and yes , medical science .
The idea of the ad , that science stands alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , ” comes from putting on ideological blinders .
It ’ s what we call scientism .
That is one very timely focus of the upcoming free webinar with Discovery Institute scientists and scholars on Saturday , May 16 .
John West , joined by Brian Miller and Robert J .
Marks , will discuss “ Science and Scientism in the Age of COVID-19 : Wisdom from C. S. Lewis.
” Find more information about the event here .
Registration is required .
Amidst a controversial national lockdown , economic ruin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origin in a Chinese lab , the coronavirus has reminded us of a number of things .
One is the limitations of science , and the need for independent criticism of it .
That kind of criticism has emerged as Discovery Institute ’ s contribution in the discussion of the virus .
• At Evolution News , Wesley Smith points to the limits of the technocratic elite , the bureaucratic bioethicists with their “ immoral and amoral values , ” to whom we increasingly assign the task of establishing health policy .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York ’ s viral frontline , argues that it was our trusting too much in scientists that got us into the present crisis in the first place : “ As this pandemic shows , we need to question scientific experts , constantly and rigorously .
We need scientific controversy , not ‘ consensus.
’ ” • Our colleague Douglas Axe strikes a similarly skeptical note about the lockdown , arguing that “ Our Heroic Efforts to Stop the Coronavirus Could Be Great Pain for Little Gain.
” Our culture is at war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates a blind , worshipful fealty , and complains when others fail to get in line to worship .
It has its sacred totems — the lockdown , extreme social distancing , the mask .
Resistance to these things comes from worries about economic depression , social control , and misplaced piety .
As National Review ’ s Rich Lowry wrote recently , “ Social Distancing Isn ’ t a Religion.
” His implication was that some people treat it as if it were a religion .
Another side in the dispute is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can contribute , but it also recognizes the problems with many statements made in the name of science .
It understands the peril in an overly awestruck attitude , and the potential for abuse of science ’ s authority .
What science needs now isn ’ t applause from itself or adoration from the rest of us .
Neither is in the interest of the public , which is supposed to be served by Pfizer .

In the race to defeat the coronavirus, good fortune to Pfizer Inc., among others. The drug giant said last week “it will begin testing of its experimental vaccine in the U.S. as early as next week.” But this new ad from Pfizer goes over the top in its self-congratulation:
They say:
At a time when things are most uncertain, we turn to the most certain thing there is: Science. Science can overcome diseases, create cures, and yes, beat pandemics. Because when it’s faced with a new opponent, it doesn’t back down. It revs up, asking questions till it finds what it’s looking for. That’s the power of science.
Well actually, that’s the power of creative ingenuity in general, a capacity unique to human beings, that is put to use in a range of fields. Those fields include art, music, philosophy, history, religion, politics, entertainment, natural science, and yes, medical science. The idea of the ad, that science stands alone as “the most certain thing there is,” comes from putting on ideological blinders. It’s what we call scientism. That is one very timely focus of the upcoming free webinar with Discovery Institute scientists and scholars on Saturday, May 16. John West, joined by Brian Miller and Robert J. Marks, will discuss “Science and Scientism in the Age of COVID-19: Wisdom from C. S. Lewis.” Find more information about the event here. Registration is required.
Lessons from a Virus
Amidst a controversial national lockdown, economic ruin, and mounting intelligence evidence pointing to an origin in a Chinese lab, the coronavirus has reminded us of a number of things. One is the limitations of science, and the need for independent criticism of it.
That kind of criticism has emerged as Discovery Institute’s contribution in the discussion of the virus.
At Evolution News, Wesley Smith points to the limits of the technocratic elite, the bureaucratic bioethicists with their “immoral and amoral values,” to whom we increasingly assign the task of establishing health policy.
Michael Egnor, himself a physician at New York’s viral frontline, argues that it was our trusting too much in scientists that got us into the present crisis in the first place: “As this pandemic shows, we need to question scientific experts, constantly and rigorously. We need scientific controversy, not ‘consensus.’”
Our colleague Douglas Axe strikes a similarly skeptical note about the lockdown, arguing that “Our Heroic Efforts to Stop the Coronavirus Could Be Great Pain for Little Gain.”
Our culture is at war with itself over science. One side advocates a blind, worshipful fealty, and complains when others fail to get in line to worship. It has its sacred totems — the lockdown, extreme social distancing, the mask. Resistance to these things comes from worries about economic depression, social control, and misplaced piety. As National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote recently, “Social Distancing Isn’t a Religion.” His implication was that some people treat it as if it were a religion.
Another side in the dispute is more rational. It appreciates what science can contribute, but it also recognizes the problems with many statements made in the name of science. It understands the peril in an overly awestruck attitude, and the potential for abuse of science’s authority. What science needs now isn’t applause from itself or adoration from the rest of us. Neither is in the interest of the public, which is supposed to be served by Pfizer.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-06--Inference Article Demonstrates Implausibility of Natural Processes for Explaining the Origin of Life

Over the past few years , organic chemist James Tour has detailed how origin of life ( OOL ) researchers have made no progress for the greater part of a century in explaining how natural processes could generate the first self-replicating cell despite highly misleading claims to the contrary ( here , here , here ) .
At the same time , I have written on how such dismal progress was entire predictable based upon challenges from the fields of thermodynamics and information theory ( here , here , here , here ) .
I consolidated and expand my analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the journal Inference .
The piece is highly technical and mathematical , but the basic argument can be quickly summarized with only a marginal loss of technical accuracy .
To begin , the driving tendency of most physical systems is to move toward either higher entropy , lower energy , or both .
The concept of entropy is often crudely associated with the level of a system ’ s disorder ( think messy room versus neat room ) , but a more precise description relates it to Shannon ’ s Measure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , large molecules with higher-energy chemical bonds will tend to break down into smaller molecules with lower-energy bonds .
And , highly complex , specified structures will tend to break apart into a disorganized mixture of simple molecules , tars , and other biologically inert products .
The entropy and energy are often combined by physicists and chemists into what is defined as the free energy .
This quantity is of particular importance since natural processes tend to move toward lower free energy .
The free energy also equates with the energy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , the energy in a battery can be easily accessed to run a clock , so it contains high free energy .
In contrast , the molecules in the air on a hot summer day have a great deal of energy , but that energy can not be directly accessed to drive a car up a hill .
As such , the hot air has low free energy .
The challenge is that the genesis of a cell requires simple chemicals on the ancient earth to coalesce into an arrangement of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , life ’ s origin requires molecules to move toward significantly higher free energy , a task that is nearly always physically impossible .
Many OOL researchers have responded to this challenge by arguing that a system driven far from equilibrium could self-organize into a functional cell ( here , here ) .
The basic hope is that some new physical principles could overcome the barriers mandated by classical thermodynamics .
That hope was accentuated by the research of MIT physicist Jeremy England .
He purportedly developed a “ physics theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ termed fluctuation theorems .
His research was portrayed by the media as holding the key to solving the mystery of life ’ s origin .
My article demonstrates that the fluctuation theorems actually prove the exact opposite .
Namely , systems driven far from equilibrium also tend to move toward greater entropy , and they tend to release heat into the environment .
The origin of life requires the reverse : energy must be extracted from the environment in such a way as to raise a local collection of molecules ’ free energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them into a highly specified , low-entropy state .
Mathematically , the fluctuation theorems reveal that the origin of a cell is just as fantastically improbable away from equilibrium as near it .
Only one solution exists to overcome the thermodynamic challenges , and that is the presence of the following : • Engines that convert some external source of energy into a form useful to power cellular operations .
• Information that directs that energy toward driving a highly targeted set of chemical reactions that manufacture , maintain , and direct the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such molecular machines as ATP synthase , and the information is embodied , nonexclusively , in the long chains of amino acids known as proteins and in DNA .
The information in a protein corresponds to its precise amino-acid sequence , which is analogous to the ordering of letters in a sentence .
The specified sequence causes a newly formed chain to fold into the specific three-dimensional shape that allows it to serve as a component in a cellular structure or as an enzyme that accelerates a target reaction .
The information in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ sequences , so more can be manufactured .
And , it controls the timing and quantity of their production .
A complete suite of enzymes , or their equivalent , must have existed at the very instantiation of life .
For a viable cell — one that would not quickly break apart and decompose into simpler chemicals — needs a highly specific set of interconnected chemical reactions that support the essential operations .
Yet the chance of the correct reactions manifesting on the early earth is astronomically small .
Moreover , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , they can not all occur in the same location at the same time .
And , many reactions will not progress spontaneously without outside energy to drive them in the correct direction .
Even most of those that could proceed naturally advance too slowly to support cellular activity .
Only enzymes can meet all of these requirements , and only they can overcome all of the hurdles .
For enzymes form crevices that create the correct environments for their target reactions , and they dramatically accelerate the reactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy from the high-energy molecules generated by the engines and direct that energy toward driving the nonspontaneous reactions forward .
Alternative molecules , such as ribozymes , lack these needed capacities ( here , here ) .
And , of paramount importance , the required set of enzymes corresponds to a quantity of information that is staggering .
Cellular biologists have attempted to identify the minimally complex genome : the minimal number of genes and proteins that would be required for the simplest viable cell .
Independently , engineers , computer programmers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimal components required for a machine to make a fully functional copy of itself ( i.e.
, self-replicate ) .
The results from these separate studies have converged to identify components that must have existed at life ’ s origin ( here , here , here ) , which include the following : • Manufacturing centers that construct all of the essential pieces .
• Assembly and installation processes for all components .
• A boundary with control gates that allow specific materials in and out .
• Sensing of environment and calculation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which draws upon nearly all other essential functions .
These minimal requirements entail several hundred enzymes and over a million bits of information .
That amount is roughly equivalent to the information contained in Charles Dickens ’ s A Christmas Carol .
Many scientists have come to recognize the essential role of information in life .
For instance , OOL researchers Sarah Walker and Paul Davies have described the need for “ information to gain causal purchase over matter.
” In other words , preexistent information is required to direct the arrangement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yaşar Demirel has demonstrated the essential role of information in achieving and maintaining a cell ’ s low-entropy state .
Yet no natural process can generate large quantities of meaningful information ( here , here ) .
I elucidate the implications of this evidence in The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : the Continuing Controversy as follows : Photo at the top : The “ Origin of Life ” ride , a display at Science Exploration Hall , Science City , Calcutta , India , by Biswarup Ganguly / CC BY .

Over the past few years, organic chemist James Tour has detailed how origin of life (OOL) researchers have made no progress for the greater part of a century in explaining how natural processes could generate the first self-replicating cell despite highly misleading claims to the contrary (here, here, here). At the same time, I have written on how such dismal progress was entirely predictable based upon challenges from the fields of thermodynamics and information theory (here, here, here, here). I consolidated and expand my analysis in an article that was recently published in the journal Inference. The piece is highly technical and mathematical, but the basic argument can be quickly summarized with only a marginal loss of technical accuracy.
Thermodynamic Challenges
To begin, the driving tendency of most physical systems is to move toward either higher entropy, lower energy, or both. The concept of entropy is often crudely associated with the level of a system’s disorder (think messy room versus neat room), but a more precise description relates it to Shannon’s Measure of Information. In the context of OOL, large molecules with higher-energy chemical bonds will tend to break down into smaller molecules with lower-energy bonds. And, highly complex, specified structures will tend to break apart into a disorganized mixture of simple molecules, tars, and other biologically inert products.
The entropy and energy are often combined by physicists and chemists into what is defined as the free energy. This quantity is of particular importance since natural processes tend to move toward lower free energy. The free energy also equates with the energy that is available to do work. For instance, the energy in a battery can be easily accessed to run a clock, so it contains high free energy. In contrast, the molecules in the air on a hot summer day have a great deal of energy, but that energy cannot be directly accessed to drive a car up a hill. As such, the hot air has low free energy. The challenge is that the genesis of a cell requires simple chemicals on the ancient earth to coalesce into an arrangement of both low entropy and high energy. In other words, life’s origin requires molecules to move toward significantly higher free energy, a task that is nearly always physically impossible.
Many OOL researchers have responded to this challenge by arguing that a system driven far from equilibrium could self-organize into a functional cell (here, here). The basic hope is that some new physical principles could overcome the barriers mandated by classical thermodynamics. That hope was accentuated by the research of MIT physicist Jeremy England. He purportedly developed a “physics theory for life” based on what are termed fluctuation theorems. His research was portrayed by the media as holding the key to solving the mystery of life’s origin.
My article demonstrates that the fluctuation theorems actually prove the exact opposite. Namely, systems driven far from equilibrium also tend to move toward greater entropy, and they tend to release heat into the environment. The origin of life requires the reverse: energy must be extracted from the environment in such a way as to raise a local collection of molecules’ free energy and, in the process, assemble them into a highly specified, low-entropy state. Mathematically, the fluctuation theorems reveal that the origin of a cell is just as fantastically improbable away from equilibrium as near it.
Engines and Information
Only one solution exists to overcome the thermodynamic challenges, and that is the presence of the following:
Engines that convert some external source of energy into a form useful to power cellular operations. Information that directs that energy toward driving a highly targeted set of chemical reactions that manufacture, maintain, and direct the cell.
In cells, engines include such molecular machines as ATP synthase, and the information is embodied, nonexclusively, in the long chains of amino acids known as proteins and in DNA. The information in a protein corresponds to its precise amino-acid sequence, which is analogous to the ordering of letters in a sentence. The specified sequence causes a newly formed chain to fold into the specific three-dimensional shape that allows it to serve as a component in a cellular structure or as an enzyme that accelerates a target reaction. The information in DNA stores (encodes) the proteins’ sequences, so more can be manufactured. And, it controls the timing and quantity of their production.
A complete suite of enzymes, or their equivalent, must have existed at the very instantiation of life. For a viable cell — one that would not quickly break apart and decompose into simpler chemicals — needs a highly specific set of interconnected chemical reactions that support the essential operations. Yet the chance of the correct reactions manifesting on the early earth is astronomically small. Moreover, the different reactions require mutually exclusive environmental conditions. In other words, they cannot all occur in the same location at the same time. And, many reactions will not progress spontaneously without outside energy to drive them in the correct direction. Even most of those that could proceed naturally advance too slowly to support cellular activity.
Only enzymes can meet all of these requirements, and only they can overcome all of the hurdles. For enzymes form crevices that create the correct environments for their target reactions, and they dramatically accelerate the reactions’ speed. They can also extract energy from the high-energy molecules generated by the engines and direct that energy toward driving the nonspontaneous reactions forward. Alternative molecules, such as ribozymes, lack these needed capacities (here, here). And, of paramount importance, the required set of enzymes corresponds to a quantity of information that is staggering.
The Minimal Requirements
Cellular biologists have attempted to identify the minimally complex genome: the minimal number of genes and proteins that would be required for the simplest viable cell. Independently, engineers, computer programmers, and mathematicians have attempted to identify the minimal components required for a machine to make a fully functional copy of itself (i.e., self-replicate). The results from these separate studies have converged to identify components that must have existed at life’s origin (here, here, here), which include the following:
Large repositories of information and information processing.
Manufacturing centers that construct all of the essential pieces.
Assembly and installation processes for all components.
Energy production and distribution machinery.
Automated repair and replacement of parts.
A boundary with control gates that allow specific materials in and out.
Global communication and coordination with feedback control systems.
Sensing of environment and calculation of needed responses.
Self-replication, which draws upon nearly all other essential functions.
These minimal requirements entail several hundred enzymes and over a million bits of information. That amount is roughly equivalent to the information contained in Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol.
The Evidence for Design
Many scientists have come to recognize the essential role of information in life. For instance, OOL researchers Sarah Walker and Paul Davies have described the need for “information to gain causal purchase over matter.” In other words, preexistent information is required to direct the arrangement of molecules. And chemical and biomolecular engineer Yaşar Demirel has demonstrated the essential role of information in achieving and maintaining a cell’s low-entropy state. Yet no natural process can generate large quantities of meaningful information (here, here).
I elucidate the implications of this evidence in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: the Continuing Controversy as follows:
In summary, the formation of the original cell cannot plausibly be explained by any undirected process. In addition, its minimal requirements demonstrate unmistakable signs of intelligence. In any other context, the identification of a nanotechnology vessel capable of energy production, information processing, and the other identified requirements would immediately be recognized as a product of design by any reasonable criteria. In particular, cellular structures and operations demonstrate unmistakable evidence of foresight, coordination, and goal direction, which are telltale signs for intelligent agency.
Photo at the top: The “Origin of Life” ride, a display at Science Exploration Hall, Science City, Calcutta, India, by Biswarup Ganguly / CC BY.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-07--From Cosmos: Possible Worlds — “Most Plausible” Creation Myths

On a new episode of ID the Future , philosopher Jay Richards hosts science historian Michael Keas in another conversation @ @ @ @ @ s series Cosmos : Possible Worlds .
Download the podcast or listen to it here @ @ @ @ @ about what the show itself calls its “ most plausible creation myth… for the origin @ @ @ @ @ hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean floor — with no mention at all of the @ @ @ @ @ the idea .
Tyson ’ s imagination wanders from there to Enceladus , a moon @ @ @ @ @ Cambrian explosion , everywhere supposing that just because one or two necessary conditions exist for @ @ @ @ @ all the explanation that ’ s needed .
Richards and Keas ably explore why this @ @ @

On a new episode of ID the Future, philosopher Jay Richards hosts science historian Michael Keas in another conversation about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s series Cosmos: Possible Worlds. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
They talk this time about what the show itself calls its “most plausible creation myth… for the origin of life,” involving hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean floor — with no mention at all of the equally deep scientific problems with the idea. Tyson’s imagination wanders from there to Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, to the Cambrian explosion, everywhere supposing that just because one or two necessary conditions exist for life, that’s all the explanation that’s needed. Richards and Keas ably explore why this is untrue.
Photo: Surface of Saturn’s moon Enceladus, by NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute / Public domain.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-06--Message from the Molecules — They Say “Intelligent Design”

Biology , cosmology , physics , mathematics , computer engineering , chemistry… You could have an interesting argument among proponents of intelligent design about which field of science will ultimately clinch the argument for ID .
Famed chemist Marcos Eberlin claims the honor will go to chemistry .
Chauvinism , you say ?
Perhaps .
You could take that up with the three Nobel laureates who endorsed his recent book , Foresight : How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose .
“ The molecules speak for themselves , ” says Dr. Eberlin here .
“ The molecules will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally we will have to surrender to the message that the molecules are sending to us .
They say clearly , ‘ Intelligent design is the source of life.
’ ” Eberlin ’ s specific field is mass spectrometry , which , as he has explained to me , is the powerful scientific tool that finally unlocked Darwin ’ s “ black box , ” in biochemist Michel Behe ’ s phrase .
Eberlin jokes that “ evolution hopes you don ’ t know chemistry , ” whereas the case for intelligent design @ @ @ @ @

Biology, cosmology, physics, mathematics, computer engineering, chemistry… You could have an interesting argument among proponents of intelligent design about which field of science will ultimately clinch the argument for ID. Famed chemist Marcos Eberlin claims the honor will go to chemistry. Chauvinism, you say? Perhaps. You could take that up with the three Nobel laureates who endorsed his recent book, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose.
“The molecules speak for themselves,” says Dr. Eberlin here. “The molecules will speak louder and louder and louder and finally we will have to surrender to the message that the molecules are sending to us. They say clearly, ‘Intelligent design is the source of life.’”
Eberlin’s specific field is mass spectrometry, which, as he has explained to me, is the powerful scientific tool that finally unlocked Darwin’s “black box,” in biochemist Michel Behe’s phrase. Eberlin jokes that “evolution hopes you don’t know chemistry,” whereas the case for intelligent design is built upon it.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-06--Love, Chocolate, and Neutral Evolution

Love, Chocolate, and Neutral Evolution

With Mother ’ s Day approaching on Sunday , many people ’ s thoughts turn to…chocolate .
I have a sweatshirt with sequins that say “ All I need is…LOVE ” in one direction , and “ All I need is…CHOCOLATE ” when flipped in the opposite direction with a stroke or two of the hand .
In case you are wondering if I have gone crazy , this is my illustration of why neutral evolution won ’ t work , but intelligent design can .
Neutral evolution means mutations are occurring all the time , and most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neutral .
Thus they aren ’ t selected against and can remain in the population .
The theory is that if things drift far enough this way , by neutral changes , new functions can be reached .
Suppose there were a chocolate-loving caterpillar , waiting for the right set of mutations ( sequin flips ) to spell “ chocolate.
” The problem is that the number of changes typically required is too great .
You lose the first function and have garbage before you reach the second .
See my transition from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below .
The picture helps you imagine an increasing number of mutations ( swipes of my fingers ) .
If the hungry caterpillar needed chocolate he would wander far in sequence space , because the other lesson in this illustration is that the only way to find chocolate was to uncover a pattern that was already there .
If chocolate was not already written on the other side , he would not find it .
If there is a natural protein capable of flipping from one fold to another , from love to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it had to be designed that way .

With Mother’s Day approaching on Sunday, many people’s thoughts turn to…chocolate. I have a sweatshirt with sequins that say “All I need is…LOVE” in one direction, and “All I need is…CHOCOLATE” when flipped in the opposite direction with a stroke or two of the hand. In case you are wondering if I have gone crazy, this is my illustration of why neutral evolution won’t work, but intelligent design can.
Neutral evolution means mutations are occurring all the time, and most of the time they are neutral, or nearly neutral. Thus they aren’t selected against and can remain in the population. The theory is that if things drift far enough this way, by neutral changes, new functions can be reached.
Suppose there were a chocolate-loving caterpillar, waiting for the right set of mutations (sequin flips) to spell “chocolate.” The problem is that the number of changes typically required is too great. You lose the first function and have garbage before you reach the second. See my transition from “Love” to “Chocolate” below.
The picture helps you imagine an increasing number of mutations (swipes of my fingers). If the hungry caterpillar needed chocolate he would wander far in sequence space, because the other lesson in this illustration is that the only way to find chocolate was to uncover a pattern that was already there. If chocolate was not already written on the other side, he would not find it.
If there is a natural protein capable of flipping from one fold to another, from love to chocolate, with just a few changes, it had to be designed that way.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-07--Darwinism, Totalitarianism, and the Lockdown

As we live through the coronavirus lockdown , some surprisingly diverse sources — from The New Yorker to Tucker Carlson — have begun referring their audiences to an alarming word : “ totalitarianism.
” In this context , journalist and activist Masha Gessen , writing in The New Yorker , recommends the work of Hannah Arendt , for her “ complicated and precise descriptions of isolation , solitude , and loneliness.
” The reference is apt , and worth exploring , not least because of Arendt ’ s insights linking totalitarian ideology with Darwinism .
Hannah Arendt was the leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Her writing , especially The Origins of Totalitarianism ( 1951 ) , is always interesting and relevant , and her insights into totalitarianism are chillingly accurate .
She explicitly links totalitarian ideology to Darwinism — naming Darwin often as a cornerstone of modern totalitarianism .
She distinguishes between different forms of government , as a function of the set of predicates by which a nation is governed .
Some governments rule by deontological rules — theocracies that use the Ten Commandments , etc .
Some rule by positive law — written laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tyranny — the arbitrary rule by the opinions of one or a few individuals .
Each of these has its advantages and disadvantages .
Totalitarianism is something radically different , even radically different from tyranny .
Totalitarianism is rule by natural laws — she means by laws of nature , not natural law in the scholastic sense .
Nazism ruled by biological “ natural laws ” drawn from Darwin and his followers — concepts of racial superiority , survival of the fittest , etc .
Communists rule by “ natural laws ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the class struggle , struggle against capitalism , etc .
Marxists draw parallels between these laws and those established by Darwin .
“ As Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature , ” said Friedrich Engels , “ Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.
” It ’ s noteworthy that while we think of Hitler and Stalin as tyrants , Arendt would say that they weren ’ t really tyrants in the sense she means .
Tyrants are arbitrary , and totalitarians aren ’ t .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could make his horse a senator , just by whim .
Hitler could not have made a Jew his minister of defense , and Stalin could not have made a capitalist his minister of the interior .
Tyrants are less dangerous because they are not wedded to unalterable ideology .
In this sense , Augustus was a tyrant , too — he had complete personal power — but his rule was for the most part rational and humane .
Totalitarians are much more dangerous than tyrants because they are absolutely committed to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over all other considerations — over positive law , over moral law , over personal relationships .
Germans were expected to turn in Jews to the Gestapo , even if the Jew was a friend .
Soviet citizens were expected to turn in relatives who didn ’ t buy into Communism to the Cheka , even close relatives such as parents .
Totalitarianism is uniquely dangerous because it is objectively driven and unchecked by any other considerations .
It is very effective in the sense that it systematically destroys opposition in an organized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
tend not to do .
Arendt noted that totalitarians work using terror .
She defined terror as the completely arbitrary use of fear .
Anyone could get a knock on the door at 3 a.m. from the Cheka , for any reason .
Guilt in the sense of legal violation plays no role — the accusation is the conviction , and there is no recourse to law or reason .
The goal of terror is to utterly disorganize society and disorganize individual thought .
You never can predict , you never can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disorganization is essential because it leaves only the ruling ideology — the natural law — as a guiding principle .
The struggle is the only organizing principle , and that is the essence of the totalitarian system .
Only the natural law — only the struggle — matters , and war is perpetual .
Under totalitarianism , people are terrified and paralyzed — Arendt often used the word “ paralyzed.
” People in a totalitarian state are like panicked livestock , to be bred , culled , slaughtered , and used to advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Terror and paralysis are the cornerstones of public policy in totalitarian states .
The COVID-19 lockdown isn ’ t fully totalitarian , of course .
Dennis Prager notes that while “ we are closer to a police state than ever in American history , ” a “ ‘ police state ’ does not mean totalitarian state .
America is not a totalitarian state ; we still have many freedoms.
” But you can get a flavor .
Proponents of radical lockdown instill fear ( as you may be aware if you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are arbitrary ( you can go to the liquor store but not to church , or in Michigan , you can buy vegetables but not seeds for a garden ) .
A noteworthy example of this arbitrariness is New York mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s threat to arrest Orthodox Jews who attend funerals , while he issued no such threat to spectators who gathered in crowds to watch the Blue Angels fly over a few days ago .
For Arendt , Darwin was at the root of modern totalitarianism , because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural selection .
Logically , Darwin influenced both Nazi and Communist totalitarians .
The highest qualities of human beings were , according to Darwin , the direct consequence of a struggle built into nature .
Darwinism offers a scientific validation of totalitarian natural law , on which a totalitarians system could be built .
For Arendt , Darwin was , in a way , the prophet of totalitarianism .
From The Origins of Totalitarianism : Materialism is an indispensable boost to Darwinian and totalitarian ideology .
That ’ s why Darwinist Jerry Coyne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so dangerous — it removes the idea of guilt or innocence , and makes us livestock to be managed and culled according to ideology .
In Coyne ’ s world without free will , a man can not coherently say “ But I ’ m innocent !
” Without free will , there is no moral innocence or moral guilt .
There is only matter in motion , to be controlled by the state for the state ’ s ( ideological ) purposes .
In this COVID crisis , we need to carefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measures our government takes to stem the pandemic .
As Hannah Arendt so masterfully explained , a nation paralyzed by fear and locked down by government-by-edict has moved in a subtle but undeniable way toward totalitarian dynamics .
Fear and involuntary quarantine carry more than just an economic price .
Totalitarianism is no less deadly than a pandemic and is just as easy to misdiagnose in its early stages .
Photo : Hannah Arendt died in 1975 and was buried on the campus of Bard College , by Loslazos / CC BY-SA @

As we live through the coronavirus lockdown, some surprisingly diverse sources — from The New Yorker to Tucker Carlson — have begun referring their audiences to an alarming word: “totalitarianism.” In this context, journalist and activist Masha Gessen, writing in The New Yorker, recommends the work of Hannah Arendt, for her “complicated and precise descriptions of isolation, solitude, and loneliness.” The reference is apt, and worth exploring, not least because of Arendt’s insights linking totalitarian ideology with Darwinism.
Hannah Arendt was the leading philosopher of totalitarianism in the 20th century. Her writing, especially The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), is always interesting and relevant, and her insights into totalitarianism are chillingly accurate. She explicitly links totalitarian ideology to Darwinism — naming Darwin often as a cornerstone of modern totalitarianism. She distinguishes between different forms of government, as a function of the set of predicates by which a nation is governed. Some governments rule by deontological rules — theocracies that use the Ten Commandments, etc. Some rule by positive law — written laws established by legislation. Some rule by tyranny — the arbitrary rule by the opinions of one or a few individuals. Each of these has its advantages and disadvantages.
The Radical Difference
Totalitarianism is something radically different, even radically different from tyranny. Totalitarianism is rule by natural laws — she means by laws of nature, not natural law in the scholastic sense. Nazism ruled by biological “natural laws” drawn from Darwin and his followers — concepts of racial superiority, survival of the fittest, etc. Communists rule by “natural laws” of class, history, and economics — the class struggle, struggle against capitalism, etc. Marxists draw parallels between these laws and those established by Darwin. “As Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature,” said Friedrich Engels, “Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.”
It’s noteworthy that while we think of Hitler and Stalin as tyrants, Arendt would say that they weren’t really tyrants in the sense she means. Tyrants are arbitrary, and totalitarians aren’t. For example, Caligula (a classic tyrant) could make his horse a senator, just by whim. Hitler could not have made a Jew his minister of defense, and Stalin could not have made a capitalist his minister of the interior.
Tyrants are less dangerous because they are not wedded to unalterable ideology. In this sense, Augustus was a tyrant, too — he had complete personal power — but his rule was for the most part rational and humane. Totalitarians are much more dangerous than tyrants because they are absolutely committed to an ideology, and that ideology takes precedence over all other considerations — over positive law, over moral law, over personal relationships. Germans were expected to turn in Jews to the Gestapo, even if the Jew was a friend. Soviet citizens were expected to turn in relatives who didn’t buy into Communism to the Cheka, even close relatives such as parents.
Totalitarianism is uniquely dangerous because it is objectively driven and unchecked by any other considerations. It is very effective in the sense that it systematically destroys opposition in an organized way that tyrants, theocrats, etc. tend not to do.
Rule by Fear
Arendt noted that totalitarians work using terror. She defined terror as the completely arbitrary use of fear. Anyone could get a knock on the door at 3 a.m. from the Cheka, for any reason. Guilt in the sense of legal violation plays no role — the accusation is the conviction, and there is no recourse to law or reason. The goal of terror is to utterly disorganize society and disorganize individual thought. You never can predict, you never can know what is coming next. This disorganization is essential because it leaves only the ruling ideology — the natural law — as a guiding principle. The struggle is the only organizing principle, and that is the essence of the totalitarian system. Only the natural law — only the struggle — matters, and war is perpetual. Under totalitarianism, people are terrified and paralyzed — Arendt often used the word “paralyzed.” People in a totalitarian state are like panicked livestock, to be bred, culled, slaughtered, and used to advance the ideology and win the perpetual struggle. Terror and paralysis are the cornerstones of public policy in totalitarian states.
The COVID-19 lockdown isn’t fully totalitarian, of course. Dennis Prager notes that while “we are closer to a police state than ever in American history,” a “‘police state’ does not mean totalitarian state. America is not a totalitarian state; we still have many freedoms.” But you can get a flavor. Proponents of radical lockdown instill fear (as you may be aware if you have followed events in California). They are arbitrary (you can go to the liquor store but not to church, or in Michigan, you can buy vegetables but not seeds for a garden). A noteworthy example of this arbitrariness is New York mayor Bill de Blasio’s threat to arrest Orthodox Jews who attend funerals, while he issued no such threat to spectators who gathered in crowds to watch the Blue Angels fly over a few days ago.
Darwin at the Root
For Arendt, Darwin was at the root of modern totalitarianism, because he offered the most pervasive natural law — natural selection. Logically, Darwin influenced both Nazi and Communist totalitarians. The highest qualities of human beings were, according to Darwin, the direct consequence of a struggle built into nature. Darwinism offers a scientific validation of totalitarian natural law, on which a totalitarians system could be built. For Arendt, Darwin was, in a way, the prophet of totalitarianism.
From The Origins of Totalitarianism:
Darwinism met with such overwhelming success [in totalitarian systems] because it provided, on the basis of inheritance, the ideological weapons for race and well as class rule…
Materialism is an indispensable boost to Darwinian and totalitarian ideology. That’s why Darwinist Jerry Coyne’s denial of free will is so dangerous — it removes the idea of guilt or innocence, and makes us livestock to be managed and culled according to ideology. In Coyne’s world without free will, a man cannot coherently say “But I’m innocent!” Without free will, there is no moral innocence or moral guilt. There is only matter in motion, to be controlled by the state for the state’s (ideological) purposes.
In this COVID crisis, we need to carefully consider the social and political implications of the measures our government takes to stem the pandemic. As Hannah Arendt so masterfully explained, a nation paralyzed by fear and locked down by government-by-edict has moved in a subtle but undeniable way toward totalitarian dynamics. Fear and involuntary quarantine carry more than just an economic price. Totalitarianism is no less deadly than a pandemic and is just as easy to misdiagnose in its early stages.
Photo: Hannah Arendt died in 1975 and was buried on the campus of Bard College, by Loslazos / CC BY-SA.