evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-04--Sorry, Origin-of-Life Researchers, But Bubbles Are Not Cells

Aleksandr Oparin is back .
Some origin-of-life researchers are using his coacervate theory without giving him credit or realizing they are retreading dead-end ideas .
The essence of coacervate theory put forward by Oparin ( 1894-1980 ) involves two things : random globs of chemicals ( i.e.
, bubbles ) and sheer dumb luck .
Sidney Fox is incorrect to say in his Encyclopedia Britannica article on Oparin , Fox , whose own “ proteinoid microsphere ” theory ( a variation on Oparin ’ s theory ) decorated textbooks in the 1960s , fails to recognize that Darwinism can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because accurate replication is a necessary condition for natural selection .
Before replication , one can only appeal to natural laws and sheer dumb luck .
This is a fatal flaw for all such models , which can be dubbed “ bubble theories ” of the first cells .
Under certain physical conditions , containers of material ( bubbles ) will spontaneously form , entrapping whatever chemicals happen to be around .
The putative “ membranes ” of these bubbles , whether fats , polypeptides , or soap micelles , are blind to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t care less .
One can call bubbles by the fancy word coacervates ; they are about as similar to real cells as a rubber duck is to a real duck .
And yet the myth lives on .
Some materialists seem to think that wishing hard enough will make Geppetto ’ s wooden toy into a real boy , or Frankenstein ’ s monster get up to the excited cry , “ It ’ s alive !
” Origin-of-life research reported at Penn State begins with diagrams of spheres of various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announces , “ Models for potential precursors of cells endure simulated early-Earth conditions.
” Here comes Oparin without credit : Membraneless compartments — models for a potential step in the early evolution of cells — have been shown to persist or form , disappear , and reform in predictable ways through multiple cycles of dehydration and rehydration .
Such wet-dry cycles were likely common conditions during the early development of life on Earth and could be a driving force for reactions important for the evolution of life .
Understanding how the compartments — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wet-dry cycling also informs current applications of the droplets , which are found in many household items , such as adhesives , cosmetics , fragrances , and food , and could be used in drug delivery systems .
A paper describing the research , led by Penn State scientists , appears October 27 , 2020 in the journal Nature Communications .
Beware of glue-sniffing adhesives , cosmetics , and fragrances .
They could induce visions of cells spontaneously appearing from bubbles .
The researchers make a big deal of wet/dry cycles as concentrators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they hope might include RNAs for the vision of an RNA World .
Whether their bubbles allow molecules to enter or exit is irrelevant to real cells .
The fact that there is no accurate replication , and no metabolism , and no coded information , leaves their salad-oil-like coacervates as wooden as Pinocchio .
Physicists at the University of Chicago joined in the work on this new coacervate theory .
The news , “ Study shows how tiny compartments could have preceded cells , ” is dressed up with a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Argonne National Laboratory .
The half-mile accelerator allowed molecular engineer Dean Matthew Tirrell to peek inside the bubbles after wet/dry cycles .
Lo and behold !
The ingredients were getting concentrated !
They were evolving !
It ’ s alive !
Like the Penn State article , this one failed to acknowledge Oparin .
The joint paper in Nature Communications doesn ’ t mention him , either .
Both articles attempt to rationalize the work on the grounds it could help cure cancer .
If that were the focus of the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ tiny compartments ” that “ could have preceded cells ” ?
For contrast , consider the bubbles generated by researchers at the University of Basel .
In a video , Dr. Elena dos Santos speaks Swiss-English over country music , boasting of the “ cell on a chip ” produced by her lab .
Using microfluidic techniques , they carefully crafted the shapes and contents of spherical vesicles with polymer membranes .
Their goal was to isolate enzymes and substrates that can perform a series of reactions from one bubble to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made with foresight and planning for a purpose .
At every step , the reactions were under the “ precise control ” of the scientists .
The polymer membrane of the vesicles acts as an outer shell and encloses an aqueous solution .
During production , the vesicles are filled with different combinations of enzymes .
As first author Dr. Elena C. dos Santos explains , this technique provides some key advantages : “ The newly developed method allows us to produce tailor-made vesicles and to precisely adjust the desired combination of enzymes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act as pores and allow the selective transport of compounds into and out of the polymer vesicles .
The pore sizes are designed to allow the passage of only specific molecules or ions , thereby enabling the separate study of cellular processes that take place closely alongside one another in nature .
Unlike Oparin or Fox , this team was not trying to tell a story about the origin of life .
They were performing a biomimetics experiment , modeling how cells isolate molecules in organelles .
Good work .
Even so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complexity of living cells .
For more on the problems with Oparin ’ s coacervates and other bubble theories , see the selections here at Evolution Newsby Stephen Meyer and Charles Thaxton taken from Discovery Institute ’ s updated and expanded edition of The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin , the 1984 classic by Thaxton , Bradley , and Olsen that introduced “ intelligent design ” as a contender for origin-of-life theories .
Meyer also dealt extensively in Signature in the Cell with Oparin ’ s original and revised theory .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still honored in the origin-of-life field , read this 2012 article for Evolution News where , despite Oparin ’ s numerous wrong ideas , Nature almost conferred sainthood on him .
As for his famous “ complex coacervates , ” Nature said , “ This hypothesis of colloidal assembly has largely been displaced by other concepts of life ’ s origins.
” Oh really ?
It ’ s back !
Meyer mentions Oparin ’ s fallacy of applying natural selection to chemical evolution briefly in the Illustra film Unlocking the Mystery of Life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ molecules in primitive containers are discussed in more detail by Ann Gauger in the film Origin.
, along with information about the RNA World hypothesis , the impotence of chance , and the minimum requirements for the simplest conceivable cell .
The simplest known cells vastly exceed those specifications .

Photo credit: Daniele Levis Pelusi via Unsplash.
Aleksandr Oparin is back. Some origin-of-life researchers are using his coacervate theory without giving him credit or realizing they are retreading dead-end ideas.
The essence of coacervate theory put forward by Oparin (1894-1980) involves two things: random globs of chemicals (i.e., bubbles) and sheer dumb luck. Sidney Fox is incorrect to say in his Encyclopedia Britannica article on Oparin,
By drawing on the insights of chemistry, he extended the Darwinian theory of evolution backward in time to explain how simple organic and inorganic materials might have combined into complex organic compounds and how the latter might have formed the primordial organism. [Emphasis added.]
Fox, whose own “proteinoid microsphere” theory (a variation on Oparin’s theory) decorated textbooks in the 1960s, fails to recognize that Darwinism cannot apply to the origin of life, because accurate replication is a necessary condition for natural selection. Before replication, one can only appeal to natural laws and sheer dumb luck.
This is a fatal flaw for all such models, which can be dubbed “bubble theories” of the first cells. Under certain physical conditions, containers of material (bubbles) will spontaneously form, entrapping whatever chemicals happen to be around. The putative “membranes” of these bubbles, whether fats, polypeptides, or soap micelles, are blind to what is inside, and frankly couldn’t care less. One can call bubbles by the fancy word coacervates; they are about as similar to real cells as a rubber duck is to a real duck. And yet the myth lives on. Some materialists seem to think that wishing hard enough will make Geppetto’s wooden toy into a real boy, or Frankenstein’s monster get up to the excited cry, “It’s alive!”
Protocells or Protobubbles?
Origin-of-life research reported at Penn State begins with diagrams of spheres of various diameters. The headline by Sam Sholtis announces, “Models for potential precursors of cells endure simulated early-Earth conditions.” Here comes Oparin without credit:
Membraneless compartments — models for a potential step in the early evolution of cells — have been shown to persist or form, disappear, and reform in predictable ways through multiple cycles of dehydration and rehydration. Such wet-dry cycles were likely common conditions during the early development of life on Earth and could be a driving force for reactions important for the evolution of life. Understanding how the compartments — known as complex coacervates — respond to wet-dry cycling also informs current applications of the droplets, which are found in many household items, such as adhesives, cosmetics, fragrances, and food, and could be used in drug delivery systems. A paper describing the research, led by Penn State scientists, appears October 27, 2020 in the journal Nature Communications.
Beware of glue-sniffing adhesives, cosmetics, and fragrances. They could induce visions of cells spontaneously appearing from bubbles.
The researchers make a big deal of wet/dry cycles as concentrators of the contents of these bubbles, which they hope might include RNAs for the vision of an RNA World. Whether their bubbles allow molecules to enter or exit is irrelevant to real cells. The fact that there is no accurate replication, and no metabolism, and no coded information, leaves their salad-oil-like coacervates as wooden as Pinocchio.
Windows into the Bubbles
Physicists at the University of Chicago joined in the work on this new coacervate theory. The news, “Study shows how tiny compartments could have preceded cells,” is dressed up with a very sciency picture of the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory. The half-mile accelerator allowed molecular engineer Dean Matthew Tirrell to peek inside the bubbles after wet/dry cycles. Lo and behold! The ingredients were getting concentrated! They were evolving! It’s alive!
Repetitive cycles of hydration and dehydration “caused a progressive evolution of the compartments,” Tirrell said, which permanently changed the composition of the coacervates. “This changes the physical properties of the coacervate and affects molecule exchange, which could be a clue for how early life began,” said Alexander Marras, a postdoctoral researcher in Tirrell’s group.
Like the Penn State article, this one failed to acknowledge Oparin. The joint paper in Nature Communications doesn’t mention him, either. Both articles attempt to rationalize the work on the grounds it could help cure cancer.
Understanding how dynamic conditions affect coacervates could have implications in electronic devices that use the polymer compartments in visual displays, or in drug delivery. Compartments like this could be used to carry a therapy within the body, and understanding how polymers assemble and react to changing conditions is key to designing new ways to deliver drugs.
If that were the focus of the work, why speak of their coacervates as “tiny compartments” that “could have preceded cells”?
ID Bubbles
For contrast, consider the bubbles generated by researchers at the University of Basel. In a video, Dr. Elena dos Santos speaks Swiss-English over country music, boasting of the “cell on a chip” produced by her lab. Using microfluidic techniques, they carefully crafted the shapes and contents of spherical vesicles with polymer membranes. Their goal was to isolate enzymes and substrates that can perform a series of reactions from one bubble to the next. These are clearly intelligently-designed containers made with foresight and planning for a purpose. At every step, the reactions were under the “precise control” of the scientists.
The polymer membrane of the vesicles acts as an outer shell and encloses an aqueous solution. During production, the vesicles are filled with different combinations of enzymes. As first author Dr. Elena C. dos Santos explains, this technique provides some key advantages: “The newly developed method allows us to produce tailor-made vesicles and to precisely adjust the desired combination of enzymes inside.” Proteins incorporated into the membrane act as pores and allow the selective transport of compounds into and out of the polymer vesicles. The pore sizes are designed to allow the passage of only specific molecules or ions, thereby enabling the separate study of cellular processes that take place closely alongside one another in nature.
Unlike Oparin or Fox, this team was not trying to tell a story about the origin of life. They were performing a biomimetics experiment, modeling how cells isolate molecules in organelles. Good work. Even so, their vesicles are light-years shy of the complexity of living cells.
Additional Information
For more on the problems with Oparin’s coacervates and other bubble theories, see the selections here at Evolution News, by Stephen Meyer and Charles Thaxton taken from Discovery Institute’s updated and expanded edition of The Mystery of Life’s Origin, the 1984 classic by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen that introduced “intelligent design” as a contender for origin-of-life theories. Meyer also dealt extensively in Signature in the Cell with Oparin’s original and revised theory.
To show that Oparin the Marxist revolutionary is still honored in the origin-of-life field, read this 2012 article for Evolution News where, despite Oparin’s numerous wrong ideas, Nature almost conferred sainthood on him. As for his famous “complex coacervates,” Nature said, “This hypothesis of colloidal assembly has largely been displaced by other concepts of life’s origins.” Oh really? It’s back!
Meyer mentions Oparin’s fallacy of applying natural selection to chemical evolution briefly in the Illustra film Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Additional problems with random assemblages of molecules in primitive containers are discussed in more detail by Ann Gauger in the film Origin., along with information about the RNA World hypothesis, the impotence of chance, and the minimum requirements for the simplest conceivable cell. The simplest known cells vastly exceed those specifications.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-03--Vote for Fun and Intelligently Designed CSC Products! Welcome to Our New Zazzle Shop

With the holiday season fast approaching , we ’ re happy to announce the opening of Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture online shop .
The shop is run through Zazzle , a print-on-demand company , and features a wide variety of products , including t-shirts , mugs , notebooks , hats , wall art , and calendars .
Some of these feature beautiful photographs of the natural world , from cells to galaxies ; others feature the CSC logo .
We hope you ’ ll enjoy using these products and giving them as gifts .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to hear about the scientific evidence for intelligent design .
Of course , if you are a scholar in a vulnerable academic position , please enjoy these products only in the privacy of your own home .
As we know from harsh experience , not everyone supports freedom of inquiry .
One more thing you might like to know : Zazzle offers incentives to stores that drive their own traffic .
This means that if anyone enters our Zazzle store via the Discovery Institute-CSC Zazzle store link and makes a purchase at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roughly double our regular royalty for that order .
Feel free to copy this link and share it via email with others who might be interested in supporting us .
As ever , our heartfelt thanks go to everyone who supports the work of the CSC .

With the holiday season fast approaching, we’re happy to announce the opening of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture online shop. The shop is run through Zazzle, a print-on-demand company, and features a wide variety of products, including t-shirts, mugs, notebooks, hats, wall art, and calendars. Some of these feature beautiful photographs of the natural world, from cells to galaxies; others feature the CSC logo. We hope you’ll enjoy using these products and giving them as gifts. They make great conversation starters, allowing more people to hear about the scientific evidence for intelligent design.
Of course, if you are a scholar in a vulnerable academic position, please enjoy these products only in the privacy of your own home. As we know from harsh experience, not everyone supports freedom of inquiry.
One more thing you might like to know: Zazzle offers incentives to stores that drive their own traffic. This means that if anyone enters our Zazzle store via the Discovery Institute-CSC Zazzle store link and makes a purchase at our shop, we’ll receive roughly double our regular royalty for that order. Feel free to copy this link and share it via email with others who might be interested in supporting us. As ever, our heartfelt thanks go to everyone who supports the work of the CSC.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-03--A Contest More Consequential than a U.S. Election? Yes! John Lennox Explains

An electoral contest is the one dominating minds and headlines at the moment .
But when the U.S. presidential election is done and decided , whatever the outcome , a far more consequential choice will remain : between views of reality itself .
That ’ s what is at stake in discussions of evolution , intelligent design , and cosmic origins .
On a new episode of ID the Future , John Lennox tells about discovering the damage an atheist worldview does .
He saw it firsthand in Communist Eastern Europe , and he saw what it does to rationality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer , Lennox relates how in his interactions with famous religiously skeptical scientists , he emphasizes that the Judeo-Christian worldview did much to give us science .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
When skeptical scientists ask the Oxford mathematician and philosopher how Christianity could have anything to say to science , Lennox is ready with an answer .
This is the second part of a three-part conversation in which Lennox discusses his new three-nights-only documentary , Against the Tide : Finding God in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sorbo .
The film will show in theaters across the country on November 19 , 20 , and 23 .
Get your tickets now , before it sells out .

Photo credit: Element5 Digital via Unsplash.
An electoral contest is the one dominating minds and headlines at the moment. But when the U.S. presidential election is done and decided, whatever the outcome, a far more consequential choice will remain: between views of reality itself.
That’s what is at stake in discussions of evolution, intelligent design, and cosmic origins. On a new episode of ID the Future, John Lennox tells about discovering the damage an atheist worldview does. He saw it firsthand in Communist Eastern Europe, and he saw what it does to rationality. In his continuing conversation with host and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, Lennox relates how in his interactions with famous religiously skeptical scientists, he emphasizes that the Judeo-Christian worldview did much to give us science. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
When skeptical scientists ask the Oxford mathematician and philosopher how Christianity could have anything to say to science, Lennox is ready with an answer. This is the second part of a three-part conversation in which Lennox discusses his new three-nights-only documentary, Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, co-starring actor Kevin Sorbo. The film will show in theaters across the country on November 19, 20, and 23. Get your tickets now, before it sells out.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-05--Biofluorescence in the Platypus — Design at Its Whackadoodliest

Feeling stressed about the election and in need of a bit of comic relief ?
Here is a fun new finding about one of nature ’ s whackadoodliest of creatures .
From Gizmodo : The platypus is nature ’ s crazy quilt , as this strange creature looks like about a half-dozen different animals all rolled into one .
Turns out that platypuses were hiding yet another conspicuous feature : THEY CAN FREAKIN ’ GLOW IN THE DARK .
They report on a paper in Mammalia , “ Biofluorescence in the platypus ( Ornithorhynchus anatinus ) .
” More : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolutionary perspective .
Monotremes , marsupials , and placental mammals ( eutherians ) split off from a common ancestor some 150 million years ago , when the Triassic was coming to a close .
That , dear readers , is a hell of a long time ago , as the descendants of this evolutionary divorce had to then fight their way through the ensuing Jurassic and Cretaceous periods , not to mention the mass extinction that wiped out all non-avian dinosaurs .
That ’ s a lot of time and lot of possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release , [ Professor Paula Spaeth ] Anich said that “ it was intriguing to see that animals that were such distant relatives also had biofluorescent fur.
” The authors close their paper with a related question : “ Is biofluorescence an ancestral mammalian trait ?
” Hard to know .
If these three wildly disparate groups of mammals retained this trait after 150 million years , it means the genes responsible for biofluorescent fur are highly conserved , in the parlance of biologists .
It ’ s not impossible , but another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , flying squirrel , and platypus—acquired their glowing fur independently as a consequence of convergent evolution .
In nature , a good idea is a good idea , which is why common traits can appear in unrelated species .
Those paragraphs are , not surprisingly , a de rigueur nod to evolutionary theory , and as usual , it ’ s pure gloss , no substance , no evidence that the platypus evolved from a fundamentally different animal form via a blind evolutionary process .
Is it any less speculative than this classic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the judge ( warning for the sensitive , Williams is reverential neither to God nor to Charles Darwin ) .
Consider also the alternative hypothesis that the designer has a sense of humor :

Photo: Ornithorhynchus anatinus, by Goddard Photography, via EurekAlert!
Feeling stressed about the election and in need of a bit of comic relief? Here is a fun new finding about one of nature’s whackadoodliest of creatures. From Gizmodo:
The platypus is nature’s crazy quilt, as this strange creature looks like about a half-dozen different animals all rolled into one. Turns out that platypuses were hiding yet another conspicuous feature: THEY CAN FREAKIN’ GLOW IN THE DARK.
They report on a paper in Mammalia, “Biofluorescence in the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus).” More:
The finding is also interesting from an evolutionary perspective. Monotremes, marsupials, and placental mammals (eutherians) split off from a common ancestor some 150 million years ago, when the Triassic was coming to a close. That, dear readers, is a hell of a long time ago, as the descendants of this evolutionary divorce had to then fight their way through the ensuing Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, not to mention the mass extinction that wiped out all non-avian dinosaurs. That’s a lot of time and lot of possible evolution. In a De Gruyter press release, [Professor Paula Spaeth] Anich said that “it was intriguing to see that animals that were such distant relatives also had biofluorescent fur.” The authors close their paper with a related question: “Is biofluorescence an ancestral mammalian trait?” Hard to know. If these three wildly disparate groups of mammals retained this trait after 150 million years, it means the genes responsible for biofluorescent fur are highly conserved, in the parlance of biologists. It’s not impossible, but another reasonable explanation is that these three species—opossum, flying squirrel, and platypus—acquired their glowing fur independently as a consequence of convergent evolution. In nature, a good idea is a good idea, which is why common traits can appear in unrelated species.
Those paragraphs are, not surprisingly, a de rigueur nod to evolutionary theory, and as usual, it’s pure gloss, no substance, no evidence that the platypus evolved from a fundamentally different animal form via a blind evolutionary process. Is it any less speculative than this classic bit from comedian Robin Williams? You be the judge (warning for the sensitive, Williams is reverential neither to God nor to Charles Darwin). Consider also the alternative hypothesis that the designer has a sense of humor:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-05--John Lennox: A Favorite Debate with the Atheists?

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , in theaters across the country on November 19 , 20 , 23 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Professor Lennox has debated a number of very prominent atheists .
Looking forward to the documentary ’ s release , he took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
Do you have a favorite debate that you were a part of ?
That ’ s so hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different and there were [ some less favorite ] debates but they were all interesting in different ways .
I learned so much from them .
There was the debate with Peter Singer — there ’ s talk of me having another one , a Zoom one at Princeton in the next few months actually .
It ’ s the Veritas Forum I think that ’ s organizing that .
I did three or four with [ Richard ] Dawkins , one of which was never published .
That was hosted by Charlie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think Charlie Rose liked what happened with the show so they pulled it .
That ’ s a different thing all together .
It ’ s very hard to answer your question .
Some of the debates were very moving .
I debated a woman in Utah — Margaret Battin .
Professor Battin [ of the University of Utah ’ s Medical School ] .
She is a world expert on right to die and euthanasia and all of this and she ’ d had to switch off the machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before I debated her .
That was a very moving debate .
She was very brave to face it but you ’ d need to watch that to see what happens — another Veritas debate .
That was a very moving thing , the whole evening .

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, in theaters across the country on November 19, 20, 23. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Professor Lennox has debated a number of very prominent atheists. Looking forward to the documentary’s release, he took time to answer some questions from Evolution News.
Do you have a favorite debate that you were a part of?
That’s so hard to say. Because they were all different and there were [some less favorite] debates but they were all interesting in different ways. I learned so much from them. There was the debate with Peter Singer — there’s talk of me having another one, a Zoom one at Princeton in the next few months actually. It’s the Veritas Forum I think that’s organizing that. I did three or four with [Richard] Dawkins, one of which was never published. That was hosted by Charlie Rose in New York, but I don’t think Charlie Rose liked what happened with the show so they pulled it. That’s a different thing all together. It’s very hard to answer your question.
Some of the debates were very moving. I debated a woman in Utah — Margaret Battin. Professor Battin [of the University of Utah’s Medical School]. She is a world expert on right to die and euthanasia and all of this and she’d had to switch off the machine for her husband just a few weeks before I debated her. That was a very moving debate. She was very brave to face it but you’d need to watch that to see what happens — another Veritas debate. That was a very moving thing, the whole evening.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-05--New “Long Story” on Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance — Premiere and Live Chat, November 12

“ Ah hah , but what about bacterial antibiotic resistance !
” This is one of the stock attempts to rebut arguments against the creative potential of unguided evolution .
You hear it all the time .
The wonderful animated “ Long Story Short ” series from Discovery Institute tackles that one next , following delightful past episodes addressing homology and whale evolution .
The series has been such a success , and entertained and enlightened so many viewers , that this time we are giving the new episode — “ ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE & BACTERIAL EVOLUTION — WHAT ’ S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enhanced sendoff .
Join us for a live premiere on YouTube , Thursday , November 12 , at 6 pm Pacific time .
The premier will include a live chat , before and during the presentation , on the subject with the pseudonymous animator , whom we have called “ Long Story , ” and with Discovery Institute science staff .
You can watch it here , but I ’ ll remind you again before the day : Pose your questions and challenges to us !
More information is here .
And by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
Super convenient .

“Ah hah, but what about bacterial antibiotic resistance!” This is one of the stock attempts to rebut arguments against the creative potential of unguided evolution. You hear it all the time. The wonderful animated “Long Story Short” series from Discovery Institute tackles that one next, following delightful past episodes addressing homology and whale evolution. The series has been such a success, and entertained and enlightened so many viewers, that this time we are giving the new episode — “ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE & BACTERIAL EVOLUTION — WHAT’S THE REAL STORY?” — an enhanced sendoff. Join us for a live premiere on YouTube, Thursday, November 12, at 6 pm Pacific time.
The premiere will include a live chat, before and during the presentation, on the subject with the pseudonymous animator, whom we have called “Long Story,” and with Discovery Institute science staff. You can watch it here, but I’ll remind you again before the day:
Pose your questions and challenges to us! More information is here. And by the way, no registration is needed! Super convenient.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-06--Lennox: Atheists’ Best Objection to Theism?

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , in theaters across the country on November 19 , 20 , 23 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Professor Lennox has debated a number of very prominent atheists .
Looking forward to the documentary ’ s release , he took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
What is the leading atheists ’ best objection to theism and how do you answer it ?
Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think the hardest problem that any of us face is the problem of pain and suffering .
I ’ ve written in great detail about that but I will say one or two things .
First of all , I ’ ve got a book called Gunning for God : Why the New Atheists Are Missing the Target and there ’ s a chapter in it on this problem of evil and suffering .
And then there ’ s a short version in my recent book Where Is God in a Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kindle .
It ’ s a very short read .
For example , earthquakes — why ?
I arrived in New Zealand a couple of days after the [ 2011 ] Christchurch earthquake .
And I had to change all my lectures .
Somebody has put up a website [ with those ] and you ’ ll find it here .
The short answer to the question , and I could spend hours on it , but the short answer is this : The atheists think they ’ ve solved the problem by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world is and it ’ s quite obvious there ’ s no God and you just have to get used to it .
Some people are lucky — this is [ what Richard Dawkins says ] — and some people are not and we need to grow up and get used to it .
And that ’ s that .
And at that level , they think this is the solution .
What I point out to them is this : Well , you think you ’ ve gotten rid of the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have , but you haven ’ t gotten rid of the suffering .
It ’ s still there .
What you have got rid of is all hope .
Ultimate hope .
And that is very unsatisfactory because you ’ re making a moral criticism of God .
You ’ re saying this whole [ world ] is evil .
And I want to investigate that because if you say there ’ s no God because of all this evil , where does the concept of evil you ’ re using come from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fyodor Dostoevsky .
“ If God does not exist , everything is permissible.
” By that he meant there is no logical concept of good or evil if God doesn ’ t exist .
He didn ’ t mean that atheists couldn ’ t behave .
Of course they can !
They ’ re made in the image of God , from a Christian perspective .
So , there ’ s that whole investigation philosophically .
And then — the coronavirus book will give it all to you — at the heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s the huge concept of a God who suffers on a cross .
That shows that God does not remain distant from the problem but has become part of it .
And the resurrection shows that he triumphs over it .
But you know , this is a big problem .
And I understand people that turn away from God because of it .
Atheists think they ’ ve solved the problem .
I don ’ t think they have .
Christianity faces the problem , and doesn ’ t offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it this way…I think Christianity gives us a window into a solution and gives evidence of a God whom we can trust with the answers even though we don ’ t understand them all .

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, in theaters across the country on November 19, 20, 23. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Professor Lennox has debated a number of very prominent atheists. Looking forward to the documentary’s release, he took time to answer some questions from Evolution News.
What is the leading atheists’ best objection to theism and how do you answer it?
Well that’s a huge topic. I think the hardest problem that any of us face is the problem of pain and suffering. I’ve written in great detail about that but I will say one or two things. First of all, I’ve got a book called Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists Are Missing the Target and there’s a chapter in it on this problem of evil and suffering. And then there’s a short version in my recent book Where Is God in a Coronavirus World? which you can download for Kindle. It’s a very short read.
For example, earthquakes — why? I arrived in New Zealand a couple of days after the [2011] Christchurch earthquake. And I had to change all my lectures. Somebody has put up a website [with those] and you’ll find it here. The short answer to the question, and I could spend hours on it, but the short answer is this: The atheists think they’ve solved the problem by simply saying this is just how the world is and it’s quite obvious there’s no God and you just have to get used to it. Some people are lucky — this is [what Richard Dawkins says] — and some people are not and we need to grow up and get used to it. And that’s that. And at that level, they think this is the solution.
What I point out to them is this: Well, you think you’ve gotten rid of the problem and in your own mind, you have, but you haven’t gotten rid of the suffering. It’s still there. What you have got rid of is all hope. Ultimate hope. And that is very unsatisfactory because you’re making a moral criticism of God. You’re saying this whole [world] is evil. And I want to investigate that because if you say there’s no God because of all this evil, where does the concept of evil you’re using come from?
And here, I would quote Fyodor Dostoevsky. “If God does not exist, everything is permissible.” By that he meant there is no logical concept of good or evil if God doesn’t exist. He didn’t mean that atheists couldn’t behave. Of course they can! They’re made in the image of God, from a Christian perspective. So, there’s that whole investigation philosophically.
And then — the coronavirus book will give it all to you — at the heart of Christianity, there is suffering. And it’s the huge concept of a God who suffers on a cross. That shows that God does not remain distant from the problem but has become part of it. And the resurrection shows that he triumphs over it.
But you know, this is a big problem. And I understand people that turn away from God because of it. Atheists think they’ve solved the problem. I don’t think they have. Christianity faces the problem, and doesn’t offer a trivial solution. I often put it this way…I think Christianity gives us a window into a solution and gives evidence of a God whom we can trust with the answers even though we don’t understand them all.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-06--Are Proteins Attracted to Function?

Are Proteins Attracted to Function?

Doug Axe showed that functional space is a tiny fraction of sequence space in proteins .
Evolutionists think they found a shortcut as simple as dropping down a funnel .
Proteins don ’ t have to search all of sequence space at random ; a “ ring attractor ” pulls them down the thermodynamic funnel into functional glory land .
Richard Dawkins has been criticized for years now for his “ Weasel ” analogy ( see Jonathan Witt ’ s critique ) .
And yet the myth lives on .
Miracles happen with the words , “ It evolves !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Natural Selection .
Here ’ s a new instance involving protein folds .
“ Methinks It Is Like a Weasel ” Dawkins ’ s main error was with setting a target sequence for random letters ( the Hamlet sequence “ Methinks it is like a weasel ” ) , and then preserving the randomly changing letters that matched the target .
Natural selection as Darwin envisioned it has no target sequence .
Each step must be functional , or it is not selected .
All the intermediate phrases in Dawkins ’ s computer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ function in language .
They would never converge on the target phrase by unguided natural processes .
The same is true with random sequences of amino acids , called polypeptides .
They have no function and are not called proteins or enzymes unless and until they fold into a functional shape .
Before considering the following hypothesis by two chemists , remember that without guidance from genes , polypeptides fall into the vast neverland called “ sequence space ” where nothing happens ( the amino acids , furthermore , must be left-handed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is but a tiny fraction of sequence space .
Doug Axe discussed this in his book Undeniable , based on his own research at Cambridge .
He experimentally determined how much change was necessary to break a functional protein with mutations .
It led to his estimate that a random polypeptide 150 amino acids in length , which is modest for a protein , has only a 1 in 1074 chance of arriving at a functional fold .
That probability drops to an impossible 1 in 10148 chance if the sequence must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sequence also has to consist of only peptide bonds .
In short , it would be a miracle .
In their paper in PNAS , “ Funneled energy landscape unifies principles of protein binding and evolution , ” Zhiqiang Yan and Jin Wang think they have found a shortcut to the miraculous .
Natural selection will push the polypeptide down a thermodynamic funnel , like a golfer putting a ball into the cup .
Why ?
Because , clearly , proteins “ have evolved.
” Anything that has evolved would have had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the magic .
Most proteins have evolved to spontaneously fold into native structure and specifically bind with their partners for the purpose of fulfilling biological functions .
According to Darwin , protein sequences evolve through random mutations , and only the fittest survives .
The understanding of how the evolutionary selection sculpts the interaction patterns for both biomolecular folding and binding is still challenging .
In this study , we incorporated the constraint of functional binding into the selection fitness based on the principle of minimal frustration for the underlying biomolecular interactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ derived and quantified from a global funneled energy landscape that satisfies the requirements of both the folding into the stable structure and binding with the specific partner .
The evolution proceeds via a bowl-like evolution energy landscape in the sequence space with a closed-ring attractor at the bottom .
The sequence space is increasingly reduced until this ring attractor is reached .
The molecular-interaction patterns responsible for folding and binding are identified from the evolved sequences , respectively .
The residual positions participating in the interactions responsible for folding are highly conserved and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constraints of functional binding .
The positions responsible for binding constitute a distributed network via coupling conservations that determine the specificity of binding with the partner .
This work unifies the principles of protein binding and evolution under minimal frustration and sheds light on the evolutionary design of proteins for functions .
[ Emphasis added . ]
Methinks these are weasel words .
This is like the following syllogism .
Major premise : Everything evolves by natural selection .
Minor premise : Proteins occupy a tiny fraction of sequence space that permits folding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Natural selection pushed proteins to fulfill these constraints .
Anything circular here ?
What if one does not accept the major premise ?
To make their point , Yan and Wang know that they have to satisfy the laws of thermodynamics , which militate against functional folds by accident .
Sure enough , the paper has lovely equations .
But if the premise is wrong , equations only provide window dressing on a fake storefront .
Here is the weasel-like target sequence : Their “ principle of minimal frustration ” refers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is useful for analyzing proteins , but not for accounting how they became optimized .
The principle of minimal frustration has been fruitful in illustrating how the global pattern of interactions determines thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility of protein folding and binding .
The principle requires that energetic conflicts are minimized in folded native states , so that a sequence can spontaneously fold .
Because of the functional necessity , naturally occurring sequences are actually in the tradeoff for coding the capacity to simultaneously satisfy stable folding and functional binding .
From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proteins maintain a conserved network of minimally frustrated interactions at the hydrophobic core .
In contrast , highly frustrated interactions tend to be clustered on the surface , often near binding sites that become less frustrated upon binding .
A natural question is how the evolution sculpts the interaction patterns that conflict with the overall folding of minimal frustration but are specific for protein binding .
This principle is an ID principle : proteins are sculpted to have stable cores , but flexible surfaces .
They are optimized for this .
To make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s like saying , “ proteins must fulfill requirements for thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility ; therefore , evolution fulfilled these requirements.
” It ’ s like saying , “ We take minimal frustration to be a measure of fitness , and since natural selection always moves toward higher fitness , proteins evolved the observed optimization.
” How do they not recognize the circular reasoning here ?
They are following a principle of maximal frustration for critical thinkers !
It ’ s incredible that this kind of circular argument was published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Academy of Sciences and survived the editing scrutiny of David A. Weitz of Harvard .
Protein function is the ultimate goal of protein evolution via mutagenesis for survival .
This work has proposed and quantified the selection fitness of protein evolution with the principle of minimal frustration .
The selection fitness of thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility incorporates both folding and binding requirements .
Driven by the selection fitness , the evolution dynamics in sequence space can be depicted and visualized as a bowl-like energy landscape where the sequence space is increasingly reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bottom .
The evolved sequences located in the basin of the attractor faithfully reproduce the interaction patterns as those extracted from naturally occurring sequences… .
The consistency validates the principle of minimal frustration as the selection fitness of protein evolution .
To fulfill the folding and function , evolution sculpts the interaction patterns with the minimal-frustration principle to develop the hydrophobic core for folding and the coupling network for functional binding .
Comparing this to Dawkins Weaselology , this is like saying , “ The goal of sentences is to express meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolution dynamics guarantee that random letters will fall through a bowl-like semantics landscape where the randomness is reduced until a closed ring of meaningful sentences naturally occurs .
The fact that natural sentences convey meaning validates this principle .
Evolution sculpts meaning from random letters because it must , and lo and behold , it does.
” Aaagggh !
How does this notion pass peer review ?
To make their circularity seem practical , they show what else could be done by reasoning in a circle in the wide-angle view : The whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a useful idea !
This kind of reasoning is not limited to this paper .
Five authors , including Joseph W. Thornton ( whom Michael Behe says threw a “ monkey wrench ” into Darwinian evolution ) , wrote a preprint on bioRxiv with similar fallacies .
In “ Chance , contingency , and necessity in the experimental evolution of ancestral proteins , ” they assert that varieties of BCL-2 ( an anti-apoptosis protein ) arrived at their optimum fitness by convergent evolution , even though they recognize that there was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitability of chance and contingency in unguided natural processes : Once again , they treat natural selection as a sculptor with a guiding hand .
The constraints to get sequences that work must have chosen working products out of the vast sea of possibilities .
They evolved because they evolved .
They look designed , but the “ design principles ” are only apparent .
Dawkins would be pleased that his fallacy continues to be fruitful .
His critics worry about the overpopulation of weasels in science .
Hawks , flying overhead the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the creatures running in circles , make good weasel predators .

Photo: Douglas Axe.
Doug Axe showed that functional space is a tiny fraction of sequence space in proteins. Evolutionists think they found a shortcut as simple as dropping down a funnel. Proteins don’t have to search all of sequence space at random; a “ring attractor” pulls them down the thermodynamic funnel into functional glory land.
Richard Dawkins has been criticized for years now for his “Weasel” analogy (see Jonathan Witt’s critique). And yet the myth lives on. Miracles happen with the words, “It evolves!” while waving the magic wand, Natural Selection. Here’s a new instance involving protein folds.
“Methinks It Is Like a Weasel”
Dawkins’s main error was with setting a target sequence for random letters (the Hamlet sequence “Methinks it is like a weasel”), and then preserving the randomly changing letters that matched the target. Natural selection as Darwin envisioned it has no target sequence. Each step must be functional, or it is not selected. All the intermediate phrases in Dawkins’s computer simulation were gibberish. They had no function in language. They would never converge on the target phrase by unguided natural processes.
The same is true with random sequences of amino acids, called polypeptides. They have no function and are not called proteins or enzymes unless and until they fold into a functional shape. Before considering the following hypothesis by two chemists, remember that without guidance from genes, polypeptides fall into the vast neverland called “sequence space” where nothing happens (the amino acids, furthermore, must be left-handed, or homochiral). “Functional space” is but a tiny fraction of sequence space. Doug Axe discussed this in his book Undeniable, based on his own research at Cambridge. He experimentally determined how much change was necessary to break a functional protein with mutations. It led to his estimate that a random polypeptide 150 amino acids in length, which is modest for a protein, has only a 1 in 1074 chance of arriving at a functional fold. That probability drops to an impossible 1 in 10148 chance if the sequence must be homochiral, and even lower if the sequence also has to consist of only peptide bonds. In short, it would be a miracle.
A Shortcut to the Miraculous
In their paper in PNAS, “Funneled energy landscape unifies principles of protein binding and evolution,” Zhiqiang Yan and Jin Wang think they have found a shortcut to the miraculous. Natural selection will push the polypeptide down a thermodynamic funnel, like a golfer putting a ball into the cup. Why? Because, clearly, proteins “have evolved.” Anything that has evolved would have had the magic wand of natural selection to do the magic.
Most proteins have evolved to spontaneously fold into native structure and specifically bind with their partners for the purpose of fulfilling biological functions. According to Darwin, protein sequences evolve through random mutations, and only the fittest survives. The understanding of how the evolutionary selection sculpts the interaction patterns for both biomolecular folding and binding is still challenging. In this study, we incorporated the constraint of functional binding into the selection fitness based on the principle of minimal frustration for the underlying biomolecular interactions. Thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility were derived and quantified from a global funneled energy landscape that satisfies the requirements of both the folding into the stable structure and binding with the specific partner. The evolution proceeds via a bowl-like evolution energy landscape in the sequence space with a closed-ring attractor at the bottom. The sequence space is increasingly reduced until this ring attractor is reached. The molecular-interaction patterns responsible for folding and binding are identified from the evolved sequences, respectively. The residual positions participating in the interactions responsible for folding are highly conserved and maintain the hydrophobic core under additional evolutionary constraints of functional binding. The positions responsible for binding constitute a distributed network via coupling conservations that determine the specificity of binding with the partner. This work unifies the principles of protein binding and evolution under minimal frustration and sheds light on the evolutionary design of proteins for functions. [Emphasis added.]
Methinks these are weasel words. This is like the following syllogism. Major premise: Everything evolves by natural selection. Minor premise: Proteins occupy a tiny fraction of sequence space that permits folding and binding to specific partners. Conclusion: Natural selection pushed proteins to fulfill these constraints. Anything circular here? What if one does not accept the major premise?
To make their point, Yan and Wang know that they have to satisfy the laws of thermodynamics, which militate against functional folds by accident. Sure enough, the paper has lovely equations. But if the premise is wrong, equations only provide window dressing on a fake storefront. Here is the weasel-like target sequence:
To realize the principle of minimal frustration in protein evolution, one of the typical naturally occurring protein domains (WW domain) and its binding complex were chosen as the evolution model. WW domains preferably bind Pro-rich peptide. The native structure of the binding complex … was considered as the evolved and functional structures (SI Appendix, Fig. S2). The evolution simulation is to mimic how nature selects and optimizes the sequences of the WW domain, which can spontaneously fold and preferably bind to the specific Pro-rich peptide.
Their “principle of minimal frustration” refers to optimization of protein sequences. The principle is useful for analyzing proteins, but not for accounting how they became optimized.
The principle of minimal frustration has been fruitful in illustrating how the global pattern of interactions determines thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility of protein folding and binding. The principle requires that energetic conflicts are minimized in folded native states, so that a sequence can spontaneously fold. Because of the functional necessity, naturally occurring sequences are actually in the tradeoff for coding the capacity to simultaneously satisfy stable folding and functional binding. From the view of localized frustration, naturally occurring proteins maintain a conserved network of minimally frustrated interactions at the hydrophobic core. In contrast, highly frustrated interactions tend to be clustered on the surface, often near binding sites that become less frustrated upon binding. A natural question is how the evolution sculpts the interaction patterns that conflict with the overall folding of minimal frustration but are specific for protein binding.
An Intelligent Design Principle
This principle is an ID principle: proteins are sculpted to have stable cores, but flexible surfaces. They are optimized for this. To make evolution the sculptor begs the question. It’s like saying, “proteins must fulfill requirements for thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility; therefore, evolution fulfilled these requirements.” It’s like saying, “We take minimal frustration to be a measure of fitness, and since natural selection always moves toward higher fitness, proteins evolved the observed optimization.” How do they not recognize the circular reasoning here? They are following a principle of maximal frustration for critical thinkers! It’s incredible that this kind of circular argument was published in the premiere journal of the National Academy of Sciences and survived the editing scrutiny of David A. Weitz of Harvard.
Protein function is the ultimate goal of protein evolution via mutagenesis for survival. This work has proposed and quantified the selection fitness of protein evolution with the principle of minimal frustration. The selection fitness of thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility incorporates both folding and binding requirements. Driven by the selection fitness, the evolution dynamics in sequence space can be depicted and visualized as a bowl-like energy landscape where the sequence space is increasingly reduced until the closed-ring attractor is reached at the bottom. The evolved sequences located in the basin of the attractor faithfully reproduce the interaction patterns as those extracted from naturally occurring sequences…. The consistency validates the principle of minimal frustration as the selection fitness of protein evolution. To fulfill the folding and function, evolution sculpts the interaction patterns with the minimal-frustration principle to develop the hydrophobic core for folding and the coupling network for functional binding.
Comparing this to Dawkins Weaselology, this is like saying, “The goal of sentences is to express meaning. Driven by this selection fitness, evolution dynamics guarantee that random letters will fall through a bowl-like semantics landscape where the randomness is reduced until a closed ring of meaningful sentences naturally occurs. The fact that natural sentences convey meaning validates this principle. Evolution sculpts meaning from random letters because it must, and lo and behold, it does.” Aaagggh! How does this notion pass peer review?
Making Circularity Practical
To make their circularity seem practical, they show what else could be done by reasoning in a circle in the wide-angle view:
In addition, the evolution of a protein binding/assembling system generally involves the evolution of each binding/assembling partner. Therefore, the evolution of one partner is constrained or coupled to the evolution of its partners, i.e., coevolution of the partners, such as a toxin–antitoxin system. In this case, the selection fitness of protein evolution involves the constraints not only from its own folding and binding but also from those of its partners. The study of this more complex issue would bridge the evolution of a single protein to the evolution of a protein network.
The whole world is circular. Isn’t that a useful idea!
A Preprint with Similar Fallacies
This kind of reasoning is not limited to this paper. Five authors, including Joseph W. Thornton (whom Michael Behe says threw a “monkey wrench” into Darwinian evolution), wrote a preprint on bioRxiv with similar fallacies. In “Chance, contingency, and necessity in the experimental evolution of ancestral proteins,” they assert that varieties of BCL-2 (an anti-apoptosis protein) arrived at their optimum fitness by convergent evolution, even though they recognize that there was no way to expect that because of the inevitability of chance and contingency in unguided natural processes:
Finally, our observations suggest that the sequence-structure-function associations apparent in sequence alignments are, to a significant degree, the result of shared but contingent constraints that were produced by chance events during history. Present-day proteins are physical anecdotes of a particular history: they reflect the interaction of accumulated chance events during descent from common ancestors with necessity imposed by physics, chemistry and natural selection. Apparent “design principles” in extant or evolved proteins express not how things must be — or even how they would be best — but rather the contingent legacy of the constraints and opportunities that those molecules just happen to have inherited.
Once again, they treat natural selection as a sculptor with a guiding hand. The constraints to get sequences that work must have chosen working products out of the vast sea of possibilities. They evolved because they evolved. They look designed, but the “design principles” are only apparent.
Dawkins would be pleased that his fallacy continues to be fruitful. His critics worry about the overpopulation of weasels in science. Hawks, flying overhead the infested area, casting a wide view over the creatures running in circles, make good weasel predators.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-07--Michael Behe: Kafka in Dover, Pennsylvania

Biochemist Michael Behe had an online conversation recenty with computational biologist and ID critic Joshua Swamidass of Washington University .
It was moderated by host Pat Flynn .
You will enjoy Professor Behe ’ s merrily ironic pursed lips and dancing eyebrows as he awaits his turns .
They are almost as eloquent as Dr. Behe himself .
The introductory conversation is timely given current events , as the nation prepares to turn its eyes to the courts to adjudicate legal claims , in Pennsylvania and elsewhere , bearing on the recent election .
It is now 15 years since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that legal drama , a Federal judge in Harrisburg , PA , copied and pasted and claimed the right not just to read and decide the law but to rule on ultimate scientific questions .
As Behe notes , as a scientific arbiter , Judge Jones brought to bear his past experiences of an abortive political career in his state as well as heading up the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board .
Well , the distilling of spirits is a scientific process of sorts , is it not ?
Why should Jones not claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence for intelligent design holds up ?
That ’ s how surreal Dover was .
To understand his experience with the case , Dr. Behe recommends that viewers read the Franz Kafka novel The Trial .
As Behe says in his forthcoming book , A Mousetrap for Darwin , By the time the whole thing was finished I had a lot more sympathy for the protagonist of [ of the novel ] , and a much sharper understanding of the term Kafkaesque : “ Marked by surreal distortion.
” On reflection I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter what I said on the stand , nor what any of the other expert witnesses on either side said .
The outcome of the case was decided long before the trial began .
Behe concludes here , “ Courts are not good places to discuss ideas.
” Yet ID critics continue to cite the Dover case as scientific gospel .
Kafkaesque , indeed !
A Mousetrap for Darwin , out on November 18 , is available for preorder now in hardback , paperback , and Kindle versions .

Photo: Franz Kafka, via Wikimedia Commons.
Biochemist Michael Behe had an online conversation recenty with computational biologist and ID critic Joshua Swamidass of Washington University. It was moderated by host Pat Flynn. You will enjoy Professor Behe’s merrily ironic pursed lips and dancing eyebrows as he awaits his turns. They are almost as eloquent as Dr. Behe himself.
The introductory conversation is timely given current events, as the nation prepares to turn its eyes to the courts to adjudicate legal claims, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, bearing on the recent election. It is now 15 years since the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. In that legal drama, a Federal judge in Harrisburg, PA, copied and pasted and claimed the right not just to read and decide the law but to rule on ultimate scientific questions. As Behe notes, as a scientific arbiter, Judge Jones brought to bear his past experiences of an abortive political career in his state as well as heading up the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Well, the distilling of spirits is a scientific process of sorts, is it not? Why should Jones not claim the right to decide whether the scientific evidence for intelligent design holds up? That’s how surreal Dover was.
Watch the discussion here:
To understand his experience with the case, Dr. Behe recommends that viewers read the Franz Kafka novel The Trial. As Behe says in his forthcoming book, A Mousetrap for Darwin,
By the time the whole thing was finished I had a lot more sympathy for the protagonist of [the novel], and a much sharper understanding of the term Kafkaesque: “Marked by surreal distortion.” On reflection I’ve concluded that it pretty much didn’t matter what I said on the stand, nor what any of the other expert witnesses on either side said. The outcome of the case was decided long before the trial began.
Behe concludes here, “Courts are not good places to discuss ideas.” Yet ID critics continue to cite the Dover case as scientific gospel. Kafkaesque, indeed! A Mousetrap for Darwin, out on November 18, is available for preorder now in hardback, paperback, and Kindle versions.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-09--What Makes Humans Unique, and Why It Matters

On a classic episode of ID the Future , bioethicist Wesley J. Smith discusses his book The War on Humans @ @ @ @ @ documentary film .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Smith discusses what @ @ @ @ @ creatures of the earth , and why it matters : “ Universal human rights are @ @ @ @ @ dignity of human life is at stake .
The understanding of our unique place in @ @ @ @ @ terms of our value and in terms of obligation , they are at stake.
” @ @ @ @ @ information about the digital book and the documentary , visit waronhumans.com .

Image: Screenshot from The War on Humans, via Discovery Institute.
On a classic episode of ID the Future, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith discusses his book The War on Humans, also adapted as a documentary film. Download the podcast or listen to it here. Smith discusses what makes humans unique among the creatures of the earth, and why it matters: “Universal human rights are at stake. The intrinsic dignity of human life is at stake. The understanding of our unique place in the world, both in terms of our value and in terms of obligation, they are at stake.” Listen in. For more information about the digital book and the documentary, visit waronhumans.com.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-10--As Science Frauds Go, Haeckel Beats Piltdown Man

Ecologist Jeremy Fox at the University of Calgary offers a list of scientific frauds , with Piltdown Man at the top of the list .
Writing at his blog Dynamic Ecology , he remarks , “ Gon na be hard to top this one , I think.
” Is it ?
From , “ What ’ s the ‘ greatest ’ scientific fraud of all time ?
” Charles Dawson ( it almost certainly was him ) faked actual fossils rather than , say , numbers in a spreadsheet .
Although he didn ’ t fool everyone , he fooled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading paleontologists of the day ) to appreciably influence research on human evolution .
The fraud wasn ’ t definitively exposed until more than 40 years had passed .
By way of comparison , think of the fake “ Archaeoraptor ” fossil from a few years ago — it only fooled a fossil collector and a few people associated with National Geographic , and was exposed within weeks .
I can top that .
Sure , 40 years is a long time but it is a lot less than 140 years or so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraudulent embryo illustrations have been in circulation a good century longer than Piltdown was , last time we checked .
Despite being exposed prominently by Jonathan Wells in Icons of Evolution ( 2000 ) , they continued to be featured in biology textbooks as recently as 2016 .
Evolution News compiled an extensive list of textbooks in 2015 and Dr. Wells reported again in Zombie Science ( 2017 ) .
For reference , the illustration below is from 1874 .
What ’ s striking , as we have said , is that variations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used just to provide historical background but as representing scientific evidence , suitable for students learning about the theory of evolution .
Our list — see “ Haeckel ’ s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks ” — included textbooks that : ( 1 ) Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel ’ s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel ’ s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos ; ( 2 ) Have used these drawings as evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking ; ( 3 ) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos , which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel , even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel ’ s false “ recapitulation ” theory .
They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry .
Piltdown Man may have “ appreciably influence [ d ] research on human evolution ” but Haeckel ’ s illustrations have influenced countless students who assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were looking at was genuine evidence for Darwinian evolution .
Piltdown Man is a historical curiosity .
Haeckel continues to resound in our minds today .

Image: Examining Piltdown Man, by John Cooke, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Ecologist Jeremy Fox at the University of Calgary offers a list of scientific frauds, with Piltdown Man at the top of the list. Writing at his blog Dynamic Ecology, he remarks, “Gonna be hard to top this one, I think.” Is it? From, “What’s the ‘greatest’ scientific fraud of all time?”
Charles Dawson (it almost certainly was him) faked actual fossils rather than, say, numbers in a spreadsheet. Although he didn’t fool everyone, he fooled enough people (including some of the leading paleontologists of the day) to appreciably influence research on human evolution. The fraud wasn’t definitively exposed until more than 40 years had passed. By way of comparison, think of the fake “Archaeoraptor” fossil from a few years ago — it only fooled a fossil collector and a few people associated with National Geographic, and was exposed within weeks.
I can top that. Sure, 40 years is a long time but it is a lot less than 140 years or so. Ernst Haeckel’s famous and fraudulent embryo illustrations have been in circulation a good century longer than Piltdown was, last time we checked. Despite being exposed prominently by Jonathan Wells in Icons of Evolution (2000), they continued to be featured in biology textbooks as recently as 2016. Evolution News compiled an extensive list of textbooks in 2015 and Dr. Wells reported again in Zombie Science (2017). For reference, the illustration below is from 1874.
What’s striking, as we have said, is that variations on the Haeckel drawings were not being used just to provide historical background but as representing scientific evidence, suitable for students learning about the theory of evolution. Our list — see “Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks” — included textbooks that:
(1) Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos; (2) Have used these drawings as evidence for current evolutionary theory and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking; (3) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel, even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.
Piltdown Man may have “appreciably influence[d] research on human evolution” but Haeckel’s illustrations have influenced countless students who assumed, innocently but falsely, that what they were looking at was genuine evidence for Darwinian evolution. Piltdown Man is a historical curiosity. Haeckel continues to resound in our minds today.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-09--John Lennox: Scientific Evidence for a Design Behind the Universe

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , in theaters across the country on November 19 , 20 , and 23 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Looking forward to the documentary ’ s release , Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
Your case for theism shares much common ground with the thinking of those who advocate for the theory of intelligent design .
( See the Evolution News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Six.
” ) What do you make of the arguments for design in biology articulated by Stephen Meyer , William Dembski , Douglas Axe , and others ?
Well , I know all these people of course and regard them very highly for what they ’ ve done .
But the trouble here is that the very words “ intelligent design ” or ID mean so many different things to different people .
They ’ re trigger words .
I would prefer to approach this question by answering directly from my own perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to mean , although there ’ s a huge argument about it .
The idea is very simple .
It is “ Is there any rational scientific evidence to make you think that there could be a mind behind the universe ?
” Now that ’ s a hugely ancient idea .
That is not a recent notion .
And of course , it ’ s central to the biblical revelation .
“ In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ my fundamental conviction is that there is a mind behind the universe .
It is the mind of God .
And I go beyond that as a scientist .
I believe that science shows real evidence in what we call the natural world that there is a designing intelligence behind it .
The very fact that I am a mathematician , the very fact that we can understand the universe in terms of mathematics , is one of the first evidences of this .
And you see , the early pioneers of modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science ?
Because they believed in a creator .
I look at science in the modern sense as the gift of Christianity and Judaism in that sense .
So , I ’ m not the slightest bit embarrassed being a Christian and a scientist .
Putting it the other way around , I believe that Christianity gave me my subject .
Now specifically , the notions of design in physics first of all , and then subsequently in biology and all the debates about this , I was introduced to this at school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these things for a very long time .
And , of course it was very nice later in life to meet some of these much younger people who were beginning to see the things that I learned many years before .
I came across it in my last couple of years at school… , so I was thinking about this , talking about it , and building on in for many , many years .
These arguments are very important and in fact , I wrote a book about ten years ago on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Undertaker : Has Science Buried God ?
But I ’ m doing a massive revision of that book and I think it will probably be called Has Science Buried God ?
as its main title .
But it will be much bigger than the original version if I can get away with it and it will be entering into a lot of the more recent arguments in this area from various aspects of science .
So , to sum that up , I ’ m simply convinced that the universe it not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we look at nature , we can see two things .
God ’ s everlasting power and Godhead , which I take to mean that there is a God .
You can perceive as you look at the world that there is a God behind it .
And so , I greatly respect other people who , sometimes at great risk to their academic reputation , have decided that they are going to say these kinds of things in public .

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, in theaters across the country on November 19, 20, and 23. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Looking forward to the documentary’s release, Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News.
Your case for theism shares much common ground with the thinking of those who advocate for the theory of intelligent design. (See the Evolution News series “Intelligent Design’s Top Six.”) What do you make of the arguments for design in biology articulated by Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Axe, and others?
Well, I know all these people of course and regard them very highly for what they’ve done. But the trouble here is that the very words “intelligent design” or ID mean so many different things to different people. They’re trigger words. I would prefer to approach this question by answering directly from my own perspective — what I understand the idea behind it to mean, although there’s a huge argument about it.
The idea is very simple. It is “Is there any rational scientific evidence to make you think that there could be a mind behind the universe?” Now that’s a hugely ancient idea. That is not a recent notion. And of course, it’s central to the biblical revelation. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” So, as a Christian, my fundamental conviction is that there is a mind behind the universe. It is the mind of God. And I go beyond that as a scientist. I believe that science shows real evidence in what we call the natural world that there is a designing intelligence behind it.
The very fact that I am a mathematician, the very fact that we can understand the universe in terms of mathematics, is one of the first evidences of this. And you see, the early pioneers of modern science — why did they do their science? Because they believed in a creator. I look at science in the modern sense as the gift of Christianity and Judaism in that sense. So, I’m not the slightest bit embarrassed being a Christian and a scientist. Putting it the other way around, I believe that Christianity gave me my subject.
Now specifically, the notions of design in physics first of all, and then subsequently in biology and all the debates about this, I was introduced to this at school. I’ve been thinking about these things for a very long time. And, of course it was very nice later in life to meet some of these much younger people who were beginning to see the things that I learned many years before. I came across it in my last couple of years at school…, so I was thinking about this, talking about it, and building on in for many, many years.
These arguments are very important and in fact, I wrote a book about ten years ago on [the subject] called God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? But I’m doing a massive revision of that book and I think it will probably be called Has Science Buried God? as its main title. But it will be much bigger than the original version if I can get away with it and it will be entering into a lot of the more recent arguments in this area from various aspects of science.
So, to sum that up, I’m simply convinced that the universe it not neutral, as Paul said. As we look at nature, we can see two things. God’s everlasting power and Godhead, which I take to mean that there is a God. You can perceive as you look at the world that there is a God behind it. And so, I greatly respect other people who, sometimes at great risk to their academic reputation, have decided that they are going to say these kinds of things in public.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-09--Do Origin-of-Life Researchers Now Accept Intelligent Design?

Natural processes without external assistance could never explain the origin of the first cell , and researchers have increasingly come to realize this .
A cell ’ s genesis faces two monumental challenges .
First , it requires a chemical system to transition into a state of much higher free energy : higher energy and lower entropy ( higher order ) .
Such a transformation , without aid , violates the most fundamental laws of physics ( here , here ) .
Origins researchers have attempted to identify a natural process that could supply the required free energy to power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular proposal is proton gradients across alkaline thermal vents .
I described in my exchange with Jeremy England why this source could never provide even the tiniest amount of the required energy .
Another proposal by biophysicist Helen Hansma is that mica sheets embedded in rock in the ocean floor or in other environments could have provided mechanical energy to drive life-relevant chemical reactions uphill .
In my exchange with her , I demonstrated that neither her model nor any other fared any better than the hydrothermal vents ( here , here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even the simplest of cells represents a highly improbable arrangement of molecules that must meet the exacting requirements of information-directed self-replication ( here , here ) .
Leading researchers intuitively recognize that only an intelligent agent could accomplish the goals of meeting these requirements .
Yet , many are not willing to consider such a possibility , so they smuggle agency into their models in the guise of natural selection .
This trend goes all the way back to Ronald Fisher who was one of the principle founders of population genetics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ processes always move systems , if heat is not released , in a direction where the entropy increases , which corresponds to states of higher probability .
As a crude illustration , a neat room will tend to become messy because an arrangement of items corresponding to a messy room is far more probable than to a neat room .
The logic of Darwinian evolution is that natural selection can override the thermodynamics by directing a self-replicating entity toward a state of low probability .
Elbert Branscomb and Michael Russell are two architects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they describe their invoking of natural selection in a two-part article using the most striking of terms .
In the first part , they list in their key requirements of life a molecular engine to drive processes energetically uphill and dedicated molecular machines to manage even downhill processes , In the second part , Branscomb and Russell state that life ’ s origin likewise depends on engines and the direction of highly specified reactions .
They acknowledge that such a system could never have emerged through standard chemistry : Rather , they assert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural selection : Instead , we claim , it had to have been launched simple and “ specific ” and thereafter have been forced by the scythe of natural selection to maintain the necessary specificity standard at each evolutionary increment in complexity .
More specifically , all the devices of life , metabolic and structural , must have been invented by it , “ in situ , ” step by step , and “ while in flight , ” starting from the simplest possible inputs ( e.g.
, CO2 , H2 , CH4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) and “ learning itself , ” by trial and error , which small changes , themselves occurring by chance , were useful : each incremental step in this “ evolution by creeps , ” complexity-building process necessarily being vetted by the system both for “ fitting in ” and for “ contributing ” more utility than cost .
The obvious problem is that nothing is reproducing , so natural selection could never have commenced .
The authors are appealing not to a real physical process but to an entity that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial and error , and vet for “ fitting in ” and usefulness .
The only entity with such capacities is an intelligent designer .
Other origins researchers have attempted to apply natural selection to autocatalytic reactions , which are sets of interconnected chemical reactions that become self-sustaining .
I explained in my exchange with Hansma why such a system would always move away from life , never towards it .
Leaders in origins research such as Leslie Orgel have even described origin-of-life models based on such reaction sets as appealing to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemistry ” ( here , here ) .
As another example , the RNA world hypothesis presupposes self-replicating RNAs or autocatalytic sets of RNAs replicating each other , and natural selection is purported to direct the RNAs evolution into complex folded structures that drive life-relevant reactions .
Yet , even if the undirected synthesis of RNA were not completely implausible ( here , here , here ) , the RNAs that would quickly dominate in any evolutionary scenario would be those that were smaller and simply replicated the fastest , performing no other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that folded into the type of structures that could potentially assist in life ’ s origin would replicate most slowly and quickly disappear from the population ( here , here ) .
Research that suggests otherwise invariably imposes highly unrealistic assumptions on computational models , or it centers on experiments that require enormous investigator intervention ( here , here ) and at times conditions , such as high heat , that quickly degrade RNA and its building blocks ( here , here ) .
Investigators increasingly recognize that origins models based on sets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or replicating RNAs ( RNA world hypothesis ) are hopelessly implausible .
They instead propose that evolving RNAs selected sets of chemical reactions that favored life , and those reaction sets selected RNAs that assisted in properly directing life-relevant reactions ( here , here ) .
For instance , evolutionary theorist John Stewart proposes that RNAs were selected that created a set of chemical reactions that coalesced into a functional metabolism : Stewart then describes the powers of these RNAs : At some point the thoughtful reader must ask whether an RNA molecule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free-riders , support co-operators , and act in its own self-interest .
In reality , a collection of RNAs released into an alkaline vent , primordial pool , or any other realistic environment would simply break apart .
Again , the only agent with such capacities is an intelligent designer .
As our understanding of cellular biology increases , researchers continuously find that the only framework capable of understanding life ’ s origin is design-based , and they increasingly have to smuggle design into their research hidden in the language of natural selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , larger numbers of careful readers will see the true source of the creative power behind life .

Photo credit: Michal Jarmoluk via Pixabay.
Natural processes without external assistance could never explain the origin of the first cell, and researchers have increasingly come to realize this. A cell’s genesis faces two monumental challenges. First, it requires a chemical system to transition into a state of much higher free energy: higher energy and lower entropy (higher order). Such a transformation, without aid, violates the most fundamental laws of physics (here, here).
Origins researchers have attempted to identify a natural process that could supply the required free energy to power the transformation to life. The most popular proposal is proton gradients across alkaline thermal vents. I described in my exchange with Jeremy England why this source could never provide even the tiniest amount of the required energy. Another proposal by biophysicist Helen Hansma is that mica sheets embedded in rock in the ocean floor or in other environments could have provided mechanical energy to drive life-relevant chemical reactions uphill. In my exchange with her, I demonstrated that neither her model nor any other fared any better than the hydrothermal vents (here, here, here).
The second challenge is that even the simplest of cells represents a highly improbable arrangement of molecules that must meet the exacting requirements of information-directed self-replication (here, here). Leading researchers intuitively recognize that only an intelligent agent could accomplish the goals of meeting these requirements. Yet, many are not willing to consider such a possibility, so they smuggle agency into their models in the guise of natural selection.
Back to Ronald Fisher
This trend goes all the way back to Ronald Fisher who was one of the principle founders of population genetics. He stated,
It was Darwin’s chief contribution, not only to Biology but to the whole of natural science, to have brought to light a process by which contingencies a priori improbable are given, in the process of time, an increasing probability, until it is their non-occurrence, rather than their occurrence, which becomes highly improbable.
Thermodynamics dictates that natural processes always move systems, if heat is not released, in a direction where the entropy increases, which corresponds to states of higher probability. As a crude illustration, a neat room will tend to become messy because an arrangement of items corresponding to a messy room is far more probable than to a neat room. The logic of Darwinian evolution is that natural selection can override the thermodynamics by directing a self-replicating entity toward a state of low probability.
Elbert Branscomb and Michael Russell are two architects of the hydrothermal vent model, and they describe their invoking of natural selection in a two-part article using the most striking of terms. In the first part, they list in their key requirements of life a molecular engine to drive processes energetically uphill and dedicated molecular machines to manage even downhill processes,
But even those of life’s molecular transformations that do run downhill have to be taken out of chemistry’s hands and “managed” by a dedicated macromolecular machine — in order to impose conditionally manipulable control over reaction rates and to exclude undesirable reactions, both as to reactants and products. On its own, chemistry is far too indiscriminate and uncontrollable.
In the second part, Branscomb and Russell state that life’s origin likewise depends on engines and the direction of highly specified reactions. They acknowledge that such a system could never have emerged through standard chemistry:
We claim in particular that it is untenable to hold that life-relevant biochemistry could have emerged in the chemical chaos produced by mass-action chemistry and chemically nonspecific “energy” inputs, and only later have evolved its dauntingly specific mechanisms (as a part of evolving all the rest of life’s features).
Rather, they assert that the first cell was engineered through natural selection:
Instead, we claim, it had to have been launched simple and “specific” and thereafter have been forced by the scythe of natural selection to maintain the necessary specificity standard at each evolutionary increment in complexity. More specifically, all the devices of life, metabolic and structural, must have been invented by it, “in situ,” step by step, and “while in flight,” starting from the simplest possible inputs (e.g., CO2, H2, CH4, NO, etc. see Figure 1) and “learning itself,” by trial and error, which small changes, themselves occurring by chance, were useful: each incremental step in this “evolution by creeps,” complexity-building process necessarily being vetted by the system both for “fitting in” and for “contributing” more utility than cost.
Nothing Is Reproducing
The obvious problem is that nothing is reproducing, so natural selection could never have commenced. The authors are appealing not to a real physical process but to an entity that can maintain standards, invent, learn by trial and error, and vet for “fitting in” and usefulness. The only entity with such capacities is an intelligent designer.
Other origins researchers have attempted to apply natural selection to autocatalytic reactions, which are sets of interconnected chemical reactions that become self-sustaining. I explained in my exchange with Hansma why such a system would always move away from life, never towards it. Leaders in origins research such as Leslie Orgel have even described origin-of-life models based on such reaction sets as appealing to “‘if pigs could fly’ hypothetical chemistry” (here, here).
The RNA World Hypothesis
As another example, the RNA world hypothesis presupposes self-replicating RNAs or autocatalytic sets of RNAs replicating each other, and natural selection is purported to direct the RNAs evolution into complex folded structures that drive life-relevant reactions. Yet, even if the undirected synthesis of RNA were not completely implausible (here, here, here), the RNAs that would quickly dominate in any evolutionary scenario would be those that were smaller and simply replicated the fastest, performing no other useful functions. Conversely, those RNAs that folded into the type of structures that could potentially assist in life’s origin would replicate most slowly and quickly disappear from the population (here, here). Research that suggests otherwise invariably imposes highly unrealistic assumptions on computational models, or it centers on experiments that require enormous investigator intervention (here, here) and at times conditions, such as high heat, that quickly degrade RNA and its building blocks (here, here).
Investigators increasingly recognize that origins models based on sets of autocatalytic reactions (metabolism-first hypothesis) or replicating RNAs (RNA world hypothesis) are hopelessly implausible. They instead propose that evolving RNAs selected sets of chemical reactions that favored life, and those reaction sets selected RNAs that assisted in properly directing life-relevant reactions (here, here). For instance, evolutionary theorist John Stewart proposes that RNAs were selected that created a set of chemical reactions that coalesced into a functional metabolism:
The managed-metabolism hypothesis suggests that RNA which could harvest an on-going stream of benefits from a particular proto-metabolism could do better in some circumstances than RNA that plundered and moved on. Importantly, this stream of benefits could be greatly enhanced if the RNA used its power to overcome the cooperation barrier, thereby increase the productivity of the proto-metabolism. In this way, selection operating on the RNA could favour the emergence of managers that ‘farm’ a metabolism and use their power to enhance its productivity.
Stewart then describes the powers of these RNAs:
Just as powerful governance is essential if complex social and economic systems are to emerge, powerful RNA was essential to enable simple chemical organizations to evolve into complex, cooperative metabolisms. RNA achieved this by suppressing the free-riders that would otherwise undermine complex cooperation, and by supporting co-operators to ensure cooperation paid. It was in the evolutionary interests of RNA to govern metabolisms in this way because it could capture some of the increased productivity that was produced by its governance. The rest is evolution.
At some point the thoughtful reader must ask whether an RNA molecule could possibly govern chemical reactions, suppress free-riders, support co-operators, and act in its own self-interest. In reality, a collection of RNAs released into an alkaline vent, primordial pool, or any other realistic environment would simply break apart. Again, the only agent with such capacities is an intelligent designer. As our understanding of cellular biology increases, researchers continuously find that the only framework capable of understanding life’s origin is design-based, and they increasingly have to smuggle design into their research hidden in the language of natural selection, evolution, and self-organization. With time, larger numbers of careful readers will see the true source of the creative power behind life.