The Origin of Life
There are a number of essential but unanswered questions about the Origin of Life that have not been answered, and which science does not answer but simply rejects.
Evolution is post-origin. Evolution can be defined as: Going from a simple cell to a complex organism. Darwinism is based on the overall assumption that the development from single-celled organisms to a human is one long chain reaction of mistakes = mutations. Nature and the Universe run without a control system and purpose like one big randomized machine. Already here things go wrong, because a machine is not random, someone has constructed it so that it can subsequently run itself. Until it breaks down.
For science, the universe/nature is like a train heading towards the abyss or the final station, but there is no driver. If there is no driver in the driver’s seat, then the driver of the train must be sitting somewhere else, right?
Science can hardly be called science without being able to recreate it in a laboratory. There is certainly something called theoretical physics that never sets foot in a laboratory. This ‘something’ is mainly managed by mathematicians, who also never get their hands dirty in laboratories, unless they redefine the concept of ‘laboratory’ to include their abstract-theoretical discussions as a laboratory. But a living cell = the first cell has NEVER been recreated in a laboratory. Molecules can be produced via organic chemistry, a cell is already extremely complex in its singular form. It is much more than a blob of protoplasm. It is a universe in itself with an advanced hierarchical cooperation system.
Science is like a computer. They have lots of hardware but lack software. They can artificially produce components for the cell, but the complex strings that make these components operate in the cell are impossible to produce, and no one has ever done so, because the code is missing. Cell research is becoming more and more complex as time goes on. Not because the cell is becoming more complex, but because the recognition of complexity is growing in step with research.
Chemist Dr. James Tour points out this obvious lack of scientific ability. As he says, his curiosity is not him seeing something that no one else can see, but him asking about something that everyone can see and that everyone refuses to take a position on. Scientists says they understand it, but when asked more closely, their explanations fall apart – so they don’t understand it. They are bluffing. They do it because they want to keep their reputation. Secondly, they want to keep their jobs, and because they know what can happen if they question the scientific dogma that hangs like a heavy cloud over their field of expertise a little too directly.
It is worth remembering that Darwin called his famous book The Origin of Species… – not The Origins of Life. ‘Origins’ is therefore a slur, because it is about the development of something that came after the origin. When science is questioned about their lack of ability to explain the origin and their ability to experimentally recreate it in the laboratory, they like to pull the God card. As James Tour describes: He never mentions God in the scientific discussions he gets into with assertive colleagues – THEY mention God when they feel pressured: Just because we don’t understand it, you can’t just fill God in the gap (God in the Gap*) To which he replies: We don’t need God to explain this, so how about we keep God out. So it is the assertive and pressured colleagues who need God as a shortcut to indulge in rejection. Well, so you are probably one of those who… Or they use the expression: Well then you are a creationist. There is a piece of revealing psychology in this. They are too cowardly to stand toe-to-toe and argue scientifically with people they give this label: creationist. In their obsession with labels they betray themselves when they fall into character assassination and run away. They are irresponsible in the true sense of the word. They do not submit to the obligation of having to answer for themselves with solid arguments when asked about what they themselves have said.
* Physics has its own special way of sneaking God-in-the-Gap in. They call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy. 99.9…% of the Universe cannot be immediately accounted for, it has apparently disappeared, so we have made a big trash can to throw it in. Just say the name: dark matter…
What’s worse: It’s completely unnecessary and even self-destructive with all the cowardly arrogance. It would be totally liberating with a blank admission of the lack of knowledge and understanding of this fundamental problem: the Origin of Life. It would give much more respect externally in the slightly longer term, not just playing in the short term in an overall recognition of how little they/we know and can do. And internally it would give liberating permission to follow new paths, launch new experiments and formulate new hypotheses without constantly having to look nervously over the shoulders and feel ashamed. It would remove collegial paranoia, and it would remove the element of lurking terror from science.
Terror, you said, that’s a strong expression!
Nevertheless, that’s what it’s about. They are like sheep suffering from the horror built-in to the profession: to get away from the herd, the herd without which they cannot survive. And the herd + its supervisors consciously play on that. There is an almost eerie degree of self-censorship among scientists.
The scientific mavericks – and they have always existed, fortunately – have always been maligned or ignored. What about the four stages towards recognition:
First they are ignored.
Then they are ridiculed.
Then they are hatefully attacked.
Finally they are proclaimed a genius.
The latter often happens after the proclaimed genius is long dead and gone. The genius was, as they like to say, ahead of his time. But is that really the case? Wasn’t the genius right in the middle of his time, when this brilliant discovery was about to break out? After which a certain malicious mechanism kicked in. The problem with ignoring is that you become an ignoramus.
In cell biology and biochemistry, the first problem is: how do you connect amino acids into polypeptides, which form the majority of proteins and enzymes? You ate eggs and bacon this morning, how do they become part of your body? The answer: Enzymes take them apart and put them back together. Can this complex process be recreated?
The next problem is: How does nucleic acid go about forming RNA? If it were to happen, there would only be four hours to realize it, so the answer that nature has had four+ billion years to do it is also four billion x 6 PROBLEMS! Biochemists know that time is the enemy, because the time frame to succeed in the imitation of creation in small pieces is very short. Scientists like to say that time will sort it out, and as long as there is enough time, the miracle will happen. It is the Darwinian concept that nature must spend a lot of time on clueless trial-and-error and trial-and-error over and over again, because one day or another, the natural mess randomly gets it right – and then indecisive nature decides to take it from there – as if nature, which is appointed to be unconscious, can consciously decide on anything. The opposite is true, because time does not heal all wounds here, time hurts.
1/3 of people surveyed believe that science has recreated life in the laboratory. They believe that they have created little frogs artificially. Absolutely wrong. Science has not created a single cell at this point. They have stolen and borrowed from nature and manipulated it, after which they have suggested that they came up with it themselves. But they have cheated, and their suggestions remain suggestions and cannot be made into a requirement.
In everything from school books for children to advanced textbooks at universities, we find the description of the Origin of Life as some puddle of water in the primordial soup, where various molecules were, after which some lightning strike arrived and KAPLOOF! the molecules formed in a randomized-molecular-miraculous way a primitive cell, which over time – there it was again – transmogrified into a less primitive cell, which kaploofed into multicellular structures, etc. we know the whole description. We buy the lightning bolt hypothesis because it sounds a lot like: And God said, Let there be light, and immediately there was light. This is a paradox, but we buy it because the science here conveys itself in a language that is similar to the language of the biblical creation account, and because this compelling language evokes faith. The lightning bolt = The Big Bang = Let there be light (Fiat Lux) = physics and chemistry became life, and that is true.
In other words, the main dogma here is: Life can arise from Non-Life. To be able to say that, you have to take your mouth full. Biochemistry has not come closer to recreating life since the Miller-Urey experiment 70 years ago, where they energized liquids with micromolecules of hydrogen cyanide, ammonium, carbon dioxide and other gases, after which you could see developments in amino acids and people said that NOW we were on the verge of being able to recreate life in the laboratory. Macromolecules are still out of reach. Harold Urey received the Nobel Prize in 1934, and Stanley Miller was nominated several times, but not since 1952, when they did their experiment, has a Nobel Prize been awarded for contributions to the understanding of the Origin of Life, which is for a reason: the understanding does not exist. Chemistry-Biology and Medicine are awarded Nobel Prizes 6 times a year, and no prizes have been related to this subject for 70 years.
The honorable and responsible scientist would say without blushing, being ashamed or looking over his shoulder: We simply do not know where Life comes from. And then humbly take it from there. But the malicious mechanism as mentioned above that sets in has to do with consensus. Science is contaminated with consensus. It is strange, because isn’t consensus something that happens in politics or in social life? Isn’t science about permitted and constructive dis-consensus? That is, the right, indeed the obligation, to constructive disagreement and doubt, if there is even a hint of reason to doubt the durability of a theory formation and in particular: what is proclaimed to be post-theoretically proven-factual?
It is all a bending of degrees. We must assume that actual consensus should be possible when there is no longer anything to argue about. But a culture of consensus has crept in, which is exposed to a degree of bending that is historically unheard of. Consensus is now expected on demand.
Science can be politicized, industrialized, commercialized, financialized, ideologized, militarized, psychologized, sociologized, institutionalized, and theologized. And corrupted.
Scientific committees can state that all their members support the Darwinian model = therefore it must be the right and true one. This is because they are self-selecting and do not let in anyone but those who profess this model. This is what you in logics would call a circular argument. They have created a revolving door, a closed loop, an echo chamber of self-confirmation that maintains the scientific filter and its artificial consensus.
Hmm, can one afford to criticize untenable scientific models before one has a fully developed model to replace them?
YES! is the answer. Science does not work in such a way that if one cannot replace something else, one has nothing to say. FIRST one has to point out the weaknesses and shoot them down. THEN a replacement has to be developed that is better and more durable than the one shot down. Science is a multi-stage rocket. You don’t sit on one side with your hands in your lap and wait for something more positive to arrive before you shoot the negative down. Criticism always starts from something that is criticizable. On the other side, you don’t sit with a critical attitude with your hands in your lap and wait for someone/something to follow up on the criticism. It takes place in the middle field of mutual active responsibility. This is – or should be – the scientific dynamic.
What happened during the Covid period during Operation Shutdown has done immeasurable damage to trust in science. People saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears how science prostituted itself. They saw how science became the extended arm of spineless politicization and commercialization. Commercialized politics or politicized commerce has a name. It is called fascism. And although people may not be ready to use the name, something is rotten in the state of … It has almost gotten to the point that if science says such-and-such in the media, it is probably because they are lying. The media or science? Both. It is sad. But science itself has unfortunately been participating actively. Science as an overarching institution has played the ugly game, even though many scientists have had a bad time with it. The overarching scientific institution has calculated far too confidently with its grip on the individual scientist and woman without taking them under oath. Controllers do not take people under oath, they just control.
Invitation
Let’s ask the 1000 $ question:
Should God be kept out of any talk about science at all?
How about modifying the question to:
What could happen if you invited God in for a talk?
What does it mean, by the way: to invite in?
That is, to adopt an overall constructive and expanded-expanding point of view.
Not, as one might think, a limiting point of view.
God is the totality, the Source. Everything is possible. How can Everything Possible be a limitation?
If Everything is possible, it is no longer necessary to limit reality to a material reality.
With an expanded reality, simultaneity is a possibility, whereby time as we think we know it becomes irrelevant.
Question for quantum physicists and parallel-universe cosmologists: Isn’t that what you’ve been talking about all along? What if your speculative-abstract theories became real?
The Empire of Envy has never been comfortable with anything bigger than their own idea of themselves. But isn’t God better than making-themselves-God?
Darwin had no problem with God, because he always traveled around with a Bible in his bag. Darwinists have a problem with God, because in that case the Universe is bigger than … them. And what is worse: the Universe/Multiverse is intelligent and not mechanistic, deterministic nor random. It is governed by will and purpose, there is Something/Someone that governs it. Even Einstein had to say that: God does not play dice.
By inviting God into science, the following can happen:
science’s pruning of itself is pruned
the field of possibilities is expanded to the previously impossible
faith-hope-and-love can be recreated as principles in science as well
Here it is important to understand or remember that religion as an institution, which has taken the patent on talking about God = totality = the Universe = the Source, has done the same as science: to prune, to restrict the possibilities, to destroy faith-hope-and-love.
Guilt-shame-and-fear became the institution’s main concern instead.
The institution became the highest authority.
Control and supremacy became the goal, liberation and self-government became suspect.
Inviting God in does not mean inviting the restrictive-controlling institution called religion in. It means inviting the unlimited field that should be the religious institution’s best concern in. Physicist Werner Heissenberg, who won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1932 for inventing quantum physics, put it this way:
The first sip from the glass of science will make you an atheist.
But at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.
Darwin knew almost nothing about cells. There were no microscopes in his time that could see them. To him, they were little lumps of jelly that might have bubbled up from the bottom of the ocean. But our modern look into the cell shows that it is definitely not a lump of jelly but rather can be compared to an entire city. In this fully equipped micro-city, there are all sorts of automated processes that run like little machines, if you will. This is where Darwin’s evolutionary model breaks down, because all these little machines require full simultaneous functionality to run this micro-society. The great organic system we call Nature is not some crazy sequence that brings together all conceivable and unimaginable forms of machines and functions that are not currently working but on the other hand do no harm so that one day you can take them all off the shelf in the warehouse and find that now there was a fully functional micro-society. For complex machines to work, they have to be complete, not just-and-almost-sort-of. Darwin’s model assumes a slow build-up over time of sort-of followed by sort-of-sort-of, which one day happens to hit the mark, like a monkey with a typewriter, after 12 million attempts it comes to writing a complete sentence, which finally releases a banana – we ignore here that it has long since died of starvation.
The concept of irreducible complexity describes it: something cannot be reduced without it ceasing to function. A gradual build-up of full complexity offers no advantage by adding one element at a time, so natural selection has nothing to select. This presents Darwinists with a problem. They have settled on a model put forward by a man who did not have the tools to understand his own model. Complex structures require the concept of complexity to be fully in place before components can be created and assembled. This requires an agent, a comprehending (concept) and acting entity with a plan.
And here comes the interesting part. Darwin knew this well, and he actually said it himself:
If it could be shown that there existed any organ of such complexity that it could not possibly have been produced by numerous and successive modifications, my theory would break down completely.
This is of course clever, because Darwin thereby shifts the burden of proof to the critics and suggests that of course it will not happen. It is pseudo-honesty. But it is also a dramatic statement, because if Darwin had lived today, he would have had to scrap his own theory. The biochemist Michael Behe asks: Are there these irreducibly complex processes in the cell that could not possibly have been created by numerous and successive modifications? And he answers: There are many!
The Darwinists ran with the ball without looking back, and now they are sitting somewhere on the field, clinging to the ball. Both teammates and opponents are lined up and say: Come on, play the ball on! They don’t, and they are still sitting there when the lights go out in the stadium that evening. Are they still sitting there, having turned into mummies, when the field is to be used the next day?
The irreducible complexity in a cell requires a genetic code. The human genome is a piece of linguistics, the world’s longest word – In the beginning was the Word, and where was it now, that the Word was in the beginning? Linguistics is an intelligent phenomenon that is not created via random processes. Intelligence and consciousness are called ‘a major problem’ by natural science, because consciousness is just as inexplicable/unexplained as the Origin of Life. The word is so long that it is an entire novel in itself. It has syntax (AGCT), sentences, paragraphs, chapters. And that’s even before we talk about the folding of proteins, which, according to the analogy, form entire collections of novels. Understanding the enormous complexity makes Darwinian theories of chance more and more impossible.
Since the Word was with God in the beginning at the Origin of species and Life itself, could it be an idea to bring the engineer of this code into a conversation instead of insisting like small children on can-do-will-do? God has not intervened while the children were playing. But it’s possible that after an invitation he might say: What took you so long?
Also read: Darwin debunk
Moreover
It’s not just Darwinism and the Origin of Life that have a problem. It’s also astrophysics and the Origin of the Universe. The whole Big Bang is in the process of becoming a big flop. The latest space-based supertelescope named after NASA administrator James E. Webb has now discovered a myriad of galaxies out there in the infrared that are older than the Big Bang. Oops! There are now astrophysicists willing to declare this theory, which has prematurely ceased to be called a theory… dead!