Origin of Life: The 5th Option

Regarding the review on Amazon:

1.0 out of 5 stars Utter Ignorance of Biology, February 7, 2009
By James Stein (Staten Island, NY United States)
I won't go on at length. I will simply point out that the writer in question *is* an engineer. This entire book betrays a startling lack of knowledge regarding fundamentals in biology, and the author did not feel the need to supplement his knowledge - instead, where brushing up against the gaps of his ignorance, he chose to fill them in with hand-waving and speculation.

If you are already committed to intelligent design by virtue of your religion, this book is a wonderful exercise in listening to the choir. Otherwise, this book is not worth your time: freshmen biology majors could (and in my class, did) rip this book to pieces.

I just love it when people claim that they can "rip" something "to pieces" with the concepts they believe to be true, which are often completely false in the first place. It's like a Christian fundamentalist "destroying" the theory of evolution with their "facts" from the Bible.
 
3D Resident said:
Regarding the review on Amazon:

1.0 out of 5 stars Utter Ignorance of Biology, February 7, 2009
By James Stein (Staten Island, NY United States)
I won't go on at length. I will simply point out that the writer in question *is* an engineer. This entire book betrays a startling lack of knowledge regarding fundamentals in biology, and the author did not feel the need to supplement his knowledge - instead, where brushing up against the gaps of his ignorance, he chose to fill them in with hand-waving and speculation.

If you are already committed to intelligent design by virtue of your religion, this book is a wonderful exercise in listening to the choir. Otherwise, this book is not worth your time: freshmen biology majors could (and in my class, did) rip this book to pieces.

I just love it when people claim that they can "rip" something "to pieces" with the concepts they believe to be true, which are often completely false in the first place. It's like a Christian fundamentalist "destroying" the theory of evolution with their "facts" from the Bible.

Better yet, when they claim to be able 'rip it to pieces', but refrain from doing so.
 
Sounds like an interesting read and from rifling through it on Amazon it seems understandable. I just ordered a copy.
 
you can get it for 22.49€ on play.com and this is the total price since they offer free delivery, far cry from 56€ on Amazon.
 
Some years ago I read Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature by Francis Crick. In it he suggests that life on Earth may have been seeded by intelligent entities from elsewhere in the Universe. He too had trouble with the notion that life just spontaneously occurred in the oceans of young Earth. Of course, this begs the question: where did the "seeds" come from an how were they generated!

It's been discussed on the forum that perhaps passing comets could bring disease viruses. Maybe comets bring beneficial organisms as well and this was the source of life on Earth.

And who knows, could be this whole life and supposed knowledge of events over time is just an illusion? A dream we are having to give us the opportunity to learn to Be.

I put the book on my Amazon shopping list. Look forward to reading it.

Mac
 
Mac said:
Some years ago I read Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature by Francis Crick. In it he suggests that life on Earth may have been seeded by intelligent entities from elsewhere in the Universe. He too had trouble with the notion that life just spontaneously occurred in the oceans of young Earth. Of course, this begs the question: where did the "seeds" come from an how were they generated!

It's been discussed on the forum that perhaps passing comets could bring disease viruses. Maybe comets bring beneficial organisms as well and this was the source of life on Earth.

And who knows, could be this whole life and supposed knowledge of events over time is just an illusion? A dream we are having to give us the opportunity to learn to Be.

If it were true that life on Earth was planted, or indeed designed, due to it's complexity and apparent functions and make-up - it also begs the question, who planted/designed/seeded it in the first place? And in turn, were they planted/designed/seeded?

I think it's all well and good to question and infer and learn and theorise - and I applaud those with the courage to do so and publish their ideas in the social climate we live in.

Although, I do truly believe, that we can only 'know', that we 'know' almost nothing. Maybe one day that will change =)
 
Soluna said:
If it were true that life on Earth was planted, or indeed designed, due to it's complexity and apparent functions and make-up - it also begs the question, who planted/designed/seeded it in the first place? And in turn, were they planted/designed/seeded?

He deals with that question toward the end because, as he acknowledges early on, that is the main issue with the Directed panspermia theory. His "highly speculative" scenarios are not very satisfying, but then he goes on to talk about why would we think that the life that created our life has to be anything like ours? That, of course, leads to hyperdimensional life forms, though he doesn't go there explicitly.

What is most interesting to me is his analysis of DNA, what it does and how it does it, and his "quantum theory of evolution" as well as his decoupling of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That 2nd law has been a problem for evolution theorists for a very long time.
 
For those who read the 5th Option and are intrigued on the research that has come to light after the book was published (7 years ago), this post might be of interest. I stumbled upon an interesting article today which suggests that ribosomes are literally "ingeniously designed":

Nobel Prize Winner Cites the "Ingeniously Designed" Architecture of the Ribosome
_http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize_win056541.html

The article describes the perfectly orchestrated complexity of ribosomes. Checking out their blog, I realized there are several intriguing posts which are on the same lines. In fact, there are entire databases on the subject:

_http://www.evolutionnews.org/intelligent_design/
_http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php

I'm blinking through them quickly in search for good stuff, and even though some of the main authors are not engineers, there are very good posts not only about the complexity of ribosomes but also about DNA , DNA repair and mutations and links to other references. For instance:

The Human Genome Project Ten Years Later
_http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/the_human_genome_project_ten_y040311.html

Yet More "Junk DNA" Not-so-Junk After All
_http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/yet_more_junk_dna_not-so-junk_039531.html

Regulating DNA Repair Mechanisms
_http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/regulating_dna_repair_mechanis040801.html

I dunno, it gives me the impression that there is a ton of info about it out there. Even though I'm not sure about the sincerity of these organizations and bloggers, there are plenty of references to check and very good points. For example:

_http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=19279

The coherence of an engineered world

Author(s): D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman & T. Todd
Abstract:
Normally, information from scientific discoveries is funnelled into the development of engineered products that benefit humanity.

But recently a strange turnabout in the flow of practical information has occurred. Concepts from the field of engineering have been found extremely useful in areas of science. From the very large aspects of the universe (i.e. big bang cosmology and galactic and stellar evolution) to the very small aspects (i.e. the fitness of the chemical elements and the coding of DNA for life), the cosmos is so readily and profitably reverse-engineered by scientists and engineers as to make a compelling argument that it was engineered in the first place.

The linking of extraordinarily complex, but stable functional structures with the production of value provides the strong impression of a calculating intentionality, which is able to operate in a transcendent fashion.

The most coherent view of the universe is that of a system of subsystems that efficiently interact to prepare for, develop, and support advanced life, subject to various physical constraints.

The quest for understanding our universe as a whole benefits from the integration of knowledge from all areas of study, including those that consider questions of purpose, such as design engineering.

The synthesis of this knowledge that provides the most satisfying answers regarding human experience is one that admits the recognition of purpose and the existence of an (as yet, not-wellunderstood) engineering influence.

Keywords:
cosmology, reverse-engineering, anthropic principle, engineering.

1 Introduction:
Throughout the ages, many great minds have expressed a profound appreciation for the incredible ingenuity of natural systems.

Leonardo da Vinci, from his in- ...

Pages: 15
Size: 354 kb
Paper DOI: 10.2495/DN080321
 
I found a series of documentaries made by Illustra (_http://illustramedia.com/about/) in collaboration with one of the Intelligent Design organizations (the Discovery Institute). They were aired around 2001 but at least one of the documentaries was taken down by PBS.

They must be getting some considerable funding from somewhere (a religious organization?)

Where does the evidence leads?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qb3iZV66Ro&feature=player_embedded

“This is a very effective way to present both the theory of intelligent design and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution in a classroom or any other educational setting.” —Dean Ortner, Science Teacher

Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAc9oNjXe0M&feature=player_embedded

"Unlocking the Mystery of Life tells the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing a powerful but controversial idea—the theory of intelligent design. Using state-of-the-art computer animation, the video transports you into the interior of the living cell to explore systems and machines that bear the unmistakable hallmarks of design: Rotary motors that spin at 100,000 rpm. A biological information processing system more powerful than any computer network. And a thread-like molecule that stores instructions to build the essential components of every living organism on earth."
 
Those were great videos, Psyche. Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

The odds involved in life -- even the most simplest life forms -- from mere accidental combining of molecules is so staggering, it makes the concept of "God" creating the Universe, as is, in 6 days and resting on the 7th sound plausible by comparison!! :lol:
 
Psyche said:
They must be getting some considerable funding from somewhere (a religious organization?)

From the Wiki page on the Discovery Institute: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

The institute is a non-profit educational foundation funded by philanthropic foundation grants, corporate and individual contributions and the dues of Institute members. Contributions made to it are tax deductible, as provided by law.

The institute does not provide details about its backers, out of "harassment" fears according to Chapman.[22]

In 2001, the Baptist Press reported, "Discovery Institute ... with its $4 million annual budget ($1.2 million of which is for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) is heavily funded by Christian conservatives. Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, awarded $350,000 to the institute with the hope researchers would be able to prove evolution to be a false theory. Fieldstead & Co., owned by Howard and Robert Ahmanson of Irvine, Calif., pledged $2.8 million through 2003 to support the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture."[85]

In 2003, a review of tax documents on GuideStar showed grants and gifts totalling $1.4 million in 1997. Included in the supporters were 22 foundations. At least two-thirds of these foundations stated explicitly religious missions.[86]

Most Discovery Institute donors have also contributed significantly to the Bush campaign.[22][58]

In 2005, the Washington Post reported, 'Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." '[87]

According to Charity Navigator, in FYE 2005, the Discovery Institute had $2,989,608 in total revenue and $3,878,186 in expenses.[1]

The Discovery Institute denies allegations that its intelligent design agenda is religious, and downplays the religious source of much of its funding. In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer, when ABC News' asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors, the institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path."[4]

Though in the minority, funding also comes from non-conservative sources: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $1 million in 2000 and pledged $9.35 million over 10 years in 2003, including $50,000 of Bruce Chapman's $141,000 annual salary. The money of the Gates Foundation grant is "exclusive to the Cascadia project" on regional transportation, according to a Gates Foundation grant maker.[22]

Published reports state that the institute has awarded $3.6 million in fellowships of $5,000 to $60,000 per year to 50 researchers since the CSC's founding in 1996.[22] "I was one of the early beneficiaries of Discovery largess," says William A. Dembski, who, during the three years after completing graduate school in 1996 could not secure a university position, received what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year through the institute.

Seems to me to be a case of being right for the wrong reason. Perhaps with some well-meaning types just taking funding from wherever they can get it?
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Seems to me to be a case of being right for the wrong reason. Perhaps with some well-meaning types just taking funding from wherever they can get it?

Yeah, that's what it looks like. But the funding sources (including Gates) do make me uneasy.
 
SeekinTruth said:
Approaching Infinity said:
Seems to me to be a case of being right for the wrong reason. Perhaps with some well-meaning types just taking funding from wherever they can get it?

Yeah, that's what it looks like. But the funding sources (including Gates) do make me uneasy.

Maybe that is why Bryant Shiller was not giving lots of references in the 5th Option. Perhaps he didn't want to be too tightly associated with that bunch?
 
I enjoyed this book even though it is dense, but it brought up points that I had never really thought about including the second law of thermodynamics. I liked his perspective as an engineer and how he looked at biology and certainly he was able to put things into perspective when he paints a picture such as DNA can hold the equivalent of 5,000 volumes of information in each cell. How the cell works and functions is an engineering marvel in of itself. You can't tell me that the cell was made in a chemical soup. No way. I got the impression that he was conservative with his impressions and discussions especially when implying that life might have arrived here from somewhere else. It's as if just by bringing the point up he was going to be ridiculed. Still worth the read and he made some valid points that evolutionists are going to have to deal with directly.
 
findit said:
I enjoyed this book even though it is dense, but it brought up points that I had never really thought about including the second law of thermodynamics. I liked his perspective as an engineer and how he looked at biology and certainly he was able to put things into perspective when he paints a picture such as DNA can hold the equivalent of 5,000 volumes of information in each cell. How the cell works and functions is an engineering marvel in of itself. You can't tell me that the cell was made in a chemical soup. No way. I got the impression that he was conservative with his impressions and discussions especially when implying that life might have arrived here from somewhere else. It's as if just by bringing the point up he was going to be ridiculed. Still worth the read and he made some valid points that evolutionists are going to have to deal with directly.
Well, the whole field of inorganic chemistry whose subset inorganic biology, is trying to find an answer to the chemical soup idea, have actually made quite a bit of progress. Couple inorganic biology with synthetic biology, and all it would take is "time" for anybody who knows how to create designer life forms for whatever purpose. But all this still doesn't answer the question as to where & how the biological life forms on earth came from/ how life on earth came to be.

In the end, the only thing that can create life, is life itself, i for one second Laura's comment that the engineered does not always have to look like or be anything like the engineer (higher density?). This frees us from begging the question if one has a linear 3D materialistic view, of if we were created & evolved, then who created the creator, ad infinitum.

More info on inorganic biology: http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_cronin_making_matter_come_alive.html
 
Back
Top Bottom