Researchers propose new way to look at the dawn of life

Dec 12, 2012

One of the great mysteries of life is how it began. What physical process transformed a nonliving mix of chemicals into something as complex as a living cell?

For more than a century, scientists have struggled to reconstruct the key first steps on the road to . Until recently, their focus has been trained on how the simple building blocks of life might have been synthesized on the , or perhaps in space. But because it happened so long ago, all chemical traces have long been obliterated, leaving plenty of scope for speculation and disagreement.

Now, a novel approach to the question of life's origin, proposed by two Arizona State University scientists, attempts to dramatically redefine the problem. The researchers – Paul Davies, an ASU Regents' Professor and director of the Beyond Center for in Science, and Sara Walker, a NASA post-doctoral fellow at the Beyond Center – published their theory in the current issue (Dec. 12) of the Royal Society journal Interface. Their article is titled "The algorithmic ."

In a nutshell, the authors shift attention from the "hardware" – the chemical basis of life – to the "software" – its information content. To use a computer analogy, chemistry explains the material substance of the machine, but it won't function without a program and data. Davies and Walker suggest that the crucial distinction between non-life and life is the way that manage the information flowing through the system.

"When we describe biological processes we typically use informational narratives – cells send out signals, developmental programs are run, coded instructions are read, are transmitted between generations and so forth," Walker said. "So identifying life's origin in the way information is processed and managed can open up new avenues for research."

"We propose that the transition from non-life to life is unique and definable," added Davies. "We suggest that life may be characterized by its distinctive and active use of information, thus providing a roadmap to identify rigorous criteria for the emergence of life. This is in sharp contrast to a century of thought in which the transition to life has been cast as a problem of chemistry, with the goal of identifying a plausible reaction pathway from chemical mixtures to a living entity."

Focusing on informational development helps move away from some of the inherent disadvantages of trying to pin down the beginnings of chemical life.

"Chemical based approaches," Walker said, "have stalled at a very early stage of chemical complexity – very far from anything we would consider 'alive.' More seriously they suffer from conceptual shortcomings in that they fail to distinguish between chemistry and biology."

"To a physicist or chemist life seems like 'magic matter,'" Davies explained. "It behaves in extraordinary ways that are unmatched in any other complex physical or chemical system. Such lifelike properties include autonomy, adaptability and goal-oriented behavior – the ability to harness chemical reactions to enact a pre-programmed agenda, rather than being a slave to those reactions."

"We believe the transition in the informational architecture of chemical networks is akin to a phase transition in physics, and we place special emphasis on the top-down information flow in which the system as a whole gains causal purchase over its components," Davies added. "This approach will reveal how the logical organization of biological replicators differs crucially from trivial replication associated with crystals (non-life). By addressing the causal role of information directly, many of the baffling qualities of life are explained."

The authors expect that, by re-shaping the conceptual landscape in this fundamental way, not just the origin of life, but other major transitions will be explained, for example, the leap from single cells to multi-cellularity.

In addition to being a post-doctoral Fellow at the Beyond Center, Walker is affiliated with the NASA Astrobiology Institute in Mountain View, Calif., and the Blue Marble Space Institute, Seattle.

Explore further: Cells build 'cupboards' to store metals

Related Stories

New insights into the origin of life on Earth

Dec 11, 2006

In an advance toward understanding the origin of life on Earth, scientists have shown that parts of the Krebs cycle can run in reverse, producing biomolecules that could jump-start life with only sunlight and a mineral present ...

NASA Selects Science Teams for Astrobiology Institute

Oct 03, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- NASA has awarded five-year grants, averaging $7 million each, to 10 research teams from across the country, including two from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, to study the origins, ...

Recommended for you

Cells build 'cupboards' to store metals

Dec 17, 2014

Lawrence Livermore researchers in conjunction with collaborators at University of California (link is external), Los Angeles have found that some cells build intracellular compartments that allow the cell ...

Stunning zinc fireworks when egg meets sperm

Dec 15, 2014

Sparks literally fly when a sperm and an egg hit it off. The fertilized mammalian egg releases from its surface billions of zinc atoms in "zinc sparks," one wave after another, a Northwestern University-led ...

User comments : 86

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

flashgordon
1.8 / 5 (11) Dec 12, 2012
We've gone from complaining about a too mechanical approach in dna to I guess an unworkable chaos theory approach(various at that), and now, we're going back to a mechanical!

Information you say? How about the DNA molecule; there's you're life computer!

And in the end, these new cyberpunks have just made a proposal; they havn't actually proved anything; this article doesn't belong here; there's plenty of people proposing things all kinds of things.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 12, 2012
cells send out signals, developmental programs are run, coded instructions are read, genomic data are transmitted between generations and so forth
-But so inefficient, so limited. Imagine 3D quantum architecture, communicating via microwaves instead of synapses. It will be so... SANE.
"We propose that the transition from non-life to life is unique and definable,"
-as will be the transition from sentient life back to non-life... machine life.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2012
[quote]But because it (SUPPOSEDLY) happened so long ago, all chemical traces have long been obliterated, leaving plenty of scope for speculation and disagreement.[/quote]

Fixed.

"We suggest that life may be characterized by its distinctive and active use of information, thus providing a roadmap to identify rigorous criteria for the emergence of life. This is in sharp contrast to a century of thought in which the transition to life has been cast as a problem of chemistry, with the goal of identifying a plausible reaction pathway from chemical mixtures to a living entity."


Unfortunately for atheists, chemistry is the only thing you have to work with.

An atheist must explain all "information" as a purely emergent, accidental property.

A creationist starts with the information, i.e. a design specification, and then builds the program, or architecture, from the available fundamental units(i.e. basic programming language).
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2012
A creator may make new units as well, such as secondary and tertiary structures (analogous to object definitions in a computer programming language).

But what you wont' find in a computer program is a 100% emergent life-like or even code-like mechanism.

IN the computer simulation "Life," one must remember that even though the rules were simple, they were carefully selected by an intelligent author AHEAD OF TIME to maximize the "survivability" of the structures, which is to say, he tinkered with the logic of the laws of the game ahead of time to find a logic which produced the most stable structures. This is analogous to "intelligently designed laws of nature".

Since the laws of the game were intelligently designed to maximize stability, the emergent properties of the game cannot be used to support accidental evolution on cosmic scales, BECAUSE the evolution is "by design," which makes atheists fools anyway.
komone
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2012
And it doesn't intrigue you one little bit, Mr. Lurker, that despite the stunning simplicity of the rules that Conway selected, the result is such complex information behavior? Why is it that some selected rules have entirely deterministic results that are uninteresting, and other selected rules have entirely deterministic results that are very interesting? It would be far more interesting had you suggested that the intelligence in design is the structure of mathematics, and not in "life" or living systems. Had you suggested that, of course, we'd merely be at the next level of the discussion about "intelligent design". I have little doubt that one day that level of discussion will be necessary, and any scientific investigation will once again need to be defended against arguments for the ineffability/insoluble nature of the issue at hand.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (26) Dec 12, 2012
atheist must explain all "information" as a purely emergent, accidental property.
Your typical atheist may not have an opinion one way or another. A scientist will look at the evidence and follow it where it leads. A hardcore godder such as yourself will decide he already has all the info he needs to draw foregone conclusions about things like creation and evolution. Scientists are not this naive and deluded, thank god.

Hey QC did you know - only scientists have the proper tools and the mindset to determine if god exists or not? So far it doesnt look so good for faithers. Evidence tells us: no flood, no adam, no exodus, no joshuan genocide, no david kingdom, no solomon kingdom, no jesus the godman, no resurrection (that would just be silly)...etc. And no diaspora either.

But youre certainly welcome to keep on digging. And rending your clothes and gnashing your teeth and yanking out your hair and screaming bloody mary. And cursing the god that isnt there. Have fun.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (22) Dec 12, 2012
any scientific investigation will once again need to be defended against arguments for the ineffability/insoluble nature of the issue at hand.
Naw theism has already been disproven, scientifically. Lurkers god as described in either testament simply doesnt exist because the the events and places which define him simply didnt happen.

And lurker knows little about deism, and cares less. Why would god not love HIM and await HIM in paradise? He's been so very GOOD you see, and he DESERVES it. It says so right there in john 3:16 kjv.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (24) Dec 12, 2012
they were carefully selected by an intelligent author AHEAD OF TIME to maximize the "survivability" of the structures
-or nature selected for survivable structures over the course of time, because they were the ones more apt to, uh, survive.

Scientists think this naturally makes more sense. Why dont you?
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2012
Ghost:
"theism" cannot be disproven. Part of the reason is you can't disprove something that's true.

Besides, search for the "The statement is true but unprovable" problem.

If you really believe the existence of God is unprovable, you are still faced with a problem, because "True but unprovable" still defeats you anyway.

If you'd actually read the Bible, you'd know it does not teach a mere matter of "deserving," in fact in most contexts the Bible says we don't deserve paradise.

God is not defined by events and places. People's incorrect memories, where they exist, or lost or incorrect translations, etc, do not change the fundamental reality.

You can see that creation is necessary without reference to any traditional text, and the fact these scientists are having to start with the information (the presumption of an already existing system,) in order to attempt to replicate life (the opposite of what evolution presumes) is evidence that intelligence is required for creation.
obama_socks
Dec 12, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 2012
Scientists think this naturally makes more sense. Why dont you?

Which scientists?

Why doesn't the cream jump back out of your coffee cup after being mixed with coffee, but your cells have all the enzymes to do just that, to sort out all of the chemical compounds and use them all in the exactly the correct location to extract energy, or to build new structures?

You think that all happens by accident?

"selection," meh...

Who made the rules, dummy?

My goodness...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (29) Dec 12, 2012
theism" cannot be disproven. Part of the reason is you can't disprove something that's true
Theism IS disproven.
1) Your books say that god is honest.
2) Your books say they were written by your god.
3) Many of the events and things described in your books simply did not happen. See above list.
4) Ergo the god of your books cant exist, doesnt exist, and never did exist. You have been praying either to a monumental liar or to thin air.
5) Your declaring it so does not negate the fact that none of that stuff ever happened. Wish upon whatever star you want.
You think that all happens by accident?
No, by a set of rules. Who wrote those rules you ask? Certainly not the guy who said joshua fit the battle of jericho. THAT never happened.

Where those rules came from has not yet been determined. This does not mean your superdaddy made them up. He said that noah survived the flood. But sumerians said that it was gilgamesh, and they said it FIRST.

Find something honest to believe in.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2012
AWT basically adheres on Boltzmann brain definition of life. Inside of dense particle system the nested fluctuations composed of another fluctuations are formed. These complex density fluctuations can interact with many mutually overlapping density gradients of the environment at the same moment, being a hyperdimensional systems. For example, you're traveling into work because you'll get money there in similar way, like the bacteria who smell sugar concentration or like massive particles, which follow the gradient of gravitational field. But during this walk you'll reflect additional gradients and your path will become more complex. For example, you may want to buy a cinema tickets for your friend during this way. So your path will follow hyperdimensional gradient and it becomes more complex. Our intelligence is just the manifestation of ability to follow multiple motivations at the same moment and we are equipped with brains, which simulates this path with spikes of neural activity.
dav_daddy
1 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2012

Hey QC did you know - only scientists have the proper tools and the mindset to determine if god exists or not? So far it doesnt look so good for faithers. Evidence tells us: no flood, no adam, no exodus, no joshuan genocide, no david kingdom, no solomon kingdom, no jesus the godman, no resurrection (that would just be silly)...etc. And no diaspora either.


Actually none of the things you mentioned except no Jesus (which is false) does anything to disprove the Judeao/Christian faith. The old testament was never offered as literal truth. In fact it doesn't matter at all if nothing in the old testament ever happened, what is improtant is what you are supposed to learn from the stories.

Unless you happen to be a flat earth Protestant or something in which case there is no hope.
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2012
God is not defined by events and places.


God is not defined. Period.

You cannot prove or disprove something you know nothing of. Neither can such thing be true or untrue, existent or non-existent, because the very concept is empty; a label of no thing.

For all naive definitions of God, such as "God is the creator of the universe.", you're none the wiser because anything that did create the universe would the "God", regardless of what it is. If it was the big bang, your definition would merely state that "God" is another name for the big bang.
Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2012
The old testament was never offered as literal truth. In fact it doesn't matter at all if nothing in the old testament ever happened


Well it does kinda matter, because Jesus is the God of the old testament in flesh, or at least the son of, as told by the prophecies. If the old testament is bollocks and the god it describes isn't true, then who is Jesus? Who is the father and the holy spirit? Do any of the people in the book even know what they're talking about?

Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2012
The definition of Theghostofotto1923 sans sock puppets = so inefficient, so limited, so INSANE, so stupid.


Your paranoia is getting the better of you, how many threads have you hopped on with your accusations of sock-puppetry?
I think you're over-compensating because you're afraid that we're catching on to your game after exposing yourself as a sock-puppeteer that switches between personas that support each others' assertions to lend more creedence to your lunatic rants.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2012
The paper is very argumentative and likely too late. It has always worked well to separate cell heredity in evolution of a replicating (RNA producing) genome and later a translating (protein producing) genome, as described in the well tested RNA world theory. But this year it became apparent that the former process can be driven by thermodynamics alone.

Here is the core step: A pool of random ribozymes would have a thermodynamic force that would take it from a replication "melted" to a "crystalline" state with replicators based on measured RNA properties. ["Thermodynamic Basis for the Emergence of Genomes during Prebiotic Evolution", Woo et al, PLOS Comp Biol 2012.]

By now we have left chemical evolution which is thermodynamic driven and entered classical biological evolution which is driven towards increasing fitness.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2012
[cont] The fitness increasing pathways from a replicating to a translating (gene) genome are legion in the literature. [Cf "Hypothesis: Emergence of translation as a Result of RNA Helicase evolution", Zenkin, J Mol Evol 2012.]

It is well understood how such genetic (translating) systems learn from the environment, see Dawkins' papers for example. This environment in respect to the bare genome includes the initially simple cell environment. (Shostak cells have only two inital components, the self-assembling nucleotide chains and a self-assembling lipid cell membrane that can grow and spontaneously divide (replicate).) This is what Davies et all calls "top-down causation", and as we can see it follows from the fitness driven transition from replication to translation. I.e. it is a later stage of already ongoing biological evolution.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2012
[cont] The advantage of thermodynamics theory is that such processes, as opposed to earlier abiogenesis theories and the proposed algorithmic theory too, are driven by a thermodynamic force and can't stall. These theories are also much more testable, and already tested by using RNA et cetera properties, than the algorithmic theory.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2012
Creationists shouldn't comment on science, it is hilarious to see and helps deconvert religious people (see Dawkin's Convert's Corner).

It is for example a well tested observation that life existed ~ 3.5 billion years ago. The fossil record happens to be especially good in both Australia and South Africa for that period.

And it is an emergent property of genetic systems that they learn from the environment by simple bayesian learning (pre- and post distributions that are likelihood constrained by some selection). It is the environment that contains the information that makes sense for the populations genome, and it is not accidental information but information on how to best reproduce differentially - aka evolution information. Without the process there would be no such information, information is always relative to a system.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2012
Creationists shouldn't comment on religion either, it is hilarious to see and helps deconvert religious people (see Dawkin's Convert's Corner). Atheists know more about religion according to statistics.

Theism can and have already been rejected by observation, and deism is in dire straits. That is because all supposed "creation" events now has a much likelier and natural explanation than random "gods did it" ideas, including selection on laws of physics making deism an irrational proposition.

And "gods" doesn't need definitions as generic magic, supposed supernatural impositions on nature, now is rejected by the 1st law of thermodynamics including the totally of the zero-energy universe. (See Krauss for example.)

But this has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which is specifically known to be a natural process. We now know universe started out simple (see standard cosmology), today structures, chemistry and biology are more complex, thus natural processes are responsible.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2012
But this has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which is specifically known to be a natural process.


How is a specifically unknown process known to have specific attributes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (21) Dec 13, 2012
Actually none of the things you mentioned except no Jesus (which is false) does anything to disprove the Judeao/Christian faith. The old testament was never offered as literal truth.
Not so. Jesus, who claimed to be god, often referred to OT events, writings, and people as if they were real. If he were god he should have known better. Ergo godman jesus = god = liar = FICTION.
God is not defined. Period.
The gods of the books were all extremely well defined and can thus be disproved.

If you are talking deism you are talking about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with theistic gods which are easily discounted. Theistic gods uniformly promise to grant wishes in return for service. Why would a real god be concerned with those things?
Eikka
5 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2012
Why would a real god be concerned with those things?


Your're begging the question.

Which just goes to the point that since God isn't defined in any meaningful way, all questions and claims about the nature of God are equally meaningless and unanswerable. You might as well ask what is the sound of one hand clapping.
ekim
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2012
Why would a real god be concerned with those things?


Your're begging the question.

Which just goes to the point that since God isn't defined in any meaningful way, all questions and claims about the nature of God are equally meaningless and unanswerable. You might as well ask what is the sound of one hand clapping.

Ultimately it comes down to the infinity problem.
This problem dogs religion, math, physics, philosophy, and many other fields of study.
"What came before God?"
"Where did the Big Bang come from?"
"What is the last digit of Pi?"
Infinity allows for anything and everything to exist.
Somewhere in the infinite amount of universes, I am Batman.
There in lies the dilemma, do I choose to believe the this is indeed my Batman universe? Do I ignore facts that may disprove my superhero alter ego? Can anybody actually prove I am not Batman?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (21) Dec 13, 2012
since God isn't defined in any meaningful way
I REPEAT - the gods of the books are very well defined. The judeo-xian god for instance is an portrayed as a egomaniac with an inferiority complex. He is vengeful, jealous, vicious, petty, forgetful, genocidal. AND dishonest.

We know these things as any profiler would know his subject; from examining what he says and what he does. Exegists tell us the books were not written by who they say they were, and were altered and mistranslated many times.

Archeologists and historians tell us that the stories told by this ersatz god are fiction.

This jealous insecure god says 'No other gods before me.' His son (himself) says 'No way to heaven but through me.' The son condemns unbelievers not only to death but to eternal torment, and promises to cause family members to kill one another.

Both provoke believers to kill and die to defend these gods. We know all we have to know about these characters to dislike and distrust them intensely.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (22) Dec 13, 2012
As to your philo gods, the deistic ones, again scientists are the only people capable of finding any evidence at all of their existance. Philos have juggled words for hundreds of years and have come up empty. Theologians resent any concepts of universal gods which do not favor their own exclusive group, and which are indifferent to their begging and pleading.

So far scientists have found a universe which works perfectly well all by itself. They give us increasing confidence that everything which exists can be understood scientifically. This includes both the origin of life and the universe. Hawking seems to think that M theory can explain how a universe can arise spontaneously with absolutely no help from a god.

But if a designer does exist then science should uncover evidence for it because only they know how to look and how to understand what they find.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (21) Dec 13, 2012
"What came before God?"
"Where did the Big Bang come from?"
"What is the last digit of Pi?"
These questions have no relation to Lurkers god of the bible. The proper questions to ask regarding this god are, 'How could an exodus occur through lands thoroughly occupied by garrisoned egyptian troops?' 'Why is there absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood?' 'Why would a god who says he created the first man and woman, make it look as if these creatures gradually evolved from other creatures over the course of a million years?' -and so forth.

You cant ask unanswerable DEISTIC questions about THEISTIC gods and then conclude that, because they are unanswerable, then the THEISTIC gods may exist.

Theistic gods do not exist because the things which they SAID they did in their books, never happened.

Even FURTHER, statistics tells us that miracles do not happen, wishes are not granted, and faith-healing does not occur beyond the placebo effect. Again science disproves the book gods.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 13, 2012
Your're begging the question.
I was offering an opinion in the form of a question.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
The definition of Theghostofotto1923 sans sock puppets = so inefficient, so limited, so INSANE, so stupid.


Your paranoia is getting the better of you, how many threads have you hopped on with your accusations of sock-puppetry?
I think you're over-compensating because you're afraid that we're catching on to your game after exposing yourself as a sock-puppeteer that switches between personas that support each others' assertions to lend more creedence to your lunatic rants.
-shinobiswang

You are, of course, just another sock puppet of Theghostofotto1923 aka FrankHerbutt. You have been outed now also by referring to the "we're catching on to your game..." rather than as first person, singular.

You have been caught again in your game, Blotto/FrankHerbutt. Your vicious insanity has preceded you and it is only you and your sock puppets whose names show up in my Activity page and the pages of so many others.
You have been found out. You little weasel...LOL
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2012
"'Why is there absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood?'" -Theghostofotto1923

Oh, by the way, Blotto...here's your answer.
Scientists/Achaeologists searching for proof of Noah's flood - In the words of Buford T. Justice (Smokey and the Bandit) What's the hell is the world coming to?

http://www.foxnew...l-flood/

Who knew?

Shinobiwan Kenobi
3 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2012
Lmao! Keep asserting that you're the victim of one man's vendetta, like any of the people (yes people, as in more than one, hence my use of "We", numbskull; again you should tuck in your paranoia, it's how the gubmint knows who to target) you're calling out give enough of a $#!t about poor you to waste their time with puppetry; this is simply multiple people calling you out on your ass-backwards cock-smithing drivel. The fact that you're incapable of recognizing that each of the people you point your finger at all use different syntax shows how irrational you are in your accusations.

Oh, what's this? ==>
(http://www.foxnew...-flood/)


Fox News? No wonder you're a paranoid lunatic.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2012
it is only you and your sock puppets whose names show up in my Activity page

everyone-is-out-to-get-bamasox

Right, one, and only one person, thinks you're an idiot >,>
Shinobiwan Kenobi
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
Obama_socks, just to be clear, are you in opposition of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Only a massive racist would not answer this question.

Shinobiwan Kenobi
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
Oh, one more question, how do you know for certain that I am showing up in "So many others'" activity pages if you don't have multiple accounts? <3

it is only you and your sock puppets whose names show up in my Activity page and the pages of so many others
obama_socks
1 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2012
Oh, one more question, how do you know for certain that I am showing up in "So many others'" activity pages if you don't have multiple accounts? <3

it is only you and your sock puppets whose names show up in my Activity page and the pages of so many others


Why do you want to know?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2012
Obama_socks, just to be clear, are you in opposition of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Only a massive racist would not answer this question.

-shinobi

Again, why do you want to know?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2012
Lmao! Keep asserting that you're the victim of one man's vendetta, like any of the people (yes people, as in more than one, hence my use of "We", numbskull; again you should tuck in your paranoia, it's how the gubmint knows who to target) you're calling out give enough of a $#!t about poor you to waste their time with puppetry; this is simply multiple people calling you out on your ass-backwards cock-smithing drivel. The fact that you're incapable of recognizing that each of the people you point your finger at all use different syntax shows how irrational you are in your accusations.

Oh, what's this? ==>
(http://www.foxnew...-flood/)


Fox News? No wonder you're a paranoid lunatic.
-shinobi/FrankHerbert et al

Nope...there are no other "people". All the other "people" are too intelligent to join in your little play-acting, Blotto. They are all aware of your little game, and they all avoid you.
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2012
Report the above post.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2012
We have known about you since you first started posting on Physorg under some of your previous names. We followed you around in all the threads you entered in various names and we were all amused by you. And we all noticed when you changed into your other names and changed your personalities according to the personas your mental illness caused you to be.

Nobody was fooled by you, Blotto. You can make as many new sock puppets as you want. It doesn't matter to me and the rest of my fellow commenters on this site.
Oh, and I am sworn to not reveal who they are, and they know they can count on me.
So please - keep up your charade - it's fun to watch.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2012
The irony. Report report report.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
Report the above post.
-FunkHerbutt

ooooooo I'm so scared.

Muahahahahahahahhhahahaa
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
The irony. Report report report.


Ok...you have been reported for useless verbiage and for being a chronic asshole, Blotto.
In fact, a lot of people will report you for ad hominem attacks, useless verbiage, and being a sock puppet of Blotto and lying about it.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2012
He who smelt it dealt it.

Do you support the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Only a massive racist would not answer this question.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
"'Why is there absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood?'" -Theghostofotto1923

Oh, by the way, Blotto...here's your answer.
Scientists/Achaeologists searching for proof of Noah's flood - In the words of��� Buford T. Justice (Smokey and the Bandit) What's the hell is the world coming to?

http://www.foxnew...l-flood/

It's also in National Geographic.
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2012
You have proof somebody is looking for evidence. Congrats. Report.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
Hmmm...the link to Huffington Post didn't show

Here it is again

http://www.huffin...143.html
obama_socks
1 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2012
I don't know if the flood was world wide. R. Ballard is searching for the evidence under the Black Sea along the coastline. The ice age at the time apparently melted quickly and formed a huge wall of water which filled up the Black Sea. Cities and people were drowned. There was an article provided in Physorg which I will attempt to find re: ice age.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
Ok...I have done a search for articles for world wide flooding after meteor impacts and found many credible research by bona fide scientists/geologists/archaeologists.
I have created a list of these websites. Unfortunately, THIS thread is not the one to post my list, as it would be off-topic.
I will look for the proper thread and post my list then.

FrankHerbutt will now parrot itself by saying, "Report Report"
What a clown!!
kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2012
I don't know if the flood was world wide. R. Ballard is searching for the evidence under the Black Sea along the coastline. The ice age at the time apparently melted quickly and formed a huge wall of water which filled up the Black Sea. Cities and people were drowned.
So you're saying my gf's grandmother's house is the springboard of all humanity? Makes perfect sense
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2012
Actually, as to the origin of "life", I tend to believe that The Earth was "seeded" in certain optimum areas with all the necessary molecules that eventually produced the protoDNA, et al. But the molecules required an "enabler" to begin structuring themselves into a "life form". I also believe that the enabler came in the form of "energy"...be it lightning or an E.T. life form with the power to transmute matter/raw materials. I now also believe that much later after man/ape and ape species branched off from each other, the Extraterrestrials returned and imbued the man/ape with their own DNA, which is the reason why man is blessed with miR-941, which is exclusive only to humans. Without that particular gene, humans might still be living in trees.

"Scientists say the gene – called miR-941 – appears to have played a crucial role in human brain development and may shed light on how we learned to use tools and language."

http://phys.org/n...pes.html
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2012
I don't know if the flood was world wide. R. Ballard is searching for the evidence under the Black Sea along the coastline. The ice age at the time apparently melted quickly and formed a huge wall of water which filled up the Black Sea. Cities and people were drowned.
So you're saying my gf's grandmother's house is the springboard of all humanity? Makes perfect sense
-koch

A house? You're saying that I said "a house" is the springboard? Now you're talking like a high-school dropout. LOL
You really should think it over.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2012
OK koch...I'll give you the benefit of a doubt...perhaps you meant that in terms of a dynasty, like the House of Rothschild; or the House of Usher?
If so, you're STILL wrong.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2012
Koch...here's an example of why I believe that God is an Extraterrestrial who can tune into our thoughts and influence us and who gave us the Ten Commandments.
You don't create life...all kinds of life including ape/man (or man/ape) and just abandon what you've created. You come back now and then and observe how things are going and whether or not humans are improving or slowly destroying themselves. E.T. spacecraft are seen all around the world, so they are HERE, no doubt about it.

It's evident to me that most of the Old Testament is a crock because it's human nature to exaggerate stuff re: their importance as a species, group, community and leadership. The Old Testament was written by boasting blowhards. In another thread, I've already stated my case for disbelief in most of the stories within. You take a bunch of rabbis with a good imagination and a need to raise the Hebrews to uber-mensch status, and you have the Old Testament.

I'm inclined to believe the New Testament much more.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Dec 15, 2012
Ok...I have done a search for articles for world wide flooding after meteor impacts and found many credible research by bona fide scientists/geologists/archaeologists.
-So. Imbecile. How does a meteor flood the entire earth, including all those big mountains, by causing it to rain for 40 days and also 40 nights? And how does it cause all this water to disappear afterward? Did you not read these links of yours like you did not read the one about the black sea event?

Or you just lying again as usual? Or are you just posting drunk again as usual? Pussytard?
rkilburn81
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2012
DNA is a chemical hard drive and the sequence is a 4 bit code that started simple and became increasingly complex.
We are the universe observing itself.

I don't need the Bible to believe in God.
rkilburn81
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
DNA is a chemical hard drive and the sequence is a 4 bit code that started simple and became increasingly complex.
Star matter clumped together and for a short amount of time became us.
It seems that we are the universe observing itself and pondering our connection to it.

I don't need the Bible to believe in God.
Eikka
5 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2012
I was offering an opinion in the form of a question.


That's exactly what petitio principii - begging the question - is. It's asking a question as if another questionable proposition was already proven true.

I REPEAT - the gods of the books are very well defined.


No they aren't. The books merely describe what gods do, not what gods are. It's impossible to comment on such gods without a proper definition, or a theory of god if you will.

Let me explain. Suppose we define a bicycle by what it does instead of what it is: a bicycle carries people, it sometimes makes a ringing sound, and sometimes it may fall over. Therefore a man with a bell, carrying a child on his shoulders, is a bicycle.

MrRubbs
3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2012
Ahhh, the wonder of creation!
We are the result of billions of years of accidents, It seems so wonderful, because we are able to contemplate it.
It seems as if guided by the hand of god, because we're missing so many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of life. It's far easier to go for some quick appeasing answer(God), when life seems to complicated, too designed.
We are too early in our development to contemplate fully the wonderful interplay of processes that have led to our sentient life, enjoy it!
Love lifes suprises, there's many more to come!
MrRubbs
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2012
Ahhh, the wonder of creation!
We are the result of billions of years of accidents, It seems so wonderful, because we are able to contemplate it.
It seems as if guided by the hand of god, because we're missing so many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of life. It's far easier to go for some quick appeasing answer(God), when life seems to complicated, too designed.
We are too early in our development to contemplate fully the wonderful interplay of processes that have led to our sentient life, enjoy it!
Love lifes suprises, there's many more to come!
Shinobiwan Kenobi
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
Obama_socks, just to be clear, are you in opposition of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Only a massive racist would not answer this question.

-shinobi

Again, why do you want to know?


Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Only a massive racist would avoid ansering this question.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 16, 2012
That's exactly what petitio principii - begging the question - is. It's asking a question as if another questionable proposition was already proven true.
So what? Next time I will use IMO for your edification.
No they aren't. The books merely describe what gods do, not what gods are. It's impossible to comment on such gods without a proper definition, or a theory of god if you will.
A profiler will look at the evidence that a perp leaves behind in order to learn enough about him to capture him. In the case of the gods of the books, we want to know if we cann believe what they say.

We do not care if they at planet-sized amoebas or plasma electricity, we want to know if the things they promise us in their books are worth killing and dying for.

And so we analyze the ONLY descriptions of their wants and needs that we have - their books. We compare what they say vs what the evidence about their veracity can tell us.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 16, 2012
We can tell that what these gods describe in their books aren't true. We analyze the books themselves and find that they have all been hopelessly adulterated. We examine earlier religion books written by defunct gods, and realize that our god books have been copied from them.

And so, like any profiler, we can begin to characterize the gods of the books. We can conclude that, even though these gods claim to be our creators, they are not. Even though they claim to be the source of goodness in the world, they are not. And we can conclude that the books purportedly written by them were in fact written by people with wholly human motivations.

We can analyse the claims that the miracles they promise are being fulfilled and see that this is simply not true.

And so as profilers we can conclude that we have more than enough evidence to characterize these book gods, to dismiss their claims, and to ignore their demands. Because they are simply not what they claim to be.

Case closed.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2012
In the case of the gods of the books, we want to know if we cann believe what they say.


By default you cannot, because without a theory of God, you have no way of distinguishing descriptions of god from someone simply rambling nonsense. Without a proper definition of God, you couldn't tell God from the Devil, and attempting to do so would be an exercise in pointlessness.

That is a more fundamental problem than finding contradictions in holy writings. If you want to find for something, you must first know what it is, or at least what it isn't.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 16, 2012
No they aren't. The books merely describe what gods do, not what gods are.
Theism, like any philo -ism word, is used by different people to mean different things. Hitchens appropriately defines theism as belief in the gods of the religions, as described in their books.

The case against religion in the real world is not a philosophical one. The people who are killing and dying per the instructions found in the godbooks, do not respond to your vapid be/do arguments. they want to get to heaven and the books tell them how.

I just read a book by bugliosi wherein he chastised Dawkins and hitchens et al for not making the case for atheism. But as hitchens said he is not so much an atheist as an antireligionist. Dawkins says that the book gods probably do not exist, but the PROBLEM is not whether they EXIST or not, but what belief in them causes people to DO.

It is the DOING that is the problem. And we can prove that the instruction books are full of lies. And so must be their gods.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 16, 2012
By default you cannot, because without a theory of God
Why? Antireligionists don't need a 'theory' of 'god'. They only need to show cause and effect between what the bookgods promise and what the people do in response.

All they need to demonstrate is that these promises are founded on lies; a chosen people, delivered to the promised land, who are granted wishes and immortality in return for service.
Without a proper definition of God, you couldn't tell God from the Devil
God says in the bible and the quran that he is omniscient and completely good. He SAYS that he is not Satan. This is pretty clear is it not?
rkilburn81
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2012
DNA is a chemical hard drive and the sequence is a 4 bit code that started simple and became increasingly complex.
Star matter clumped together and for a short amount of time became us.
It seems that we are the universe observing itself and pondering our connection to it.

I don't need the Bible to believe in God.
rkilburn81
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2012
From nothing all matter and energy came forth.
The death of stars forged the higher elements.
Life is a program code written in chemicals.
The Universe came together for a short amount of time to become us.

We are of the Universe pondering itself.

I don't need the Bible to believe in God.
kevinrtrs
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2012
So having failed dismally to show how life could have arisen from purely chemical interaction[simply because such an idea defies all known chemical and biological principles], the researchers give up in disgust and attempt to show the even more impossible:

How information could arise from purely random physical processes.

Information, being abstract and NON-physical, cannot arise from the random actions of physical objects.

For there to be information there has to be intelligence[coding and decoding requires first hand understanding].

Where is the intelligence in the random, purely physical world proposed by atheists? How does intelligence arise from such?

To be an atheist you have to have the greatest of faith in non-living things - for those things to be able to produce life.
kevinrtrs
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2012
Obama_socks
I'm inclined to believe the New Testament much more

Without the old testament, the "new" testament is completely meaningless. The whole bible hangs together, you cannot separate one part from the other.

The new testament represents the fulfillment of prophecies about Christ and then the outflow of that fulfullment in how Christ's followers are to live and prepare for the second coming.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2012
Obama_socks
I'm inclined to believe the New Testament much more

Without the old testament, the "new" testament is completely meaningless. The whole bible hangs together, you cannot separate one part from the other.

The new testament represents the fulfillment of prophecies about Christ and then the outflow of that fulfullment in how Christ's followers are to live and prepare for the second coming.


Does this mean you do not shave, eat shellfish, and do/don't do all that other ridiculous crap in Leviticus?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Dec 17, 2012
Without the old testament, the "new" testament is completely meaningless. The whole bible hangs together, you cannot separate one part from the other.
-Although this is of course s matter of opinion among the religious.
The new testament represents the fulfillment of prophecies about Christ and then the outflow of that fulfullment in how Christ's followers are to live and prepare for the second coming.
-How very true! And since the OT is full of events which demonstrably did not happen, and people who demonstrably did not exist, we can conclude that any prophesies, promises, and edicts are also spurious and must be disregarded and disavowed in the interests of reason, honesty, prudence, and common decency.

Especially the most outlandish and outrageous ones such as chosen people, life after death, magic, wish-granting, stoning blasphemers, etc.

A god who says he is truth and yet lies is no god worth taking seriously, let alone killing and dying for. Right kev?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 17, 2012
So having failed dismally to show how life could have arisen from purely chemical interaction
-How can you claim that ongoing research indicates failure? We learn more each day and this gives us increasing confidence that we will fully understand abiogenesis and be able to reproduce it in the lab.
simply because such an idea defies all known chemical and biological principles
-Again how could we know this if we havent discovered it yet? The only IDEA which defies all known chem/bio principles is the one that requires a superbeing to create life from will alone. Chem/bio processes work without supernatural intervention; and as life is such a process we can expect that its origin needs no such intervention.

But we will know for sure when we find out. Scientists are by the way the only people qualified to determine whether god exists or not. And so far all evidence says that he is at least not necessary for the universe to operate.
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2012
Well
Davies and Walker suggest that the crucial distinction between non-life and life is the way that living organisms manage the information flowing through the system.


Strange. I stated this EXACT same meaning with slightly different wording here on physorg BEFORE they published!!!

I stated - by first quoting Erwin Schrödinger where he referred to life as in equilibrium maintained by homeostasis as 'negative entropy' which is called 'information' today - that all the criteria used to define life today can be redefined by how information is TRANSFERRED (not transmitted).

I am looking for the article in which I stated this before.
Tausch
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2012
I stated this on the 5th of December, 2012 here explicitly:
http://medicalxpr...lls.html

First the link to Schrödinger and then his words quoted:
http://en.wikiped..._Life%3F

Excerpt:

The main principle involved with "order-from-disorder" is the second law of thermodynamics, according to which entropy only increases in a closed system (such as the universe). Schrödinger explains that living matter evades the decay to thermodynamical equilibrium by homeostatically maintaining negative entropy (today this quantity is called information) in an open system.

From this quote I stated the following conclusion

So the definition of life is to be found in the way information is transferred.

Strengthen your contention, Noumenal, with:
...within ALL contexts is meaningless.

Go overboard. Trau Dich! (No sufficient translation to English)
The article title is:
Do brain cells need to be connected to have meaning?
Tausch
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2012
http://medicalxpr...lls.html
Do brain cells need to be connected to have meaning?
The answer is yes. And the way the brain cells are connected is here:
http://medicalxpr...tal.html

Tausch
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2012
So now you know what life is, as well as death.
And you did not expect to find the answer here at physorg.
Because reading correct information here is like finding the needles in a haystack.
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2012
From the published paper:
http://rsif.royal...0dbf71a4

At this point, information would have become separated from its physical representation, permitting information to become a causal influence in its own right...


No reasoning necessitates separation.
What is not a part of nature?
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2012
No amount of reasoning necessitates separation.
The authors start with quantum information theory and switch to classical information theory to achieve separation in order to obtain "a causal influence in its own right..."

Nature does not switch theories to obtain an influence of any right.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2013
Why? Antireligionists don't need a 'theory' of 'god'.


You misunderstand me. You cannot trust anything it says about god in holy books, by default, because they lack a theory of god that would allow people to distinguish to separate fact from fiction. That IS anti-religionism.

God says in the bible and the quran that he is omniscient and completely good. He SAYS that he is not Satan. This is pretty clear is it not?


And Satan could say exactly the same. That is the problem.

It is the DOING that is the problem. And we can prove that the instruction books are full of lies. And so must be their gods.


But that is a non-sequitur, because you cannot distinguish the descriptions of god from descriptions of other entities, so you, nor they, nor anyone who reads to book can really say what they're even talking about.

And so you fail, because you attack the book but not the concept of the God, which survives contradictions because the believers simply ignore them.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 03, 2013
Ultimately it comes down to the infinity problem. This problem dogs religion, math, physics, philosophy, and many other fields of study. "What came before God?" "Where did the Big Bang come from?" "What is the last digit of Pi?" Infinity allows for anything and everything to exist.


It has hardly anything to do with infinity.

Even infinity doesn't allow for contradictions and oxymorons. And in the case of God, even with infinities, you can't find something you know nothing of, because even when you do come across something, you wouldn't know it was the thing you were looking for.

For e.g. fundamental particles, we can say they are smaller than atoms, and find things that are smaller than atoms, and conclude that these were the particles we were looking for, whatever they happen to be. With God, we can't even look because we have no idea what we're looking for.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2013
And Satan could say exactly the same. That is the problem.
Satan doesnt promise eternal life in paradise in return for killing heathens and infidels. Satan doesnt respond to prayer. Satan doesnt pit all the separate religions against one another - the gods in their books all do this. The instructions are very clear.

We discredit the books and we discredit their gods and we end all the hatred and violence and ignorance that these bookgods inspire.

Antireligionists dont CARE about the philo vaporgods except for their ability to generate religions. This is why ALL superstition, including that known as philosophy, should be resisted.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2013
And in the case of God, even with infinities, you can't find something you know nothing of, because even when you do come across something, you wouldn't know it was the thing you were looking for.
See, this is the kind of worthless crap which has allowed the bookgods to thrive post-enlightenment.

Clever philos and other spiritualists have had centuries to refine their craft. Their arguments are invariably circular and tautological. They are all desperate to preserve the illusion that there must be SOME WAY to escape death and gain special dispensation while here. They at least know that these notions are an easy sell to rubes with money.

And invariably somebody comes along with the idea that rubes must perform service in return for these lies; and a new religion is born.

Down with religion and down with all the superstitious intellectual trickery which spawns it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 03, 2013
And in the case of God, even with infinities, you can't find something you know nothing of, because even when you do come across something, you wouldn't know it was the thing you were looking for.
We KNOW that the bookgods ALL promise eternal life and special dispensation in return for service. What else do you think people need to KNOW about them to make them caustic and ruinous?

Your philo vaporgods are ineffective, impotent, and immaterial. But you talking about them reinforces the notion that they might respond to prayer and supplication, and most importantly, actions against unbelievers which they for some inexplicable reason cannot perform by themselves.

If intelligent designers exist then it is scientists who will be discovering them. Not philos and priests and other word-mongers, thats for sure.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2013
BUT if scientists do discover intelligent designers, we are certain that they will not be the gods described in the books, as these gods have all been thoroughly and convincingly DISPROVED. Scientifically.
RitchieGuy01
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2013
ahhhh. . .GhostofOtto. . .kiss kiss my love. No one else on physorg is as smart as U. It is U who knows everything and nobody else knows as much as U do. They all just pretend to know just to impress U. I know that you laugh at everyone else that posts in your physorg. YES. . .this IS your physorg and nobody has the right to post their imbecillic junk without YOUR aproval. U hve been avoiding me lately, Ghost. Have U found another man to suuck on? When are we gonna get together again at our favorite motel darling. Remember all those nites we spent together in bed making love? It was pure heaven. I have missed you so much. I see that you're going after other men and looking for some pussytard. Why are you looking for pussy, darling? U KNOW you only love to suckee on me. I thought we were suppose ta get married. Those other men don't deserve you the way I do. I'll have to leave this message everywhere I find U. U have my number. . .please call me, my precious juicy cockman.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.