The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained

100 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob Duncan

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:08:33 AMOct 5
to

The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained
by Walter Bradley and Casey Luskin

In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model
of the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
has responded to England's research.
Miller points out that the kind of energy that dissipates as a result
of the sun shining on the Earth or other natural processes cannot
explain how living systems have both low entropy (disorder) and
high energy.

<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/still-unexplained-the-first-living-cell/>

--
God exists, uncreated and transcendental to space and time.
.

JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 10:08:42 AMOct 5
to

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 10:35:12 AMOct 5
to
On 2022-10-05 09:08, Bob Duncan wrote:
>
> The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained by Walter Bradley and
> Casey Luskin
>
> In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
> attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model of
> the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
> has responded to England's research. Miller points out that the kind
> of energy that dissipates as a result of the sun shining on the Earth
> or other natural processes cannot explain how living systems have
> both low entropy (disorder) and high energy.

Correct. The low entropy and high energy is also called *preserving*
energy. It's turning the flow of energy backward to create fuel
otherwise known as sugar and protein. It's the same as charging a
battery that turns the free energy of electricity into the preserved
energy in chemical compounds. The process of battery charging is energy
preservation and concentration. It's not possible to be accomplished by
automatic energy dissipation. A tree is the result of concentration of
energy instead of the result of dissipation of energy. This is why all
living things are flammable. Life is not just made of water and dirt.
It's also made of fire. This fire comes from the sun. Therefore, the
living things on Earth are actually small suns.

>
> <https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/still-unexplained-the-first-living-cell/>
>
>
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!


aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 10:43:12 AMOct 5
to
Too bad the author isn't a physicist. He doesn't understand that the
process he's describing is against the second law of thermodynamics. He
doesn't understand that everything happening in life is against the
second law. Since nothing in nature can be against the second law, life
can't be the result of automatic natural process.

JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 10:49:10 AMOct 5
to
On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:43:12 AM UTC-5, aaa wrote:
> On 2022-10-05 10:08, JWS wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 8:08:33 AM UTC-5, Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained
> >> by Walter Bradley and Casey Luskin
> >>
> >> In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
> >> attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model
> >> of the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
> >> has responded to England's research.
> >> Miller points out that the kind of energy that dissipates as a result
> >> of the sun shining on the Earth or other natural processes cannot
> >> explain how living systems have both low entropy (disorder) and
> >> high energy.
> >>
> >> <https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/still-unexplained-the-first-living-cell/>
> > Getting closer all the time:
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x
> Too bad the author isn't a physicist. He doesn't understand that the
> process he's describing is against the second law of thermodynamics. He
> doesn't understand that everything happening in life is against the
> second law. Since nothing in nature can be against the second law, life
> can't be the result of automatic natural process.
Then how does it happen in the experiments described?

Bob Duncan

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 10:58:37 AMOct 5
to
JWS slung another wad, hoping it will stick:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x

"...self-replicating molecules are believed to have evolved..."

What did he say? They are *believed* to have evolved?

Are you kidding me? Just go ahead and say it.

"I don't have any proof for anything I'm writing here. It's all something
that I'm hoping and I'm wishing is true. But I don't really know. Maybe
if I believe it long enough, it will come true."

Nope. Not today.

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 11:05:02 AMOct 5
to
It's called intelligent design. It's an automatic process created by
intelligence. We humans have created so many automated systems.

JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 11:07:32 AMOct 5
to
On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:58:37 AM UTC-5, Bob Duncan wrote:
> JWS slung another wad, hoping it will stick:
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x
>
> "...self-replicating molecules are believed to have evolved..."
>
> What did he say? They are *believed* to have evolved?
>
> Are you kidding me? Just go ahead and say it.
>
> "I don't have any proof for anything I'm writing here. It's all something
> that I'm hoping and I'm wishing is true. But I don't really know. Maybe
> if I believe it long enough, it will come true."
>
> Nope. Not today.
Just reading a little bit further:
"Here we perform long-term evolution experiments of RNA that
replicates using a self-encoded RNA replicase. The RNA diversifies
into multiple coexisting host and parasite lineages, whose frequencies
in the population initially fluctuate and gradually stabilize. The final
population, comprising five RNA lineages, forms a replicator network
with diverse interactions, including cooperation to help the replication
of all other members. These results support the capability of molecular
replicators to spontaneously develop complexity through Darwinian
evolution, a critical step for the emergence of life."
That's what the remainder of the paper demonstrates.
I'll be sure to let you know when a living cell can be
shown to emerge from these processes.

JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 11:11:22 AMOct 5
to
So you are saying that only because there is a human
in the room, none of these processes can. occur naturally?
What, exactly, is forced to happen that will not happen in
nature on its own? Specifically, which bonds and which
molecular reactions are the sole result of the experimenter
doing the research?

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 11:19:12 AMOct 5
to
Human intelligence is my example for you to understand that the process
in life can only be the work of God's intelligence.

Bob Duncan

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 11:30:34 AMOct 5
to
That doesn't cover up, or explain, or excuse what was written earlier.
You may think it does. But anyone with a working brain doesn't.

The person you put your faith in wrote, "...self-replicating molecules are
believed to have evolved...". So he's not sure about anything.

No wonder you don't want to learn what the difference is between
micro-evolution and macro-evolution. You scare too easily, and want
to run away and hide.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 11:34:01 AMOct 5
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 07:08:39 -0700 (PDT), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
wrote:
The has been given results from abiogenesis research going back 6
decades, which even resulted in the formation of protocells which
evolved into more modern forms over subsequent generations,..

...and the deliberate, in-our-face liar knows it's still nothing to do
with atheism.

Dexter

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 12:00:34 PMOct 5
to
aaa wrote:

> On 2022-10-05 10:08, JWS wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 8:08:33 AM UTC-5, Bob Duncan wrote:
> > > The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained
> > > by Walter Bradley and Casey Luskin
> > >
> > > In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
> > > attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model
> > > of the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
> > > has responded to England's research.
> > > Miller points out that the kind of energy that dissipates as a result
> > > of the sun shining on the Earth or other natural processes cannot
> > > explain how living systems have both low entropy (disorder) and
> > > high energy.
> > >
> > >
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/still-unexplained-the-first-living-cell/>
> > Getting closer all the time:
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x
>
> Too bad the author isn't a physicist. He doesn't understand that the process
> he's describing is against the second law of thermodynamics. He doesn't
> understand that everything happening in life is against the second law. Since
> nothing in nature can be against the second law, life can't be the result of
> automatic natural process.
-----------------------------

It's plainly obvious that you're not a physicist either. How is it you believe
that you speak with authority? My belief is you're delusional.

Dexter

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 12:05:31 PMOct 5
to
-----------------------------

So, human intelligence is an example of god's intelligence? I'm not sure
you've thought that through.

JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 12:18:06 PMOct 5
to
Yes, "believed to have evolved", because of the results that
are described in the following experiments.
See, it's like a hypothesis: you make some conjecture about
how nature operates ("this is believed to happen"), and then
you attempt to verify that conjecture (as the remainder of
the paper describes). A claim is made, and the the support
for that claim is presented. Most thinking people will be able
to grasp this idea and understand the overall reasoning.

> No wonder you don't want to learn what the difference is between
> micro-evolution and macro-evolution. You scare too easily, and want
> to run away and hide.
So teach me. I've been waiting all this time but nothing is
forthcoming from you, total silence on the subject. (Except
your little face-making BS that I guess you think means
something.)

JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 12:20:13 PMOct 5
to
So I asked a question that you totally ignored and instead
you provided a nearly meaningless English sentence.

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 1:02:16 PMOct 5
to
That is not what I said. I'm using the human intelligence as an example
for him to understand the ability of intelligence to defy the second law
without breaking the law.

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 1:03:23 PMOct 5
to
I'm trying to stay on topic. Too bad for your limited understanding.

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 1:09:41 PMOct 5
to
I can speak with authority because I have understood the preservation of
energy happening in life from the view of the second law. It's not
difficult, but no one has bothered to understand it from the view of
physics.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 1:27:26 PMOct 5
to
aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:thk4ms$30fqs$3...@dont-email.me:

> On 2022-10-05 09:08, Bob Duncan wrote:
>>
>> The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained by Walter Bradley and
>> Casey Luskin
>>
>> In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
>> attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model of
>> the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
>> has responded to England's research. Miller points out that the kind
>> of energy that dissipates as a result of the sun shining on the Earth
>> or other natural processes cannot explain how living systems have
>> both low entropy (disorder) and high energy.
>
> Correct. The low entropy and high energy is also called *preserving*
> energy. It's turning the flow of energy backward to create fuel
> otherwise known as sugar and protein. It's the same as charging a
> battery that turns the free energy of electricity into the preserved
> energy in chemical compounds. The process of battery charging is
> energy preservation and concentration. It's not possible to be
> accomplished by automatic energy dissipation. A tree is the result of
> concentration of energy instead of the result of dissipation of
> energy. This is why all living things are flammable.


Huh?

Try setting fire to a jellyfish.


> Life is not just
> made of water and dirt. It's also made of fire. This fire comes from
> the sun. Therefore, the living things on Earth are actually small
> suns.


That is the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 1:29:35 PMOct 5
to
aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:thkdoh$317r2$3...@dont-email.me:
You know nothing about anything.



"I'm not at all well read. I don't read
anything as a matter of fact due to my
brain injury. So I don't have to provide
the proof. It's just my opinion."
"aaa", April 26, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jwh4bpj

JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 2:17:37 PMOct 5
to
On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:thk4ms$30fqs$3...@dont-email.me:
> > On 2022-10-05 09:08, Bob Duncan wrote:
> >>
> >> The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained by Walter Bradley and
> >> Casey Luskin
> >>
> >> In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
> >> attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model of
> >> the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
> >> has responded to England's research. Miller points out that the kind
> >> of energy that dissipates as a result of the sun shining on the Earth
> >> or other natural processes cannot explain how living systems have
> >> both low entropy (disorder) and high energy.
> >
> > Correct. The low entropy and high energy is also called *preserving*
> > energy. It's turning the flow of energy backward to create fuel
> > otherwise known as sugar and protein. It's the same as charging a
> > battery that turns the free energy of electricity into the preserved
> > energy in chemical compounds. The process of battery charging is
> > energy preservation and concentration. It's not possible to be
> > accomplished by automatic energy dissipation. A tree is the result of
> > concentration of energy instead of the result of dissipation of
> > energy. This is why all living things are flammable.
> Huh?
>
> Try setting fire to a jellyfish.
ROFLMAO!!!

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 2:28:54 PMOct 5
to
Once again, all you can have is blind denial.

>
>
>
> "I'm not at all well read. I don't read
> anything as a matter of fact due to my
> brain injury. So I don't have to provide
> the proof. It's just my opinion."
> "aaa", April 26, 2017
> http://tinyurl.com/jwh4bpj

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 2:33:21 PMOct 5
to
On 2022-10-05 13:27, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:thk4ms$30fqs$3...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 2022-10-05 09:08, Bob Duncan wrote:
>>>
>>> The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained by Walter Bradley and
>>> Casey Luskin
>>>
>>> In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
>>> attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model of
>>> the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
>>> has responded to England's research. Miller points out that the kind
>>> of energy that dissipates as a result of the sun shining on the Earth
>>> or other natural processes cannot explain how living systems have
>>> both low entropy (disorder) and high energy.
>>
>> Correct. The low entropy and high energy is also called *preserving*
>> energy. It's turning the flow of energy backward to create fuel
>> otherwise known as sugar and protein. It's the same as charging a
>> battery that turns the free energy of electricity into the preserved
>> energy in chemical compounds. The process of battery charging is
>> energy preservation and concentration. It's not possible to be
>> accomplished by automatic energy dissipation. A tree is the result of
>> concentration of energy instead of the result of dissipation of
>> energy. This is why all living things are flammable.
>
>
> Huh?
>
> Try setting fire to a jellyfish.

Are you saying you can't burn the dried jellyfish?

>
>
>> Life is not just
>> made of water and dirt. It's also made of fire. This fire comes from
>> the sun. Therefore, the living things on Earth are actually small
>> suns.
>
>
> That is the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

Why?

John Locke

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 4:29:41 PMOct 5
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 09:08:28 -0400, Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...true, we don't yet know exactly how the first cell originated but
we know that abiogenesys happened else we wouldn't be here.
We have some good ideas and quite a bit of research supporting
abiogenesys. One very good idea is that the first cells were formed
near deep sea vents:
https://tinyurl.com/32e5tsb2
Imagine the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. The period of geological
history we call the Hadean was not as hellish as we once believed. It
was not a sea of lava fuelled by countless volcanoes, although they
certainly existed. It was probably more like small areas of rocky
surface surrounded by a substantial global water ocean.

But it was not the ocean we know today. It was warmer, more acidic and
rich in iron. The atmosphere was mostly nitrogen, carbon dioxide and
no oxygen. There was also no life. Yet deep down at the bottom of the
ocean, something was beginning to happen.

Hot chemicals rising through the sea floor enabled a chemical reaction
between hydrogen and carbon dioxide, producing simple organic
compounds. These organic molecules reacted to form increasingly more
complex compounds. These became encapsulated in simple cell membranes
and grew further in complexity, producing molecules that could carry
information and eventually DNA. These were the first living cells that
could grow, divide and evolve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will see to it that your enemies lay siege to the city until all the
food is gone. Then those trapped inside will have to eat their own sons
and daughters and friends. They will be driven to utter despair.
-(Jeremiah 19)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 7:07:17 PMOct 5
to
That's funny 'cause the 2nd law says energy "runs down".
And here you are saying that it is "p[reserved".
Is this some sort of philosophy?

> It's not
> difficult, but no one has bothered to understand it from the view of
> physics.
Go with "philosophy".

Tim

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 7:18:21 PMOct 5
to
On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:35:12 AM UTC-4, aaa wrote:
> On 2022-10-05 09:08, Bob Duncan wrote:
> >
> > The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained by Walter Bradley and
> > Casey Luskin
> >
> > In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
> > attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model of
> > the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
> > has responded to England's research. Miller points out that the kind
> > of energy that dissipates as a result of the sun shining on the Earth
> > or other natural processes cannot explain how living systems have
> > both low entropy (disorder) and high energy.
> Correct. The low entropy and high energy is also called *preserving*
> energy. It's turning the flow of energy backward to create fuel
> otherwise known as sugar and protein. It's the same as charging a
> battery that turns the free energy of electricity into the preserved
> energy in chemical compounds. The process of battery charging is energy
> preservation and concentration. It's not possible to be accomplished by
> automatic energy dissipation. A tree is the result of concentration of
> energy instead of the result of dissipation of energy. This is why all
> living things are flammable. Life is not just made of water and dirt.
> It's also made of fire. This fire comes from the sun. Therefore, the
> living things on Earth are actually small suns.

You are an imbecile!

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 8:16:59 PMOct 5
to
It's what's happening in life. It's hard science.

>
>> It's not
>> difficult, but no one has bothered to understand it from the view of
>> physics.
> Go with "philosophy".

The explanation of the energy preservation happening in life is indeed
philosophy. It's called intelligent design that has given life the
ability to keep the free energy of the sun from running down the drain.

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 8:18:27 PMOct 5
to
More blind denial. As usual, you have nothing else.

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 8:30:36 PMOct 5
to
On 2022-10-05 16:29, John Locke wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 09:08:28 -0400, Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained
>> by Walter Bradley and Casey Luskin
>>
>> In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
>> attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model
>> of the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
>> has responded to England's research.
>> Miller points out that the kind of energy that dissipates as a result
>> of the sun shining on the Earth or other natural processes cannot
>> explain how living systems have both low entropy (disorder) and
>> high energy.
>>
>> <https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/still-unexplained-the-first-living-cell/>
>>
> ...true, we don't yet know exactly how the first cell originated but
> we know that abiogenesys happened else we wouldn't be here.

Pure imagination and false logic. Just because there is something
doesn't mean it must be automatically self-generated.

JWS

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 8:52:01 PMOct 5
to
Science says the 2nd law states that energy "runs down".
You yourself have said so many times on this news group.
Now you say energy is "preserved". You contradict yourself.
You know nothing about "hard science".

> >> It's not
> >> difficult, but no one has bothered to understand it from the view of
> >> physics.
> > Go with "philosophy".
> The explanation of the energy preservation happening in life is indeed
> philosophy. It's called intelligent design that has given life the
> ability to keep the free energy of the sun from running down the drain.
Energy creation and dissipation is a matter of physics.
It is not opinion. Philosophy is opinion and does not
mean much of anything in how the real world operates.
Life is not designed, intelligently or unintelligently.

Dexter

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:07:35 PMOct 5
to
aaa wrote:

> On 2022-10-05 19:18, Tim wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:35:12 AM UTC-4, aaa wrote:
> > > On 2022-10-05 09:08, Bob Duncan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained by Walter Bradley and
> > > > Casey Luskin
> > > >
> > > > In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
> > > > attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model of
> > > > the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
> > > > has responded to England's research. Miller points out that the kind
> > > > of energy that dissipates as a result of the sun shining on the Earth
> > > > or other natural processes cannot explain how living systems have
> > > > both low entropy (disorder) and high energy.
> > > Correct. The low entropy and high energy is also called preserving
> > > energy. It's turning the flow of energy backward to create fuel
> > > otherwise known as sugar and protein. It's the same as charging a
> > > battery that turns the free energy of electricity into the preserved
> > > energy in chemical compounds. The process of battery charging is energy
> > > preservation and concentration. It's not possible to be accomplished by
> > > automatic energy dissipation. A tree is the result of concentration of
> > > energy instead of the result of dissipation of energy. This is why all
> > > living things are flammable. Life is not just made of water and dirt.
> > > It's also made of fire. This fire comes from the sun. Therefore, the
> > > living things on Earth are actually small suns.
> >
> > You are an imbecile!
> >
>
> More blind denial. As usual, you have nothing else.
-----------------------------

God damn, I hope you haven't reproduced!

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:29:14 PMOct 5
to
Why would you say that?

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:30:59 PMOct 5
to
Sugar and protein in life are the results of preserving the free energy
of the sun. It's a fact. Science only explains the free energy. It has
neglected to mention about the preserved energy. Sugar and protein are
preserved energy. They are not the result of energy emission which will
only increase entropy. They are the result of energy preservation which
will reduce entropy. This is why life is able to reduce the entropy in
itself despite the emission and radiation of the sun. This is why,
despite the burning sun, there is always a cool breeze under the shade
of the tree.

>
>>>> It's not
>>>> difficult, but no one has bothered to understand it from the view of
>>>> physics.
>>> Go with "philosophy".
>> The explanation of the energy preservation happening in life is indeed
>> philosophy. It's called intelligent design that has given life the
>> ability to keep the free energy of the sun from running down the drain.
> Energy creation and dissipation is a matter of physics.
> It is not opinion. Philosophy is opinion and does not
> mean much of anything in how the real world operates.
> Life is not designed, intelligently or unintelligently.

The philosophical theory of intelligent design isn't just an opinion.
It's legitimate philosophical theory called Creationism.

Dexter

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:37:48 PMOct 5
to
-----------------------------

The world would be a much better place if you didn't
pass your type of stupid on to defenseless children.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:40:39 PMOct 5
to
aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:thkild$31pok$2...@dont-email.me:
You said living things.

A dried jellyfish isn't living.

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:48:22 PMOct 5
to
That's playing with words.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Life is not just
>>>> made of water and dirt. It's also made of fire. This fire comes from
>>>> the sun. Therefore, the living things on Earth are actually small
>>>> suns.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is the stupidest thing you have ever posted.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>

aaa

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 9:50:08 PMOct 5
to
Is that an admission that my opponents are rather childish?

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Oct 5, 2022, 11:09:35 PMOct 5
to
aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:thlc52$3638j$8...@dont-email.me:
That's you admitting you are wrong.







JWS

unread,
Oct 6, 2022, 12:47:32 AMOct 6
to
Energy is stored in the molecular bonds of sugar. The
energy may be accessed in the cells by forming additional
bonds using the sugar. Then that energy is dissipated and
no longer "preserved". More sugar must be acquired to
obtain more energy. The same goes for protein.
These are examples of life (your life) from non-life (the
sugar and protein you eat are not alive). These processes
constantly increase entropy. That's why you have a body
temperature of about 98.6F.

> >>>> It's not
> >>>> difficult, but no one has bothered to understand it from the view of
> >>>> physics.
> >>> Go with "philosophy".
> >> The explanation of the energy preservation happening in life is indeed
> >> philosophy. It's called intelligent design that has given life the
> >> ability to keep the free energy of the sun from running down the drain.
> > Energy creation and dissipation is a matter of physics.
> > It is not opinion. Philosophy is opinion and does not
> > mean much of anything in how the real world operates.
> > Life is not designed, intelligently or unintelligently.
> The philosophical theory of intelligent design isn't just an opinion.
> It's legitimate philosophical theory called Creationism.
All one can do is "talk" about creationism. No one can
ever demonstrate that it actually happens.

aaa

unread,
Oct 6, 2022, 8:49:29 AMOct 6
to
And you have been reduced to play with words.

aaa

unread,
Oct 6, 2022, 8:49:30 AMOct 6
to
Nonsense. All chemical bonds are made of preserved energy.

More sugar
> must be acquired to obtain more energy. The same goes for protein.
> These are examples of life (your life) from non-life (the sugar and
> protein you eat are not alive). These processes constantly increase
> entropy. That's why you have a body temperature of about 98.6F.

The body temperature comes from burning the sugar instead of forming it.

>
>>>>>> It's not difficult, but no one has bothered to understand
>>>>>> it from the view of physics.
>>>>> Go with "philosophy".
>>>> The explanation of the energy preservation happening in life is
>>>> indeed philosophy. It's called intelligent design that has
>>>> given life the ability to keep the free energy of the sun from
>>>> running down the drain.
>>> Energy creation and dissipation is a matter of physics. It is not
>>> opinion. Philosophy is opinion and does not mean much of anything
>>> in how the real world operates. Life is not designed,
>>> intelligently or unintelligently.
>> The philosophical theory of intelligent design isn't just an
>> opinion. It's legitimate philosophical theory called Creationism.
> All one can do is "talk" about creationism. No one can ever
> demonstrate that it actually happens.

Intelligent design is a perfect demonstration.

JWS

unread,
Oct 6, 2022, 8:57:52 AMOct 6
to
Define "preserved" energy.
What other kinds of energy are there?

> More sugar
> > must be acquired to obtain more energy. The same goes for protein.
> > These are examples of life (your life) from non-life (the sugar and
> > protein you eat are not alive). These processes constantly increase
> > entropy. That's why you have a body temperature of about 98.6F.
> The body temperature comes from burning the sugar instead of forming it.
> >
> >>>>>> It's not difficult, but no one has bothered to understand
> >>>>>> it from the view of physics.
> >>>>> Go with "philosophy".
> >>>> The explanation of the energy preservation happening in life is
> >>>> indeed philosophy. It's called intelligent design that has
> >>>> given life the ability to keep the free energy of the sun from
> >>>> running down the drain.
> >>> Energy creation and dissipation is a matter of physics. It is not
> >>> opinion. Philosophy is opinion and does not mean much of anything
> >>> in how the real world operates. Life is not designed,
> >>> intelligently or unintelligently.
> >> The philosophical theory of intelligent design isn't just an
> >> opinion. It's legitimate philosophical theory called Creationism.
> > All one can do is "talk" about creationism. No one can ever
> > demonstrate that it actually happens.
> Intelligent design is a perfect demonstration.
So demonstrate it.

aaa

unread,
Oct 6, 2022, 10:29:19 AMOct 6
to
Preserved energy is the energy preserved in chemical bonds or atoms.
It's the energy used to establish orderly structure to reduce entropy.

> What other kinds of energy are there?

There are also free energy and used energy.

Free energy is the electromagnetic radiation in space.

Used energy is the energy in matter used to increase entropy. It's
measured by temperature.


>
>> More sugar
>>> must be acquired to obtain more energy. The same goes for protein.
>>> These are examples of life (your life) from non-life (the sugar and
>>> protein you eat are not alive). These processes constantly increase
>>> entropy. That's why you have a body temperature of about 98.6F.
>> The body temperature comes from burning the sugar instead of forming it.
>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not difficult, but no one has bothered to understand
>>>>>>>> it from the view of physics.
>>>>>>> Go with "philosophy".
>>>>>> The explanation of the energy preservation happening in life is
>>>>>> indeed philosophy. It's called intelligent design that has
>>>>>> given life the ability to keep the free energy of the sun from
>>>>>> running down the drain.
>>>>> Energy creation and dissipation is a matter of physics. It is not
>>>>> opinion. Philosophy is opinion and does not mean much of anything
>>>>> in how the real world operates. Life is not designed,
>>>>> intelligently or unintelligently.
>>>> The philosophical theory of intelligent design isn't just an
>>>> opinion. It's legitimate philosophical theory called Creationism.
>>> All one can do is "talk" about creationism. No one can ever
>>> demonstrate that it actually happens.
>> Intelligent design is a perfect demonstration.
> So demonstrate it.

Sure. Life is based on preserving the free energy coming from the sun.
Preserving the free energy in space into the preserved energy in
chemical bonds or atomic matter is the same as turning the flow of
energy backward. It's moving against the second law of thermodynamics.
Since only intelligent design can move against the natural physical law
to charge a battery or make the airplane fly, only intelligent design
can create photosynthesis to preserve the free energy into sugar to make
life possible. Therefore, life that requires preserving the free energy
coming from the sun must be the result of God's intelligent design.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Oct 6, 2022, 10:30:25 AMOct 6
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 16:00:25 +0000, "Dexter" <n...@home.com> wrote:

>aaa wrote:
>
>> On 2022-10-05 10:08, JWS wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 8:08:33 AM UTC-5, Bob Duncan wrote:
>> > > The First Living Cell Is Still Unexplained
>> > > by Walter Bradley and Casey Luskin
>> > >
>> > > In recent years, MIT physicist Jeremy England has gained media
>> > > attention for proposing a thermodynamic energy-dissipation model
>> > > of the origin of life. ...Another physicist, ID theorist Brian Miller,
>> > > has responded to England's research.
>> > > Miller points out that the kind of energy that dissipates as a result
>> > > of the sun shining on the Earth or other natural processes cannot
>> > > explain how living systems have both low entropy (disorder) and
>> > > high energy.

I've never heard on Brian Miller or Jeremy England, so at the moment
it's just "my authority sez " without saying why. So it's "my
authority vs your authority and I trust mine"

If they're going to argue against established science, they need to
understand it well enough to give proper arguments and discuss the
responses to them.

But instead they repeat the arguments from authority and dismiss
responses.

><https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/still-unexplained-the-first-living-cell/>
>> > Getting closer all the time:
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x
>>
>> Too bad the author isn't a physicist. He doesn't understand that the process
>> he's describing is against the second law of thermodynamics. He doesn't
>> understand that everything happening in life is against the second law. Since
>> nothing in nature can be against the second law, life can't be the result of
>> automatic natural process.
>-----------------------------
>
>It's plainly obvious that you're not a physicist either. How is it you believe
>that you speak with authority? My belief is you're delusional.

Bradley and Luskin were lying - it would take a time machine to know
exactly what happened, but they expect researchers to know the exact
details.

But abiogenesis researchers hace found conditions from which
protocells emerge naturally, and it doesn't require energy from the
sun.

Nobody insists it happened exactly the same way, but it shows that
natural processes are all that are needed.

The most likely source of heat, is from thermal vents on the sea bed.

The laboratory-formed protocells are extremely simple, without most
of the things that modern cells have.

It starts with simpler compounds forming amino acids using heat,
catalysed by silicates (the world's most common minerals) eg sand or
clay on the sea bed.

More heat causes them to link into peptide and even protein chains.

These formed protein spheroids, which the early researchers more than
sixty years ago, first thought were contamination until the