Oxus Com

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Net present value
  • Trustee
  • International monetary system
  • Principal-Agent Theory
  • Banking

Oxus Com

Header Banner

Oxus Com

  • Home
  • Net present value
  • Trustee
  • International monetary system
  • Principal-Agent Theory
  • Banking
Principal-Agent Theory
Home›Principal-Agent Theory›England, Davies: Honesty, if not agreement, on the origin of life

England, Davies: Honesty, if not agreement, on the origin of life

By Terrie Graves
July 1, 2021
0
0
Photo: Plant cells, by Hermann Schachner, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons.

I recently had the pleasure of watching Justin Brierley host a discussion between Jeremy England and Paul Davies. This episode of the show Unbelievable? was titled “The Origins of Life: Do We Need a New Theory of How Life Began?” ”

England is Senior Director in Artificial Intelligence at GlaxoSmithKline, Principal Investigator at Georgia Tech and former Professor of Physics at MIT. We engaged in a fruitful exchange in the newspaper Inference (here, here) on the same question. Davies is a physics teacher at Arizona State University and the director of Beyond: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. The two scientists are not only leaders in their fields and excellent communicators, but they have also engaged members of the smart design community with respect and honesty. Of particular importance, their exchange and Brierley’s insightful questions and comments further demonstrate the need for the mainstream scientific community to break free from the confines of scientific materialism.

Two enlightening moments

Two moments of the conversation stood out particularly. The first came after England explained their conjecture that the flow of energy through a chemical system could cause it to self-organize in a way that heads for life, including generation required biological information. Brierley referred to my review that such a fortuitous scenario may seem possible in principle, but that it is improbable in practice. He also commented that such proposals naturally lead to “anthropomorphizing the process” where one speaks as if nature wanted to direct simple chemicals towards life. Previously, I explained how theoretical and experimental evidence shows that natural processes always move chemical systems in the exact opposite direction (here, here).

England responded by stating that the tendency to treat life as a special arrangement of matter defined by meaningful biological information represents our inherent bias, resulting from our familiarity with the characteristics and current forms of life. Instead, “one person’s information is another person’s noise.” In other words, the first forms of nascent cells might appear to us as much more mundane arrangements of molecules. Yet this claim is in complete conflict with studies of minimally complex cells examined in the light of studies of minimally complex self-replicating machines.

The confluence of these two streams of research demonstrates that the simplest possible cell that would not spontaneously decompose into simpler molecules must contain the following components:

  • Machines for the production and delivery of energy
  • Information repositories and processors
  • Selective gateways with active transport
  • Sensors coupled to signal transduction and signal processing pathways
  • Actuators that implement instructions
  • Automotive manufacturing and assembly process
  • Automated repair machines
  • Waste disposal and recycling mechanisms
  • Control systems capable of global coordination

These characteristics run directly parallel to human engineering, but they must be performed in life at a much higher level of ingenuity and efficiency. The underlying information is easily distinguished from noise or anything that might be generated by a physical process.

Honesty and frankness

A second notable moment was when Brierley asked Paul Davies about his view that there is a principle in the universe that could generate the required information and move a chemical system forward to life. Davies admitted that no one knows of such a principle. He also honestly stated that the reason he still had faith that such a principle or process must exist is his refusal to consider the possibility of a supreme intelligent agent, as most of the world’s religions assume, who acts in the world. I deeply respect his intellectual honesty and his frankness.

Most of the critics of smart design claim to reject the possibility of design in nature based on scientific evidence, while their critics in fact reflect that they had made no serious effort to understand the key arguments or the science. underlying. Instead, they assume from the start that the arguments must be wrong, then simply look for an excuse to justify their predetermined conclusion. Such people stand in stark contrast to academics like England and Davies who wish to discuss deeper scientific questions in a posture of respect and honesty.

Related posts:

  1. Why we (usually are not) combating | The day by day weblog
  2. Kind 424B2 UBS AG
  3. IMPLAUSIBLE VICARE LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS: CASE DISMISSED – TCPAWorld
  4. UArizona alum makes Ultimate 4 t-shirts

Categories

  • Banking
  • International monetary system
  • Net present value
  • Principal-Agent Theory
  • Trustee

Recent Posts

  • Lake Land College Welcomes New Student Advisor
  • Explained: Harvest Lending Targets and Why Co-operative Banks Want Action Against Commercial Banks for Not Meeting Them
  • CAN YOU BE AN ADMINISTRATOR FOR AGE UK ISLE OF WIGHT? – Echo of the Island
  • Glass walkway near Amravati to provide thrilling experience for adventure tourists from mid-2023 | Bombay News
  • Township of Perry. trustees get advice on sunshine law | News, Sports, Jobs

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • March 2020
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Privacy Policy