A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part XXVI

And then did we, the Most High Scientists, decide that life may have “been forged in a quantum crucible.”(1)  Not to be outdone by our fellow believers in Naturalism, the venerable biologists, we physicists did decide to weigh in on the matter of life’s beginning. 

Erving Schrödinger, the fellow who did imagine a cat being dead and not dead at the same time,(2) did also imagine other things about life.  Some 65 years later, do we weigh in on the issue.

Now, while some silly folk (i.e., creationists) do make wildly erroneous calculations about the probability of abiogenesis, we’ll give you a calculation in order to promote our theory.  We’ll deny it if the creationists do try to use it (Praise Science). 

But we do now focus in on one molecular machine, the ribosome, that protein factory of the cell that is capable of producing even more ribosomes.(3) 

So we did calculate that there could be 4165 possible primitive ribozyme structures based on 165 DNA base pair sequences.  We do know that most of these would not be self-replicators. 

“That’s more than the number of electrons in the universe,” he says. What’s more, life came about relatively soon after the planet formed, he says. “The puzzle is not only how life emerged, but how it emerged so fast.”

We shall now engage in a bit of anthropomorphism, (4) forgive us (Praise Science).  But do realize that it is completely naturalistic, and God is not needed.  Quantum processes did sort through and discard unwanted structures.  We’re certain you’ll have no problem with our use of the terms of “sort” and “unwanted” with regards to nature.  So, we do now think, that multiple mutated configurations did exist simultaneously (just like the cat was dead and un-dead a the same time).  This simultaneous existence of configurations allowed for the testing of a range of possibilities.  We do now know that quantum effects are a bit finicky; however, we do believe that they could act at the bottom of the Ocean (Praise Science). 

Davies also finds the idea promising. “These guys may have found a niche where quantum magic really could be at work,” he says. “But it is conjecture at this stage, just as all ideas for the origin of life are.”

We do also know that you know that when we use the term “magic” we don’t mean anything by it.  We certainly don’t mean “non-material” (Praise Science).  Once the configurations were sorted out and selected, the struture would become fixed, and unavailable to quantum effects. 

 

(1). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626332.700-was-life-forged-in-a-quantum-crucible.html

(2). Schrödinger’s Cat

(3). http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/ribosome.html

(4). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Advertisements

6 Responses

  1. These guys may have found a niche where…magic really could be at work…

    Magic? Where is Bobxxxx when you need him?! 😉

    Good job, it seems to me that the most important part of this satire is the point about attributing intelligence and sight to unintelligent and blind processes. It is a mental illusion apparently necessary for naturalism and to some degree Darwinism as well. It is a metaphoric form of parasitism on intelligent agency.

  2. Yes, it’s been awhile since Bobxxx (I always forget the last x for some reason) has been by. He seems to be shirking his trolling duties.

    Since I didn’t quote the passage that I was working from directly, and subscription is required to get the full article, I’ll post the relevant passage here (emphasis added):

    McFadden believes that nature employed a quantum trick to speed up the process of sorting through and discarding unwanted structures – the same trick quantum computers employ.

    And…

    McFadden thinks a similar process could have occurred in the chemical soup that spawned life. If many different chemical structures could exist simultaneously in multiple, slightly mutated configurations, they could essentially “test” a range of possibilities at once until they hit a self-replicating molecule. This could trigger the act of replication, he says, which could be violent enough to collapse the delicate quantum states, fixing that structure as a self-replicator.

    This is sort of a natural process for the naturalists. They also fail to appropriately attribute intelligence to their designed “evolutionary” algorithms. Perhaps, they don’t notice, because they have been naturally attributing intelligence to nature so long that it just seems natural. Sorry for the repetitive use of the term natural. 😉

  3. “They also fail to appropriately attribute intelligence to their designed “evolutionary” algorithms.”

    As usual, your silly opinion is noted as nonsensical and disregarded.

  4. As usual, your silly opinion is noted as nonsensical and disregarded.

    You’re not the judge of nonsense, a mind has to make sense for one to have sense. After all, on your own Darwinian terms your opinion has more to do with the sexual behaviors of your ancestors than things like reality and rationality, whatever it is you think you mean by such claims as a result of natural selection. So it would seem that anyone interested in the reality of things which have to do with more than the mere physical substrate of existence can disregard your opinion. If your opinion is totally reducible to the physical substrate that it exists in and the biological substrate it exists in has more to do with your mother’s reproductive organs and so on than with any form of mind or intelligence grasping “reality.” On the other hand, if a mind can make “sense” of things and grasp reality as opposed to “nonsense” then your arguments against the impact of intelligent agency in biology and in favor of imagining things about the past collapse.

    Ironically, it’s truly nonsensical to try to argue from a position of total nonsense (i.e. blind processes with no sense) to a position of sense (sight, sentience and intelligent agency).

  5. “You’re not the judge of nonsense”

    Your silly opinion is noted and disregarded.

    “If your opinion is totally reducible to the physical substrate that it exists in …”

    “Ironically, it’s truly nonsensical to try to argue from a position of total nonsense (i.e. blind processes with no sense) to a position of sense (sight, sentience and intelligent agency).”

    The “poodling of poseurs” is ignored by adults.

  6. Trollish quotes, over and over again, ad-nauseum!

    As usual, your silly opinion is noted as nonsensical and disregarded.

    The “poodling of poseurs” is ignored by adults.

    Your silly opinion is noted and disregarded.

    He sounds like a Frenchman in a Monty Python movie, “I fart in your general direction…” “Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberry…” “You silly, English dog type….”

    Anyone else sick of these infantile and moronic responses?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: