Beyond Evolution: Unraveling the Origins of Life with Stephen Meyer and James Tour

Thanks. I saw your smiling face and that of Thomas Sowell on the screen of a neighboring passenger's iPhone yesterday. Uncommon Knowledge had at least one viewer perusing the archives on the flight from Austin to Indianapolis.

James Tour gives the most credible talk about the impossibility of life forming by random chance. He goes through the mathematical odds against every building block of life happening by chance in a Universe our size. He is one of the finest I've ever heard on the subject.

The "primordial ooze" paradigm and the silly inference that Miller-Urey solved the origin question 70 years ago is not just wrong but intellectually crippling: no point in wondering--stuff just happens.

Great discussion in this interview.

We are told to just assume that the genes for higher forms of life are accidents (like the first cell in the ooze itself) then acted upon by natural selection. That there is some pattern of information driving the whole incredibly complex process forward should be the origin of a vital new line of scientific inquiry and a whole new paradigm. Instead, we are directed to ignore that possibility because it might let God back into the discussion, which is not a logical necessity. There is a strange mandate to adhere to a sterile line of thinking in order to combat a caricature of religious oppression that was not even in effect in Galilleo's time.

As an aside, like the obsessive use of the theory of natural selection, Marx was not curious about the origin of the factories, wealth and technologies to be divvied up by the revolution (and thus not sufficiently concerned about the effects of that redistribution). Mandated sterile thought is epidemic in many fields.

Peter, along with Dr. Meyer and Dr. Tour, continues to disappoint. These gentlemen are correct on the limitations of "Science" ("Our knowledge is a torch of smokey pine that light's the pathway but one step ahead, across a void of mystery and dread. Bid then the tender light of Faith to shine, by which alone the mortal mind is led unto the thinking of the thought divine" Santayana). But they have nothing to offer.

Dr. Meyer is a complete dualist, it appears to me. There is matter. There is mind. and they are disconnected, forever separate, not the same thing, never can be, although the Mind of God (the Word of His power) creates and sustains the Universe, and in that Word we live and breathe and have our being. But it is beyond "Science" and always will be. If we are in the image of God, including our Consciousness, that should not be the case.

Further, Dr. Meyer's dualism does NOT concord with what we know about Quantum mechanics, wherein conscious observation (by humans--and if you believe Gamow, by other creatures, including dogs) directly interacts with the wave equation to collapse it and bring in to being one or the other of the superposition of probabilities represented by the Wave equation in a Quantum system: Mind directly interacts with matter. Dr. Meyer absolutely refuses to accept this. In that, he is completely out of the realm of current understanding. And he makes no apologies for that, which he should--he should apologize profoundly for insulting our intelligence, if you will. But of course he will never consider doing such a thing.

To me, his perspective is narrow and bigoted; he refuses to see what is right in front of his face. This to me smacks of the same arrogant ignorance manifest by such as Thomas Huxley. But I'm sure he doesn't care about my perspective and will dismiss it out of hand.

Dr. Tour surprises me with his historical ignorance and limited awareness. He seems to have unburdened himself from what came before.

To wit: Has he ever read Jean Piaget's theoretical treatise, "Biology and Knowledge". It appears that he has not. Of course, Piaget is a forgotten thinker, consigned to the ash heap of scientific history not just by the Darwinists, and those who espouse the Neo Darwinian synthesis. But also by scientists such as Dr. Tour. Why? Piaget was one of those crackpot "Vitalists" who postulated something akin to an Elan' Vital, along with Henri Bergson and Rene' Dubois, to explain life. I dare say Dr. Tour has nothing better to offer. He admits so himself. But he will not go there, I am sure. Too abstract. Too "vitalist."

Piaget, however, postulated an "Organizing Function," which he conceived of as something that guides Evolution, to allow for the emergence of species. Interestingly, Piaget investigate this "Organizing Function" in the development of childrens' (his own) cognitive skills. He connected his organizing function directly to cognitive function as the most overt manifestation of that organizing function. He showed how children spontaneously, with growing experience from interaction with their physical surroundings, achieved progressively more accurate understanding of their world.

This has all been long since forgotten, and I am sure Dr. Tour will dismiss this post out of hand also, given his hardheaded narrowness and lack of imagination.

In Piaget's case, his work was embraced by cognitive psychologists, and he became the father of cognitive psychology, but he was not aiming for that distinction at all. He did, however, make a direct connection between mind and matter. And that matters.

Dr. Tour, like Dr. Meyer, should also start thinking about how Mind directly interacts with matter. And how quantum effects are involved in biological processes. It's not all just chemistry. As a possible example, consider the example Stuart Kaufmann evaluated many years ago, the fixation of sulfur by sulfur fixing bacteria. In these organisms, it seems that light delivers its energy to the reactive center with a close to 100% efficiency. Almost no energy is lost as the light passes through the molecule to the reactive center where the sulfur is fixed. Kaufmann argued that this could only occur if, as noted in quantum experiments with light and arrays of half silvered mirrors, each photon takes all possible paths to the target simultaneously. SO, he suggested, it happens in the molecule in the bacteria: Each light photon takes all possible paths through the molecule simultaneously to retain its energy and deliver it to the reactive center. That is, he suggests, quantum behavior of light is essential to the biological process.

This opens a whole new perspective on biology. Quantum events, including the quantum behavior of light and other quantum particles, should be considered in biological processes, that vast complexity of the cell, not to mention entire organisms. Quantum entanglement, non local quantum phenomena, space time non locality, conceptually underpin an idea of a quantum space wherein biological processes may occur in ways as yet undreamed of by current mechanistic scientists. Neither molecular biologists, nor organic chemists it would seem, nor biochemists, are willing to start to think in quantum mechanical terms. I would argue that these have a profound effect on biological processes and may be related to the coordinated actions and information flow within the cell, to the scale of the entire organism, and to the species, and the biosphere.

One might consider that biological processes, like computational processes (since these gentlemen yammer on and on about code, etc.) are vastly faster via quantum processes than classical or non quantum processes. In the realm of quantum computing, in which quantum entanglement is propagated, computations that classically would require billions of years occur in a few minutes. I would assert that you really cannot think of biological systems, life, without starting to think in quantum terms. The billions of years that would never produce new species from a classical vantage point, might not be necessary at all from a quantum effects standpoint.

WE should be well into the epoch of quantum biology, but that is hardly, if ever, broached. I, for one, am appalled. Dr. Tours is indeed belaboring the obvious. One might wish he would stop belaboring the obvious and start thinking a little bit.

Let me just summarize an idea regarding consciousness. What if consciousness were material? What say you, Dr. Meyre?Dr. Tour?

Imagine a Quantum Consciousness field. Far weaker than a quantum Gravitational Field (which has not been verified yet, but quantum physicists like to think about it anyway), the quantum particle underlying that field, or manifesting that field, would be smaller that that manifesting the gravitational quantum field. Its wavelengths would thus be far longer. Such a field would be well night impossible to detect. But it may have unique properties. For example, those quantum consciousness particles (perhaps we could call them cognition), because of their very long wavelengths, if they were bosons (eg, after the Higg's boson, a massive particle, of high energy, working at subnuclear distances, with a very very short wavelength, as the distant opposite of the Cogniton) may form Bose Einstein condensates at very high temperatures compared to all other quantum particles. And what might a Bose Einstein condensenate of consciousness particles do? Likely unimaginable things, including in its interaction with other forms of matter. And perhaps we humans have developed under the influence of that Quantum Consciousness field, eg, developed brains that interact with that quantum consciousness field possibly starting to explain something of qualia, and the further reaches of cognitive function, such as savantism, clairvoyance, remote viewing, telepathy, even, dare I suggest, prophecy? Are our brains high temperature superconducting quantum computational systems? That interact directly with our physical world, and each other?

No one else has any remotely reasonable explanation for life, or consciousness. Clearly, a different approach is needed. Why not start to consider these ideas?

Perhaps one of Peter's guests could comment on these questions or ideas. Of course, they are off to their vastly more important activities and have no time for rambling speculators such as myself. I suspect they will relegate me to the lunatic fringe, like the disgraced Sir Cyril Burt, who long ago broached the idea of a "consciousness particle"(the evocatively named"psychon"). But one can hope. I would certainly appreciate it if either one or both of these guests would engage some of these questions? Gentlemen? Anyone? Bueller?

Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

Peter, along with Dr. Meyer and Dr. Tour, continues to disappoint. These gentlemen are correct on the limitations of “Science” (“Our knowledge is a torch of smokey pine that light’s the pathway but one step ahead, across a void of mystery and dread. Bid then the tender light of Faith to shine, by which alone the mortal mind is led unto the thinking of the thought divine” Santayana). But they have nothing to offer.

Dr. Meyer is a complete dualist, it appears to me. There is matter. There is mind. and they are disconnected, forever separate, not the same thing, never can be, although the Mind of God (the Word of His power) creates and sustains the Universe, and in that Word we live and breathe and have our being. But it is beyond “Science” and always will be. If we are in the image of God, including our Consciousness, that should not be the case.

Further, Dr. Meyer’s dualism does NOT concord with what we know about Quantum mechanics, wherein conscious observation (by humans–and if you believe Gamow, by other creatures, including dogs) directly interacts with the wave equation to collapse it and bring in to being one or the other of the superposition of probabilities represented by the Wave equation in a Quantum system: Mind directly interacts with matter. Dr. Meyer absolutely refuses to accept this. In that, he is completely out of the realm of current understanding. And he makes no apologies for that, which he should–he should apologize profoundly for insulting our intelligence, if you will. But of course he will never consider doing such a thing.

To me, his perspective is narrow and bigoted; he refuses to see what is right in front of his face. This to me smacks of the same arrogant ignorance manifest by such as Thomas Huxley. But I’m sure he doesn’t care about my perspective and will dismiss it out of hand.

Dr. Tour surprises me with his historical ignorance and limited awareness. He seems to have unburdened himself from what came before.

To wit: Has he ever read Jean Piaget’s theoretical treatise, “Biology and Knowledge”. It appears that he has not. Of course, Piaget is a forgotten thinker, consigned to the ash heap of scientific history not just by the Darwinists, and those who espouse the Neo Darwinian synthesis. But also by scientists such as Dr. Tour. Why? Piaget was one of those crackpot “Vitalists” who postulated something akin to an Elan’ Vital, along with Henri Bergson and Rene’ Dubois, to explain life. I dare say Dr. Tour has nothing better to offer. He admits so himself. But he will not go there, I am sure. Too abstract. Too “vitalist.”

Piaget, however, postulated an “Organizing Function,” which he conceived of as something that guides Evolution, to allow for the emergence of species. Interestingly, Piaget investigate this “Organizing Function” in the development of childrens’ (his own) cognitive skills. He connected his organizing function directly to cognitive function as the most overt manifestation of that organizing function. He showed how children spontaneously, with growing experience from interaction with their physical surroundings, achieved progressively more accurate understanding of their world.

This has all been long since forgotten, and I am sure Dr. Tour will dismiss this post out of hand also, given his hardheaded narrowness and lack of imagination.

In Piaget’s case, his work was embraced by cognitive psychologists, and he became the father of cognitive psychology, but he was not aiming for that distinction at all. He did, however, make a direct connection between mind and matter. And that matters.

Dr. Tour, like Dr. Meyer, should also start thinking about how Mind directly interacts with matter. And how quantum effects are involved in biological processes. It’s not all just chemistry. As a possible example, consider the example Stuart Kaufmann evaluated many years ago, the fixation of sulfur by sulfur fixing bacteria. In these organisms, it seems that light delivers its energy to the reactive center with a close to 100% efficiency. Almost no energy is lost as the light passes through the molecule to the reactive center where the sulfur is fixed. Kaufmann argued that this could only occur if, as noted in quantum experiments with light and arrays of half silvered mirrors, each photon takes all possible paths to the target simultaneously. SO, he suggested, it happens in the molecule in the bacteria: Each light photon takes all possible paths through the molecule simultaneously to retain its energy and deliver it to the reactive center. That is, he suggests, quantum behavior of light is essential to the biological process.

This opens a whole new perspective on biology. Quantum events, including the quantum behavior of light and other quantum particles, should be considered in biological processes, that vast complexity of the cell, not to mention entire organisms. Quantum entanglement, non local quantum phenomena, space time non locality, conceptually underpin an idea of a quantum space wherein biological processes may occur in ways as yet undreamed of by current mechanistic scientists. Neither molecular biologists, nor organic chemists it would seem, nor biochemists, are willing to start to think in quantum mechanical terms. I would argue that these have a profound effect on biological processes and may be related to the coordinated actions and information flow within the cell, to the scale of the entire organism, and to the species, and the biosphere.

One might consider that biological processes, like computational processes (since these gentlemen yammer on and on about code, etc.) are vastly faster via quantum processes than classical or non quantum processes. In the realm of quantum computing, in which quantum entanglement is propagated, computations that classically would require billions of years occur in a few minutes. I would assert that you really cannot think of biological systems, life, without starting to think in quantum terms. The billions of years that would never produce new species from a classical vantage point, might not be necessary at all from a quantum effects standpoint.

WE should be well into the epoch of quantum biology, but that is hardly, if ever, broached. I, for one, am appalled. Dr. Tours is indeed belaboring the obvious. One might wish he would stop belaboring the obvious and start thinking a little bit.

Let me just summarize an idea regarding consciousness. What if consciousness were material? What say you, Dr. Meyre?Dr. Tour?

Imagine a Quantum Consciousness field. Far weaker than a quantum Gravitational Field (which has not been verified yet, but quantum physicists like to think about it anyway), the quantum particle underlying that field, or manifesting that field, would be smaller that that manifesting the gravitational quantum field. Its wavelengths would thus be far longer. Such a field would be well night impossible to detect. But it may have unique properties. For example, those quantum consciousness particles (perhaps we could call them cognition), because of their very long wavelengths, if they were bosons (eg, after the Higg’s boson, a massive particle, of high energy, working at subnuclear distances, with a very very short wavelength, as the distant opposite of the Cogniton) may form Bose Einstein condensates at very high temperatures compared to all other quantum particles. And what might a Bose Einstein condensenate of consciousness particles do? Likely unimaginable things, including in its interaction with other forms of matter. And perhaps we humans have developed under the influence of that Quantum Consciousness field, eg, developed brains that interact with that quantum consciousness field possibly starting to explain something of qualia, and the further reaches of cognitive function, such as savantism, clairvoyance, remote viewing, telepathy, even, dare I suggest, prophecy? Are our brains high temperature superconducting quantum computational systems? That interact directly with our physical world, and each other?

No one else has any remotely reasonable explanation for life, or consciousness. Clearly, a different approach is needed. Why not start to consider these ideas?

Perhaps one of Peter’s guests could comment on these questions or ideas. Of course, they are off to their vastly more important activities and have no time for rambling speculators such as myself. I suspect they will relegate me to the lunatic fringe, like the disgraced Sir Cyril Burt, who long ago broached the idea of a “consciousness particle”(the evocatively named”psychon”). But one can hope. I would certainly appreciate it if either one or both of these guests would engage some of these questions? Gentlemen? Anyone? Bueller?

None of your discussion about the potential relevance of quantum mechanics, mind-matter and psychology was precluded by the two scientists nor the existence of God nor the need to discover an organizing force. But none of your proposed applications has yet to have an empirical appearance in biology conducive to a theory of life's origins. (Neither does the once (but no longer) seemingly plausible primordial ooze origin theory. ) Both interviewees stated that the phenomena of information makes it appear as if an intelligence was operating. Neither of them (nor you) has offered a testable hypothesis as to the nature of that intelligence, a limitation they do not claim to be a final state of knowledge.

I agree that we should reject scientistic (not scientific) mindsets that exclude possibilities and keep lines of inquiry within a narrow hyper materialistic dogma but that kind of accusation does not apply to these two fellows. The gist of the interview was that science as currently organized and practiced (a) does not have an answer about origins (b) does not acknowledge its limitations and (c) enforces a sterile orthodoxy on the issue. The fact that they did not also share speculations similar to those cited above is not a reason for condemnation.

Newton was a lot smarter than I but we share the same intuition that the order, complexity and sheer wonder of the universe means there is a divine intelligence at work. There will never be a final "Aha, that's where God was hiding" moment in some clever empirical experiment. The intuition may be strengthened (or challenged) but science has to be effected by its own nature and rules. A farmer can justifiably say that every seed that becomes a cornstalk is a miracle but that inference is neither science nor proof.