The origin of life is easy to explain if it is the result of intelligent design, because intelligent agents know how to engineer the building blocks, and how to assemble them into the components of a living system: proteins and nucleic acids. But how can you do it when there are no intelligences allows in your worldview? There is a new article in Nature about that.

The authors write:

To understand how life might have begun, researchers must stop cherry-picking the most beautiful bits of data or the most apparently convincing isolated steps, and explore the implications of these deep differences in context. Depending on the starting point, each hypothesis has different testable predictions. For example, if life started in a warm pond on land, the succession of steps leading from prebiotic chemistry to cells with genes is surprisingly different from those that must be posited if the first cells emerged in deep-sea hydrothermal vents.

Building coherent frameworks — in which all the steps in the continuum fit together — is essential to making real progress. To see why, here we highlight two of the most prominent frameworks, which propose radically distinct environments for the origin of life.

Let’s see what the authors say about the prebiotic soup:

This framework posits that nucleotides are concentrated in a small pond. To form RNA, the simplest and most versatile genetic material, nucleotides must polymerize. That is most easily achieved by drying them out (polymerization is a type of dehydration reaction). Proponents imagine a succession of wet–dry cycles, in which the pond dries out to form polymers of RNA, then fills again with water containing more nucleotides and so on, cycle after cycle, making more and more RNA3.

This is the “RNA World” hypothesis, which I’ve blogged about before. The authors don’t like it:

But this concept raises some difficult questions. It places the onus on an ‘RNA world’, in which RNA acts both as a catalyst (in a similar way to enzymes) and as a genetic template that can be copied. The problems are that there is little evidence that RNA can catalyse many of the reactions attributed to it (such as those required for metabolism); and copying ‘naked’ RNA (that is not enclosed in compartments such as cells) favours the RNA strands that replicate the fastest. Far from building complexity, these tend to get smaller and simpler over time. Worse, by regularly drying everything out, wet–dry cycles keep forming random groupings of RNA (in effect, randomized genomes). The best combinations, which happen to encode multiple useful catalysts, are immediately lost again by re-randomization in the next generation, precluding the ‘vertical inheritance’ that is needed for evolution to build novelty.

If selection on RNA in drying ponds could somehow be made to generate greater complexity, what must it achieve? To make cells that grow and reproduce, RNA must encode metabolism: the network of hundreds of reactions that keeps all cells alive. Modern-day metabolic reactions bear no resemblance to the cyanide chemistry that makes nucleotides in this model. Evolution would therefore need to replace each and every step in metabolism, and there is no evidence that such a wholesale replacement is possible.

The authors are saying that they need to build up complexity from simple to more complex, in order to get the bare minimum they need for simple life. Life basically requires four different capabilities: membrane, energy capture, metabolism, and information storage. And they all have to be there and working right from the start. It’s a frightful amount of complexity to get right – unless you appeal to intelligence.

The authors also talk about life forming from non-living materials in hydrothermal vents:

Our own favoured scenario is that the chemistry of life reflects the conditions under which life began, in deep-sea hydrothermal systems on the early Earth4. In broad brush strokes, this means that gases such as carbon dioxide (the near-universal source of carbon in cells today) and hydrogen feed a network of reactions with a topology resembling metabolism. Genes and proteins arise within this spontaneous protometabolism and promote the flux of materials through the network, leading to cell growth and reproduction. There are plenty of problems here, too, but they differ from those in the prebiotic soup framework.

The first problem is that they need enzymes in order go from simple gases to nucleotides, and they don’t have them:

The first problem is that H2 and CO2 are not particularly reactive — indeed, their chemistry was largely ignored for decades, although rising interest in green chemistry is changing that. But deep-sea vents are labyrinths of interconnected pores, which have a topology resembling cells — acidic outside and alkaline inside. The flow of protons from the outside to the inside of these pores can drive work in much the same way that the inward flow of protons can drive CO2 fixation in cells today5.

[…]But many chemists are troubled by the idea that, in the absence of enzymes to serve as catalysts, hydrothermal flow could drive scores of reactions through a network that prefigures metabolism, from CO2 right up to nucleotides. The chemist Leslie Orgel once dismissed this scenario as an “appeal to magic”. Certainly, further data are required, supporting or otherwise.

They have problems sequencing nucleotides into functioning components:

Polymerization is another stumbling block. Nucleotides have been polymerized in water on mineral surfaces9, but this raises similar questions to those noted for wet–dry cycles about how selection could act. If the problem is solved by polymerizing nucleotides inside growing protocells, mineral surfaces would not have been available. Polymerization would then have needed to happen in cell-like (aqueous gel) conditions, but without enzymes. If serious attempts to synthesize RNA under those conditions fail, the overall framework would need to be modified.

I’m not convinced that mineral surfaces can help with the nucleotide sequencing problem, but they don’t even have those available in the hydrothermal vents.

I studied computer science in university, so biochemistry is all new to me. I am trying to learn it, but I also have to write code all day for work. But thankfully, there are experts who can sort this out for us.

Here is a podcast from the fellows over at the Discovery Institute, and they talked about this article. Podcasts are a great way to try to understand these complex problems.

I always laugh when I read a bio of a secular leftist, who claims to be an “anti-fascist”. I think to myself, “has this person ever read any history?” History is filled with the stories of big-government atheists using political power to force others violate their consciences. In contrast, conservatives support marriage, unborn children, parent’s rights, free markets, free trade, free speech and religious liberty.

Let’s hear about the latest evidence that Kamala Harris would be a terrible president for Christians.

This is from The Federalist:

On Tuesday, Kamala Harris voiced opposition to providing religious exemptions in any federal legislation legalizing abortion nationwide in the event that such legislation is brought to her desk as president.

The moment came during the vice president’s sit-down interview with NBC News’ Hallie Jackson.

[…]The NBC host specifically queried if “religious exemptions” were “something [Harris] would consider.”

“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris said.

And it’s not just her words against religious liberty that are a problem. It’s her actions. Here’s a reminder of some of her actions, from First Things:

In February 2019, Harris introduced the Do No Harm Act in the U.S. Senate, the purpose of which was to dilute—if not neutralize—the federal 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and similar legislation in about twenty states. The purpose of RFRA was to give legislative protection to religious practices that might incidentally be forbidden by otherwise generally applicable laws prohibiting (or compelling) certain behaviors. RFRA was a legislative response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed a state law to prohibit the use of sacramental peyote in a minority religious ritual. RFRA laws carve out exemptions from generally applicable laws for some religious practices that are fundamental to religious belief.

For example, a RFRA law might protect a church from another law that prohibits consideration of sexual orientation for employment, promotion, or retention. Or it might protect a physician who participates in public health reimbursement programs from a law requiring such physicians to perform a broad scope of so-called healthcare services, such as abortion.

Now, I often run into people who claim to be Christians, but warn me that they don’t want to get involved in “culture wars” and that Christianity is just about “loving everyone” and they also think Jesus would attend gay weddings. And for fake Christians like this, it’s not going to be a problem that Kamala Harris stops Christians from acting like Christians. Because these people don’t act like Christians already. They just attend church and sing songs and do nice things, but they would never dream of obeying God if they had to pay some kind of price for it.

For these people – and for Kamala Harris – Christianity is just about singing songs in church on Sunday. It’s not any more important than going bowling on Tuesday nights with your friends.

More:

Harris sponsored the Do No Harm Act for the express purpose of emasculating RFRA laws. As she explained on the website introducing the act, it would prevent RFRA laws from “being used to deny” such things as “Healthcare access, . . . coverage or services to which persons are otherwise legally entitled,” or “Services that the government has contracted to be beneficiaries through a government . . . grant.” In other words, the Do No Harm Act would compel a Catholic physician to prescribe contraceptives or perform abortions if she participates in federal or state reimbursement programs. And it would require a parochial school that receives state grants, for example, to employ persons in open same-sex relationships as teachers or even ministers.

The full implications of Harris’s philosophical understanding of the scope and limit of religious freedom, however, are found in her apologetic for the Do No Harm Act. In a statement on her website explaining the purpose of the act, Harris uses a very narrow definition of religious freedom. “The freedom to worship is one of our nation’s most fundamental rights,” she writes. “That First Amendment guarantee should never be used to undermine other Americans’ civil rights.” The problem, of course, is that “the freedom to worship” is not a “First Amendment guarantee.” The First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” of religion, which has a much more expansive scope than mere “worship.”

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise of” religion. Harris misquotes the clause, changing “free exercise” to “freedom to worship,” betraying a definition of religious practice that would remove it from any meaningful legislative or political protection. In doing so, she turns the free exercise clause on its head, driving religious faith to the margins of public life and religious exercise out of public life altogether.

Like I said, I don’t expect this kind of warning to mean anything to the “Shepherds for Sale” Christians. Their real religion is being liked, and Christianity has value only if it helps them to be liked. For the rest of us, who take the Bible seriously, a Kamala Harris presidentcy would be a disaster to our plans. To our ability to work, to keep what we earn, and to champion what God says. She would use the force of government to force Christians to choose between working to feed their families, and their relationships with God in Christ. And for a secular left fascist, that’s pretty exciting. They love that. They get a sick and twisted joy out of using power to force Christians to abandon their convictions.

Don’t forget how she pre-dawn raided the homes of pro-lifers, and how many pro-lifers have been pre-dawn raided by the Biden-Harris federal law enforcement. Why think that American Stalinists are any different than the Stalin of the Soviet Union?

If I could get young people to accept one thing about the secular left, it’s that all the “nice” things that they talk about are always at other people’s expense. As soon as you ask them to solve a problem for someone with their own costs, efforts and risks, they say “I was thinking that we could have a systemic solution”. They’re always spending other people’s money, risking other people’s safety.

Here’s an article from the Daily Wire:

Dozens of seniors in New York, including a 94-year-old Army veteran named Frank Tammaro, were evicted from their senior center, which was then converted into a migrant shelter.

City officials have estimated that tens of thousands of migrants have entered the city since last spring, which is costing around $5 million per day. Mayor Eric Adams, who previously boasted about NYC being a “sanctuary” for migrants, has more recently complained about the influx of migrants.

Tammaro told Fox News that he had lived in the center for five years, and intended to spend the rest of his days there until he and the other members were notified that they were being kicked out. After he was evicted, Tammaro’s family found out that the center was turned into a migrant shelter.

“I do get upset when I see them handing out all this money and all these things, and I’m paying taxes and getting kicked out,” Tammaro said. “I’ve never got anything from the city. Or the state.”

Notice that this happened in New York state, which is denominated from top to bottom by Democrats. Democrats just feel better when they help illegal immigrants and refugees. They don’t get the same “buzz” from helping American taxpayers – especially if they have to use their own money.

Here’s another article from the UK Daily Mail:

A 96-year-old woman is facing eviction from her home of 22 years where she says she’s invested her entire savings – in a Democrat state where lawmakers want to give migrants $150,000 loans to buy homes.

Jean Jacques was given a three-day eviction notice from the Pacific Grove Senior Living facility, located on the picturesque Monterey County coast in California, KSBW reported.

The notice demands Jacques pays her outstanding balance of $110,000 or leave her unit, according to the outlet.

Meanwhile in California:

On Wednesday, state lawmakers approved the California Dream For All Shared Appreciation Loan program, which would provide no-interest home loans of up to $150,000 to illegal migrants to use on down payments and fees.

It now heads to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for final approval.

The program was launched last year and has already provided thousands of first-time homebuyers with loans of up to 20 percent of a house’s purchase price.

People who vote Democrat often don’t think about the costs of being “generous” with taxpayer money to illegal immigrants. But it’s hundreds of millions of dollars for each state. Here’s one report about Mississippi:

Illegal immigration could cost Mississippi more than $100 million every year, a new report from the state’s auditor reveals.

The report, from Mississippi State Auditor Shad White, addresses the costs of illegal immigration for the broader country before delving into the ways illegal immigration places a financial burden on Mississippi’s education, healthcare, and public safety systems. The investigation comes as polling indicates that immigration is a top issue for voters heading into the presidential election.

[…]“Illegal immigration creates a financial burden for taxpayers across the country, but the cost of illegal immigration is not borne solely by the federal government,” the report explains, also noting that an estimated 22,000 illegal immigrants reside in the state. “Taxpayers from each state—including Mississippi—must face the reality of increased spending as a result of crisis-level illegal immigration.”

That’s New York and California. If I had to pick another Democrat state, I’d pick Illinois. Specifically, Chicago.

Let’s see what’s happening there:

Chicago has spent $299 million on the migrant crisis since 2022, including $215 million since Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson took office in May 2023.

Nearly 37,000 migrants have arrived in Chicago since August 2022. As of March 14, more than 11,200 migrants were living in shelters.

Right now, we are $36 trillion in debt, so we really have run out of money to be spending on illegal immigration. Who will pay for this debt? Future generations. People who aren’t even born yet. Their quality of life is being diminished by these secular left big spenders who are desperate to virtue signal to you about their great generosity. Therefore, vote wisely.