The Biggest Mystery in the History of the Universe | Joana Xavier on the Origin of Life

Joana Xavier is a rising star in the Origin of Life field. She is a researcher at University College London. She recently authored a paper with Stuart Kauffman on autocatalytic networks which are nature’s version of M.C. Escher’s hand drawing a hand. We discuss the uneasy relationship between professional scientists and Intelligent Design and then go on to discuss conflicts in academia, science funding and publishing.

Joana’s Website:
Joana’s paper:


Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here –

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here –

50 Responses

  1. I would like to attract your attention to my recent book The Living Universe, which actually provides an explanation to the origin of life based on its timing, which is not random. I would be happy to provide you with a copy of my book if I know where to send it. I do not know if this is the right place to post such a suggestion but otherwise please let me know where to go. Sincerely, Carl Johan Calleman, Ph.D.

    • You can send to 805 Lake Street #295 Oak Park IL 60301. I can make no promises as to if/when it will be read. People send us books frequently.

      • Hello Marhall,
        I am just wondering if you have had time to read The Living Universe. As far as I know it is the only book (or at least one of very few) that actually presents an alternative theory of evolution rather than Darwinism.

        • Carl, I received the book. I looked at it and thought “Someone sent me another book that reminds me of this” and I found another book “Quantum Science of Psychadelics” that you yourself sent a few years ago.

          I have not been able to dig into the new book yet, hopefully will in the next month or so.

    • 5Hello, I am José Roberto Víctor Manuel Salas Barbosa an independent research scientist living in South America. Congratulations you win
      I believe that the origin of the universe was chemical but of organic life it was physical
      He was a genius in physics but he was lost in chemistry. The proof of the photoelectric effect that Albert Einstein did and earned him a Nobel prize does not trap electrons, as he stated, because in 1999 two physicists won it for enunciating the fundamental forces of gravitational physics, electromagnetic , weak nuclear and strong nuclear and neither catches them.
      The Coel test shows that they reach us as wireless electricity, passing through
      the atmosphere recovers its identity animals enter through the plants, human beings and the distance from the stars is because they have the same polarity. That makes it fall into disuse to understand electricity as a form of energy and talk about it as a flow of electrons. but like the whole scientific world they are trapped by the Big Bang. I am alone against the world, what supports me is the COEL test,
      Having high studies in chemistry and physics is very good, but I prefer to use common sense.
      if you think we can share the prize, I have account ay Interbank I learn english at school all my life speak spanish because Is my native lang can not understand about legal terms without a lawyer because I don’t have one but I trust in yourself
      The begining of Universe was chemical of orgánic live was phisical.
      Thank you for reading me have a great day God bless you I’m Jesús name

  2. Joining all the pieces of the puzzle ‘Cracking Nature’s Code’ bridges the gap of natural inherent design. Actin networks are root cause of ‘Life a Information’. origin of life, consciousness, evolution and quantum biology. Summarised in cover article ‘Epigenetics Key to Love Life’ p.20

    • Greatest mystery is how key information is not communicated. Experts lack of knowledge of actin outside eukaryotes is the greatest barrier to accepting the solution. Wondering why my comment has received no reaction?

      • Dear Josephine, Sorry to say, but if you are like most evolution scholars who believe that the mystery of the origin of life can be solved at the level of cells and molecules, then you are wasting your time. To solve the mystery of the origin of life, we must first understand the origin of the atom. To solve the mystery of the origin of the atom, we must first understand the origin of the universe. You can watch this video to understand all these three origins –

        • Would love to waste my time pondering about the origin of the atom when the monumental benefits of deeper understanding the origin of life has been realised for survival of humanity

          • Just as seeds only make the fruits on the tree, in the same way the seeds only make the life of a human being fruitful. All the genetic codes of seeds are processed in the brain wirelessly. The genetic codes inside the seeds governs life as follows:

            Thymine in DNA and Uracil in RNA give the purpose or dreams of life, which is called Bliss (Ananda).
            Adenine in DNA and RNA both plan the dream, which is called the soul.
            Cytosine in DNA and RNA both work according to the plan, which is called mind.
            Guanine in DNA and RNA both provides pure energy to do work, which is called energy.

            Our seeds interact with the independent sub-atomic particles present in the universe at the level of their sub-atomic particles present in the elements to make their dreams come true.
            Thus the four non-matter entities Bliss (Anand) – Soul (Atma) – Mind (Man) – Energy (Urja) inside the seed work as a singularity. The first letter of this singularity A+A+U+M collectively represent the God in the form of Om (ॐ).

            This non-matter singularity works like the invisible software, which first creates the inanimate atoms and then transforms inanimate matter into various forms of life. In my videos, a series of revelations have been made on the origin of universe, matter and life, on the basis of various facts of science and spirituality. All these revelations are for good to humanity. By following Save-Seed lifelong, anyone can get good health and ample wealth in life naturally. Please watch the video and give your valuable feedback.

  3. Michael Bellamy says:

    Xavier “scientists should read ‘Signature in the Cell’ its very interesting but I disagree with his conclusions otherwise I’m out of a job” and “there must be a naturalistic answer” then “science is braking up” and “its becoming so expensive” and “science is Orwellian”. There is a progression here linking these ideas together like Joana has started on a long journey but with an apparently insignificant error in initial heading. That is the assumption you can reject any idea of God having anything to do with the origin of anything. We have always known that to be incorrect by the standards of the science of the day that is the science which is resolved to seek truth regardless of the consequences for my starting assumptions and personal bias. How can I say this with any confidence? Easy.. two words ENTROPY and INFORMATION..

    1) Since 1900 honest science knew Boltzmann redefined ENTROPY away from Clausius rigid connection with energy into the SUBJECTIVE dependence on probability as a measure of the our intuitive observation; DISORDER meaning ORDER must increase into the past and thus the universe began with a finished CREATION! Order and disorder were always INTUITIVE so honest science finally caught up with what everyone intuitively knew by observation.

    2) In 1948 Claude Shannon invented the BIT which simplified the communication problem to an objective calculation. His formula for UNCERTAINTY (number of bits) is always minimised for COMMUNICATION in a LANGUAGE and maximised for random gibberish. Honest science had caught up again with what we always intuitively knew; information (code with meaning) is a COMMUNICATION of MEANING in a LANGUAGE and hence must always originate from a MIND. So again we had confirmed all life which is programmed in code must be the CREATION of a GOD!

    Both these terms are lost to naturalistic science because they reject God who is the truth and therefore must hide the truth to keep up the façade of honesty as predicted in the bible (Rom 1, 1Cor 1)

    • You do not appear to have listened to what she said.

      • Michael Bellamy says:

        I listened to the whole podcast even downloaded it for future reference.. I know exactly what she said and it included the quotes I gave.. including “there must be a naturalistic answer”. NO there is no natural answer because of the true meaning of the terms ‘entropy’ and information’ by that assumption is invalidated!

        You are a top level published digital communications engineer and you are telling me you are ok with your associates claim that INFORMATION = RANDOM GIBBERISH!! (follows directly from the claim the BIT sans meaning is a measure of information)

        • Michael,

          You just created information when you typed the above response, and it was not random or gibberish.

          • Michael Bellamy says:

            Yes of course you are right so how do you explain Claude Shannon’s statement in a public interview “there is more information in gibberish than great literature”?

            You should know this has wide support across many disciplines of science today not just physics. It is a direct consequence of claiming the ‘bit’ is a measure of information. It is patently incorrect because meaning has no unit of measure but is essential to all communication! How is it you seem to have missed this? It goes to the heart of what Joana said “there must be a naturalistic explanation otherwise I am out of a job.” So I would be particularly interested how you define ‘information’.?

            • Michael,

              Every time you post something here it is angry and bitter.

              And it always seems to miss the subtlety of what is already openly being discussed.

              Please do not post anything again until you have thoroughly read and understood my paper.

              The paper clearly states what is captured and not captured by computation. The quantity of information can be measured in bits and reduced to numbers, but the meaning of information cannot be reduced to bits or captured by numbers.

              You are not contributing to this conversation because you are not listening. I am quite serious about this. You are an intelligent guy and clearly capable of understanding the issues, but this chip on your shoulder is keeping you from recognizing that the conversation you are trying to have is already taking place. What we are not doing however is saying “Information cannot be quantified therefore God did it therefore come join my church.” We believe science can go much further in defining the issues of life, especially when we opt out of the reductionist paradigm.

              If you want your posts to be approved in the future, and if you want to participate in this conversation, drop the snarky attitude, slow down and engage with what is being said.

              • Michael Bellamy says:

                My profound apologies to any who have taken or found my comments to be “angry”, “bitter” or “snarky”? They were certainly not given or meant that way and yes I will read your paper before commenting further. I also found your presentation on Thermodynamics 2.0 and I was very interested in your analysis of the claim of computational attempts at cognition. So thank you I appreciate your honesty and openness and encouragement of respectful open discussion and I support that.

  4. The Xavier/Kauffman paper may be able to explain certain catalytic processes taking place within cells, but does not really address the key question when it comes to the origin of life, which is how a system functioning distinctly from the environment may emerge. This is essentially a thermodynamic question and no amount of postulating molecular mechanisms for the inner working of cells will be able to solve it. Even postulating mechanisms for the transfer of information will not solve it, because they do not explain how a distinct system was created to which information can be transfered in the first place. The question of system formation must thus be solved before anything else in order to understand the origin of life even if the transfer of “information” or in other words macromolecules may be synchronized with this. To seek to find the origin of life in molecular processes is thus to give in to the materialis bias of modern science. On my own part, I do not think that the question of the origin of life should be treated as identical with that of information transfer as it is more basic than the molecular processes that goes on in the living cells.

    • Carl,

      (This reply is for Michael Bellamy too) – Joana Xavier helped me extensively on my paper “Biology Transcends the Limits of Computation” and she would wholeheartedly agree with us that to explain life and symbolic information requires something new that is not found in the known laws of physics and chemistry.

      What is significant about her work and paper here is that she has shown that over 6,000 prokaryotes have autocatalytic sets – molecular networks that self-generate. This is a major step in scientific understanding.

      I also agree that life is more than information, because information is downstream from cognition. I underscore this in my talk at Thermodynamics 2.0:

  5. Mazen Afif says:

    Chiral hands, painted in 1948.
    Hearts are capable of sensing and interacting with surrounding electromagnetic fields, and knowing extraneous signals (noise) according to the health of the heart, which depends on the behaviors of the individual. Therefore, the heart may be able to generate specific nerve impulses that stimulate the formation of enzymes that convert left-handed amino acids into D-amino acids, as well as the presence of neurotransmitters that activate brain functions that have a role in health. However, we do not know what is the method of stimulating the heart to produce enzymes that synthesize right-handed amino acids, either by acoustic method, activation of salivary bacteria and enzymes, or so on.

  6. The mystery of evolution or the origin of life cannot be solved at the chemical and molecular level. The solution to this greatest mystery lies in the depths of the singularity. Nature of Singularity is like software therefore there is no physical existence of Singularity.

    We know that this universe originated from a singularity. All the matter and life of the universe has been created by this singularity. That means the same singularity is within us as well. That’s why we can easily find the Singularity within ourselves.

    About 13.8 billion years ago a Big Bang took place. Then this singularity created inanimate matter i.e. hardware first. During this course 4.4 billion years ago the solar system came into existence and then life started on earth. The origin of life was realized by the combination of the inanimate matter (Hardware) and Singularity (Software). The process of creation of the universe in 13.8 billion year time-line took place according to the following sequence of events:

    0) 00:00 Black Hole Singularity=Bliss+ Soul+ Mind+ Energy=BSME). This Singularity is also called Life Energy. For understanding, Singularity=Software of computer/ mobile=Purpose+ OS+ RAM+ NW. Bliss have all the Dreams/ Cause/ Purpose/ Intention to have Energy for all the matter and life in the universe. Soul has all the planning according to Bliss. Mind has all the power to perform according to Soul. Energy (pure) acts as resources all over the universe.

    1) 10-43 Second, Planck Epoch: Bliss first emerged from Black Hole as Singularity consisting of all four parts.

    2) 10-36 Second, Grand Unification Epoch: Three forces emerged out from Bliss, i.e. Soul, Mind and Energy respectively.

    3) 380,000 Years, Particle Epoch: Singularity BSME creates,
    Four forces of nature: Life+ Strong Nuclear Force+ Electro-Mech Force+ Weak Nuclear Force respectively
    Four energies of nature: Emotional+ Bio+ Chemical+ Physical (Electro-Mech etc.) respectively
    All forces and energies create countless particles. These particles combine together to form Boson+ Neutron+ Proton+ Lepton respectively.

    4) 9.3 Billion Years, Atom Epoch: Atoms came into existence with the combination of Boson+ Neutron+ Proton+ Lepton. Later various elements came into existence with the various combinations of atoms. Nebula, Solar system along with earth etc. are formed. All the atoms of universe appeared to be inanimate, but they have life with their Bliss=0 (no dream).

    5) 9.4 Billion Years, Adam (Seed) Epoch: Singularity choses Nitrogen+ Oxygen+ Carbon+ Hydrogen respectively as hardware to act upon for the existence of life. Boson transforms into the purpose of life, Neutron into DNA, Proton into RNA and Lepton into Amino Acids.

    6) 13.7 Billion Years, Near Past Era:
    Different types of life came into existence as follows.
    When the status of Mind is Read-Only, the life of Floras (Plants) came into existence.
    When the status of Mind is Write-Once, the life of Faunas (Creatures) came into existence.
    When the status of Mind is Read-Write, the life of human beings came into existence.

    Gender difference arises among living beings as follows:
    When Mind focuses on Bliss for Bliss, Impotent beings come into existence due to more activity of Bosons.
    When Mind focuses on Soul for Bliss, Asexual/ Bisexual beings come into existence due to more activity of Neutrons.
    When Mind focuses on Mind for Bliss, Male beings come into existence due to more activity of Protons.
    When Mind focuses on Energy for Bliss, Female beings come into existence due to more activity of Leptons.

    7) 13.8 Billion Years, Modern Present Time: We humans have invented computers/ mobiles whose software works on =Purpose+ Operating System+ Random Access Memory+ Network. These are exactly similar to the Singularity=Bliss+ Soul+ Mind+ Energy respectively.

    The computer that we humans have invented is not a unique invention, but it is the same invention that works just like us. In this way singularity works on the same pattern from black hole to modern computer.

    Here I have given a very brief description. It will take about 3-4 hours to understand in detail. I can scientifically and spiritually explain everything in detail.

    • Hello Satyajit, I agree with you that the evolution of the universe started with a singularity, if by that you mean a singularity of consciousness. However, to understand exactly when the events leading up to the present world have taken place you will need something providing timing and direction to evolution. As I have demonstrated in my book The Living Universe what provides this is the Mayan calendar system which explains why evolution during its course has accelerated. A singularity driving the evolution of the universe cannot be a dead thing.

      • Hello Carl, You said right that a singularity driving the evolution of the universe cannot be a dead thing. I am also trying to convey the same. In fact, the entire universe is acting as one living entity, which scientists often refer to as a singularity. This singularity is what we spiritually call divine consciousness. Singularity or consciousness works at four different levels all the time, Bliss-Soul-Mind-Energy. As said earlier, these four entities create four fundamental forces, four fundamental energies, four fundamental particles of the atom and four fundamental parts of the cell or seed which originate life.

        There is nothing like inanimate in the whole universe. Singularity or consciousness has created all the atoms and matters of the universe, that is why they all are conscious. All the atoms of matter in the universe which appeared inanimate are also living things with no purpose of life except to live like an atom. This happens due to the inactivity of the God particle, Boson. When Boson (Bliss) gets activated, an atom transforms into the Adam or Cell which later evolves into the seeds and living beings.

        Bliss-Soul-Mind-Energy as singularity is the God himself which we feel in ourselves as well. Brief chronology of Origin of Universe, Origin of Atom and Origin of Adam is depicted in this slide
        To understand in details, you may contact me.

  7. Michael Bellamy says:

    Look I think this discussion should get some basic facts straight before you all just throw God out of the game!

    Mass of universe = 1e80 protons = 1.67e53 Kg
    Escape velocity = v = √(2GM/r) therefore r = 2GM/v^2
    Substitute M = 1.67e53 and v = 3e8 m/sec (speed of light)

    Minimum dia of the universe to avoid collapse into a black hole is 52.5 billion light years! Matter of the universe could not be created in a big bang! Particle pair production at CERN confirms antimatter exactly equals matter, (first law of thermodynamics) so no net residual of matter.

    Running the universe back in time is not the same for energy and matter. A candle burning (like star we see today) ENERGY can go back to a point but MATTER cannot the candle gets BIGGER and STOPS at maximum order minimum entropy! Stars must by the second law do the same!

    The real Big Bang was an expansion of space followed by wave energy (no mass except earth at centre) to nearly the size we observe today agrees with deSitter solution (1917) of Einstein’s wave equation finally accepted in 1931.

    Before Day 1: _”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”_ Earth with space stretched out
    Day 1: God said _”let there be light”_ expansion of space and photon energy giving us the very smooth CMBR
    Day 4: God said _”he made the stars also”_ after the expansion by collapsing the wave energy into matter.

    The double slit experiment shows a MIND measuring a wave collapses the wave to produce a particle with a history written retrospectively in time! Matter from mind solves the antimatter problem, the gravity problem and the starlight time problem with no special pleading! With earth existing before the stars it is unlikely all the wave energy would come from one point because too close and the energy would blast the water off the earth and distant quasars being so massive the wave energy would be too week by the time it got there plus there is the ordered placement of stars on swirling galaxies so I propose the following.

    Day 1 God created light at the centre of every star in its highly ordered place filling the universe with wave energy which produced the very smooth CMBR we observe. After 3 days of expansion on day 4 His infinite mind collapsed most of that energy to form every star, black hole, planet (beyond earth) and moon. It means the history of the stars we observe is real and does go back billions of years in our frame of reference calculated by the distance but in their frame of reference that history was created instantaneously backwards from 6000 years ago and Adam created on day 6 could see the stars immediately.

  8. Thanks carl. As you said we have a lot of common views on evolution, I would definitely like to read your book. I would like to email you my book directly. My book goes far beyond the theory of evolution. With the help of the theory of evolution, the importance of seed in human life has been propounded. Our seeds interacts with the divine consciousness at the subatomic particle level of their chemicals.

  9. Thank you Satyajit,
    It would be great to have a copy of your book. I do not want to post my email address on the internet, but maybe you can go to my web site and send a copy there. Regards

    • Hello Carl, I have mailed you my book and video through which you will get all the information about evolution.
      Everything (all matter and life) in the universe originated from nothing to which scientists called the singularity. There is no need to explore remotely located black holes to understand the singularity. We ourselves can find that singularity within us. As said earlier, there is nothing like matter inside the atoms. All the atoms are made of particles of pure energy only. So ultimately, we are made of a collection of pure energy. Just think of how we control our body made of pure energy. We control our body with Bliss-Soul-Mind. All these three non-matter entities who control the Energy are collectively called the Singularity or Consciousness or God. In fact the whole universe is acting as one entity. You may explore more information about evolution here

  10. martin rag says:

    Hey Perry,

    do you remember me?

    This is regarding your older Xavier’s article, look what Lane/Xavier published in NATURE a few days ago (FEB 2024) …

    They seem to be very frustrated … (What happened to autocatalytic origin of life ?)

    Some quotes from the article

    “”Explaining isolated steps on the road from simple chemicals to complex living organisms is not enough.”

    “Most scientists agree that these nanomachines are a product of selection — but selection for what, where and how?”

    “There is no consensus about what to look for, or where.”

    “Did life start on Earth in the hot waters of hydrothermal systems on land or in deep seas?”

    “Combine that with the overarching importance of the question and it’s clear why the field is beset with over-claims and counter-claims, which in turn warp funding, attention and recognition.”

    “Strongly opposed viewpoints have coexisted for decades over basic questions …”

    “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. ”

    And finally, Lane/Xavier’s conslusion:

    “It is too soon to aim for consensus or unity, and the question is too big; the field needs constructive disunity. Embracing multiple rigorous frameworks for the origin of life, as we advocate here, will promote objectivity, cooperation and falsifiability — good science — while still enabling researchers to focus on what they care most about. Without that, science loses its sparkle and creativity, never more important than here. With it, the field might one day get close to an answer.”

    Full article

    • Yes Martin, I remember you!

      Nobody is more forthright than Joana Xavier in saying we are very very far from understanding the origin of life.

      And nobody is more insistent than Joana that we must be honest about what we are perplexed with, in order to make progress.

      And she believes we CAN make progress.

      This is in contrast to many creationists and ID people who believe the problem is fundamentally unsolvable. They believe it is a waste of time.

      I do not believe it is a waste of time. We have many clues we are ignoring.

      I give many of those clues here:

      • martin rag says:


        >And she [Joana] believes we CAN make progress.

        Of course she does … (grant money … easy money)

        What I don’t understand, how you – an engineer, can still support this claims …

        >This is in contrast to many creationists and ID people who believe the problem is fundamentally unsolvable. They believe it is a waste of time.

        Sure it is a waste of time … AND MONEY …. Sure the problem is unsolvable … As an engineer, you should know better …

        Of course this can’t be solved by heating up/ cooling down some chemicals … I told you, these people are gold alchemists …

        As an engineer, I am 100% convinced, that the One who created life on Earth has not used common chemistry in order to make thousands if not millions of molecules working together in concert for a purpose …

        Can you imagine, that Creator God played with flasks / heaters/ scales ? The idea alone is crazy …

        There has to be some yet undiscovered way how to assemble complex molecular systems … yet undiscovered way how to work with molecules (except common chemistry) …

        Heating up/cooling down some flasks with chemicals in order to make the most sophisticated technology on this planet – DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE …

        Of course it is a waste of time … this can’t be done …


        let me quote a famous OoL-researcher Lee Cronin. In a 2023 interview he said, that OoL-research is a scam (later he tried to take it back) ..

        However, here is what he meant with the scam (the interview is on YT)

        “… the scam is if we just make this RNA, we’ve got this you know this uh this fluke event we know how that’s simple let’s make this phosphodiester or let’s make ATP or ADP we’ve got that part nailed let’s now make this other molecule another molecule and how many molecules are going to be enough ?”

        • Martin,

          I agree with a great deal of what you’ve just said, and I fully agree that the conventional chemistry such as is in all the textbooks is inadequate. I agree some kind of outside information needs to be inserted. So if you listen to the link I sent you about how we solve origin of life, I go far outside of those narrow categories and explore other possibilities.

          I do not agree that OOL is impossible. I dislike your pejorative judgmental tone. I do admit that your tone is understandable if you believe that the origin of life is a singularity miracle; that no solution is fundamentally even possible.

          But I’ve been around a different version of this merry go round before. For decades creationists and intelligent design people insisted there’s no such thing as generating new species via evolution, and there’s no such thing as rapid evolutionary events. But we have high speed Symbogenesis events which are intrinsic to medical phenomena as basic as cancer. And we have hybridization which happens all the time in the natural world and occasionally these mergers produce significant leaps forward. My book evolution 2.0 details this thoroughly.

          We need a third way approach to the origin of life just like we have a third way approach to evolution.

          You do not know Joana. I know her very well. She is NOT interested in perpetuating the same tired formulas as the OOL community. Your language is mean-spirited and unhelpful. I submit to you that a more charitable tone will go much further in helping all of us discuss this more productively.

  11. Hello Perry,
    I am still hoping that you will present a critique of my theory about the origin and evolution of life as presented in The Living Universe.

    • Carl, I’m afraid I’m not going to be able to do so. It’s interesting to hear about but it’s not experimental.

      • Well, with such a mentality we would have to go on forever with experimental research and never come to any meaningful conclusions. That is really how today’s science operates. Support and funding is only given to experimental studies involving measurements and the important questions are avoided. My work is however based on empirical evidence (like the dating of different classes of species etc) and even if I have not made the experiments myself that whole body of knowledge relies on experimental studies such as techniques for datings.

  12. martin rag says:


    one more thing … speaking of grant money and money wasting …

    Please ask Joana the following:

    Why don’t they try to make some simple self-replicating cell from scratch ? ( If there is something like a “simple” cell … ) (I hear all the time from these people, that it all started with a simple pro-cell)

    So why they don’t do a simple self-replicating protocell ? To get a Nobel … (= $1,000,000)

    Tell Joana, that they can use any chemicals they want, any tools they want, any laboratory they want, any chemist, biologist or whoever can help them out … I don’t mind … They are allowed to do ANYTHING …

    Ask her, why don’t they use grant money to create a simple self-replicating cell from scratch ?

    Why don’t they try to do that ?

    I will tell you why …

    Because they don’t know where to start …

    Because, to keep doing it the way they have been doing it for decades will bring more and more grant money (because the “mystery” hasn’t been solved yet), this way they can keep misleading lay people and sponsors (including you), that this “mystery” might be solved some day … that in the end, the molecules will self-assemble to work in concert for a purpose …

    Why don’t they use grant money to take existing cell components and assemble them together to create a living self-replicating cell ? Should be way easier … ( you don’t need to take into account what is plausible or not … just make a cell … )

    another quote from Lee Cronin (the same interview)

    “When you go back to Craig Venter, he invented his life form Cynthia … he made this wonderful cell and said – I invented life! – …. not quite … He facsimiled the genome from this entity (mycoplasma) …and made it in the lab – all the DNA … but he (Venter) didn’t make the cell – he had to take an existing cell and put in his genes … but it is remarkable, he couldn’t make the cell from scratch … and even today, synthetic biologists can not make a cell from scratch … because there is some contingent information embodied outside the genome … and that is just incredible … ” (an Youtube video auto-transcript)”

    let me repeat this one

    “because there is some contingent information embodied outside the genome” yeah, I can imagine …

  13. martin rag says:

    Dear Perry,

    first of all, thank you for not censoring my comments (I will post a few more if you don’t mind).

    Also, let me apologize for my tone, but I am very frustrated that all this is still happening in 21st century after all the discoveries.

    Most of these OoL-researchers spent their whole careers with this research:

    Jack Szostak, 30+ years
    Steve Benner, 40+ years
    Gerald Joyce, 30+ years …

    These people wasted millions …

    and what is the result ? Nothing … LITERALLY NOTHING … it can’t be worse …

    The OoL-research is a fiasco …

    No Nobel prize … not once …

    (actually, there was something – Jack Szostak had to retract his 2016 peer-reviewed RNA World paper published in Nature, because his OoL-experiments couldn’t be reproduced … go to to learn more )

    Perry, I wish you good health, so we can have this conversation 20 years later … want to bet, that 20 years later, the OoL-research progress will be EXACTLY the same as it is today? The only difference would be – more $ millions wasted …

    (I am not saying, that a cell can’t be reverse-engineered and assembled from scratch, but like I pointed out, from an engineer perspective, I am 100% sure that a complex molecular system can’t be created using a common chemistry – by heating/cooling/shaking flasks with chemicals)

    And Perry, I bet, that 20 years later, we will still hear from these people the GOD OF THE GAPS argument, then other 100 years later, still the GOD OF THE GAPS argument – and that evolution took billions of years, so why do we expect that scientists will solve the OoL-problem within 100 years, then, 1000 years later we will still hear that Creationists are stupid and we will still hear the immortal GOD OF THE GAPS argument and other blah blah blah …

  14. martin rag says:

    Dear Perry,

    you have not commented on my request:

    Can you please ask Joana (you said that you both a good friends), why don’t they try to assemble a self-replicating proto-cell or any simple cell from scratch ? Should be way easier than to figure how a cell may have self-assembled in some chemical soup with no outside intervention (e.g. from an engineer)

    Like I said, Joana and co. can use any chemicals they want, any tools they want, any modern laboratory they want, any biologist, chemist, or any other “-logist” can help them out in order to assemble a simple self-replicating cell from scratch.

    Please ask her why they don’t want to do that … it seems that nobody wants to do that …

  15. martin rag says:

    Dear Perry,

    you wrote:

    >But I’ve been around a different version of this merry go round before. For decades creationists and
    >intelligent design people insisted there’s no such thing as generating new species via evolution, and
    >there’s no such thing as rapid evolutionary events. But we have high speed Symbogenesis events
    >which are intrinsic to medical phenomena as basic as cancer. And we have hybridization which
    >happens all the time in the natural world and occasionally these mergers produce significant leaps
    >forward. My book evolution 2.0 details this thoroughly.

    I just have to comment on this … because this is serious …

    First of all, I have purchased your book years ago, to support a fellow engineer. It is a irony, that only a few engineers comment and write books on biology, because biology is all about engineering.

    As to:

    >For decades creationists and
    >intelligent design people insisted there’s no such thing as generating new species via evolution,

    Because a Darwinian biologist says it is a new species, it doesn’t mean it is a new species (from an engineering point of view).
    To be honest, I as an engineer, I don’t care how a natural science graduate classifies a species.

    Moreover, what you suggest is a typical Darwinian misrepresentation / extrapolation …

    Do you, as an engineer, believe, that symbiogenesis and hybridization engineered sophisticated real-time adaptive camouflage we see in Octopus ?

    Do you, as an engineer, believe, that symbiogenesis and hybridization engineered powered flight (4 times independently – insects, dinos, birds, mammals) ?

    Do you, as an engineer, believe, that symbiogenesis and hybridization made humpback whales blow air-bubbles in the shape of golden ratio spiral?
    Make sure you watch this video …

    Do you see what I mean with the extrapolation ? What does Symbiogenesis / Hybridization say about powered flight origin ?

    Darwinism is 150+ years of misrepresentation …
    Because these people, these natural science graduates, these romantics, they don’t understand what they are looking at …
    So they misrepresent pretty everything and they also extrapolate a lot.

    Moreover, these people seem to be PERMANENTLY WRONG – because they don’t understand what they are looking at…

    Every other day, there is a new paper published starting like one of these:

    “…current concepts are reviewed…”
    “…uprooting current thinking….”
    “…latest findings contradict the current dogma….”
    “… it challenges a long-held theory…”
    “… it upends a common view…”
    “… in contrast to the decades-long dogma …”
    “… it needs a rethink … ”
    “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
    “… it shakes up the dogma … ”
    “… earlier than thought…”
    “… younger than thought….”
    “… smarter than thought ….”
    “… more complex than thought ….”
    “… a fossil defies textbook explanation …”
    “… a fossil overturns more than a century of knowledge”
    “… fossils upend conventional wisdom….”
    “… it challenges central principle in biology…”
    “…it casts doubt in Established Evolution Beliefs….”
    “… new discovery puts into question existing models…”

    >creationists and
    >intelligent design people insisted that there’s no such thing as rapid evolutionary events.

    I don’t want to argue about this – how deep in the past it was …

    and, I prefer to call it rapid ADAPTATION events, because it is less misleading.

    (When I use the E -word, I mean the alleged single-cell-to-man evolution )

    But I would like to briefly comment on this as well:

    The blind cave fish. It is an example of rapid adaptation event(s) and a textbook example of Darwinian MISREPRESENTATION of what actually happened with the fish.

    The Institute For Creation Research (Randy Guliuzza, an engineer), right now, they make experiments with this mexican cave fish, in order to investigate the rapid
    adaptation features – because it is not only about the eyes loss.

    • Joana is certainly interested in bioengineering of self replicating machines. Just because it hasn’t been done doesn’t mean nobody’s trying.

      As for the rest of what you wrote, you sound like a grumpy guy who is grinding an axe. You haven’t said anything that makes me want to engage. You won’t accept anyone’s definition of speciation and you won’t use the “E-word.” I don’t sense any curiosity or desire for scientific insight. All I sense is combativeness.

      Not only am I unclear what your real question is, I’m unclear what the benefit would be of answering it.

  16. martin rag says:

    Dear Perry,

    once again, thank you for not censoring my comments. Also, thank you for your patience and understanding… I am as I am … But I don’t want to offend anyone.

    >Not only am I unclear what your real question is

    Perry, I have asked you 3 very clear questions, and I would really appreciate, if you could briefly comment on these … just your personal opinion … you read lots of book, you are very familiar with biology … just your personal view on this:

    Here it is again:

    Do you, as an engineer, believe, that Symbiogenesis / Hybridization engineered sophisticated real-time adaptive camouflage we see in Octopus ?

    Do you, as an engineer, believe, that Symbiogenesis / Hybridization engineered powered flight (4 times independently – insects, dinos, birds, mammals) ?

    Do you, as an engineer, believe, that Symbiogenesis / Hybridization made humpback whales blow air-bubbles in the shape of golden ratio spiral?

    By the way, have you watched the video ? …


    > and you won’t use the “E-word.”

    I would like to add one more, a very clear question in respect to E-world

    Do you think, that the alleged single-cell-to-man evolution is the same process as the rapid adaptation events in cave species (there are many other blind cave species, not only the fish) ? Is it not a bit misleading to call both events – Evolution ? The cave fish adapted, did not evolve in some new species … the same with ATB resistance – it is still a bacteria – did not evolve in some new species … Peppered moths color change – it is still a Peppered moth not a new species … is it all – Evolution ?

    So what’s the difference between these two words – ADAPTATION and EVOLUTION ? It is a very clear question. I am not being sarcastic, I am very serious about this, because I also debated lots of people, and like you said, “I’ve been around a different version of this merry go round before. ” But I would really like to know your view on these two words in respect to biology …

    • Do you, as an engineer, believe, that Symbiogenesis / Hybridization engineered sophisticated real-time adaptive camouflage we see in Octopus ?

      Do you, as an engineer, believe, that Symbiogenesis / Hybridization engineered powered flight (4 times independently – insects, dinos, birds, mammals) ?

      Do you, as an engineer, believe, that Symbiogenesis / Hybridization made humpback whales blow air-bubbles in the shape of golden ratio spiral?

      Of course not. That would be absurdly simplistic.

      The fact that you would even ask me a question like that makes me wonder if you take my work seriously. Did you actually read my book? It sounds like you bought it because I’m an engineer and put it on your shelf.

      These phenomena require potentially all of “5 blades of the Evolutionary Swiss Army Knife” I discuss in my book, as well as probably a dozen other blades that are not in the book. As well as more amazing processes we have not yet discovered. All organized by the kind of collective cellular intelligence that Mike Levin talks about – a very deep rabbit hole. Mike’s xenobots and anthrobots – and the “how bacteria talk” video by Bonnie Bassler, all of which are discussed on this site, give clues.

      It is VERY worthwhile to study these clues because that is how we cure cancer and a host of other diseases. Cancer is evolution running out of control. You cannot create the future medicine of the 21st century unless you understand evolution and take it seriously.

      Adaptation and evolution are all on a power law distribution, just like human technologies. Most attempts fail, a very small number of attempts succeed. The bigger the leap, the smaller the chance of success. ALL require innate intelligence, which all living things possess in spades.

      From the way you talk you appear to be a young earth creationist. Is that correct? I used to have a particular guy who commented here frequently who was also YEC. He was not willing to engage with these concepts seriously, because when push came to shove he believed God created everything in six literal days. He did not believe that it would ever be possible to explain it through any level of natural process. In his mind it all had to be divine intervention.

      He felt that to believe anything else was “compromise.”

      When I pressed him, he admitted did not believe that science can be used to give us reliable information about historical events.

      At that point I said that we have no grounds for a common understanding or dicussion, and could no longer engage with him.

  17. martin rag says:

    Dear Perry,

    >Joana is certainly interested in bioengineering of self replicating machines. Just because it hasn’t been done doesn’t mean nobody’s trying.

    Okay, we both agree, that World’s best OoL-scientists can’t assemble a simple self-replicating cell /proto-cell from scratch …

    Your $10 mil OoL-prize offer was around for years … There are only a few people on this planet as familiar with this subject as you are ….

    There are two scenarios:

    1. To make a self-replicating cell/ proto-cell from scratch, using pure chemicals from suppliers including pre-made cell’s components securely stored in freezers, in a controlled environment, under controlled temperature, pressure and so on, using all the modern laboratory tools …

    As we both agree, nobody can do this …


    2. To try to figure out how a simple cell assembled by itself in a soup of “natural” chemicals with close-to-zero or zero intervention from bioengineers/chemists – so called “hands off” scenario …

    Here is my question:

    What makes you think or believe, that Joana or whoever can make any progress in the 2nd “Hands off” scenario, when in last 70 years, there wasn’t any progress in the 1st scenario …

    • The answer to your question is in my talk

    • Martin,

      There was a point early on in my journey into science and evolution where I was extremely sympathetic to the “intelligent design” view (and I still have some sympathies to that view now).

      But I realized that I had to ask myself a question: is it good enough to know the intelligent design talking points upside and down and backwards and forwards? Or do I need to also thoroughly understand the opposing view?

      I realized that I needed to try as hard as possible to make the atheist view make sense.

      I needed to try as hard as possible to make it work, and to understand why somebody would want to believe that.

      What advantages would the other POV bring to the table? That ended up being a huge breakthrough question.

      Because although I am still the furthest possible thing from an atheist, and I resolutely believe in God, I realized there were certain advantages to NOT shrugging my shoulders and saying “God did it” every time there was a mystery in our understanding of origins.

      And furthermore, a world that is able to engineer itself is more beautiful and elegant than a world where God needs to show up every now and then and do a miracle, so that the ecosystem can move forward.

      I’ve come to the conclusion that that is a much larger conception of God than the one I grew up with.

  18. martin rag says:

    hey Perry,

    just to clarify:

    no, I am not YEC, it seems that Earth is way older than 6000 – 10000 years. Also, I don’t take Bible literally. ( I am an engineer – I am a very pragmatic person, I don’t live in some fantasy world like some of your biologists’ friends. No offence )

    But … I am 100% sure, that most of the species were created “according to their kinds …” ( with a capability to adapt to a certain degree, if you will )

    The main reason why I am so sure that species were created according to their kinds is this:

    There are TOO MANY very unique species with TOO MANY very unique and sophisticated features to be some product of guided or unguided or whatever evolutionary process … (not to mention, that no biologist can explain the origin of most of these features … )

    It is clear, that all these features were engineered from scratch ( to demonstrate engineering skills of our Creator )


    (yes, you can ignore it if you are a biologist who never made anything, but what a biologist thinks or claims is not important at all. What these people say or claim shouldn’t be taken seriously, because like I said many times – these people don’t understand what they are looking at because of the lack of training in engineering – and like I said before, that’s the main reason why are biologists PERMANENTLY wrong and have to revise their claims every other day …)

    One more note regarding the age of the Earth:

    Like I said above, it seems that the Earth is way older than 6000-10000 years.

    However, it is not easy to believe, that according to biologists, some species were around for hundreds of millions of years, and still are here, and flawlessly reproduced/replicate.

    After hundreds of millions of years, their design still holds, no design flaws after the time this long, this is something not easy to believe when you are an engineer … so, if this is true, if the long ages of the Earth/ species is not just another Darwinian misrepresentation, then the design is robust in such a way, that this is something beyond human engineer comprehension (I hope we both agree on this)

    PS: I will add some more comments regarding your book and some other stuff you wrote earlier …

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *