Origin Of Life Quotes

“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

“The theory of phlogiston was an inversion of the true nature of combustion. Removing phlogiston was in reality adding oxygen, while adding phlogiston was actually removing oxygen. The theory was a total misrepresentation of reality. Phlogiston did not even exist, and yet its existence was firmly believed and the theory adhered to rigidly for nearly one hundred years throughout the eighteenth century. ... As experimentation continued the properties of phlogiston became more bizarre and contradictory. But instead of questioning the existence of this mysterious substance it was made to serve more comprehensive purposes. ... For the skeptic or indeed to anyone prepared to step out of the circle of Darwinian belief, it is not hard to find inversions of common sense in modern evolutionary thought which are strikingly reminiscent of the mental gymnastics of the phlogiston chemists or the medieval astronomers.

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

“A wonderful area for speculative academic work is the unknowable. These days religious subjects are in disfavor, but there are still plenty of good topics. The nature of consciousness, the workings of the brain, the origin of aggression, the origin of language, the origin of life on earth, SETI and life on other worlds...this is all great stuff. Wonderful stuff. You can argue it interminably. But it can't be contradicted, because nobody knows the answer to any of these topics.”
― Michael Crichton

“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

“Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled.”
― Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life

“To establish evolutionary interrelatedness invariably requires exhibiting similarities between organisms. Within Darwinism, there's only one way to connect such similarities, and that's through descent with modification driven by the Darwinian mechanism. But within a design-theoretic framework, this possibility, though not precluded, is also not the only game in town. It's possible for descent with modification instead to be driven by telic processes inherent in nature (and thus by a form of design). Alternatively, it's possible that the similarities are not due to descent at all but result from a similarity of conception, just as designed objects like your TV, radio, and computer share common components because designers frequently recycle ideas and parts. Teasing apart the effects of intelligent and natural causation is one of the key questions confronting a design-theoretic research program. Unlike Darwinism, therefore, intelligent design has no immediate and easy answer to the question of common descent.

Darwinists necessarily see this as a bad thing and as a regression to ignorance. From the design theorists' perspective, however, frank admissions of ignorance are much to be preferred to overconfident claims to knowledge that in the end cannot be adequately justified. Despite advertisements to the contrary, science is not a juggernaut that relentlessly pushes back the frontiers of knowledge. Rather, science is an interconnected web of theoretical and factual claims about the world that are constantly being revised and for which changes in one portion of the web can induce radical changes in another. In particular, science regularly confronts the problem of having to retract claims that it once confidently asserted.”
― William A. Dembski

“Will it be possible to solve these problems? It is certain that nobody has thus far observed the transformation of dead into living matter, and for this reason we cannot form a definite plan for the solution of this problem of transformation. But we see that plants and animals during their growth continually transform dead into living matter, and that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter. There is, therefore, no reason to predict that abiogenesis is impossible, and I believe that it can only help science if the younger investigators realize that experimental abiogenesis is the goal of biology.”
― Jacques Loeb

“And just when it seemed the storm would never pass there was the sun and all was good again.”
― Wald Wassermann

“It was a biochemical Jackson Pollock: a field of strings, tangles, loops.”
― Carl Zimmer, Life's Edge: The Search for What It Means to Be Alive

“The Four Pillars of Self Knowledge:

Self is differentiated so not to be by itself.
Self is differentiated for companionship.
Self is differentiated for friendship.
Self is differentiated for love.”
― Wald Wassermann

“When it comes to the anthropic principle both the weak anthropic principle (WAP) which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias) and the strong anthropic principle (SAP) which states that the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it are erroneous. Truth is simple. 'There is only one principal whose principal reason is companionship more commonly known as love.' That is to say; 'There is only intelligence or one consciousness which has conceived itself to perceive itself as self differentiated, as sapient life, so not to be by itself and this for the purpose of self companionship i.e. self love.' That may sound difficult to understand but what it means in most simple terms is that the meaning of life is simply love. I am not a fan of adding new formulations to the lexicon of physics but if we would have to do so I would call it the 'absolute anthropic principle (AAP)'.”
― Wald Wassermann

“At any time there is only oneself. As to free will? Self is always free but wills companionship.”
― Wald Wassermann

“One lives so not to be alone.”
― Wald Wassermann

“Many scientists feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is self not wanting to be itself, and, that the meaning- and purpose of life is thus companionship otherwise known as love. I for one have no such problem. The purpose of life, of self, is love.”
― Wald Wassermann

“In fact, none of the papers published in the JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion. Although many scientists ask how sequences can change or how chemicals necessary for life might be produced in the absence of cells, no one has ever asked in the pages of JME such questions as the following: How did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? How did intramolecular transport start? . . . The very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.”
― Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

“There is no difference between abiogenesis and biogenesis. All is one and the same. One's purpose not to be alone. One's purpose companionship, friendship, love.”
― Wald Wassermann

“The origin of self is self not wanting to be by itself. The purpose of self is companionship otherwise known as love. Love so love.”
― Wald Wassermann

“What we have here is forgetfulness. Forgetfulness that the origin of self is self not wanting to be by itself and that the purpose of self (and thus the meaning of life) is simply companionship otherwise known as love. This forgetfulness is of course not all that unusual considering the fact that the age of the universe is 13.787±0.020 billion years. I mean... I cannot even remember what I did yesterday. As such the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to piece everything together in a simple theory of everything; a theory of everything that was never even elusive to begin with. It simply has always been about love right from the start.”
― Wald Wassermann

“The scientific evidence laid out before us leads to a simple and beautiful view of the origin of life. The chain of events that led to life commenced out of one's very own desire not to be alone, one's very own desire for companionship, one's very own desire for friendship, one's very own desire for love.”
― Wald Wassermann

“Undivided but Self-differentiated.
Self-differentiated for Companionship.
Love so Love.”
― Wald Wassermann

“First there was one not wanting to be alone.
Then there was one purposely forgetting it was two for love.”
― Wald Wassermann

“I think, she will carry on in dignity of my family Root.”
― Petra Hermans

“The premise of the Absolute Anthropic Principle (AAP) is that the origin of everything including but not limited to all life, the world and the universe is Self not wanting to feel by itself and that the purpose of Self and as such the meaning of Life is nothing else but Companionship more commonly known as Love.”
― Wald Wassermann

“Nature is the Mother of All Information. She is the source, the keeper, the database, the memory bank of all information.”
― Joey Lawsin, Originemology

“You know, medicines also expire.
So take that medicine before it expires. Otherwise, one day those medicines will also expire, then such medicines will not be found anywhere again.”
― Bhaskar Gautam

“you and I having this conversation right now, and anyone reading the magazine, is part of an unbroken chain of communication – an interpretive process, with messages being exchanged millions of times per second, between cells and even organelles within cells, that stretches back, totally unbroken, 3.7 billion years. That’s 3.7 billion years of conversation going on between living structures in order to allow us to be here today. If there had ever been a break, even for a second, you wouldn’t be here. If you were looking for a metaphysical thought to give you a sense of overwhelming wonder, all you need is to meditate for a moment on the fact that you are part of this unbroken exchange, a conversation that goes all the way back to the puddle, or the clay-like substrate, that all life emerged from.”
― Ray Nayler

“Gli Dei delle Stelle crearono tre Mondi, tre realtà parallele e distanti tra loro, nel tempo e nello spazio, ma legate in modo indissolubile, mondi in cui tutti gli esseri potevano vivere in pace e armonia, tra loro e con la terra che popolavano.
Gli Dei delle Stelle avevano grande sapienza, conoscevano tutti i segreti dell'universo, sicuramente crearono altri mondi e altri esseri in realtà sconosciute, ma questo è un discorso che ci porterebbe troppo lontano…”
― E.C. Bröwa, Nel mondo del tempo

“Physical life is not fluid. It will not and cannot adjust to any old universe. The fine-tuning that astronomers observe indicates that even very slight alterations to the universe's characteristics would rule out the possible existence of physical life.”
― Hugh Ross, Designed to the Core

“In a hypothetical future where all humans have been wiped out by a catastrophic event, but AI has advanced to the point where it can autonomously create and maintain robotic systems, what kind of world would emerge?

Would the AI continue to evolve and run a machine-driven society, or would it face an existential crisis, questioning its purpose without humans to serve?

Could AI itself turn nihilistic, or would it find new meaning in a world devoid of human life? And taking this even further — what if humans, as we know them, were actually robots created by a long-extinct civilization?
Perhaps, over time, we learned reproduction and invented the idea of biological existence, imagining our own purpose, unaware of our artificial origins.”
― Anupam S. Shlok, Global Cinematic Treasures: 101 Must-See Modern Films