Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Intelligent Design » Information Theory, Coded Information in the cell » Coded information comes always from a mind

Coded information comes always from a mind

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Coded information comes always from a mind Empty Coded information comes always from a mind on Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:10 pm


Coded information comes always from a mind

All historical, observational, testable and repeatable examples PROVE information and operational functionality come from intelligent sources.

"The inadequacy of proposed materialistic causes forms only a part of the basis of the argument for intelligent design. We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information rich systems: we have positive experience based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information arises. According to information theorist Henry Quastler...'the creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity' "....I described indirect evidence which is a recognized form of proof for a causal agent...if you have no theory which explains the formation of complex specified information or functional operational activity without an intelligent origin then you cannot dismiss a known cause for such phenomena. Seen or unseen such phenomena require a sufficient cause.

Coded information comes always from a mind Sdfsdf11

The cell expresses the information contained in DNA (which forms its genetic material) such that it is able to construct its own proteins. This synthesis takes place in the ribosomes, where the peptide bond forms. Peptide bonds are covalent links between amino acids, giving rise to polypeptides which, in turn, form proteins. How is the information contained in a DNA sequence, that is, in a combination of nucleotides containing the four DNA bases (A, C, G, T), translated into the right combination of amino acids from among the twenty possible amino acids that can make up a protein? Thanks to the genetic code. Each of those twenty amino acids is coded by a triplet of bases (nucleotides), known as a codon. The signals for the start and end of the synthesis of a protein are equally marked by codons. The genetic code, which establishes the correspondence between a given codon and an amino acid, has three fundamental properties. It is:
– universal: every living organism uses the same code (there are some exceptions, but they correspond to minor derived changes). Certain computer simulations suggest that the genetic code corresponds to the optimum code, taking account of the physical and chemical properties of the amino acids coded by the different codons;
– redundant: several codons may correspond to a single amino acid. This is the consequence of the fact that there are sixty-four possible codons for only twenty amino acids to be coded;
– unambiguous: a single, unique amino acid corresponds to a single codon.
For the message contained within the DNA to be efficiently translated into proteins, each gene must first be transcribed into messenger RNA (mRNA). The message is then still in the form of combination of four nucleotides carrying the bases A, C, G and U (uracil, U, replaces thymine, T). It then needs an “adaptor” capable of making the link between a codon and a specific amino acid. This function is fulfilled by transfer RNAs (tRNA), specific to each amino acid. In the ribosome, positioned opposite to each codon of the mRNA comes a tRNA bearing the corresponding amino acid according to the genetic code. The tRNA recognizes its specific codon thanks to a sequence known as an anticodon (a complementary triplet sequence to the codon). In this way, a message in an alphabet with just four letters (the four bases) can be translated into an alphabet with twenty letters (the twenty amino acids).

Coded information comes always from a mind Dna_in10

"Transition from Inorganic to Organic Life was Based on Information, Not Chemistry"

Paul Davies, an ASU Regents' Professor and director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, and Sara Walker, a NASA post-doctoral fellow at the Beyond Center.

"We propose that the transition from non-life to life is unique and definable," added Davies. "We suggest that life may be characterized by its distinctive and active use of information, thus providing a roadmap to identify rigorous criteria for the emergence of life. This is in sharp contrast to a century of thought in which the transition to life has been cast as a problem of chemistry, with the goal of identifying a plausible reaction pathway from chemical mixtures to a living entity."

In a nutshell, the authors shift attention from the "hardware" – the chemical basis of life – to the "software" – its information content. To use a computer analogy, chemistry explains the material substance of the machine, but it won't function without a program and data. Davies and Walker suggest that the crucial distinction between non-life and life is the way that living organisms manage the information flowing through the system.
"When we describe biological processes we typically use informational narratives – cells send out signals, developmental programs are run, coded instructions are read, genomic data are transmitted between generations and so forth," Walker said. "So identifying life's origin in the way information is processed and managed can open up new avenues for research."

What Davies missed to point out, is, that this information input could have come only from an intelligent designer.

The genetic code cannot arise through natural selection

Repeated and uniform OBSERVATIONAL science has also shown us that coded information systems have been shown to be the sole product of an intelligent source. If you disagree with this assertion, then provide documented proof this is not true. Otherwise ... You have to come to grips with the fact that there is absolutely no OBSERVABLE evidence that coded information can be produced by random chance processes and natural selection (evolution).

Therefore,coded information can only be produced by intelligence and if natural processes combined with natural selection are not capable of producing coded information

Argument by information 
1. There is matter or energy.
2. It is useless or inactive to direct the origin and make of complex life forms without information and consciousness.
3. DNA stores  huge quantities of coded, specified/instructional, complex information. Many DNA strands have 100 million, or even billions of  segments (one segment is called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are the building blocks, namely purines: adenine, guanine; and pyrimidines: cytosine, thymine and uracil).
4.  The simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length to emerge without guiding specifying intelligence  are 1:10^451.
5. Proponents of materialism have no answer to the question what generated the first DNA strands, and the information stored in it.
6. Intelligent agents  act frequently  with an end goal in mind, inventing complex machines using many sub-parts that are specified in size, fit, materials, to integrate in a functional whole using  a blueprint to build the object.
7. Therefore, the best causal-adequate answer to explain the origin of the DNA blueprint required for make a organism is a intelligent agency

Objection: Organic chemicals are everywhere in the cosmos. Life is probably a fair ordinary development. Complex organic chemicals are regularly detected in nebulae. Organic chemistry is everywhere. The bridge from organic chemicals to self-replicating molecules is small.
Answer:  That's like saying that magnetic medium is widespread in the universe, so musical recordings or software must be ubiquitous. Information, extremely complex and highly ordered information, cannot be explained by the existence of the medium that contains it.

Objection: Arguments from Incredulity and Arguments from Ignorance are useless. Anyway, the scientific community doesn't see a problem with the development of life. If they did, it would be a major news story in scientific journals. It isn't.
Answer: "Self replicating" is not the same thing as information creation

Argument from the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation
1. The 64 codons (sequences of 3 nucleotides: adenine, uracil, guanine) and the 20 amino acids are for research by scientists assigned to numerical elements within a system, referred to as the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation.
2. It is a mathematical model of the underlining physical/chemical processes related to genetic information processing—a so-called structural isomorphism namely, identity or similarity of form or appearance.
3. The GCL binary representation and the genetic code are both isomorphic systems. Thus, the characteristics that are true of the GCL binary representation must also be true of the genetic code.
4. The characteristics of the mathematically modeled GCL binary representation are:
a. Palindromic symmetry (a symmetry like that of the word that reads same backward and forward).
b. Parity symmetry.
c. Organized redundancy (Repetition of messages to reduce the probability of errors).
d. A rich mathematical structure.
5. Such a graceful symmetry, organization, and structure indicates a code that has been designed for a purpose.
6. God necessarily exists.

The argument of Francis Collins
1. Francis Collins is one of the most respected research scientists in the world and was the head of the Human Genome Project. He authored the book "The Language of God."
2. In the beginning of his book he describes his doubts in God and strong belief in the theory of evolution. He was then an atheist.
3. As the project of the human genome advanced, seeing the wonderful complexities of genes changed his scientific conviction in evolution and he became a believer in God.
3a. The human genome consists of all the DNA of our species, the hereditary code of life. This newly revealed text was 3 billion letters long, and written in a strange and cryptographic four-letter code. Such is the amazing complexity of the information carried within each cell of the human body, that a live reading of that code at a rate of one letter per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night. Printing these letters out in regular font size on normal bond paper and binding them all together would result in a tower the height of the Washington Monument.
4. Announcing the completion of the first phase of the project in year 2000 he said: "Today we are learning the language in which God created life."
5. Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible."
6. The book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Thus he follows the footsteps of the Kantian tradition, attempting the great synthesis of the empirical and the spiritual, the pure reason and the practical reason.
7. To give an example: The human genome consists of about 3 billion letters. One letter wrong can cause illnesses like cystic fibrosis. How could anybody generate 3 billion letters describing something capable of living in 3 billion or so years if random mutations are the only thing you have at your disposal?
8. Thus after a detailed research of a reputed scientist, Mr. Collins on the complexity of the genome we must conclude that God exists.

The argument of complex and specified information (CSI)
1. The scientific method consists of a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. .
2. Performing many scientific experiments upon natural objects, now already for decades, in many of them, scientists discovered so highly complex and specified information (CSI) that it is very difficult or even impossible to make imitation of such complex units.
3. If scientists cannot make copies of complex and specified units what to say about the dull material nature, natural selection, and mutation creating these.
4. Natural objects containing a high level of CSI means they were produced by a super designer.
5. That super designer can be only God.
6. God exists.

The Algorithmic Origins of Life
If life is more than just complex chemistry, its unique informational management properties may be the crucial indicator of this distinction, which raises the all-important question of how the informational properties characteristic of living systems arose in the first place. This key question of origin may be satisfactorily answered only by first having a clear notion of what is meant by “biological information”. Unfortunately, the way that information operates in biology is not easily characterized. While standard information-theoretic
measures, such as Shannon information, have proved useful, biological information has an additional quality which may roughly be called “functionality” – or “contextuality” – that sets it apart from a collection of mere bits as characterized by Shannon Information content. Biological information shares some common ground with the philosophical notion of semantic information (which is more commonly – and rigorously – applied in the arena of “high-level” phenomena such as language, perception and cognition).We therefore identify the transition from non-life to life with a fundamental shift in the causal structure of the system, specifically, a transition to a state in which algorithmic information gains direct, context-dependent, causal efficacy over matter.

We don't have to know how in order to infer that the original concept/idea (specified complex system) began in an intelligent mind - and ultimately was produced somehow. We don't need to know how. We know where the concept came from: intelligence. The fact that specified complexity is a real (not invented) attribute of engineering systems is sufficient enough evidence to conclude that the original concept began in an intelligent mind. Because that is what we have observed to be true. This is unlike the evolutionary mechanism which has not been observed to produce a specified complex system. This is not circular. It's based upon observed experience that no undirected, unintelligent process can claim. Your response to this post on a computing device is testable evidence that ID is a proven source for specified complexity to trace back to. And so where ever we see specified complex systems, even in nature, ID is a legitimate scientific inference. 

Other concepts like "foresight" which we observe in nature also have ID inferences. Embryonic development clearly shows that cells are dividing for specific purposes to create specific organs, etc.. All the biological information for the organism's entire development is house in it's chromosomal composition which exists before any of it happened. That is foresight, which is a concept found in an intelligent mind. No need to know how to infer design.

Perry Marshall, Evolution 2.0 page 170
Information possesses another very interesting property that distinguishes it from matter and energy. That property is freedom of choice. In communication, your ability to choose whether “1 = on and 0 = off” or “1 = off and 0 = on” is the most elementary example of the human capacity to choose. Mechanical encoders and decoders can’t make choices, but their very existence shows that the choice was made. By definition, none of these decisions can be derived from the laws of physics because they are freely chosen. In the history of the computer industry, somewhere along the way, somebody got to decide that 1 = “on” and 0 = “off.” Then everyone else decided to adopt that standard. Physics and chemistry alone want us to be fat, lazy, and unproductive. Gravity pulls us down. Entropy makes us old and tired. Clocks wind down. Cars rust. Signals get static. LPs scratch. Desks become cluttered. Bedrooms get strewn with dirty clothes. Choice rises up against this. Evolution 2.0, far from mindless, is literally mind over matter. The unfit adapt. Order and structure increase. Cells exert control over their environments. That means materialism cannot explain the origin of information, the nature of information, or the ability to create a code or language from scratch. It can’t explain thought, feeling, mind, will, or communication.

Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics

"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."

All historical, observational, testable and repeatable examples PROVE information and operational functionality come from intelligent sources.

"The inadequacy of proposed materialistic causes forms only a part of the basis of the argument for intelligent design. We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information rich systems: we have positive experience based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information arises. According to information theorist Henry Quastler...'the creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity' "....I described indirect evidence which is a recognized form of proof for a causal agent...if you have no theory which explains the formation of complex specified information or functional operational activity without an intelligent origin then you cannot dismiss a known cause for such phenomena. Seen or unseen such phenomena require a sufficient cause.

"Yet, the scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells. Instead, they also argue for design because we know from experience that systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes. The information on computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer. The information in a newspaper ultimately came from a writer-from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "information habitually arises from conscious activity." This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI's search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found information-bearing signals from distant star systems. But closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting--by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts--an intelligent source for the information in DNA. DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information-whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal-always arises from an intelligent source. So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren't there to observe the system coming into existence."

nothing further in his investigations, experiments OR speculations were ever able to provide a source that was not intelligent or without "conscious activity"...if you want to claim he refuted his own statement or observation then please provide that evidence...Dr. Quastler sought in vain to find another source and his admission not his wishful speculation is what is relevant to the "scientific" issue...

I shall argue that it is not enough to know how life's immense structural complexity arose; we must also account for the origin of biological information. As we shall see, scientists are still very far from solving this fundamental conceptual puzzle. Some people rejoice in such ignorance, imagining that it leaves room for a miraculous creation.

Ibid., p. 148.

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.”

Not mentioned by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe is the simple fact that even a few correct words typed by the hordes of monkeys would decay long before a complete sentence of Shakespeare was completed. Correspondingly, a few correct sequences of amino acids would decay long before a protein was completed, not to mention the thousands of proteins that must be in their proper place to have a living cell. Finally, the most complex requirement of all is the presence of functioning DNA.

Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender

It is useful to distinguish here between the original and the intermediate sender. We mean by the original sender the author of the information, and he must always be an individual equipped with intelligence and a will. If, after the original sender, there follows a machine-aided chain consisting of several links, the last link in the chain might be mistaken for the originator of the message. Since this link is only apparently the sender, we call this the intermediate sender (but it is not the original one!).

The original sender is often not visible: in many cases the author of the information is not or no longer visible. It is not in contradiction to the requirement of observability when the author of historical documents is no longer visible—in such a case he was, however, observable once upon a time. Sometimes the information received has been carried via several intermediate links. Here, too, there must have been an intelligent author at the beginning of the chain. Take the example of a car radio: we receive audible information from the loud speakers, but these are not the actual source; neither is the transmission tower that also belongs to the transmission chain. An author (an intelligent originator) who created the information is at the head of the chain. In general we can say that there is an intelligent author at the beginning of every information transmission chain.

The actual (intermediate) sender may not be an individual: we could gain the impression that, in systems with machine-aided intermediate links, that the last observed member is the sender:

   The user of a car auto-wash can only trace the wash program back to the computer—but the computer is only the intermediate sender; the original sender (the programmer) is nowhere to be seen.
   The internet-surfer sees all kinds of information on his screen, but his home computer is not the original sender, but rather someone who is perhaps at other end of the world has thought out the information and put it on the internet.
   It is by no means different in the case of the DNA molecule. The genetic information is read off a material substrate, but this substrate is not the original sender; rather, it is only the intermediate sender.

It may seem obvious that the last member of the chain is the sender because it seems to be the only discernible possibility. But it is never the case in a system with machine-aided intermediate links that the last member is the original sender (= author of the information)—it is an intermediate sender. This intermediate sender may not be an individual, but rather only part of a machine that was created by an intelligence. Individuals can pass on information they have received and in so doing act as intermediate senders. However, they are in actuality only intermediate senders if they do not modify the information. If an intermediate changes the information, he may then be considered the original sender of a new piece of information.

Even in the special case where the information was not transmitted via intermediaries, the author may remain invisible. We find in Egyptian tombs or on the obelisks numerous hieroglyphic texts, but the authors are nowhere to be found. No one would conclude that there had been no author.

Intelligent Source always refers to an individual who is equipped with a will and consciousness. It is not in contradiction to SLI-4c if the author of the information cannot always be specifically identified, but, rather, sometimes only identified generally, as in the following examples: texts in Egyptian Pharaoh’s tombs (Egyptians), historical documents (unknown author), secret radio messages (the military), computer viruses in the internet (criminals), graffiti (graffiti artists), information in biological systems (creator).

The physicalist thesis is valid only in spontaneous systems whereas genes and proteins are never formed by spontaneous reactions. They are invariably manufactured by molecular machines, and all manufacturing processes do not require only physical quantities but also additional entities like sequences and codes. 1
Genes and proteins are never formed spontaneously in real life. They are invariably manufactured by molecular machines, and all manufacturing processes do not require only physical quantities but also additional entities like sequences and coding rules.

Question: How could these rules emerge by natural means, and why should they ?

The charge that information is a teleological concept is simply false, notwithstanding the fact that it is repeated fairly often. The truth is precisely the other way round. Information has all the defining features of a scientific concept because it has been defined in two different ways and in both cases there is nothing teleological about it.

Thats simply a baseless assertion. How does the author prove his view ? Here comes his striking answer :

We simply cannot describe the transmission of genes or the synthesis of proteins without their sequences, and we cannot replace these sequences with anything else, which means that using information to describe living systems is perfectly equivalent to using space, time, mass and energy to describe physical systems.

Its not. The big question is how these information bearing sequences could emerge without conceptualize first the code per se, and secondly, the information, or special sequence and arrangement of the coding letters, that bear the instructional information to produce proteins, and life.

Sequences (biological information) and coding rules are descriptive entities and are absolutely essential for life.

The truth, in other words, is that there is no more teleology in information and in the genetic code than there is in the quantities of physics and chemistry.

How can the author compare them ? What do " quantities of physics  and chemistry " have to do with information ? Or how do they compare ? They dont. These quantities do not require special arrangements , do not bear information. They are just ... quantities.   

1. MarcelloBarbieri Code Biology A New Science of Life

Last edited by Admin on Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:28 pm; edited 35 times in total



We now know that what runs the show in biology is what we call digital information or digital code. This was first discovered by [James] Watson and [Francis] Crick. In 1957, Crick had an insight which he called “The Sequence Hypothesis,” and it was the idea that along the spine of the DNA molecule there were four chemicals that functioned just like alphabetic characters in a written language or digital characters in a machine code. The DNA molecule is literally encoding information into alphabetic or digital form. And that’s a hugely significant discovery, because what we know from experience is that information always comes from an intelligence, whether we’re talking about hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book or a headline in a newspaper. If we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process. So the discovery that DNA codes information in a digital form points decisively back to a prior intelligence.

Paul Davies , the fifth miracle, page 82
The theory of self-organization as yet gives no clue how the transition is to be made between spontaneous, or self-induced, organization—which in even the most elaborate nonbiological examples still involves relatively simple structures—and the highly complex, information-based, genetic organization of living things. An explanation of this genetic takeover must account for more than merely the origin of nucleic acids and their potent entanglement with proteins at some later stage. It is not enough to know how these giant molecules arose or started to interact. We also need to know how the system’s software came into existence. Indeed, we need to know how the very concept of software control was discovered by nature.

The Question of the Origin of Natural Codes
But how did all these optimized and stringent codes of biological communication come about? Here we are up against one of the great enigmas of biology, which thus far has defied all efforts of penetration. Darwinian evolutionary theory offers no help here. Its principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest, as even staunch evolutionists do concede, entails a tautology: it identifies the fittest with the survivors, and so boils down to no more than a "survival of the survivors." Modern molecular biological versions of the principle, where the survivors are less sweepingly described in terms of preservation (and recombination) of genetic information, do somewhat better.3 Still they are good only for treading in place, and that won't change until we have at least an operational definition, some measure of the fitness. Outside biology, the question how codes get to be hardly comes up. It is usually uncalled for; the origins are obvious in the case of man-made codes. Take our telegraph code, for instance, or the codes bankers or military men use.

Those are concocted more or less arbitrarily, arising almost fully fledged from the cryptographer's mind. But no one but the most die-hard creationist would believe that the codes of biological communication—the natural codes—have such one-fell-swoop beginnings. The question of the origins of natural codes has haunted two generations of information theorists interested in human languages and, regarding biomolecular communication, the question has loomed large ever since the genetic code was found. Indeed, one cannot help being drawn to something that speaks so eloquently for the unity of life and the early origin of its master code, like the fact that all living beings use the same four-letter alphabet for their genetic information, the same twenty-letter alphabet for their proteins, and the same code to translate from one language to the other. Each of the 64 possible triplets of the 4 RNA bases here is a "codon" that assigns one of the 20 amino acids in the polypeptide chain. Such a code and the hardware that executes it are surely too complex to have started with one swoop.

Evolution of biological information

Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.

The results, which show the successful simulation of binding site evolution, can be used to address both scientific and pedagogical issues. Rsequence approaches and remains around Rfrequency (Fig. ​(Fig.2b),2b), supporting the hypothesis that the information content at binding sites will evolve to be close to the information needed to locate those binding sites in the genome, as observed in natural systems (4,6). That is, one can measure information in genetic systems, the amount observed can be predicted, and the amount measured evolves to the amount predicted. This is useful because when this prediction is not met (4,6,28,29) the anomaly implies the existence of new biological phenomena. Simulations to model such anomalies have not been attempted yet.  

Nice example of pseudo-science.

Last edited by Admin on Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:02 am; edited 4 times in total



In the conclusion to a pivotal chapter entitled “The Best Explanation” Meyer presents the following summary of his case:

   Since the intelligent-design hypothesis meets both the causal-adequacy and causal-existence criteria of a best explanation, and since no other competing explanation meets these conditions as well –or at all–it follows that the design hypothesis provides the best, most causally adequate explanation of the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life on earth. Indeed, our uniform experience affirms that specified information … always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind, and not a strictly material process. So the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA. Indeed, whenever we find specified information and we know the causal story of how that information arose, we always find that it arose from an intelligent source. It follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source. (p. 347)

Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. For instance, the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 10^80. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 10^45 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143. Yet, the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10^451.

Last edited by Admin on Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


The information in the DNA molecule had to have been imposed upon it by some outside source just as music is imposed on a cassette tape.The information in DNA is presented in coded form, and codes are not known to arise spontaneously.... Further, consider that human beings have learned to store information on clay tablets, stone, papyrus, paper, film, magnetic media such as audio and video cassettes, microchips, etc. Yet human technology has not yet advanced to the point of storing information chemically as it is in the DNA molecule (1988, pp. 44,45, emp. in orig.).

The NewBiology,evolutionists Robert Augro sand George Stanciu wrote:
What cause is responsible for the origin of the genetic code and directs it to produce animal and plant species? It cannot be matter because of itself matter has no inclination to these forms.... There must be a cause apart from matter that is able to shape and direct matter. Is there anything in our experience like this? Yes, there is: our own minds. The statue’s form originates in the mind of the artist, who then subsequently shapes matter, in the appropriate way.... For the same reasons there must be a mind that directs and shapes matter in organic forms (1987, p. 191, emp. added).

1976, pp.258-259, parentheticalitemin orig.,emp.added
The almost unimaginable complexity of the information on the genetic code along with the simplicity of its concept (four letters made of simple chemical molecules), together with its extreme compactness, imply an inconceivably high intelligence behind it. Present-day information theory permits no other interpretation of the facts of the genetic code.

Andrews was correct when he stated:
It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident....Acode is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it.... This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the “Moonlight Sonata” be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos (1978, pp. 28-29).

Last edited by Admin on Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:35 pm; edited 5 times in total



Put another way, just as the chemistry of the ink and paper that constitute a newspaper cannot explain the arrangement of the letters in the words of a newspaper, the chemistry of a DNA molecule cannot explain the arrangement of letters in a DNA molecule. This is because the arrangement of the DNA letters cannot be accomplished by physical or chemical processes.

It would be just as absurd to assert that mindless chemical or physical processes could write a newspaper article as it would be to assert that such processes could produce a DNA sequence.

The arrangement of symbols (such as letters) according to a language is not something that can be accomplished, even in principle, by unintelligent chemical or physical processes.

The substitutive function of the the symbols in a code or language is something that can only be set up by the activity of a conscious and intelligent mind. Gitt skillfully explains this crucial point:

“An abstract symbol set provides for an immense number of combinations of basic symbols to form words. These words may then be arranged in near-limitless ways to form phrases and sentences that, in turn, are used to form larger bodies of text/messages such as paragraphs. Thus, for example, the English letters ‘a, c, and t’ may be used to form the word ‘cat’ (a mammal that purrs and meows).

The very same letters may also be used to form the word ‘act’ (a word that, depending on the context, will have any one of a number of meanings; e.g., consider the phrases ‘caught in the act‘, ‘the second act of the play’, ‘an act of Congress’, ‘performed a heroic act‘ and others). The point to notice is that the letters ‘a,c, and t’ by themselves do not have a one-to-one relationship with the entity that they are combined to represent. These letters acquire function and meaning only after they are combined in agreed-upon sequences and assigned meanings.”
(underlining mine)

Simply put, what a symbol serves to represent must be decided upon by a conscious and intelligent agent. Symbolic representation is by necessity a mental process. Biologists with less rigid ideological commitments to atheism (or at least more intellectual integrity) have been frank enough to admit the necessity of mind (a conscious and intelligent agent) in the origin of life.


Darwins doubt, pg.268

Intelligent agents, due to their rationality and consciousness, have demonstrated the power to produce specified or functional information in the form of linear sequence-specific arrangements of characters. Digital and alphabetic forms of information routinely arise from intelligent agents. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind— a software engineer or programmer. The information in a book or inscription ultimately derives from a writer or scribe. Our experience-based knowledge of information flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified or functional information invariably originate from an intelligent source.  The generation of functional information is "habitually associated with conscious activity." Our uniform experience confirms this obvious truth.  It also suggests, therefore, that intelligent design meets the key "causal adequacy" requirement of a good historical scientific explanation. Certainly, intelligence is a "cause now in operation" capable of generating functional or specified information in a digital form. As I write this, my mind is generating specified information. Intelligent agents generate information in the form of software code, ancient inscriptions, books, encrypted military codes, and much else. And since we know of no "presently acting" materialistic cause that also generates large amounts14 of specified information  (especially in a digital or alphabetic form), only intelligent design meets the causal adequacy requirement of a historical scientific explanation. In other words, our uniform experience of cause and effect shows that intelligent design is the only known cause of the origin of large amounts of functionally specified digital information. It follows that the great infusion of such information in the Cambrian explosion points decisively to an intelligent cause.

Intelligent design stands alone as an explanation for the origin of genetic information for another reason: purposive agents have just those necessary powers that natural selection lacks as a condition of its causal adequacy. We have seen that natural selection lacks the ability to generate novel information precisely because it can only act after new functional information has arisen. Natural selection can favor new proteins and genes, but only after they perform some function (influencing reproductive output). The job of generating new functional genes, proteins, and systems of proteins therefore falls entirely to random mutations. Yet without functional criteria to guide a search through the space of possible sequences, random variation is probabilistically doomed. What is needed is not just a source of variation (i.e., the freedom to search a space of possibilities) or a mode of selection that can operate after the fact of a successful search, but instead a means of selection that (a) operates during a search—before success—and that (b) is guided by information about or knowledge of a functional target.

Demonstration of this requirement has come from an unlikely quarter: genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are programs that allegedly simulate the creative power of mutation and selection. Richard Dawkins, Bernd-Olaf Küppers, and others have developed computer programs that putatively simulate the production of genetic information by mutation and natural selection.15 Yet these programs succeed only by the illicit expedient of providing the computer with a "target sequence" and then treating proximity to future function (i.e., the target sequence), not actual present function, as a selection criterion. As mathematician David Berlinski shows, genetic algorithms need something akin to a "forward-looking memory" in order to succeed.16 Yet such foresighted selection has no analogue  in nature. In biology, where differential survival depends upon maintaining function, natural selection cannot occur before new functional sequences arise. Natural selection lacks foresight; the process, as evolutionary theorists Rodin and Szathmáry note, works strictly " 'in the present moment,' right here and right now . . . lacking the foresight of potential future advantages."

What natural selection lacks, intelligent design—purposive, goal-directed selection—provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. They also routinely solve problems of combinatorial inflation. In using language, the human mind routinely "finds" or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. In the process of thought, functional objectives precede and constrain the selection of words, sounds, and symbols to generate functional (and meaningful) sequences from a vast ensemble of meaningless alternative possible combinations of sound or symbol.

Similarly, the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines, and software, results from the application of goal-directed constraints. Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, designing engineers or other intelligent agents applied constraints on the possible arrangements of matter to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences, or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain possible outcomes to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers.  Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection and other undirected evolutionary mechanisms that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess.

 Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can determine or select functional goals before they are physically instantiated. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities. They can then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant information-rich outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks—by definition—are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality—with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking intelligent design to overcome a vast combinatorial search problem and to explain the origin of new specified information, contemporary advocates of intelligent design are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence.

Last edited by Admin on Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

7Coded information comes always from a mind Empty Re: Coded information comes always from a mind on Sat Oct 24, 2015 10:01 am


The Origin of Information 1

By Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler

Would a DNA molecule that arose by chance possess any information, codes, programs, or instructions?

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so" 
Genesis 1:11 (KJV)

     When George Wald and Francis Crick stated that the spontaneous origin of life was "impossible," they were speaking primarily about the origin of the cellular "hardware." Indeed, when we consider the effect of equilibrium, the reversibility of biochemical reactions in water and the fact that the building blocks of life are not safe in the air or on the land,1 spontaneous biogenesis stands shoulder to shoulder with raising the dead and walking on water - events which also defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Chemical Equilibrium - something which cannot be explained by natural law. However, for the purpose of this chapter we will allow that sometime on the earth the oceans became filled with spontaneously derived DNA.
     The question we must now answer is this: Would a DNA molecule that arose by chance possess any information, codes, programs, or instructions? To put it another way - can information, codes, or programs arise by chance? In the last half of the twentieth century, evidence has accumulated which has decisively answered this question. The answer profoundly impacts the debate on the existence of God.

Encyclopedia on a Pinhead: Chance or Design
     At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pin head. Yet, it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it! If all the DNA chemical "letters" in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times! The source of this information (the "software") is at the very core of the debate on the origin of life.
     When Carl Sagan said, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," he was expressing the materialists' position that the universe is a closed system.2 That is, they believe that no information or matter can be inserted into our universe from outside our space-time domain. Consequently, with no intelligent source, materialists are forced to conclude that the sum total of the information on the DNA molecule arose by chance.
     On the other hand, creationists believe that a transcendent Creator pierced the veil of our universe and infused information and order onto the chains of the DNA molecule. Again we see that the debate boils down to chance or design. To settle this debate we must look at the nature of information as defined in the field of information science.

The Nature of Information Systems
     The modern field of information science has revolutionized our daily lives in the last four decades. Computers, fax machines, cellular phones and many other daily conveniences would not have been possible without the rapid advances in the field of information theory.
     In recent years information engineers have examined the nature of the genetic code and concluded that it is an error correcting digital coding system. While digital coding systems can be very complex, error correcting digital codes are much less common and much more complex. Furthermore, the DNA molecule has built-in redundancy. That is, the same packet of information (called a gene) is often located in more than one place in the organism's DNA. Consequently, if one gene becomes corrupted with informational errors, the backup gene will take over the function of that gene! This level of complexity is found in only the most sophisticated computer system.
     The DNA coding system can be compared to that of a compact disc. The music on a compact disc is stored in a digital fashion and can only be appreciated if you have a knowledge of the language convention used to create the information on the disc. Appropriate machinery, which functions to translate that code into music, is also required for the music to be played. In a compact disc player this decoding process involved dozens of electronic and moving parts.
     It isn't much different in the living cell. The information carried by the DNA molecule contains the instructions for all the structures and functions of the human body. Within each cell resides all the necessary hardware to decode and utilize that information.
     When we look at a compact disc, we see no evidence of the musical information stored on the disc's surface. We see only the rainbow effect on the surface of the disc. Without the knowledge of the language convention used to create the disc and the machinery to translate it, we must simply be content with the colorful surface. This is exactly the same dilemma we face with spontaneously derived DNA or any information storage system.3
     If we examine the sequence of nucleotides on the DNA molecule, they simply have the appearance of a long chain of chemicals and not the appearance of a message system or a code. It is only when one possesses a knowledge of the language convention (the genetic code) and the appropriate machinery to translate the coded information on the DNA molecule, that the nucleotide sequence becomes understandable. Without such knowledge and machinery, the sequences on a spontaneously derived DNA molecule are meaningless.
     Consequently, the enormous challenge facing the scientific materialist is to explain how a language convention (the genetic code) and the necessary cellular machinery to translate the information stored on the DNA molecule arose independently without intelligent guidance.
     The chicken-egg dilemma has confounded scientists for decades. Chemist John Walton noted the dilemma in 1977 when he stated:
     "The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in he nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for his machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information, the machinery cannot be produced. This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."4
     By allowing the spontaneous generation of long chains of DNA, what would you have? Do those chains of nucleotides possess a code or a program? Of course not. What you have is an admittedly complex chemical which has the potential of carrying a code or information. However, there is no inherent information on such spontaneously generated DNA unless a system of interpreting those sequences exists first. A couple of simple examples will help us to understand the nature of this dilemma.

"Save Our Souls!"
     If I were to show you a sign which had painted on it the sequence, dot, dot, dot, dash, dash, dash, dot, dot, dot, and if you were knowledgeable in Morse Code, you would know that this means S-O-S, and that I am in trouble. However, if I take that same sign to an isolated tribe of South American Indians, they will see the unlikely arrangement of dots and dashes, but there will be no information content transmitted to them without the knowledge of the language convention we call Morse Code.

The English Language
     Similarly, if I take a book written in English and hand it to an Australian Bushman, it will make absolutely no sense without a prior knowledge of the English language convention. Just like the dots and dashes, the 26 letters of the English language have no inherent information in them. Their shapes have the appearance of order (reduced entropy) but by themselves they are meaningless. It is when you "sheperd" or gather the letters into specific sequences, as determined by the rules of the previously existent language convention, that their arrangement begins to have meaning. Unless the language convention and the hardware (the human brain) to interpret it exists first, the arrangement of the letters can transmit no meaning.

Primordial Disk Soup
     The magnetic disks used to store and retrieve information in computers provides another fascinating analogy to the DNA molecule. When I purchase a blank computer disk, have I purchased a code or a program? No. I have only purchased a chemical medium which has the potential to carry a code or a program. However, to possess real information the blank disk must be formatted and programmed by a computer which was in turn built for this purpose.
     While the disk is being formatted a "program" is placed on it from an intelligent source (the computer) that exists outside and separate from the disk. This is accomplished by arranging the iron atoms on the disk in a predetermined fashion according to the rules of the computer's language convention. Once the disk is formatted and imputed with information, it weighs no more than it did before this procedure was done. This is because information has no mass or weight.
     As in the case of the 26 letters of the English alphabet, the structure or shape of the iron atoms on the disk does not convey or possess any information in and of itself. Rather, information ( a code or program) is conveyed by the orderly arrangement of the iron atoms. This arrangement of atoms is then interpreted by the computer's hardware according to the predetermined rules of the its language convention. Without the hardware and the pre-existent language convention, the arrangement of the iron atoms is meaningless.
     Does the computer create its own language convention? Obviously not. Just as the hardware requires intelligent design, so does the computer's language convention require an intelligent source - a computer programmer.
     By allowing an ocean of spontaneously derived DNA, I have given you the equivalent of an ocean full of blank floppy disks! In order for the DNA molecule to carry information, its molecules need to be arranged in a specific sequence as predetermined by the chemical code or language convention. But the language convention must exist first. According to the principles of modern information theory, language conventions come only from an intelligent source - a mind!
     Miller and Urey were able to produce the unlikely, ordered building blocks of proteins. In the future someone may even produce nucleotides by chance chemical processes. However, without a pre-existent language convention, these chemical letters will be no more effective in transmitting information than a random sequence of beads on a string, iron atoms in a disc, or letters on a page.

Codes by Chance?
     In the twentieth century, theories on the origin of the chemical hardware in living systems have come and gone with each generation.5 However, theories on the origin of codes and programs are few and far between. The claim by creationists that codes, programs and languages conventions, such as the genetic code, arise only from intelligent sources is often protested by scientific materialists (although most information engineers have no problem with this statement). Yet no one has come up with a rational theory on how true information, which is the antithesis of chance, can arise by random chance processes. As we will see, however, this problem has led to some irrational solutions.
     One of the most celebrated theories on the origin of information by chance comes from materialist Manfried Eigen. In his book Das Spiel, Eigen attempts to show how a code or program might develop by chance. Eigen argues that if the letters of the genetic code can arise by chance, then why not the words, the sentences, the paragraphs and entire book.
     Eigen envisions a machine that possesses the remarkable ability to generate, by chance, the letters of the English language and then randomly shuffle and combine those letters for millions of years. After examining the volumes of randomly generated letters we find some rather amazing combinations. The machine has generated "AND," "MAN," "DOG," "CAT," "The Lord is my sheperd, I shall not want..." We stand back and see that indeed, this machine has generated meaningful sentences. Eigen argues that this is proof of the random chance production of information. Is this true?
     In his book, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, A.E. Wilder-Smith demonstrated the fallacy of Eigen's argument. Wilder-Smith invites a non-English speaking friend from Switzerland to examine the output of the machine. Again the machine puts out the random sequences such "HAT," "FISH," "BOY," etc. His Swiss friend stares at the machine with a blank look, quite unlike the smile an Englishman might carry. While the Englishman stands amazed at the randomly generated information, our Swiss friend points out that the sequences have no meaning to him at all because he has no knowledge of the English language convention.
     Eigen's argument that "true information" has been generated by chance, is erroneous because he interprets his sequences by the rules of a previously existing language convention we call the English language. But where did the rules of English come from?
     Wilder-Smith points out that the sequence of letters has meaning only when we "hang" the rules and the conventions of the English language on the sequences themselves. Just as dots and dashes are meaningless without a knowledge of the Morse Code, so too are the random arrangements of any letters, chemicals, beads, or magnetic medium meaningless without rules and conventions by which we interpret the sequences. But the rules of any language system are themselves arbitrary (i.e. man-made), abstract agreements between at least two intelligences which declare that a specific sequence of letters has a certain meaning.6 Put another way, the rules of any language system are neither a part of nor conveyed by any natural laws of nature. Therefore, a language convention, with its rules and regulations, must be devised first.
     Information engineers know that language conventions will notcannot, and do not arise by chance. Every information engineer or computer programmer knows that chance must be eliminated if one is to successfully write a code or program. In fact, chance is the very antithesis of information.
     If Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation commissioned you to write a new software program and you simply began to type randomly on your computer with the hope that a new language or program might result, you would likely be assisted to a psychiatric facility for an extended medical leave of absence. We know intuitively that this method will never result in the generation of new information.
     Yet, according to evolutionary dogma, the random shuffling of nucleotides for millions of years supposedly produced not only the DNA molecule but the code which governs the storage and retrieval of the information it carries as well. If we make such a claim, are we not, in effect, asserting that formatted computer floppy disks, which are filled with millions of bits of information, can arise by the random combining of iron oxide and plastic rather than being the product of an intelligent source which is outside and separate from the floppy disk?

The Monkey and the Typewriter
     For centuries scientists have suspected that living systems contain a mechanism for the storage and retrieval of information used for cellular metabolism and reproduction. With the elucidation of the structure of DNA in 1953 and the subsequent deciphering of the genetic code in the 1960's this was finally confirmed. However, the debate on the origin of this cellular information predates the actual discovery of the DNA molecule by at least 100 years.
     As in the case of the cellular "hardware," evolutionists have also appealed to the magic ingredient of time to explain the origin of the information, the "software," stored by living systems. Since the 1700's scientific materialists have argued that, given enough time, anything was possible, even the origin of the complex programs necessary for the production of life. Creationists, on the other hand, have argued that where there is design there must be a designer and where there are codes or language conventions there must be an architect for such information.
     On June 30, 1860, at the Oxford Union in England, this was the very topic in the "Great Debate" between the Anglican Archbishop of Oxford University, Samuel Wilberforce and evolutionist and agnostic, Thomas Huxley.
     Bishop Wilberforce, a Professor of Theology and Mathematics at Oxford University, applied the logic of the teleological argument for God. He argued, as did William Paley, that the design we see in nature required a Designer. Therefore, the information (an evidence for design) found in living systems could not arise by chance.
     Huxley, on the other hand, declared that given enough time all the possible combinations of matter, including those necessary to produce a man, will eventually occur by chance molecular movement. To prove his point Huxley asked Wilberforce to allow him the service of six monkeys that would live forever, six typewriters that would never wear out and an unlimited supply of paper and ink. He then argued that given an infinite amount of these monkeys would eventually type all of the books in the British Library including the Bible and the works of Shakespeare!
     Applying the mathematical law of probability, Huxley showed that if time (T) is infinite, then the probability (P) of an event happening is equal to one, i.e., one hundred percent.7 Consequently, he argued that with an infinite amount of time any and all combinations of letters, including the necessary chemical combinations to produce life, will eventually be typed out purely by chance, without the necessity of a Creator.
     Bishop Wilberforce, a skilled mathematician, was forced to concede the truth of Huxley's point. To this very day the Monkey/Typewriter argument is frequently applied by evolutionists when confronted with the question of the origin of life.
     Bishop Wilberforce lost the debate because he was unable to see the flaw in Huxley's argument. At the time of this debate the nature of biochemical reactions and the genetic code was not understood. Consequently, Huxley's argument seemed reasonable. When time is infinite the probability formula does indeed predict that all possible combinations of letters will occur. However, with the revolutionary discoveries in molecular biology and information science in the last four decades, Huxley's use of a typewriter to simulate the chemical reactions in living systems has, in fact, been shown to be erroneous.
     In the last chapter we saw that the chemical reactions in living systems, such as the combining of amino acids and nucleotides, are reversible. The reversibility of these chemical reactions is quite unlike those simulated by Huxley's typewriter.
     A century after the "Great Debate," Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who also studied at Oxford University, demonstrated the fallacy of Huxley's argument. Wilder-Smith points out that because the chemical reactions upon which our bodies run are reversible, for Huxley's argument to be valid, his monkeys would need to use typewriters which also type reversibly!8 With each key stroke such a typewriter places the ink on the paper, and when the key is released the inks jumps back onto the hammer of the typewriter leaving the paper reversibly without a trace!
     This is, in fact, a more accurate demonstration of what happens in biological reactions. The building blocks of life continually combine ("type in") and come apart ("type out") as the solution approaches a state of equilibrium. With a typewriter that types reversibly-typing in (bonding) and typing out (uncombining)-we will have typed as much in one minute as we would have in 5 billion years!9
     Huxley's argument is invalidated by the fact that the building blocks in biological reactions do not stay combined. The building blocks of DNA and proteins are driven (by the Second Law and chemical equilibrium) to break down (come apart) in the watery environment in which they supposedly arose.
     On the other hand, the hypothetical books typed by Huxley's monkeys are stable end products. They do not decompose (come apart) into their individual letters as do the building blocks of life. Therefore, Huxley's illustrations is an erroneous and inaccurate representation of biological systems.
     Finally, we saw that Stanley Miller's spark and soup experiment generated 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed amino acids. We saw that right-handed amino acids are, in many cases, poisonous to enzymes and living cells. Consequently, if the keys in Huxley's typewriter represent a true primordial soup, every other key stroke would be potentially lethal! How far do you think the monkeys would get toward typing the genetic code with such odds?
     In his character style, Sir Fred Hoyle comments on the improbability that Huxley's monkeys might type the genetic code:
     "No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material."10

Time: Magic Bullet for Unlikely Villain
     When confronted with the many evidences against the spontaneous origin of life, the scientific materialist will inevitably and repeatedly appeal to the magic ingredient of prolonged time periods to accomplish biochemical possibilities. However, as in the case of the chemical "hardware," the addition of prolonged time periods does not increase the likelihood of spontaneously derived information.
     In the previous chapter on the origin of the cellular "hardware," we saw that the laws of thermodynamics and chemical equilibrium demand that all systems tend toward disorder with the advance of time. In the field of information science, these laws have enormous implications as well.
     When applied to the field of information science, the Second Law demands that the total amount of information in a closed system decreases as time advances.11 Put another way, as time advances the sum total of the information stored on magnetic tape, the pages of a book, or the sequences of a DNA molecule always degrades. This is, in fact, exactly what we observe with these media. As time advances, DNA molecules collect informational errors (mutations) and the organism eventually dies. Ancient scrolls lose their ink. Old recordings become filled with informational noise. In each case the result is always the same-loss of information.
     The Theory of Evolution demands that just the opposite occurs. To change an amoebae into a human being requires a million-fold increase in the information stored in the DNA of each cell. According to evolutionary theory, this increase in information must also occur without any intelligent guidance. Such an occurrence would not only breach a foundational truth of information theory-that true information comes only from a mind-it would also defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics which demands that the information stored on the DNA molecule must degrade and not increase.12
     In their book Evolution from Space, materialists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe address the problem of the origin of the information carried on the DNA molecule:
     "From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called 'natural' processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed [for the origin of life]. We have argued that the requisite information came from an 'intelligence,' the beckoning spectre."13 (Emphasis added)
     In this remarkable statement, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe admit that living systems require "enormous" amounts of information for their construction. This information, they conclude, cannot be generated by "natural" or random chemical processes. Consequently, they assert that the source of the information is from an "intelligence."
     The implications of this admission by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are mind boggling. Since, in their opinion, chance "chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet [earth]" cannot create new information, then the source of information found in living systems must have been of extraterrestial origin!

ET: The Sower of Life?
     By the end of the 1960's the evidence from thermodynamics, mathematical probability and information theory were taking their toll on the Oparin-Haldane-Miller paradigm. With each new discovery in molecular biology the concept of spontaneous generation gradually took on the appearance of a miracle, rather than an unlikely accident of chemistry.
     In the 1970's speculation on the origin of life took an unexpected and bizarre turn. Because the laws of chemistry, physics and mathematical probability so mitigate against the possibility of spontaneous generation, scientists began to look for an extraterrestrial source for the origin of life!
     Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, and one of the most respected molecular biologists in the world, has conceded that the spontaneous origin of life on earth is "almost a miracle." Consequently, since life could not have arisen by chance, he proposed that the first life forms on earth were single-celled "spores" delivered here from interstellar space!14,15 This theory, called "Directed Panspermia," then asserts that these "interstellar spores" subsequently evolved into all the life forms on earth. Similar conclusions were drawn by Hoyle in his book Evolution From Space.16
     These men recognized that something beyond the bounds of planet earth was required to generate the information and complexity found within living systems.
     Scientists recognize that there are only two options for the origin of life: intelligent design or spontaneous biogenesis. Faced with the apparent impossibility of spontaneous biogenesis on earth, one might have suspected that these men would invoke a supernatural, extra-dimensional, intelligent Creator for the origin of life. However, this was not the case. Crick, and others, have concluded that since life could not have arisen by chance on planet earth, the laws of chemistry and physics must, therefore, be more favorable elsewhere in the cosmos and that life arose there first and was later delivered to earth.
     Michael Denton comments on this bizarre twist:
     "Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia."17
     The dramatic shift from a theistic, Judeo-Christian world view to a secularized, neo-Darwinian "age of reason" was accomplished, in part, by those who desired to explain away the biblical miracle of creation. It is ironic, therefore, that as we approach the end of the twentieth century some of the world's most prominent scientists are forced to conclude that life on earth had an extraterrestial origin. This is, in theory, exactly what the Bible has said all along. However, the "Extraterrestial" the Bible speaks of is not just from beyond earth, but from beyond time and space as well!
     The assertion that elsewhere in the universe the laws of physics and chemistry are more favorable for the origin of life is not supported by even a shred of scientific evidence. To invoke such an explanation is, in effect, an appeal to something outside the bounds of natural laws, i.e., a metaphysical, supernatural cause.
     In 1981 Sir Fred Hoyle commented on this appeal to metaphysics:
     "I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers [DNA, RNA, proteins] on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that this is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles."18 (Emphasis added)
     If we are to assume that the laws of physics and chemistry are essentially uniform throughout the physical universe, then we must logically conclude that life could not have arisen by chance anywhere in the universe.
     Even if the laws of physics were found to be more favorable in a distant corner of the universe, there would still be no explanation for the coded information (which does not arise by chance) that is carried by the DNA molecule.
     Consequently, the source of the cellular "hardware" as well as the information carried by the DNA molecule must have been an intelligent, extra-dimensional one - beyond the bounds of space and time.

"Of the Dust of the Ground"
     The evidence presented thus far has brought us to a remarkable conclusion. As we have seen, the order and complexity in the universe is well beyond the reach of chance. We have seen that to "wind up" and order the physical universe requires the introduction of energy and intelligent guidance from a source outside the bounds of the space-time domain. Furthermore, the enormous complexity of living systems and the nature of the information on the DNA molecule cannot be explained by natural laws within the dimension of our universe.
     Surely, at the dawn of the twentieth century, few scientists would have anticipated that their quest to explain the existence of the universe on natural grounds would have brought us to the point where their own discoveries now demand the existence of the very Creator they were trying to explain away! Any yet, this is exactly what has occurred.
     To create the universe and its life forms the Creator must, of necessity, be transcendent. To create the universe in the first place He must have preceded it. Secondly, to order and establish the matter within galaxies, solar systems and living beings, He would need to "enter," in effect, the arena of space-time that He created. This ability to simultaneously exist inside and outside the dimensions of the universe demands a transcendent, supernatural Creator.
     To many, invoking a supernatural cause for the origin of the universe is abhorrent. However, to invoke the god called "chance" is, according to many, a belief in "mathematical miracles." So we must choose between mathematical miracles, without a supernatural agent to perform them, or a transcendent Creator-the "First Cause," who ordered and established the universe and its life forms. The god called "chance" or intelligent design? You must choose.
     For thousands of years the Bible has revealed a transcendent Creator who acted prior to the origin of our space-time domain.19 To create the universe and life on earth, He transcended time and space, then inserted information or know-how onto matter. The result was the birth of an ordered, energized universe filled with information and every appearance of contrivance and design.
     The Bible declares that this same Creator entered time and space physically in the person of Jesus Christ. Finally, the Bible authenticates the authority of its message by demonstrating that its text came from a transcendent, supernatural Being who exists beyond time and space. 

1.Due to the destructive effects of oxygen and UV radiation
2. Carl Sagan, Cosmos. (Random House, New York, 1980). pg. 4.
3. During the time of recorded history there have been dozens of information storage and retrieval systems developed by man. The use of clay tablets, ink on paper, beads on a string and modern computers have all been used to store and retrieve information. No matter what medium mankind has used, all of these systems share two vital elements. Each of the systems uses a material medium (air molecules to carry voice, clay tablets, beads, etc...) to carry the information. Secondly, each of the systems employs the use of specific rules and regulations which determine the meaning of the arrangement of the letters on a page, beads on a string or impressions on a tablet. Consequently, the information in the Encyclopedia Britannica can just as surely be stored by beads on a rope as it can with a compact disc.
4. John Walton, "Organization and the Origin of Life" Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30-31.
5. In the last decade a number of scientists have proposed that RNA and not DNA was the first self duplicating molecule upon which life arose. The function of information storage was later transferred to DNA which evolved later. However, RNA is even more unstable in water. Its chemical bonds are even more sensitive to the destructive effects of equilibrium in a watery environment. All of the processes that are destructive to DNA are even more destructive to RNA. Furthermore, spontaneously derived RNA would also contain NO information. Others have claimed that the first life forms were clay based self reproducing systems (See Shapiro). However, no rational system of converting silica or clay based life to carbon based life is imaginable. Further, where did the information for reproduction, growth, metabolism and repair come from in clay based systems?
6. This is one of the fascinating evidences that God exists in at least two personages.
7. According to the probability formula Pt=l-(l-Pl)t , when time (t) is infinity then the probability of any event happening Pt approaches 100%.
8. A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, The Word for Today, Costa Mesa, Ca.
9. The problem is even worse for biological systems. Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Law of Mass Action, amino acids and nucleotides "type out" far more readily than they "type in" in a watery environment.
10. Sire Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pgs. 148.
11. In the field of information science, this is actually a corollary to the Second Law. Applied to information storage and retrieval systems the Second Law demands that the net amount of information in a closed system always decreases as time advances. A closed system is an environment in which no information, matter or energy can be added or removed from beyond its boundaries. Applied to biology, the sum total of genetic information within an interbreeding pool of genes will degrade with the advance of time. This is the very cause of extinction in biological systems. In breeding situations bringing in "new blood" (new alleles) into an isolated breeding population has the effect of stabilizing the population and delaying the inevitable extinction. In this situation new information is "injected" into the a gene pool that was, in effect, previously a closed system.
12. The Second Law, applied to information theory, demands that in order for the information in a system to increase it must be inserted from outside the system from an intelligent source. Since the net amount of information in a closed system decreases with the advance of time and since, according to materialists, our universe is a closed system, then at the beginning of time, the total amount of information in the universe was at a maximum. Since information does not arise by chance, the challenge for the materialist is to determine where it came from in the first place?
13. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, op. cit., pg. 150.
14. Francis Crick, Life Itself, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981.
15. Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, "Directed Panspermia", Icarus, 19:341-46.
16. Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space; 1981.
17. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pg. 271, Adler and Adler, 1986.
18. Hoyle, Sir Fred, "The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist, 19 November 1981, p. 526.
19. II Timothy 1:9 "who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began." Also, Ephesians 1:4 "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love."



Information in DNA, evidence of a intelligent cause

Whether you’re creating codes or adapting them to new circumstances, you must create new rules. The only thing we know of that creates or re-creates codes is volitional beings. In all man-made systems, the only thing that makes them evolve is . . . intelligence.” Codes are not matter and they’re not energy. Codes don’t come from matter, nor do they come from energy. Codes are information, and information is in a category by itself.

"All *life forms* definitely must have an enormous amount  of information to keep all their structures functioning." 

1.  No information can exist without a code. 

2.  No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention. 

3.  No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: 
     statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. 

4.  No information can exist in purely statistical processes. 

5.  No information can exist without a transmitter. 

6.  No information chain can exist without a mental origin. 

7.  No information can exist without an initial mental source; 
     that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity. 

8.  No information can exist without a will. 

These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of  thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has 'ever' been found.


[ltr]Biology Shows us that Codes Cannot be Randomly Generated[/ltr]


[ltr]Codes are the product of a mind. A thinking entity outside the cell has to be responsible for the double dose of the DNA and the Protein , which use different languages and yet can communicate with each other. One would never dare insist that random ordering could create the Morse Code or the Braille reading method. That would be utterly irrational.[/ltr]

[ltr]The protein molecule, as it turns out, has what biologists refer as sequence specificity. The sequence of those amino acids determines its specific function. If the function of the system as a whole depends critically upon the specific arrangement of the parts, then it is a code. Both proteins and the DNA have a language. But they are different from one another. Languages have this same property.[/ltr]

[ltr]So does a computer program. The sentence, “My name is Henry,” is written in the English language. Each of the letters in that sentence have specific information that when placed together performs a function. The code allows the reader that must also know that code to decipher the meaning.[/ltr]

[ltr]If the reader understands the code that interprets each letter, he is able to understand the sentence. This is viewed as specified complexity because it transfers functional information in asymmetrical codes. It is not the simple complexity of repetitive symmetrical patterns created by nature. Such as in crystals or wave patterns in sand that form simple complexity due to electrical affinities in atoms and molecules. These patterns are periodic and predictable. A code on the other hand must be aperiodic and each element must have a specific meaning understood by the reader. “My Name is Henry” is a code in the English language that can be understood by those who know the code.[/ltr]

[ltr]The numerical sequence, “100 1101 101 1001 100 1110 100 0001 100 1101 100 0101 100 1001 101 0011 100 1000 100 0101 100 1110 101 0010 101 1001,” says, “My name is Henry,” in the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII). This is the binary code that my computer is using to store the data I input when I am writing.[/ltr]

[ltr]Both these have complexity and specific information. The sentence, “Xt morh br kturs,” has the same number of letters as “My name is Henry.” It has irregular unrepeatable complexity, it is also asymmetrical, but it has no specific information because it does not have a code. This exhibits what information scientists call “mere complexity” as opposed to “specified complexity.”[/ltr]

[ltr]Codes that exhibit specified complexity (that is, it carries functional information) are not found anywhere in the natural world outside of living things. Specified complexity cannot appear through random chaotic processes. They must be imputed by a mind that understands the symbols and the code.[/ltr]

[ltr]The existence of a code automatically presupposes two minds, but at minimum one mind. The mind of the message giver is the essential component and the mind of the message receiver is the secondary component.[/ltr]

[ltr]In 1977 our space scientists sent out Voyager 1 into deep space with many coded messages on a golden plate. They did so with the hope that the second mind would see those codes and infer that intelligence exists on planet earth. Why? Because random ordering does not create codes, they provide to any who might come upon it the evidence of intelligence existing in our planet. It was basically our note in a bottle thrown into the cosmic ocean.[/ltr]

[ltr]Included in the many images portrayed in that golden disk is that of the DNA. In the back of the golden record are symbols that instruct the “receiver” how to use the record player with the stylus in the right position at the exterior of the record. Beyond that even the numbers 1, 2, 3 are noted in the code of binary numbers. There are coded instructions in how to read the pictures, etc. Our astrophysicists understood that such specific information conveyed in codes would be understood as a sign of intelligence by any “alien” that would happen upon our little satellite.[/ltr]

[ltr]In 1990 Voyager 1 passed the orbit of Pluto. Today, it is passing the heliosheath, the region beyond the termination shock (where the solar wind is slowed by pressure from interstellar gases and becomes denser and hotter). Travelling at 38,000 mph it will take 40,000 years to even come within 1.7 light years from a star.[/ltr]

[ltr]Nevertheless, the fundamental presupposition to this secondary mission of Voyager 1 is that any alien that by chance might come upon it would assume that random ordering could not have created such specified complexity. The coded symbols prove that a conscious mind sent the message. Whether or not a conscious mind will receive the message is another story. But, the point is that a code automatically presupposes a code inventor and message giver. In this we are in complete agreement with the astrophysicists that designed and engineered the coded message in this gold disk sent on Voyager 1.[/ltr]

[ltr]The complexity of the hardware of the Voyager satellite, combined with the specified complexity of the coded messages inscribed on its golden plate, proves to any alien that might happen upon it that an intelligent mind sent it. In exactly the same way, the gene-expression system in the cell is the “Voyager” sent by God to humankind that proves to us that intelligence designed life. The cell is our golden record engineered by the Creator for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.[/ltr]

[ltr]“Apart from the molecules comprising the gene-expression system and machinery of the cell, sequences or structures exhibiting such specified complexity or specified information are not found anywhere in the natural- that is the non-human world. Sequences and structures exhibiting either redundant order or mere complexity are common in the chemical substrate of nature. But structures exhibiting specified complexity are completely unknown there apart from DNA, RNA, and proteins. As the origin-of-life biochemist Leslie Orgel observes, ‘Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals…fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.’” (Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2009, pg.110)[/ltr]

[ltr]Polypeptide chains that do not become proteins exhibit mere complexity, but not specified complexity. They are like, “Xt morh br kturs.” From the thousands of possible combinations of amino acids relatively few can carry specific information in the form of proteins. Both the proteins and nucleotides exhibit specified complexity. Moreover, they have a code that is mutually compatible and allows them to function together for they are both mutually interdependent. The secret of their intercommunication is a marvel to understand.[/ltr]

[ltr]The language of the DNA would be meaningless if it could not interface with the language of proteins. Hence, if random processes were responsible for their origin, they would have to evolve simultaneously. How did random chaotic processes manage that miracle of the first magnitude? What selective pressure could carry out such a feat?[/ltr]

[ltr]It seems infinitely more plausible to account for this unique phenomenon, as an exhibited common design by the common Designer, leaving His fingerprint in the evidence of His previsioned design. Here, is yet another vital thread in the intricate tapestry of life that bears witness to His genius design of our creation and specifically of life itself.[/ltr]

[ltr]As we shall see, the insurmountable problem for the evolutionist is that there is a mutual interdependence that exists between the basic molecules and components of the cell, which would require of evolution to develop each of them simultaneously in order for them to function, as they are all needed in the cell, at the same time.[/ltr]

[ltr]Only a Master Designer could have imagined the two languages and the ability of each to interpret the other. Evolution has no answer for this.[/ltr]

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum