Posted on 05/06/2005 7:36:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago.
The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it.
Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune.
It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible—discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.
The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been deciphered—although many of its elements are still not well understood.
What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection.
Amazing revelations about DNA
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).
It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!
Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).
Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?
DNA contains a genetic language
Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.
Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).
The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.
The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."
Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution—no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?
DNA language not the same as DNA molecule
Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions—namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.
For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book—the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.
If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71).
The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.
As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).
Information from an intelligent source
In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.
As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task—the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).
For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.
So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.
Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.
He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).
We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.
Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).
Evolution fails to provide answers
It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!
Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident—by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.
Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).
Quality of genetic information the same
Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.
So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man.
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).
So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?
Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).
Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).
The clincher
Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining—the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.
Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.
This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).
More witnesses
Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.
"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).
Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).
Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).
Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution—mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA—states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).
Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.
"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).
"Fearfully and wonderfully made"
Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm 139:13-15, emphasis added).
Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).
All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.
"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).
Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! GN
Thanks. You know what I think.
Bump
"RNA world is still a hypothesis, and self-replication is a doubtful requirement."
self-replication was the _reason_ for coming up with RNA-world in the first place. It provided the hope of a simple mechanism for RNA transcription, rather than the complicated one we have now.
"Every stinkin' one of us critters share fundamental chemical and morphologic identities."
I did not claim that there were no identities, but that the links are becoming more broken the more we study it.
"This statement draws a blank from me on two scores. 1) Of course all species have "alternate" DNA coding."
Apparently I didn't express myself well enough. There are alternate codings of which DNA sequences map to which amino acids. This would be especially difficult to have happen by neo-Darwinism, as when the code changed, it would change ALL of the expressed enzymes, leaving little chance for survival. There are very few species which have these alternate DNA codings, but they do exist.
"Distinct, DNA-encapsulating unicellularity was not an instantaneous event, by our current lights, so there is no need to develop a scientific explaination for it."
So you come up with an even more unsupported hypothesis in its place? And the root of the tree is not the only place where there are huge, gaping gaps. Turtles and bats come to mind, too.
Be that as it may, self-replication is not the fulcrum of the RNA world argument. RNA beasties are part of a complex set of chemical feedback loops that can and do produce other RNA in a long cyclic chain. It is very easy to imagine the whole shebang getting along just fine without any DNA, and without requiring a particular RNA molecule to reproduce itself autonomously.
Not even close. You do not realize what you are up against in this argument. Every single enzyme or protein provides an independent vector of corresponding DNA tracing back through history by looking at the gradual mutational changes that occur in closely allied creatures for that one DNA segment. That means we have literally thousands of independent double checks on the claims that the DNA version of the Tree of Life makes. We have barely scratched the surface of this investigation, but so far, what we see does not remotely support your claim.
Why?
as when the code changed, it would change ALL of the expressed enzymes, leaving little chance for survival. There are very few species which have these alternate DNA codings, but they do exist.
Assuming this is true, I fail to see what compelling point it demonstrates. I also fail to see the internal logic of the argument: assuming one codon change destroyed the usefulness of the resulting enzyme--which is not necessarily the case--why is that any different from the case for any enzyme/protein?
"Distinct, DNA-encapsulating unicellularity was not an instantaneous event, by our current lights, so there is no need to develop a scientific explaination for it."
So you come up with an even more unsupported hypothesis in its place?
The GodDidItWhileNoOneWasLooking theory is inherently unsupported, and proud of it. Any alternative involving stuff and how it behaves, broken into many discrete steps, is an infinitely better scientific hypothesis. Not because the offered alternative is necessarily wrong--but because it is necessarily not science.
And the root of the tree is not the only place where there are huge, gaping gaps.
Let's consider the huge gaps in the theory of intergalactic gravitational attraction. Physics simply refused to address all the empty space between galaxies where it has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to offer of gravitational influence. How long will this shoddy form of science be permitted in our classrooms, in the face of these huge, shaming gravity gaps?
Turtles and bats come to mind, too.
Well, bats, anyway. Of the ding family.
Premise1:A system is composed of several interdependent and interacting parts functioning together to make a whole or for a common purpose.
Premise2:removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Premise3:there is no empirical evidence that simple biological systems, on their own, become more complex systems.
Conclusion:any biological system is irreducibly complex and it cannot be produced directly by continuously improving a simpler design through slight, successive modifications to a precursor system.
That is a valid deduction, and unless the premises can be falsified is sound. Althouhg, I'll acknowledge that the above syllogism could be a variant of the Black Swan fallacy. Now, you said:
So new irreducible complexities are occuring all the time everywhere"That sounds like a conclusion to me. How do you get there? Why don't you have a go at rigorously defining your conclusion? And we'll see how well you get on with that.
"Every single enzyme or protein provides an independent vector of corresponding DNA tracing back through history by looking at the gradual mutational changes that occur in closely allied creatures for that one DNA segment. That means we have literally thousands of independent double checks on the claims that the DNA version of the Tree of Life makes. We have barely scratched the surface of this investigation, but so far, what we see does not remotely support your claim."
There are only 60 universal genes. Considering that a minimal for a functioning cell is around 600, there is very little common ground between the kingdoms.
In addition, early eukaryotic genomes were MORE complex, not less:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0408355101v1
"These results show that early eukaryotic gene structures were very complex, and that simplification, not embellishment, has dominated subsequent evolution."
And then there's Doolittle's "Uprooting the tree of life" in Scientific American:
"Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere."
"The GodDidItWhileNoOneWasLooking theory is inherently unsupported, and proud of it."
It is not unsupported. The _mechanism_ is not available for study, but the _effects_ are. This is no different from any other forensic analysis.
"Any alternative involving stuff and how it behaves, broken into many discrete steps, is an infinitely better scientific hypothesis."
Whether or not it's "good science" is meaningless. Whether or not it is true is the relevant issue. If it is true, yet bad science, then science has some real problems. As Behe said:
"Still, some critics claim that science by definition can’t accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can’t settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore."
Is Newton's theory of gravity wrong? It didn't accurately predict the perhilion of mercury, and it's description of the universe is radically different from Einstein's universe. And yet, we blithely use Newton's theory to design airplanes, shoot artillary, and pilot landing craft down to the moon's surface.
We don't primarily prefer scientific theories because we think they are truthfully true, we give preference to them to the extent that they are useful. Few scientists would tell you that any existing scientific theory is the rock-bottom unassailable truth. But they would mostly agree that our current theories are the most useful ones we might, at the present moment, have chosen.
It is not unsupported. The _mechanism_ is not available for study, but the _effects_ are. This is no different from any other forensic analysis.
Well, unfortunately, you have to suggest to me an experiment whereby I can make an analytical choice between the GodDidIt, the OdinDidIt, the RaynordTheFoxDidIt, TheForceDidIt, SiliconLifeFromTheNthDimensionDidit and the LizardAliensDidit theories--and, since your big arguments are regarding lack of evidence in the currently accepted paradigm, one is hard-pressed to think how you would go about that. Notice please, that the current evidence of evolutionary theory does not preclude any of these explanations--it just makes them kinda stupid to waste serious resources on.
I have little faith that this number is correct, but even if it is, 60 is correlation enough to cinch the argument beyond a reasonable doubt. I also have little faith that this number accounts for the genes that are universal within families, phyla, etc. This is the clincher argument for evolution, and you are short-sheeting it in a rather painfully silly way.
In addition, early eukaryotic genomes were MORE complex, not less:
Yea, so? Where is it writ in Darwinian stone that all genomes need to become more complex as time goes on?
"Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere."
...or from viruses that are no longer extant: AID's is probably going to end up as an inactivated string in our DNA, like many other retro-viruses before it did. AIDs "came from nowhere" insofar as long-term primate evolution is concerned. Your immune system phage genes "came from nowhere" long-term evolutionarily speaking. You give nature orders of magnetude less credit than it deserves on its track record for genetic innovation along twisty, unexpected pathways.
"Well, unfortunately, you have to suggest to me an experiment whereby I can make an analytical choice between the GodDidIt, the OdinDidIt, the RaynordTheFoxDidIt, TheForceDidIt, SiliconLifeFromTheNthDimensionDidit and the LizardAliensDidit theories"
Why? Theories are not proven one way or another. Theories are used as the basis for inquiry. As such, Christian Creation is a valid basis for inquiry, and is in fact what led to genetics. I don't know much about the other creation stories, but if they serve as useful bases for inquiry, I don't see why someone else shouldn't use them as such.
In fact, the point of all this is that THE PAST is not subject to the same kind of mathematical calculation that is possible with PRESENT EXPERIMENT. Science based on history is always deeply tied in with our assumptions, because we cannot repeat historical occurrences. This is the difference between forensic science and experimental science.
The scientists in this case are saying that the ONLY valid basis for inquiry is the evolutionary model, while the others are saying that (a) the evolutionary model is not perfect, and (b) there are other models to choose from. They are settling with just having (a) mentioned in class, whether or not (b) ever happens.
Likewise, to your mention of Newton's laws being useful while not true, you again are forgetting that we are talking about historical/forensic science, not experimental science. The ENTIRE POINT of forensic science is to ascertain truth, not just a calculable model. Even if one were to come up with a naturalistic model of how erosion could have formed the faces of Mt. Rushmore, that does not necessitate it being taught in science class as the way that it happened.
As to the introduction of massive amounts of genes by retroviruses, this seems kind of a silly idea for being the origin of eukaryotic genomes, as that sort of information still needs to be created in some fashion. The point still stands that there are VAST differences between the kingdoms, which are becoming more apparent, not less, as we know more about it.
Likewise, it is specious to argue that evolution does not necessitate an upward trend. The fact is, to get from molecules to man there has to have been a general upward trend, whether or not you incorporate it into the "theory" proper. Showing the trend to be downward shows evolution to be precisely what creationists think it is -- a gradual decrease in genetic information and ability over time.
Why? Theories are not proven one way or another. Theories are used as the basis for inquiry. As such, Christian Creation is a valid basis for inquiry,
No--you are proposing that supernatural sources beyond human ken caused the world to flip into existence. If it is beyond human ken, it is beyond sciences ken.
and is in fact what led to genetics.
A bold claim of little merit whatsoever.
I don't know much about the other creation stories, but if they serve as useful bases for inquiry, I don't see why someone else shouldn't use them as such.
Great. We can teach the "turtles all the way down" theory in science class, alongside with the astrology and the flat-earth theory. After all, if astrology can serve as a useful basis for inquiry, "I don't see why someone else shouldn't use it as such".
Indeed. I presume that you therefore reject galactic astronomy out of hand as specious nonsense, after all we know nothing whatever about galactic relationships except those that occured in the PAST.
We execute people on the findings of forensic science. Are you opposed to forensic science?
Sounds cool - read later
Sounds cool - read later
No, just that it's the only one currently available that can be prodded and poked with the tools and techniques of science.
while the others are saying that (a) the evolutionary model is not perfect,
Well, duh. It's a natural science, it never can be "perfect".
and (b) there are other models to choose from. They are settling with just having (a) mentioned in class, whether or not (b) ever happens.
There are an infinite supply of models to choose from, as in astro-physics, where you can look as the flat earth model and the astrological model and the healing crystals model. However, we are talking about science class, and in science class, we should teach kids what scientists currently think, not what cranks and hippies currently think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.