DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

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.

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?

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?

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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

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.

"Vast difference", my ass, all the basic DNA repair machinery is pretty much the same, miosis and mitosis are pretty much universal, and cellularity is pretty much the sine qua non, and as an easy-to-understand recapitulation, most everything can eat most everything else, through one or two intermediaries, at most. Pretty bloody strange if they all pooped into existence independently.

Likewise, it is specious to argue that evolution does not necessitate an upward trend.

Evolution argues that what survives, survives. From an astronomical vertebrate's point of view, this is an earthworm planet, with a few evanescent pathologically overcomplicated worm variations coming and going overhead, and all of meaningless consequence and duration.

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.

This is a bunch of vague non-science. There is no scientific theory of any repute that holds that there is a "general upward trend" whatever that means. There is no reasonable argument that because early protist genomes are "complex" (whatever that means) that they are better survival tools than slimmed down later models. There is no persuasive evidence of information loss or gain over time, because it's not at all clear what you mean by "information" in this context. DNA is a big storage device for enzyme patterns. There is no definitive general rule that makes this somehow into "information" in some metric form you can make scientific claims of any merit about. Most tellingly, in view of the fact that long dorment genes can suddenly kick back into life, if the environment warrants. If genes are information, somehow or other, that information has to be about the evironments that the DNA bags have to live in, and environments are not static, such as to lend themselves to being the rock against which degree of information can be ascertained.

Are you equating atheism with the theory of evolution?

The great majority of religious believers of all types also believe that the theory of evolution is the best explanation (the one most consistent with known facts) we have right now of how life got to where it is.

Only the most dogmatic fundamentalists that read the bible literally are threathned by evolution. By extension then, you're also threathned by Geology (age of the earth), Astronomy (ages of different parts of the universe, we're not the center of the universe), Physics and Chemistry (because they undelies these other sciences), Electronics (because it is based on physics)...

In other words, according to your belief system the computer you're using to read these words doesn't really exist. Or was it a product of creationism?

Only the most dogmatic fundamentalists that read the bible literally are threathned by evolution.

I guess I am one of the most dogmatic fundamentalists then.

I believe that an all-powerful Creator is able to preserve his words.

There are people that believe, based on the scientific evidence, that the creation story is true.

There are people, based on the scientific evidence, who believe that we came from primordial soup, primordial clay, big bang, amino acids developing in a sterile swamp due to lightning, something.

Then there are those who, in my opinion, compromise their beliefs for the sake of getting along with popular society.

I believe in the Bible. You don't have to. If you want to argue science, there are plenty around here who live for that. I don't have the time or inclination to type links to millions of scientific articles that you won't read and wouldn't convince you anyway. But the "you're a fundamentalist radical because you disagree with me" argument should be left to Democrats discussing judicial nominees.

P.S. I got an "A" in Geology in college. I also graduated from Naval Nuclear Power School. I'm not threatened by the sciences. I believe that they agree with me.

"We execute people on the findings of forensic science. Are you opposed to forensic science?"

Not at all. However, forensic science does not give the same levels of certainty that experimental science does. Forensic science depends much more on assumptions than experimental science does. With experimental science, anyone can go and recreate the experiment. With forensic science, you cannot validate your results by having the situation repeat.

Both are valid modes of inquiry, but forensic science is more history than science, and should not be held to the same respect as experimental science, whose results can be repeated by anyone who cares to try.

P.S. I got an "A" in Geology in college. I also graduated from Naval Nuclear Power School. I'm not threatened by the sciences. I believe that they agree with me.

Oh really! Since you got an A in geology, you must remember that according to it the earth is 4 to 5 billion years old. Since you also believe in the literal interpretation of the bible you must also know that, after going through all the "begats" in the bible, Bishop James Ussher, the 17th century Irish archbishop from Armagh, Ireland, estimated that the world (earth and everything else) was created at 4004-OCT-23 BC, at 9 AM (not sure which standard time).

So tell me again how geology agrees with your reading of the bible?

O.K. Lets try this one more time. Take a deep breath and read carefully.

I have read the text books that say the earth is 4.5 billion years old. You believe it. I don't.

I have read scientific papers and books that support the earth being much closer in age to the Genesis story. I believe them. You don't.

A list of references that you will never read, and even if you do, you’ll discount them.

As this article shows Geoscience is a dynamic field where todays assumtions can easily be overturned. I copied part of the article since I assume you will never read it (it's not a creationist article by the way).

This theory undoubtedly deserves serious scrutiny from the scientific community. Like so many other 'earthshaking' new ideas in science it has sadly been largely ignored to date. Plate tectonics suffered the same 'pariah' status for fully half a century with experts refusing even to consider it. Radical new ideas in science frequently face hostility because scientists themselves are only human. Geophysicists who have spent the better part of their lives writing papers on the dynamics of Earth's inner structure do not want to hear about how they might have been wasting their lives chasing the wrong theory. Building up a reputation as being an authority on a subject is extremely difficult. It requires enormous dedication and long years of study with little pay and perhaps mounting debts. Many of us imagine the scientific community to be extremely logical and fair-minded in assessing new ideas. We see these people in their spotless white frocks taking exceedingly precise measurements of the universe and its easy to think they must administer themselves in the same way.

Following the demandingly stringent doctrines laid down by the scientific method to judge any new theory on its merits alone. This would be the action of a robot. In truth, science is just another belief system that can be corrupted by ambition, jealousy and fear.

Do you believe everything if it's in a textbook? I can dredge up an old looney school book to counter every dead Bishop reference.

Once again, you believe those things that support your belief with no question. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. I believe in God. I believe that as science progresses it supports creationism more and more.

If you wish to continue this discussion for the purposes of seeking some truth we can agree on, fine.
If you wish to continue this discussion so you can feel righteous indignation and score points in your eyes I'm no longer interested.
As I've stated several times in the thread, I don't think anyone is going to change their minds here. I don't have a problem with that. Do you? I refer you to comment 92.

Once again, you believe those things that support your belief with no question. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. I believe in God. I believe that as science progresses it supports creationism more and more

I had to laugh at your blindness when I read this... No I don't believe everything that's in books... any book. I approach everything with skepticism, and it would not bother me one bit if evolution is debunked or that they confirm that earth's center is a nuclear reactor - facts are my friends. You are the one that believes that every fairy tale in one book (the Bible) is an actual account of history, and the possibilty of the bible being wrong would be anethema to you. So why do you even bother putting it up for discussion? A necessary requirement of a scientific theory is that it's disprovable. So do you accept the possibility that Genesis is wrong?

Listen, I don't have any problem with somebody believing in something as an article of faith, what grates me wrong though is when one disingenuosly tries to pass that as a scientific theory. That's even worse science than what the environazis do with global warming!! You fall in the same category - science with an agenda, not science to find the truth.

In truth, science is just another belief system that can be corrupted by ambition, JEALOUSY and fear.

It's interesting that God has some of the same frailties:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Exodus 20:1

I have read scientific papers and books that support the earth being much closer in age to the Genesis story.

The books would just be popular-consumption codswollop. If you have a link to the papers, though, I'd love to read them. I have never come across a peer-reviewed paper that claimed the Earth was less than 10k years old.

If they're not peer-reviewed, then they're probably not worth the paper they're printed upon. Anyone can publish anything he or she wants. It's when that idea is put to the test that one is able to separate the chaff from the wheat.

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? This won't phase the atheist mind. A narcisist will never allow anything or anyone to equal or surpass himself.

Thanks for the thread resurrection.

I found this paragraph interesting. In order to believe in how most evolutionists present evolution you would have to believe that billions of beneficial DNA changes occurred at the exact same time in hundreds of different members of the same species. Not only that, but it would have had to occur in both males and females of the species in relatively equal proportions. And not only that, but it had to happen in millions of species in order to maintain a balance that exists in nature. And the topper is that it had to have happened millions of times throughout the history of these species.

It certainly requires a lot of faith to believe in this "X-Men" type of universe where beneficial mutations occur on a nearly minute by minute basis.

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.

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

As scientists explore a new universe—the universe inside the cell—they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?