[_ Old Earth _] DNA: Design or Chance?

[Tobael]

Can the complexity in DNA be acounted for through chance alone?

Do doubt you've discussed this, but I found an interesting article and below are some quotes:

It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannicaâ€â€an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual sizeâ€â€which is only two millionths of a millimeter thickâ€â€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?

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 evolutionâ€â€no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

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 taskâ€â€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 lettersâ€â€far from it.

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?

The clincher

Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remainingâ€â€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 earthâ€â€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).

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).

Convincing?

Full article:

http://gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

God Bless

Tobael

 

[bibleberean]

I am convinced without that information but that information is incredible.

The clincher

"Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remainingâ€â€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 earthâ€â€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)."

Believing life came and organisms exists by chance is something only a fool could believe...

Psalms 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

 

[Asimov]

I had a much more satisfying reply to you guys, especially you, bb.

However,

all your quotes amount to is an argument from incredulity.

 

[Asimov]

Deleted for flaming...

 

[Drew]

While it might turn out that an interesting case for "intelligent design" can be made, I think that we will have to do a lot better than simply pointing out the intricacy and "optimality" of the information that has been encoded in DNA (to be fair, I did not read the article from the link). The fact that something has been optimized (say, the number of letters in the DNA alphabet) does not really convince me that design is necessary or even strongly indicated - it seems entirely plausible that "natural selection" effects can bring about such optimisation.

Now, please hear me carefully. I tend to think that intelligent design arguments do hold promise, especially in respect to the initial conditions of our universe (which has nothing to do with DNA). When I use the word "plausible", I use it in its strict sense - something is plausible if there is no contra-indicating evidence. So when I say a "natural selection" explanation is plausible, all I am saying is that I know of no evidence against the idea, not that I think the idea is likely true.

In short, we need a more sophisticated story that what we have seen to date - optimality and intricacy are consistent with design but they also have to be assumed to be consistent with "natural" effects until demonstrated otherwise.

Oh and by the way, debate that consists in providing little more than statements like "someone is a fool if they believe x" are not interesting and obviously empty of content.

 

[Tobael]

The fact that something has been optimized (say, the number of letters in the DNA alphabet) does not really convince me that design is necessary or even strongly indicated - it seems entirely plausible that "natural selection" effects can bring about such optimisation.

I think the idea of the article is to show that chance is an implausible explanation for the intricacy observed.

When I use the word "plausible", I use it in its strict sense - something is plausible if there is no contra-indicating evidence. So when I say a "natural selection" explanation is plausible, all I am saying is that I know of no evidence against the idea, not that I think the idea is likely true.

Natural selection occurs by chance and I think the article gives plenty of evidence against it.

In short, we need a more sophisticated story that what we have seen to date - optimality and intricacy are consistent with design but they also have to be assumed to be consistent with "natural" effects until demonstrated otherwise.

God is the author of nature and the intricacy displayed in the evidence is in keeping with this. At least it shows that our faith is extremely plausible.

The unseen God leaves His 'fingerprints' throughout the universe, but still we deny Him. We accept the unseen at the atomic level through inductive reasoning, but not God. Why? Even explanations for the beginning of the universe and time have to be taken on faith. We 'believe without seeing'. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer, especially in this, our post-modern era.

God bless,

Tobael

 

[bibleberean]

"Can the complexity in DNA be acounted for through chance alone?"

bibleberean answers:

No way! :D

 

[Quath]

Complexity can come from simple rules. Evolution is a simple algorithm that can yield complex results. So if you want to look at odds, look at the odds of creating the simpliest self replicating molecule. At that point, evolution takes over.

Quath

 

[Barbarian]

The fallacy, of course, is that "chance" is the alternative to design.

It assumes that chemistry is random, and that stepwise chemical reactions are not possible.

Both of these assumptions are false.

 

[Tobael]

Complexity can come from simple rules. Evolution is a simple algorithm that can yield complex results. So if you want to look at odds, look at the odds of creating the simpliest self replicating molecule. At that point, evolution takes over.

Quath

Who creates the rules? Also, what are the chances of such complexity occurring through evolution over 3 billion years (or however long life has been evolving). I heard that it would take more than trillions of years, but even that is not enough as far as I can see. You don't get such order and beauty from randomly colliding atoms unless they are guided externally.

What are the odds that a single, self-replicating molecule could occur by itself? I don't know. According to the article above, evolution cannot just take over from this, as there are extremely small margins of error within a living organism that wouldn't allow for the 'mistakes' that evolution requires to produce its results.

 

[Tobael]

The fallacy, of course, is that "chance" is the alternative to design.

It assumes that chemistry is random, and that stepwise chemical reactions are not possible.

Both of these assumptions are false.

There are some who argue that God works with chance occurrances, which is why the universe is as big and old as it is - i.e. those are the conditions necessary to produce man. I don't agree with this personally, as it is bowing to the evolutionists a bit much; also, it creates a man-centred universe (I am sure there is more going on out there than we are aware of), with far too much waste!

Chance is opposed to design because it is the driving force behind evolution. The order in chemistry would have originated in random occurrances if there was no Designer. It is the complexity of order that is being used here as an extreme example to show that order in nature requires an Orderer, just like the laws in nature require a Law-giver.

I heard from our philosophy lecturer that it was only after man started to believe in a God of order, i.e. the Christian God, that he began to look for order in the world, i.e. that the sciences were born. He sought and he found!! Before this, when he believed in an assortment of rival pagan gods, he didn't expect to find such order.

God Bless!

 

[Quath]

Who creates the rules?

This question is just as hard to answer as "who made the rules that allowed for God to exist?"

Also, what are the chances of such complexity occurring through evolution over 3 billion years (or however long life has been evolving). I heard that it would take more than trillions of years, but even that is not enough as far as I can see. You don't get such order and beauty from randomly colliding atoms unless they are guided externally.

There are many unknowns. We know how to get amino acids naturally. Early earth atmosphere and lightning made a lot of amino acids. So what is the simpliest combination of organic material that makes a sequence that likes to copy itself? Humans probably have not discovered the simpliest yet, though we have found some interesting ideas.

For example, if pores in a rock were used, they would be like a cell wall. This would be a big advantage. However, life may have started from a polypeptide instead. They are simplier.

There is also the assumption that we can only look at Earth. Maybe we are the only life in a trillions of planets. Maybe life is easily made through a process we have not discovered yet.

What are the odds that a single, self-replicating molecule could occur by itself? I don't know. According to the article above, evolution cannot just take over from this, as there are extremely small margins of error within a living organism that wouldn't allow for the 'mistakes' that evolution requires to produce its results.

It depends on how it works. For example, maybe it uses up its resources and stops. However, if resources come back like through lightning or ocean currents, then it can start back up again.

But no matter what probability you come up with, if it is a finite probability, then you are argueing not if it can happen, but how often does it happen. And whether it is realistic depends on how big the universe is. The current Big Bang theory says it looks infinite. If that is the case, life not only can exist, it must exist.

Quath

 

[reznwerks]

dna

The degree of complexity is determined strictly by our own interpretation. The idea of a creator is again only through mans interpretation and understanding. The fact that something is to us complex may be nothing other than that is the way it is. Complexity may be part of the natural scheme of things.

 

[Tobael]

Who creates the rules?

This question is just as hard to answer as "who made the rules that allowed for God to exist?"

By definition God is sufficient in Himself: He needs no cause and had no beginning, but was the Cause of everything else. This is a mystery that Christians accept about God. It is illogical to deny a First Cause of the universe, i.e. matter, time and the laws of nature, as without a first cause the series cannot begin.

But no matter what probability you come up with, if it is a finite probability, then you are argueing not if it can happen, but how often does it happen. And whether it is realistic depends on how big the universe is. The current Big Bang theory says it looks infinite. If that is the case, life not only can exist, it must exist.

Quath

Believing the universe to be infinite is more of an offence to logic than believing in an infinite God. So is endless time. At least with God there is an explanation for the universe, if not for God Himself. Whichever way you cut it, there is some big mystery out there that our finite minds have no hope of comprehending. Belief in God is a step in the dark, but I think there is more darkness in disbelieving.

 

[Quath]

By definition God is sufficient in Himself: He needs no cause and had no beginning, but was the Cause of everything else. This is a mystery that Christians accept about God. It is illogical to deny a First Cause of the universe, i.e. matter, time and the laws of nature, as without a first cause the series cannot begin.

Look at it this way. Say here has to be a god. What is the probability it is one that creates a universe? What if the god had been retarded and unable? Or impotent? Or Uncaring? Or made a different universe? In a sense, what about existance makes an intelligent sentient being able to create a universe more probable than no being or a being that can't think?

Believing the universe to be infinite is more of an offence to logic than believing in an infinite God. So is endless time. At least with God there is an explanation for the universe, if not for God Himself. Whichever way you cut it, there is some big mystery out there that our finite minds have no hope of comprehending. Belief in God is a step in the dark, but I think there is more darkness in disbelieving.

We believe in infinite numbers. Why not infinite dimension? Basically, without knowing anything, infinity is just as probable as finite. You believe in the infiniteness of God, so it should not be a stretch to believe in the infiniteness of space.

I can not see how God makes anything simplier. It just complicates stuff. To me an "explosion" of matter without cause is a much simplier proposition than the existance of an intelligent being with powers to make a universe existing without cause.

Quath

 

[Drew]

I think it would be helpful we Christians took a more serious approach to addressing this debate.

Now that I may have offended everyone, I will try to explain what I mean. We cannot expect to be taken seriously if we do things like deploy the "argument from incredulity" - simply stating the rather obvious fact that the rich complexity of our universe must be evidence of design since this seems so obvious. Alternatively, we cannot try to make our case by calling our opponents (those who question design) "fools" or suggesting that their ultimate motive is to escape from their accountability to God. I have been to a creationism lecture where the speaker provided very little evidence and merely engaged in a highly rhetorical whipping of "those atheists". This should not be construed as condemnation of all creationists, by the way. Sometimes we try to argue that God does not require a cause while the universe does, because God is, by definition, non-contingent. We simply cannot get away with playing word definition games in a serious debate about origins. We cannot "define away" the very real mystery of the "first cause".

Having said all this, I will lay my cards on the table and state that I believe in intelligent design. This belief is based on a mixture of faith and intuition, along with a really small pinch of (what I consider to be) rational argument.

One of the themes of this thread is the suggestion that if a "code" or "language" (such as that embodied by DNA) exists, then there must be an intelligent being who created it. I don't really think this works. The obvious counterargument is that "blind forces" can indeed produce codes.

What does it really mean for a "code" to be said to exist? I would say that system "x" (say a string of DNA) implements a code if the "laws of physics" act on system "x" in such a way as to produce useful outcomes. Consider a string of DNA. How does its "code" wind up producing the complex human organism? Well, I am no biologist, but I assume that the mechanisms are not considered magical - this molecule attaches itself to that molecule, etc. etc. Remember that the essence of the argument is that the existence of the code itself is the mystery that points to a creator, not the mechanisms by which the code produces effects in the world.

There seems to be no reason to me why nature cannot "experiment" with codes in a blind impersonal way, with useful codes surviving based on natural selection effects, and non-useful codes dying out. Consider the issue of the capacity of an organism to see (visually). We will probably all agree that certains types of photo-sensitive cells need to get together in a group for an organism to be able to see. Presumably some low level genetic code physically realized by something like a string of DNA produces this result. Let's say that if we randomly generated 10 trillion different strings of DNA, employing no design at all, just connecting one atom to another in a random fashion. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that one of those would "accidentally" have the "right code" to produce sight when the code is actualized. Organisms that might be based on the other 9,999,999,999,999 codes would not produce vision and thoe organisms would get "eaten up" by predators since they can't see them coming. They would not live to produce offspring, who carry their parent's genetic code, unlike the lucky organisms who "accidentally" get the code that produces the useful trait of vision.

You will hopefully see where I am going. It seems at least plausible that "blind" forces can indeed produce useful codes.

Having said all this, I am aware of arguments like Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument in favour of design. I read his book years ago but cannot remember anything about it.

It may turn out that other arguments, more complex and sophisticated ones, can be deployed against the kind of argument I make above about the viability of "non-designed" codes. There are, in my view, other reasons to adopt an intelligent design stance (for me, there is "an initial conditions of the universe argument" that I find of compelling - and please do not assume that you know the content of this argument. It is probably not what you think).

 

[Quath]

There are, in my view, other reasons to adopt an intelligent design stance (for me, there is "an initial conditions of the universe argument" that I find of compelling - and please do not assume that you know the content of this argument. It is probably not what you think).

I am assuming what you mean here (which you warn me against) so let me know if I am off. But I am guessing it means something like "what are the odds that a universe exists with such physics that eventually leads to life like ours?" If that is the case,I don't see that as any different from "What is the odds that a god exists in such a way that it leads to the creation of us?"

In a sense, I think a lot of the intelligent design comes about from faith or intuitition. I can not out reason faith. However, for intuition, I think the history of science shows that man is horrible as being intuitative about the reality discovered.

For example, we get the odd twin paradox from relativity. Or quantum theory says that we are not exactly here on Earth but we are spread out across the whole universe with the most probable location on Earth. Or optical theory says that light is a wave and a particle.

So in a sense, I think we have to learn to turn off intuition because it tends to lead people away from reality from what it is to what we think it should be. Maybe this is the difference in religion and science ultimately. Science starts from what we know and works towards what we don't. Religion works from what we don't know to what we do know.

Quath

 

[Tobael]

One of the themes of this thread is the suggestion that if a "code" or "language" (such as that embodied by DNA) exists, then there must be an intelligent being who created it. I don't really think this works. The obvious counterargument is that "blind forces" can indeed produce codes.

I heard that the consensus of opinion on the matter of faith and reason (from a Catholic standpoint) is that our faith has a reasonable basis, but not to the point where you could convince a 'prejudiced atheist'. I didn't mean that this evidence proved God's existence definitively, just that it made it very feasible, especially when coupled with Revelation and the life of the Church.

I was also interested in showing that there is as much 'faith' exercised in modern scientific theories of the origins and properties of the universe, if not more so, than in Christianity. I find the position of the atheist just as difficult to uphold as Christianity: we both have to account for things which are beyond our 'field of vision'.

At the end of the day, without faith there will probably always be a counter-argument. I heard that if God were to reveal Himself, without leaving room for doubt, it would be equivalent to Him forcing our belief(fear, etc), which He would never do as He wants us to remain free.

I think if logic is our only guide then all we are left is agnosticism.

 

[Quath]

I heard that the consensus of opinion on the matter of faith and reason (from a Catholic standpoint) is that our faith has a reasonable basis, but not to the point where you could convince a 'prejudiced atheist'. I didn't mean that this evidence proved God's existence definitively, just that it made it very feasible, especially when coupled with Revelation and the life of the Church.

I think every religion claims this as well. So from a neutral observer, all religions are right or relevation and life are not proof of "truth."

At the end of the day, without faith there will probably always be a counter-argument. I heard that if God were to reveal Himself, without leaving room for doubt, it would be equivalent to Him forcing our belief(fear, etc), which He would never do as He wants us to remain free.

If this were the case, then God had removed free will from many people in the past in the OT. If it was ok to remove free will then, why not now?

If there were nothing on the line, I would agree with you. However, if eternal salvation is on the line, then God needs to show some kind of proof of His existance if He cares.

Quath

 

[Quath]

I hate to double post, but I came across an editorial from New York Times. I would recommend all reading it because it talks about reconciling faith and science. It is talking mostly about evolution but hits upon the Big Bang also.

However, here is one of the paragraphs that stand out:

One can choose to view chance selection as obvious evidence that there is no God, as Dr. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and uncompromising atheist, might argue, or to conclude instead that God chooses to work through natural means. In the latter case, the overwhelming evidence that natural selection has determined the evolution of life on earth would simply imply that God is "the cause of causes," as Cardinal Ratzinger's document describes it.

The very fact that two such diametrically opposed views can be applied to the same scientific theory demonstrates that the fact of evolution need not dictate theology. In other words, the apparently contentious questions are not scientific ones. It is possible for profoundly atheist evolutionary biologists like Dr. Dawkins and deeply spiritual ones like Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, who writes extensively on evolution, to be in complete agreement about the scientific mechanism governing biological evolution, and the fact that life has evolved via natural selection.

Quath