He says:

“The problem is that for every great argument that you make, there are 3 that can be made AGAINST the existence of God. There will really be no way to end this debate EVER. Well, maybe if God one day communicates with us in a non-symbolic way….”

I reply:

“OK, so let’s hear those other arguments AGAINST the existence of God.”

And he wrote me back with a great set of questions.

Here are his questions - with a video response from me to each one:

SittingOnTheFence: First of all, I would like you to know a little bit about me. I’m not your typical furious guy who is apparently angry with the world, like some of those you argued against at Infidels.

I consider myself to be actually a calm guy, with a cool demeanor.  Obviously, objectivity is rarely achieved when one speaks about oneself,  but I’m trying my best to describe how I deal with debates.

Even though I’m very passionate, I rarely get mad or angry. Talking about  these topics actually fuels my life and entertains me, so I would never  try to engage into something that could spike my hormones for the  worse.

Because of sites like yours and some others,  I’m NOT an atheist. I don’t discard the existence of God, even though I’ll admit I incline towards his non-existence.

However, there are many things that just don’t fit for me.

I must admit that most of the arguments I am going to present here are  simply off the top of my head (as I’m sure I could come up with many more later on).

I also admit that many of these arguments are of a philosophical nature, rather than a scientific one, since trying to explain the non-belief in God  through science can be virtually impossible.

Since I haven’t had the time to surf through all of your site, I know these points could very possibly have been made before, but if you are kind, you could give some answers.

Anyway, here are some:

1-

If God created DNA, and you believe in the classic view of design, then that ultimately and inevitably leads to the following question.

Who designed God?

I once read on a Christian booklet that if you watch a car, you would  quickly come to the conclusion that the car didn’t make itself. It would seem absurd to think that the engine and all the complex things that a car is made of to make it start and run could possibly be arranged in such  amazing order just by chance or “luck”.

That seems like a pretty fair argument, until they tell you that God was NOT designed. If a superintelligence made everything, was that Intelligence always there??

Would it be more reasonable to think that a vastly more complex being like God was “always there”, but not a car?

This leads to an infinite regress of causes. This in turn, implies that it  is not that absurd to say that DNA “made itself” from evolution. This  also perpetuates the enigma of the “how”.

Atheists say the Big Bang came out of a singularity, but can not explain why energy, matter and time had to “exist” in the first place. They cannot answer where those forces came from, or why those forces  always existed at one single point.

It is just as perplexing to think why God was always there. Nothing had to  be nowhere at no time in the first place.  This is the “crazy inducing” enigma that NOBODY can even attempt to solve.

My Response:

I explore this concept further at Incompleteness.

Also see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq

2-

One of the atheists told you something that may be valid. He said that since you requested one example of a naturally ocurring code, he told you it was DNA.

Since DNA is a code, and it is naturally ocurring, a guy can revert your argument and say that DNA is a prime example of a naturally occurring code, and the ONLY one at that.

My Response:

3-

You said that snowflakes, tornadoes and hurricanes are examples of PATTERNS.

Why an omnipotent being like God would make forces that cause disastrous patterns like hurricanes and tornadoes??  Why earthquakes??

I can understand the old argument that disease , death and most of the world problems occur because of men’s own fault, but NOT this. Why make things that only serve to destroy things?

My Response:

Also see: Evil and Suffering

4-

I am assuming that Christianity must be based on a holy book to know the purposes of God. That Holy Book is the Bible.

If God gave us the Bible to be the prime example of his testimony,  why would he make it so difficult to understand?? The Bible is often written in riddles.

This has lead to a lot of interpretations, which in turn have caused the spreading of NUMEROUS protestant religions.

Even if you tell me that the Bible is CLEAR and straightforward “when  you read it with faith”, you know in your heart it isn’t for most of the  people.

Why would God deliver his message through such a dense work?

Most people don’t like to read that much, except for the stuff they like.  Why would he use that method and not speak himself loud and clear so everyone can hear him?

My Response:

5-

You may say that those who don’t like to read can always go to Church, or that most likely somebody has knocked the door of that person to offer speeches about God.

What about all of the people in the world that haven’t received the Lord’s message yet?? Are they guilty for not having heard of God?

Even when missionaries go to third world countries and marginated places  to spread the Word, there are simply too many people who are NOT reached.  How does God communicate with those people?

My Response:

Also see: “All those heathens are gonna burn in hell”

6-

What can you tell me about all the different religions in the world.

Which one is right?

What right do I have to say that Buddhism is wrong?

If you were born in India, you would most likely practice Hinduism.  What would you be guilty of?

If there is only ONE GOD, then I suppose he would firmly make clear which  is the right path.

Considering that there are so many religions, and other  holy books, how could I possibly know the purposes and the wishes of  that God?

My Response:

Also see: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian

7-

Now, starting from the premise that the Bible is literal, clear and easy to read, let’s take a look.

The Bible says God really planned men to be perfect, so they could  live in peace and love.

If he really wanted that, why did he put the “forbidden fruit” on that tree??  Many Christians put the blame on Satan disguised as a snake, because of the persuasion.

But the truth is, if no forbidden fruit was ever put on that tree, men would  not have sinned.

What possible explanation could be made for that? That’s like saying, I want  you to be my friend, but at the very start of that friendship, I deliberatly put  obstacles to that friendship.

My Response:

8-

The Bible tells stories about Sea Separations, miracles, ardent bushes, plagues, dreams that tell the future, big floods and other extraordinary phenomena.

Why does nothing of that happens today? Why did all of that  extravaganza (Mana, rain of sulfur and fire, etc.). only happened at that time and not even a hint of that now?

That’s it for now….I would like to read your answers.

My Response:

Also see: http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/

Thanks, Mr. SittingOnTheFence. Excellent questions.

Perry Marshall

The Berlin Wall, in 1986 (photos courtesy Wikipedia)

The Berlin Wall in East Germany fell on November 9, 1989, after 28 years of darkness. When the dominoes of communism began to fall, the speed at which they tumbled was amazing.

Today, traditional Darwinism is in the same place in 2010 as communism was in 1986. It’s wheezing like a dying animal. Flailing wildly. Draining limited resources defending itself against attackers. It’s barely able to feed its own people, let alone advance useful scientific theories of its own.

Please understand: I am an advocate of biological evolution. I don’t believe that God beamed complete Zebras from heaven down to the savanna, Star-Trek style. I hypothesize they came from an earlier ancestor through a process that we can study and learn from. I cast my vote for Common Descent.

Furthermore, Charles Darwin is to be commended for formulating an early concept of Common Descent. I think the mechanism of evolution is an utterly fascinating scientific process that well deserves our close study. The question of how evolution works is the 2nd biggest question in science. Just behind the origin of life, which is #1.

As we begin to solve the evolution question *for real*, we’ll also crack the code on artificial intelligence. Information technology will leap forward at an unprecedented pace. All we must do is take our cues from biology and coveted secrets of technological advancement await us, literally right under our noses.

But my friend, Darwinism is NOT the only theory of how evolution works! It’s just the loudest one. And it’s fracturing badly. There is no theory in the history of science that has more holes, problems or detractors than Neo-Darwinism. It’s the most troubled theory in all of science.

Here in Chicago there’s an activist group called The Chicago Northshore Darwin’s Bulldogs. I’ve sparred with them on multiple occasions. I often joke that Darwin is the only scientist that needs bulldogs. All the other scientists can fend for themselves just fine, thank you very much.

Darwinism in 2010 is in sad shape. It’s about to shatter. The wall is about to come down.

The best evidence for this comes from a most curious place: The Amazon reviews of Stephen Meyer’s recent book “Signature in the Cell.” This is a superb text, it’s footnoted with incredible thoroughness. It is remarkably readable considering the depth of its subject material.

It’s also quite popular: Today, in all of Amazon it’s ranked #1,110. Remarkable sales for such a technical book.

It analyzes the cell from an information systems perspective, not unlike the approach I use here. It concludes that random processes do not describe the operation of cellular machinery. Meyer shows that a design paradigm is in fact scientific and that it makes successful, testable predictions.

This book is currently the subject of a book review war on Amazon. I write this today, there are 188 reviews. 140 5-star reviews, 16 2-, 3- or 4-star, and 32 1-star. People either love this book or hate it.

You’ll glean much about the current sad state of Darwnism by reading the 1-star reviews.

You’ll find that many of the 1-star reviews are pure vandalism. So far more than 60 have been deleted by Amazon’s editorial staff. Most of the 1-star reviews are bitter slams against the author and tirades about the Intelligent Design movement. Read these reviews and decide for yourself how little content they contain on what the book actually says.

Contrast this to many of the positive reviews which discuss the contents of the book in detail.

When all opponents can do is rail about the politics of ID and prattle on about what a waste of time this book is, you tend to become rather suspicious.

However…. a handful 1-star reviews are a welcome exception to this. They do challenge the actual content. One such review is by K. M. Sternberg and deserves comment.

Sternberg says:

“There is a phenomenon known as pareidolia, “The tendency to interpret a vague stimulus as something known to the viewer.” Pareidolia is when we see faces in clouds, or “evil” in the tragic path of a tornado. Meyer’s book is an exercise in pareidolia: the classic “machinery” of cellular cilia, the “computer program” of DNA. He’s appealing to our sense that anything complicated needs human-like interviention, but unless you’re going to buy into the idea that we’d fall apart if angels stopped holding us together, the line between “natural” emergence and the need for divine intervention is tragically fuzzy. Meyer’s book isn’t science, it’s wishful thinking. (It’s also hubris; Meyer’s arguing that, if there’s a God, he and his fellows at the DI can tell us what he was thinking. I suggest anyone who thinks that way go re-read the Book of Job, especially Job 38:4-41.)”

Thank you Mr. Sternberg for finally contributing a good 1-star review to this discussion. There is a LOT that we can unpack from your short paragraph.

The pattern in DNA is not a “vague stimulus.” DNA is a literal code with a 4-letter alphabet, not a figurative one. Thus the term “genetic code” is a proper scientific term. Books and papers discussing linguistics and universal grammars in DNA are plentiful.

This was my epiphany 5 years ago when I began studying evolution. I had written an Ethernet book and spent 10 years in computer networking. I suddenly discovered that everything I knew about 1’s and 0’s, and all of Claude Shannon’s work, applied to the pattern in DNA. Which is why there are scientific journals such as The Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology published by World Scientific.

If Mr. Sternberg was right, this silly journal could not exist. All self-respecting biologists would instruct those ignorant engineers to mind their own business and stop meddling in DNA.

Mr. Sternberg, please write to the journal and inform them that their journal exists purely because of wishful thinking, ignorance and “pareidolia.” Please inform them that DNA only has the appearance of processing and storing information. Let them know that all that DNA “code” is really just a product of their over-stimulated binary imaginations. Tell them that they might as well be telling us that clouds look like sheep.

Mr. Sternberg, I invite you to come to my blog and post the reply you receive from them.

Hubert Yockey addressed this exact question when he said, “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” This is from his book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Yockey is the #1 living authority on information theory in biology. He is not a creationist, he’s an evolutionist. He’s not pushing a religious agenda. Cambridge University Press is not the mouthpiece for some Intelligent Design committee. DNA really is a digital code. It really does contain instructions. It’s not just our imagination.

Stephen Meyer is not suggesting that we’d all fall apart if angels stopped holding us together. That statement shows that Mr. Sternberg is not interested in understanding what Meyer is saying.

And finally, the entire field of theology is predicated on the idea that if there is a God, we CAN know at least something about what He is thinking. Scientists of no less stature than Isaac Newton regarded their scientific work as an act of worship, revealing the mind of God. And yes, while one of the main points about the book of Job is that God does not tell us everything He is thinking, He does tell us some things. That’s why we have the book of Job in the first place.

I know all too well that the typical Darwinian response to information theory is to say, “WHOA, wait a minute, don’t be so quick to apply those computer engineering metaphors to DNA!”

Which is like saying, “Slow down there, boy, don’t you go comparing this to things we actually understand. Let’s keep this DNA thing a mystery. Otherwise we might reach conclusions that are not compatible with atheism.”

Because of materialism and “evolution by random accident,” 30 years of precious time has been squandered. Investigation has been resisted because of the “Junk DNA” theory which is now discredited. If you look closely, you find that at every point, “Evolution by randomness” has vigorously opposed scientific inquiry, even as it pretends to endorse it.

Evolution is not driven by randomness. It’s driven by a fantastically sophisticated Mutation Algorithm. Cells employ a built-in program which engineers re-arrangement of Mobile Genetic Elements (as observed by McClintock and Shapiro).  Genes and Chromosomes are re-arranged in a fantastically beautiful process which produces useful adaptations and new species.

The Mutation Algorithm tests design options like blades on a Swiss army knife. DNA has a huge “bag of tricks” and is able to mix and match combinations of eyes, feet and claws, joints, digits, hair, skin and fur colors and patterns, switching out different “blades” as environments change.

It builds animals on a common chassis of head, spine, heart, lungs, stomach and limbs. It ferociously defends this core chassis from being corrupted by random mutations, while switching out different variables in the head, spine, heart etc.

Darwinism is not scientific. Why? because it appeals to randomness instead of presuming underlying order. Explanation by accident is not science. It’s anti-science.

But SCIENTIFIC theories of evolution postulate that an intentional program directs the development of living things. Towards a goal of occupying every imaginable ecological niche. Of filling the earth with life and beauty.

Today, I make a bold prediction.

The “Berlin Wall” of Darwinism will crack in 2013. (I estimate we’ve got about 3 more years to go before this can realistically happen.)

The event will be triggered by some “Deep Throat” scientist who has grown sick and tired of the shell games and politics and charades. He is perhaps retired and no longer fears having his career trashed. He will step forward and speak the truth.

He will publish emails and committee notes and recordings of secret meetings. He’ll tell of organized efforts to rig scientific data. Campaigns to malign skilled researchers, to prevent papers from being published, to halt important research from being seen. He’ll report missions to trash the careers of people who publish work that peers into the design process.

He’ll name university presidents, science journal editors, research teams and grant committees. All with an agenda of suppressing legitimate scientific data.

There have been smaller skirmishes of this kind already. But in times past, the retribution from the Old Guard was so swift, so decisive, that one dared not oppose it. This one will trigger a symphony of reports of censorship from across academia. Reports so loud they cannot be ignored.

This revelation will initially be shunned by the mainstream press. A snarl of protest will arise from the Old Guard. But newspapers are dying and most people don’t trust the media anyway. By 2013 the press will be so emaciated, there will be nothing left but a dry husk. The blogosphere will go wild and an entire branch of the formerly trusted scientific community will be discredited.

This will be a major step in evolving the news media beyond its current, calcified form. Most newspapers will become extinct.

Once the dust settles, a new channel will be open for disseminating scientific research that is allowed to assume purpose and teleology in living things. There will be a “Cambrian Explosion” of new research in the genome, in Artificial Intelligence, and in the development of information storage and communication systems.

This gravesite recognizes the lives lost by those attempting to cross the Berlin Wall. Spraypainted on the wall are the words, "The wall will fall. Beliefs become reality."

The next decade holds wonderful new possibilities.

In the late ’90s I worked closely with a German communication software company near Frankfurt. I traveled there and spent many hours having conversations and beers with the owner and the employees. They told me stories of the aftermath of the Berlin Wall coming down. And hardships of integrating workers from East Germany into the Western economy and work ethic.

This West German business owner explained to me that East German workers over the age of 40 were nearly useless. They had spent so long in the docile, uninspired, toxic environment of communism that they were unable to cultivate new habits.

On the other hand, my German friend said, the 20-somethings were eager to learn, to re-tool, and made great workers.

I predict we will see a similar challenge to biology. It’s going to take a long time to heal the profession of its materialistic bias. And, I mince no words, its intellectual laziness. I am still dumbfounded that a theory like “Junk DNA” could have ever been allowed to circulate. It speaks of a woefully anti-scientific intellectual prison. The men who advanced that theory should be stripped of their credentials and ejected from the academy.

The Old Guard may never change. Fortunately, most researchers in the Human Genome Project, genetic engineering and bio-medicine do not actually act as though they believe biology is purposeless and random. They may even say it is, but in actual practice they assume biology wants to do X, they want it to do Y. They figure out what they need to change to get the result they want.

West Germans curiously peer at East German border guards through a hole in the wall

Isn’t it amazing how practical people get when they need to accomplish something productive and get a paycheck?

My friend, not everyone in biology agrees with the Darwinian Dogma. And you don’t need to either, in order to fully embrace science.

Biology is as biology does. It IS purposeful because it acts purposeful. DNA IS a code because it acts like a code.

Countless scientific careers have died in efforts to breach the Darwinian Wall. But this wall will not stand forever.

In June 1987, president Regan had these words for the leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev:

“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

May the truth be made known.

Perry Marshall

• The structure of DNA and why it is by definition a code
• A sure test for determining whether or not something is a code
• Why the design inference is in fact 100% scientific - and why, contrary to accepted wisdom, it doesn’t halt scientific inquiry but expands it
• How codes are written and read, and a profound implication for the process of evolution in the genome
• Why Intelligent Evolution is replacing Darwinism in the 21st Century
• Junk DNA: Why materialism has hindered the progress of discovery in biology
• Moral and theological implications of implication theory
• Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and its application to information and metaphysics
• Communication theory and its eerie correspondence to the doctrine of the Trinity: Merely a coincidence?
• Information theory and the existence of good and evil and free will

Part 1

Part 2

In 1931, Kurt Gödel delivered a devastating blow to the mathematicians of his time

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.

Gödel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.

Oddly, few people know anything about it.

Allow me to tell you the story.

Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.

So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a set of theorems.

That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.

Yes, it does seem perfectly “obvious” that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that Euclid’s postulates are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.

Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were so many things that were “obviously true,” but nobody could find a way to prove them.

In the early 1900’s, however, a tremendous wave of optimism swept through mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) became convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.

A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.

In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible. He proved they would never prove everything. (Yeah I know, it sounds a little odd, doesn’t it?)

Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”

If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel proved it, and what it means - in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which we know are true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

You can draw a circle around a bicycle. But the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.

You can draw the circle around a bicycle factory. But that factory likewise relies on other things outside the factory.

Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Everything that you can count or calculate. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language and philosophy.

Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement

“I am lying.”

“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.

Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted this Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that no statement can prove its own truth.

You always need an outside reference point.

The Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivists” of the time. They insisted that literally anything you could not measure or prove was nonsense. He showed that their positivism was nonsense.

Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic. Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.

He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things that are true than you can prove.

A “theory of everything” - whether in math, or physics, or philosophy - will never be found.  Because it is mathematically impossible.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

Here’s what it means:

• Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
• All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
• You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle (from “all things” to “some things”) is deductive reasoning.

Example of a deductive reasoning:

1.    All men are mortal
2.    Socrates is a man
3.    Therefore Socrates is mortal

Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle (from “some things” to “all things”) is inductive reasoning.

Examples of inductive reasoning:

1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal

1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs all falling objects

Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time.

Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.

(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can - around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

• There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
• The universe as we know it is finite - finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
• The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
• Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
• If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.
• Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system - i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
• Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:

• In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.8 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
• The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.
• All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
• Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.

When we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also self-aware.

Isn’t it interesting how all these conclusions sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?

Maybe that’s why it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.

The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!

Interesting aside…

If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know all systems rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the folks at Infidels cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause.

Therefore Atheism violates the laws mathematics.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.

Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. They are two sides of the same coin. It had been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.

No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by rational thought, science and mathematics.

Perry Marshall

“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.”

Further reading:

“Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel” by Rebecca Goldstein - fantastic biography and a great read

A collection of quotes and notes about Gödel’s proof from Miskatonic University Press

Formal description of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and links to his original papers on Wikipedia

Science vs. Faith on CoffeehouseTheology.com

The Genome Intelligence Principle

In astronomy we have the Anthropic Principle, which is both an observation and a hypothesis that the universe appears to be fine tuned to support life.

I postulate a Genome Intelligence Principle.  It is analogous to the Anthropic Principle, as it both observes and presupposes a higher level of order than mere laws of physics or chance would allow.

The Genome Intelligence Principle begins with the observation that the Genetic Code is not derivable from the laws of physics, but is arbitrary.  All codes we know the origin of are designed; codes by their very nature cannot be accounted for by pure physics and chemistry.  Codes only come from intelligence or prior codes.

The philosophical cornerstone of all successful science is the presumption of underlying order.  Such a presumption is never provable in advance; it is only rewarded after hypotheses have been made and experiments done.

Science must always assume that there is a reason for everything, and history shows us that this assumption is eventually rewarded.

***Thus the mission of science is always to uncover the next undiscovered layer of order.***

Anything less than that is beneath the dignity of science.

Large segments of biology are presently blinded by a materialistic paradigm. This view has no reason to presume underlying order and proactively presupposes disorder.  Thus we have an anti-scientific vandalism of biology through terms such as “Junk DNA.”

Science must raise its sights and expectations to make room for greater discoveries.  The only way to do this is to make highly favorable assumptions about the information content and programming of the genome.

In physics we assume underlying levels of order and discover an apparently endless world of subatomic particles.  In biology we will now similarly hypothesize that genome itself similarly contains virtually endless layers of order and function.

Genome Intelligence extends this observation to hypothesize that most if not all aspects of the genome and its information storage mechanisms are extremely optimal. It represents specific choices among trillions of trillions of available configurations. This design represents a nearly ideal set of parameter tradeoffs, maximizing the integrity of data storage over 3+ billion years of history.

This design ensures that evolution occurs as an engineered process and is achieved in a minimal number of steps. In other words the path from the origin of life 3.5 billion years ago to present humans has been traversed at near-optimum speed.

The four-letter alphabet A/C/G/T is a very particular choice.  It could just as easily be two or four or six or any other number of letters; but the tradeoffs have been analyzed in the literature and we see that a four letter alphabet maximizes data storage for a given amount of space.

The specific table of the 3-letter codon convention has already been shown to be optimal, compared to more than 18,000 other possible arrangements.

Genome Intelligence postulates that evolution itself, far from being inevitable, is only explainable as a programmed adaptation feature.  The genome is pre-programmed with Kaizen (the Japanese term for Continuous Improvement) and the tools to achieve it.

Implications of this are:

• Random mutation, the hero of evolution in the materialistic worldview, is actually the villain.  With only exceedingly rare exceptions, it has no positive role to play in evolution at all.
• Materialistic evolution is believed to be an aimless, purposeless process.  “Teleology” (purpose) is explicitly denied and even forbidden.  Genome Intelligence assumes the total opposite: That evolution is a directed process with predetermined goals, the means of achieving them already in place, and explicit, premeditated purpose.
• The biological world is information-driven and organized top-down, not bottom-up.  Teleology is not only warranted but is a consistently productive and essential assumption.
• The origin of life is explainable only as (1) a deliberate product of external intelligence, or (2) a consequence of a Strong Anthropic Principle such that life itself is the direct result of a profoundly fine-tuned universe.
• All attempts to explain life as a product of chance will continue to fail; and in fact chance itself is an anti-scientific explanation because it is a non-systematic process.  It fails because it fails to presume underlying order.

Both Strong and Weak Genome Intelligence Principle formulations are possible. A Strong Genome Intelligence Principle hypothesizes that humans and other specific life forms are a pre-meditated goal, and the diversity of our ecosystem exists to support human life.

A Weak Genome Intelligence Principle would be less ambitious in its assumptions, predicting that many other scenarios or creatures might have evolved given slightly different initial conditions.

I am open to a variety of outcomes - and the very real possibility that some of these ideas may lead down blind alleys. What’s important is to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Perry Marshall

]]> http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/testable-hypothesis-id-4/feed/ http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/testable-hypothesis-id-3/ http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/testable-hypothesis-id-3/#comments Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:41:49 +0000 Perry Marshall http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/?p=614 Earlier I proposed that evolution is driven by a “Mutation Algorithm.” I said the Mutation Algorithm is the highest software layer in DNA and it explores evolutionary pathways by testing new features (fur, skin patterns, claws, limbs, wings) like switching out blades on a Swiss Army Knife.

I explained why Junk DNA is one of the most backwards theories in the history of modern science.

I said that the “random mutation” theory of evolution is an anti-scientific proposal which fails to presume underlying order and teaches us nothing.

Today I continue with the implications of turning Darwinism on its head and assuming evolution operates top-down not bottom-up:

1.    Discoveries first made in DNA will trigger watershed advances in “Artificial Intelligence.” Because of this research, AI will finally move from futuristic dream to practical reality.

Most evangelists of Artificial Intelligence operate from a materialistic presupposition that intelligence automatically “emerges” from complexity.

Their line of reasoning is that if life somehow got started in the primordial soup and eventually gave birth to sentient humans, then surely computers will likewise become intelligent once they get fast enough or if the software gets good enough.

Occasionally there is even talk of the Internet itself someday becoming conscious.

All these beliefs presume that information is a bottom-up phenomenon, but I propose the exact opposite. Everything we know about digital communication states the opposite. The Darwinian theory is totally backwards.

The only reason evolution happens at all is that the genome is literally intelligent; that intelligence in some form is essential to the viability of life.

2.    Random Mutations, far from being the driving force behind evolution, are universally detrimental to the survival of the organism. In a complete reversal of the former Darwinian theory, DNA research will definitively demonstrate that random mutation is not capable of producing “evolution of species” at all, but only destroys information.

Theodosius Dobzhansky’s failed fruit fly radiation experiments will finally be accepted as an example of irreversibly corrupted information.  The reason of course is that random mutation has the same effect as noise in man-made communication systems: it causes irreversible damage.

Also, positive genetic changes previously attributed to random mutation will be understood to be the result of error correction mechanisms producing an acceptable or beneficial result, even as they resist accidental changes.

3.    Birth defects are the result of random mutations of a defect-free ancestor. Mutation rate models will point to a zero-defect ancestor with birth defects accumulating over time.

DNA that is presently seen to have no function can also be shown to be a byproduct of random mutations and destroyed information.  Random mutations cause cancer, tumors, aging, congenital abnormalities and death – not improved organisms or new species.

4.    We will discover that the Human Genome can be repaired but not improved. The best human genetic engineering can do is, for example, repair birth defects, which are the result of random mutations.  The only evolution of humans that is theoretically possible is already built into the genome (and thus may still be unfolding).

Humans cannot successfully “direct our own evolution” because we’re nowhere near as smart as the intelligence that created life in the first place and we do not have the ability to gather as much data as the Mutation Algorithm can gather.

Humans will not “take over” our own evolution in some triumphal Eugenics experiment of the future.

The very notion of engineering our own evolution is preposterous. It will continue to be preposterous until the genome is fully understood, an achievement that is at least several hundred years away.

5.    This new view of evolution as an engineered process (i.e. the genome uses concepts comparable to Six Sigma, Kaizen and Quality Control to adapt to its environment) will lead to specific discoveries and systems in DNA that can be directly applied to man-made systems.

This is in stark contrast to Darwinism, which is virtually useless for teaching anyone how to design anything.

(After you learned about Darwinian evolution, what did you suddenly know how to do or build as a result? Nothing!)

Our cave-man ancestors knew that the fittest survive.  There’s nothing profound about that; and Random mutation as an alleged path to improved designs is useless.

If Taguchi or other Continuous Improvement methods are the fastest way to improve a design, a random walk is actually the fastest way to destroy a design.

(Also notice that even in the best of circumstances, like Dawkins ‘methinks it is like a weasel’ program, Random Mutation still does not work without a pre-programmed selective goal.)

Genetic Algorithms that mindlessly grind through millions of permutations are notoriously inefficient, which is why their use in the software industry is so limited.

Thus the most potentially productive hypothesis for evolution is that it follows an algorithm that’s pre-engineered for maximum improvement within the smallest possible number of steps. A program that starts with single cells and ends up with human beings in only 3 billion years is an engineering achievement of the highest order.

Reverse-engineering the Mutation Algorithm will be one of the most powerful future applications of applied science.  To understand this 21st century view of evolution will be to know something that has immensely practical, real-world applications.

Eventually, unlocking the secrets of the Mutation Algorithm will be the “Holy Grail” of biology. It’s the secret to everything. The 20th century theory of random mutation will be seen as being just as foolish and detrimental to the practice of real science as the church’s opposition to Galileo.

6.    The adaptive capabilities of DNA (the Mutation Algorithm) are best understood as a function of intelligence. This adaptive algorithm that makes evolution possible does not blindly plod forward the way man-made programs do, but makes remarkably fit choices in environments that it has not faced before.

7.    DNA’s information storage is an optimal combination of physical data density, error-minimizing redundancy, and data compression.

Common sense observation: The entire human genome builds a 3-dimensional biological machine with a lifespan of 70-80 years and all the data necessary to do this can fit on a 750 Megabyte CD-ROM. A DNA molecule is thousands of times denser than a CD-ROM. Windows Vista can’t begin to fit on a CD-ROM, it has thousands of bugs and requires a never-ending series of software patches.

A man-made data storage program (i.e. CAD program) would require hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more storage space than DNA, to accurately represent the human body.

Hypothesis: DNA currently stores data at a higher density than any man-made digital information storage system, and as we approach or attempt to surpass the DNA benchmark we will encounter physical limitations that result in severe tradeoffs (i.e. greatly increased possibilities of long-term data loss).

The resources DNA devotes to error correction are extensive and absolutely necessary.  In DNA a single sequence of data is used in more ways and does more jobs than researchers presently imagine.

In DNA, nothing goes to waste.

Coming in Part 4: An Information Theory application of the Anthropic Principle.

Perry Marshall

This was broadcast on the British radio programme “Unbelievable.”

Mr. Hearty has a Computer Science background so his education is comparable with my own which is Electrical Engineering.

He takes the position that natural processes could produce living things. I take the position that information is only known to come from intelligence.

The debate is direct and no punches are pulled. At the same time it is polite and informative. There is none of the rancor that so often characterizes these discussions.

Perry Marshall debates atheist Peter Hearty - click icon to play/pause
or right-click this link to download the audio file.

*Discuss this topic on Justin Brierley’s blog

Enjoy….

Perry Marshall

Since the 1970’s, that other 97% that wasn’t understood has been called “Junk DNA.”

(If I only had a dollar for every guy who has sent me an email that said, “OK Perry, then if DNA is designed how come 97% of my DNA is junk? Huh? Answer me that!!!”)

Today’s hypothesis is very simple:

There is no such thing as “Junk DNA.”

Suppose you took your new car to the mechanic and he said to you, “I found a big cluster of hoses in your engine that are absolutely useless, do you want me to take them out?”

The most reasonable response would be “I’m pretty sure that if Toyota put those hoses in there they must be there for a reason, so no sir you cannot take those hoses out.  I will pick up my car tonight and find another mechanic.”

Presuming that a functional machine is loaded with “junk” is just as damaging to the study of living things as it is to your car. The term “Junk DNA” is a piece of anti-intellectual, anti-scientific slander that has obstructed scientific progress for three decades now.

It demonstrates blatant disrespect for the object of study, which is always dangerous. It’s derisive and insulting. The time has come to discard this term and the theory that goes with it.

The term “Junk DNA” would have made perfect sense for those who had believed the “random mutation” hypothesis of evolution. I certainly understand, it made perfect sense for people who had thought evolution was driven by random copying errors. Then a whole bunch of garbage would surely accumulate somewhere.

Yes, at one time that might have made sense.

But today I am stating the exact opposite. NONE of it is junk.

In the previous installment I hypothesized that the “random mutation” theory is false and is in the process of being overturned even as we speak.

So if evolution is driven by natural genetic engineering…. if DNA is like a Swiss Army Knife with all kinds of extra evolutionary blades tucked away… then the least you could possibly say about ANY section of DNA is that it’s merely switched off.

NOT that it’s “junk”!

If you own a Honda Civic DX, you see dashboard has openings for buttons and gauges that aren’t used. In the more expensive LX model, those spaces are punched out and the dash has more bells and whistles.

DNA is the same way.

I propose to you that the best way - and in fact the ONLY way to discover the wonders of DNA is this:

When you find something you don’t understand, you always want to ask: “There is a reason for this. What is it?”

You NEVER say, “I don’t understand what this is for. Therefore it must be garbage.”

It’s always best to presume it is there for a good REASON. If you don’t ask the question, you may never find out.

The existence of REASON is the only assumption that consistently leads us to maximum scientific discovery.

Anything less is anti-scientific.

I submit to you that allowing anyone who truly believes in “Junk DNA” to teach biology or perform scientific research is like appointing a German Shepherd to guard a brown paper bag full of ham sandwiches.

Don’t be surprised if the brown paper bag is ripped to shreds and there’s nothing left but a few scraps of lettuce on the ground. Because frankly, that’s the effect that the “Junk DNA” hypothesis has had on scientific research for the last 30 years. It’s preposterous.

Prediction: Research will provide growing evidence that ALL elements in DNA have a vital function.

Just as the term “Junk DNA” in the past has been touted as evidence of purposeless, naturalistic processes, the opposite indicates deliberate design.

Prediction: Non-coding DNA will prove to be just as important as Coding DNA. (The term “Junk DNA” is already beginning to fall out of favor. The preferred term now is “Noncoding DNA.”)

Prediction: Coding DNA just specifies the raw materials. The other 97% of DNA describes how and where to assemble them.

Prediction: As time goes on, the amount of DNA that is known to have a purpose (as chronicled in the literature) will slowly approach 100%.  Currently only 3-5% of DNA is understood.

Prediction: By the time we reach the 50% mark, landmark discoveries will have been made which can be directly applied to communication systems (since DNA is a communication system), databases (since DNA is a database) and programming languages (since DNA is a programming language).

Prediction: The very notion of “junk DNA” will be discarded as anti-intellectual, anti-discovery, anti-scientific relic of 20th century materialism.

Because science only moves forward under a presumption of underlying order, the most productive hypothesis about the genetic code will be that it is intelligently and optimally designed to achieve a pre-determined goal.

All the same things can be said about so-called “Vestigial Organs”, a concept similar to “Junk DNA” and built on the same assumptions. 100 years ago, many science books claimed that the human body had nearly 100 useless organs. Leftovers of the evolutionary process.

Would you like to have all 100 of your “Vestigial Organs” removed?

Which ones would you like to have taken out first?

The “vestigial organ” theory has fared very poorly during the last 50 years and the number of “vestigial organs” we humans supposedly have is now approaching zero.

Prediction: Future discoveries will confirm that, like DNA, every organ in your body has some function, even if it’s evolutionary.

We human beings should always stand humbly before the wonders of nature. We should never assume that anything we don’t currently understand is junk.

In Wired Magazine 2/2007, page 113, Steve Olson wrote:

What is the purpose of noncoding DNA?

“A typical human cell contains more than 6 feet of tightly cornrowed DNA. But only about an inch of that carries the codes needed to make proteins, the day laborers of biology. What’s the other 71 inches?

“It’s junk, Nobelist Sydney Brenner said after it was discovered back in the 1970s. The name stuck, but biologists have known for a while that the junk DNA must contain treasures. If noncoding DNA were just along for the ride, it would rapidly incorporate mutations. But long stretches of noncoding DNA have remained basically the same for many millions of years - they must be doing something.

“Now scientists are starting to speculate that proteins, and the regular DNA that creates them, are just the nuts and bolts of the system. ‘They’re like the parts for a 757 jet sitting on the floor of a factory,’ says University of Queensland geneticist John Mattick. The noncoding DNA is likely “the assembly plans and control systems.” Unfortunately, he concludes, because we’ve spent 30 years thinking of it as junk, we’re just now learning how to read it.”

Stay tuned for more in the Testable Hypothesis series - and let us always remain humble in the face of nature.

Perry Marshall

For further reading: BBC News: ‘Junk’ throws up precious secret

Today I’m going to tie the two together in an elegant way and show that they compliment each other beautifully.

A common criticism of Intelligent Design is that it offers no testable hypothesis.

Today I’m going to lay that accusation firmly to rest with a whole series of predictions about what evolution research will show us in the next 3 to 20 years.

______________

You may or may not have noticed, but Information is always written top-down, not bottom-up. You may or may not have noticed that information also has to be modified or re-written top-down.

Random mutation assumes information is bottom-up. That is the most fundamental reason why that theory is failing. Evolution is a top-down process.

The highest layer of information is intent. All coded information is driven by intent. Intent results in meaning which results in sentences which dictate words which dictate letters.

(Not the other way around.)

Everything I predict in this series, then, comes from a proposition that evolution is an engineered process and is programmed to happen; and that the program itself is intelligent and operates in a top-down fashion.

Onward with my testable hypothesis:

1) Evolutionary adaptation is the work of a “Mutation Algorithm.”

Cells employ a built-in algorithm, which engineers re-arrangement of Mobile Genetic Elements (as observed by McClintock and Shapiro).  Genes and Chromosomes are re-arranged in a fantastically beautiful process which produces useful adaptations and new species.

I call this the Mutation Algorithm. It is a program which attempts to evolve when necessary and computes the optimal path to a desired result. This algorithm is described as exhibiting some form of intelligence.

This Mutation Algorithm, in combination with natural selection, explains what random mutation and natural selection cannot.

Hypothesis: DNA systematically tests skin color, fur patterns, hair, limbs, claws and other features much as you would switch out blades on a Swiss army knife

2) The Mutation Algorithm tests design options like blades on a Swiss army knife. DNA has a huge “bag of tricks” and is able to mix and match combinations of eyes, feet and claws, joints, digits, hair, skin and fur colors and patterns, switching out different “blades” as environments change.

It builds animals on a common chassis of head, spine, heart, lungs, stomach and limbs.

It ferociously defends this core chassis from being corrupted by random mutations, while switching out different variables in the head, spine, heart etc.

3) The Swiss army knife “blades” include variables that adjust the structure of incredibly complex systems with simple changes.

For example the length of a giraffe neck could be “dialed in” by a single gene which controls the length of nerve fibers, muscles, esophagus and number of vertebra, all at the same time.

This explains both small and large variations in species. DNA fills the ecosystem with every imaginable variety of life because it’s designed to.

It adjusts these variables until the creature is maximally adapted to its environment.

4) The Mutation Algorithm is normally at rest. It goes to work whenever the population is under extreme stress. This is why we see the pattern of “punctuated equilibrium” in the fossil record.

There are long periods of stability where there is no change, because the Mutation Algorithm is dormant. When there is a crisis, it activates and begins to test novel features.

5) The Mutation Algorithm operates within populations, not just individuals.

The Mutation Algorithm catalogs past mutation attempts so that it does not get “stuck” repeating past failures. Organisms somehow share information so that they can collectively test a wider variety of mutations than any one organism could attempt.

Efforts to find a mechanism by which organisms share this information will eventually be rewarded. And the mechanism that is discovered will be as surprising and revolutionary to biology as Einstein’s theory of relativity was to physics.

6) Evolutionary pathways are not random and purposeless, they are mathematically optimized in advance to reach desired destinations in the smallest possible number of steps.

An analogous process is the Taguchi method used in Quality Control, which creates a very small set of manufacturing experiments, which represent a very large number of possible manufacturing combinations.

It systematically tests them via a “design of experiments” process, then generates a new design which is a nearly optimal combination.

Thousands of possible design combinations are evaluated with only a few dozen tests.

Then more inputs are gathered, new designs are generated and the test is run again.

I invite you to consider that DNA does something very similar with arrangements of modular biological components, literally calculating and anticipating possible evolutionary steps. It senses inputs from its environment and optimizes the experimental process.

(The Taguchi hypothesis and related concepts from Quality Control, Kaizen and Six Sigma also help explain the phenomenon of punctuated equilibrium.)

Imagine for a moment, if you will - that same process that DNA uses can be quantified and adapted for use in manufacturing and process control.

Comparisons to Quality Control and manufacturing are very useful when considering evolutionary theories. The theory of Neo-Darwinism, which is now fighting for its very life, always insisted that evolution proceeded as a function of random mutations combined with natural selection.

A direct analogy in manufacturing would be if we made a production line where incoming parts were randomly and carelessly modified; then a QC check simply discarded all unsuitable assemblies at the end of the line.

Can you even think of a more wasteful and inefficient quality control system? Soon it would also result in the most wasteful and inefficient factory imaginable. The employees would be laid off and the plant would close.

You may or may not have noticed…. there is no manufacturing facility in the world that makes products that way. Quality Control is always an extremely deliberate set of inputs combined with rigorous analysis of the outputs.

My hypothesis is that DNA operates much the same way as a Kaizen / Six Sigma manufacturing operation. DNA not only actively participates in the mutation process, it also monitors the natural selection process.

I hypothesize that the genome got from single cells to humans in an incredibly short period of time - that 3 billion years from cells to mankind is an engineering feat of the highest order. That such a feat required the most advanced forms of optimization and as little waste as possible.

We’ve only begun. Stay tuned for future installments, where I’ll discuss “Junk DNA”, show you the layers of information in DNA and new discoveries that await us in computer science.

In later parts I’ll also talk about human genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project, and a new Anthropic Principle that specifically applies to DNA.

Perry Marshall

Further reading: Swine Flu Virus Mutations and the Evolution of Google Ads

A 21st Century View of Evolution by James A. Shapiro

Evolution as Computation by Laura F. Landweber and Erik Winfree

What if evolution were true, but it wasn’t quite like Darwin said?

What if there were a new evolutionary model that could explain why fossils show almost no change for millions of years…. then suddenly the Cambrian Explosion: Thousands of new species emerge intact, virtually overnight.

What if this new theory pointed the way to new innovations in artificial intelligence and adaptive computer programs?

What if “Evolution vs. Design” wasn’t an either/or proposition - but both+and?

What if, instead of arguing endlessly about fossils, we could precisely track evolutionary history with the precision of 1’s and 0’s?

What if science and faith were no longer at war?

All these things are not only possible, but a present reality.

I know that’s a pretty bold statement. But by now you’re probably used to that from me. Once again I invite you to relax, hear what I have to say, and consider the information that is presented. See if this makes sense for you.

I really do have a new theory of evolution.

Not only that, in future installments I will use this new theory of evolution to make predictions about what we will discover in the next 3-20 years.

And: after today, you may never think about this question the same way again.

Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a gradual and steady progression from simple to complex forms of life. It’s now well known that what we see instead is long periods of stability interrupted by sudden leaps forward.

Stephen Jay Gould called this “punctuated equilibrium.” He was at a loss to explain exactly how this worked at the time. But today we have many clues pointing to the answer.

Darwin said that evolution is driven by random variation combined with natural selection.

Today I invite you to consider:

Darwin was half right.

And Darwin was half wrong.

Darwin was definitely right about natural selection.

To be fair, being right about that is no Nobel Prize winning accomplishment. The weaklings die and the strong survive. I think our cave man ancestors were familiar with that one.

(Rog hits Grog over the head with a rock and kills him, then they both get eaten by a hungry tiger. Survival of the fittest… nothing profound about that.)

Seriously, natural selection does not have any kind of creative power at all. All it does is kill of the runts.

The secret to evolution, then, has to be in the “random variation” part.

Darwin, in his time, believed that random variation in heredity produced all manner of species. He said: most of the time it’s harmful, but occasionally it’s helpful and from these variations come all kinds of beautiful forms that appear to be designed.

What is meant by “random variation”?

Thousands of biology books say it’s accidental copying errors in DNA.

They say, essentially, that it’s corrupted data that occasionally turns out to be beneficial instead of harmful.

This is where Darwin and the biology books were wrong.

As a communication engineer I know - with 100.000000000% certainty - that this is impossible.

Nowhere in the vast field of engineering is there any such thing as “the percentage of the time that corrupted data is helpful instead of harmful.”

It’s ALWAYS harmful. Always. Copying errors and data transmission errors never help the signal. They only hurt it.

Now please do not misunderstand me:

I AM *NOT* SAYING EVOLUTION DID NOT OR DOES NOT HAPPEN.

Nope…. I’m suggesting: Evolution just happens a different way than Darwin said. Way different than you were told.

I’ll get to the details of that in a minute. First I need to explain why randomness only destroys information.

If we start with the sentence

“The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog”

And randomly mutate the letters, we get sentences that look like this:

The 6uHck brown fox jukped over the lazyHdog
Tze quick bro0n foL juXped over the lazy doF
Tae quick browY fox jumped oGer tgePlazy dog
The iuick brown fox jumped lver the lazy dog
The quiikQbKowSwfox .umped oveh the lazy dog

You can apply all the natural selection to this in the world and you’ll never accomplish anything besides destroying a perfectly good sentence. You can go to www.RandomMutation.com and try for yourself.

Why doesn’t this work?

Because it’s impossible to evolve a sentence one letter at a time - even if you deliberately TRY.

Technically, this is because random mutation is noise and noise *always* destroys a signal. Claude Shannon called it information entropy. Entropy is not reversible. Noise never improves a signal. It only mucks it up.

The only way for this to work is: Evolution has to follow the rules of language.

So…. successful evolution for this short sentence would look something like this:

The fast brown fox jumped over the slothful dog.
The dark brown fox jumped over the light brown dog.
The big brown fox leaped over the lazy dog.
The quick black fox sped past the sleeping dog.
The hot blonde fox sauntered past the sunbathing man.

In English, successful evolution requires precise substitution of verbs and nouns and following the rules of speech.

DNA is no different. DNA has its own language. In fact thousands of linguists have made huge contributions to the Human Genome project by helping to decode the layers of the genetic code. Dozens of linguistic books describe the eerie similarity between DNA and human language.

NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION:

There is a mutation algorithm that makes intelligent substitutions when species need to adapt to their environment.

It works very much like the sentences I just showed you. DNA actually re-arranges itself like a computer program that rewrites itself on the fly.

Now here’s the kicker:

This is not new. It’s actually more than 60 years old!

It’s only new to those who are hearing it for the first time.

It’s not just a wild hypothesis, either. It was discovered by geneticist Dr. Barbara McClintock in 1944.

Dr. Barbara McClintock's U.S. Postage stamp includes a diagram that shows how genes are intelligently transposed by the Mutation Algorithm in DNA

She was decades ahead of her time and she received the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1983. Her picture is now on a U.S. Postage Stamp and she’s one of the greatest scientists in the history of biology.

But even now, people ask me, “Why didn’t they ever teach this to me in biology class?”

Maybe Barbara McClintock could answer that question.

Her discoveries were so radical, so contrary to Darwin, that for most of her career she kept this to herself. She she described the reception of her research as “puzzlement, even hostility. ” Based on the reactions of other scientists to her work, McClintock felt she risked alienating the scientific mainstream, and from 1953 stopped publishing accounts of her research.

Why don’t they teach this in most biology classes now?

I’ll just say, it’s not because her findings haven’t been verified.

And it’s also not because the “random mutation” model works. You may or may not have noticed, but it actually doesn’t work at all. I’ve been publicly debating this online for 5 years and I have yet to have one person send me a link or refer to a book that says, “Here is the actual experiment that proves random mutations drive evolution.”

There is no such paper or book, so far as I know. The random mutation theory, sadly, is an urban legend.

INTERESTING FACTOID: This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs it’s never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once it’s ‘cracked the code’ on the invading disease, it passes those changes onto daughter cells. Your own immune system is a miniature model for evolutionary biology.

Dr. James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago is one of the leading researchers in this field. Let me share with you about what he’s discovered about protozoa.

What I’m about to pass along is profound, almost miraculous. I want you to read and re-read this a few times before you go on:

A cell under stress will splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces. Then a program senses hundreds of variables in its environment and then re-arranges those pieces to produce a new, better, evolved cell.

Again I ask you to re-read that short paragraph and really consider the significance of it. A protozoa re-programs its own DNA and evolves. Intelligently.

What if your computer were able to do… that???

Imagine……

Did you ever use a computer from the 1980’s? Remember Microsoft MS-DOS? Remember turning on your computer and seeing

courtesy winhistory.de

Now imagine for a moment that DOS 1.0 was never modified by any Microsoft programmers. Imagine that after 1981 the boys in Redmond, Washington never touched DOS again.

Instead, by analyzing the programs it ran, by sensing changes in hardware, DOS “grew” new parts, all by itself. Imagine that it added icons and a mouse, automatically, and after a process of evolution, Windows emerged.

Imagine that after a time, Windows developed Internet Explorer - all by itself - just by adapting to the changing environment of the computer. By re-writing and re-arranging its own lines of code.

Imagine that it then developed networking features. Imagine that, sensing that it needed an email client, evolved Outlook Express. One day the Outlook icon was suddenly there on your desktop. You clicked on it and as you began to use it, it added and subtracted features to suit you.

Imagine that, sensing that it needed virus protection, that it adaptively developed defenses for those viruses.

Sometimes the viruses would take out some computers, but the computers that survived were even more resistant.

Imagine that the viruses also self-adapted and continued to try to worm their way in, in a never-ending competition of dueling codes.

Imagine that ALL of this adaptation happened over a period of years without a single software engineer ever touching it. Imagine this happening automatically just because it got installed on billions of computers.

Oh, I almost forgot: imagine that the very latest version of Windows could still fit on a single 750 megabyte CD-ROM.

If DOS 1.0 evolved into the Windows of today without any engineer touching it, would you say:

-That accidental file copying errors, culled by natural selection, were responsible for these evolutionary changes?

(When have you ever seen a software program or computer virus that accidentally evolved new features through a accidental copying errors?)

OR would you say…

-That the original engineer who wrote DOS 1.0 was so incredibly skilled that he actually devised a program that could self-adapt? That it could upgrade itself without downloading another friggin’ Service Pack?

Also…

If you met the engineer who wrote this, wouldn’t you want to ask him how he pulled off this amazing feat? Would you want his autograph?

Wouldn’t you want to ask him a ton of questions…

How did he lay it all out at the very beginning? What were the design priorities? How does the program sense changes in its environment? How does the program perform its computations? Does the program keep a database of unsuccessful mutations so it can avoid trying them again?

Well my friend, so far as we can tell, that’s exactly what DNA has done over the last 3.5 billion years. Instead of degrading and crashing like computer programs and hard drives, it has efficiently adapted and evolved from a single cell to occupy every ecological niche imaginable.

From the frozen ice sheets of the Antarctic to the punishing heat of the Sahara. From the ants under your kitchen sink to glorious singing birds in the Amazon rain forest.

This did not happen through accidental random mutation.

If life evolved from a single cell, this happened through an ingenious algorithm that engineers its own beneficial mutations.

This is an engineering feat of the most amazing proportions imaginable.

Consider this….

If evolution is true, then God is an even more ingenious programmer than the old-school creationists ever imagined Him to be.

This new theory has HUGE implications for the future discoveries of biology. It re-frames the entire evolution debate as a software engineering problem! We have all kinds of tools that can help.

In the next installment I’ll put my balls on the line and describe a half dozen predictions that this New Theory of Evolution makes. Predictions that will be either confirmed or overturned in the next 3-20 years.

Stay tuned.

Perry Marshall

Read more about this fascinating New Theory of Evolution:

Newsweek Magazine: “Was Darwin Wrong About Evolution?”

“Darwin: Brilliantly Half Right, Tragically Half Wrong”

“A 3rd Way” - James Shapiro’s alternative to “Creation vs. Evolution”

Technical Paper (college level, peer reviewed, clearly written, highly recommended): Shapiro’s “A 21st Century View of Evolution”