Biological information

In this post I'm going to talk about biological information, which in turn is relevant in debates over evolution.

However this post is just an introduction. As such I'm going to simplify a lot of things. I realize I'm sacrificing technical accuracy but I'm doing so in order to get some main ideas across for those who might have zero background in all this but who wish to be able to make a foray into the debate over evolution.

Without further ado:

What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, not a 'spark of life'. It is information, words, instructions. If you want a metaphor, don't think of fires and sparks and breath. Think, instead, of a billion discrete digital characters carved in tablets of crystal. If you want to understand life, don't think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology.

(Richard Dawkins, "The power and the archives", The Blind Watchmaker)

1. Let's start with a book, computer code, and DNA:

   A book contains pages and text, but the pages are just paper and the text is just ink. Rather it's the words that convey the story. Not the words as text, but the words as information.

   A computer program contains code, but code is fundamentally just a pattern of binary digits: 0s and 1s. Rather it's code as a set of instructions for a computer to execute that makes a program functional. Hence code isn't merely bits but code is information.

   The DNA molecule contains four bases (adenine, cytosine, thymine, guanine), but these bases are ultimately atoms (e.g. carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen), and atoms are just physical particles. Rather DNA (as genes) is biological information which can be transcribed and translated to build an organism.

2. These aren't mere arguments from analogy (pace Dawkins). I'm not saying text is like code which is like DNA. Rather this is a comparison of information. I'm suggesting the common denominator in all three is information.

3. Yet information is invisible. We can't sense it, not directly, but it exists. How does that work on atheism/naturalism and evolution/neo-Darwinism?

4. An atheist like Dawkins might argue information emerges from physical properties. Such as in the arrangement of words, code, or DNA.

   However, even if so, what would cause the information to be arranged in a particular manner? How does inert matter arrange itself? What causes the letters of the English alphabet to form words if left on their own? What causes DNA to arrange itself in a particular genetic sequence if it is merely a non-living molecule? Let alone a molecule which self-organizes and self-perpetuates.

5. Is it natural selection? Since when did natural selection act at the atomic level? How does natural selection act on subatomic particles?

6. Moreover, even if a few letters could, somehow, by chance, arrange themselves into words, and words into sentences, and sentences into paragraphs, and paragraphs into chapters, and chapters into a book, each subsequent step would seem to prove increasingly challenging. It's the old question of how long it takes for a monkey to type out the works of Shakespeare.

7. There may need to be new information at each subsequent step. A phrase like "In the beginning" may have arranged itself randomly, not to mention somehow well enough to convey meaning, but the sentence "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" contains more information. Namely "God created the heavens and the earth".

   Likewise it's one thing to have a single gene, but it's a lot more to have an entire genome. Let alone an entire organism.

   Hence a question which needs to be addressed is from where does this extra information come? Who or what is adding extra words or sentences or paragraphs into our book? Who or what is injecting additional information into each subsequent step?

   Otherwise is the information self-generated somehow, like an artificially intelligent computer writing new code for itself? How so? That seems highly implausible in the earliest lifeforms which surely would have not been anything like an A.I. computer.

8. Any time information is generated, there needs to be some way to check it for errors. Quality assurance. Yet could one physical entity (an error checking mechanism) have (more or less) co-evolved with another physical entity (e.g. a molecule like RNA or DNA)? How could a complex error-check have evolved roughly simultaneously with a presumably simple molecule in the origin of life?

DNA is code

The Science Uprising series has been great. I wish I could have made these videos. There are six videos in the series so far. I recommend all of them, though that's not to suggest I agree with everything in them. Here's #3, DNA is code:

A Complex Sleight of Hand

T-Stone has written in defense of Dawkin’s idea that theists proposing Intelligent Design would need to have a God who was more complex than the universe is. Important to this discussion is the following point T-Stone raises:

A 1,000 x 1,000 pixel grid of random pixels, on the other hand, isn't as pretty to look at as a rendering of the Mandelbrot set, but it is much more complex -- maximally complex, as it turns out (which is part of why it's not as appealing aesthetically as a fractal image!). It's counterintuitive to people who don't work with information theory and algorithmic complexity, but its a fact of the domain: randomness is the theoretical maximum for measured complexity. You can't get any more complex than purely random. In a random grid of pixels, we cannot guess anything about any pixels at all. In a rendering of Sierpinski triangles, or the Mandelbrot or Julia set, as soon as we see one level of rendering, prior to any recursion, we no everything about the rest of image, and can reproduce the fractal to any depth of detail without the original program.

Unfortunately for T-Stone, if he paid attention to what he has written here he’d see that he’s soundly refuted Dawkins. After all, if maximal randomness is equivalent to maximal complexity, then it is easy for me to write a program that will generate completely random output. In other words, it is easy for me—a person who is not maximally complex—to produce a program with output that is maximally complex. Thus, if we want to play T-Stone’s game and use complexity in this sense, then Dawkin’s argument must be surrendered.

If I can make a program that is more complex than I am, then God can create a universe that is more complex than He is.

FWIW, I disagree with T-Stone’s version of information and complexity. And despite what his post would lead you to believe, the idea that “maximal randomness = maximal complexity” is not true for all information theories. And in fact, if I were to use T-Stone’s definition of complexity then I would ask him to explain not why there is so much complexity in the universe, but rather why there is so little complexity. If complexity = randomness, then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there’s a lot of the universe that is not random, and therefore there is a lot of this universe that is not complex. Under his information theory, randomness is the default. We do not need to explain random data. We do need to explain structured and ordered data. Therefore, we do not need to explain complexity; we need to explain non-complexity.

T-Stone is just giving a sleight of hand here. It would be like a mathematician saying "a > b" and having T-Stone say, "The greater than sign is inverted with the less than sign, therefore 'a > b' means 'a is less than b'."

But as soon as he engages in his sleight of hand, we respond: "If the greater than sign is inverted with the less than sign, then 'a > b' is no longer true, rather 'a < b' is."

Inverting the operator without inverting the operands does not refute the original expression.

Can Random, Non-Directed Processes Create DNA Information?

In my previous post on DNA, I mentioned the following argument:

A) DNA is information.
B) Information cannot arise from a random, non-directed process.
C) Darwinism requires DNA to have arisen from a random, non-directed process.
D) Therefore, Darwinism cannot explain DNA.

In my first post, I demonstrated A) DNA is information. In this post, I will demonstrate B) Information cannot arise from a random, non-directed process.

The first thing to note is an example that Apolonio brought up. He said:

For example, we can conceive of a case where a person knocks over a scrabble box and the letters I Love You comes out with that order.

While this would be a random process creating information, it is not using foundational forces. The specific example requires a person to knock over the Scrabble box. But even if we adjust for that and make it gravity pulling a box off a shelf or something similar, Scrabble tiles are not foundational in nature; they are designed. So the information still requires a non-foundational force (human ingenuity) to create the tiles which are used to create information in the pattern “I love you.”

Even then, the odds that “I Love You” would form are quite rare. Assuming an equal sample of each letter of the alphabet (as well as an infinite supply of them), you have 8 letters, so the odds of pulling these particular letters would be 1/26⁸, or 1 in 208,827,064,576, which is: 4.79 x 10 ^-12. If you include the space as a character, we have 10 characters and 27 possibilities each draw: 1/27¹⁰, or 4.9 x 10^-15.

In reality, however, Scrabble boxes do not contain an equal sampling of each letter. Instead you have 12 Es; 9 As & Is; 8 Os; 6 Ns, Rs, Ts; 4 Ds, Ls, Ss, Us; 3 Gs; 2 Bs, Cs, Fs, Hs, Ms, Ps, Vs, Ws, and Ys; 1 J, K, Q, X, Z. Finally, there are 2 blanks. This yields 100 total pieces. If we use the blanks as spaces, the odds for each letter in “I [blank] Love [blank] you” are:

I = 9/100
Blank = 2/99
L = 4/98
O = 8/97
V = 2/96
E = 12/95
Blank = 1/94
Y = 2/93
O = 7/92
U = 4/91

Because we are not dealing with an infinite number of tiles, we have to reduce how many are available after each selection. Thus, we have a 9/100 chance of pulling an I on the first draw from the box. If we do so, there are now only 99 tiles remaining, 2 of which will be blanks. That means we have a 2/99 shot for the blank, etc. Note that when a letter repeats (for instance, the O), we have to decrease the number remaining too. Thus, the first draw of an O is 8/97 but the second is 7/92 (because the first draw picks one of the Os). Finally, we get the combined odds by the following:

9/100 x 2/99 x 4/98 x 8/97 x 2/96 x 12/95 x 1/94 x 2/93 x 7/92 x 4/91, which is:

774,144 / 62,815,650,955,529,472,000

Or 1.23 x 10^-14

Which is roughly 1 in 81 trillion. So even though the tiles were created by humans, a random arrangement of them to spell out “I love you” is still extremely rare.

The above does, however, help us understand a bit about DNA. As most are already aware, DNA uses 3-base codons to create amino acids. There are four possible DNA bases (ACGT), and that means that means 4³ (64) possible combinations of those letters. However, there are only 20 amino acids. As a result, amino acids are often encoded by multiple numbers of codons. For instance, Leucine (L) can be encoded by CTT, CTC, CTA, CTG, TTA, and TTG. Which means there are 6 possibilities for L. In fact, quickly going through the amino acids (using their single-letter code name) we find:

I = 3
L = 6
V = 4
F = 2
M = 1
C = 2
A = 4
G = 4
P = 4
T = 4
S = 6
Y = 2
W = 1
Q = 2
N = 2
H = 2
E = 2
D = 2
K = 2
R = 6
Stop = 3

As you can see, all 64 possible combinations would be represented in the above. Therefore, we can say that given a random piece of DNA with 3 codons, there is a 3/64 chance that it is I (Isoleucine) and a 2/64 chance that it is N (Asparagine), etc.

Because base pairs are so prevalent, we can treat them as if there is an infinite supply of them. As a result, if we wanted to calculate what the odds would be that six base pairs will code for Isoleucine and then Asparagine, we would simply multiply 3/64 and 2/64 to yield: 6/4096, or about 1 in 683.

Of course, proteins can have hundreds of amino acids chained together in polypeptides. (In fact, by convention, most scientists do not consider a polypeptide chain to be a protein until it has at least 50 amino acids in it, although that is an arbitrary dividing line.) Because of their size, the odds of even a single 50-amino acid polypeptide forming are quite rare. In fact, even if they were simply a chain of L (Leucine), which has a 6/64 chance of forming for each L, the odds of 50 formulating would be 6⁵⁰ / 64⁵⁰, which is roughly 8 x 10³⁸ / 2 x 10⁹⁰ which is approximately 4 x 10^-52, or 1 chance in 3 x 10⁵¹.

Clearly, this method of explaining DNA is insufficient to explain even a basic protein, let alone complex cells and higher organisms.

This brings us to our next point, which is something that Mighty Pile brought up: the definition of information (i.e., something that is non-repeating, non-random, and not based on foundational forces) seems to exclude the ability of random, non-directed processes in the first place. As such, B) seems to be proven by stipulation, which means it relies on a circular argument.

However, when we examine B) carefully we see that it does not rely on circular reasoning when cashed out. To demonstrate how that is possible, I must first point out that the Darwinist must assert the opposite of B). They must assert that information can arise from random, non-directed processes (as evidenced by premise C)). And this is demonstrated by the fact that you are reading this blog post, which is information.

This blog post has an author. The author is not a random, non-directed process. But, if Darwinism is correct, at some point we can link my existence back to a random, non-directed process. Therefore, in a causative sense, the Darwinist would say that a random, non-directed process somehow created a non-random, directed process that was able to create information.

And it is because this option remains open to the Darwinist that B) does not entail circular reasoning. All the Darwinist needs to do is to show that Information can arise from forces that are non-random, non-repetitive (to exclude crystals) and non-foundational if those forces (we will call them meta-forces) are themselves built on random, non-directed forces. In other words, the Darwinist can argue: “Information comes from meta-forces, which are non-foundational; but meta-forces come from foundational forces.” Putting it into this two-step process would avoid the circular reasoning charge, while also giving the Darwinist a possible route to establishing C).

So the question now becomes, can random, non-directed processes create non-random and non-repeating meta-processes that could then create information in the form of DNA? DNA is one of the simplest information processes we can think of (compare it to trying to establish the framework for a spoken language), but even it is vastly complicated. In order for DNA to function, it has to store information that is used to create amino acids that bond together to form proteins that then create the mechanism for storing and reading DNA. In other words, in order for DNA to function biologically, we need to have a loop where DNA is used to create the processes needed to create more DNA. DNA is copied via cellular processes that are created with proteins that are themselves created by DNA. Thus, we have a vicious cycle going on.

But before we get to the loop, is there a simple way to just encode amino acids into DNA? Amino acids, after all, are fairly easy to create in a test tube, as Stanley Miller demonstrated (albeit his experiment does not prove what he thought it proved). Using those same “primitive” conditions, however, it is not possible to create DNA.

DNA also presents a problem because, as you’ve seen above, sometimes as many as six different DNA codons can represent a single amino acid. While moving from a DNA codon to an amino acid is easy, moving from the amino acid to a particular strand of DNA is much harder.

Due to the limitations of DNA, Francis Crick proposed that life began based on RNA instead of DNA. RNA is only single stranded, as opposed to the DNA double helix. RNA can also sometimes function similarly to proteins. DNA, however, is much more stable and less prone to errors (which is why an intelligent being would pick DNA instead of RNA to start life off; and which is why Darwinists claim DNA was “selected for” by Natural Selection).

Which brings up an important point. The “central dogma” (as Crick named it) is DNA to RNA to protein. It doesn’t go in the opposite order. (There are a few exceptions to the strictness of the “central dogma”, most notably RNA viruses (like HIV) which go from a single strand of RNA to DNA before then going through the “central dogma”; but there are no instances that I am aware of where proteins go to RNA then to DNA.) This makes it highly unlikely that amino acids bonded to become proteins and then those proteins created RNA that was then made into DNA and eventually stored in cells.

That means we had to start someway with DNA or RNA and then create proteins from that; but in order to create the proteins, it means we must have the structure in place by which RNA can be converted to a protein. Once again, we’re left with the chicken and the egg problem. And this system cannot have arisen by blind chance, since as you’ve seen even a single protein of 50 of the most common amino acids has astronomically long odds at forming randomly.

Regardless of where we start, we have to have some method of going from a random soup of amino acids to a particular sequence of amino acids being coded in information, be it RNA or DNA. But this will only start to happen if there is a reason for the information of a protein’s make-up to be converted to RNA or DNA.

That DNA is useful for life is not debated. Suppose that the amino acid “soup” manages to create a protein that could be used by a cell later on. It would be useful for the cell to have a way to rapidly create this protein. And the protein is created from amino acids that can be stored in DNA. Obviously, if we have this end in mind, we could design the process by which the DNA code comes about. But this requires teleology, which Darwinism denies. We cannot have the end of a working cell in mind; we have to have completely random processes that somehow create the necessary steps involved.

But suppose that we are left with only the random creation of the system to begin the evolutionary process. According to modern materialistic theory, life first became possible about 3.5 billion years ago. That is, the Earth cooled enough, the atmosphere was in the correct state, water existed, etc. so that life would not be extinguished if it was formed. Amazingly enough, according to these same scientists, the first life on Earth appeared roughly 3.5 billion years ago. In other words, as soon as it was possible for life to exist on Earth, life did exist on Earth. This must mean that the creation of life ought to be an “easy” process, given materialistic claims. If it is easy, then it should not rely on a process that has such poor odds of succeeding. Either life’s occurrence on Earth was a miracle against all odds, or else this cannot be how life began on Earth.

Why DNA is Information

One strong argument that non-Darwinists have against Darwinism is the simple fact of DNA. Darwinism requires evolution to occur due to random mutations coupled with Natural Selection. DNA, on the other hand, requires some very specific sequences in order for some very specific organisms to exist. As a result, non-Darwinists (be they Creationists, theistic evolutionists, or believers in panspermia) find DNA to be a convincing counter to gradualistic Darwinist claims regarding the origin of life. The basic argument can be summarized thus:

A) DNA is information.
B) Information cannot arise from a random, non-directed process.
C) Darwinism requires DNA to have arisen from a random, non-directed process.
D) Therefore, Darwinism cannot explain DNA.

Since C) is a given under Darwinism, the only thing that a Darwinist can do to reject this proof is to deny either A) or B). In a coming post, I will seek to demonstrate the truth of B). For this post, I will seek to demonstrate the truth of A).

Information is something that is most commonly associated with language. But what separates information theory from linguistics is that information theory moves beyond mere language and incorporates many other things. Information theory really began only recently, after it was discovered language could be transmitted via mechanical devices. Even before it was a science, telegraph operators would have to engage in information theory to distinguish between the pulses of Morse code on the line and random noise (caused, say, by a tree swaying in a breeze with a branch striking the telegraph wire and interrupting the electrical signal). This became more pronounced with radio signals. The need to differentiate between information—the message being sent—and noise—radio interference, random fluctuations, etc.—required the spawning of information theory.

To discuss this, we need a working definition of information. As you can see from the above examples of the genesis of information theory, one way would be to say: Information is non-random.

This, however, is not sufficient. After all, if a telegraph operator received only a constant signal of dot-dash (for A) that would convey no information either. Linguistic meaning is not conveyed in that manner.

So we can start with: Information is non-random and non-repeating.

But non-random and non-repeating…what? If we’re looking at text being written on the page, it’s obvious: non-random and non-repeating letters. Thus, we know that

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

is information, whereas

lasdkfjuyqwensd

and

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

are not information.

But if we’re dealing with telegraph signals, we’re not looking at letters on the page. We’re listening to electrical pulses being translated into sounds and visual representations created by the raising and lowering of a pen based on those electrical pulses. And with radio, we have to examine radio waves, using instruments to detect whether or not information is present (which, today, you can do by turning on your radio and listening to the radio pulses transformed to electrical impulses which drive a magnet that creates airwaves that bring sounds to your ears and differentiating it from static).

But why stop there? Why not examine the natural world as well? And it is when we do that that we discover the richness of information in living structures.

Consider rocks for instance. Sandstone is a great example. If you examine a piece of sandstone under the microscope, you will notice that the individual grains that make up that stone appear quite random. While there are certain elements that show up more often (due to their greater abundance on Earth), there is no foundational law governing which grain in the sandstone should be next to another grain in the sandstone. It’s random.

Now look at a diamond, one that has not been cut so as to avoid human interference. It’s crystallized carbon. The atoms of carbon are structured in a specific pattern, and there are no random variations from it (the only random variations in a diamond come from the inclusion of other elements that are not carbon, which will affect the diamond’s color, etc.).

Neither a rock nor a diamond carry information in their structure. However, someone can carve an inscription into a rock and someone can laser designate a diamond. Someone can take sandstone rocks and organize them in such a manner as to build a bungalow, and someone can put a diamond into a ring setting. So consider a bungalow. Is a bungalow information? Is a diamond ring information?

If we use the above starting definition, then they would be. A bungalow and a diamond ring are both non-repeating and non-random.

But this immediately brings to mind the next question. What if someone were to design a bungalow that was repeating. A bungalow on top of another bungalow? Story after story, until you have a repeating-structure: a sky scraper. Now the building would be repeating, and therefore not information.

But sky scrapers do not appear in nature. They have to be built, and that requires work beyond the foundational laws that govern matter. When a diamond is in a crystal shape, it takes no extra effort on the part of the carbon atoms to get there; in fact, that’s the simplest way that the carbon atoms can organize under those circumstances. Likewise, it takes no special effort for a grain of sand in sandstone to sit next to another random grain of sand. That’s the natural state.

Therefore, we can add our final requirement to what determines information. Information isn’t just non-repeating and non-random, but it must be something that is non-repeating and non-random and cannot be explained by only foundational forces. (Note: by “foundation forces” I mean the laws of the universe that materialists consider to be basic, such as the laws of magnetism and the way atoms will bond with each other. For the sake of argument, we will assume these are the basic laws and that they will happen by “default” without any divine guidance needed.)

So a sky scraper may be repetitive and it may mimic a crystallized structure. But sky scrapers are not created using foundational forces of nature. Indeed, the individual units that create the sky scraper themselves are composed of bungalows, and bungalows (in our example, anyway) are composed of sandstone. Sandstone does not form bungalows using foundational forces of nature. It requires something else to organize sandstone into a bungalow. Therefore, sky scrapers exist due to something beyond foundational forces of nature.

And that brings us to DNA. As we know, DNA functions as the blueprint for life. It’s called that because the DNA is used to form all the amino acids that are used for cellular life. And the cellular life must function in order for organs to function. And organs must function for organisms to function. DNA therefore determines many things about the organism, including the means by which that same DNA can be replicated.

Let us therefore ask our questions. Is DNA repetitive like a crystal? If it was, it would mean that Adenine had a proclivity for having Thymine next to it, so you’d have ATATATATATATATAT. Or perhaps Guanine and Thymine would be structured like that.

But the fact is that there is no real proclivity at all between the various bases. Thymine could just as easily follow a Cytosine as an Adenine, or even another Thymine (note that I am not talking about the base pair here, but only which base would be next to another base on the same strand).

Since there is no proclivity, then we would expect natural forces to create random structures of DNA. But is DNA random? Obviously not, because the higher organism depends on the structure of DNA creating the right amino acids to form the right cells to form the right tissues, etc. If the DNA is not exactly like it is, the organism does not exist. But since there is not only one organism, but in many cases there are billions of the same kind, then DNA must have structure; it is not random.

If it is not random, and it is not crystallized, and if it would be one or the other if left only to foundational forces, then DNA is information.

Information Theory (Concluded)

As I continue with my post on Information Theory, I must confess that there was an ulterior motive for the previous post that I presented, and a quick explanation can now be made. A few months ago I learned about certain viruses that replicate by having their RNA read in three separate frames. Each frame is necessary for the replication of the virus, because if the RNA is only read in the “normal” way then it would not give all the amino acids needed by the virus to replicate. The alternate frames (starting at the second and third nucleotide) were therefore critical for the successful reproduction of the virus.

Since the best way to explain this is actually by example, I’d spent some time wondering how to come up with a good example. Thankfully, I was afforded the opportunity at work the other day due to some shenanigans that happened with a couple of my co-workers. One of my friends, Travis, is a huge Star Trek fan. He’s got a model of the Enterprise sitting on the shelf in his cubicle. Or rather, he had a model of the Enterprise sitting on the shelf by his cubicle, since one of his other friends, Jeff, had stolen it over a week ago.

It quickly became apparent that Travis did not know it was missing. As a result, on Friday Jeff came up with a plan to “ransom” the model back to Travis by setting up a fake e-mail account. In the meantime, one of our other coworkers has been taking several pictures of a gnome in random locations, so I suggested to Jeff that he get a picture with that gnome. The end result is this ransom picture.

After the photo was taken, I came up with an idea. Rather than make it easy for Travis to figure out what was going on, we could make a secret code for him to crack. At the same time, I realized this would work for my illustration of Information Theory. So I wrote up the code and put it in my previous post. Then we sent Travis on a long scavenger hunt to finally claim his stolen Enterprise (although in reality the scavenger hunt was completely pointless because it lead nowhere and in the end Jeff just gave the model back anyway).

The only clue that I gave Travis was a link to my previous post on Information Theory as well as the instructions about “First letter. Last letter. One is forward, one is not.” From that, you can look at my previous post and see that it spells out the following hidden messages. The first letter of each sentence spells out “DON’T TRUST THE SMILE O’ THE GNOME WHO ROAMS OVER THE EARTH HERE” backwards (with punctuation added for clarity) and the last letter of each sentence spells out: “i saw travis’s enterprise go in the shredder box by kayla’s cube.” (By the way, this was a factual, yet misleading, statement. I actually wrote “Travis’s Enterprise” on a piece of paper and put it in the shredder box, hoping that Travis would get Building Services to open the box and reveal the paper…but due to the fact that Travis’s department was short-handed Friday, he was unable to do this.)

Obviously, if I was only intending to play a prank on a co-worker I would not have posted anything on Triablogue—I would have just kept that on my personal site. However, since I got a wonderful opportunity to use this as an example for Information Theory, I thought it was worth putting on the T-Blog too.

Anyone could have read my original post and it would have made sense as it was written. Due to the constraints of the hidden message, of course, the previous post seemed (at least to me) to be a little stilted in places, but it still conveyed information so that it was a worthwhile piece in its first reading frame (the straightforward reading on the blog post). The first level of the post provided information, and it was of such complexity that I would argue the very existence of the post proves that there was an intelligence guiding the writing of the post. It was not randomly put together.

Suppose, however, that someone wished to argue that there must have been a naturalistic explanation for that surface level reading. If we stipulate that the rules of grammar must be followed, then we could say that words were randomly put together via mutations of the alphabet. Those words that most closely matched the grammatical rules in place were selected for. Over time, the post would have been written by purely naturalistic, non-intelligent processes. This is, in other words, the way that Darwinists claim DNA and RNA came about.

Even if we grant all this to the Darwinist (a huge concession, mind you, but let’s not worry about it right now), we are immediately confronted with the fact that reading the first letter of each sentences backwards provides information too. Thus, not only must there have been a rule in place governing the straightforward meaning of the text, but there must have been a Darwinian selection process governing information from the first letter of each sentence. Furthermore, there must have been another one governing how to read the last letter of each sentence too.

It should be obvious to everyone that this is too complicated to be explained by naturalistic, non-intelligent, random mutations. Yet this textual analogy occurs in the very viruses with RNA sequencing.

When it comes to information theory, typically the shorter something is the less information is contained. Thus, a book that has only 10,000 words contains less information than a book that contains 20,000 words. And DNA that is 5 million bases long has less information than DNA that has three billion bases.

This, however, does not take into account intentional compression of information. My previous post was 893 words long. Yet it provided information not only in those 893 words, but in two hidden messages that added another 25 words. In other words, another text that is 910 words long but that does not have these hidden messages contains less information than my 893 word long post did despite it being longer.

But the increase in the complexity is seen not just in the message itself. In order to glean the extra hidden messages one must know how to read it. Therefore, one must know three separate methods of reading to gain all 918 words of information in that post. This means it is not sufficient to know the basic rules of grammar: you must know what to look for and where to find it in what order for the hidden messages too.

The same thing is true for RNA that is used by viruses. If the virus must have three separate frameworks in order to reproduce, the RNA sequence can be much shorter—yet it hides such complexity that it is astronomically more intricate than a similar string of RNA nucleotides. Since it must be read in three frameworks, the code must be able to function not simply in a straightforward manner but in two completely different ways too. Furthermore, the cell that the virus uses to reproduce must somehow be able to decode this complexity and reproduce the virus.

While it was fairly simple for me to come up with a hidden code for my previous post, it is somewhat more difficult to come up with three-letter codons that will encode amino acids in multiple ways. Indeed, it would be analogous to condensing the alphabet into 20 characters (this can be done by discarding certain letters, like X (which can be represented as a “ks”) and C (either a “k” or an “s” depending on the sound you need). The 20 characters would represent the 20 amino acids. Using four bases (ACTG) you would need to construct an alphabet of 64 variations, where for instance AAA = A, AAC = B, AAT = D, AAG = E, ACA = F, etc. When that is done, you will find it easy enough to write a straightforward coded text with English rules, but it is vastly more difficult to write a text that is correct English both in the first and second reading frame, let alone adding on the third reading frame.

In short, as close as we can come to simulating the way RNA works for certain viruses we have a tremendous difficulty grasping how this can all fit together. Yet viruses are supposedly the simplest life-forms. And we haven’t even begun to deal with issues such as the exons and introns.

The existence of such viruses, and the methods by which information is conveyed via nucleotides, provides strong evidence for Intelligent Design simply because of the vast complexities hidden within even the simplest looking strands.

Information Theory (More To Follow Later)

Ever so often, I like to look at aspects of Darwinian theory that are overlooked, as a kind of vox populi. Right now that takes the form of studying various types of Information Theories. Examining information is important due to the fact that mutations occur within DNA. How DNA (and RNA) conveys information coded within its strands to build proteins and such, therefore, is necessary for a complete understanding of what Darwinians attempt to show. Hence my current examination of it.

The first thing I would like to examine is not obvious, however. Rather, it is a reproduction of a technique employed by some viruses coded via RNA. As with DNA, RNA is formed with amino acid bases that form three-letter “codons” that are then used to form the various viruses, such as HIV. Each three-letter codon, however, can be read more than one way depending on where one starts, which we will designate by the Roman numerals I, II, and III. Essentially, the first version will be the I, the second will be II, and the third III, as should be obvious.

Here it might help to see some examples. The RNA sequence might start with ACUGUGCAA, each of these letters referring to a specific nucleotide. (RNA uses Uracil (U) instead of Thymine (T) in the DNA codon.) Every codon has three nucleotides to code its amino acid compliment. Variations in the above sequence will depend on the starting point that you choose. One might be “ACU” (I) or “CUG” (II) or “UGU” (III) depending on if you start with the first, second, or third nucleotide in the RNA register. Several variations are therefore possible, each coding its own different type of amino acid, depending on where you begin each step. Many codons, it should be pointed out, actually form the same amino acid since three-letter codons give us 64 possibilities and there are only 20 amino acids that can be coded for.

Anyway, with the ability to code different amino acids it is possible to read the same RNA strand in two (or three) different manners, depending on if you start with I or with III. Obviously, if one can convey coherent information with fewer acid bases, more information can be put into single RNA strands. RNA that can be coherently read in various ways would take up fewer resources and thus should be selected for under the Darwinian scheme.

Or that is what we are told Natural Selection should be doing. However, this begs a crucial question too. When a single RNA strand conveys multiple information from various starting points the information value of the strand changes from a strand of equal length due to the fact that there is overlapped information in both the I and the II strands, not to mention the III. Even if we argued that RNA could come about naturally, we are still left with explaining how various strands can all be coherent simultaneously since a codon that can be read in alternate ways conveys more information that a singularly read codon. Moreover, it is rather simple to see that reading something in various ways is not itself as straightforward a task as that! One must know that the alternate strands are important too, since simply encoding the information is not enough. Not being able to decode it provides an insurmountable problem here.

Gathering it all together, then, we see that multiple coding RNA strands actually convey more information than three strands of the same RNA put together in sequences. Even though the multiple coding RNA strand is shorter, it is more complex and, as a result, the information value of that strand is more thorough. Herein lies a problem for the Darwinian theorizer. That multiple coding RNA exists in nature is true. Functionally, however, it becomes an insurmountable barrier to explain, outside of accepting ID. Once RNA is found to contain “hidden” meaning by reading it in alternate frames, and indeed since there are viruses that require this for their existence, it is overwhelmingly difficult to contemplate the amount of information condensed within the strand.

Even the simplest multi-coded strand hides complexity inside. Longer strands are subject to complexity that is just that much greater. Indeed, the complexity is enough to force Darwinism to succumb. Most Darwinists, of course, will not agree, and I do not expect them to. So instead I offer this very post, which not only gives an argument but an example too, demonstrating the complexity to the max. Eventually I will explain how this works, although for the time being I shall remain numb.

However, some may venture a guess already. That is your prerogative, and all I will say is: seek! Three different frames exist to this post’s “RNA.” Simply find them and you’ll see the nature of the complexity. Until this is seen in person, it’s obviously more difficult to comprehend it all.

RNA can be read in different frames, meaning there is more information than you’d recognize at first glance, and it’s no different in DNA. This hides complexity which requires some explanations. Those explanations are difficult to find if your philosophy is Naturalistic. Nevertheless, the conclusion that ID is sound may not be acceptable to you.

One, however, should embrace the truth rather than remaining dumb. Darwinism cannot explain complexity found in the alternate reading frame.

Baldness Is a Blessing!

HT: Justin Taylor

...For James White, "Dusman," the Dawgs @ Fide-O, and, well, for so many others I know (myself included - I've not had a good head of hair for a least a decade).

Carl Trueman writes:

Yet baldness is nonetheless a great gift from the Lord, in that it imposes a certain dignity on the ageing process by cutting off the various less dignified options (e.g., ponytails, which shouldn’t be sported by anyone over 30; and mullets which, frankly, should not be sported by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Period.). Of course, there are those, even Christians, who fight against this divinely-imposed dignity. Dreadful toupees abound in the church, along with frightful transplants, and the ubiquitous 'comb-over' or 'sweep.' The latter seems predicated on the false notion that, if you have six hairs to stretch across the barren landscape of your otherwise shiny pate, nobody will notice that you have gone completely bald. Or perhaps there is a belief somewhere that, in the country of the bald, the one-haired man is king. Come on, gents, parade your baldness with pride and accept the dignity which your divinely-imposed hair loss brings with it.