Friday, February 15, 2008

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.



    All your base are belong to us, Pike.

  2. although for the time being I shall remain numb.
    I think "dumb" would be more accurate , in both of its senses, unless of course you are referring to your skull.
    All you're doing is waving your arms and claiming it's too difficult for *you* to see how it came about through undirected processes.