A New Theory of Evolution

I invite you to consider…

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

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:


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.

Evolution Through the Lens of Information Theory: Random Mutations and Noise
More Videos Here

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.


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!

A New Theory of Evolution: Cellular Genetic Engineering

Some errors: Shapiro’s work was with bacteria, not protozoa. Splicing a single protein under starvation stress increased the mutation rates at least 100,000-fold. Dr. Shapiro was not able to determine how many incorrect evolution mutation attempts were made vs. successful mutations.

The 100,000 breaks come in ciliated protozoa as demonstrated by David Prescott, Laura Landweber, Martin Gorovsky and many others. These edits are highly non-random and RNA-guided, but in this case, there was no change in adaptations. These genome acrobatics go on at each episode of starvation and sexual reproduction. They convert the germline nucleus into a restructured simplified somatic nucleus.
More Videos Here

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.

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

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???


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

courtesy winhistory.de

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?


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”

Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

419 Responses

  1. Noel says:

    Hi Perry.

    I am disturbed by your structure of presenting your argument. It’s VERY convincing to those who do not view it objectively. I’ve read your previous posts and I have to say you seem to argue from a certain point of view(of course) but fail to consider other possible reasons. For instance, you pointed out that there are (only) 5 possible explanations to the origin of DNA coding. Then you proceed to self eliminate the first few reasons and stated that the “unknown physical law” is not plausible for we have not a single prove (yet) to demonstrate our observation. I do not think that you CAN do that for this is clearly non-objective. Like, before Einstein, time was thought to be like an infinite traveling arrow; it doesn’t stop, slow, etc… It keeps moving. Would you have said then, that time MUST be as described because we have not seen or observed it behaving differently. Then Mr Einstein came and that arrow thingy was toppled. Before that no one would have imagined such a theory. If I was living back then, using your structure of argument, I could have said something like we cannot travel back in time, we keep ageing and therefore, since there’s no better explanation, time must be as described like Newton : like an arrow in a straight line moving linearly etc..
    See what I’m trying to say? You can’t just disprove anything in favor of your belief. Since we are subjected to infinite unknown possibilities in the future, maybe there’s one observation which shows the existence of naturally occurring codes? This is not a personal attack, but why must it be the 5th explanation, and not an Z-explanation (Z is used for a still unknown explanation) However, I’m not trying to discredit the 5th explanation; I’m just opened to more possibilities.

    Also, in your blog, you used the iconic figure of science – Einstein. This is perhaps to suggest that all of science = Einstein and if Einstein was wrong in a certain way, then science must have been Einstein. In a way then, the not-so-alert ones will somehow get the impression of “Oh, that’s Einstein and our friend Mr. Marshall has highlighted something…………….” Well, as we know, Einstein made many mistakes in his entirely career in theoretical physics.

    And in one of your posts (sorry, I haven’t the time to quote and present my response properly), you said that because all begun with the Big Bang, some superintelligent, benevolent “consciousness” must have initiated it. Isn’t this a little too extreme conclusion? Why must it be a Creator that detonates the Big Bang and not some other possible Z-thing. And there are several theories that suggest events prior to the Big Bang. It could have been the “circular, rotating” universe theory, where the universe repeats itself with the Big Bang as one of its events, with time repeating itself etc. And if you hold strongly the the theological viewpoint, how then, does God exist before “everything” as you put it. If Big Bang was the initial event, then what was God before that ? Was God all around before that? Then what created God? To create something you need another conscious “Creator” .. does this then mean a SuperCreator must be present before that and so forth?

    The random variation argument. Your new theory is great in a way. Who am I to discredit or deny your theory? But I have to say that that doesn’t necessarily make Darwin half wrong or wrong in anyway. Because we could not come out with a better variation of the Fox-sentence it doesn’t mean anything. After all, the English language in invented by a conscious mind. If we substitute that sentence with a binary code like 1011, then a corrupt instruction such as 1101 might not NECESSARILY mean HARM to the system. If 1011 means Clear all viruses in the system.. with a corrupt instruction like 1011 which means Clear all viruses and spywares in the system might deal a greater good to the computer.Like I’ve said, your use of certain examples is very very convincing. But you cannot generalize from a particular example which is a basic flaw in structuring arguments.

    I’m ready to be hammered back but I know you have been decent in your replies. I’m just a passer-by and might not come back to visit this site. Anyway, I apologize if I was a little sarcastic or rude up there. I respect your belief and if you think I’m an atheist, I am not. I’m just objectively voicing out my opinion, free from my faith and science. But in doing so, I might have been subjective without realizing it; I don’t know. Sorry for anything and everything once again 😉

    All the best,

    • Noel, thank you for your thoughtful post. I enjoy getting responses that are respectful and which dig into the real questions at hand.

      Einstein made many mistakes in his career and my article “Einstein’s Big Blunder” highlights one of them. Specifically, it points out that his early materialistic bias that preferred an “eternal” universe caused him to arrive at a wrong conclusion. And the biggest mistake of his career.

      You are welcome to posit that there is an undiscovered law of physics that explains the origin of information. I am actually shocked that more people don’t just take that point of view and say “Since we don’t know, this is where choose to place my bet.” That is at least honest and it also honors the aims of science.

      To attempt any conclusion about any of these questions requires you to take a faith position. The very practice of science and the offering of any hypothesis is an act of faith, especially when we’re operating at the fringes of what is known.

      I think the reason most people don’t take the “unknown law of physics” position is that it forces them to acknowledge that they don’t know. It highlights the uncomfortable role of faith in the search for answers.

      I address the question of “OK so where did God come from” at http://evo2.org/infotheoryqa.htm.

      As to your 1011 example: All communication systems have a context, a code and a set of rules. 1011 may have a very specific meaning in a certain system, or it may not. But the point of all communication theory is: Whatever it is, it is VERY VERY specific. There is no such thing as a communication system where you can just toss in a jumble of 1’s and 0’s and out comes useful stuff.

      Garbage In = Garbage Out.

      Essentially the “random mutation” theory says: “If you have natural selection working for you, you can put Garbage In and you get Excellent Performance Out.”

      Every Quality Control engineer knows this is not true. Simply having a system that rejects bad parts does not in any way assure you of ever producing good parts.

      Even the world’s best spell checker cannot write a letter for you. Doesn’t matter how much time you give it.

      In the “quick brown fox” illustration, am not generalizing from a specific example. I am demonstrating a specific instance of a general principle which is Information Entropy: Noise always destroys a signal. This is not new; Shannon developed this in 1948 and there is nothing in engineering that reverses Information Entropy, except for willful acts of intelligent conscious beings. Intelligence is the only known source of information.

      Information Entropy says that if you take ANY information system and randomly mutate the data, it’s going to be just as unsuccessful as my Quick Brown Fox illustration. Doesn’t matter whether it’s English, HTML, Cassette Tapes, Chinese, DVD players or DNA.

      Respectfully Submitted,


      • Noel says:

        Hi Perry.

        I must say I respect you very much. You always debate with loud,hard facts. As compared to my friends (I do not live in the US by the way), you are very scientific, logical and present your argument in a very structured manner. You do not go “it’s because God made it that way” or “God has reasons for it” which I feel is very, very good. You tackle a problem beautifully. I have to admit that I am not well-versed with the various theories forwarded (Information Theory, Communication Theory, etc) and am truly amazed by your scientific viewpoint.

        I’ve read your John Grisham analogy. So we let his novel be space and time. His characters are inhabitants and his laws are physical laws. Then John Grisham is the Creator. So that illustrates the who-invented-God problem.

        But then, John Grisham was delivered by his parents and his parents came from their grandparents. So John’s dad for instance, too, live outside his novel. And his grandparents, too. And if we trace this using a religious point of view, then the Grishams live in a universe/multiverse started by God, whether 10, 11 or 26 dimensions. This, as you have posted, is like a Grisham novel. Then what about John himself? John wrote it and he exists because of his parents……… So that doesn’t really answer the “Ok, so where did God come from?” problem. It’s like a circular argument.

        Hm. I also took an interest in your gravitational constant, pi and c examples. It’s a little interesting to further a discussion. I’m just asking, not refuting, why is it not a code? If code is a set of instructions, then pi for instance is a code which says : when constructing a circle, its circumference-to-diameter ratio must be 3.142. This could be a property of a geometric circle. Or it could be a law in geometry. But why this number? If we do not use the 10-digit convention, this “number” will also appear in any other numerical systems. It’s a universal code for circles. Or maybe I got the very definition of “code” wrong.

        Anyway, cool site. According to you, atheists are being non-scientific and are in denial when they are stuck. This is something bad. I hope they could be more logical and opened to all sorts of ideas because that’s the core principle of science.

        But probably the main reason why I prefer the middle path in my spiritual belief is because I find certain principles in certain religions not worth following. It’s innate, isn’t it, to choose what’s best for him after viewing many different ideas.

        Looking forward to meet great people like you in the future.


        • Noel,

          There is always a chicken-and-egg problem with these questions because everyone intuitively knows, an infinite series of parents or causes is not reasonable. Somewhere we have to have a first chicken or a first egg. Philosophers almost universally reject any kind of “infinite regress of causes.”

          Somewhere there HAS to be an uncaused cause.

          I will elaborate on this in future posts but here’s the simple version:

          -Matter, energy, space and time all come into existence at the time of the big bang.

          -This had to have been caused by something. The cause is by definition outside of space and time.

          -In cosmology there is the inevitable question of: How did the universe come to be so fine-tuned? How could the expansion rate of the big bang be tuned to 200 decimal places of precision? (Non-religious scientific papers talk about this, i.e. “Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant.”

          -The cause can’t be a prior infinite series of “bouncing universes” because entropy does not allow for that

          -Why do laws of physics exist? Where did they come from?

          -Why is there anything instead of nothing at all?

          Again we have a requirement for an uncaused cause.

          Then we come to DNA. With DNA we have the introduction of information to the universe. Prior to DNA, so far as we know, there was no coded information in the universe. So now we have the genetic code, which is arbitrary not fixed; and a very clear set of deliberate choices which have been made: a 4 letter alphabet, a coding system based on sets of 3 codons, etc.

          In pure physics we have laws which are ALWAYS obeyed. In information systems we have rules which can be corrupted or not followed.

          -Eventually we arrive at the Uncaused Cause also being intelligent and intentional, because the information in DNA cannot be explained by the purely material universe.

          As for constants like Pi or any other physical or mathematical construct: These things are not codes in the way that DNA is a code. Pi and numbering systems and the periodic table are human constructs, they are systems we use to think about the universe. They are coding systems that we devise so we can talk and think about the things we see around us.

          However DNA is a coding system within itself and the existence of DNA’s coding system is NOT dependent on our observation of it. Ribosomes decode mRNA whether we label their activity or not.

          I’m glad you’ve decided to come and spend time on the site.

          Perry Marshall

          • Jon says:

            “Why is there anything instead of nothing?”

            As Hawking said, “The universe just is.”

            FYI…It is illogical for there to be an uncaused cause.

            • If the universe just “is”, then how is the universe not an uncaused cause?

              • Jon says:

                Because it always been and always will be. It has no cause and by that reasoning, no meaning. The meaning of life is there is no meaning. So it’s up to us to find that meaning.

                Even if there is no other life in the Universe, we have never been alone. We have always had each other.

                Pretty sappy for an Atheist, I know!

                • What am I to make of your meaningful statement that there is no meaning?

                  • Jon says:

                    Have you ever seen the film “Kung Fu Panda”? Great and funny movie, with a great message. In case you haven’t, the main character, Po, finally gets to read the famous sacred scroll and it’s blank. The only thing he can see in the scroll is a reflection of himself. After his father tells him that there is no secret ingredient in his famous noodles, he understands that there is “no secret ingredient” to the scroll or to Kung Fu, or to Life. That the secret is there is no secret. You just have to believe in yourself.

                    It’s what I called the “Burden of Purpose”. Many people believe in God or a god as way to find purpose in your life. They will say “God has a plan and I just have to life my life”. That is fine and that is one way to live your life.

                    But if the Universe is infinite and life comes and goes, then it is only up to us to find that meaning in our lives. For many, that is too much to handle. I find it liberating because it means we can really do anything, as long as we believe in ourselves.

                    The secret is there is no secret. The meaning is there is no meaning.

                    • Jon,

                      When you say “there is no meaning”, is that a meaningful statement, or not?


                    • Santhosh says:

                      when he says there is no meaning he means it.
                      when some one sees this meaningful they will understand the it as there is meaning.
                      when some one sees this not meaningful they will understand it as there is no meaning.
                      It is dependent on the person who sees it.

                  • Venugopal says:

                    Dear Perry Marshall,
                    The Hindus believe that the whole Universe is Gods play – like children playing games to while away time God is creating the Universe. Hence the Universe as such have no purpose. A human being can adopt some purpose in life – for eg. I will get good education and get a good carrier. It may or may not work out.
                    As I have written earlier, using science to prove the existence or non-existence of God is not a wise thing. Man is a creation of God, directly or indirectly. And God is beyond man’s science and logic and mathematics. Because of our inflated egos we fail to realise this truth, that God is beyond our comprehension. A tea spoon is a creation of man’s ingenuity. But a tea spoon can never be used to measure the volume of water in the ocean, completely !!
                    Much of your writing takes the posture that the Big Bang theory is true. Suppose in ten years it is proved wrong and that the world existed always – the steady state theory. What will you do then ? Abandon your present arguments and adopt that the steady state universe proves the existence of God.
                    With love and regards

                    • VG,

                      I am quite prepared to abandon the big bang theory if evidence for a steady state theory is solidified. The Big Bang appears to have strong support, though, and a steady state universe violates the law of entropy.

                    • Johannes says:

                      Dear Venugopal,
                      as a newcomer to this site I enjoy the existence of akin souls of mine, like Perry Marshall and/or you are. The enigmas of origins of life, darwinism (or better developmental biology) etc.are questions interesting me as both a retired research worker in medical microbiology and the sincerely believing Christian, too.
                      I agree with both of you. I feel that Perry is right with his information theory and, on the other hand, your remark that any science can’t prove the existence of God is correct. As rather informed biologist I can’t believe that living creatures have stemmed at random by chance, but I fear that such a disbelief is not able to prove anything.
                      Friendly yours

                    • pramodkaimal says:

                      SAT CHIT ANANDA = ISNESS (AWARENESS/Existence) KNOWLEDGE (Intelligence) BLISS

                      SO the existence on DNA just proves EXISTENCE and EXISTENCE OF INTELLIGENCE)

                      a smaall tiny attempt , say E = energy SHAKTI
                      E=mc2 (C squared), energy condensed is electrons protons… (plasma) condensed is atoms.. combined = molecules..combined = matter. There is an awareness of all this.. for the PURE BLISS of it all Do correct me if and where i a wrong

                    • alija says:

                      Hi Perry,
                      I sent you last few days links about Dr Hamer Theory which could help you very much in understanding many questions you are fighting here.
                      I like your spirit and the way you use the information trying to fight the orthodox, rotten, so limited scientific view of the world, life, god, everything.

                      Applying Dr Hamer’s discovery it will be much easier to prove many things you are trying to prove here. Please spend few hour, no half an hour and you will understand everything. It is so logic.
                      Unfortunately, the best sites are in German because very few people dare to write about this stuff in spite 30 medical institutions, universities confirmed his theory. But, the truth you can not erase. The whole underground system of doctors, all kind of medical people, professors, engineers and others are working secretly on spreading this truth.
                      best regards

              • Peebo-T says:

                Be[i]cause[/i] (Ha-ha) I believe the best we can say is that “We currently do not know what happened ‘X’ amount of time before…”

                While the ‘Big bang’ is currentl;y the best idea/theory/model for what happened so far back in the past… there’s still a point ‘beyond’ whihc we can not look farther ‘back’.

                Hence why the Gravity wave detector is such an achievement. We may push that view back a little more as we learn to use said new device.

                But, really, we haven’t yet actually gotten ‘To’ the beginning of everything. Just very close.

                • Please use your full name.

                  • Perry, please consider not asking people to use their full names. I’m pretty certain some of the people commenting are pastors who could lose their positions if it was known they were entertaining theistic evolution.

                    • You can pick a pseudonym and stick with it if you want. I can’t prevent anyone from doing that. But I do find that forcing people to use their real identity improves the signal to noise ratio by about 200%. If you don’t let anonymous cowards (=a great many atheists) show up and insult people, you get a much better conversation.

          • kincadeda says:

            Hi all,

            I’m a new poster with a few comments:

            1.) All theories are incomplete and constantly updated and evolution is in the middle of being updated by many sides.
            2.) There are “neo Lamarckians” crawling out from the woodwork at every major university.
            3.) Most evolutionary biologists have a “problem” with “random mutation” and “random evolution”… it’s the biggest flaw in the current “synthesis”… so???

            Now some comments on “GOD”….

            1.) We have no definition of “god” so how can anyone say the non-randomness observed is “god”. What does that mean?
            2.) Mystics world wide have described which could currently by compared to “holographic world”… in fact acupuncture is based on it. This goes back thousands of years and encompasses many “traditions”. Some called it “God”, others didn’t.
            3.) On the issue of God as discussed here vis a vis the bible: There is all this knowledge here about “information” and the way it works… well, it’s CLEAR that words written down in a book (the bible) are linear and can’t possibly display “the truth”, or anywhere near an ultimate truth let us say. So what is the big deal with admitting the bible can’t possibly contain a very high level of truth??? No linear system can, right?

            If this is dipusted, then one must tell us what he means when he says the bible is “the word of God”… starting with “what is god” from above.


        • Jon says:

          Noel, you’re are getting the wrong information from this site. I am sorry to say that but it’s true. If anything, Atheists are the most Scientific people in the world. It’s the non-science from this source (in a nice looking website with a killer name) that is leading you wrong.

        • Adi Styer says:

          Thanks Perry, I’m really enjoying your point of view and I agree with your way of thinking. OK I’m not clever enough for all this stuff, but I disagree with this statement you made “Matter, energy, space and time all come into existence at the time of the big bang”. Actually, it didn’t come in to existence until we began to think about it

      • cliff says:


        This is whay I have been saying for a long time…God created the process of evolution.

        I did not realize that there was a new theory of evolution, but it makes even more sense than Darwin’s original one.

        The Creationism/Intelligent Design ideas and those that the earth is 6000 years old, etc. is all crap, promulgated by religions trying to control their subjects. The people that reject science are all wrong.

        When science has advanced enough, it will be obvious to all that God created our universe.


      • Christopher says:


        It’s your website and you can disseminate pseudo-science and misinformation if you want – the unfettered freedom of speech is what they call it, I guess. It’d be nice, though, if you’d learn some science with an open mind instead of filtering out only what defends your religious dogma. If you’d approach learning about the natural world objectively rather than with a worldview skewed by a desperate emotional need to hang onto ancient myths from Mesopotamia and the Levant, it would greatly facilitate your ability to understand it.

        And please, please stop using the word “dogma” to characterize an argument in science supported by evidence. Dogmas do not require evidence. They only require faith. And your mutation analogy is child’s play against the complexity found in genes and DNA (see below).

        What I don’t understand is why you think that Barbara McClintock’s work is somehow at odds with mainstream science’s understanding of biology, evolution, genetics, etc. Unfortunately for you, your position depends upon this fabricated conflict dreamt up by you and/or your ilk. If the conflict is not there – which it most certainly isn’t – then your argument falls apart. (By the way, don’t select random quotes by McClintock, which seem to support your position; look at what her research has proven about DNA and genes.)

        You write:
        “In 5 years of debating this online I have yet to be presented with a single scientific paper that demonstrates that random mutations produce helpful new features to the phenotype. Always asserted, never proven.”

        Is this an April fool’s joke? In the Dover trial, Judge Jones used the words “breathtaking inanity” to describe ID’s position on this, which is similar to the one you hold. Random mutations ARE mostly detrimental. Those that aren’t provide the raw materials by which evolution creates new forms in biology. It’s not a difficult concept. Read just a tiny select few of the vast multitude of sources providing evidence for random mutation:

        Francis and Hansche, 1972:
        The ability of bacteria to digest nylon (a substance created by humans)

        Hall, 1981; Hall and Zuzel, 1980:
        The ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose

        Boraas, 1983; Boraas et al., 1998:
        Evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga

        Lin and Wu, 1984:
        Modification of E.coli’s fucose (a hexose deoxy sugar) pathway to metabolize propanediol.

        Hartley, 1984:
        Evolution of Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars

        Lang et al., 2000
        The evolution of novel proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway

        For more information on this, see also:
        http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.html .

        The links to talkorigins.org pretty much wipe out the pseudo-science, ID and creationist viewpoints on the subject of random mutations. This site also shows why your analogy for random mutation is flawed. The fatal flaw of your “Quick Brown Fox” analogy is that there is no NON-RANDOM selection of the random mutations. I don’t need to repeat all the rest of it here. I will let you and your inquiring readers look at it themselves.

        Regarding your stubbornness about random mutation, you sound like Behe when he was presented with loads of evidence for evolution of the blood-clotting cascade in the Dover trial. With a stiff upper lip, he simply said it wasn’t enough to satisfy him. If that’s your tack, then there’s no debate.

        By the way, put the $10,000 you offered to Bob Allen in escrow, first, and then get an acknowledged expert in the field in question to make the judgment. The only way you can win such a silly challenge in a debate is if you are the judge, and like Behe, you refuse any evidence supporting the opposite position. Where is there any evidence that DNA is designed? This requires a designer, which is much more difficult to explain/prove than the existence of DNA itself. Scriptures and your emotional need for them are not evidence!

        Anyway, as I said, if you’re unwilling to hear arguments from the other side, then there is no debate. It is merely one side talking and the other side ignoring what’s being said. If you’re willing to really debate what’s being discussed here, then you must question everything you hold dear (to paraphrase Descartes). Weigh the evidence in question against your position before you deny that the evidence has the power to disprove it! Maybe you should consider taking evening classes in biology at your local university.

        One last point: To have your own theory, from the standpoint of science and not popular discourse, it needs to explain ALL the evidence. Therefore, for you (and your colleagues) to say that you have a new theory is patently false.

        Yours in the quest for truth,

        • Christopher,

          This issue at stake here is more subtle than you might realize.

          Yes, mutations produced evolution in these experiments. No argument there. But show me where in these papers the authors clearly demonstrate that the evolution in question was produced by truly random mutation and not transposition, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, gene reorganization or genome doubling.

          • nuke7 says:

            Really? dear Perry, really this is what you answer?! really?! come on…
            what if the mentioned “non-random” changes are in fact random changes, named only by humans to understand them and be able to talk about them..?
            You really do not see any possibility that you can be wrong..? Because this is why you loose your “credibility”.
            If you do not doubt your self, you are not doing science, rather just giving out “dogma”-s.
            i have to agree 99% with Christopher… Doubt everything you know – Descartes
            I hope you reconsider, otherwise you are just as blind as any religious fanatic, believing in only what you think is right – in this case, your own theory.
            all the best,

            • Your incredulity is not my problem. Your objections to people naming and classifying changes systematically is not my problem; it is at the heart of what science is and does. If you have evidence to present, then present it.

          • alija says:

            Dear Perry,
            If I remember well, you mentioned some time back the Kurt Goedel’s Theorem which 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”. We, humanity, we live in one of such circles.”
            It is good not to forget this theorem. We will never know more than explicable from our circle, and we will never have something outside our circle. In other words we will only know as much as our programmer is allowing us.
            We are nice programs and that is all.
            I hope you do not believe in a free will.
            However, I like many of your points of view and it would be great to have a real, open dialogue here. I believe you have no need for any kind of conclusions here, you do not expect consensus about this stuff.

        • kincadeda says:

          Hi Christopher,

          I’d like to jump in on Transposons:

          What the work showed (well, allowed extrapolation that is now showing) is that our DNA is updated constantly. The organism can “cut and paste” sequences of it’s geneome.

          I’ll add that the idea the mutations aren’t “random” is really nothing new, jabillions of scientists and biologiest have suspected such for a long time (see “neo-lamarckians”), indeed “random mutation” is just an idea, and almost every biologist knows this is a MAJOR problem in evolutionary theory… this isn’t anything new. Further, every biologist now knows that the movement in the cell and of course life in general is NOT random, check this out from Harvard:


          Of course the ramifications of all this are very interesting, and well worth discussing. BUT, the discussions of evolution do not need to be lost in the “origin of life” argument which is where ID proponants always seem to want to jump to.


      • karri says:

        In synchronicity one touches the very truth of existence itself – ‘that the universe is a mere reflection of the mind within, as the mind is and its thoughts, so the universe around forms in tandem’. The ancients had wisely stated this in two potent words as “Aham Brahmasvi”.

        In synchronicity one realizes the fluidity of reality itself and how it is directly dependent on the mind. To reach this state of synchronicity and experience this basic truth about ourselves and the universe around us, one has to be in the here and now. And to be in the here and now, one should be free of any regret or remorse, which develops guilt and thus binds us to the past and similarly be free from any desires or aspirations, which keep us focussed in the future.

        Truth is vital for synchronicity because any form of dishonesty breeds in us guilt since our conscience knows the truth. And only with a crystal clear conscience one can undertake this spiritual voyage. In spirituality, we are dealing with reality as an illusion or lie and we cannot proceed having a lie about this lie to destroy this lie.

        When the mind is unbridled by fears of the future and doubts arising from the knowledge of the past only then can it exist without anxieties in the present. And only in the here and now are we the true architects of our destinies. This is the true rapport of the statement “do your karma, do not bother about the fruits” in the Bhagavad Gita by Lord Krishna.

        Because bothering about the fruit takes us to the future and automatically apprehensions of the fruit set in. In the process, it undermines our own efforts. This is the reason all philosophies scream at us to liberate ourselves from the past and the future and be in the present because that’s where life is, in the here & now. That’s why the adage, ‘past is history and the future a mystery’.

        Cancel reflections by identified present thought with the sensory perceptions around you. Happens automatically in synchronicity and releases a small bubble of mania which if handled wisely will lead to your universal self.

        At the same time continuously engage in retrospection with a non-judgmental mind will leads one to the belief that all is but my own mental projection since you can see the karmic effects. Thus due to first hand experience, denial is uprooted leading to acceptance and and thus eliminate the associated past karma totally and release a bubble of honesty or truth. You can simply LET GO since every thing happens for the best resolution. Thus empty the cup by not creating more ripples while associating with past karma but just witnessing it to clean the karma generated and also eliminate a samskara or impression.

        It is same as witnessing the body sensations to clean sanskaras in Vipasana since just as the external world is a mere reflection of my EGO, so is the body a mirror of the mind which is a product of past sanskaras or imprints through feelings associated with some past experiences. It can be just this life’s experiences(psychotherapy), or natal imprints forming the psyche before the baby is born or for those who believe in rebirth it could be from previous lives(past life regression, Nadi).

        It doesn’t matter when in TIME the experiences were coz’ every moment is a resolution of all the previous moments. Thus living in the now becomes the answer. In the now alone one can experience synchronicity when every thought is accounted for by sensory reflections in the world. These reflections can be believed to cancel the thought and slowly one starts experiencing how much the outside world echoes our inner mind and vice-versa. And this Truth sets one free. Belief in the above is a natural outcome. Once belief has set in with direct experience, it is only a matter of NoN-time before your true self manifests itself while in the body.


      • Dave says:

        What if certain mutations get past the spell checker. Like “in” instead of “it”. And we’re talking about a whole book, not a sentence. Eventually over millions or billions of edits one of these minor one off mistakes (or a group of them) could have a real impact on the meaning. Or we could learn to prefer the new meanings of these randomly disrupted sentences and chose to keep them and ditch the old book altogether. Too abstract?

        How about language. Enough people copy one persons mispronounciation it will eventually take over from the ‘old way of saying it’

        • Human language always involves the intentionality of people, so that example would support the Post Modern Synthesis, and act as evidence against the old Neo Darwinian Synthesis.

          Can you show me an any example of this actually working? Like in software or genetic algorithms for example?

          Also, please use your full name.

      • Brian Shipley says:

        ” think the reason most people don’t take the “unknown law of physics” position is that it forces them to acknowledge that they don’t know. It highlights the uncomfortable role of faith in the search for answers.”
        Not sure about this.
        It seems to me, that most atheists and Darwinists fervently believe in this style theory. God did not create the universe, it just happened. God did not create life, it was a “happy accident” and so on- Like the old joke showing two scientists looking at achlkboard, covered in scientific notation, where smack in the middle, its written, “Then a miracle occurs” and as one scientist smiles, the other has his chin in hand and is saying, “About this part here”
        Those whose personal philosophy rejects, God, are quite willing to believe in miraculous theories it seems, while calling Theistic believers gullible, brainwashed or outright dumb for theirs.
        I don’t see two cents worth of difference between saying it might be caused by a miraculous law of physics yet undiscovered, or theories like random mutations, as long as it allows them some wiggle room to deny clear, factual, even proven reasoning.
        I have known about ID, but have never delved into the theory or discussion. I think this author has struck gold, and describes it elegantly, and clearly. I don’t see any flaws in it. It fits so cleanly and covers pretty much all the defects of Darwinism.
        I wonder though. Considering Barbara McLintock, will scientists accept this and start approaching it from this angle? Or ignore it because it goes against their personal world view?
        I read a science fiction story once, where a pair of scientists made a brilliant discovery, but when they published, they wrote it up in a humorous way, and the scientific community was affronted, and ignored it. Not too long afterward, some obscure Russians produced a terrific breakthrough, based on their research, and became world famous. They could not understand how they had beaten anyone to it, as it was public knowledge.
        I have seen how a certain type will ferociously defend their beliefs, which are based more on personal philosophy, rather than science, although they WILL claim science.
        There are however, plenty of others, hopefully, who will not hesitate to pursue this. If, as is indicated, DNA code is very similar to spoken language, we have strong, useful tools to use here, and the possibilities are amazing/

      • mikebay says:

        Perry Marshall, I am new to this blog. To make a comment do I write in one of these REPLY boxes? I did not see a COMMENT input line. I also just signed up for Twitter. Do I write you via Twitter? Mike Bay, Silverdale, WA [email protected]

      • Mevashir says:


        Have you ever considered this question?

        Bacteria are probably the most ubiquitous organisms in the world.

        There are more bacteria in one human being than all life forms on earth together!

        Bacteria are suited to thrive in almost every conceivable environment.

        Given all this: why would bacteria ever “evolve” into a higher life form? What selective advantage would they find higher up the theorized evolutionary ladder?

    • Venugopal says:

      Dr.Perry Marshall’s arguments reminds me of this story. A scientist trained a Cockroach to walk and stop on hearing the command “Start ” and “Stop” from the scientist. Then he pulled out one leg of the cockroach and ordered. “Walk”. Then he wrote in his experimental note book : “Even after loosing one leg, the cockroach is able to obey my order !”. Then he continued to pull out leg after leg of the cockroach and repeat the order, and write the result. After pulling out the fifth leg, the scientist ordered “Walk” but the cockroach didn’t walk. So the scientist wrote : “After pulling out the fifth leg, the cockroach completely lost its ability to hear !!”. Very scientific conclusion.
      PS. Many of the serious illnesses that trouble humanity are carried genetically. If even a little intelligence as defined by Perry Marshall was at work, these illnesses should have been dumped overboard long long ago, by the genes !!

      • Brian Shipley says:

        How do you know they weren’t? How long is recorded history, compared to our actual time?
        When I read that part about adapting and overcoming invasive illness, I also wondered, but came up with my own answers. One, isn’t it possible, even likely, that the bad organism works faster than the defensive ones in our body, and thus, kill us before the body can kill them? Or the organism is simply stronger? And don’t germs, viruses, etc, evolve and change too? Nor do I believe is immunity genetic. Babies must be vaccinated, and develop their own immune system.
        Again, this would indicate a purposeful immune system. Why pass on immunity to an organism that changes and evolves? It becomes useless in a few generations.

    • rbarnes says:

      I am a non-theist and I have watched all of Perry’s videos. This is the same old rhetoric in a new package. I don’t have a lot to say because Noel covered it. I can come up with a fantastical theory and make it all fit to my ideals by the same means. I have read The King James Bible, The Quran, The book of Mormon, the books of the Jehovah Witnesses and more, I have been baptized a Presbyterian and I have studied world history extensively. If the Joseph Smith, John Wesley, Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard and many more can invent religions and have a mass of followers just as the followers of Christ and Mohammed have done what makes them different. If you look through history many cultures have created theological beings for what they did not understand. In conclusion, you can make the non-provable accept it on faith seem like the only viable explanation but I for one believe in science, evolution and the physical evidence they present.

      • Do you have a scientific rebuttal to the evidence presented in my videos? Or just a rant about various religions?

        • rbarnes says:

          Yes I have one rebuttal you are just like those I mentioned and I am not a computer, maybe a cylon but not a computer. I will waste no further time on you. All you want is your 15 minutes and maybe a book deal.

      • Brian Shipley says:

        All you do is mock and dismiss Theism, with no proof, or even scientific arguments. And you claim “fantastical theory” Really now? Any more fantastical than “It just happened, Dude!” which is the non-theist version. According to them, Creation, Life, Consciousness, Morality, Evolution, just happened. A series of absolutely stunning impossibilities. But you call Theist beliefs fantastical? Without blushing? Thats amazing, really. What wont atheists swallow to keep clutching their obsolete theories? All just so they can delude themselves that there is no God.

    • veegee says:

      Human intellect is a tiny puny thingy compared to the immensity and complexity of the Universe. Trying to comprehend God using this tiny thing is like trying to measure the volume of water in an ocean with a tea spoon. If we had some humility, we will be convinced that God is beyond all human logic and science and using this as tools for proving the existence of God is a futile attempt. Some thing like Satan comes dancing where angels fear to tread !!

    • Brian says:

      Noel, I find the idea that you use Einstein to pick apart this theory interesting. Everything that Einstein published about his work is theory. It really can’t be proven right or wrong. The reason it is the law is because it tends to work and explain things. It however can not be definitively proven. For these reasons it is accepted by the world as truth and I am one of the believers. Over the course of history the same was thought of Darwin. This is also why his theory is considered scientifically as fact. It cannot be proven as we still have the missing link. Every theory has holes in it and all of this is theory. Being an IT professional I qouicly understood the connection of noise and random mutation. In my world the noise that corrupts a data file is never a good thing. It never makes a better file. DNA is data just like any program in your computer. Noise makes for a species that is likely born dead. This is why I really got the part of mutation has to be intelligent. DNA knows how to rewrite itself to overcome a problem. For lack of a better description there has to be an intelligent program that sits on top of DNA. That can not happen randomly. Your beliefs have to decide who wrote it.

    • John E Moore III says:

      Perry: I wonder if you might comment on this piece as it seems to confirm what you are saying about design in gene repair.


      On another note, in another string (which I cannot find), you qualified one of your comments by saying that, for all codes for which we know the origins, none of have occurred naturally. Are there codes for which we do not know an origin. What would those look like.

      • John,

        All organisms have redundancy features – many of them, at every level of the system – and apparently the cold virus is no different. It shows the absolute sophistication of the living arms race.

        There are no other kinds of codes that we don’t know the origin of, aside from those that derive from life. So I don’t know what non-life-derived, non-human designed codes would look like.

  2. Jon says:

    I would love to hear YOUR predictions!!!

    You know there is nothing wrong with believing that God used Evolution has his design “program”. That is a personal belief and you are free to do that.

    I know you don’t want to hear this (as I have been said this before) or believe this but there is PROOF that random mutations drive evolution…WE are the result of those mutations. All life is proof of that.

    Now, we very well could a part of some giant computer simulation and everything is part of some cosmic experiment. But, I doubt we are going to find some celestial Bill Gates hiding somewhere in the heavens.

    If God was the “Intelligent Designer” then he picked Evolution as a poor tool. It’s messy, redundant and dirty. Think about how 99.9% of all life on this planet is now extinct. All life today make up that tiny .1% that survived. Why go through all that death and destruction of Earth’s previous residents to get it right? That doesn’t sound like intelligent designing, it sounds like inept designing.

  3. Jon says:

    Oh and your sentence analogies is incomplete. If it was really about random mutations, then it should show those traits that (quite by accident) enhance survival.

    So if you have a few billion instances of this code, copying itself over and over again, sooner or later you are going to get a random mutation. And yes, many mutations are dangerous but there is always that one, the one by chance (yes chance) that causes the organism to survive.

    Now multiply this process a few billion times happening over a few billion years, you can then picture the scope of what we are talking about here. It’s very likely that these prgainisms and their random mutations could evolve into new species, as long as the mutations are beneficial.

  4. PTM says:

    Your are clearly wrong, your understanding of evolution is very limited.

    This is the proper example:
    Start with:

    The quick brown fox jimped over the lazy dog

    and among many other cases random mutations will produce:

    The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

    So we have an obvious improvement.

    “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.

    • Yes PTM, if you start with a mis-spelling “jimped” you have 1 chance in 10^73 of randomly mutating “jimped” to “jumped.”

      With odds like that (generously assuming 1 BILLION mutation attempts per second), the odds are that in 3.5 billion years, random mutation would still never make that fortuitous correction even once.

      Statistically, all the corrections during that time would be destructive not constructive. That’s a mathematical fact.

      I have a challenge for you, PTM:

      Show me a way to get

      “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog”

      to say something substantially different or better, changing one letter at a time, without encountering severe mis-spellings in the interim – which natural selection would of course destroy before the new sentence has a chance to appear.

      As for your disagreement about noise, you’ll need to do better than just saying “False.” A simple retort will not suffice if you wish to participate in this discussion. I expect a qualified scientific answer with facts to back it up.

      Perry Marshall

      [SUBSEQUENT CORRECTION: Please note: I made an error in my calculations in my response to PTM and the corrected math is at http://evo2.org/new-theory-of-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-1157 ]

      • Jon says:

        I still don’t understand how you compare math and statistics with biology and genetics. Math belongs in Physics and not Biology. Just because the odds are so astronomical about life (in reality they are not when compared to the other planets that probably have life) Natural Selection is about beating the odds, so to speak.

        • Jon,

          During the course of our conversations, you have made three very telling statements:

          1) “Math applies to physics, not biology”
          2) “Entropy applies to some things but not the whole universe”
          3) “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem only applies to math problems”

          Yet even while you make these anti-intellectual, anti-scientific statements, you accuse me of being a “man of faith” not a man of “science.”

          The truth is:

          -Math applies to biology just like it applies to everything else
          -Everything in the universe is subject to entropy
          -There is nothing in the realm of human reason that is not subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.

          Math says that natural selection alone cannot beat the odds.
          Entropy says that the universe has finite age
          Gödel says that the universe cannot account for itself

          So I have a question for you:

          IF the evidence points towards some kind of intelligence behind the origin of the universe, are you willing to follow the evidence where it leads?


          • Name says:

            Hi Perry,
            I shall reply here.

            The chicken-and-egg.

            “There is always a chicken-and-egg problem with these questions because everyone intuitively knows, an infinite series of parents or causes is not reasonable. Somewhere we have to have a first chicken or a first egg. Philosophers almost universally reject any kind of “infinite regress of causes.”

            We can’t be certain that there was a FIRST chicken or egg. What most philosophers believe only makes them universally right, but not absolute. Why should we just limit ourselves to There Was A Beginning.

            Sure, the Big Bang and all. That could be just as one of plentiful events in our universe.

            The start? Perhaps there was no start at all. Why? We don’t know yet. Is it true? It’s non-intuitive so we can’t make definite conclusions. Everything around us is perceived and conceived in the human interpretation. Some things are totally non-intuitive, like who could have guessed that for a roller-coaster to perform a complete revolution it has to be launched at 2.5 the radius of the loop without doing the very clever Newtonian mechanics? Or better, the whole colossal quantum theory. It doesn’t make sense to us humans right. What all of us have been doing is just trying to debate our way through using human experience. Trying to argue from what we see, hear or believe in. No, that’s not necessarily the way, especially when trying so hard to actually decode Nature or to “read the mind of God”.

            The idea of an Uncaused Cause is great, of course. It requires an external superintelligence. But Intelligence does not ‘ = ‘ God

            If the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing towards some kind of Intelligence, I would of course believe that our universe is governed by this Intelligence. And this Intelligence can come in many forms : Superphysical Laws? God? “Other THINGS”. I use things because we don’t quite know. But of course, if you think that your evidence is definitely the truth that all of us are seeking, then you have to come up with something much more than that. Remember the roller coaster and quantum theory. And many such ideas. They are not at all intuitive. Yet they are true. We know they are.

            • Brian Shipley says:

              It was gently implied, but I do not remember God being mentioned. Purpose, yes. Intelligence, yes. And, because of his background, knowledge and experience, Perry was able to give a very convincing argument.
              You however, argue as if you were personally offended, if you can call vague, catch-all stuff like “Superphysical Laws” or “Other Things” as an argument. It boils down to, “I don’t know the answer, but you’re wrong” Very good!
              No one can convince another of something they refuse to believe, regardless.

          • veegee says:

            Entropy or degree of disorder increases in all natural processes is the second law of thermodynamics assertion. This is not true. There are circumstances where entropy does not increase in natural processes.
            Beads of doubt
            By Dr. David Whitehouse
            BBC News Online science editor
            One of the most important principles of physics, that disorder, or entropy, always increases, has been shown to be untrue.
            Scientists at the Australian National University (ANU) have carried out an experiment involving lasers and microscopic beads that disobeys the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics, something many scientists had considered impossible.

      • Lumpy says:

        Michael Shermer does a fairly good dissection of this in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things”

        The long and the short of it is that Evolution is not 100% random. If a mutation is beneficial it may(emphasis on may) be passed to descendants. So if you ‘lock’ each correct character in each succeeding random search you arrive at your target sentence very, very rapidly.

        Also, you don’t seem to understand what mutation is. you seem to think it means an offspring with a third eye growing on a stalk in the middle of it’s head. But this is not the case. A mutation may be a simple as a few cells that are sensitive to light. And subsequent generations may improve on this. You can actually see all sorts of stages of evolution in the eye in various animal species.

        • You’ll need to be more specific when you say “Evolution is not 100% random.” If you’re saying mutations aren’t random then what is the source of the change?

          • Eric Houg says:

            I didn’t say Mutation isn’t random, although I am not sure that either you or I are really qualified to make that statement.

            I said that Evolution isn’t random. In Darwin’s original works, he started by observing artificial selectors amongst animal and plant breeders. HE went on from there to record Sexual Selection amongst various species. I.E. The development is dependent upon some characteristic of an animal as to whether or not he gets to breed or not(Typically it is a male). Think bright plumage on birds and bright colors on fish. It is interesting to note that the artificial selection of the breeder almost mimics the sexual selection of the female of the species I have already mentioned. It is a physical trait that causes the female to select a particular male to mate with. If you look at some brightly colored Tropical birds, or even a modern Cardinal or Robin, it is easy to understand how these traits developed. I.E. nothing random about it.

            Now, when you get to natural selection, the same thing applies. If you have a species of wild animals that develops a trait that helps it survive, then it is more likely to reproduce and pass that said trait along to the next generation.

            So, for example, if you are a microscopic organism and you develop the ability to wiggle your metaphorical butt(Sorry if I offend) then you may find that you can move around and find food a lot better than the other paramecium that don’t boogie. So, you are more likely to get the food and thence have lovely paramecium children.

            Again, it is not random. If the microscopic organism comes across a trait that helps it survive, then it is more likely to survive and multiply.

            Perry, before I spend more time on this, I would like you to answer one question for me. Please do not think I am being facetious or conceited and I will be more than happy to provide you with my answer to your version of this question if you prefer. So, here it is: What evidence, if any, would you accept cause you to abandon your theory of Intelligent Design? I.E. What evidence can falsify Intelligent design in your mind.

            • Eric,

              Darwin said that evolution is driven by “random variation” filtered by natural selection. Are you saying that the mutations that drive evolution are random, or are the mutations not random?

              If you had read the material on this website you would already know the answer to your question “What evidence, if any, would you accept cause you to abandon your theory of Intelligent Design? I.E. What evidence can falsify Intelligent design in your mind.”

              My answer is: Show me a code that is not designed. All you need is one.

              • Lumpy says:

                I will post one more time on your web site aside from this one and then I will not bother any more.

                You STILL have not proven that DNA is a code in the same way that ASCII, ROT13 or Binary is. You still have not proven that DNA follows Zipfs law either. You start with and assumption. One that you really cannot prove and then you apply it to an area outside of your expertise. Then you say that if that assumption is wrong (It is by the way but you will never admit it just as all creationists deny evidence opposing their pet theories) you will change your mind. However, it is obvious from your web site that there is absolutely NO evidence that you will accept that will make you change your mind

                How about the rhythmic pulsations of a neutron start? What about the radiating shell of a chambered nautilus? Both are regularly repeating patterns that occur in nature. Are they both codes? No, they are naturally occurring instances of a repetitious pattern caused by natural forces. Exactly the same as DNA. Geneticists not only understand that DNA is not a code but they understand why DNA self assembles the way it does.

                That being said, you are a fundamentalist, creationist who is deeply opposed to the real study of life science on only a dogmatic level. There is nothing that anyone can say or do to make you realize the folly of your arguments. With that in mind, I shall not bother wasting any more of my time on you or your site, aside from the one other comment I shall post.

                Good luck with your endeavors and keep in mind that lying is a sin and God sees through all clever arguments.

              • kincadeda says:



                Darwin didn’t know what a gene was… I think you’re talking about (the prominent?) a version of what is now called “the modern synthesis”.


            • veegee says:

              Big Grrinn !!

      • veegee says:

        From : http://profiles.incredible-people.com/prasanta-chandra-mahalanobis/
        ” Most beds are of standard size. Especially those put in dormitories. The result is that those who are very tall have to learn to sleep curled up or with their feet dangling over the edge. Usually, no one would think of blaming any person for their plight, but at Santiniketan, the university set up by Rabinderanath Tagore, the students were sure who was responsible some of them loosing their sleep. It had to be Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis, the man with an obsession for statistics. It was thought that he must have found the students’ average height and ordered the beds according to the specification.” . .
        Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis was a great Statistician. At one period Statistical methods were used to prove the validity of Psi phenomenon like telepathy etc. Those famous experiments at dukes University by J.B.Rhine etc.
        Mahalanobis proved that the statistical methods used were not valid and the faulty use of statistics created positive results proving Psi. At a simpler level there is no proof that if a coin is tossed a large number of times the distribution of heads or tails will be more or less same. This is actually an assumption made and wrongly used to prove many things in science, including the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in all natural processes the entropy increases, ALWAYS.

    • Woodrow Francia says:

      Random mutation of the given example and produces back to its original state is not an improvement.
      “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” may be mutated on a per letter and may produce garbled information yet doing so denies its purpose why of its design. This chosen example has its design and purpose – that is to use every letter in the alphabet in a way that it can exercise your motors to memorize and hit the right key of your keypad or typewriter using the right finger for each key.
      While the argument that another designer can use a random use of fingers to press the right letter key and still produce the same result, the previous has the motive of order and mechanical adaptability of the brain based on the structure the keyboard was designed in the first place. So we forgot why the “quick fox and lazy dog” sentence was designed then. But we were designed to “mutate” to use Siri or voice activated modes that we don’t use that sentence often anymore other than being an example – but it’s not just blamed in our DNA – just like an expanding universe, we are expanding, our active participation to an unending design of an active, hands-on programmer.

    • Brian says:

      You have obviously been fortunate enough to have never had random “noise” corrupt a file on your computer. Noise is never good – fact. File corruption on a computer has never in the history of computers made a better program. DNA is data. And data is data.

  5. Jon,

    I just deleted your insulting, ad-hominem attack post. You will use manners if you are going to participate in this discussion.


    • Jon says:

      I answered you question honestly and without insult and yet, you deleted it. In no way did I attack you. If anything you insulted me by saying what I was making “anti-intellectual, anti-scientific statements” when you and anyone reading this would see that was not true. I am the one for Science, remember?

      So let me try and answer your question again and see if you delete this post as well.

      The Evidence will NEVER point to an unknowable and unprovable intelligence behind the origins of the Universe. Science can only prove the NATURAL and not the SUPERNATURAL and God would be in the later, since he can’t be proven with Science. If God became a fixture in our reality and provable, then possibly we could prove.

      The only thing it takes to make God real is FAITH, which has no place in Science, with a capital S.

      So let me AGAIN ask you some questions.

      How does Math apply to Biology?

      How does it explain the beauty of a single cell organism or how plants and animals live off each others wastes gases or how a human is born. Where does Math fit in there? Math lives in the realm of Physics, when it comes to Science.

      How do you know that Entropy applies to the entire Universe? Do you have all the information from the Entire Cosmos to be able to make that claim? No.

      I believe you were unfair by deleting my last post.

      • Yes you did attack me. You went into your “Perry you’re a man of faith” / “not a man of science” accusation – even as you dodged scientific questions. When you do that your posts will get deleted.

        Math and statistics apply to everything that can be counted. Babies, fruit flies, genes, chromosomes, base pairs in DNA. Math applies to biology. There is nothing in biology that is exempt from math. Nothing in biology is exempt from the laws of physics.

        That said, I give you credit for putting your finger on an important point: Math cannot quantify things like beauty. It also cannot quantify the MEANING of information, only the QUANTITY of information. Which is a major point of Shannon’s work. You can count bits and kilobytes but you can’t reduce their meaning to a single number or equation. You can’t derive the genetic code from the laws of physics even though that code ALWAYS obeys the laws of physics.

        When I point out that a mis-spelled sentence like “the quick brFwn fox jumps over the lazy dog” has one chance in 10^73 of being corrected by a random mutation, that is a statistical fact. It’s the simplest way I know to demonstrate that the random mutation theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. It would take the whole history of the universe for a Pentium computer to fix that sentence with random mutations just once. And it would have to generate billions of WORSE sentences in the process.

        Nowhere in the biological literature have I ever found a statistical model that shows the random mutation theory of evolution IS possible. I’m still waiting for someone to come along and send me a link to such a paper.

        You come to this discussion with a pre-decided bias that says “The Evidence will NEVER point to an unknowable and unprovable intelligence behind the origins of the Universe.”

        You know what’s ironic?

        Even the statement you just made is unprovable.

        Godel’s incompleteness theorem tells us that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than can be proven.

        You have not studied Godel yet you are trying to argue with me. I recommend Rebecca Goldstein’s book “Incompleteness.” I respectfully ask you, READ Godel’s work before you come here and argue about it. I do not argue topics I have not studied on this forum and I expect my readers to abide by the same principle. If you don’t know, admit you don’t know.

        Somewhere along the line someone told you that faith and science are at odds. That there are people of faith, and people of science. If you understand Godel, you understand: It is impossible to practice science without exercising faith in things that you can’t prove. Godel’s proof of the incompleteness theorem was DEVASTATING to the mathematicians of his day, like Bertrand Russell. He proved that there are some things that you will never be able to prove.

        I don’t believe that you can truly have a coherent philosophy of science until you’ve studied Godel.

        You don’t believe that entropy is universal, yet you are claiming to be “a man of science.” It doesn’t sound like you’ve studied entropy.

        You ask: How do I know that entropy applies across the universe and not just here?

        I don’t. No scientist KNOWS that. It can’t be proven. Scientists can only use induction to infer it. There are no known exceptions so we posit a law.

        Do you remember when we talked about gravity? You criticized me for saying that we cannot PROVE the law of gravity. You told me what I said was absurd and unscientific. “Of course the law of gravity has been proven, Perry! I let go of the pencil and it falls.”

        But Jon, how do YOU know that gravity is the same everywhere in the universe?

        Do you know that?

        You can’t prove it. You can only infer.

        The law of gravity is just as reliable as the law of entropy. If you throw out one, you have no choice but to throw out the other.

        Along with the rest of modern science.

        I believe in gravity because pencils fall when I drop them.

        I believe in entropy because candles burn out after a finite number of hours.

        I believe that these are reliable, consistent observations which do not change over time or space.

        Such a belief is at the core of scientific thought.

        And I believe that by identical processes of reasoning, science can never prove but does 100% infer design in the universe.

        If you argue against entropy, do not try to call yourself an advocate of science on this website. I will call you on it every time.


        • Jon says:

          I have always maintained that we (including and especially me!) can’t know everything about the Cosmos. Human beings are not smart enough to. I admit complete ignorance and can only go with what I have learned from Science, and using my own Reason and Logic as my guides. It does seem though that the more we know, the less we know.

          I am 99.9% sure there isn’t a God anywhere in the Cosmos, as one is not needed if the Universe has simply always been as I believe. Meaning no beginning and no ending so if that was the case, then a creator is not needed (and a “causeless” universe) Yet, no matter how much I know or say I know, I can never be 100% sure there is no intelligent designer to the Universe. However, nowhere in what I just said did I use the word faith.

          So can I ask, are you 100% sure that there IS a God? I know you are 100% sure of your faith but the very meaning of faith is believing in something in the absence of evidence. As a person of faith, can you admit that you don’t know either? I thought that would go against the very idea of being a Christian (I was raised Christian so I know) admitting that you are not sure about God.

          Now I admit that I have not read Godel and only read what Wiki has on him. I think we can both trust Wiki so that was what I was going with. If I was to read Godel, I then suggest you read Carl Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot”. It will better explain where I have been coming from, in terms of Science and Reason. He can it alot better than I ever could!

          Of course I would never argue with something like Entropy. All I have been saying is IF there is no beginning and no ending, and the Universe has existed forever and we live in some tiny corner, then Entropy would not apply, that is all. There is no way to prove that of course but if the Cosmos has existed forever, that question, along with who designed it, is meaningless.

          It is your opinion that the Universe does 100% infer design. As I said before, it would be impossible to prove your theory. But then again, you are only looking at it through the lens of your theory of information. I don’t see design anywhere as of yet. If Science has shown us anything, that there is chaos and destruction and backwards planning (example: why do we have a coat of fur in the womb or why do men have nipples?) that in no way suggests design.

          And I can’t stress this fact enough that of all the life that has ever existed on the Earth, 99.9% of it is extinct. Think about that. There must have been hundreds of millions of different species of organic life that has lived on our world in its 4.5 billion year history, and yet it took the deaths of all those species to get to us and the life around us. How does that suggest Intelligent Design?

          To me that only suggests one thing. There was some luck involved and we should be grateful that we made it this far. Think about how many planets out there that didn’t make it and where no life evolved. That, to me, would also suggest that there isn’t some intelligent designer at work. Why did some worlds fail when others made it?

          In Science, for a new theory to be accepted, it has to be proven with data and supported by evidence duplicated in a lab. You don’t just go and try to disprove one theory and not replace it with another. Because saying that just because mutation seems mathematically impossible suggests design, it doesn’t. That the only way it can happen is with an intelligent designer. That is a belief, not a theory.

          • I am not 100% sure there is a God. To say I am would be ludicrous.

            I will only say I am far beyond all reasonable doubt, for many reasons in addition to the ones you find on this website.

            To believe that the universe has always been is to depart from the vast majority of mainstream science, which maintains the universe and all known space-time is ~13.8 billion years old.

            To believe that the universe has always been is to reject the implications of entropy in favor of what you prefer to have faith in.

            You can tell me that you are practicing science but you are making all kinds of statements of faith. Here’s a list:

            “the Universe has simply always been as I believe.”

            “no beginning and no ending so if that was the case, then a creator is not needed”

            “just because mutation seems mathematically impossible suggests design, it doesn’t.”

            All faith statements.

            When you say that 99.9% of species are extinct (a statistic that I question BTW) and therefore there is no design – or that if there was a designer men would not have nipples – you are making a theological statement about what you personally think a designer would or would not do.

            Oddly enough, that is also a statement of faith.

            The whole point of the “Einstein’s big blunder” article is that Einstein originally believed in a universe with no beginning and no ending and he considered it the biggest mistake of his career. When he dropped the fudge factor and accepted the implications of an expanding universe, the big bang theory came into being.

            You were using your own fudge factor because you didn’t want to believe in God.

            Why cling to atheism if it forces you to reject entropy and Einstein’s discoveries about space-time?


            • Jon says:

              As I have said before, I am not doubting any Science as I am a man of Science. I am well aware that “our” Universe is 13.7 billion years old. All I have been saying is all the data is not in yet because we still don’t know everything. There could be a much larger universe we could never see, then again, maybe there isn’t. But there isn’t anything to think that there isn’t more out there.

              I know of Einstein’s theory and at the time the leading theory was the Steady State theory. That the universe did not have a beginning or an end but now we know that is not true. Our universe had a beginning and we call it the Big Bang (which is strange, it wasn’t big and it didn’t go bang) but then again, there is nothing to say that there wasn’t anything before the big bang. It’s just that our Science has yet to discover this, that’s all.

              Example, there is one thing that can travel faster than light and that’s space itself. The light we measure from the most distant objects that we can detect is around 10 billion light years away. And yet the universe is older than that and surely there are stars that are older than 10 billion, so that would suggest that the Space itself has expanded farther than we can detect. As the light from those objects hasn’t had enough time to reach us. Since the Universe is expanding, we may never get to see these very distant objects.

              As for the 99.9% extinction rate, that is a fact. Granted we don’t know the entire fossil record but we from what we have learned, there are MANY more species that have died than have lived. The extinction of so much life on our planet does not suggest some kind of intelligence.

              And my questions we not of a theological nature (men and nipples and our coat of fur) those are question of nature. I am not wondering why God made those, I am suggesting that these very real attributes of our lives do not suggest design, they suggest nature.

              • Jon,

                I have made a syllogism that indicates design based on codes, as you are well aware.

                Permit me to state yours in the form of a syllogism:

                1. Nipples are useless in men
                2. Designers do not put useless things in things they design
                3. Therefore nipples are not designed.

                Let’s take these in turn:

                1. I’m not going to even bother doing a big Google search on this but I’d wager there’s at least a few people out there who can point out some function that nipples have in men.
                2. Let’s say they’re totally useless for men. They’re still a design efficiency. Because women need them and they arguably don’t consume significant resources for men. Meanwhile the amazing homology between men and women saves lots of space in DNA and human beings as a whole are better off with all of us having nipples than only half of us having nipples. If you buy a Toyota LX that doesn’t have as many features as an EX there are holes drilled in the body that are used by the EX and not the LX. The un-used holes in the LX are indication of design (rather than the opposite), because they serve an OPTIONAL function.
                3. I question that your point 3 logically follows from point 2. There’s an awful lot of subjectivity in this whole thought process.

                I respectfully submit to you that my Code / DNA syllogism is airtight, as stated, and while this one is questionable on every point.


                • Jon says:

                  My “nipple argument” was simply that since men do not use them, and yet have them doesn’t look like design. Let me give you some other examples. What about a man’s prostate gland? The urinary tract runs right through that and as you get older, the prostate tends to swell, causing problems.

                  Or what about the pharynx? Where some digestive and respiratory plumbing connect. How many children end up in emergency rooms because of choking on something? Some children have brain damage and some even die. Those are just a few of the many things we have to deal with in life. How are these things evidence of intelligent design?

                  • The prostate gland stores seminal fluid. It’s necessary for reproduction.

                    Tell me if I understand your logic correctly:

                    1) Some body parts experience problems
                    2) Therefore they cannot be designed
                    3) Therefore they arose randomly

                    Let’s try this:

                    1) Some Toyota vehicles experience problems
                    2) Therefore they cannot be designed
                    3) Therefore they arose randomly

                    The logic doesn’t make sense to me.

                    The fact that the pharynx and the prostate have an identifiable function and purpose is evidence all by itself of design. We cannot discuss the function of rocks the same way that we discuss the function of a heart or lungs.

                    Function = teleology = design.

                    • Shane Vaillancourt says:

                      From my reading, you aren’t understanding Jon’s logic. Jon I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but here I go anyway.

                      This was Jon’s argument from my point of view.

                      1) If life was intelligently designed, it would have been done so by an intelligence so advanced as to be incomprehensible, and with out fault.

                      2) We see evidence of some extremely poor design decisions.

                      3) Therefore, it is unlikely that life was designed.

                      Human parts and car parts break, yes. So the cancer argument is moot. On the other hand, for instance, a human can choke on their food. When is the last time that you heard of a Toyota choking on gas?

                    • Toyotas can easily be flooded by gas.

                      The argument from flaws in nature can be taken to be flaws in the designer.

                      I think the simpler argument is it’s from information entropy.

                  • chel g says:

                    If you think male nipples have no purpose, go have some slightly more experimental sex.

                • Jon says:

                  Oh and don’t forget cancer and the other crippling diseases that humans have to deal with. Intelligent Design?

                • Jon says:

                  Of course the reason why Men have nipples is because early in the gestation process, we are one sex.

            • Jon says:

              Also, when I said if there is no beginning and no ending, then there is no need for a creator. That is not a statement of faith, that is a statement of reason.

              If something has always existed, then it was never created.

              • Dan Z says:

                Just curious… To say that the universe (or the totality of multiverses) always existed without beginning or end; or to say, the universe (or the totality of multiverses) was brought into being by an uncreated creator who is without beginning or end… don’t both of these statements require “faith” to accept and adhere to? Why or why not?

                • Brian Shipley says:

                  The universe is subject to entropy. It is in motion. Collisions and changes occur. It is not an unchanging, eternal, always was kind of thing. Thus, that theory gets discarded.
                  We believe there are aliens out there, somewhere. Possibly far superior to us. What is so big a stretch to believe in a Being like God? A spiritual Being, who lives in a spiritual universe, subject to quite different laws?
                  The Universe has purpose, life is designed. Start out with the truth, follow it to greater truths, instead of rejecting it out of “faith” in an unprovable theory.

              • Woodrow Francia says:

                For once, consider the Bible an earliest works of theorists or a postulist, one who never had gone to a college as Einstien or Hawkings . And it says “In the beginning…” and then proceeded that “new heaven and new earth” will replace the old ones.

                That early postulists are suggesting that they have the theory of “Big Bang” and understands entropy. And they are weilding an idea of Intelligent Designer that understands the Law of Thermodynamics and has the reason and capacity to re-design all things, not from the flaws on the designer but on the purpose and direction of His design. Then why it can’t be part of the discussion. Would you disregard it a resources the way you would disregard einstien after his or incompleteness of Darwin’s or the argument of “Quick Brown Fox” because it cannot pass as expert opinion? After all , its where these discussions developed from outside the drawn circle?

        • Joe Ratliff says:

          “Godel’s incompleteness theorem tells us that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than can be proven.”

          Within an consistent formal system and not just anything you want to apply it to, right Perry? (Like its main application of formal axiomatic theories, for example).

          Misapplications of this theorem are common (there isn’t one actually, there are 2 of them, a first and a second)…


          But I’m sure you knew this stuff already, since you seem to have mastered the application of Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

          (I know I haven’t, and don’t know too many people who have … in fact, most people misinterpret the use of it).

          For more on incompleteness…


      • veegee says:

        The second law of thermodynamics states that in all natural processes entropy increases. Or things get more disorganised or chaotic. A human being is the outcome of a natural process and he is a highly oraganised organism. What happens to entropy here ? Several decades earlier, scientists tried to answer this question by introducing the concept of Negentropy. Sun light carries negentropy to earth and this facilitates the production of all living things that are highly organised. There were always opponents to the second law. Last year a symposium was conducted in the US and 21 papers were presented by scientists refuting the idea that the second law of thermodynamics is applicable to each and every process in the universe. In other words the idea that in all natural processes entropy increases.
        Decades earlier, Buck Minister fuller had tried to popularise the concept of Syntropy as opposed to entropy.
        “Human mind’s metaphysical syntropy potential Caps all the syntropic sequences Operative in our Spaceship Earth’s Comprehensive syntropic system, Which, as we remember, started its analysis Hoping to be able
        To identify humanity’s function in Universe And thereby to gain insights
        Into the respective functions Of the mind and brain.”
        R. Buckminster Fuller—Intuition (1970, p. 147)
        “Syntropy was described by Hungarian chemist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, a Nobel Prize winner, as a disposition toward elaboration in living things. The concept expresses the tendency of all organic matter to develop and unfold new qualities as it moves through time.” . . .

        • Brian Shipley says:

          Eventually, the sun will die. Entropy.
          Syntropy seems to ignore the plain process of life. Individual organisms, such as people, are able to overcome entropy, grow, and produce more copies that will do the same. Mostt of us start losing to entropy at around age 20, but hang in, slowly declining, long after.
          Living organisms can overcome entropy indefinitely, as long as there is a power/food supply. Take away the sun, and its over. Eventually, the sun WILL die. Without it, entropy inevitably wins.

  6. Jon says:

    I am sure that most if not all scientists would agree that Science has yet to show the origins of the Genetic Code. In no way does this suggest that there has to be an Intelligent Designer, it just means we don’t know yet.

    There could be many ways that the inorganic can become organic and DNA and information can be created. There have been experiements (again check with Carl Sagan) where they duplicated the early Earth in the lab. They mixed hydrogen, water, ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide along with some gases that would have been present on the early Earth. Then they sparked the mixture with lightning and after about 10 minutes, they created this kind of brown tar. This soup was a rich collection of complex organic materials, including proteins and acids.

    This wasn’t life of course, but it was the ingredients for life. Again, we just don’t know yet. Remember, all biologists are extremely limited. They only have one example to test from, one recipe to read from, Life on Earth.

    • Jon says:

      I thought this was interesting. It talks about a computer simulation that is trying create artifical life using evolution. Very much what we have been talking about.


      • Did their computer simulation come into existence accidentally and randomly, or did they design it?

        Do you think they’ll have to establish rules and codes in order to trigger a simulated origin-of-life scenario?

        • Jon says:

          No, what this experiment (and I hope you read it because it’s still in its early stages) that they are trying to figure out how the inorganic became organic. It very well could have been a very long and very natural process.

          The very idea of the sim is to literally play God. Because what this sim could show is that there is many ways inorganic could become organic, which would also explain the origins of the genetic code.

          Remember Occum’s Razor-

          -Either the process for the origins of the Genetic code is as simple as a mixture of the right chemicals and gases (which is what the experiment is trying to show)


          There is an all-powerful intelligent being that started it. Then again, that leaves you asked more questions!

    • Jon,

      The problem with the Miller-Urey experiment (to name just one) is that it doesn’t in any way explain the origin of the genetic code.

      Question for you:

      If it were theoretically possible for science to make inferences about the possibility of a metaphysical world would you be willing to follow the evidence where it leads?

      • Jon says:

        The problem with metaphysics is that it can’t be tested with the empirical sciences. Metaphysics is more about what you and me “think” about the Universe and that falls outside of the realm of Science. Metaphysics can create theories but not Science.

        Cosmology is a branch of metaphysics, and that was invented by the religions before Science. This is different from Physical Cosmology which is more about Physics and models that can be tested in Science. An example of this Metaphysical Cosmology was Copernicus’s Heliocentric theory.

        In the days before we could really test the Science, everyone thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. You can see that the “Sun rises and Sun sets” which gives the appearance of the Earth as stationary. But when the Science caught up, it was a shock to everyone. The Earth isn’t the center of anything so that line of Metaphysics was pushed aside.

        • veegee says:

          One word about physical cosmology. It has neglected electro magnetic forces in the universe completely. Electromagnetic force is 10^30 times stronger than gravitational force on an equal basis comparison. And there are light years long plasma currents existing in the universe. Incidently, the Doppler effect observed is due to the presence of plasma in the intergalactic space.

    • veegee says:

      Life is a property of matter. If circumstances are favorable matter will evolve into more complex forms like amino acids and finally to simple life forms and then into more complex life forms. Till recently scientists believed that the six elements, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Sulphur, Phospherous and iron were the minimal essential components of life. Now it is found that there are bacteria which has Arsenic, a highly poisonous element instead of phospherous in its composition.
      As we accept gravitation, electromagnetism, time space . . . etc are all components of the Universe, Life also is a constituent of the Universe. So is Consciousness !!

  7. Jon says:

    Oh and I wanted to apologize if I did attack you before. Sometimes it sounds different when I write it and later read it.

  8. David says:

    I don’t beleive the calcluations of a 1 in 10^73 chance for improving a spelling error in the fox sentence is correct. Even generating the sentence from scratch using a 26 letter alphabet (+1 for space) would have a much larger probability of 1 in 44^27 (44 slots, 27 options).

    I beleive assuming 1 random mutation which is the simplest biologically should be calculated as there is a 1 in 28 chance of which letter mutates, and 1 in 26 option of picking an improvement winner, which is 1 in 700, and not that unlikely.

    The correct probability is critical because you argue that there is not enough time, to complete evolution through random mutation, but your probability calcultation seems highly flawed, please explain how you arrived at you figure.

    Further I don’t understand why you as a rule only one letter can mutate at a time. This is the simplset biologically, however assuming this is bad, and all 1 letter mutations die off, even if somewhat less likely, a full word mutation can occur and immediately improve the sentence. Again I beleive if you use correct statistics you are only talking about 1 in 700^5, which is quite plausible.

    That said I think the whole argument of why and how DNA would arise, is probably the right direction for proving God, but these argument ares as yet highly flawed.

    • David,

      The calculation assumes both lower and upper case numbers, not just lower case. So it’s 52^43. Which by the way precludes in advance any other characters like punctuation marks or numbers. If we were mutating the 1’s and 0’s of ASCII characters – which would be the most analogous to mutating DNA, because it’s a 4 letter alphabet – our odds would get even worse.

      Oh, and yes, my bad – I forgot about spaces! So it’s really 53 not 52.

      You can certainly mutate more than one letter at a time, but if you experiment with it, you find that doesn’t help in the slightest. Work the numbers based on 2 mutations or more, at a time, or whole words at a time and see for yourself. I think you’ll find it just destroys your sentence even faster.

      For example, here’s an important question: If you have this entire sentence which is subject to mutations, what are the chances of mutations being concentrated within the same word 5 times in a row? In order for any sentence to evolve the mutations would have to concentrate in certain places. But what are the chances of even that happening?

      I encourage you to play with http://www.randommutation.com where you can do 1 / 5 / 10 mutations at a time and you can develop an intuitive feel for it.

      I propose to you that no amount of natural selection can save your sentence from the damage that random mutation inflicts on your sentence.


      • Shane Vaillancourt says:

        Perry, do you realize that your http://www.randommutation.com is in fact a straw man? Seriously, natural selection does not have any kind of creative power at all. All it does is kill of the runts. Additionally your whole concept of random letter mutation is just a whole lot of bunk. It seems to me that you really have to idea about the way evolution actually works. The key here is that you are MUTATING WITHOUT ANY SORT OF SELECTION.

        • Shane Vaillancourt says:

          Oh, and I forgot mutation isn’t the only way that evolution works. Recombination is another important aspect to evolution.

          -The quick brown fox jghsqt dvnr sta lyxw get
          Mates with:
          -Sfh slopr droeb dth jumped over the lazy dog
          and their offspring are
          -The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
          -Sfh slopr droeb dth jghsqt dvnr sta lyxw get

          One of these children lives as a much better organism, the other would most likely die.

        • Shane,

          You are welcome to provide any kind of selection you care to provide, and show us the results of your experiment.

          Also – notice the “revert to selected text” button.


        • Brian Shipley says:

          Well, Darwin DID call it “Random Variation” So, doesn’t random mean no selection? Or are you accepting Perry’s theory of purpose as true?

  9. David says:

    Thank you for your response. However I am quite certain you are misusing the statistics. 53^43 is the probability of generating the improved sentence from a clean starting point (analogous to the monkey on the type writer generating shakespeare). Starting from a base of an existing sentence with one spelling mistake-the correct probability of the one spelling mistake mutating to the correct letter, is the probability of that specific letter mutating multiplied by the chance of it mutating to the correct letter: (assuming that we take the axiom of we are to expect a one letter mutation, otherwise m,ultipled by the chance of having a one letter mutation). This turns out to be a small probability and quite possible. Decreasing to a base 4 as opposed to base 26, significantly improves our chances, it doesnt make things worse.

    The sentence being destroyed more and more progressively with the rnadom mutation genrator, is just falling into a logical flaw. The mutation process is not progressive by natural selection, as the bad sentences just die off. Obviosuly if the chance of the the first mutation being an improvement is 1 in 700, then there is a chance of 699 in 700 that it is bad, so for each progressive mutation 99.9% it is going to be destruvive. This doesnt matter, because by natural selection they die off. All that matters is if that 0.1% is statistically likely enough over billions of iterations and billions of years, to get from starting point to the number of mutations we need.

    • David,

      You are correct, and I stand corrected. My apologies and thank you for pointing this out.

      The probability of correcting “the quick brXwn fox jumped over the lazy dog” randomly is 1 chance in 43×53 or 1/2279.

      The probability of correcting “the quick brXYn fox jumped over the lazy dog randomly is that number squared, or 1/5,193,841

      Repairing three letters in one trial would be one chance in 11,836,763,639 and so on.

      So yes you are correct the numbers for correcting a small error in a short sentence like this are not astronomical. However if the word to be corrected is large or if we have a paragraph not a sentence, then we are in the range of billions and trillions and more.

      As for base 4 instead of base 26:

      ASCII maps text to base 2, with 7 digits.

      If we were going to code the alphabet in base 4 we would need three digits.

      Which is exactly we have with DNA – triplets are groups of 3 base-4 digits.

      The point being that whether we mutate ASCII (which the Random Mutation Generator does – that’s what the “binary” button is for) or mutate base pairs or mutate letters, the destruction of information is the same.

      But allow me to return to a very subtle but important point: If you need to mutate “quick brown fox…” to “quick green fox…” without having to start over, we have to change brown to green in one step. The chances of doing this are one in trillions. The odds grow exponentially worse as the sentence grows longer.

      Because of the discrete nature of language and instructions, it is not realistically possible to evolve any sizable set of instructions with random mutation. An intelligent algorithm is a more parsimonious explanation than random chance combined with natural selection.


      • Jon says:

        “An intelligent algorithm is a more parsimonious explanation than random chance combined with natural selection”

        In other words, it is simpler to explain God than it is to explain Science?

    • veegee says:

      David wrote “You are misusing the statistics”. I want to comment on it. A given set of data can be plotted to get either a straight line or a curve by choosing the appropriate scales. It may be even possible to get a circle by choosing sin a, cos b type of parameters. The old saying, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder is very true where statistics is concerned.
      Consider nine virgins and a pregnant lady. On an average each virgin is 10% pregnant and the pregnant lady is 90% virgin, On an AVERAGE.

  10. David says:

    Trillions, or even quadrillions are very small numbers, when you are dealing with micro-organims that replicate and die very quickly, and over billions of times in short periods and continously over billions years. Thus at the start of DNA in histroy you could have improved ‘sentences’ through sheer randomness, and with time an efficient mutations mechanism could develop once you have quite complex code. And then this ‘mutation mechanism’ could evolve.

    The argument as to which is more parsimonious is going to require much more rigorous maths. I think you possibly found the first tep in a possible proof, and are assuming you are at an end point. You are treating the atheists arguments like they are very shallow when in fact they are highly sophisticated. You argument currenlty lacks their sophistication. This needs to be played out with the real numbers by someone that can do the statistics rigorously, and show one argument to be more parimonious than the other. The students you lecture give deference to your expertise, but in the real academic intellectual community there is no deference to anything but the argument itself. If you don’t put all the meat into this argument, all it can be is pseudo-intellectual intelligent design propaganda. I have not read the Infidels blog, and don;pt know who participates, but I don’t see how no one has put this quite simple opposition to you yet even over many years. Dawkins and Harris are quite opne minded, but this is still much too fluffy to debate them with.

    • David,

      The trillions and quadrillions are only peripheral aspects of my argument. The core argument is at http://evo2.org/prove-god-exists/ and it’s not based on statistics, but on the definition of code.

      Nevertheless I still stand behind my numbers here.

      It is one thing to evolve a 43 word sentence and have some semblance of a chance given a few billions of trials.

      It is quite another to apply these numbers to a living organism which contains vastly more information than my silly little sentence.

      The smallest such organism is Nanoarcheaum. It has 480,000 base pairs. So it has 4^480,000 possible combinations of code which is more than 10^200,000.

      The possibility of that arising by chance is 1 in 10^200,000 which is as close to zero as anyone gets in math or science. Utterly impossible.

      This is not a shallow argument, this is fact. The gyrations that atheists go into to avoid backing THEIR arguments with statistics are remarkable. Bottom line is that there is no statistician in the world who can show you a model for saying this is in any way plausible.

      Some people believe in Chance with a capital C. I believe in God with a capital G.

      Which involves the greater leap of faith?

      Perry Marshall

      • Shane Vaillancourt says:

        “Some people believe in Chance with a capital C. I believe in God with a capital G.”

        I can flip a coin and I know there is a 50/50 [i]chance[/i] of the outcome. I KNOW chance exists. The same cannot be said for god.

        • We’re not talking 50/50 here.

          We’re talking one chance in 10^200,000. That’s the chances that DNA could arise without the help of an intelligent agent.

          1 – 10^-200,000 = 99.999999999999999999% likelihood that intelligence created the information in DNA.

        • veegee says:

          There is no scientific proof that if you toss a coin for a large number of times the 50/50 chance of outcome prevails. With out proof, people have just assumed this to be so. David Shiang has presented this view point in his book “God Does Not Play Dice”. He further states that the second law of thermodynamics is not based on scientific facts but on assumptions like the probability of coin tossing throwing up a 50/50 chance.

      • Leandro Elizondo says:

        ….. mi querido Perry , I have been touched with your inquires, let me put an , to my point of view , a questionable thing ………….. a poem of Borges said .
        …….Dios mueve al jugador , el jugador mueve la pieza , que Dios detras de Dios la trama empieza , refered to ajedrez playing , santo Tomas el latino , deducted trough fehit , and altereid states of mind , catartesys , and self pain disiplines the troghly existense of god ………… actualy i like your aprouch of Divinity , and I keep seen my agnostic God , as a good fellow ………….. Leandro

      • Joe Grenon says:

        What roughly are the statistical chances that out of eternal nothingness a designer appears and creates a universe so dynamic that it can include everything from protons to galaxies?

        Seems somewhat unlikely to me. Aliens make more sense, but then who designed the aliens? and on it goes.

        • I never said that the designer appeared out of nothingness. I said that the designer had to be uncaused.

          It is the atheists who said that out of eternal nothingness a universe appears, one so dynamic that it can include everything from protons to galaxies.

          You said it yourself: Aliens make more sense than something popping out of nothing.

          But then who designed the aliens? You’re right, that explanation makes no sense.

          Notice that even your short post about aliens above indicates that a intelligent designer is the most logical explanation.

          Logically we cannot escape the necessity of an original uncaused cause.

          Thus we see that an uncaused creator remains the most logical answer to the question.

          Joe, I understand from your posts that you are fearful of that conclusion because religion has been so badly abused and I sympathize with what you are saying.

          I am not advocating violence here, but rather a sane and rational discussion. There is nothing to fear here. No one on this website is going to harm you.


    • Brian Shipley says:

      You are making an unsupportable assumption, that when “simple organisms” suddenly appeared out of nowhere, that there were trillions and trillions. That’s not likely. Presuming your theory is true, the first life was probably simple, fragile and rare. There were no trillions multiplying and ‘randomly variating” Given the odds against any variation being positive, they would have randomly died out in an eyeblink.
      It was no lush, sylvan field back then. perfectly suited, It was rocks and water. If they were able to breed, replicate and evolve as you say, under hostile conditions, we would be seeing spontaneous creation everywhere now, common as pine cones, under such ideall conditions.

  11. john says:

    Hello, i think this is a very interesting read, however i would like to learn more about what you are saying.
    This paragraph took my attention:

    “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.”

    Where can I read more about this contributions made by linguists? I would be very thankful if you can get me that reference.
    Thanks a lot.

  12. M. Taha Adam says:


    Can the design of DNA be a result of more than One God?


    M. Taha

  13. Cahtuban says:

    Good for you, Perry Marshall. Nice going !

    Comment to Jon, about something in the film ” Kung Fu Panda “. The main character, Po, finally gets to read the famous sacred scroll and it’s ” blank “. The only thing he can see in the scroll is a reflection of himself………….

    ” Blank ” is a code related to the knowledge of the hidden truth in inner religion, something like : Exist but Not Exist, Not Exist but Exist.

    …..he can see in the scroll is a reflection of himself ….. = If you know yourself, you know your God.

  14. Shane Vaillancourt says:

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

    WOW. If you believe this, you seriously have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

  15. Cahtuban says:

    Hi All,

    Highest respect and appreciation to Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Francis Collins.

    Carl Sagan with ” Cosmos “, he ” seek Him ” and ” finding Him “, but he knows not that he knows Him.

    Francis Collins with ” The Language of God “.
    The language of God is one of the knowledge about the hidden truth / inner dimension of religion, or Sufi’s knowledge.

    People who have the knowledge about the hidden truth, obviously are people who have respect for the truth of Science.

    Faith is the believe without evidence. Like in ” Kung Fu Panda “, from the Master to master Shifu : You just need to believe !

    Sorry I say again : If you know yourself, you will know your God.

  16. Christopher says:

    As a non-American I have always looked up to your country as a nation upholding the Christian faith in a world that is forever evolving in an opposite direction.

    Lately, with incidents like this I’m not so sure anymore. See article below please and comment as to what your view is on this foundation and how many similarly minded people do they represent?

    Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:40 PM

    Atheists Sue to Kill D.C. ‘In God We Trust’ Engraving

    MADISON, Wis. — The nation’s largest group of atheists and agnostics filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block an architect from engraving “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.

    The Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in western Wisconsin, claims the taxpayer-funded engravings would be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

    The House and Senate passed identical resolutions this month directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave “In God We Trust” and the pledge in prominent places at the entrance for 3 million tourists who visit the Capitol each year.

    The resolution came in response to critics who complained Congress spent $621 million on the new three-story underground center without paying respect to the nation’s religious heritage. The center opened in December after years of construction.

    The foundation is seeking a court order to stop the engravings, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost less than $100,000.

    “In God We Trust” has been the national motto since 1956 and has appeared on U.S. currency since 1957.

    The lawsuit says both the motto and the words “under God” in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective, it says.

    The group also is challenging the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer in federal court. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that foundation members could not sue to stop parts of President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative.

    © 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    • Christopher,

      The atheists who are behind this lawsuit are an extreme fringe of radicals. They do not in any way represent the interests of mainstream Americans.


      • Joe Grenon says:

        Talk about your ad hominem insults. I am neither an extremist, nor a radical nor on the fringe of mainstream America.

        Even if that were the case, so what. There was a time when slavery was mainstream, flat earth was once mainstream. The KKK once had 4 million members in the US. Significantly more than the number of Jews.

        Would you characterize Jews as and extreme fringe?

        Or maybe the Mormon church.

        Minorities have a legitimate place, no matter what you believe. The constitution was beautifully crafted to protect those minorities, particularly minorities of faith, from the bullying of majorities who would seek to abrogate their rights .

        To force symbols of deities upon anyone is simply unconstitutional.

        You seem to believe that the universe is 13+ billion years old. I do not understand how with that particular belief, you feel confident to assert that followers of a faith that is barely 2 thousand year old could possibly be mainstream, or anything other than a radical fringe.

        And so the revelation comes into focus. By relegating the infidels to the radical fringe, the theists can conveniently justify the abrogation of their rights. This was a tool well used by many brutal dictators of the past and present .

        Were you to argue that god is simply what we call life, I would be interested.

        Instead , you come back to the peculiarly human affection for the concept that all things must be designed. You include in that vast set, human intelligence via dna codification. If that were indeed the case, it clearly begs the question of who designed the designer.

        Whence came god? Did it just float around ? Suddenly initiating a big bang?

        Where did it keep the drawing table? Were there prototypes? Are there trial universes around? Did it get the whole thing right the very first time? Or did the design evolve through trial and error?

        What took so long to make the first universe? Are there other universes floating around out there? Once it got the hang of the design thing, why not make more? Surely that is a common trait of designers, finish one project and start another.

        No. I have strong objections to such a silly even dangerous motto. I would no sooner trust god than would I trust a tarot reading. In fact, I have considerably more faith in tarot. Tarot readings have rarely resulted in wars, burnings at stakes, tithing, child molesting, rape slavery and the destruction of entire civilizations.

        • Venugopal says:

          Dear Joe Grenon and Perry Marshal,
          I hope what I quote from a web site I visited recently will be of interest to both of you. I was fascinated and intrigued by the facts presented there. I have read about Fibonacci numbers for many years now, but much interesting information in a single place I am seeing first time.

          Foundations of the Fibonacci Series

          0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, . . .

          It’s just a simple series of numbers discovered by Leonardo Fibonacci that defines the ratio of the Golden Section and Divine Proportion.

          But, the Fibonacci number (1.61804…), often called phi or Ø, was described by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) as one of the “two great treasures of geometry.” (The other is the Theorem of Pythagoras.)

          The ratio of each successive pair of numbers in the series quickly converges on 1.61804. . . , as 5 divided by 3 is 1.666…, and 8 divided by 5 is 1.60.

          But that is just the beginning of its mathematical curiosities and mysteries.
          Unusual Relationships of Phi

          Square phi and you get a number exactly 1 greater than phi, 2.61804…:

          Ø2 = Ø +1

          Divide phi into 1 and you get a number exactly 1 less than phi, 0.61804…:

          1 / Ø = Ø – 1

          Take the square root of 5, add 1 and then divide by 2, and you also get phi.

          ( 51/2 + 1 ) / 2 = Ø

          Which can also be expressed all in fives as:

          5 ^ .5 * .5 + .5 = Ø
          Fibonacci, Phi and Spirals in Nature

          If you sum the squares of any series of Fibonacci numbers, they will equal the last Fibonacci number used in the series times the next Fibonacci number. This property results in the Fibonacci spiral seen in everything from sea shells to galaxies:

          12 + 12 + 22 + 32 + 52 = 5 x 8
          12 + 12 + . . . + F(n)2 = F(n) x F(n+1)
          Fibonacci series and spiral Fibonacci spiral in a nautilus shell Fibonacci spiral in a galaxy
          Note: The Fibonacci series spiral on the left is slightly different from the perfect spiral generated by Phi (1.61804…) because of the approximations early in the series leading to Phi.
          (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 produce ratios of 1, 2, 1.5, 1.67, 1.6 and 1.625)

          The DNA molecule, the program for all life, is based on the golden section. It measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral.
          Construction of the golden section DNA and the golden section

          34 and 21, of course, are numbers in the Fibonacci series and their ratio, 1.6190476 closely approximates phi, 1.6180339.
          The Solar System

          The average of the mean orbital distances of each successive planet expressed in relation to the one before it approximates phi.

          Solar system

          Plants illustrate the Fibonacci series in the numbers and arrangements of petals, leaves, sections and seeds.
          Fibonacci series in plant growth
          Here a plant illustrates that each successive level of branches is often based on a progression through the Fibonacci series. Fibonacci series in the petals of a flower
          Many plants produce new petals in quantities that are based on Fibonacci numbers.
          The Fibonacci Series and Music
          Piano keyboard – even music is based on the Fibonacci series

          The Fibonacci series appears in the foundation of many other aspects of art, beauty and life. Even music has a foundation in the series, as 13 notes make the octave of 8 notes in a scale, of which the 1st, 3rd, and 5th notes create the basic foundation of all chords, and the whole tone is 2 steps from the root tone.
          Phi and the Mind of God

          Any sign that would prove the existence of another intelligence must have a pattern or sequence that could not be the result of natural processes.

          Phi’s unique mathematical qualities are inherent, but what is the likelihood that creation could be based on this number by chance?

          The Fibonacci number, phi, is more than a mathematical curiosity. It is one of the most amazing and pervasive numbers known to man. This, above all numbers, would be a perfect sign to tell us that creation is not just the result of random processes.
          Might this number be intriguing and beautiful to a mind of advanced intellect, to the mind of God?

          It is a perfect way to not only demonstrate that there is design in the universe, but to assure its unity.

    • veegee says:

      Mahatma Gandhi : “An ounce of practice is better than a ton of preaching !!”
      With 800,000 innocents butchered in Iraq can you claim that America is a Christian country ?! There really was only one true Christian and he was Crucified !!

  17. eleng says:

    just want to know, is evolution a continuos/continuing process?

    • Paradise Holding says:

      Yes an unending process, study your body’s biological system. Look in the mirror for proof positive.
      Unfortunately we discover evolution too personnal during the life cycle.
      We are born, we live, and we die. What we do during our life time is what really counts. MAKE IT COUNT!
      Sadly to say there isn’t awaiting a place of paradise. But anyone can, and does use their imagination to create a place of bliss.
      Also unfortunately people have gotten caught up in a world wind of a man created God .

  18. Joe Grenon says:

    Sadly, you think you have the answers. In religious terms that amounts to blasphemy, in secular terms, hubris.

    Of what we are certain today, others in the future would call superstition, misinformation, or simply incomplete data.

    The data is never complete. We make our bodies and minds work without fully understanding the how’s and why’s. This does not mean the knowledge we have is worthless, not does it translate into design by some deity.

    It has always been the nature of humans to assign what we do not understand to some divine will, which is then thrust upon those of us who are quite comfortable living with mysterious phenomena.

    I do not trust in god(s). Quite frankly I am terrified not so much by the gods, but by the the blind faith humans put into those gods, and ruthlessness with which they torment abuse and oppress , by their own blasphemy, others who do not share that faith.

    Why is it not possible for the “faithful” to let us all exercise our free will and believe or not as we will? Why is it so necessary to force faith upon the infidel, who is happy as she or he is?

    Is the problem that faith is god is so tenuous that theists must get validation for their beliefs by forcing others to agree with them to believe what they believe?

    What about free will? What about liberty? I rejected god at age 16, 4 decades ago. I have never had a reason to regret that decision. To the contrary, the persecution of the non faithful I have witnessed since then has convinced me on a daily basis that theist mythology is little more than a very effective instrument of oppression, an excuse to shun ostracize and outcast those who do not conform, and to reap profits and wealth at the expense of the oppressed.

    The pope wears prada, the poor have no shoes.

    “The trouble with liberty is that people do not behave the way you want them to”
    Joe Grenon, 1980..

    • Shane Pretorius says:


      The worst crimes against humans are caused by humans not religion. If you look at religion fundamentally most teachings are good and to assist man kind. If I were to use your conclusive errors in saying that religion is the problem, then could I could also then conclude, that atheism caused Hitler to be the vile and despicable monster he was. I think not. Where in the bible or koran does it say that believers must molest,kill, rape or whatever else. And these sort of conclusions have sadly been the atheist strongest defence.

      One only has to look at atheist sites to know how much hate atheist have towards christians. From a religious eye I can already see that they are not happy including you Joe. If you were so strong in your beliefs( yes, it is belief) the why come to this site to see scientific proof that God exists. I think there is some part of you that knows the truth.

      May God bless you and open your eyes
      Shane Pretorius

  19. Shane Vaillancourt says:

    Hi Perry,

    I’m curios, when you talk about codes, the transfer of information, and signal degradation, and then apply them to DNA, what exactly is your definition of “code”? Like if you had to write a 3 sentence dictionary definition, what would the entry be?

    “To have a language, to have information, you have to have a transmitter and a receiver. Somebody has to talk and somebody has to listen. And then it has these four characteristics; it has an alphabet, it has grammar, it has meaning, and it has intent. ”

    How exactly does DNA fit all 6 points?
    1 – Who is transmitting DNA? (God?)
    2 – Who is the receiver? (Not us, we are the language)
    3 – Alphabet? (Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine and Guanine, yeah)
    4 – Grammar? (Only A&T attach to each other, and only C&G, among other things)
    5 – What is the meaning?
    6 – What is the intent?

    More interestingly, assuming one takes all of what you say on face value. Let’s assume we agree DNA is proof of god, which god is it proof of? Why?

    And here is one for you, Perry.
    DNA Language Human Language Universe Language
    (The other thing made by God)
    Nucleotide Character Quarks/Bosons
    Codon Letter Hadrons/Lepton
    Gene Word Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons
    Operon Sentence Atom
    Regulon Paragraph Molecule

    I think there are similarities you could explore there, might be interesting where that leads. (disclaimer:I’m not a particle physicist)

  20. Gatot S. says:

    If you can read Koran ( The Holy Al-Qur’an ), you will know God exist. Koran is the great evidence. Koran is not only for the moslem, but for the whole people. In facts :
    1. Einstein’s Relativity and Heisenberg’s Principle are justified by Koran.

    2. Global Warming / Climate Change has been written in Koran.

    3. Also, serious health effects that came from over exposure sunlight / ultra violet radiation has been written in Koran 14 centuries ago.

    Please see on : http://www.yalagada.com ……..Forum.


Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *