“If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists”

See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now?  This blog article is proof of the existence of God.

Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. Thanks.

Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy.  But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself.  All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof.  It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.

So how is this message proof of the existence of God?

This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences.  It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.

You can do all kinds of things with this message.  You can read it on your computer screen.  You can print it out on your printer.  You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are.  You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone.  You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document.  You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same.  My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language.  The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).

Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial.  Information is itself a unique kind of entity.  It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.

Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code.  Or mating calls of birds.  Or the Internet.  Or radio or television.  Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings.  Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.

OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent.

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:

“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”

Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites.  Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.

But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes.  Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk.  And they cannot create information.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’

DNA is not merely a molecule.  Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs.  With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”

As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years.  I’ve addressed more than 100,000 people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.

But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from.  This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”

You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Watch it on video:
http://evo2.org/perry-speaks/perryspeaks.html

Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.  Everyone can agree on that.  But information has to come from somewhere, too!

Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy.  And information can only come from a mind.  If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.

Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God.  Because information and language always originate in a mind.

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles):

“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen to
my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:

http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

“OK, so then who made God?” and other questions about information and origins:

http://evo2.org/faq/#designer

Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):

http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code

-The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for over 4 years now!), without success:

http://evo2.org/iidb.htm

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

2,215 Responses

  1. Jimmy Goodtimes says:

    You’re theory may be correct, but I would like to add a thought or two.
    1) No one can prove the existence of God.
    2) Language or a message is a natural process of evolution which did not require a supreme being. Perhaps life is the normal outcome of the combination of amino acides, energy and a solid surface to exist.
    3) Information is not proof or supreme being any more than fecal matter. No non-living entity produces fecal matter either.
    4) My belief in God is from within and does not require an explanation. I also believe or affirm Science. Proof of God, is more likely emanates from the higher emotional states. Joy, Love, yes even Hate and Anger. Why does a gorgeous sunset, a beautiful flower, a pleasing piece of music make us happy? That’s wher God is -. Why do we love children, dogs and the beach. Our senses bring us perceptions, the mind creates the emotional high that can never be adequately or perfectly described by emotion. Finally, the whole universe with us included is a beautiful thing and that one day, when we as scientists figure how it was created, will also discover the essential Master of the Universe, and we, our own descendants will one day create a copy of the universe – and we will in turn , be the New God, (same as the Old God).

  2. Patrik Beno says:

    I was really interested. Bold statements you’ve made and you have not stood up to your promise.

    It’s just God of the Gaps all over again.

    Even the greatest minds among us suffer this syndrome. Only few of us realize their weakness. Being aware ot this can make us a little bit more imune to this kind of mental illness. And illness it is. All you have shown is a failure in this regard.

    What WE DON’T KNOW is NOT A PROOF of God. All it proves is our failure.

    When do we grow up?

    • Forrest Charnock says:

      Beno :

      You are making a bold and unsubstantiated statements. Why is it God of the Gaps, because you say so?
      Then you proceed to suggest anyone who disagrees with your bold unsubstantiated statements is mentally ill.
      Name calling is not arguing from logic but emotion, it is the classic loser’s limp.

  3. ephraim taunyane says:

    can you also enlighten me on the theory of nothingness and how it relates to God, or brings me closer to God

  4. Alan McDougall says:

    I am busy with your interesting vidoe

    I think you got chaos theory wrong! You state that chaos is the way order in formed, but all things go from order to chaos

    It is due to chaos /entropy that we ger old decay and die

    Like you I am/was an Engineer, no retired that had considerable experience in computer processing IT etc

    God Bless

    Alan

  5. Renesh Bongso says:

    I know you have a very good point on this matter. But as you said the possibilities are endless. What is the possibility of this being nothing but a coincidence? If your theory is correct then this so called God you believe in doesn’t care to tell us the most vital information that human kind ever needed. Yes like a secret that goes around a circle it can change when it comes back around. Maybe in the beginning ,whenever that was,God would’ve shared this information but the fact of the matter is that we’ve lost it due to various beliefs and imaginations.
    There are over 100 religions in the world today. With all your intelligence of language can you answer what the right religion is? No you can’t because even your intelligence is limited isn’t it? So what are you going to do with this God you have discovered? Just understand the fact that he exists and leave it at that?
    Either way I have a 50-50 belief of an existing God and a non-existing God as well. But just by language it doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s a God just because some would like to believe so badly there’s actually someone who gives two cents about our existence.For all you know, like you said, “possibilities are endless”,our existence could just well be nothing but an accident. And we pathetic life forms still keep thinking we have a meaning because we find it hard to cope with the possibility that we have no life after death. It’s man’s greatest fear to work hard to maintain a life on earth and then have it all disappear in an instant.
    What exactly did you want life forms to do on earth without language?? Look at each other’s faces for all time? Sounds pretty absurd doesn’t it? The fact of the matter is this, life has always been evolving. So something as simple as communication can always evolve much easier than a monkey to a human isn’t it? As I said earlier if language wasn’t created by animals then right now we would be just looking at each other’s faces,no wars,no rape or murders and so many other negative effects of something so simple as communication.I suppose then this so called ‘superintelligence’ didn’t count on the billions of life forms that suffer because of it’s superintelligence yes? Doesn’t sound so super to me.More over careless.Hope to hear your opinion on this matter.

    • Renesh,

      The possibilities are not endless. There is a very finite number of things and combinations of events that can occur in 13.8 billion years. Not enough to create a statistical likelihood of life happening by chance.

      Why I embrace Christianity as opposed to other views:
      http://evo2.org/faq/#christian

      When I watch a ballet dancer or an olympic athlete, I do not think that these are pathetic creatures. I think they are marvelous. I think you may be selling the human race a little short.

      Morally, the human race is pathetic. To a person, almost every religious man and woman I know will tell you that.

      I agree evolution is real, but what causes it? There is no actual proof that evolution is driven by randomness. Do you have any evidence? I’m asking for experimental proof, not speculation.

  6. Taro Shinohara says:

    I believe neither atheists, philosophers,scientist,or believers will ever come up with a satisfactory answer, that could be understood in terms of “logical language” and its full meaning transmitted to others intact. ( I apologyze for my poor language skills and simpleminded way of thinking)

  7. theGrandSmithWizard says:

    Dear brother Perry…
    What a waste of time and energy your questions and answers here…..
    ALL you had to do is: Create YOUR Relationship with Our Creator.
    end of all the debates, blogs, etc, etc, etc. on the God topic.
    You should know that the greatest truth(s) are the simplest ones!
    Peace be with You , Perry; NOW, spend your time creating YOUR Relationship with Our Creator and truly be FREE

    Our Creator Blesses You; I Bless You; Bless Yourself
    Christopher, the Christ bearer aka the Grand Smith Wizard

  8. Forrest Charnock says:

    Hi Perry:

    Shannon’s theory, as you agree, does not take into account meaning or action.
    Why then would you base your arguments on an ancient theory that was created before the discovery of bio-information? Shannon was a smart guy , you are a smart guy, but to try and use pure logic and pure science to convince people they need to come to Christ is a project doomed from the start.

    The only truly comprehensive theory of bio-information I am aware is Dr. Gitts,

    This is the first straw man statement in WIKi;

    “Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics and electrical engineering involving the quantification of information.”

    That is only true if you claim Shannon is the authority on the subject. The information that is stored and transferred with the DNA molecule carries intelligent instructions that produce specific results by causing specific actions.
    I doubt you would argue that fact but if not why use Shannon at all? He was interested in reducing bandwidth and increasing the amount of data that could be stored on a given quantity of media in the days when it was incredibly expensive .

    As far as I can tell Shannon was probably an atheist , certainly not a Bible believing Christian . My question is why are you set on using him and not mentioning Dr. Gitt whose theory and laws of information theory are much more modern , completely Christian, and as yet unchallenged in the scientific journals? It has been nearly 15 years since he made his challenges and published his laws and since they cannot be refuted they are ignored.

    Certainly the personal beliefs of a scientist are not the determining factor as to the accuracy of his ideas so one should disregard that save for being aware his/her presupposition may control their conclusion in an adverse way.

    Do you disagree with Dr. Gitt on his theory or do you slight him for his religious beliefs?

    You are arguing with people who agree with the WIKI statement that this is all about quantity , not meaning and actions caused and harping solely on Shannon’s Theory seems to play into their hands.

    • Forrest,

      I think Werner Gitt’s material is superb and it’s a primary source of inspiration for what I do now.

      I quote Shannon precisely because his material is irreligious. It’s completely non-controversial, peer reviewed scientific mainstream literature. Virtually all the sources I rely on are.

      If you are talking to an atheist and the only people you can quote are ID people, creationists and the Bible, they’ll never listen to you because they don’t trust your sources.

      No reasonable atheist can say they don’t trust Claude Shannon.

      Nor is there any known flaw in Shannon’s work.

      Put me in a room with ANY atheist and I’ll back them into a corner with Claude Shannon in 15 minutes. Atheists cannot dismiss Claude Shannon.

      Shannon doesn’t completely ignore purpose and intent in information, he just acknowledges that it can’t be quantified.

      Gitt introduces the term “apobetics” which is technically entirely appropriate but it’s strategically flawed because he’s introducing new terminology to a skeptical audience. He would do better to stick with pragmatics and then no one would be able to argue with him.

      I have used 100% peer reviewed, non-controversial scientific literature to prove God exists and yes, Forrest, it is effective with some members of this audience.

      Perry Marshall

  9. atef_aziz says:

    hi perry and friends
    thank you perry and friends for the great advices you told me in your e-mails and so i am rebuilding my knowledge on this subject and i will soon give you my evidence that there is no contradiction in koran about creation and universe
    and i want to tell you again that all of us are seeking the truth to make a strong relationship between faith and science wait my reply soon
    yours sincerely
    atef

  10. Mike Minnich says:

    Do you have any experience with cellular automata?

    • Mike Minnich says:

      If you take notice it is reasonable to consider any accumulation of molecules as a grid of cellular automata, and it is also appropriate to consider all forms of life as cellular automata and all of their behaviours as the results of cellular automaton style distributed computation. Thus I see no reason to postulate that an external source of computation is necessary for life to emerge. Life is merely a systematized extension of the cellular automaton nature of ordinary physical interactions. The systematization is arguably not of an intelligently designed nature for several reasons, including it’s imperfection (if everything about our anatomy is so thoroughly planned out then why do we need technologies like nail clippers?), its limited scope (human machines can achieve greater efficiency in a number of situations than comparable anatomical mechanisms can, mostly b/c human machines can employ wheels) and the simple observation that anatomical features more often than not find a totally novel use in subsequent generations than earlier, which is a strong (IMO so much so that’s it’s probably irrefutable) counter to a stance in favour of any sort of premeditated plan.

      • Mike,

        If you want to postulate what kind of things God or some metaphysical Designer would or would not design, then you are firmly in the realm of theology. Essentially you’re saying “These designs are not perfect so a perfect being did not design them” – This is a non-sequitur. Philosophically this is “the problem of evil.” To be fair I think the question of evil is the real reason why some people embrace atheism, it has less to do with science than many assume.

        So let’s talk about cellular automata. I’m very familiar. I bought Stephen Wolfram’s book “A New Kind of Science” when it came out in 2002, it’s 1200 pages. Wolfram makes some kind of similar proposition – that perhaps very simple programs could explain everything in the universe. I searched through Wolfram’s book looking for a bridge in the “infinite chasm” that I have referred to. I searched in vain.

        On page 24 Wolfram describes CA as follows: “At every step there is a definite rule that determines the color of a given cell” … in other words, these are programs following simple instructions. Which develop into profoundly complex patterns over time. Fascinating stuff, I agree.

        Nowhere does Wolfram ever explain how the rules of any particular CA can come from the laws of physics or matter or energy alone. He doesn’t ever even seem to consider the distinction between the symbolic world and the physical world.

        Now obviously things like tornados, snowflakes, sand dunes etc. are instances of naturally occurring CA. All we need to produce these things are the laws of physics. The creation of sugar crystals is a kind of CA, and all the rules necessary to create them are embedded in the laws of physics and chemistry. That’s all you need.

        But Wolfram’s CA are more than that. They are programs. They’re algorithms with arbitrary instructions. They employ SYMBOLS. In his computer there is an encoder that writes the program, there is the code which is the program itself, and there is the decoder – the mechanism that reads the code and carries out the instructions.

        In this case a SYMBOLIC RELATIONSHIP has been employed. Whatever the substrate – pits on a CD, pulses of laser light, radio waves, logic gates in a processor chip, magnetic domains in a memory chip – physical elements are used as symbols. And yes, some form of UG’s are found in those codes.

        Symbolic relationships are not found anywhere in the laws of physics or chemistry. Nor are UG’s.

        You are welcome to disagree. I welcome a counterexample. Here’s what you need to do to provide one:

        For whatever non-living, non-man-made physical process you think is an example of naturally occurring CA with an actual program and code: Draw a system just as I have drawn at http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/

        Label the encoder, the communication channel and the decoder. Just as I have done with ASCII and the ZIP code. And label the columns in encoding table and the decoding table. Show the symbols that are used for communication and how symbol maps to referent.

        In ASCII, 1000001<>A
        In HTML, FFFFFF<>white
        In Zip codes, 68901<>Hastings, Nebraska
        In DNA, GGG<>Glycine

        In other words, show me a naturally occurring communication system. Demonstrate that it’s isomorphic with Shannon’s model and that it uses symbols in the same day.

        You said:

        If you take notice it is reasonable to consider any accumulation of molecules as a grid of cellular automata, and it is also appropriate to consider all forms of life as cellular automata and all of their behaviours as the results of cellular automaton style distributed computation.

        If we define CA as being a program that consists of a set of rules that specify what should be done at each step – and if these rules are specific arbitrary rules and not merely the inflexible laws of physics – then I insist that there are no CA’s in nature. At least nobody in 5 years has ever been able to show me an example of one. (A salt crystal is not the kind of CA that Wolfram is talking about. It’s not executing an algorithm and employs no symbols.)

        One of the key features of a program is that its rules can be violated. The program can fail to execute properly (so a birth defect or a computer glitch can objectively exist). The laws of physics cannot be violated (a salt crystal turns out exactly as the laws of physics dictated it would). That’s the difference between symbolic instructions and pure physics and chemistry.

        This is why Hubert Yockey said the following in his “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life”(Cambridge University Press, 2005):

        “The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”

        I have gone to great pains to make this distinction between symbolic relationships and purely physical relationships as clear as possible on this website. Can you please read my material carefully – I still feel like up to this point you’ve not recognized this distinction.

        Perry

        • Mike Minnich says:

          Firstly, I’m not saying anything like ‘These designs are not perfect so a perfect being did not design them’. I merely posed the question to you at what point do we draw the line between fully designed elements of our anatomy and not so fully designed elements. The fact that that line is blurry in itself very strongly warrants skepticism that there is a designer at all, b/c it demonstrates in yet another way that you’re only considering evidence that you can construe to fit your hypothesis, which is the most anti-scientific behavioural pattern possible.

          In regard to Wolfram’s work, I could be mistaken, but I don’t believe it was his objective to address the unification of formally structured computational algorithms and natural, physical ones. But again, I believe you are jumping the gun with your judgement and not thoroughly considering all the variables and data. The reason I haven’t addressed your continued nagging about Shannon is b/c I’m not convinced that Shannon’s arguments are even relevant in the sense that I don’t believe the system is isolatable to intelligent processes for reasons that I’ve explained in detail previously and you have not remotely addressed to my satisfaction. And the fact that you only argue for Shannon by posting links suggests to me that you probably don’t understand how they would be relevant either, so there’s really no point getting into it with you until you can provide a reasonable argument which fully isolates intelligent processes rather than relying almost fully on instinctual ones which have been repeatedly demonstrated scientifically not to be related to general intelligence in any way. Other than that I also question your assertion that symbolism is a peculiarly human mechanism. As noted earlier the mapping of GGG to glycine is symbolic for several reasons, one of which that I pointed out being that no two glycine molecules are in fact identical. This doesn’t disturb you in the slightest b/c you’ve already committed to the idea that DNA is designed, but this same relationship extends to any chemical reactions and this fact should disturb you. All around you, all the time chemical reactions are occurring in a way which demonstrates symbolism rather than full reference is productive at the lowest levels of experiential reality. I anticipate you’ll react in one of several ways: 1) the symbolic relationships in chemistry do not fit Shannon’s model (which I believe they actually do, but since you assume that an intelligence source is required for Shannon’s model to function you’ll never understand what I’m saying), 2) these examples, though pointed and contrary to your argument, are trivial and irrelevant (one can only assume you argue this way simply b/c they don’t support your original hypothesis, b/c you never provide logical arguments for your stance on this), 3) I’m not addressing your syllogism (even though I very specifically am doing nothing but that) and 4) I don’t understand what you’re saying (this one always makes me quietly laugh at your attempts to argue your point, b/c it blatantly demonstrates that you’re not paying sufficient attention to your own arguments to argue your point properly).

          Another reason I ignore you distinction between your isolated form of symbolism and generic physical relationships is b/c all of the CA patterns which appear in programmed CAs also appear in natural CAs: spaceships, gliders, puffers, etc. So there is a 100% inference that the computational capabilities of both sets have potential computational equivalency, which further implies that premeditated intent is likely not a requirement for successful program development. While this is all admittedly hypothetical there is better quality and significantly more evidence supporting it than your hypothesis. Before attempting to counter this take a good look at your past arguments to what I’ve been saying all along. If you look closely you’ll notice that you change your position constantly while I do not. You have a habit of countering me with one point one day and coming back later with a totally contradictory point.

          • Mike,

            If you think the fact that the mapping of GGG to Glycine being symbolic is news to me, it only reinforces my suspicion that you have never carefully read the articles on this website. I have not even slightly changed my approach or position on any of these matters for 4 years. Others reading this thread are welcome to comment, but in my opinion it’s you who are changing positions, not me.

            I have never begun any of my arguments with an a priori assumption that an intelligent source is required for Shannon’s model to function. I have made the observation that every system we know the origin of that does fit shannon’s model is designed by humans.

            Your response is, “I’m not going to answer your questions because you wouldn’t understand what I’m saying anyway.” Judging your opponent incapable of understanding your evidence is no substitute for bringing evidence to the table.

            I have asked you to draw a Shannon diagram and fill in the encoding / decoding tables for a system that is not designed. Pick a system that supports your thesis and come forward with your evidence.

            You have thus far refused to do so. I am again asking you to do this.

            I have defined code as “a system of symbols for communication.” I have defined communication as data exchanged between an encoder and decoder using agreed upon symbols. That by nature invokes Shannon’s model. This is 100% standard, non-controversial, engineering communication theory.

            You said that things like ASCII really aren’t designed, they come from instinct. Instinct is a vague term that essentially means “algorithm”. This gets you nowhere because you never explain how the original DNA algorithm started. Meanwhile you’ve completely brushed aside the entire problem of abiogenesis and the question of where the genetic code came from by simply asserting that all physical processes are CA’s. You have not presented any evidence to support that assertion.

            Mike, show me an example of a naturally occurring code within Shannon’s model.

            • Mike Minnich says:

              information source (a)
              transmitter (b)
              channel (c)
              receiver (d)
              destination (e)
              noise source (f)

              Shannon Diagram for Any Natural Language:
              a: random human generated output (gestural -> sign language, vocal -> spoken language, pictorial -> written language, -> tactile gestural -> tactile sign language, tactile pictorial -> braille style written language)
              b: innate pattern recognition/application mechanisms
              c: probably memory
              d: UG grammar mechanisms
              e: logical processing centres which feed back into memory and thus into UG. To be clear this mechanism is far more often than not a subconscious one and one which I would be inclined to at least partially include within UG rather than general intelligence for various reasons.

              f: input failures, pattern recognition failures, memory failures (various grades and types of failure to store, various grades and types of failure to retreive), logical processing failures

              • Mike Minnich says:

                maybe this rendering of d and e would make more sense:

                d: UG encode
                e: UG parse w/ automatic save at each constituent boundary.

              • Mike Minnich says:

                Thus you can see that UG is in fact a feedback loop which has its own nested Shannon diagram, churning out information which it later reads in until no further work on a grammar can be conducted based on the current state of memory, which is subsequently altered via sensory input permitting new grammar elements to be devised. This sort of mechanism is known to occur in adults as well as children, the dominant difference apparently being the obvious disparities in memory contents between the two groups which stabilize the language of adults much more so than that of children. The mechanism is naturally occurring unless you insist that it was designed by G-d, in which case we fall into the circular logic that I’ve previously pointed out plagues your argument.

                • You did a fine job of describing human communication in Shannon terms, that is just fine.

                  But you still haven’t answered my question at all. Everything you have said here takes UG’s and human behavior as a given.

                  You have been assuming all along humans are naturally occurring and not designed. That is your bias. You just said it above: “The mechanism is naturally occurring unless you insist that it was designed by G-d” — that is your presumption that you are bringing to the table. You keep saying that all my models assume Intelligence in advance. NO THEY DO NOT! Your models assume without proof that NO intelligence is necessary in advance. MIKE, YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT. You are assuming it from the very beginning of this discussion. I am asking you to prove it.

                  I am asking you to map an instance outside human behavior or human influence. I’m asking you to show a non-living thing that is not made by humans that conforms to Shannon’s model. Whatever you choose – chemical reaction, iron rusting, whatever example you wish to select from nature. Show that communication systems conforming to Shannon’s model exist in nature, in pure physics & chemistry.

                  • Mike Minnich says:

                    What I’ve demonstrated is that general intelligence is not a factor in the languageness of a natural language. What you’ve asserted is that all codes of known origin are of intelligent origin. We both agree that all natural languages are codes. Thus if natural languages aren’t necessarily of intelligent origin (b/c even barring influence from general intelligence they are still languages) then your assertion that all codes of known origin are of intelligent origin is not true. How can you seriously sit there and say that I haven’t properly dismantled your argument? There are no leaks in my logic here. You’ve agreed that general intelligence isn’t required for languages to be languages, you’ve agreed that languages are codes, you’ve agreed that my Shannon diagram is satisfactory even despite its exclusion of a necessarily intelligent source and destination. What question have I failed to answer? Your argument is destroyed. There are no more questions that can save you.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      If you’re implying that UG is of intelligent origin then I’d like to remind you of the fact that you have previously asserted that the naturalness of a cause does not have bearing on the naturalness of an effect, and as such you are flip-flopping here if you’re attempting to assert that an intelligent designer is necessary for UG and by extension language is not natural b/c it is dependent upon UG.

                    • Here is what I said about naturalness of cause / naturalness of effect:

                      “I didn’t say the naturalness of a cause influences the naturalness of an effect. I hope I am understanding what you are saying.
                      If your computer goes to the Microsoft website and downloads Windows updates automatically, that is a purely physical, mechanical process, and that process goes forward regardless of where it originated. It is just obeying the laws of physics.
                      But you can’t derive microsoft windows from the laws of physics.”

                      In other words an intelligent being can set something in motion “un-naturally” and everything that happens from that point forward can be entirely natural.

                      I don’t know if I’ve made myself clear enough. It sounds like you’re holding me to having said something I didn’t say.

                      I am not just implying that UG is of intelligent origin, I’m emphatically stating it. If you disagree, then show me a UG that exists outside the realm of humans and DNA.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      sorry, typo: ‘What you’ve asserted is that all known codes are of intelligent origin’ should be, ‘What you’ve asserted is that all codes of known origin are of intelligent origin’

                    • You have said that there is no correlation between intelligence and ability to use language. I have gone with that assumption for the sake of argument in parts of our thread but ultimately I disagree.

                      Rocks do not produce languages, codes or UG’s. At all.

                      Monkeys produce crude minimal languages, codes and UG’s.

                      Humans produce immensely sophisticated languages, codes and UG’s.

                      I say intelligence and choice is a factor in the ability to employ language, codes and UG’s.

                      I have asked you to provide an example of a naturally occurring code – outside of DNA and human language – and you are still dodging the question.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      Just to be clear, monkeys do not produce languages, do not have UG and utilize signaling codes which are almost fully hardwired. Language and UG are innate to humans and modern Homo sapiens is the only extant species which possesses language. As such your demand for examples of language or code with a non-human origin that is not of an ancient origin like DNA is asking too much. You’ve created a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. The very fact that language is isolated to the genus Homo demonstrates the instinctual nature of language, and the sense in which I use the term instinct is very tightly confined and well defined, BTW. To qualify as an instinct a behaviour must manifest in all healthy individuals of a specific species regardless of environmental conditions. Under this definition spider webs are instinctual, the details of the meaning of chimpanzee facial expressions are instinctual, rabbit postural signaling is instinctual, and the imperative for human language is instinctual. Things which do not qualify as instinct are calculus, rats interacting socially with humans, pigeons dancing in circles for food, dogs riding skateboards, TCP/IP, English, etc. The simple fact that signaling is extremely common among animals, particularly social animals (compare rabbits to pikas) combined with the fact that the details of signaling codes are species specific demonstrates that a naturalistic origin is an extremely reasonable hypothesis, moreso than initially assuming an intelligent designer. But if you cannot accept that human language is of natural origin then what’s the point in discussing animal signaling? As with language these signaling systems are not contingent on general intelligence, in fact they show much less interaction with intelligent mechanisms as they are more fully specified genetically. If you wish to get into a detailed discussion about the likely origins of the human language instinct I am fully prepared to go there, but it will take up a considerable amount of space and little if anything that I hypothesize will be well supported by literature more than a few years old, which is likely to be the only literature you will find.

                      If you disagree that general intelligence has no bearing on the languageness of languages then I ask that you substantiate that position. I have thoroughly substantiated my position that there isn’t a connection. I also ask you to explain the discrepancy between general intelligence potential among various species and the extreme isolation of language to humans. In general many sorts of animals are more adept at learning than humans are, have somewhat better memory at least in regard to specific tasks and are better equipped to basic survival situations based on non-instinctual cues than humans are. So it seems to me that from this point of view it’s actually quite unreasonable to posit that humans are substantially more intelligent generally than certain other animals, and again an argument in this direction appears to be circular:

                      Given the axiom: humans are the most intelligent animal
                      Given the fact: language is isolated to humans

                      It follows: language results from the general intelligence of humans

                      It then follows: since humans have language and no other animal does humans must be the most intelligent animals

                      Now it follows: language results from the general intelligence of humans

                      ad infinitum

                      So, please check your assumptions. Your logic, regardless of any frantic argument you attempt to the contrary, is absolutely fraught with circularity, apparently at all levels.

                      In defense of your accusation that my logic is circular I’d like to remind you that I am a theist and yet am arguing logically against a logical proof of G-d. The reason for this is that G-d is not a topic for logical analysis. Until you understand that I fear you will never understand the core of my argument. Your assertion that I’m attempting to argue against G-d is thus inconsistent if you’ve been reading what I have to say, and so I suspect that it’s you who’s not following the conversation faithfully. My argument is and always has been that your proof is faulty, b/c very many of your assumptions are inappropriate and your logic is not by any stretch of the imagination truly linear.

                    • Mike,

                      I do not believe you can logically PROVE God in the formal sense of “proof.” I believe that we have powerful inference to a God.

                      Theology is, by definition:

                      1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
                      2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

                      I accept this definition and thus believe logic does apply to God. God is not so hopelessly out of reach as to be immune from logical, rational conversations and analysis. Ultimately God does transcend analysis though. Human attempts to define God are feeble at best.

                      I believe I understand what you are saying and I think I am defining intelligence somewhat differently than you are. Please allow me to attempt to un-freeze this discussion.

                      We can define three kinds of things in the world:

                      1. Things that have no universal grammars (like rocks)
                      2. Things that have universal grammars in their operation but do not create language – basically all living things and instinctive behaviors, and computers
                      3. Things that create languages from universal grammars – the only thing that makes this list is humans.

                      What we seem to be arguing about is whether the defining factor between #2 and #3 is intelligence. You insist that it’s not.

                      OK, I can work with that, but there is still some kind of attribute – let’s call it Attribute X – that represents the capacity to create codes at will. The degree to which Attribute X has been developed determines the quality of the language, the elegance of the protocol, even the artistic content of the poetry or the music. In casual conversation people tend to refer to this as intelligence. Genius even.

                      Now Mike you see a circularity because language defines intelligence and intelligence defines language and so on. But that is missing my real point.

                      The point is, there is an infinite chasm between #1 and #2. I refer you again to my article called “The infinite chasm.”

                      And what we know from building computers is that items in category #2 come from beings in category #3. They do not come from rocks.

                      So I draw a line and I put rocks and matter in category #1 and I put conscious beings in category #3 and there is an infinite chasm between the two. Consciousness and matter are distinct entities. Codes, languages and UG’s (all the stuff in #2 and #3) that we know the origin of are always a product of consciousness, not mere matter. There are no known exceptions to this.

                    • Mike,

                      You said:

                      “G-d is not a topic for logical analysis”

                      The above statement is a logical analytical statement about God. Therefore it is self refuting.

                      Therefore G-d IS a topic for logical analysis.

                      Your statement is contradictory. Mine is not. Therefore logic applies to God.

                      Perry

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      ‘G-d is not a topic for logical analysis’ is logically valid b/c it is axiomatic given specific conditions which may or may not hold. My point is really that these conditions may hold and as such the possibility that G-d is not addressable logically must be acknowledged.

                    • Derek and I discuss this in depth at http://evo2.org/incompleteness/ and you’re welcome to join in that discussion. Yes, God is outside of logical systems and is above logic. Many things about God are undecideable propositions, apart from God revealing Himself. But the only self-consistent statements we can make about God are statements that we can make true and logical statements about God.

            • Eocene says:

              Hi Perry

              This is the only comment I will make on your go around with Mike Minnich, Jon, etc.

              His position is typical of most atheist to blurr or fuzzy a clear definition of exactly just what a code is. From observing several others, here and on infidels.org or any other debates forum, their position is to never directly answer the question because they can’t. Therefore it is necessary to attack the definitions of exactly just what a code is, which ultimately is rediculous and time wasting. It’s much like the modern day definition game of just exactly what the definition of Evolution itself is.

              Here’s something I’ve read I read some time ago of a definition Evolution by an individual named Fred Williams who runs his own forum for disccusion, although I am not a member, nor do I always agree with everyone there, but I did find this explanation both logical and illustrative of the game that is usually played in these debates and I think it also fits here nicely.

              It’s called “The Evolution Definition Shell Game”
              http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm

              You could almost call this present discussion “The Code Definition Shell Game”.

              In the above link, the reasons Fred used for this definition is that Evolutionists usually want the debate as a sort of gray subject. It’s almost always imperiative for the Atheist to insist the the debate never take a turn towards “Abiogenesis” , but rather on Evolution for which evolution is not a part. This is a lie, the term has always been about mud to man or molecles to man as fred puts it. It is because they have no answer for those all important beginnings that the term “Abiogenesis” be invoked and protest it’s admission into the discussion because it has nothing to do with evolution.

              Your discussion Perry is the one discussion they HATE to take on because in reality they cannot explain the answer and trying to do so would be making things up as they go along and having egg on their face is the last thing they want. They know exactly what a real code is. However admitting it means they need acknowledge that ONLy a designer can manufacture such a brilliant informational code. Therefore their own recourse is to debate with you the definition of what exactly a code is and muddy the otherwise crystal clear waters of logic. For all their insistance on logic and rationalism, they rarely employ any of it. They get to a point where even they realize their arguement does’nt hold water and is making them look totally stupid. It is at this point where filthy foul language usually enters in along with the more common insults and usual vulgaities when backed into a corner like some injured and wounded vicious preditory animal.

              Go figure!

              • Eocene,

                You are exactly right, except I need to say that Mike Minnich isn’t an atheist, he’s a theist of some kind. But he does argue like an atheist. I’ll get to more posts by Mike when I get a chance.

  11. spencer says:

    Perry,

    You are repeatedly claiming that your argument is a syllogism. It is not.
    For one, premises and conclusions of syllogisms must be in categorical form. Yours are not.

    Let’s change that.

    Here is your altered “syllogism” in reply to Mike:

    1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
    2. All codes we know the origin of are products of Instinct and Universal Grammars.
    3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is a product of Instinct and Universal Grammars and 0% inference that it is not.

    Here are your premises in Categorical form:

    1. All things that are the patterns in DNA are codes.
    2. All codes we know the origin of are products of instinct and universal grammars

    The conclusion cannot be converted into categorical form without inferring something, but for the sake of argument lets say it is something like this.

    3. All things that are identical to DNA are things that we have 100% inferrance of being a product of universal instinct and Grammars

    Now, for a syllogism to be valid it must pass 5 tests.

    1. There must be at least one positive premise.
    2. If there is a negative conclusion there must be at least one negative premise, and vise versa.
    3. The middle term must be distributed
    4. If a term is distributed in the conclusion it must be distributed in at least one premise.
    5. Two universal premises cannot produce a particular conclusion, unless you can make an existential assumption.

    the good news is it passes the first, second and fifth tests, however we run into a problem when we look at the third and fourth tests.

    You MUST have three and only three subjects. You sir have SIX subjects.
    1.Things that are patterns in DNA
    2. Codes
    3. Codes we know the origin of
    4. products of instincts and universal grammars
    5. Things that are identical to DNA
    6. Things that we have 100% inferrance of being a product of universal instinct and Grammars

    Because you have twice the exact amount of subjects you should have we cannot possibly find a Major, Minor, or most importantly a middle term.
    Since we do not have a middle term (ignorin the fact that your argument is NOT a syllogism because you do not have THREE terms) So you fail both the third and fourth tests, as there are no specific terms to be distributed.

    Even if you do consider this a syllogism, it is not valid.

    Because this does not follow any logical laws, this is not a logically valid argument, and cannot be considered correct.

    • I’m not particularly interested in defending the statement about instincts and UG’s because I’m really just playing with Mike’s UG thesis. I think this version poorly formed, particularly because the word “instincts” is very imprecise.

      The syllogism I’m willing to defend is:

      1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
      2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
      3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

      The only code we don’t know the origin of is DNA. By inference it’s designed.

      • spencer says:

        Perry,

        This is still not a syllogism. I am afraid you are using terms you do not quite understand. This is not intended to be rude in any way, I just simply mean that you are still claiming a non-syllogistic statement to be a syllogism.

        You still have way too many terms. So your syllogism, and thus your argument is not valid. Please sir, for your own sake read up on syllogisms before continuing to claim that your argument is a valid one.

        I cannot, nor should anyone else, logically accept your argument until it follows the rules of logic!

        Sincerely
        Spencer

        • Spencer,

          All animals are mortal.
          All humans are animals.
          All humans are mortal.

          (A proper syllogism example from Wikipedia)

          Compare this to

          1. All codes are designed
          2. DNA is a code
          3. Therefore DNA is designed

          I left out “that we know the origin of”. But DNA is the only code we don’t know the origin of, so really, it’s a redundant statement.

          What’s the difference? You’ll need to be more specific about your criticism.

  12. GM says:

    Mr Marshall has not and can not prove the existence of God. To quote the Bible,
    “the created can not be greater than the creator”. A good teaching tool, my Bible on DNA and its evolution, is Dr. T. Ryan Greogry’s, ” The Evolution of the Genome”.
    Mr. Marshall has built his assumptions upon a designer, which is completely hypothesized and delusional. The combination of DNA and RNA are billions of years of natural selection…the human genome is constantly rebuilding itself. Making redundant copies of theirselves, even as we breath, molecules of the body are making new copies. _____Study any virus.
    DNA uses the alphabet of the letters A T C G….humans use the alphabet, A-Z. God didn’t speak man into existence and certainly not equipped with an alphabet or conbining words by making sounds. Then there is the problem of definition. And finally communication.
    I had suggested for Mr. Marshall to study our Greek forerunners in developling the art of writing to communicate. We do have the power to reverse engineer.
    For Mr. Marshall to suggest he can prove their is a creator because he can write an algorithm is folly…nothing is new just more of the old creation dribble.
    By comparison…my God doesn’t need proving existence… and I certainly don’t control God…to discover the modern day church and Christianity read the entire book of Jude in the Judeo-Christian Bible. GOD DID NOT CREATE EVERYTHING AS WE KNOW IT. MY GOD IS BEFORE THE EXSISTENCE OF ANYTHING. EVERYTHING HAS EVOLVED AND IS SUPPORTED BY EMPERICAL EVIDENCE OF THE SPECIES…….REALLY

    • GM,

      You’re going to have to do better than make a collection of unsubstantiated insulting statements. If there is an error in my logic, you’re welcome to point it out. If you just want to vent, you will need to go elsewhere.

    • Forrest Charnock says:

      What empirical evidence do you have for the origin of life or that a reptile gave birth to a baby bird?
      The answer I usually get is your stupid and do not understand evolution.
      My contention is the opposite, I do understand it and therefore reject it , you do not and therefore accept it.

      If you claim this god you created in your own mind did not create at least the first 2 reproducing organisms your “theory” is dead in the water .

      If this god you created did make the first reproducing organisms then it’s my god can whip your God.

      The only empirical evidence for the origin of life is that all life has parents similar to itself.

      As far as transmutation is concerned you will tell me some nonsense like it only applies to alchemy , I will be happy to show you modern biology dictionaries that say it also applies to so-called “evolutionary biology” . To which you will reply MOST SCIENTIST AGREE which in the end the ONLy argument you have.

      Also study Goldschmidt who said that a reptile gave birth to a baby bird “Hopeful Monster Theory” and then Gould defended him.

      Empirical evidence does not speak for itself. If you find a dinosaur bone you assume it is 65ma because of your beliefs, I say it is no more than 6ka because of mine. Most of the scientific measures you ASSUME can accurately date things dispute your view and are therefore ignored. C-14 says they cannot be 100ka , let alone 65ma and we find them with red blood cells , soft and stretchy flesh and still stinking of death.
      All the empirical evidence as well as all the historical evidence which is much more important shows few still existed a few hundred years ago
      not to mention the Biblical account. The American Indians and people all over the world drew pictures and made models and rock carvings of them in life , interacting with men and there is no explanation for that other than they saw them in life.

      You have no empirical evidence of the age of anything millions of years ago, to be empirical evidence must be verifiable and even the wild assumptions do not agree. You cannot verify the scale, you cannot calibrate it, the whole system is based on an a priori commitment to materialism,it is faith not science. It is an ancient anti-God religion.

      I find it amusing you pretend to be a free thinker and a theist . A theist by definition has to believe God and “free thinkers” are by modern usage those whose thoughts are controlled by the Fixed laws of chemistry.

      Since we are arguing religion why do you wish to serve a God who creates by killing ? The secret of evolution is Time and Death!
      May as well serve Satan as that ogre.

  13. atorrnce says:

    Dear Dr. Marshall
    My interest was aroused by the example you give of an advertisement on Google: that the first of the phrases below is only about half as successful as the second phrase in attracting hits :
    1. Easy Personal Protection Training
    2. Fast Personal Protection Training
    I decided to look at the mathematics behind a random transformation of phrase 1 into phrase 2, since I was not sure if I agreed with the way your random phrase generator works. I did not believe that it truly represented the way natural selection is supposed to work; and here is what I did.
    Suppose, instead of what you did, we were to write a programme to change characters at random in the first phrase with the following constraints:
    1. Any letter can change on any iteration of the programme. The probability of a letter changing is p.
    2. If the change does not produce the desired result, (ie phrase 2.) it is rejected by “natural selection” since the new phrase will lose meaning and become less effective than the original phrase.
    3. The time, t , for one iteration of the programme is one microsecond.
    4. The number of letters in the alphabet is z =26.
    The probability p1 that the first and third letters will mutate correctly is given by:
    p1=(p/(z-1))^2
    However, it is also necessary to calculate the probability p2 that none of the other 28 letters in the phrase will mutate ( If they did, we wouldn’t get the desired result.) and p2 is given by:
    p2 = (1-p)^28
    The probability P of successfully mutating the phrase in a single iteration can then be found by multiplying p1 and p2:
    P=p1p1=(p/(z-1))^2 . (1-p)^28
    If the operation is repeated x times, the probability that a successful mutation will occur is xP
    The time, T needed for xP=1/2 (a 50% chance) is given by:
    T = t/2P = (10^-6)/(2P)

    T depends on the value of p selected.
    I wrote a spreadsheet to calculate the result, and found the value of p (~0.07) which makes T a minimum. It is about ½ second, or 500000 iterations. To be fair, this is less than the number you quote in your article, so had you programmed your generator differently, it could have been a little more effective at improving the phrase. If any of your readers is interested, I will email them the spreadsheet.
    I next thought of putting in numbers for the DNA sequence of a simple creature. The number N, of amino acids in the sequence could be 500000, whilst the number of different amino acids is 4 (z = 4). Moreover, in nature, there would be a large population of these creatures, and the probability of a single successful mutant in the whole population would be P multiplied by the population size.
    For the sake of illustration, I took a population of 1 billion and a reproductive cycle of 5 minutes, and calculated the time needed for a 50% chance that one member of this population would mutate three of the amino acids in its sequence in a given way which would make it more viable. I found the minimum time to be 12000 years when p is 0.000006.
    Three in half a million is rather a small number of mutations, so I asked the spreadsheet to work out the time for 4 simultaneous desired mutations of amino acids in the sequence. The minimum time rose to 5 billion years when p is 0.000008. It seems to me that for such a modest change to take so long certainly raises serious questions about random natural selection.
    The big problem for successful random mutation seems to be the size of the DNA sequence. When we consider not only the probability of a desired mutation, but also the probability of undesired mutations not occurring, the chances of anything positive happening rapidly diminish. This is because the size of the sequence is the main term in the exponent of the probability of nothing happening to the sequence.
    Perhaps my assumptions are wrong. After all, I am not a professional biologist but a retired mechanical engineer. Maybe one of your readers can correct me; but here is another problem I can see. If we go to more developed creatures, which have a longer DNA sequence, we should see them evolving more slowly if random mutation is the mechanism. Indeed, the probability of them evolving at all could be vanishingly small. This is curiously at odds with my understanding of the usual interpretation of the fossil record: simple creatures appear to have stayed the same for long periods of time, whilst more complex ones, especially man, are said to have evolved from their ancestors in a time which appears incredibly short, especially when counted in generations.
    I am truly puzzled by all this, and wonder why so much of the scientific community appears to have ignored these things for over a century, even if nowadays new ideas about evolutionary mechanisms are starting to be adopted. For the time being, the only answer I can find is summarised in the following poem.

    There once was a bunch of fanatics
    Who would not accept sound mathematics.
    They believed all we see
    By chance came to be
    And on that founded all their dogmatics.

    • You are correct.

      I have not carefully checked your math – others are welcome to – but you are right. The notion that random mutation is the driving force of evolution fails every statistical criteria you can think of. I am not exaggerating or being dramatic. When you actually crunch the numbers, you come up with figures like 1 chance in 10^50 of anything good ever happening – and that’s being generous.

      The Random Mutation hypothesis is widely touted in popular books…. but it is not taken seriously in hard core scientific literature. Mostly the literature is silent about where these mutations originate. I have been inviting people for 5 years to come forward with a scientific paper that empirically demonstrates the viability of RM and no one has ever come forward with a good example.

      As far as I’m concerned it proves that human beings are desperately irrational when it comes to questions of a spiritual nature. I think it’s also why atheists talk incessantly about “reason and logic” – it’s actually a way of disguising the fact that their worldview is not based on reason or logic at all. Atheism is based on pure emotion, disappointment that God did not make the world the way they think He should have so they have decided He doesn’t exist. Faith in Chance with a capital C instead of God with a Capital G.

      For all atheists reading this who disagree, I simply invite you: Show me one scientific paper that empirically demonstrates that random mutations (as opposed to computation or cellular genetic engineering) lead to evolutionary progress.

      You’ve presented as good an argument as any as to why we should hypothesize that DNA is designed. People can follow the evidence wherever it leads.

      The good new is, not everyone is in denial. Antony Flew was the world’s leading philosophical atheist for 50 years and he converted to theism about 5 years ago for this exact reason. As the 20th century progressed he saw that the gap that naturalistic science failed to fill yawned wider and wider with each passing year. He has an OUTSTANDING book called “There is a God.”

      • wmorrison says:

        Perry, you asked for a scientific paper that showed empirical evidence that random mutations lead to evolutionary progress.

        Does this meet your criteria? http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000742

        If not, I’m thinking the problem might revolve around the word ‘progress’. I don’t think evolution has an agenda. Progress isn’t so much on offer as ‘exploring the possible landscapes’.

        Consider that I am quite like my parents, but not exactly so. I am a creature that (as far as I can tell) is the result of a random evolutionary event. I do not think God had a hand in arranging a particular sperm/egg combination… that could be debated, I know. But in any case, the fact that I am different from either of my parents is all that is really necessary for evolution to ‘work’.

        One of my older brothers never married and has no children. The possible lineage that would have been created in his offspring is extinct. Whatever the future may hold, there is a greater possibility that my offspring will inhabit it and his offspring will not. This, I think, is all that is required for evolution to happen — to accept that there was a random element in both my creation as well as which children will be around for another round of mixing.

        Are you perhaps arguing that God has a hand in each event that leads to the next generation? Or, perhaps that it is the overall system that God designed? I don’t see much controversy if you want to say that evolution as a mechanism for change is designed by God… although I do not see how that explains much either.

        • It’s an interesting paper. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The most interesting statement I found was the following:

          “Roughly speaking, the probability that a random single nucleotide substitution is lethal for an ssRNA virus is one third or higher, while viable mutations reduce fitness by 10–13% on average.”

          1/3 of single nucleotide substitutions are lethal and the rest of them reduce fitness by 10-13%. Just as I suspected.

          Nowhere in this paper do I find a statement such as “0.1% of the mutations INCREASE fitness by 10-13%.”

          YES, changing the nucleotides changes the organism. Obviously. But random changes only damage the data. As any communication engineer would tell you.

          According to all the Darwinism books evolution does have an agenda – to reproduce. To populate the earth with fit species. Random mutation is counterproductive to that goal. I don’t see that this paper shows otherwise.

          I never said God had a hand in arranging a particular sperm/egg combination. There is a random combination of mendelian genetics factors when that happens. That has nothing to directly do with evolution via random mutations.

          I am not arguing that God has a hand in each event that leads to the next generation. Read my article http://evo2.org/new-theory-of-evolution/ for a summary of my thesis.

  14. DoubleD586 says:

    I agree that something had to create the BIG BANG so on, and so on but then where did God come from. Under the same rules God had to be created from something too.

    Did God have parents and if so where did they come from and if God did not have parents then who or what created God ?

    You can’t apply your thinking to science then not apply it to religion.

    Thats being a hypocrite

  15. GM says:

    Molecules are great things to put under the electron microscope.
    What I’m about to comment on isn’t my own thought , but Mike Minnich.
    To restate the original hypothesis: “If you can Read This I Can Prove God Exist”. by Mr. Perry Marshall.
    The entire hypothsis is predicated on the engine of the observable genome.
    To conscent to any entertainment; you have to conclude God also makes mutations causing birth defects and a host of behavioral disorders.

    I personally believe if God created any genome if would be a perfect genome and nothing could cause it to stray from the course of a perfectly formed DNA link in our chain.
    If you conclude God is the cause of any reproduction of DNA and RNA, you made the statement and have proved God doesn’t create perfect specimens.

  16. TOE says:

    There was this books I encountered written by Zecharia Sitchin. It seems that in the babylonian epics of creation called the Enuma elish , the human DNA was designed by Aliens from the Planet Nibiru, the 11th planet (beyond pluto)more specifically by Enki. Pluto that was discovered only in the early 1900s but was already known to sumerians and babylonians even prior to the Great Flood. The sumerians also has this epic hero Gilgamesh who was claiming he was 2/3 divine. The reason behind it was he was a son of a priest and a goddess. we always think of base pairs and that 1 strand of dna from the mother and 1 strand of dna from the father combines to compose the new offspring, so Gilgamesh should only be 1/2 divine. Recent studies found another strand encompasing the base pairs called MtDNA or Mitochondrial DNA that usually comes from the mother and might be a genetic footprint from the first Eve. This confirms Gilgamesh is indeed 2/3 divine with 2 parts out of 3 coming from a goddess, an alien.

    The sumerians wrote their literature in clay tablets making sure it would survive the great flood. There was this sumerian Noah by the name of Ziusudra who built not an Ark but a Submarine to preserve life on earth. It was Enki who gave him instructions to do it.

    Enki is also Thoth in Egyptian. The scientist.

    I believe in one true God, and it might not be the Hebrew one. I also believe that God is the architect of the universe. I have an alternative theory on Gravity. And my Gravity would explain why up until now the solid core our teachers told us in elementary that is in the center of the earth is still solid despite being enveloped by magma. The earth’s crust is explainable, magma exposed to the atmosphere and water is yes could be solid floating in magma but a solid core enveloped by magma is silly. I wouldn’t explain my simple gravity theory here.

    There are also scientist attributing the earth’s magnetic field to an iron earth core. We studied electromagnetism in highschool physics, and you are probably aware that electrons flowing in a conductor produces a magnetic field around it with the magnetic field direction knowable using the right hand rule. So if electricity is flowing in wire in front of you the magnetic field is going away from you at the top of the wire and towards you below the wire. Now imagine the wire in front of you is a loop on a table with the electricity flowing clockwise. The magnetic field goes away from you enters the center of the loop and comes back to you. What is electricity? its a flow of electrons.

    Select a single point in the earth’s equator. As the earth rotates the point you selected moves, that point in the earth has atoms and atoms has electrons meaning there is a virtual flow of electrons as the earth moves and since the earth rotates from east to west much the same as that wire loop in the table with the electricity flowing clockwise, the earth’s magnetic field goes away from you enters the north pole comes back to you from the south pole.

    This kind of high school insight is the very same no nonsense common sense I used to formulate my Gravitational Theory. I could also explain why the poles are colder than the equator even if the difference of the distance of the sun to the pole and the distance of the sun to the equator is not that significant and we all know the earth is tilted with the northern hemisphere facing the sun on summer (causing forest fires in california) and the southern hemishpere facing the sun during winter (causing forest fires in australia). I think you can make up the explanation if I gave you the keywords, SPEED, distance/time. HEAT is SPEED of the molecules.

    Just like you I am a seeker. And in looking for the Key most of us forgets the Keyhole, and it happens to be the most important one. The key has no purpose if we do not have the Keyhole in the first place.

  17. Lamassu says:

    Dear Perry Marshall,

    As a Christian and graduate student of philosophy, I would first like to remark how impressed I am by your argument. If sound, then your argument would avoid the traditional problems characteristic of most design arguments. With that said, however, I do feel that your formulation of the argument, though a good one, could use some redoing. Unless otherwise stated, I will be referring to your two condensed syllogisms located here > http://evo2.org/iidb.htm.

    S#1:

    1.) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
    2.) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
    3.) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

    S#2:

    1.) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.
    2.) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.
    3.) Therefore DNA came from a mind.

    As I’m sure you see, (S#2) differs from (S#1) in respect to the focus on what part of DNA is the code and the nature of the mind. Before addressing these, though, I would like to comment on the wording of the syllogism. Since this argument is inductive (you yourself acknowledge this), it is already apparent to the educated reader that the argument will attempt to create a generalization based off of specific observations. In other words, the relative clause “that we know the origin of” is unnecessary in this sort of inductive argument because it is within the inductive premise. In philosophy, such redundancy is unnecessary, provided that you make it explicitly clear on the outset that your argument is inductive and not deductive. If it is mistaken for a deductive argument, then the conclusion will not follow. So, S#2, which I presume to be your “official” version of the argument, at least for the purposes of debates, can be simplified to the following:

    S#3:

    1.) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.
    2.) All codes come from a mind.
    3.) Therefore, DNA came from a mind.

    Technically, however, this argument does not logically follow. After all, you asserted in the first premise that “the sequence of base pairs in DNA” was a code, not the entire DNA itself. So, the argument’s conclusion should be properly revised to:

    (S#3, 3) Therefore, the sequence of base pairs in DNA came from a mind.

    With that caveat out of the way, I would now like to offer a few comments. First, I noticed that you changed the first premise of S#1 for S#2 such it stated that the sequence of base pairs in DNA rather than the entire DNA itself was a code. Why was this done? What convinced you on Infidels to make this change? Second, I noticed also that you changed the second premise of S#1 such that in S#2, it made no mention of consciousness. While this was a wise move (after all, certain animals such as bees use coded signals), I think you can make even better changes. The concept of an immaterial mind is the center of a hot debate in philosophy that is far from being resolved. Unsurprisingly, many naturalists cling to a view known as mind-body physicalism, the view that the mind is synonymous with the body, or more specifically, the brain. Hence, a staunch physicalist would reject the second premises of all arguments of this type presented thus far because to him, the concept of a mind without a brain (as is the case with God) is meaningless. While you could easily challenge him on that, such a discussion would be outside the scope of your argument. Thus, to avoid such problems, I would recommend that you alter the syllogism yet again, this time to focus more on the design aspect:

    S#4:

    1.) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.
    2.) All codes are designed.
    3.) Therefore, the sequence of base pairs in DNA is designed.

    In S#4, the nature of the designer is left unknown, removing the aforementioned problems. From the (S#4, 3), you can provide additional arguments or evidence that the designer is personal, conscious, etc., which you appear to do on certain pages of this website. However, even this argument is still unsound. Why? (S#4, 2) is false. Not all codes are designed; bee waggles, for example, are the product of unconscious bees acting on instinct, not intent, which is a necessary precondition for design. I realize that in the Infidels thread, you respond to this objection by stating that such “animal codes” are merely the product and derivative of DNA, the same way that computers capable of creating other computers are ultimately a product of human design. While I agree with you, this is not reflected in your argument. In order to maintain a sound argument, you must make one final revision:

    1.) All codes are ultimately designed.
    2.) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.
    3.) Therefore, the sequence of base pairs in DNA is ultimately designed.

    [Note: I switch the first and second premises. While your argument could have been valid without the exchange, it was done for mainly an aesthetic reason. In philosophical literature, the major premise (the universal one) almost always goes first, followed by the minor premise (the specific one).]

    And here is the final argument. I apologize for the length of my post; however, I wanted to make it clear why I felt your argument was in need of revision, step by step. It is my hope that you will consider my comments and, hopefully, modify your argument.

    Now, you may be (rightly) wondering why I would care so much about this argument? It so turns out that I am seriously considering to write about this for one of my papers in my Philosophy of Religion course (worry not – all credit for the argument will go to you if I do choose to pursue this topic). Thus, I wanted to help produce a stronger, more persuasive form of this argument for my own academic work. However, I do have one request. I lack the expertise in physics, biology, and information theory to fully understand the evidence for and against design in its most complex form. So, I was wondering if you could direct me to any literature on the subject of DNA and design that is easy enough for a novice like me to understand, yet up-to-date on modern discoveries in the fields of information theory and molecular biology. Moreover, I would truly appreciate it if you could direct me to literature both supportive and critical of the design hypothesis. I hope to hear from you soon, Perry.

    Cheers,
    Lamassu

    • Lamassu,

      Mine is fundamentally different than most design arguments, because it is an argument by definition rather than by anecdotal evidence or incredulity.

      The version of the syllogism you find at the beginning of the Infidels thread is adequate and it was a good start, all things considered. But version I use now is much tighter. Which is:

      1. The pattern in DNA is a code. 2. All codes we know the origin of are designed. 3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

      This version has an absolute minimum of “moving parts” and as such is not disputable. This version has been out on the Internet for 4 years and NOBODY has punched a hole in it. As you well know, they’ve tried very hard.

      I shifted from “DNA” to “Pattern in DNA” because I wanted to single out the arrangement of the molecules as opposed to the molecules themselves. An individual nucleotide could perhaps be naturally occurring. However the encoding/decoding mechanism and the specific arrangement of base pairs in a string of 1 billion letters has an unfathomably small chance of occurring randomly.

      I took the word “mind” out of the syllogism because it’s one more moving part that’s not essential to the argument and it immediately brings up the age-old mind/body problem that you refer to in philosophy. Informed students of Philosophy know that these issues predate modern science by millennia.

      To include Bee Waggles and such I would have to say 1) all codes we know the origin of are either designed or derivatives of other codes.

      I’ve found the last part is really not necessary.

      I say “all codes we know the origin of” because the casual visitor does not understand what I mean if I say “I’m about to present an inductive argument.” It sets it up as inductive from the outside and the average lay person completely understands what’s being said. The reactions of atheists to this is almost visceral. I strongly suspect that most of the guys on infidels who are trying to argue DNA isn’t actually a code know they’re making a hopeless case. Frankly I doubt if half of them actually believe what they’re saying is even true.

      Many people point out that human consciousness itself is a derivative of DNA and the genetic code. That is correct. They think this somehow destroys my argument. No it doesn’t, what it actually does is re-state the scientific principle of biogenesis which says that life only comes from life. Which by the way is the only properly scientific statement you can make about the origin of life. There is no such thing as a formally scientific theory of abiogenesis at this time, only speculation.

      So atheists can gripe all they want about ID being outside the scope of science, but no origin of life theory found in any book or paper currently in print. Any Origin of Life discussion takes you outside the realm of science.

      The current version of my syllogism is 100% scientific. There is no statement in it that stretches beyond the realm of scientific knowledge and observation. You leave the realm of science the moment you say, “Designed by who or what?”

      But anyway the real core of this syllogism is the well-known process which is used to design a code and a coding system. Make up some kind of code (I mean really do it from start to finish) and you’ll see exactly what I mean. A convention of symbols and their mapping to referents has to be invented, and encoder and decoder must be constructed so they perform complementary functions.

      I think the discussion at http://evo2.org/faq and http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/ should make DNA & the subject of design pretty simple.

      I also recommend “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938 It’s not layman-speak but it’s not a difficult read either.

      Another book I heartily recommend, which originally inspired my work: “In the beginning was information” by Werner Gitt. It makes the same argument but in a more complex form.

      The atheist response to this is essentially:

      1. God does not exist 2. Therefore DNA is designed 3. Therefore DNA is not a code (OR) Therefore rocks and snowflakes and sand dunes are codes.

      If someone wants to prove the existence of a naturally occurring code, they need to diagram a Shannon communication system like I show on the FAQ page, label all the parts and make the table that shows the symbols and referents in the encoder and in the decoder. Very simple. Nobody’s ever done it.

      As for literature critical of the design hypothesis, it’s everywhere. I’m sorry to say I think much of it is tripe, but my opponents have the same criticism of design. Honestly I think the best objection to design I’ve ever seen is the story of Newton and Laplace told by Stephen Hawking on page 411 of “God Created the Integers” http://www.amazon.com/God-Created-Integers-Mathematical-Breakthroughs/dp/0762430044/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261200095&sr=8-1

      In this story, belief that God held the planets’ orbits in place was superceded by mathematical formula. However Newton could just have well been called on this error by a theologian as a mathematician. See my discussion about the premises and origins of science on the FAQ page.

      I wholeheartedly encourage you to write this paper and I’d love to see it when you’re done.

      Perry

      • Lamassu says:

        Dear Perry Marshall,

        First of all, thank you for making clarifications to your argument. This not only helps me with my research plan, but, as I’m sure you would agree, bolsters your own case for design! There was, however, one point you made which I think raises an interesting question. You said:

        “Many people point out that human consciousness itself is a derivative of DNA and the genetic code. That is correct. They think this somehow destroys my argument. No it doesn’t, what it actually does is re-state the scientific principle of biogenesis which says that life only comes from life. Which by the way is the only properly scientific statement you can make about the origin of life. There is no such thing as a formally scientific theory of abiogenesis at this time, only speculation.”

        I think when atheists point this out, they are trying to show that all codes (which we know to be man-made) are dependent on human consciousness, which is in turn dependent on DNA. Here, the idea is to diminish the inductive force of the premise “All codes (that we know the origin of) are designed,” by showing that they all are dependent on DNA for their existence. If this line of thought is correct, then all of the cases of designed codes are not really independent of one another and instead are completely contingent on DNA, whose origin we are trying to show to be inductively designed. I’m not yet quite sure how I would respond to this, but I’ll work on it for my paper

        Once again, thank you for your response. I hope to hear from you again soon.

        Cheers,
        Lamassu

        • Mike Minnich says:

          That’s rather exactly the problem that I think Perry is skirting. He’s failing to acknowledge that there is a pre-code time in the universe and that all coding derives apparently ultimately from a single event which occurred fully within the universe and fully within the limits of physics. It’s actually quite akin to his failure to realize that the if causality is bound to the universe then the universe does not require, and in fact cannot have, a cause. These two are really the same problem, one of chronology. Perry is repeatedly attempting to posit that b/c something occurs at one time that it must be predated by itself at all previous times in order to have begun. He’s simply not dealing with a rational timeline. Under his hypothesis there is no beginning point for anything since everything begins w/ G-d and G-d is w/o a beginning.

        • Mike Minnich says:

          Maybe we can get onto the same wavelength through a trivial example. Consider a computer virus. What does a bare bones virus do? It self replicates in available disc space. Consider the creator of the virus. He cannot self replicate in available disc space. Right there is absolute proof that there is no formulaic connection between the capabilities of a cause and the capabilities of its effect. Thus I don’t understand where you’re coming from, Perry, in asserting that intelligence is required to spawn intelligence. I think if you can clear this one up we can quickly end up in agreement on the overall logic of the problem.

          Happy Christmas, Mate.

          • Mike,

            Draw a Shannon communication system. Encoder, channel, decoder. Also write the encoding/decoding tables matching symbols to referents.

            You cannot derive such a system from the laws of physics. All communication systems have arbitrary symbols. They exhibit UG’s.

            UG’s and communication systems are created by conscious beings. Not rocks, not physics and chemistry. The symbol systems are willfully chosen in all systems we know the origin of.

            Thus the genetic code is a product of a conscious being.

            You are welcome to provide a counterexample. It seems like we were discussing this exact thing a few weeks ago but I may have lost track of one of your posts. If so I apologize.

  18. username says:

    Dear Perry Marshall,

    I’ve come across several rebuttals to your Information Theory Argument on IronChariots.Org. Hope you can address them. Thank you.

    The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological:

    If it could be shown that a self-replicating phenomenon (which may take a form other than DNA) that undergoes random mutation and non-random natural selection without the intervention of intelligent beings, then the whole argument is revealed to be nothing more than a tautology rather than anything resembling a theory. There is no experiment which can be performed to validate the apologetic. There is no means to falsify it. It is not scientific.

    Information Is A Label:

    Everything in reality can be classified into one broad umbrella category of being called “phenomenon”. There are two broad types of phenomenon, those being Entities and Relationships. DNA is a type of molecule that is made up of both entities and relationships, those being the atoms that compose it and the way they are bonded together, respectively. Ultimately, DNA is a phenomenon. Intelligent beings label phenomenon with words. The Theory of Abiogenesis has shown how it is possible for this self-replicating molecule to emerge by natural causes, and there are other theories of how other self-replicating systems that undergo random mutation and non-random natural selection can occur naturally under completely accidental circumstances. Information is not an inherent quality of a phenomenon, phenomenon are entirely accidental/random (or causal) by their very nature. If this particular phenomenon happens to have the behavior of building and folding proteins that form what we label a living organism, and the way this phenomenon attained its form and composition is easily explained by the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, then it becomes clear that the word “information” is just a word that described the composition of something, whether it is designed or not designed.

    Rocks Contain Information:

    If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality of DNA because it is expressed as a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon in existence? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as”the composition and form of an entity.” The confusion results from the fact that information is classically described as either an entity or quality of entities (e.g. Give me the information, the information we received was inaccurate). The precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble does not have any relevant meaning or value to a person, however, a particular pebble and the way its atoms are arranged by completely random/causal forces could be assigned value by a scanning electron microscope. It would scan the surface of the pebble and assign meaningful values to the composition of atoms on the whole surface of the pebble so that if you put any other pebble inside the stage, the translation would be incoherent and random, but if you have the particular pebble inside the stage then the translation would be meaningful.

    Static vs. Signal:

    A radio wave does not have information inherent within it, nor does a continuous stream of static contain information. Even a continuous repeating pattern does not have information in it (the signal produced by pulsars was thought to be signals from an alien civilization), however, a continuous repeating pattern, if assigned value by a mind, can represent information that is meaningful, like an S.O.S., even though there may potentially be a natural phenomenon that produces a signal that is identical to an S.O.S.

    Self Refuting:

    If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god’s mind? Doesn’t god then too need a creator resulting in an infinite regress?

    Inherent Value vs. Recognized Characteristic:

    To say that DNA has information in it which was originally assigned meaning or value by some external intelligent agent is a categorical error. Qualities in matter, such as the molecular composition of the nucleotide Adenine, is something that is incidental. We associate a property of the molecule to the perceived phenomenon that is resultant from all its interactions with other molecules, but this property was no ordered from some mysterious giver of order, it just is what it is by pure random chance. For example, a rock found in a stream has a particular shape to it, not because it was ordered to, but because of entirely random and causal forces. Humans tend to perceive intentional purposeful value to an incidental characteristic of the molecule, Adenine, only because it is an essential part of life. To say that the phenomenon of life is the phenomenon which qualifies a universe for having a designer is an assumption.

    Thank you.

    • The Information Theory Argument Is Tautological:

      My argument is:
      1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
      2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
      3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
      A code is defined as “a system of symbols for communication.” The definitions and systems are all defined at http://evo2.org/faq.
      I don’t see where the tautology is here. Ask them to explain what’s tautological about the above syllogism.

      Information Is A Label:

      This is a completely unsupported statement. There is no successful theory of abiogenesis. No current theory of biogenesis can be properly classified as scientific. I have defined information and codes in my articles. Symbolic relationships exist in DNA because, for example, GGG codes for Glycine. It does this independently of what we call these compounds or whether we know about it or not. GGG is not Glycine, it is symbolic instructions to MAKE Glycine.

      Rocks Contain Information:
      If we agree to the premise that information is an inherent quality of DNA because it is expressed as a living organisms, then how is the clear line drawn to exclude the particular phenomenon of life from all other phenomenon in existence? It is entirely reasonable to infer that rocks contain information if information is defined as”the composition and form of an entity.”

      I do not agree to the premise. This is not the definition of information in communication theory. See my FAQ page for a proper definition.

      The Static vs. Signal comment doesn’t have any apparent relevance to this discussion.

      Self Refuting:
      If we accept the premise that DNA contains information, and that only minds can create information, then it is safe to assume that for minds to create information they must contain information too. This then begs the question, who created the information in god’s mind? Doesn’t god then too need a creator resulting in an infinite regress?

      Who made God? http://evo2.org/infotheoryqa.htm

      Inherent Value vs. Recognized Characteristic:
      To say that DNA has information in it which was originally assigned meaning or value by some external intelligent agent is a categorical error. Qualities in matter, such as the molecular composition of the nucleotide Adenine, is something that is incidental.To say that the phenomenon of life is the phenomenon which qualifies a universe for having a designer is an assumption.

      All codes are inherently purposeful. See http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/ – search for the word “purposeful”

  19. mrl_space says:

    (First accept my apologies if i can’t speak english well)
    Dear mr.marshall:
    You want to prove god to atheists,for me that already existence of god is proven,reading your emails is really enjoyable,but for a person that doesn’t believe in god,has no effect on him/her.I,myself,have examined talking to these kinds of people,if they don’t WANT to believe,so they won’t.we can use any proof but because they don’t WANT to they don’t even think or listen.you know what i mean.i am really disappointed of talking to these kinds of people about existence of god.i think god should direct them and we can just pray for them.I am willing to see what your reply is.
    sincerely yours

  20. mrl_space says:

    thanks for your quick reply!
    but these kinds of people think like that not me,besides,you are just proving that god exists,neither defining him nor knowing him.humans can’t know or define god,we have little information about god……….

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 *