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:
–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:
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
This thesisis unglued by one statement above: Rocks cannot create information. Well folks, as geologist I can tell yo they do without doubt contain information about their, our planet’s past. And this information is rich and dense, from the type and abundance of the minerals that make up the rock to the very arrangement of atoms in the minerals. Rocks hold information which geologic process “created” that range in scale from “whole earth” down to the number of neutrons in a water molecule.
This guy may be able to impress ATT employees, but most geology undergrades would find him to the myopic that he is.
DR Bob
Bob,
Yes I fully understand what you are saying…. but you need to look closer at my definitions. I define information as “communication between encoder and decoder using agreed upon symbols.”
Rocks do not contain an encoding or decoding system. No decoding takes place until a human being is present to evaluate the data. Without an intelligent agent present to do that, rocks are only an arrangement of minerals.
It’s worth mentioning that two different geologists may not necessarily agree about how to decode the pattern in the rock. It’s at least somewhat subjective. So for this reason as well, rocks cannot be formally defined as communicators of information.
DNA on the other hand both encodes and decodes information independently of our observation of it. And it does so based on a fixed set of rules which are arbitrary (the Genetic Code) and not derivable from the laws of physics.
Perry Marshall
Bob,
I think you are missing Perry’s philosophical underpinnings here. Underlying his thesis and interwoven throughout is an idea that there is purpose here. In other words, existence and organization (even complexity) aren’t enough. When he uses information and communication as criteria, he has in mind something akin to ‘meaning’.
In fact, this is why his arguments don’t get off the starting line for many of us. For instance, as a strict materialist, my worldview is skewed toward the machine-like nature of the physical world, and I try to fit my understandings into this framework.
For me, the obviousness of ‘purpose’ and ‘meaning’ that Perry recognizes as fundamental and clear- I find suspect. To say that this sequence: 1,2,3,4… is other than random means I would have to know about the agency and derivation of it. On it’s face (and just like DNA) I cannot claim purpose or regulation or plan without knowing a great deal more about just how that series of numbers arose. Perry believes that it is possible to see the origins (or at least restrict the choices) by the appearance alone.
I think his argument is weak in the following way: I can build a heap of stones. In fact, I have done just this, to clear out a garden area. Were I to be unaware of how a heap of stones might come to be without purpose or human intervention, I might rationally assume that heaps of stones are evidence of mind at work (as they sometimes are). Without knowing how DNA came to assume its role, I am left without a ready explanation, simply guesses. To demonstrate that some outside intelligence accomplished this feat, I would have to watch them do it or at least discuss the means with them.
It becomes a matter of wondering what remains to be discovered: An intelligent designer or some clear natural process or something we haven’t yet imagined… The crux of the matter is this- whatever mechanism is proposed, it is left to the proposer to demonstrate it. Show me how natural laws make DNA possible. Show me how someone/thing designed DNA to do what it does.
Without this sort of clear evidence, the whole exercise is armchair philosophy and art appreciation – Perry seeing meaning while I see molecules only.
Bill,
Proof of purpose is as simple as the genetic code itself.
The triplet “GGG” implicitly intends to produce Glycine.
Other triplets are intended to produce other compounds.
The decoding of DNA produces these and the compound that is produced depends on the sequence. Thus DNA is a code.
It is possible for GGG to be decoded wrongly and for it to not produce Glycine. This is objectively classifiable as a defect in the system. There can be no defects without purpose. Purpose is implicit and intrinsic to all codes.
This is only a statement at the very simplest possible level of the problem. It says nothing of the fact that all living things strive to live and eat and evolve. That of course is purposeful too. “Birth Defects” are errors in copying and decoding.
Random piles of rocks exhibit no such purpose. Inert matter exhibits no such purpose. It is never defective. It only obeys the laws of physics, not the laws of any coding system. It just IS.
GGG -> Glycine – that is meaning at the lowest level. Proof of teleology in living things.
Perry
There is a philosophical problem here.
When you try to define purpose objectively, you are left with something like this: The purpose of a process (created by intelligence) is revealed by the results of that process.
So, the purpose of a nail, for instance, is discovered by observing what a nail accomplishes, what it does.
The problem is that the intent, or result, isn’t labeled as such. Should I find a nail useful for picking earwax out of my ear, I might just as well think that nails were designed for this use. To ‘know’ a final purpose, one has to know the intent of the author of a process, and knowing that means you have to know something about the author herself.
We know that purposes can be thwarted and misapplied. We also know that original purposes may disappear in time and change. We are not omniscient in this. We do not know, for instance, that GGG still carries the message originally intended. In fact, we cannot say whether the genome itself remains as created or is doing what was originally intended.
The difficulty doesn’t go away when you add levels of ‘meaning’. Enzymes, mitochondria and so on up to the final organism. A silly example (but illustrative) might be that the purpose of DNA was a moral one. It was intelligently designed so that we might match individuals to their crimes by way of a DNA profile — leading to moral behavior through better enforcement of the law.
The dilemma is illustrated by a similar problem in evolution:
“Who survives? The fittest. But how do you know which are fittest? The ones that survived.”
“What’s the intent? Whatever we see as the result. And how do we know it’s a purposeful result? Because it was intended.”
On a side note, I’d like to compliment you on maintaining a remarkably civil style of discourse. Whether I agree or disagree with your ideas, they certainly get me (and it appears, many others) to think at our best.
Bill,
This is an inference problem. The question is: “Can I observe the operation of a code and accurately infer its purpose?”
This is no different than any other inference problem. We are looking for consistent operation of a rule or law.
How do we arrive at the laws of thermodynamics or entropy? We do experiments and we see amazingly uniform behavior of energy, dissipation and heat. Same with gravity.
Codes are similar. In the protein coding portions of DNA, GGG translates to Glycine 100% of the time. Our knowledge & definitions of the genetic code itself is derived from this observation. This very mechanistic description of purpose is as reliable as any observation in the biological sciences.
This is very direct and simple when we’re talking about the lowest layer of the code.
It gets trickier when you go to higher layers. GGG -> Glycine is simple and straightforward and a molecular biologist can probably sketch out the entire mechanism that carries out the transcription process. Decoding the layers that provide instructions about where in the organism to physically place the compounds is going to be less straightforward.
But if the reproduction process is predictable – if a given strand of DNA produces a given progeny – then it’s a repeatable experiment and you can inductively figure it out.
So let’s not miss the big picture here: The entire field of genetics is built on an assumption that DNA obeys observable, predictable, systematic rules which can be discovered and interpreted. You can call this anything you want but it is fundamentally an issue of meaning. The famous genetic code table that maps base pairs to amino acids and proteins (basic Biology 101) is a table that interprets meaning.
Yes, purposes can be thwarted or misapplied. And misinterpreted. But the very fact that they can be thwarted / misapplied / misinterpeted is itself proof that purpose does exist!
By the way, the rules of codes are different from the laws of gravity and thermodynamics in the following way:
Gravity and thermodynamics are universal and inviolable.
Codes are location and situation specific. They are not universal and they can be violated. They are also arbitrary and not derivable from the laws of physics. The laws of physics do not dictate why living things use a 4 letter alphabet instead of an 8 letter alphabet. That choice is arbitrary.
We could inquire as to the purpose of gravity or thermodynamics but it is very hard to come up with any simple answer because these laws are completely uniform, so far as we know. They generate the same results everywhere. It’s literally a cosmic-sized question.
Codes, however, perform very specific functions in very specific circumstances. So it is much easier to infer a specific purpose. GGG > Glycine. That’s pretty simple. Then we can move up a layer and say “So now what does Glycine do?”
We can go up more layers and say “What does sexual reproduction do and what is its purpose?”
We can go up more layers and say “What does evolution do? What is its purpose?”
The very titles of books like “The Selfish Gene” show that even atheists believe in purpose. Even as they try to tell you at the very same time that modern scientific people don’t believe in teleology.
You cannot say biology is purposeless without contradicting yourself just as soon as you begin to describe what it predictably does.
As we move up to higher layers the answers are more controversial and I acknowledge and welcome that. But again I go back to the bottom layer which is unambiguous.
Thank you also, Bill, for participating in this sane discussion. I think if everyone is respectful, listens to one another and retains their curiosity, we can all make real advances in our knowledge.
Perry
What about the fact that there are 4 codons which code for glycine (GGx, where x can be any nucleobase)? That’s a massive inefficiency for an intelligently designed code, wouldn’t you say? Why make it 3 nucleobases long when only 2 are actually read? And what about codons which have multiple meanings, like AUG, which both codes for methionine and acts as a protein translation initiation site? Human designed codes which are fully designed (as opposed to C++ which is partly designed and partly the product of later social influence which has subsequently lead to a multitude of mutually unintelligible dialects) tend to be one-to-one with minimal inefficiencies like these.
The fact that 4 codons code for Glycine is one of the most amazing aspects. It’s a redundancy feature, it’s necessary for survival and it’s also the most efficient redundancy scheme of all possible variations that are considered. (There’s a paper where someone analyzed this problem, I don’t have time to go find it for you at the moment. The bottom line was that out of 18,000 redundancy combinations considered, the one we find in DNA was the most robust of all possible protocols.) We find the same sort of thing in Ethernet protocols where inefficiency is designed into the code so that if it is corrupted, the original can still be recovered. The base genetic code is 66% redundant and this was necessary for living things to survive.
This is one of the primary concerns of Shannon’s paper, ie given a certain amount of noise in a communication channel, what level of redundancy is necessary for accurate communication to take place? DNA is sufficiently redundant to survive 3.5 billion years of assaults from the environment.
Okay. I understand the beneficial effects of redundancy, but please enlighten me about the reason for multiple mappings of AUG. Methionine is a fairly commonly used amino acid, why isn’t it mapped redundantly and not only that, why is its one mapping shared with a function? Isn’t it reasonable to also approach the question from the other direction and note that a functional coding will settle on an efficient mapping over time or do you assume that DNA has always been mapped this way? I actually rather suspect the code was initially binary, due to patterns in the mapping paradigm, presumably developing into a quaternary system later due to the beneficial effects of both redundancy and a greater number of amino acids which could be employed.
Curious, AFAIK a number of individual natural disasters have in the past been quite sufficient to wipe out many, sometimes most genetic lines. Anyway, the real question is whether or not DNA is sufficiently redundant to survive 3.5 billion years of influence from other DNA sequences, not nature alone (for this discussion speaking of them as specifically separate to allow reasonably brief predication).
Mike,
I have no doubt we could find some very interesting answers re: AUG but it seems to be an unnecessary rabbit trail. I’ve got 26 posts from you in the queue, most of them fairly long and I’m going to try to get to those. I’m sure if you investigate the AUG question yourself you can find some interesting answers.
I think the fact that any information storage system that holds as much data as a CD yet comfortably fits inside a microscopic cell could survive 3.5 billion years is an engineering feat of the highest order.
What sort of scientist isn’t interested in data that doesn’t fit their theory? You can’t explain the multiple mappings of AUG, and in response you simply ignore it!? At least it factors in to my hypothesis and testing method. Please elaborate, why does AUG seem to you to be an unnecessary rabbit trail? Why isn’t it an interesting question to ask why so many amino acids are referenced by multiple codons which improves transmission quality but the specific codon AUG maps to an amino acid and a function contextually, reducing transmission quality? It seems to me that that’s an incredibly interesting question.
I’m also not denying anywhere, ever that DNA is brilliantly engineered. I’m simply denying that you’ve in any way definitively demonstrated that that engineering was performed by some mystical intelligence. Due to numerous holes in your worldview which we’ve explored together it’s obvious that while your inference is reasonable from a naive point of view, it’s not reasonable given a broader access to scientific knowledge than you personally possess. You are now, have been this whole time and will continue to be whether you acknowledge it or not, in checkmate on this issue. Your only defensive moves are ones which break the rules by retreating into territory covered by arguments you can’t refute and have subsequently ignored or have simply ignored from the outset.
I have a simple request. Define for me what precisely intelligence is. Please define it so thoroughly that there can be no doubt which creatures possess it, which don’t, what it’s capable of, what it’s not and how structures created by intelligence fundamentally differ from structures which aren’t. At this point in time I’m not convinced that your infinite chasm isn’t a figment of your imagination, so I’d like you to demonstrate to me that it is real by pinning down all the variables and showing me examples of computation methods exclusive to intelligence. If you cannot isolate any computation methods to intelligence, which I don’t believe you can, then I need you to explain what in the world it is that you think you see in intelligence that is fundamentally distinct from other computations, keeping in mind that ‘intent’ is so highly subjective as to be a less than useful metric in this discussion for the reason that the same logic which reasonably concludes that since somebody wrote a letter and sent it they must have intended someone to receive and read the letter also IMO unreasonably concludes that if G-d intended life through devising DNA then G-d also intended most of the information He poured into DNA to be lost irretrievably through the inescapable cycles of death and rebirth which are a primary characteristic of life. Isn’t it simpler to posit that all that lost information wasn’t intended by an intelligence at all? Isn’t it simpler to ascribe that extremely lossy process to natural phenomena? Isn’t it possible that the reason you see intelligent intent is b/c you are a human being and that is an instinctual reaction for human beings? Isn’t it then possible that your conviction that all that’s around you was intended by an intelligence is merely an artefact of your thought processes and not an artefact of the creation of the universe itself? Your refusal to genuinely allow yourself to explore these sorts of questions is antiscientific, b/c science is about testing hypotheses with the fullest intent of obliterating them. It’s very specifically not about making an assertion, logical or not, and then failing to acknowledge alternative viewpoints and datum which might fracture its foundation. That sort of behaviour belongs exclusively to religion.
In this vein you should understand that it is not my intent to demonstrate that the Popol Vuh is a satisfactory account of creation, but I wish to point out that it is interesting that you continue to claim that Genesis 1 is a perfect account of creation even after I’ve demonstrated to you that it is flawed, it is flawed in precisely the way that would be expected of a human author, and that it is flawed less than the relevant portion of the Popol Vuh with respect to modern science. Your reaction to this was not a reasonable one, not a rational one and not a scientific one. You simply dismissed the Popol Vuh’s account out of hand as being fanciful, and reasserted, by now without any supporting evidence, that the Genesis 1 account is perfect. And all this is even w/o accounting for the existence of Genesis 2, which, when factored in, even more thoroughly topples the apparent philosophical foundation of your worldview.
Admit to your axioms and I can accept your logic much more readily. One which I play with is that G-d is not subject to logical analysis. Admittedly this results in circular logic when attempting to analyze the truth value of the axiom itself within a binary logic, but b/c it is an axiom it is not subject to logical analysis itself and as such the problem does not actually exist. Why I feel this axiom is appropriate when discussing a Judeo-Christian style worldview is b/c it is in fact logically derivable from Judeo-Christian axioms if a specific multivalued logic is employed.
Have a Happy New Year!
Mike,
I am unfamiliar with the specifics of your AUG question. I am extremely busy and my guess is, when we dig into it, rather than finding it’s some kind of ‘stupid design flaw’ it actually serves some purpose. If you can give me a link to a place that describes what the perceived problem is, I’ll look into it.
And since I’m agreeing to answer that question, I’m asking you to answer the following question. Don’t dodge it this time:
Please show me one example of an communication system a la Shannon, that’s not a derivative of DNA and is not designed by an intelligent conscious being.
For this discussion I define intelligence as the the faculty of thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, conscious self awareness and imagination.
It takes nothing less than this to create a communication system from scratch. The laws of physics and chemistry will not do it. Mike, I’ve asked you about 15 times since last August to show me ONE counter example. all you do is reply with pejorative insults about my fanciful imagination and my religious bias.
Answer the question, Mike. The insulting tone is unwarranted.
You said this yourself:
Communication systems are only produced by conscious beings who posses language.
Yet we see that all DNA contains language and universal grammars. See this paper from Rutgers:
Sungchul Ji / Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~sji/Linguistics%20of%20DNA.pdf
So in the world of codes we have DNA; we have instinctual activities like spider webs and mating calls and all the activities of animals. We have human language and we have man-made systems like computers that use language.
Computation method exclusive to intelligence:
The ability to create, from scratch, and define a Shannon communication system with arbitrarily defined symbols and referents.
A computer programmer does this every time he creates a program that has I/O.
Animals do not do this and rocks do not do this.
Only beings with faculty of thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, conscious self awareness and imagination do this.
You asked:
“Isn’t it simpler to posit that all that lost information wasn’t intended by an intelligence at all? Isn’t it simpler to ascribe that extremely lossy process to natural phenomena?”
You can posit this all day long. Show me one example of a communication system and UG’s coming from natural phenomena. All you need is one.
As far as I can tell, the misapplication of something is precisely and universally the reason something else comes into existence. The reason internal combustion engines work is because someone first invented perfume atomizers, the reason table salt is fortified with iodine is b/c many people won’t otherwise get enough iodine in their diet and develop hypothyroidism, the reason English uses the alphabet it does is b/c it was adapted to English from Latin, the list goes on and on. None of these IMO remotely qualify as master-planned intelligently designed systems. They all hinge on the ‘misapplication’ of a previous invention or discovery. This very strongly speaks against your concept of a governing intelligence, and also against the validity of speaking of misapplication in the first place. Yes, in a particular system one component will likely have a discrete role, but that doesn’t imply anything about how that component would benefit the function of another, different system. A specific example of this is that I often use scissors as tweezers for small bits of paper, metal or plastic when building or repairing things, in almost every instance an increase in pressure would result in the target being destroyed or irreparably damaged, but with care this use of scissors is perfectly legitimate and offers advantages over tweezers. There’s also another problem with the data. Fully designed systems almost invariably fail to be optimized before their designs are moderated by trial and error phases of development. Case in point, rockets. Robert Goddard’s first liquid fueled rocket was designed with gravity induced stability in mind, Goddard failed to recognize during his logical development of the design that gravity wouldn’t be acting on the rocket in flight in that way, and that the design would be no more stable than the modern configuration. Only trial and error results in optimization. Natural selection is specific sort of trial and error. So where’s the real discrepancy with the predicted behaviour of natural selection and observable reality? And why is unmoderated intelligent design a more rational alternative?
If you pay attention you might even detect one of the natural sources of information here, the interaction of systems. Any two systems interacting generates new information, one molecule binding with another generates a new molecule, a photon interacting with an atom has myriad possible outcomes, a water droplet falling through freezing cold air generates a very specifically structured snowflake, Mormons attempting to convert me tends to result in me asking them if I can test out their bullet-proof tunics while they wear them, etc. These interactions have consequences, and those consequences ARE a change in state of the overall system. That change in state constitutes a change in information distribution. You don’t ask where the information stored in the snowflake came from, you know it came from the particular way the water droplet froze as it fell through the atmosphere (as such there is a rational way to eliminate Perry’s version of randomness from snowflake formation as well, though mine still remains… curious how my definition is less subjective, isn’t it?), you don’t ask why the Mormons are afraid of the crazy Jewish guy (me) who speaks at them in several unidentifiable languages, you know it’s b/c he indirectly threatened to kill them through a simple test of their faith (which, sadly, is obviously lacking, b/c they always decline the test) and further taunted them by demonstrating that they aren’t actually as educated about the world as they proclaim to be, since they live in Tucson and have never even heard of O’odham.
The point is, you can’t simply look at a structure and figure out anything about it, you need a context. Change the context and you change the significance of the structure. This also means that without context you cannot begin to address the questions of intent or origins of information content. They’re simply inappropriate questions, something akin to filing a lawsuit against a tree for falling on your car during a hurricane. AFAICT, Perry, you’re making the mistake that contexts are static, thus we can extrapolate the current context of something we see in nature back to the origin of the structure. This is an extremely unwise move, as we know from the geological record and the fossil record that contexts can change massively very quickly in the natural world in general and in the biological world specifically.
You asked “why is unmoderated intelligent design a more rational alternative?”
Because there are no experiments that show that random mutation of DNA produces improved progeny that natural selection would select. There is no evidence indicating that evolution is driven by randomness. Evolution is engineered. See See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf – and Mike, please read this.
In your second part you are not conforming to a Claude Shannon definition of information. According to Shannon’s model a snowflake contains no information. I’m not saying it doesn’t contain information in a different sense, but it is not an encoding decoding system and it contains no symbols.
Hi Perry Marshall:
I’m an electronics engineer that found this web page by chance. I red your article(the whole text) and saw your video. I also red some books and saw some videos about the theory of evolution. There are a lot of good research and proves supporting this theory (evolution) that are much more powerful than what you’ve written and said.
You don’t need to prove the existence of good, you got to believe it, you need faith. You’ll find god through your spiritual life, not by reason. On the other hand, science must give strong proves of everything, it doesn’t matter how much do you believe in something, you must prove it. From my point of view, you talk a lot, give a lot of speculation and very little proving, even that google search example was very poor.
You said there is matter, energy and information. Then you said, information, coding , language, etc. comes from intelligence, but then you said that this intelligence comes from god without given any argument or prove of this connection, just a belief. Maybe you want to see yourself as the product of a very intelligent and powerful source (god) and that makes you feel great, that’s fine, but gives no support to your ideas.
You said that noise is bad for information. I studied digital signal processing and I learn to use dithering to improve information accuracy. Dithering actually adds some noise to the signals, so adding some noise in some crucial steps of the information processes is good. There are other technical and scientific examples of this matter you can search for, this is only one of many.
I understand that the theory of evolution hurts our ego a lot. It’s so wonderful to believe that someone immensely intelligent designed us, but it’s just a belief. If that makes you feel awesome, very well, you don’t need to go against the theory of evolution, just keep your faith strong and don’t believe in the theory.
I see in you a lack of knowledge about theology and the true nature of god combined whit a lack of knowledge about the newest scientific discoveries (chaos, quantum mechanics, evolution, astronomy, etc.) . Science is giving us better answers at this very moment. They are letting you behind.
I think you can convince people who aren’t very familiar either with god or science. This is an old trick to get followers. Maybe you can get some more.
Of course this is only my opinion, fortunately there are still people working on this matters and they have discovered a lot in recent years, so philosophy and science are coming closer again. Some of the best discoveries are coming.
You remind me a person walking in the middle of the street. On the left side there are beliefs and god, and is good. On the right side there are science and proving, and is good, but you are walking in the middle of the street, and sooner or later something is going to hurt you, be careful. It just doesn’t seem to be right.
Raul,
I’m quite familiar with Dither and in fact that subject comes up and is discussed in detail on the Infidels discussion board. Dither (as well you certainly know!) does not add any useful information to a signal in the Darwinian evolution sense. It only makes information more manageable. In audio systems it makes the lowest bit not sound irritating to the ear.
Secondly it’s evident from what you have said here that you didn’t listen very closely to my presentation, as you obviously think I’m arguing against evolution.
Third I did back up my reasons for concluding that intelligence comes from God and not other places; it’s up front and center at https://evo2.org/read-prove-god-exists/
Finally, aside from the Dither comment, your response doesn’t directly address any of the technical issues I brought up at all.
I can only encourage you to really listen to what I have presented.
Perry
I’m sorry, but you guys are missing the point! We do not refute that there is a design to many things, what we refute is the existence of a God.
DNA was designed by nature in a progressive mater for millions and millions of years. One little step at a time…!
And in any event, you are basically contradicting yourself, since the existence of God would imply the exact thing that you are refuting, the spontaneous appearance of a thinking organism…
Again, it’s not wether it can happen or not, since it’s obvious that it happened because we are here. It’s how it happened that science is interested in and will eventually find as it has found many other answers.
I don’t get what’s so difficult to understand.
Dorian,
If you take some time and explain to us the process by which “DNA was designed by nature in a progressive mater for millions and millions of years. One little step at a time…!” then you may begin to see what’s so difficult to understand.
Perry
dorian,
Perry is not contradicting himself. and the ‘spontaneous appearance of a thinking organism’ is un-biblical to say the least.
Firstly I wouldn’t consider God an organism really… but more to the point the Bible speaks numerous times about the Christian God being eternal. To put it simply God has always existed, and always will do. Therefore he never had a beginning.
All I can say is that watching this frustrated me. The simple analogies he used bothered me. “thought isn’t a product of energy or matter.” While I realize this isn’t an exact quote I ask myself, Can one think and make thought without energy or matter? NO. Did you create thought before you were born? NO. Do you create thought after you have died? No one knows, but I have an idea. Does an engine run without gas? No, it can’t function without fuel just as we can not have thought without our fuel (energy sugar+oxegyn). Thinking causes you to use energy and if we agree that energy can not be created or destroyed then “thought” must be a form of energy such as heat is created by friction. Also saying that DNA is related to language is another over simplification used to support his ideals. The word mutator? You said yourself that if you put a word into the mutator that was misspelled it may make the correct word by chance. So a useless incoherent word may now be a very significantly better word. Ex. “stlp” may now become “stop” which I find to be a very usefull word as a parent. Also no person shares the same DNA code as another. Some may be very close but they are never the same.. Sort of like our friend the snow flake which as he said is random (not made from design.) Comparing the complexities of DNA to language and the way they both can be mutated is ridiculous. Also written music is an example he used for design. People did not write sheet music and then decide which sound should go with that paticular symbol. They made the music and then designed a way for it to be recreated or written down to be saved. Possibly DNA is created by random and then finds a way to recreate itself or store information for later. I could go on with this but I feel it is a useless arguement. I feel that you are trying to bend science into a way that it can be used to support your theories. I believe that you can convince people that god exsists because most of us can “trust” science. We all know that science isn’t an absolute, that it is just our best guess until it is defeated. I also can’t prove that god doesn’t exsist which I do not try to hide. The only proof of that is my five senses that I was born with haven`t been able to detect him` yet. Simply saying god is and always will be is an answer that we use because we as a people do not like to admit that we dont know and probably never will. The thought of things like space and the universe are questions that are out of our realm of thinking. Saying someone or something created everything and that itself did not need to be created or materialize is an answer, but it is too easy of an answer. It has no backbone no arguement, no fact to support it. It is all to convenient. I truely hope this makes it to the website and does not get deleted. I also hope that we may someday have an absolute answer that can not be defeated. Until that day I will have to use the senses that I have to determine what is real and what is not.
Thank you for your time,
Adam
Adam,
DNA is a code. It’s an absolute statement. DNA is not analagous to code, it IS code.
DNA is HIGHLY analogous to language. Why? Because it is instructions for building something. If you’re not comfortable comparing it to English, compare it to CAD programs or CNC programs or PLC programs or C++ or Visual Basic. All of which are instructions for building something.
Yes you can randomly mutate single words and fix them.
Try it with an entire paragraph and let me know how it works out.
Try randomly mutating a program written in C++ and let us know if you realize any improvements.
Nowhere in all the biological literature that I have ever found is there empirical evidence that random mutations produce improvements to an organism.
Perry
Adam,
“Saying someone or something created everything and that itself did not need to be created or materialize is an answer, but it is too easy of an answer. It has no backbone no arguement, no fact to support it. It is all to convenient.”
Those who wrote the Bible, both OT and NT however probably understood very little about space and time, yet the things they wrote still stand up to science today. There are no direct contradictions.
And I’m afraid to say that in response to : “I will have to use the senses that I have to determine what is real and what is not” , using your senses will probably not help. The senses detect natural things, light, smells, sound waves. Generally God reaches to people firstly via their heart.
Why is Mars known as red planet?
http://ramsaik10.wordpress.com
What or who is GOD in Advaita?
GOD is Good Orderly Direction born out of the all pervading cosmic intelligence accessible at every moment and situation while in the here and now. The most profound and elaborate manifestation of this cosmic intelligence is the human being.
The intricate bodily functions, life giving bio-chemical reactions, master code of every behavior held in the genes, capabilities of the brain and the whole harmony orchestrated by the breath to create a living entity are created by the same creative force that created the beautiful cyclic laws of nature, the bounty of a living planet, the well balanced dance of the planets, the bountiful resource of the sun and the stellar interplay for us. That one consciousness governs the whole is amply demonstrated by mystic sciences like astrology, which show the interdependence. All this provides ample evidence and irrefutable proof of a universal consciousness having far greater capabilities than imaginable, of restoring peace and harmony in creation itself and in our lives too. This universal consciousness is both the source and the purpose of all creation. And to take assistance of this higher power, of which we are an integral part, all we have to be is open-minded in accepting its existence and willing to let go of the restrictions we ourselves place upon it by clinging to our limitations of the past and its reflections into the future. This is the mould that we have to break, the ego (edging God out) that we have to loose since ego doesn’t allow us to reside in here and now. Couple this with surrender and then the magic begins.
Simple way to stay happy: stop thinking (attempted to, in meditation)
But it is also the most difficult task to do. From the moment of our birth, with the first breath, the brain is one faculty we are enslaved to. We reach such stages of material progress/spiritual degradation that we identify ourselves only with our bodily uniforms & its accomplishments. We have no clue as to who we really are, presently donning this body.
Every thought whether in the form of language or picture carries with it its own progression in the relative time scale, enriching itself from past experiences and buffering against future apprehensions. This is the reason we are trapped in the space-time fabric. Coz we are enslaved to the mind, ever oscillating between past and possible futures.
Thus the only remedy is to nullify the mind. The tool to be used here is meditation. The usual method of trying to keep the mind still by sitting in an aasan with eyes closed is not fully effective in the present day. Coz stray thoughts are bound to creep in due to the mind’s unemployment. And such meditation is space time constricted and once out of it the mind returns to its usual monkey state and dances with the ego losing all the merits, if any, derived thru meditation. The whole motive of meditation, to bring about a transformation in the mind state so as to be dispassionate, is undermined. The worst offshoot of such meditations is the superiority complex one develops and feels he has to help the less fortunate and thus hit the feel good factor. These routines oust the equanimity which is essential to reach the singular higher reality which is the only truth. Even the humility that they develop is cultured or cultivated and not an offshoot of equanimity. Meditation is not a time bound, an hour a day process, but an ongoing reality to nullify the conditioning of the mind and hence escape the space-time entrapment.
The practice of meditation is represented by the three monkeys, who cover their eyes, ears and mouths so as to avoid the phenomenal world. The practice of non-meditation is ceasing to be the see-er, hearer or speaker while eyes, ears and mouths are fulfilling their function in daily life.- Open Secret by Wei Wu Wei
Best way to meditate is to use the senses to meditate with undivided attention in the present situation. The senses constantly takes inputs while the mind oversees the process. This process of keeping the mind at work works better than any other coz it is in the here & now. When meditation is carried as described above, the mind is both at work & it is vacant. It’s the closet one can cone to “having the pie & eating it too”
It is also called as surrendering to GOD or higher power. It is not that one then stops doing his karma or taking decisions. It is just that now their thought, word & deed are not premeditated, planned or conditioned. The mind is neither in past nor future but here in the now. This breeds in us a certain degree of dispassion, taking us away from this illusion called reality or MAYA and thus bringing us closer to our higher self. Therefore any karma (thought, word & deed) performed with the mind in the here and now, is in sync with the universal conscious and hence confirms with dharma and is guided by divine intelligence. This is because of the perspective of our higher self which sees our lives as another dream (reincarnation) and in a dream anything is possible. Thus when the reigns of our lives are handed over to our higher selves who can dream our reality, we let magic creep into our lives, thus breaking the bonds of laws of space time causation and human conditioning. Thus reinstating the fact passed down ages that the universe we live in is mindstuff and we are its masters.
The universal consciousness or higher power or GOD does not come as a voice in the sky like ancient times but as an instinctive command, which has not even been put for consideration to the mind.
If followed, then know that you have implemented surrender (unconditionally). Now you are living by GOD’s will for you(which will be in your best interests coz he is the dreamer and the one to experience & hence has nothing but love for his creation.)
Thus by keeping the mind attentive, watching the sensory inputs and acting to the first impulse with a faith in higher power keeps one in the here & now. With practice the impulse gets more delayed and toned down and ultimately the mind rests on the most registered sensory organ the nose and the process of breathing.
Only in the here & now is the mind silent and the consciousness can be seen as one seamless space-time fabric. Everything becomes a subjective experience. It is then that the one who experiences or self is realized. Then it becomes clear that all of reality including myself is but of the same material as the one dreams are made up of. It’s then that we come to know the wearer of the uniform – the SELF.
Evolution v/s creation : relative space time v/s here and now.
The central point in reestablishing God’s kingdom within us and which in turn reflects around us is – to turn our life and our will over to the care of God; surrender. Thus the victory is won only through surrender.
How to differentiate between self will and GOD’s will?
Pointers of self will : struggle & compromise
To surrender one needs to lose, drop the pretence of being able to control ones life and stop trying to manage it – in other words refrain from using our self will and limited intelligence and wisdom to produce an even more limited life, seemingly well defined but utterly constricted life, devoid of the principle of uncertainty which is the vital ingredient for a child like wonder and for creation itself. Coz wonder is the very wool dreams are made of, the very fabric that allows the universal consciousness to permeate into the individual self, flowering the imaginations of the mind to dream a better reality and the actions that follow the thought to realize it.
But as we grow, spend time, we get caught up in the whorl of our collective past experiences which form the boundary of our intellectual or thought domain. It is with this limited perception of reality that any uncertainty breeds in us either hope or mostly despair. Despair leads us to seek a release using our limited intelligence which makes us grope for methods and means while all the while harboring doubts of the outcome which in itself is self defeating. Hope on the other hand is blind to all the limitations; all it nurtures is a secret desire for the objective coupled by a belief, which positively affects the outcome. And it is always the strength of the desire that affects the means and its effectiveness and when coupled with a sense of justification (dharma) with reliance on a higher power, it paves a road where there was none, creates opportunities magically and opens portals of strength and resources within us that we ourselves never knew existed; astounding us with what we ourselves are capable of accomplishing.
One cannot completely loose the self will (samadhi) and still partake in the process of creation coz it is the self will itself that gives definition to the undefined universal consciousness. – This is the reason why the master Ramakrishna rebukes Swami Vivekananda from all the time immersing himself in the consciousness and only gratifying himself as then he would not have accomplished the task of rising the collective consciousness of humanity which is possible only when he partakes in the normal world after tasting the nectar. Coz a single experience of the Samadhi state is sufficient to bring about a realization of the immortal, all encompassing, all pervading nature of the self of which we are embodiments. With this realization it is impossible for one to reside anywhere other than in the here and now and depending on the placement of the individual, his self will becomes a net resolution of the wills around him while all the while his mind is reposed in the oneness of the benign self, thus dictating all his actions-thought, word, deed towards furthering collective harmony and well-being.
Perry,
I listened to your talk from the ‘Unbelieveable’ radio station the other day and thought it was presented very well and was very interesting. Having an electronics background I initially discovered your website when I was searching for information on the apparent contradiction between replication and mutation developing new information, compared to that of redundancy and noise in a communications signal worsening information.
Dear Adam,
I saw your comments about knowing the existence of God through your senses and I would only like to remember you that in your everyday life you see examples of things that are neither seen (infrared or ultraviolet) nor heard (very low or very high frequencies), somethings cannot be felt (like electromagnetic fields), neither smelled nor tasted (like certain gases or flavors), how then can you say that you can know God by your five senses if they are full of flaws and errors? Almost all animals walking on earth today have one or many senses that are better than ours. The greatest discoveries of science today are almost done without the aid of our senses but through other means, like microscopes, computers and high-energy fields. Have you ever seen an electron, or a proton, or any other particle? Have you ever watched how particles combine into new ones? No! You can’t do that unless you use some kind of aid to bring that reality in some comprehensible way to your senses. We cannot comprehend what is outside our daily experience in the same way that you cannot explain to a 2D being living in a sheet of paper what “depth” is like. It is incomprehensible to him! Some of the greater trends in modern physics bend towards greater dimensions (4,6,11) and more time lines (t+2) to explain things that science cannot explain today. If that is proven to be true will not that prove that there can be things invisible to us? Not only to our senses, but to our dimension? For if there are more dimension surely there are beings that have more dimensions, or they would be purposeless, and if there are such beings, who they are?
I don’t know a lot about that but one thing I do know, that this will be proven to be true. The same is with God, though you cannot see Him with your physical eyes and cannot feel Him there is a way you can know of Him. And that is through the Holy Spirit of God. And what is that? I would like to dismiss here the trinitarian concept of God and proceed to explain the true concept of God.
There is one God, who is called Elohim, who is the Creator and Father of all the hosts of men, both those who live in this earth and of those who live in trillions of earths in all the immensity of space. In the beginning He created the spirits of men from the intelligences that were, and between these he chose His firstborn son, Jehovah, to become the Creator of all things. A third one was chosen, and called the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, through whom the plan of the Father and of the Son would be put in full operation. Three distinct beings, but with a sole purpose: Elohim as the Father, Jehovah as the Creator and the Holy Ghost as the Witness of the Father and the Son.
A plan was made, through which the spirit sons and daughters of the Father would progress in knowledge and truth until they become even as their Father. At that time he had a holy body of bones and flesh and spirit whereon all the power of deity dwelt while we had only a limited body of spirit. In order that we could obtain also a body of bones and flesh and redeem our bodies and prepare it to possess a fullness of glory and power the foundations of this universe were set forth and many helped Jehovah in building up the worlds without number we now see.
When the foundations of this earth were laid a great council was held in Heavens where the whole plan of the Father was presented. There would be bodies for His spirit children whereon they would dwell, family units would be developed to support them in continuing in the path that would lead to their return to Heaven, the authority to act in the name of God would be sent, even the Holy Priesthood of God, Prophets and Apostles were set forth to teach the Gospel of Christ to those who would be sent to the earth and the penalties of breaking the laws and commandments were explained. But three points were necessary that the whole plan could work: (1) we should forget, neither completely nor forever but for a season, all that we had lived there in order to live by faith, (2) it would be necessary that we would have temptations of every kind in order to prove that we were true to the plan of God and (3) that a Savior would be chosen and sent forth to redeem the penalty of sin for those who would fall short under conditions of repentance.
We totally agreed to the plan and Jehovah was chosen as the promised Redeemer to come in due time and atone for the sins of mankind. But one rebelled, even the Son of the Morning, Lucifer, who was then cast out of heaven to this earth with a third of the hosts of heaven to tempt those who would receive bodies of flesh and to be called Satan, the Perdition. That is how sin crept into the world, for he tempted the first man and woman to eat the forbidden fruit and thus become subjected to death and sorrow. But was it not so, and had man not fell from the grace, we would never have been born in the flesh, neither there would be a Redeemer nor ressurrection or entrance in the kingdom of God and the whole plan would be frustrated and the word of God would be vain, therefore it become expedient that man should fall and that we should partake of sorrow in order to cherish that which is good.
When Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, stepped out of that garden after having transgressed the commandment of God, angels were sent to them and the Gospel of Christ was preached unto them, a law of sacrifice was given and the ordinance of baptism was introduced to them. They were obedient and communed with God the Father and Jehovah, the Mediator of the new covenant, and through the Holy Ghost received line upon line until they had received all the ordinances of the Holy House of God and were prepared to enter in the presence of God having redeemed their bodies from the original sin.
They preached the gospel to their children liberally and many believed while many did not. After them other were called as Prophets, having communed with God as did Adam, and having received their power and authority from father to son, according to the order shown to Adam, but in many instances not all did hear them and this line became narrowed until Moses came.
To him God spoke face to face and gave the laws that would elect his people Israel to become Priests and Priestess unto God forever, but such law they did not accept, preferring a more carnal law, a law of ordinances and performances not fit to a higher glory. Therefore, though the power and authority of the Higher Priesthood continued in the hands of but few elected Prophets it was completely lost when Christ came into the world, being he the one who gave the law, even Jehovah. Angels did called and ministered unto John the Baptist and gave him power and authority to preach repentance through baptism by immersion, to which the Christ subscribed and being immersed a sign from Heaven testified that he was the Beloved Son of the Father and the Holy Ghost fell without measure upon him. Carried to the wilderness he communed with God the Father for forty days being ministered unto by angels from Heaven and received all the powers and authorities and keys under the hands of the Father. His ministry is well know as is the calling of the Twelve. He took Peter, James and John to the mountain top and there he was transfigured before then and the Father bore witness of his divined Sonship, while Moses and Elijah the prophet, brought back the sealing powers and the authority to gather again Israel from the four quarters of the earth.
After his death the Apostles were shocked and saddened by such a loss, when the witness of the women brought hope to them that the Christ was living, further witnesses to Peter, to the disciples in the road of Emmaus, to the eleven Apostles gathered at Jerusalem and then to more than three hundred men at his ascension into Heavens testify that he really arose from the dead, as the Firstfruit of the ressurrection and thus became Christ, the Redeemer.
That story is well known enough, and so much misinterpreted and understated that most man neither comprehend nor appreciate it as they should. For if Christ is risen then death is won and all mankind will finally rise to an immortal state and all that was preached by the holy prophets is the word of God. If Christ is risen, then the only way to eternal life is to accept His Gospel and to become member of His kingdom and recognize only Him as the Mediator of men. If Christ is risen then all the supposed knowledge of men is worthless before the prospect of getting to know Him, to whom we own our very lives and the salvation of our souls. For if Christ is risen then all the prophecies that made concerning His coming in power and glory in these last days are true and we should all be looking earnestly for the signs of His approaching triumphal arrival.
There are no words sufficient to state how important for mankind to know that Christ IS risen. Some may say: “You can’t know that for sure!”, “The only way to know that is by faith!”. I do not agree with neither groups, there IS a was to know and that is NOT only by sheer faith. How then can someone know?
First, there are LIVING Apostles today on the earth, fifteen men called Prophets, Seers and Revelators, who have witnessed the Father and the Son personally and who can testify of their existence, attributes and perfections. Second, faith will only open the door to the kingdom and help us walk on the path that will lead us to the same witness that those Apostles have, the path beginning with baptism by immersion, then the laying on of hands and finally receiving all the ordinances of the Holy House of God. Third, after faith has been tried and we are proven true to the knowledge we received then the witness will come and the Savior himself will appear unto us and show us the Father and we will receive the more sure word of prophecy, meaning that we will receive the sure knowledge that our deeds were approved by God and that our exaltation is sure.
I would have many more things to say on the subject of acquiring a witness that surpass the purpose of this forum, bu if Mr. Perry permits me to comment more I will surely post other points.
Dear Bill Morrison,
Regarding the purpose of creation I totally agree with Mr. Perry that when we speak about lower levels the intent of creation is fully comprehensible, but when we speak of higher levels like morality and purpose of life we cannot see the intent by the results only. In this point I totally agree with you when you said that we must know the intent of the creator himself and know something about him and his attributes.
That is what religion has been all about, Christianity, Islam and Jews (including the many different sects, beliefs and religions that are in the world). They teach the character, perfections and attributes of the Creator, His purposes for the creation and our eternal destiny.
If you say that religion is divided I tell you that such is not the purpose of the Creator from the beginning, but it is because of the so called man-made creeds, it is because of priestcraft and the lust for money and praise. If we study the lives of the Prophets of God, Moses, Muhammad and many others, we see a pattern of sacrifice and unpopularity. They taught the truth, but not the trends of the day, and that was why they were hated, persecuted, some were stoned, some were burned and many were killed. We see such things in the lives of the Apostles of God and in the lives of the many martyrs that lived up to the gospel they had embraced.
Having been watching closely the forum here what I see is people who don’t want to believe, no one ever showed an intelligent thorough statement that could disprove or discredit what Mr. Perry has been stating. I’m not a scientist, I’m a Christian, and more than that, I’m one who has known living Apostles and Prophets from my childhood.
I must tell you that Mr. Perry has done something that we all should praise: that is continue to deal with people whose hearts are harder than the very rocks that build up the strongest mountains. He has continually answered with sympathy and patience, while many have simple turned their backs upon his true arguments and have set him at naught. Some have claimed that his purpose is to get followers, but I rebuke that, since it would be easier to get followers by going with the trends and opening a forum to prove that god does not exist than by following the line he is in and by trying harder and harder to help the blind see and the deaf to hear. I appreciate your efforts Mr. Perry and I praise you for that. God will also bless you eternally for such a devotion. If possible I would like to contact you personally to exchange some peculiar ideas that are fit to you and me, but maybe not to everyone else.
nous,ALJMOVEGALYRE TEND A DEMONTRE TRES JUDICIEUSEMENT LA PRESENCE DE “DIEU”… PER DES SIGNES D’EVIDENCES :
NOUS AVONS DONNER DES FENETRES DE REFLEXION QUI SONT ISSUES D’UNE RECHERCHE APPROFONDIE DANS LA SASSEGE ANCESTRALE. AVANT DE VOUS PLONGER DANS D’INTERMINABLES DISCUTIONS MIEUX IL FAUT VOUS LAMENTES SUR LES DITES IDEES.NOUS AVONS LE RESPECT DU DROIT D’AUTEURS QUI EST D’AILLEURS JURIDIQUE…
POUR LES DEMONSTRATIONS ,IL Y AURAI UN MOMENT OU NOUS ALLONS DONNER LES EXPLICITES ET CLAIREMENT VOILA LA QUESTION QUE NOUS ALJMOVEGALYRE S’EST POSE POUR ABORDER LA QUESTION DE LA DIVINITE : qu’elle explication l’homme peut donner a son tout premier fondement de aux ” seins d’une mere dans son developpement du foeutus jusqu’a la naissance” et nous avons trouve dans cette carricature la valeur de la femme qui d’ailleur n’a pas ete l’issue de ADAM OU ADAMA DONC NOUS AVONS UNE AUTRE EXPLICATION DE LA FEMME DEPUIS ,ET DE SUITE QU’EST-CE ELLE PEUT REPRENTEESUR LA SCENE ET LE PLATEAU DE L’HISTOIRE ? ET LE MONDE QUE LA FEMME A DANS L’INTERIEUR DE SON VENTRE…? AUSSI NOUS AVONS REFLECHIE SUR LE CAS DU MONTON SA PRESENCE AVEC L’ANGE GABRIEL “DJIBRILLA” POUR D’AUTRES nous n’avons pas le temps d’engage des debats a l’heure ou nous nous occupons de beaucoup de sujets et a la prochaine…
merci
et nous ne mettrons jamais les boeufs avant la charrue.
une toute petite erratum
lire :
la femme n’a pas les memes issus que l’homme
rt nous pouvons ajoutes comme suite :” ELLE N’EST PAS CREEE NI N4A ETE ENFANTEE PER UNAUTRE ETRE QUI ELLE PEUT AVOIR COMME ISSUE OU FONDEMENT ET C’EST POURQUOI ? NOUS DEFENDONS LA FEMME DANS LE MONDE ET NOUS TROUVONS QUE DIEU EST UNIQUE…ET IL NOUS SURVEILLE…
still getting more ambiguous to me– i don’t consider myself by any label, except learn and discovered the answer in this unending game called truths. But it proofs seems it gives me more headache, both sides seems to lack something in the middle, I don’t know, what is it for now? Please send me more info and explanations and I will surely study it carefully with open mind. Thank you.
Perry,
You said: **Nowhere in the laws of chemistry is there a law that says GGG makes Glycine. That is in the laws of the genetic code which are decoded by a very specific mechanism which also cannot be derived from the laws of chemistry. There is no law of chemistry that says DNA should have to have a 4 letter alphabet. It could just as well have 8 and there are scientific papers that discuss this. The number of letters in the alphabet is arbitrary and fixed in the case of DNA and no materialist has an explanation for why this is.**
Objection: **You clearly know nothing of chemistry.
By the way you might as well start a thread saying “nowhere in the laws of chemistry is there a law that says that light always travels at 3.00x108m.s-1” because that’s all you’re arguing here.**
How would you address this? Could not the speed of light been something else? Could it be that the four letters in DNA are what it took to make it work anyway? Not sure I understand this one.
JohnM
JohnM,
A statement “You clearly know nothing of chemistry” is not any kind of an answer to my statement. An answer would be a statement as to how DNA came to be a 4 letter alphabet instead of 8.
Saying “Well 4 letters is obviously what it took” is a non-answer to an important question. This person is just avoiding the issues.
Why is the speed of light what it is? I have no idea. Could it be different? I don’t know. But so far as I know it does not come from the laws of chemistry. If someone wants to prevent evidence that it does, they’re welcome to.
Perry
All models or theorems of life based on the argumentation that it had to come form somewhere fall down of their own accord, with the simple question where did the supposed creator come from. If the world universe and all therein contained had to come from an intelligent mind, does the same reasoning not apply to the ´creator´ . Had to come from somwhere didnt he. If your answer is that as god he always existed, i can throw the same answer back in the form of as the universe it always existed. all the rest is and pardon the french a load of hogwash. Of course you may persist in your delusions, it brings in the money here in your case, but to claim you know the answers of something that you cannot know through course of your existence within this temporal spatial framework in order to sell things and to make yourself a buck says it all.
What do you think I am selling?
Dear Perry Marshall,
I can prove to you DNA is not a code is a few lines
Imagine as you said suppose DNA is CODE, which means a ‘Man’ has DNA and ‘Women’ has a DNA. And if they both have a ‘baby’, that means both ‘male’ and ‘female’ DNA merges or ‘overlaps’,And we are not sure what will the ‘new DNA’ look like or in short whom will baby resemble.
LET ME TELL YOU THIS CANNOT HAPPEN WITH A CODE OR INFORMATION.
IF A CODE OR INFORMATION OVERLAP IT GETS ‘CORRUPTED’
EVER SEEN ‘WIN XP’ AND ‘WIN VISTA’ FORM ‘NEW OS’.
NEW BABIES ‘DNA’ IS FORMED BY RANDOM PROCESS.
IN THE SAME WAY ‘DNA’ WAS FORMED BY RANDOMNESS OR BY ACCIDENT.
About the information theory.
I want to ask you how do define information.
if you define information by saying something which can decode and understood,Then it is just a peice of fluctions in energy or matter decoded by our brain. And if I give some persons who doesn’t know egyptian to read their text that is not the information to him, it is just a piece of paper. If you consider that way, for a radio astronmer someone who observes radio ways created by nature (stars,etc) not by any “intelligent mind’ is considered as information because he can decode the radio waves a get to know the nature of star. The information is not an different entity. It is we who create information by decoding it., With out us or ‘life forms’ there would have been no such thing as information.
AND DNA IS NOT CODE OR INFORMATION AS PROF PROVIDED EARLIER.
Werty,
Not so fast.
Mendelian genetics shows that traits are randomly selected between the father’s genes and the mother’s genes.
This does not mean that DNA is random.
If what you were saying were true, we could take one random code, mix it with another random code, and get non-random orderly code out.
This does not happen.
I have thoroughly defined information and DNA is by definition a code, see http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/
Thanks for the reply
That is what i am trying to say-
Eg:- Consider you have two Amplitude modulated(AM) wave [information]. If by chance other way overlaps or interfers with the first AM wave the information in the waves gets corrupted.
Just as it would happend in the old radio when two station interfered and the information was corrupted. This shows that information cannot overlap or interfere with each other.
BUT this is what is happening at the time of fertilization, 23 paris of male chromosome and 23 pairs of female cromosome come together to form fetus.This means there is overlaping of information which cannot happen. This cannot happen because a soon as information overlaps or interfers it gets corrupted.
I am not talking about noise, The effects of noise on loss of information very less when compared with overlaping of informations which completes corruptes the information.
Yet this is happening this show it is not information.And majority children are are born with normal human structure.
As you qouted “Mendelian genetics shows that traits are randomly selected between the father’s genes and the mother’s genes.”
This cannot happen with information.
There is NOTHING called RANDOM in information or code (except random numers generators) , The mathematical functions can be applied and RESULT is obtained PRECISELY.
It doesn’t happen in DNA.
Werty,
I suggest you read up on the subject of how mendelian genetics operates. I don’t have time to argue with you about those facts. I stand by my statement “Mendelian genetics shows that traits are randomly selected between the father’s genes and the mother’s genes.”
Perry, Its fine that God exists but the point to think here is that why he created all this complex universe with great approximation? As an example he created mind to think than why he created this universe?
Perry Marshal you have done a great job !!!
But i am here to complete the most important factor your inventions and that is WHO Is The Creator ???
Well first of all, all the knowledge of the science ,if collected cannt answer this question .But WE DO NEED THE ANSWER.
And answer can come only from the the one Who created us in the form of revelation to the MANKIND..Bear with me for a while. When God Created the univers and the human kind He Sent Prophet with their respective books that could answer this question that we are argueing about…And the Last prophet is The prophet Mohamed {PBUH} with His{Creators} last message to the human kind The HOLY QURAN ..
I beleive that you are a christain ,but i want you to think for a while about the BIBLEs history and read the Quran or meet any of the muslim Scholars living in USA .
Beleive it or not the only way to successfull eternal life is the odedience of God.
You can find the Creator in Quran ,and He is the same creator who sent Jesus {may peace be upon him } to the mankind with the BIBLE bt then bible was ammended by the pple etc..QURAN IS THE ONLY UNTOUCHED BOOK .
MAY GOD GIVE US the right path AMEN
your brohter
sohrab shaheed
Hello Perry,
You said—**The Codon GGG is an instruction to make Glycine. It’s very important to understand that GGG (three Guanines in a row) are not themselves Glycine. They are symbolic instructions to MAKE Glycine.**
Objection—**Sorry to inform you but glycine is not MADE by the genetic code you indicated. The triplets specifiy amino acids via the intermediate steps. Glycine is synthesized by a complex of protein molecules called enzymes or else is from dietary intake**
Where you meaning that GGG are the instructions that make Glycine, which other parts actually build?
You said—**All communication systems rely on prior agreement between encoder and decoder, otherwise no communication can take place.**
Objection—**And since there is no such agreement between the genetic code and the enzymes which implement the synthesis of protein then there is no communication channel and your theis falls apart at the seams. Communication between non-sentient entities is not possible.**
Would the communication that takes place between to non-sentient computers, when they “shake-hands” be an example of what he claims cannot take place?
Objection—**All you actually argue for is that the biological mechanisms of transcriptions and translation do not form a communication system as described by Shannon. There is no encoding process. There is no message to be communicated without errors.**
I don’t understand what this guy means here, do you? And then another guy added this to it….**Precisely. Living organisms and their cells are NOT the telephone company or an ISP.**
Isn’t the transmission of DNA from one generation to the next precisely the moving of information from one being to another? And even though errors do occur, they are not intended. All the effort of the living organism is to faithfully copy over the DNA right?
Further Objections on this point— **On the other hand thats not what Shannon and others developed their abstract model FOR. It was developed for COMMUNICATIONS not for cellular division and replication. Why should we just accept that we can transplant the one set of ideas to the other context without a heck of a lot of careful analysis? For example in Shannons theory both ends of the system exist prior to communication. In celluar replication only the initial cell originally exists, the building of a new cell and the transfer of the genome to it (as a copy) is not the same as talking with somebody on the telephone.**
Objection— **Its actually a debate over whether Shannons model of a communication channel is an accurate description of either cellular division, or of protein biosynthesis (depending on the post). There are similarities but certainly there are vast differences also. For one thing communications is a purposeful action, while protein biosynthesis is not. Perhaps one has to have a mind to conduct communications (so far as we know only minds engage in purposeful acts), but we surely do not need one to do protein biosynthesis. We do not even actually need a cell to be precise about it.**
Objection —**Remember that the OPs logic goes something like this. Protein biosynthesis is a communcations process, thus there is a sender and a reciever, thus DNA is a code, thus DNA is designed because all codes we know of are designed by a mind. The fallacy is at the first premise – namely that protein biosynthesis (or cellular division as the case might be) is a communications process. The argument collapses there if that premise is invalid.**
I think he is trying to twist my OP. This is my OP —
Hello everyone,
Code is defined as communication between an encoder such as a “writer” or “speaker” and a decoder such as a “reader” or “listener” using agreed upon symbols.
1) DNA contains coded information.
2) All codes that we know the origin of comes from a mind.
3) Therefore we have 100% inference to design in DNA.
If you disagree, all you need is one example of a code that did not come from a mind. Just one.
God Bless,
JohnM
yes, GGG are the instructions that make Glycine, which other parts actually build. Just like 1000001 is instructions to build “A” in a computer.
This person is unfamiliar with Yockey’s 2005 book. I have showed you the communication diagram many times, at http://evo2.org/dnanotcode.htm
Someone said Communication between non-sentient entities is not possible
Yes you are right John, this person’s post appearing on the Internet is proof that they are wrong. Neither their computer nor anyone else’s is sentient but the machines are communicating.
Yes the transmission of DNA from one organism to another is a communication process.
The guys objecting to Shannon being used to analyze DNA need to read Yockey. (These people are so unbelievably bad at listening and reading and doing research. God bless you for having patience with them. BTW get yourself a copy of Yockey’s book.)
I think it is very significant that Shannon’s theory was developed entirely BEFORE the discovery of DNA, and that it is ISOMORPHIC (as Yockey shows). It is equally interesting to compare DNA to a Turing Machine (as Yockey also does) and the Turing Machine was developed in 1936. Turns out it basically existed 3 billion years before Turing discovered it.
Yockey thoroughly lays to rest any notion that Shannon’s model doesn’t apply to DNA. On the link I showed you I cite most of the relevant quotes.
Good job on this John.
Perry
Please come up with something better. There is nothing in your arguments that would stand scrutiny in a court of law or at any reputable scientific institution. All your evidence is circumstantial and the likes of Sir Roger Penrose, Dawking and many others have handled your points and demonstrated alternative understanding. Therefore until you can come with an argument that flawed their views, which you have not, why can’t you be honest like Hawking, who stated that it is most likely that there was intelligence behind the big bang and accept Dawking’s views that there was not.
One has to ask whose omnipotence are you trying to defend through current and limited observable circumstances, God’s or yours. Surely God does not need you to defend him especially as he did pretty well without it for the past 14billion years.
Greville,
I have made an argument and demonstrated 100% inference that it is correct. You have merely lodged a complaint. Do you have a scientific argument to present?
Perry
Perry,
The problem is you made an statement and yes via your inference you “might” have shown it to be correct (just remember that stage you “proved it on is not a scientific one), but then you went and made a deduction from that argument, which is the problem. Analogous to:
I make a statement. Statement appears to be irrefutable. Therefore I have proven something else. That makes sense to you? really?
Everyone seems to either want to prove/disprove your statement of the genetic markers being a code(and then your deduction of code=design=god), but thats not the issue here. Whether it is code or not is irrelevant, this is not the stage for this hypothesis, if you feel so strongly about it, publish a scientific paper on it. From an anthropic point of view our DNA must be able to transfer information from one generation to the next – or we would not be here to discuss it. All it proves is that DNA stores information which is transferred to the next generation where it is “decoded” and infused. Nothing else. It does nor proof the existence of a god.
Therefore your argument that states you can proof the existence of god, is a fallacy.
I have not made a formal proof. I have only shown 100% inference. I have been very clear about this in all these discussions.
Which is to say, to the extent that current scientific knowledge can tell us anything, it tells us that we’re designed.
Sir,
Matters of science that you have discussed; matter, space, time and energy are understood in their present scientific form since the last 500 years or so. Before that, people believed that phenomena such as eclipse, lightening, movement of sun and the planets were manifestations of God and the divine.
Today, we know better, as you have yourself put it so well.
500 years is a small period even considering human history since the age of agriculture to be,say, 10,000 years. Let another 1000 years go by. Give at least that much time to science to investigate how universe was created. Why be so sure today? Why be satisfied and put investigation on the back burner?
You have stopped at Big Bang. What was before that? We don’t know that as yet.
Why equate God with ignorance? All the answers are not known, perhaps, they never will be. Why jump to conclusion while science is still looking at that?
sincerely,
Chandrahas