Does the information theory of DNA prove the existence of God?

Question

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.

-- Perry Marshall

Answer 1

I think you would be interested in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391



This is written by the head of the human genome project. He basically agrees with your point of view. But since he is a real scientist in this area he can answer you question the best.





And don't listen to all these people just saying no, you're stupid. They are neither scientists nor religious people. They are illiterate in both spheres and just like to lash out at people because it gives them some sense of pleasure. Just backgroud noise.







OK, I'll take a stab. I have worked with protein folding modeling. This is the science of trying to understand how a certain sequence of amino acids will lead to a specific molecule shape that will then act a certain way and have a certain function in the cell and in the body. This understanding is required in order to make sense of how the gene sequence functions to effect the organism. Without knowledge of how the protein folds we can't say what effect the alteration of one gene would be or how one gene is expressed in the body.



I find that the problem is profoundly intractable. The mechanisms are far too complex. In fact, there appear to be helper proteins that show up at certain times in the folding process that altar the outcome. Thus the process of gene expression is so complex that it involves other molecules other than just the amino acid chain. It is my opinion that the understanding of how a gene expresses itself in the organism cannot be known to us. It is literally like frying an egg and trying to figure out where evey strand of protein will end up, and then trying to take the scrambled eggs and untie them to form an egg again and make one small change to cause it to form into a different shaped ball of scrambled eggs.



Because of this complexity, the language of DNA is simply unkown to us. We may know the letters, but we can't read the book. All we have done is identify what the letters are (the human genome) but we have no idea what it means because we don't speak the language. We know a few words (a few diseases that are known to have a specific genetic cause).



Thus I don't buy that we can identify the code that makes life possible. The code must also contain the process that cause the expression of the genes, which we don't understand. Therefore, the argument that the code proves God is moot.

Answer 2

That's total bunkum. The information theory of DNA mostly proves that, given the set of chemical elements known to exist throughout the universe, each known to have specific physical properties, it is inevitable that the "miracle" of creation could easily occur anywhere in the Universe with appropriate conditions. (...where water exists as a liquid.) The information theory of DNA essentially proves that a supernatural deity is not required to create life. It's the rules of chemistry, not some imaginary Deity, that inevitably creates life.



I have no problem with premise number one. Every word is true. Premise number two is totally incorrect and if Perry Marshall had studied modern science, instead of ancient superstition, he/she would never say anything so obviously false. It is the existence of the chemical properties of the various elements that causes them to bond with each other in distinctive ways. That is the origin of the code. Natural selection (at the chemical level) allows the code to evolve in ways that specifically benefit one chemical pattern over another. Whatever education Marshall may or may not have achieved, there is no question premise number two is completely false. Since the conclusion is based on a false premise, it is also utterly false. To me, it is painfully obvious that understanding reality is a question of discovering the actual physical truth, not one of discovering the proper superstition to blindly follow.



Truth be told, I really don't understand why the persistently ignorant among us just cannot understand that all of Western Civilization was deeply in error when humanity began to pretend that reality depends on what humans think about it. It was science (beginning about 400 years ago), not religion (beginning 3500 years ago), that taught humanity how physical reality actually operates and that objective truth absolutely does not depend on the erroneous superstitions of our ignorant ancient ancestors.

Answer 3

Since codes are created by the conscious mind would it be by the same token, that mankind could find codes in everything since everything works off patterns? It doesn't neccessary mean that their was a creator and if their was a creator of a code would that creator have to take into an account that our dna code is similar to chimpanzees? If their was a creator and that creator/creators was refered to as God then that creating source would have to be a scientist with the ability to genetically alter DNA and that creator was not creator wasn't making DNA but just manipulating the energy itself, the code was being changed. Since humans can do that now, I don't think GOD was to far off from where we are now. If you look into history you will find out that indeed we were genetic experiments created by a celestial race known as the Annunaki. Yet that is just considered mythology since the majority of society didn't like the idea of being created as slave beings to gather Gold and produce. Just alittle bit of information.

Answer 4

what ever blows ur dress up. I am very much in a personal relationship w/ God. I love such as "mere Christianity" by C S Lewis. He logically brings the thought process of God being a reality into your mind. I ask Jesus and He did it for me.

I was just listening to a Christian Quantum Physicist on PRM, who was profound and has a book out.

As far as ur deduction above, there is so much unknown to natural science, I'm not sure that our lack of knowledge of an issue is a basis for proof of another issue. science is still pretty much in the dark about such things as how life is created, or most of inner and outer space and is just beginning to find most creatures on earth, lol, so their ignorance on an issue isn't really profound.

I do believe. I ask and He proved to me and continues to constantly and consistently.

Answer 5

no, it's faulty logic on your side. Please first prove the premise that all "codes" are created by a conscious mind. We do know already way too much about DNA to make intelligent creation a parsimonious explanation. There is too much evolutionary history contained in the DNA of living organisms. There are more than plenty of non-coding regions in a chromosome. Only somebody who doesn't know much about genetics would get the idea that DNA is intelligently designed. It does require some study of genetics to understand this and it's not really explainable in a few paragraphs especially if the reader doesn't have the necessary background knowledge.

Life is by definition something which creates order using external energy.

Answer 6

I think those who are simply saying no are doing so because they have not taken the time to explore biochemistry or genetics. He reached this conclusion based on the shear volume of information and the complexity required to have the end result of DNA. Whether you believe or not, DNA is an awe inspiring molecule. It has been conserved through an astronomical number of replication cycles. Small changes have massive consequences. The odds it could have remained intact weigh heavily against it, and yet there are many 'machinary' molecules in place to protect it, copy it, and fix errors before it is allowed to begin its job of running its cell. I am not surprised at his conclusion and I do support it.



*JP while I understand your point with regards to the periodic table it is apples and oranges. The building of an atom only requires the addition of one proton, one neutron and one electron as you move up the table, or some combination thereof. It is not nearly as complicated as DNA. Although while you bring it up, the properties elements contain with their respective periods and families do invite thought for design. It is just not nearly as convincing an argument as the one the complexity of DNA provides.



*Tigris, you are making the assumption that we understand all there is to know about the genetic code. While there are noncoding regions, we are learning more about their roles. One such role involves DNA splicing and the provision of a binding site for the spliceosome. We have only revealed the code in its entirety recently and we have much to learn. It is foolishness to assume we could know it all already.



*As far as the 'selfish gene' , how does sexual replication help the 'selfish gene' pass itself on. It is changed and no longer intact. The shuffling while making gametes creates many different copies rather than many identical copies. That debunks that idea in my opinion.



*Francis Collins considered himself an atheist in graduate school, it was through working with dying patients and reading Mere Chrisitanity that he discovered faith.

Answer 7

Depends upon who you ask. We are talking about high philosophy now, prove? I dunno. It's an interesting argument, and one which supports my belief in a God.



All matter obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Carbon atoms can form bonds with other atoms and itself to create chains of infinite length, but nowhere else in the natural world do we see matter doing anything like self-creating information storage systems. We see atoms forming regular patterns such as in crystals, but these are easily explained by the thermodynamics of bond energies. DNA chains are not regular repeating patterns, nor can they be explained by thermodynamics. Materialists retreat behind the mantra of "millions of years of random chance." Personally, I don't buy it, but I can't disprove the idea either.



I would say DNA can be interpreted as evidence suggesting the existence of God. I would also add that DNA strands have a purpose as well.

Answer 8

No, it doesn't.



There is no evidence that all codes must be designed.



The number of protons in an atom 'codes' for the element. But you do not see (many...) creationists claiming the Periodic Chart proves there is a deity.

Answer 9

There is plenty of evidence to disprove your statement. Try to read the works of Richard Dawkins, (much vilified by religious fundamentalists who see him as a threat to their power) starting with 'The selfish gene'. Try to read with an open mind - if you've got one - then study your question and statements again. You may find that the only wholly honest answer is that no-one really knows.

Answer 10

short answer is no it proves that there is a pattern in dna-the existence of a god can only be proved by that god--as i dont see any claiming that i will take it that they dont exist---just my thoughts---smile and enjoy the day

Answer 11

DNA is not man made, so therefore why doesn't it prove the existence of a creator? Everything we see has a creator. Buildings. Paintings. Cars. Etc...



To say we come from chance or whatever is ignorant...

Answer 12

2) is pulled from thin air. There IS a known process that creates coded information. It's called evolution. We have directly witnessed changes to such codes in the lab and in nature.

Answer 13

what does 1 2 3 have to do with god?

Answer 14

Nothing ever has , ever will , or ever can prove the existance of any gods , or other supernaturals Supernatural =superstition .

Answer 15

There is definitely evidence of a DESIGN....which calls for a designer!

Answer 16

You might find this a kinda interesting read,...

Answer 17

Absolutely. To deny it is to willfully throw away evidence that smacks you in the face.



You know whats extremely amusing about these people is that none of them gave you an explanation. They just say no. ITS THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.

Answer 18

we should not need proof of the existence of god. blessed are those that believe by faith. remember Thomas

Answer 19

A crystal is a code.



Next!



Edit:

There are several answers here that explain why your information theory is flawed. Typical.



Is this the psychic section? lol

Answer 20

When you presume to anthropomorphize chemistry, you tend up to come up with silly ideas like that.

Answer 21

Does god existence even need to be proven to you? I am pretty sure but I think you would believe either way.



And no it does not.

Answer 22

Well, no, actually.

Your argument disproves itself.

Who made God?

If no one made God then it isn't necessary for something to make DNA.

Answer 23

No. DNA does not prove ne existance of god.....

Answer 24

Check your logic.

Answer 25

Not at all

Answer 26

i think it does.......

Answer 27

pshh no

Answer 28

sorry no

Answer 29

no.