This event probably came as no surprise to Stephen C. Meyer, author of 2009 book Signature in the Cell. In his book, Meyer carefully and meticulously lays out the argument for the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). One of the cornerstones of this argument is the information stored in DNA. The DNA molecule contains the instructions that the cell needs to manufacture the hundreds of proteins that it requires. A protein is a chain different amino acids (generally at least 150 long) linked together by peptide bonds and then folded into a functional form.
Except for the peptide bonds and the folding, a protein can be compared to the paragraphs you are reading in this blog. Instead of 26 letters, spaces and punctuation, a protein is composed of 20 amino acids. For a paragraph, not just any sequence of letters will do, only a specific sequence of letters forms a functional paragraph that accomplishes its intended purpose. In the same way proteins must be composed of a very specific sequence of amino acids.
Surprisingly, the invention of computers has even deepened this analogy. In order to store paragraphs in a computer, engineers had to figure out how use a series of on/off transistors to represent 26 letters and punctuation. They developed a "binary" code called the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) which uses a series of zeroes and ones (1=on and 0=off, each called a "bit") to represent each letter. For example the code 01000001 represents the uppercase letter "A" and 01000010 the uppercase letter "B". As you can see, it takes 8 bits to represent each letter. With 8 bits we can represent up to 28, or 256 different letters and symbols. As it turns out, DNA stores the information on which of the 20 amino acids it needs to combine to build proteins in much the same way.
Instead of a binary code, DNA uses a "quadrinary", or 4 symbol, code composed of 4 different nucleotide bases (instead of bits). Because DNA needs to represent the 20 different amino acids (plus some start and stop markers) it uses a series of 3 bases for each amino acid which allows it 43=64 possible combinations. Using only two bases would only allow for 42=16, too few. The cell has complex protein machinery to translate each set of 3 nucleotide bases into the correct amino acid, link it with the next using a peptide bond and fold it into a protein.
Conveniently, using 4 bases allows for representing 256 possible symbols, the same as the ASCII code. This certainly made the British scientist's job all that much easier. Their work has inadvertently illustrated one of Meyer's observations regarding DNA, that it is an information storage mechanism like a computer hard disk or an old school piece of paper. DNA and the information it contains are two separate entities. The DNA molecule is not just a random jumble of meaningless bases, it is a functional linear sequence of bases, each three of which corresponds to a particular amino acid just as each 8 bits in a computer text file corresponds to a particular symbol based on the ASCII code. Proteins, like coherent paragraphs composed of sequences of letters, are composed of a very specific sequence of amino acids.
How did this specific base sequence in DNA come to be? Molecular chemistry cannot explain the correspondence between the three base combinations and the amino acids. Nor is there any particular affinity between amino acids that compose proteins. Just as the letters of our alphabet have no natural affinity to the particular 8 bits assigned to them in the ASCII code or to each other. Bits correspond to letters because the designers of computers deemed that they should and letters they represent are ordered by intelligent actors crafting coherent messages. Natural selection is of no use as an explanation because natural selection cannot operate without a method of reproduction. We know no method of reproduction without DNA. DNA is worthless without the protein machinery to translate it and produce other proteins. For the 50 years since the discovery of DNA, molecular biologists have been trying to find an explanation, any explanation, for the origin of the protein information stored in the DNA molecule. They have found no natural mechanistic process, only chance. Unfortunately, the probability that amino acids randomly assembled themselves in the correct sequence to create even just one protein by chance is essentially zero.
Meyer does a great job of walking us through this calculation and it is certainly worth reading. As it turns out the odds of a single 150 amino acid protein chain coming together through random chance are 1 in 10164. This is an astronomically small probability and difficult for anyone to conceive. But perhaps given the billions of years that the universe had and the vast number of planets it contains, there is enough time that it could have happened. In an effort to dispel this notion, Meyer walks us through another calculation of the "probabilistic resources of the universe." This is calculated by taking the number of subatomic particles (electrons, neutrons and protons) in the observable universe (1080 particles) multiplied by the number of seconds since the Big Bang (1017 seconds) and the number of possible reactions per second (1043 maximum reactions per second, a number related to the speed of light). This number is a mere 10140. Still shy of the odds of a single small protein arising from chance by 1024, or a trillion trillion.
So, the odds of just one protein appearing by chance is at most 1 in a trillion trillion. This says nothing about the hundreds of other proteins within a living cell, and the complex nature of their interdependent relationships. Scientists have estimated the odds of all the component proteins in a minimally functional cell arising by chance as 1 in 1041,000. Our inability to comprehend such small numbers sometimes leads us to fall back on the fact that is not zero. Any chance is still a chance, right? What if we just got lucky? What if there were actually more probabilistic resources available? One of the more ridiculous theories recently put forth by cosmologists is that the universe we see is just one of an infinite number of alternate universes. In essence, a "multiverse" with infinite probabilistic resources. We just happen to be living in the lucky winner of an infinite cosmic lottery.
This harkens back to the old adage that a room full of monkeys with typewriters, given infinite time, could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. One can imagine a strange hypothetical situation where an imaginary archaeologist discovers a sheaf of pages with the complete sonnets of Shakespeare and declares that it could have occurred by chance (without mentioning primates or typewriters). Of course, that would be ludicrous. No sane person would believe him. Not only does paper not assemble itself, but letters don't arrange themselves in neat and orderly rows by chance, not to mention that this is not just any sequence of letters, they actually make sense and convey meaning. This is the type of insanity we are talking about. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a multiverse. The soul purpose of such futile speculation is to avoid the only remaining conclusion: that ID is in fact the only valid explanation.
The scientists who inscribed DNA with the sonnets of Shakespeare have unwittingly introduced an ironic twist into this silly debate. If somehow a future unknown scientist were to stumble onto this discarded Shakespeare DNA and decode its contents, would they recognize the work of intelligent agents or would they spend half a century developing outlandish theories in a vain effort to avoid the only obvious conclusion? Monkeys with typewriters indeed.
"...men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." - Romans 1:18-23 (NASB)
No comments:
Post a Comment