Re: Not By Chance! (was Baumgardner)

Stephen Jones (sejones@ibm.net)
Sat, 14 Feb 98 15:54:37 +0800

Gary

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:13:49 GMT, Gary Collins wrote:

[...]

>JB>Q. How do you deal with the creation/evolution controversy?
>>
>>A. If ever there was in the history of mankind clear evidence for creation,
>>evidence for a Super-Intelligence behind what we see today, it's the
>>genetic code. Incredibly complex information structures, coded in DNA, form
>>the genetic blueprints for every living organism. Evolutionists have
>>absolutely no clue as to how such structures could arise by natural
>>processes, much less how the code itself could come into existence.

GC>I have heard that the chance origin of a meaningful genetic code is
>completely at variance with information theory....

There is a new book out called "Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of
Evolution", by a Lee Spetner, a professional scientist in information systems and
communication theory. Here is a blurb about it I received some time ago by a
former Reflectorite Ashby Camp:

------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought you might like to know about a new book by Lee
Spetner titled _Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of
Evolution_ (Brooklyn, NY: The Judaica Press, 1997). I
thoroughly enjoyed it. As for Dr. Spetner's credentials, I quote
from p. ix of the preface:

"I received the PhD degree in physics from MIT in 1950, and
joined APL [the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins] in
1951. I spent most of my professional career doing research and
development on information processing in electronic systems, and
teaching information and communication theory. After I had been
at APL for about a dozen years, I was offered a year's fellowship
in the university's Department of Biophysics. There I was to solve
problems in the extraction of signal from noise in DNA
electronmicrographs. I accepted the fellowship and, as it turned
out, I learned a lot about biology.

"There, for the first time in my life, I met evolutionary theory in a
serious way, and I found it hard to believe. It clashed not only
with my religious views, but also with my intuition about how the
information in living organisms could have developed. I thought
about these problems and published several papers on the subject
in the professional literature between 1964 and 1970. [FYI,
Spetner's articles deal with natural selection, mutation, and
information transmission in evolution. They were published in
_Journal of Theoretical Biology_, _Proceedings 2nd International
Congress on Biophysics_, _IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory_, and _Nature_ -- Ashby]. I then put the subject aside
and returned to my regular work. I, nevertheless, tried to keep up
with the latest developments in molecular biology and genetics. I
have done a great deal of reading in the past thirty years. From
discussions I have had with biologists I have found that I have
come to know more about evolution than do most biologists who
have not specialized in it. The more I learned, the more I felt my
views on evolution were vindicated and strengthened."

Here are some comments about the book by scientists:

`It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have
ever read.' - Professor E. Simon, Dept. of Biology, Purdue
University

`...extremely thorough and compelling.' - Professor Christian B.
Anfinsen, Nobel Laureate, Dept. of Biology, The John Hopkins
University

`The argument seems very strong to me...written with the utmost
clarity...reading it was a pleasure as well as highly instructive.' -
Professor G.N. Schlesinger, Department of the Philosophy of
Science, University of North Carolina

If you're interested, you can order it from The Judaica Press, Inc.,
123 Ditmas Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11218. The phone is 718-
972-6200, fax is 718-972-6204, and e-mail is judpr@idt.net or
JudaicaPr@aol.com. The book is 272 pages and sells for $14.95...
------------------------------------------------------------------

I have ordered the book, so I cannot yet tell you about it in any
detail. I have scanned another review article about it from a YEC
magazine which I might post if anyone's interested.

In the meantime, has anyone read it?

GC>Be that as it may, the following quote from biologist W.H. Thorpe,
>though rather old now, should be interesting...
>
>W. H. THORPE: PURPOSE IN A WORLD OF CHANCE
>A biologist's view (pp. 24 - 25)
>(1978) Oxford University Press, Oxford, London, New York
>(A book written in response to Jaques Monod's "Chance and Necessity")
>
>Programs and self-programming for development
>---------------------------------------------
>When we understand the realities of this genetic code, we
>realize that the codes can be regarded as programs which
>can be stored in the living cell. These programs in fact
>amount to an internal self-representation or 'picture' of
>the structure of the cell itself and of all other types of
>cell which may come from it during the growth and
>differentiation of the organism of which it is a part. This
>concept of living organisms being uniquely different from
>non-living systems in having internal self-representation
>raises a point of profound importance.

This is a common "Jurassic Park" model of the genetic code but think
it is not quite right. I agree with "living organisms being uniquely
different from non-living systems", but I understand it may not be
quite accurate to say that the genetic code has "an internal self-
representation or 'picture' of the structure of the cell itself". I
understand that the information needed to build a cell is contained not
only in the genetic code, but in the developing cell's environment (eg.
neighbouring cells, the mother's body) and even the universe as a
whole (eg. gravity, light, etc). Indeed, some of the information may
have come from outside of the universe altogether, eg. by
supernatural intervention.

GC>This development in the theory of the genetic code implies
>a biological discovery of immense importance: not only are
>the processes of life directed by programs, but also in some
>extraordinary way the living cell produces its own program.
>Professor Longuett-Higgins sums this up from the biological
>point of view by saying that it results in the biological
>concept of the program being something different from the
>purely physical idea of a program. He says, 'We can now
>point to an actual programme tape in the heart of the cell,
>namely the DNA molecule.' Even more remarkable is the fact
>that the programmed activity in living nature will not merely
>determine the way in which the organism reacts to its
>environment: it actually controls the structure of the
>organism, its replication, and the replication of the
>programmes themselves. And this is what we really mean when
>we say that life is not merely programmed activity but self-
>programmed activity.

Indeed, as Denton points out, the living cell is the only
example of a self-duplicating Von Neumann machine:

"One of the accomplishments of living systems which is, of course,
quite without any analogy in the field of our own technology is their
capacity for self-duplication. With the dawn of the age of computers
and automation after the Second World War, the theoretical
possibility of constructing self-replicating automata was considered
seriously by mathematicians and engineers. Von Neumann discussed
the problem at great length in his famous book Theory of Self-
Reproducing Automata, but the practical difficulties of converting the
dream into reality have proved too daunting. As Von Neumann
pointed out, the construction of any sort of self-replicating automaton
would necessitate the solution to three fundamental problems: that of
storing information; that of duplicating information; and that of
designing an automatic factory which could be programmed from the
information store to construct all the other components of the
machine as well as duplicating itself. The solution to all three
problems is found in living things and their elucidation has been one
of the triumphs of modern biology. So efficient is the mechanism of
information storage and so elegant the mechanism of duplication of
this remarkable molecule that it is hard to escape the feeling that the
DNA molecule may be the one and only perfect solution to the twin
problems of information storage and duplication for self-replicating
automata." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985,
pp337-338)

The point is that we cannot with our 20th century technology
and all the power of human intelligence, produce a
self-duplicating, self-repairing machine. But according to
materialist-naturalism, the `blind watchmaker' did it!

GC>Jacques Monod is as deeply impressed as any other molecular
>biologist by the appalling problem with which this confronts
>us in our attempt to account for the production of life (and
>in its turn, cellular life) from inanimate matter. This
>happening is now seen as so extremely improbable that its
>occurrence may indeed have been a unique event, an event
>of zero probability. Monod does, however, point out that
>the uniqueness of the genetic code is the presumed result
>of natural selection.

The problem is that the genetic code is needed *before* there
can be true "natural selection":

"A review of current thinking on the origin of life problem thus reveals
a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is straining credulity to
suppose that the uniquely complex and specific nucleic acid-protein
system formed spontaneously in a single step, yet the only generally
accepted organizing principle in biology - natural selection - cannot
operate until life of some sort gets going." (Davies P., "The Cosmic
Blueprint", 1995, p120)

GC>Even if we assume this, the
>extraordinary problem still remains that the genetic code is
>without any biological function unless and until it is
>translated, that is unless it leads to the synthesis of
>the proteins whose structure is laid down by the codes.
>The machinery by which the cell (or at least the 'non-
>primitive' cell, which is the only one we know) translates
>the codes, consists of at least fifty macro-molecular
>components which are themselves coded in DNA. Thus the code
>cannot be translated except by using certain products of its
>translation, the occurrence of which, in the right place and
>right time, seems overwhelmingly improbable. Sir Karl Popper
>(1974) comments, 'This constitutes a really baffling circle;
>a vicious circle, it seems, in any attempt to form a model
>or theory of the genesis of the code.'

Indeed, it is the ultimate "chicken" and "egg" puzzle. The
genetic code alone can make life's proteins yet the genetic
code itself is encoded in protein.

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------