Origin of Information stored in DNA?

Great Debates
1

Through all my research and reading, I’ve encountered one universal arguement proving the existence of God I can’t seem to find fault in: The information stored in DNA could not be the result of evolution.

Clarification: The evolutionistic approach (crudely) states that one day, a couple of atoms banged into eachother, made some primordial soup, suddenly protiens emerged, followed shortly by single cell critters, and well, you know the rest of the story.

We have information encoded in our DNA - gene sequences that dictate how we will develop and at what rate, etc…everything about us. At what point did those original lifeless carbon and oxygen atoms decide it was time to start specializing; to start arranging in sequences that made things live? For that matter, when did one carbon atom decide that eventually it would be part of a cat, while an identical atom decided to be part of a dog?

2

I don’t see the problem. You’re talking about processes that took hundreds of millions of years to run their course. What’s the hurry? They didn’t “… bang together and suddenly…” anything.

3

http://www.talkorigins.org and in particul this

pan

4

While not smooth, it’s certainly not crude. The atoms didn’t just bang together. Most of the organic structures found in a cell can be produced spontaneously from just the basic building blocks C,N,O,H, etc. and a little energy. Lipids that can form membranes, RNA, DNA, proteins, amino acids, etc. (That’s a lot of etc.)

Anyways it is commonly believed that RNA not DNA was the first informational blueprint. Why? Because in some sequences, the RNA itself is able to self replicate. DNA needs proteins in order to replicate. RNA only needs itself. Later after the cell became more stable it switched to DNA because DNA doesn’t break down as easily as RNA.

So basically, you have all the components of a cell but no cell yet. This is where the numbers get a little long and chancy. How do you get all the parts together? And How does the first cell’s RNA sequence code for all the things necessary to grow and divide? I could have all the parts to an Escort in my yard but it still wouldn’t be a complete car. I have no idea how to put it together, but given several million years I just might get lucky enough to figure it out. Sort of the million monkeys typing a keyboard at random producing the works of Shakespeare.

In fairness, this question is moot because it is explained through evolution originating back at the original cell.

5

You’re saying with hundreds of millions of years, it’s possible??

I’m talking about the origin of information from originally dead, simple, miniscule atoms. It’s implausible. There is no difference between throwing those atoms on our planet and throwing those atoms in a jar and letting it sit in the sun for a couple of million years.

Are you supposing with time, anything is possible? Will the paper and tapes and hats we put in time capsules eventually form intelligent life forms if we don’t dig them up in time??

6

Wolverine,
I’m not sure, but it sounds like you are agreeing with me…(there is a God)

7

Are you saying that it’s impossible?

Ah, but I see not. Implausible? I don’t think that you are recognising the sheer magnitude of the concept of “hundreds of millions of years”. 200 million years, remember, is 100,000 times longer than the time since Christ.

It is a process that can occur - nothing in our science prohibits it. Since we are standing here now, we can either assume that something we know isn’t impossible did happen, or we can postulate the existance of a mysterious and unknown creator. Occam’s razor suggests the former.

I also think that you are not understanding conditional probability. Here’s an illustrative example:

Suppose I have two cats, Cutie and Sweetie. They are both very well behaved and since I always put out enough food for both, the chances of one eating the other’s food is just 1/1000. One Sunday morning I put out the food and then go upstairs with Cutie (before she has eaten) - we have a lazy morning in bed. When we come down, Cutie finds to her horror that her food has gone! Sweetie is lying there looking fat, lazy and pleased with herself. There is no catflap.

Now, what is the probability that Sweetie ate Cutie’s food? Is it 1/1000? No! The probability is damn near 1. The prior knowledge I had that it was extraordinarily unlikely that Sweetie would do this matters not one whit - the fact is that the even happened and that I must establish the cause conditioned on this.

If you know that such-and-such has happened, the probabilities that events A, B, C etc. happened also change.

I wouldn’t worry too much if you have a hard time with this - even Cecil got this wrong once.

I hope you see the parallel - we aren’t looking for the probability that certain chemicals will combine to form complex DNA. We are looking for the probability that this happened given that we know that DNA did come into being. This is not “implausible” at all. In fact, it is the best and simplest explanation we have.

pan

8

Previously Said by Kabbes: It is a process that can occur - nothing in our science prohibits it. Since we are standing here now, we can either assume that something we know isn’t impossible did happen, or we can postulate the existance of a mysterious and unknown creator. Occam’s razor suggests the former.

Occam’s razor suggest the latter: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”

  • OR -
    “In the beginning, there were the particles. And the particles somehow formed intelligent life. And the intelligent life imagined God, but then discovered evolution” (-Phillip Johnson)

We won’t even get into how the particles got there in the first place…

Nature favors dissorganization over organization. One of the fundamentals that scientists have revealed is that nature, left alone for long periods of time, favors entropy (it is more stable). Out universie is burning, spreading out, disintegrating, not the opposite.

Statistically speaking, There is an extremely small chance that we evolved, and as TIME PASSED, that chance got SMALLER due to increased entropy, not cumulatively larger.

9

It seems to me that evolutionists leave too much to chance and random events. The argument basically states that given enough time, enough random events will occur to produce DNA or RNA or whole cells, etc. However, aren’t we ignoring the fact that our universe is governed by absolute laws. All matter follow certain guidelines (unless we’re in The Matrix)and rules of behavior.

I’m not a physicist but physicists do say that the universe is moving towards chaos not towards order. However, the theory of evolution supposes that given a lengthy period of time, matter will organize itself into something MORE relevant.

10

Yes. On average, the universe is moving (in your words) to chaos not order. But there are little pockets which in their immediate locality buck the trend. These little pockets are life. I see no problem on any level with these facts being entirely consistent.

IANABiochemist, but I have read a little (and I’ve a book which I’ve got at home which I’ll bring in tomorrow) but I think you are oversimplifying to too great an extent to say ‘enough random events will occur to produce DNA or RNA or whole cells’. There are many, many, organic precursors to [D/R]NA which have to be in position (or have to have ‘evolved’) first.

11

Rage - I’m not here to be your personal tutor. That very page I linked to at the top deals with the myth that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics (it doesn’t - the 2nd Law of T refers only to a closed system and Earth is not a closed system).

Read the page I referenced to, gain some insight from the web page I linked and actually spend some time thinking about the conditional probability explanation I posted. When you have done this (which should take more than a few hours) you will have started to absorb a sufficient amount of knowledge to understand the theory as it is now as opposed to the morass of myths and second-hand poorly understood half-truths you now think of as the theory.

At that point feel free to come back and debate. The rest of us have answered these exact points you are bringing up now far too many times already to go through the merry-go-round again.

Or at least have the courtesy to do a preliminary board search - as I say these points have been covered time and time again.

pan

12

The situation’s not quite what you both say. The second law states that any closed system will experience a global increase in entropy as time progresses. Note that parts of the system may experience a local decrease in entropy for a given time period. The earth is not a closed system, because a tremendous amount of energy comes in from the sun. This is why the theory of evolution does not conflict with the theory of thermodynamics.

13

Not true. The theory of evolution recognizes variations (mutations) occur. They can be either benificial or harmful. The “good” ones are kept and passed on to future generations. The animal becomes better adapted for survival in their environment. The reason more complex creatures evolve is because they have a better chance at surviving.

As far as entropy is concerned, entropy can be overcome with enough energy and we happen to be orbiting a fairly good size star emitting tons(?) of energy out into space constantly.

Occum’s Razor is handy but it never proves anything. It can work in general stuff but not in the accepting of theories. Besides both sides of this debate can word their argument to look like they win. God vs. Big, long complex random stuff happening or Mysterious, Confusing Diety with the cajones to make a world and provide evidence contrary to that vs. it happened

K2Rage, I have a problem saying that this proves God’s existence. It could provide a strong probability (not counting kabbes post) of existence. But it could happen randomly as well.

14

Kabbes - if you find this discussion in any way neanderthallic, by all means, feel free to discontinue to post on this thread (and please keep in mind who started it…) There’s no need to act so condescending because you “studied” a “website.”

I’m a Chemical Engineering student at the University of Michigan. My grasp of “the theory as it is now” comes from the high-profile speakers who frequent my university to lecture and hold forums. I just wanted to have a civilized debate online. Ok, 'nuff said.

I’d like to further the discussion with a quote by Thomas Gold: “One is not inclined to accept even the strongest evidence if it points towards an inconceivable occurance.”

And another by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: “It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

I propose that evolution has no scientific evidence to back it up. We have observed mosquitos developing immunities to DDT, but never mosquitos evolving from swamp mush. We see useless toes on horses, and theorise they once had feet or more than hooves, but even if they did, we have never observed something so grandiose as a horse embryo evolving out of … well, swamp mush for lack of a better term. See we observe small ADAPTIONS, and then make this giant theoretical leap to the concept of evolution. But it doesn’t add up.

I’m sure someone out there will think he’s so smart and write in “well, we’ve never observed GOD in action, now have we?” I believe I have and although I could site every time I’ve see Him work miracles in my life and the lives of others, I doubt it would do much good in the face of the learned skeptic. Besides the point, one cannot prove the existence of a supernatural being with science anyways, since the PREMISE of science is to empirically describe the tangible without invoking the supernatural. By very deffinition, science cannot prove God’s existence. But I think science has uncovered some pretty spectacular “natural” phenomena, none more spectacular than the creation of Man (life), and that is what I credit to God.

15

K2Rage101: Have you ever looked at the archives at http://www.talkorigins.org? There’s a lot of scientific evidence for evolution presented there.

16

Oops, the question mark got included in the link. Try the one below:

http://www.talkorigins.org

17

Your proposal is duly noted and dismissed. Please consult the FAQs at http://www.talkorigins.org and sumbit a new proposal.

18

First of all, evolution is not really about the formation of life on earth. We can imagine a scenario where God created the first life on earth, which subsequently evolved into all the various animals, plants, bacteria, and fungi we see over 3.5 billion years.

Nothing in evolutionary theory conclusively rules out divine biogenesis, or seeding of the earth by life from outside of the earth.

K2Rage, you are confusing your terms. The formation of life is called biogenesis, not evolution. Evolution means all that stuff about mosquitoes developing resistance to DDT and horses losing their extra toes.

Evolution is different than biogenesis. We could imagine a planet where life arose naturally, without God, but where evolution does not occur. Or we could imagine a planet where God created life, but that life evolves. Or we could imagine a planet where God does both, or God does neither.

It is true that we have reason to suspect that some form of natural process led to the formation of life on earth, but of course as of yet we don’t really understand how it happened. But just because we don’t understand it there is no reason to suspect that it must therefore have a supernatural origin. Perhaps after many many years of study we will be forced to conclude that life was indeed created supernaturally. But we are no where near that point.

And before we get into it, I can also state that the Big Bang is different from evolution too, it is an independent theory that has nothing to do with evolution, so let’s not confuse the two.

The universe could be created by God, and we could still have evolution. Or not. But the fact is that you don’t even understand the theories that you are arguing against. If you did, you wouldn’t trot out these tired objections that have been answered over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again on these boards. Try doing a search on “evolution” and “creationism”, and read what you find. Most of your arguments have already been made and shot down in flames many times already. Or try talkorigins.org, like everyone suggests. Then come back, admit you were wrong, and we’ll forgive you. How’s that?

19

Originally posted by K2Rage101

Say, is that the same Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who believed in fairies?

20

They said?:

U of M is generally a pretty good school. They should get better speakers, or better listeners. And why was a speaker on evolution talking about abiogenesis?

In any case, maybe you could help out by clarifying your own position. First, the information thing has me a bit confused:[list=1][]What is information?[]What does it mean to “have” information?[]Hi, Opal![]What kinds of things can have information?[]How do you know something has information?[]How can information be measured?[]How is it “transmitted” from thing to thing (if at all)?[]Is there some sort of “conservation of information” law?[]If not, where does information come from, and where does it go to?[/list=1]Once those are put out of the way, we could discuss:[ul][]emergent phenomena[]how individual choices make such nice demand curves[]how flocking emerges from boidsgenetic/evolutionary algorithms[/ul]