In 2008 scientist Vladimir ShCherbak published information his book “The
Codes of Life” with a chapter entitled “The Arithmetical Origin of the
Genetic Code”.
(Biosemiotics Volume 1, 2008, pp 153-185 – http://www.springerlink.com/content/t85w0h771510j187)
The discoveries covered in this are yet another wonderful refutation of Darwinism.
Of course, we know beforehand that the Darwinians will deny these
clear implications, as they always do when any discovery challenges
their secular humanism (a religion) based theory. That’s because
Darwinism is materialism’s origins myth.
For example shCherbak writes,
“There seems to be but one
conclusion: the genetic code is itself a unique structure of
arithmetical syntax. The arithmetical syntax is separated from natural
events by the unbridgeable gap between the fundamental laws of nature
and the abstract codes of the human mind (Barbieri, 2005). Chemical
evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled
on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the
genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions
nor fit the genetic code out with them.”
“The zero is the supreme abstraction of
arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be
an indicator of artificiality.”
“First, a general and the
most forcible argument: it has been found that the genetic code is
governed directly by the arithmetical symbol of zero. This striking fact
is verified simultaneously by several independent orderlinesses –
logical, arithmetical, and semantical… Incidentally, such an acting zero
alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic
code.”
Zero is indeed and abstraction, as is the decimal point. Only minds
can entertain abstractions. Nature, being mindless, cannot therefore
create or use abstract data like this. Abstractions don’t exist in
nature’s matter and energy.
Indeed, the very definition of the word abstract is as follows:
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
…
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.
Note: removed unrelated definitions (related to arts)
Abstractions are only and always conceptual, requiring a mind. Thus Nature, DNA and life as a whole, cannot know or understand abstract concepts like
zero and the
decimal point. Matter and energy alone cannot abstract.
The very obvious conclusion of the existence of abstraction being
used in the genetic code is a proof – not a mere evidence – that the
genetic code was created by a mind, and intelligence.
ShCherbak states this very clearly in his statement- that I repeat for emphasis, “
Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.“
An “artificial origin” is the same as “intelligently designed”.
There is no other source for abstraction but mind and only mind can understand it.
Is this thus the end of Darwinism?
Well the truth is that Darwinism died many years ago with the
discovery of the genetic code itself. How so? Code is a symbol system.
Codes do not write themselves. Codes are conventions of symbols
contrived to represent something other than themselves. Algorithms
cannot create themselves. No random process can create algorithmic
symbol systems. Algorithms, being instructions and how to do something –
like make a blueberry pie or build car - require a mind.
As Dr. David Abel explains,
“Not even Descriptive
semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee,
1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and
plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical
“laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and
mathematical manipulations are also formal.
The specific term PI originated out of a
need to qualify the kind of information being addressed in
peer-reviewed scientific literature. Shannon measured only probabilistic
combinatorial uncertainty. Uncertainty is not information. It is widely
recognized that even reduced uncertainty (“R,” poorly termed “mutual
entropy”) fails to adequately describe and measure intuitive
information. Intuitive information entails syntax, semantics and
pragmatics. Syntax deals with symbol sequence, various symbol
associations, and related arbitrary rules of grouping. Semantics deals
with the meanings represented within any symbol system. Pragmatics
addresses the formal function of messages conveyed using that symbol
system.” – http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html
More information and several articles one should read to grasp the concepts discussed can be found
here.
Again Abel notes,
“No one has ever observed PI
flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal
side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The
GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at
the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing,
prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d).
Differential survival/reproduction of
already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not
sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b).
Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive
information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms.
The environment possesses no ability to program linear, digital folding
instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages.
The environment also provides no ability
to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude
noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino
acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or
translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is
arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical
connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides,
and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although
instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information
of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not
physical.”
What he is saying, for those not used to the terms of reference and
concepts of the laws and nature of information, is that Darwinism cannot
be true because matter + energy, random mutations + “selection” (a mere
filter) cannot create abstractions like codes and symbol systems. It
just doesn’t happen. No more than your rose bush can do arithmetic.
Math is abstract in itself, nature knows nothing out it.
Therefore this arithmetical nature of the genetic code, with its zero
and decimal, its algorithmic information, cannot be natural. This is a
defeater for Darwinian evolution – period.
The current generation of elder Darwinian fanatics will never accept
these obvious facts, it counters their whole world view and makes them
nervous and insecure. That’s why the Darwinistas are so enraged,
utterly out to lunch, LOUD and adamantly resistant. They are the new
inquisition. It’s about religion for them, not science, whether they
confess this “sin” or not.
This was revealed by one of their own, who at least was honest enough to admit it. Richard Lewontin,
“We take the side of science
in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of
its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a
commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door.”
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell
deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big
truths.’ – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of
Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.
Well we can take his word for it, right? Well um … if you can trust a
scientist that tells you that he lies! This is nevertheless a very
strange statement. He says the materialism is absolute, and we cannot
allow a Divine Foot in the door. But atheism has no absolutes!
The Darwinists only logical response to this is to claim panspermia,
an extra-terrestrial origin for DNA. But that only pushes the problem
back one step, for then we need to ask, “How did they get here?” Now,
supposing that the ETs themselves are DNA based will only leave us with
the same question of the origin of life.
It will of course take a long time before these perfectly logical
conclusions are accepted – perhaps the next generation of students of
biology and other related domains will accept the truth. We’ll have to
wait till this generation dies off.
