DNA by chance?

In the movie Dumb and Dumber Lloyd asks Mary what are the chances that they'll be together and the following clip shows what happens in the movie.



We laugh because we know she's telling him there is no chance.  This clip comes to mind when really examining the probability of DNA arising by chance.

My career area of expertise is computer information systems so I'm not a molecular biologist or a mathmetician.  I would say though that I have a very good lay understanding of these areas because of my interest in the subjects.  So I'll just try to summarize what the actual chances are of a cell forming by chance and random variation.  See my previous post on what DNA is and how it works.

Proteins are the machines in the body that make life tick.  Let's take a short functioning protein of a chain of 150 amino acids.  I'll spare you all the math behind it but it can be referenced in the book I give below.  The odds of getting one functional protein in a chain of 150 amino acids from the prebiotic soup (the chemical condition that would have existed for proteins to form by chance) is no better than 1 in 10¹⁶⁴.  How big is that number? 

1016	Seconds since the Big Bang
1065	Atoms in our galaxy
1080	Protons, electrons, and neutrons in the observable universe
10139	Number of possible events that could have taken place in the observable universe since the Big Bang

However there's more.  The 1 in 10¹⁶⁴ chance is just the probably of one protein being formed.  A cell is made up of many proteins.  A "simple" cell needs at least 250 proteins each made up of at least a chain of 150 amino acids.  To get the probability of the most simple cell being created by chance and random variation you multiple that out and get a 1 in 10^41,000 chance.  That number is really not even comprehensible.  It's certainly a lot less than a 1 in million chance.

It would be like sitting down to play poker against someone and every hand they had a royal flush.  One, you'd expect.  Two in a row you'd be amazed.  Three in a row and you'd be highly suspicious and four in a row you'd know it was fixed.  This chance is way more than 4 royal flushes in a row.  So why is it that some scientists still cling to chance as the cause for life?  Well, the truth is more and more non-theistic (agnostic or atheistic) scientists are doubting the chance explanation.  However, in spite of the actual data and facts there are still many who hold on to chance as being the explanation for life.  Because the facts and science don't actually support chance as being the best explanation for the origin of life there has to be something else at play here.  What is it? Whatever it is it's certainly not because science supports it as being the best or even a good explanation.

So we can take confidence in a position of intelligent design as being not only a reasonable explanation given the facts, science, and evidence but we can take confidence in it being the best explanation.  Many would have you believe that intelligent design is not science or can't be supported by science.  Take another look at the probability of chance explaining our existence.  You can't look at that and say objectively that ID isn't a better option than chance.

I've done a lot of summarizing for these numbers and the details can be found in the book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design which also has extensive bibliography to site the references for the calculations in Chapter 8 and 9.  If nothing else you should take away that the rhetoric about ID not being scientific or supported by science is just plain false and likely uninformed.

The Design of DNA

We all know about DNA.  We know that each person has a unique DNA signature but do most people really know what DNA is?  DNA structure was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson.  They revealed the double helix structure that had previously been unknown.  But what is DNA and what does it do?  DNA encodes the proteins that do the work in the cell.

Since 1953 a lot has been learned about DNA and it's complexity.  What fascinated me at first about DNA is it's similiarity to software and computers because that's my world.  DNA is machine code for the genes.  Computers speak in machine code (binary language).  All instructions that the device you are reading this on boils down to a series of 1's and 0's called bits which when put together are called bytes.  For instance the letter A in binary code is represented as 01000001.  So the computer takes that and displays an A on your screen.  There are programs that instruct the computer what to do with the 1's and 0's.  It instructs the browser you're reading this on to display the size, color, typeface, and many other attributes of the A.  These programs were written by programmers with minds which gives the computer instructions on how to process the information.  DNA works exactly the same way in that it contains specific digital information that is translated and processed by a complex set of chemical machines in the body.  It copies, assembles, and error corrects the proteins in our bodies.  However, it's much more complex than software.

"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created" Bill Gates

Just think about that statement for a minute.  Think about some of the amazing things that software does and DNA is more advanced than that.  Where does information come from?  Not just any information but information with a specified purpose?  Information which contains instructions for the buildings blocks of life.  Do we see information which contains complex instructions coming from non-intelligent sources?  When we see information containing complex instructions we know there is intelligence behind it.  When I see information in DNA I can come to no other conclusion than it was created by an intelligent mind.  In fact there is no reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise.  Given the evidence and what we know about complex information it's completely reasonable to believe that there is intelligence behind the creation of DNA.  In fact it's the most reasonable conclusion to come to given what we know and the more we find out the more we realize how complex DNA is.  So the more we learn about DNA it points more and more away from chance and random variation than it does towards it.

Below are a couple links to videos on DNA.  The first one is an animation of how DNA works and the second one is Dr. Stephen Meyer talking about information in DNA.  Meyer also wrote the book Signature In The Cell which explains pretty clearly how DNA works and what information in the DNA is.

The Design Argument

One of the arguments for God is the argument from design.  Technically known as the Teleological Argument coming from the Greek telos which means design.  An argument is stated premises that lead to a conclusion.  If the premises are true then the conclusion follows.  Many scientists believe the precision of the universe is persuasive evidence for a designer.  The argument takes the following form:

1. Every design had a designer
2. The universe has highly complex design
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer

Is the first premise true?  I know of nothing that is designed that didnt' have a designer.  If you were walking in the woods and came across a soda can laying on the ground would you think that the soda can was made by someone with a mind or think that natural causes created it?  Appealing to the universe (nature) as not being designed is not valid at this point since that is the very subject of the argument.  The real question is premise 2, is the universe actually designed?

How do we determine if universe is actually designed and doesn't just look designed?  First we look at things that are non-natural that appear to be designed and determine if they did or didn't have a designer.  Watches, cars. art, music, electronics, buildings, and anything else you can name that are non-natural all have designers.  When we see these things we know intuitively that there was intelligence involved in their design and we know that they are indeed designed.  In fact there is nothing in the non-natural realm that looks designed that didn't have a designer behind it.  So given that all things that are non-natural that have the appearance of design have a designer it's reasonable to say that if the universe is designed it had a designer.

So how do we know the universe is designed?  The fine-tuning of the universe for life is an extremely powerful piece of scientific evidence for the universe being designed.  I've already posted on some of the science behind this premise in a post titled Our Awesome Universe so I won't post it again.  Considering the fine-tuning in the previous post is it reasonable to say the universe is designed?  The universe is highly complex and exhibits the characteristics of design therefore it's reasonable to say the universe is designed.  I would even say that given the scientific evidence saying the universe is designed is more reasonable than saying the universe is not designed.

For further study
Video: Largest star ever discovered.  Shows just how vast our universe is.


Books


Web
The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design Reasons To Believe: The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design
The Discovery Institute

Do Christians have a bias to believe?

Do Christians just believe to cope or because they need a crutch?  And why would the skeptic be exempt from this type of coping behavior?  Couldn't it be that the skeptic is taking a skeptically position in an attempt to cope with accountability to God? 

Here's a post titled Do Christians Have a Bias to Believe? on bias and objective truth.

Introduction to ID

An interview at Apologetics315 on Intelligent Design with Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute.

Is faith opposed to science and logic?

Is faith just wishful thinking? Do people just cling onto God as a crutch? Here's an article at Wintery Knight discussing the issue.

How much evidence is enough?

How much evidence does it take to believe in God, Jesus, or the reliability of the Bible?  Most of the time when this question is asked or implied it's really not the question that's at hand.  The question really should be what evidence does it take to believe?

Many naturalists (those who take faith that science and the natural world is all there is) will say "I want to see God appear before me" or "I want physical evidence of God".  Because of their commitment to naturalism they except no other evidence for God.  Since God is not a physical being they think they've proved their case that God doesn't exist.  The problem with this is they accept all sorts of other things about our world that are not material, physical things.  They accept love as being real but you can't touch, see, measure, or weigh love but yet no one is saying love doesn't exist.  They might point to acts people do out of love but that's not love because all those things can be done just as easily in the absence of love.  The most obvious problem with the premise that the natural world is all there is, is that it can't be proved through science or natural means yet they accept it any way.  The statement fails to hold up under it's own assertion.

I think a parallel that comes to mind are the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson murder trials.  The evidence seems to be overwhelming in favor of a guilty verdict yet 12 jurors let them go free.  Some of the jurors said afterward that they weren't comfortable convicting without an eyewitness.  Despite a lot of very convincing evidence they were asking for the one piece of evidence they were never going to get. 

Naturalists aren't going to see God.  However, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of very convincing evidence to support the existence of God.  They'll believe things contrary to their own worldview to avoid considering God.  They'll believe that the universe was created from nothing by nothing despite no one ever having observed this and it could never be observed (you can't observe nothing because once you observe it there isn't nothing).  They'll believe that complex things we observe in the ancient past like pyrmiads or cave drawings were created by a mind but the most complex things in the universe that appear designed aren't, like the universe itself or the human biology.

Everyone believes in things they can't see, touch, measure, or weigh but the question of God brings with it other implications.  If there is a God then we will be held accountable for what we do in this life.  There is a standard above ours and if God exists that standard is set by God and we all fall miserably short of it.  So it's not really that there isn't enough evidence for the existence of God it's more about the implications of the existence of God.

If you fall into this category have you actually looked at the evidence?  If you haven't why not?

Resources