DNA Code March 25, 2007
Posted by tonyrhodes in Not so earthbound.add a comment
DNA (with thanks to Accelrys)
www.accelrys.com/reference/gallery/ls_dna.html
Cameron Lawrence has raised the question of Christian scholarship in his latest post http://www.cameronlawrence.com
The desire for truth must outweigh personal attachment to established theories, that of evolution being a prime example.
Thankfully, some long perpetuated erroneous beliefs are now being questioned even by leading evolutionists.
I agree with the anthropologist and archaeologist Stephen Caesar, who has stated, in his article of 01/30/2007, entitled “Evolution and Empirical Evidence”, that Darwin’s theory relies on faith, not empirical observation. http://www.rae.org/index.html
Caesar shows the evidence for questioning major evolutionary transitions, quoting a review by Dr Kevin Padian of a book by evolutionist Dr. Henry Gee, entitled In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999. At last there is an admission that the evidence for human evolution from hominids is shaky to say the least.
My own belief is that because DNA is designed to be self-replicating, it must, of necessity, be able to reproduce itself very accurately, in order to maintain the integrity of the species it represents. The species will be adaptable, but will always be recognizable as distinct from any other species. Inherent in its construction is its ability to reproduce itself indefinitely, without risk of its genotype becoming significantly altered. DNA is a coded structure, and linguistic in nature.
John R. Baumgardner, geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, makes very interesting observations in the book In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation, ISBN 1 86436 443 2, ed. John F. Ashton, PhD:“From whence, then, does linguistic information originate? In our human experience we immediately connect the language we create and process with our minds. But what is the ultimate nature of the human mind? If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect that an entity capable of originating linguistic information is also ultimately non-material in its essential nature.”
Baumgardner goes on to quote Prof. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has said, “No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequence which expresses its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call “genetic grammicality” has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation.”
Let us be honest with ourselves about the massively complex structure that DNA is. Surely something which carries all the information required to replicate human intelligence from generation to generation must have required a far greater intelligence to create it originally.
For more about the linguistic nature of the DNA code see:
