Blog

by Charlie Wolcott

I frequently watch Evolutionists froth at the mouth at the notion of Information and DNA being used in the same sentence. Many of them I have dealt with despise the analogy to computer code, and to that I simply laugh. It only shows how little they know of both. I mentioned several times last week that a written language is a code which transmits information from one location to another, however someone who is not privy to that language will not understand it. They can, however, perceive intelligence behind it and then seek to crack the code.

This is precisely what is happening with DNA. We learned about 100 years ago what DNA is, and little by little we have been learning that is the “master computer program” for each living organism. Back in the 1970s, we only knew about the protein making segments as having function, and the rest was deemed “Junk DNA.” We have since learned that the segments never were junk but actually worked as the “operating system” for the genome. The ENCODE Project did much to reveal this, though Creationists like John Sanford knew and predicted this long before the secular community caught up.

Regarding DNA and information, one thing I have yet to see Evolutionists grasp is the distinction between DNA and information. DNA is NOT information. Just like every single pixel on the computer screen you are using to read this post is not information itself. They are just pixels. Likewise, DNA is just four letters of base-pairs twisted into a double-helix. However, both are capable of containing or storing information. You can read this post with ease because you understand how a particular organization of pixels conveys a message from my brain to yours. Interpretation is certainly a factor in this, but outside the scope of this post. But with DNA, it is like a Chinese person who has never seen English letters before. It makes no sense to him, but he can see that it is a language and a code. That may inspire him to go seek out what that code is. Little by little he can eventually break that code and thus translation of written languages becomes possible. Of course it would greatly help if he had an English speaking person work with him, but even without one it could be done.

This is what is happening with DNA. It contains a code and language that we have just started learning to understand. But here is a very neat difference between DNA and any written language we have. The written languages can only be read in one direction. Sometimes a writer will instill a hidden message within the text by having the code breaker read every 7th letter or something like that, but most languages only read in one direction. DNA, however, is able to be read forwards, backwards, skipping certain letters, and more. It folds into 3D shapes and then that is read, but then there is a 4th dimension with time. It can change shape for a given situation to produce a protein to specifically deal with that situation. How could anything do that without intelligent input?

In computer programs, programmers have “try-throw” blocks of code where they check out a given input situation, and if it is not desired the computer will throw out some kind of error message. DNA is capable of doing the same thing. It can read the situations, go through the library of possible answers it has to those situations, and then address them. DNA is able to repair itself. How could it even detect if an error is in place? It would have to know at least enough context to make a correction or compare to a master strand to know what was wrong. How would it know what to do about it? It would have to replace the errors with a correction based on a given standard. Evolutionists have yet to provide an answer to this standard, and the best they have offered in trying is giving what it does. But they never have addressed how that ability got there.

In most biology classes when teaching about how DNA works, mutations are addressed. Mutations are a very real reality regarding DNA. Sometimes a letter gets switched, sometimes a segment is duplicated, sometimes there are insertion or deletion mutations. A typical example would be in English saying “The student read the book,” and a deletion mutation would be “The student red the book.” Obviously, this could create havoc down the road, but here is a detail often missed. In reading the sentence, the reader sees ‘student’ and will anticipate a verb (‘read’) because that is how the language structure works. Instead he gets an adjective (‘red’) and that throws him off. The reader is able to get around this. How? He understands language and typos and his brain will auto-correct the error. DNA can do a similar thing. If it gets an adjective when it expects a verb, it can make corrections.

Now, many mutations are beyond correction and they have been stockpiling. Some of the mutations are neutral with no current effect but can have effect as more add on. See this post from Steve Risner for more on mutations. As the mutations compile, the original information gets lost. Textbooks accurately describe this process, however for some reason, they get the idea that these mutations can lead to brand new functions and abilities that never were present in the original code, such as getting lungs and an air-breathing circulatory system from a gill-breathing system for example. We are not talking about changes of hair color or size of beaks here. Those options are already inherent within the genetic code. The information needed for completely changing systems is not there and mutations never get us there. Mutations can only corrupt and make worse.

If Evolutionists want to “follow the evidence” and maintain their theory, they need to completely overhaul their theory. Instead of arguing that life evolved gradually from simple life-forms to more complex life-forms, they need to suggest that the earliest life-forms were birthed with the all the genetic capabilities of all living creatures. Their arguments for the phylogenetic trees demand this approach, and yet it is completely contradictory to the history they teach.

Evolution has long been worthy of being discarded because of a consistent level of failing to produce what it needs to be true. Darwin said from the get go that his theory hinged upon finding the fossils that would show the clear progression of common ancestry, and yet there is not a single proposed such fossil without controversy or question. And even if one were to give them all the benefit of the doubt, it is still extremely small in number compared what would be needed if the theory was true. See posts from Steve Risner and myself about that in more detail. DNA has taken the little scientific standing it had left and by the time we are done studying it, there should be no traces of Evolution left in anyone’s mind who follows the evidence. 

But Evolution will not go away, in part because it is so ingrained into society’s minds, not because of any scientific evidence. It is not defended scientifically because its defenders will never let it even be put up for scientific scrutiny. It is defended as one defends a religion. DNA and Information is the enemy of Evolution and it is my prayer you have an open mind to see that the evidence never was, nor is, nor ever will be in favor of Darwin’s false religion.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.