DNA: The Discovery Darwin Never Saw Coming

What keeps me reading extensively, and listening to lectures and audiobooks, is the world’s incredible ability to surprise us at every turn. There is still so much to discover. New insights about the origins of life are but one example. And the implications are truly mind-blowing 

For much of the twentieth century, many people assumed that new discoveries in biology would steadily reinforce Darwin's explanation for the origin of species. Instead, one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the modern era raised an entirely different question. That discovery was DNA.

Stephen Meyer recently summarized this story in a lecture at Cambridge University. His point wasn't merely that Watson and Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953. The larger discovery came a few years later when Francis Crick realized that DNA functions much like a digital code. 

DNA isn't simply a remarkable chemical. It contains instructions and stores information. Bill Gates once compared DNA to a computer program, only far more sophisticated than anything humans have ever written. That's an analogy, of course, but it captures something vital: living cells don't merely contain chemistry; they contain coded information that directs the construction of proteins, the molecular machinery that makes life possible.

This is where Meyer believes the discussion changes. Chemistry can explain many things. It can explain how molecules interact. But where does meaningful information come from? In our everyday experience, codes, software, languages, and written messages always originate with minds. They don't arise simply because chemicals happen to bump into one another.

Meyer argues that this presents a significant challenge for theories that attempt to explain life's origin solely through undirected material processes. Rather than asking only, "How did the chemicals get here?" he asks another question: "Where did the information come from?" 

Darwin & his ilk believe everything is possible with enough time and chance. It takes a lot of faith to believe 10,000 monkeys with 10,000 typewriters could ever produce Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or Cervantes' Don Quixote. This itself would be easier than creating life out of goo, or a universe out of nothing (though the latter is a different discussion.)

Science has always advanced by following the evidence wherever it leads. Ironically, Watson and Crick themselves were not looking for evidence of intelligent design. They were searching for the material basis of life. Yet what they uncovered was something that looked remarkably like a language—an information system residing within every living cell. To me, that's one of the fascinating twists in the history of science.

Darwin gave us a powerful theory that appeared to explain many aspects of biological change. Molecular biology in the twentieth century, however, revealed levels of complexity he could never have imagined. Instead of making the question of life's origin simpler, DNA has made it deeper.

Where there is information, we naturally ask about its source. Where there is a message, we ask about the messenger. DNA may not settle the debate for everyone, but it certainly reminds us that life is far more astonishing than anyone imagined a century ago. 

The most amazing (and convincing) feature of DNA to me (according to Meyer in another talk) is that for a species to be designed the code must precede it. This contradicts the "survival of the fittest" notions that chameleons changed the colors to blend in to an environment as a matter of survival. Other examples get cited in biology textbooks, but how did the code get altered after the fact when it must precede the species' designs beforehand. It doesn't make sense. 

Bottom Line:
The molecular revolution of the twentieth century introduced questions about the origin of biological information that Darwin himself never addressed and that remain the subject of ongoing debate. The appeal of thinkers like Stephen Meyer and David Berlinski is that contemporary scientists would remain committed to honest inquiry, not dogmatism, cherry-picking or confirmation bias. 

* * * * *

FWIW Dept.
According to the latest research, on average, a human gene contains about 10,000 to 30,000 "letters" (base pairs). Because the cellular machinery reads the code in three-letter "words" (called codons), this translates to roughly 3,330 to 10,000 amino acids per gene. Overall, the entire human genome across all 23 pairs of chromosomes contains about 3 billion base pairs of information.

Related Links

Why DNA Points to a Mind Behind the Universe
Berlinski and The Devil's Delusion

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

"If you see a turtle on a fence post, you know it didn't get there by itself."

The past couple months I've been listening to episodes of Uncommon Knowledge, an long-running interview and discussion program hosted by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute at Stanford. It features in-depth conversations with political leaders, scholars, journalists, historians, scientists, and other prominent thinkers on topics like politics, economics, history, culture, foreign policy, education, and current events. The discussions are meaty, with lots of protein for your brain muscle.

This week I listened to Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in which Robinson moderated a critique Darwinian theory with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer.

Listening to this and similar lectures has generated a number of insights such as one of the key differences between math and science. In math, 2 + 2 = 4. Period. In science, theories are proposed with a measured humility, in this manner: "This is what we know... for now."

When Darwin proposed his On the Origin of Species, he knew it didn't answer all the questions. He assumed that science in the future would fill in the gaps. So it was strange to me even in high school that every single nature show would include a nod to Darwin. If I was watching a program about sharks they always mentioned, as if it were fact, that this killer instinct evolved over a period of sixty million years. All this was assumed and extrapolated from the uncritical acceptance of Darwin's ideas.

So it was refreshing to learn of other points of view. Gelernter argued that Darwin's theory does not adequately explain the emergence of new species, particularly due to the Cambrian explosion and advances in molecular biology. Meyer promotes intelligent design, emphasizing the complexity of DNA as evidence of intelligent causation, while Berlinski remains skeptical yet open-minded.

All three underscored the lack of free speech in academia regarding Darwinism critiques and the challenge of understanding consciousness, with Meyer suggesting intelligent design could offer broader scientific insights beyond Darwinism. 

Problem one with Darwin's theory is the very narrow period of time that all these species came into existence, a period science has called the Cambrian explosion. 

The second problem became evident after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. Here's what that means as regards evolution.

If you want a computer to do something new, you have to write fresh software code for it. That's exactly what scientists discovered about life in the second half of the 20th century, starting with Watson and Crick's work on DNA. To create a new kind of living thing, a nnew species, you also need new "code." That code is the information stored in DNA—the long molecule that looks like a twisted ladder.

[EdNote: Before cracking the code for DNA in 1953, Francis Crick was a code breaker during World War II.]

The sequence of letters along the DNA molecule tells the cell how to make all the different protein molecules it needs to function. Then there's extra information that tells those cells how to organize themselves into the right shapes and structures—like how to build eyes, legs, or the overall body plan of an animal or plant.

In short: just like software code runs a computer, DNA is the instruction manual that builds and runs living organisms. If you want a truly new life form, you need to write new instructions in that DNA code.

"Things are more complicated than Darwin knew. We understand that producing new forms of life now means not just new shapes, new activities in which life engages, but a prior code." And what are the odds of a new species happening? These guys break it down for us mathematically. You are more likely to wake up as a cockroach tomorrow than to see a new species come into existence. (My nod to Gregor Samsa.)

If you want to listen to the program, you can find it here on YouTube. Whereas all three agree that Darwin's conclusions were flawed, they are not all in agreement with the notion of "intelligent design," which is an interesting discussion in and of itself.

MY REASONS for sharing this blog post is to encourage you to (A) reconsider the implications of how Darwin and his ideas have been applied since his death, and (B) to watch or listen to Dennis Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge programs on YouTube. Lots of great guests and very smart people.

TWO FINAL QUOTES FROM THE PROGRAM

A.  "Darwin now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin and move on? Striking sentence. This is one of the most important questions facing science in the 21st century." 

B. "Scientists are paid for making guesses, not for making right guesses, but for making interesting plausible ones. And if scientists, after the guess has been made, don't do their job, don't investigate the guess, don't do their best to figure out is it true or false, then we are false to science and we're betraying science."

RELATED LINKS

The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays

Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

What Does Math Teach Us About Deep Reality

"2 plus 2 equals 4. In all places and for all time, 2 plus 2 equals 4. But why? What does math tell us about the nature of reality? "

So begins a pretty juicy hour-long discussion about mathematics by three very smart men. Is math something humans invented—or something we discovered? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? 

In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson has assembled a panel comprised of mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics.

* * * 

You can find Uncommon Knowledge on the Hoover Institution channel on YouTube. If you enjoy grappling with life's biggest mysteries, or having your foundational belief structures challenged (or affirmed), you'll likely find a home here. The ideas discussed are often decidedly contrarian if you've blindly wallowed in mainstream narratives.

The program features a profound discussion on the nature of mathematics and its role in understanding reality, hosted by Peter Robinson and featuring guests David Berlinski, Sergio Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer in Salzburg, Austria. The central theme revolves around the objective nature of mathematics and its implications for comprehending the universe, exploring whether mathematical truths are inventions or discoveries.

Something I gleaned from my physicist uncle, which is re-asserted in these discussions, is that science is not a settled matter. True science is an ongoing exploration that finds answers that always end with "this is what we know for now." True science must be coupled with humility, willing to be proven wrong. 

The great tragedy of science this past century is how much it has been infected by politics. As a result, massive rivers of financial support go to science projects that support political narratives. I've written before about how free speech has been squashed or discouraged. I'd not considered the degree to which free inquiry suffered in the sciences.  

The purpose of this blog post is to recommend and encourage you to listen to this episode of Uncommon Knowledge titled Why Does 2 + 2 = 4. Here's what you'd be digging into.

Mathematician David Berlinski emphasizes the inherent stability and objective nature of mathematical truths such as numbers, suggesting they cannot be reduced to more fundamental entities. He asserts that mathematics has a consistent reality independent of human thought, challenging purely materialistic interpretations of the universe.

Sergio Klainerman, a mathematician known for his contributions to the study of hyperbolic differential equations, argues for the objectivity of mathematics, comparing it to physical reality. He illustrates this with the example of black holes, whose existence, while not directly observable, is predicted by consistent mathematical theories, thereby underscoring the non-empirical nature of mathematical knowledge.

Author Stephen Meyer, a philosopher of science and a leading proponent of the intelligent design movement, explores the philosophical implications of mathematical certainty, contrasting it with the empirical uncertainty of scientific hypotheses. He suggests that the high degree of certainty in mathematical proofs points towards a conceptual reality that transcends material existence, potentially indicating a divine or intelligent design.

The key concepts in this video include:

Mathematical Objectivity and Reality: The speakers explore how mathematical truths reflect an objective reality, questioning whether they are discovered or invented. This discussion intersects with philosophical notions concerning the existence of a conceptual realm.

Mathematics and Transcendence: Stephen Meyer and others discuss whether the objectivity of mathematics infers a transcendent reality, possibly residing in the mind of a divine being, challenging materialistic views of the universe.

Historical and Practical Impact: The panel examines the historical trajectory of mathematical ideas, such as the imaginary unit 'i' (square root of -1) and its significance in quantum mechanics, illustrating how abstract mathematical developments can profoundly influence scientific understanding.

Philosophical and Aesthetic Considerations: The conversation delves into philosophical mysteries around the existence of mathematical concepts, with reflections on whether beauty in mathematical theories serves as a guiding rule of thumb in scientific discovery.

Materialism and Interpretations of Reality: The limitations of materialism are discussed, with the panel considering non-material explanations for mathematical realities, echoing Newton's views on divine order.

One thing I like is how host Peter Robinson acknowledges that hs is standing in the shallow end of the pool when discussing these subjects with these others. Whether it's your field of interest or not I think you'll find the rewards of following along to be worth the work.

* * * 

Quite recently my interest in mathematics has been re-ignited by reading James Nickel's "Math Circles" on his Biblical Christian World View website. But what really captured my attention in this video was the title and its connection to Orwell's 1984. When Winston has been broken down inside the Ministry of Love, the phrase “2 + 2 = 5” is one of the most powerful symbols of totalitarian control. The Party isn’t satisfied with controlling actions—it wants to control reality. If it can make you accept that 2 + 2 = 5, then truth is no longer objective and reality becomes whatever authority says it is.

The goal isn’t just obedience—it’s belief. Winston isn’t “reformed” until he doesn’t just say 2 + 2 = 5 but when he actually accepts it and believes it as true.

We're not there yet, but there are certainly signs of that freedom of thought has been under attack these past 100 years. C.S. Lewis pointed out the erosion taking place in his Abolition of Man. If those in power can redefine the most basic truth, they can control everything else. 

Because 2 + 2 = 4 seems so obvious, we can fail to grasp the implications that accompany this reality. It's only a starting point, but this episode of Uncommon Knowledge can open your mind to think more deeply about the amazing universe we find ourselves in.

 

Why Does 2 + 2 = 4? What Math Teaches Us About Deep Reality