Origin of DNA

Origin of DNA. Randall Niles summarizes the Monkey Theorem and the impossibility of producing genetic information through random trials.

The DNA molecule represents a massive amount of complex information. In the human, DNA is comprised of 3 billion precise "letter" sequences, which, when read together, form a perfect set of instructions underlying the form and function of every cell in the body. When compared to a written work of Shakespeare, most of us agree that such coded information cannot be created or understood without some kind of intelligence.

The Monkey Theorem is a popular device used by naturalists/materialists/atheists to defend the idea that DNA code could arise by chance, given enough time similar to a bunch of monkeys pounding away on typewriters and eventually delivering a Shakespearean sonnet.

Can you believe it? The British National Council of Arts tested the Monkey Theorem by actually placing six monkeys and a computer in a cage for a month. At the end of the experiment, the monkeys had produced about 50 pages of letters, but not a single word. Indeed, the shortest words in English are a and I, but those require a space on either side of the letter to be considered a word. Assuming a very simple keyboard with 30 keys (26 letters, a space bar, a period, a comma, and a question mark), the odds of getting a one-letter word is one chance in 27,000 (30 x 30 x 30).

Thats one letter What about a Shakespearean sonnet?

Check this out from Gerald Schroeder, Israeli scientist and author of The Science of God:

"All sonnets are the same length. Theyre by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, Shall I compare thee to a summers day? I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. Whats the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in Shall I compare thee to a summers day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.

"Now the number of particles in the universe—not grains of sand, Im talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons—is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to the 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; youd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th."

Its dramatic to note that this statement was delivered at a New York University debate with Antony Flew in May 2004. Mr. Flew, a staunch atheist up to that point, recently declared the following in his book, There Is A God: How The Worlds Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007):

"After hearing Schroeders presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the monkey theorem was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem wont work for a single sonnet, then of course its simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance."

***

Visit http://www.allaboutthejourney.org to further explore the profound nature of DNA and how naturalistic impossibility drove Antony Flew to renounce his atheism.

Also, go to http://www.RandallNiles.com/videos.htm to watch more videos on the origin of DNA and other scientific insights.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Origin of DNA
• Genetic Code
• Information Theory
• Antony Flew
• Monkey Theorem
• Hamlet
• Gerald Schroeder
• Shakespeare
• Randall Niles

[ferrett78]

6 monkeys and one month is not really close to infinite monkeys OR time... Besides, evolution works incrementally, not randomly. That's the whole point of "natural selection". Mutations which are beneficial tend to be passed on. So in the metaphor, each time a monkey "randomly" gets closer to a word or phrase, that particular mutation is kept. I'd recommend watching Dawkins' "Growing up in the Universe" Episode 3. It gives a fine example of this process.

[reflect7]

@ferrett78 It wasn't infinite trials over infinite time -- We've now got a calc of the max possible trials over the max possible time since the singularity popped into existence. It's still a small number relative to the complexity of DNA code (and only 600 M yrs if you start with the Cambrian). Also, where were these trials occurring, and under what circumstances? Why would each "success" in the random process maintain structure in the nasty pre-life environment of chemicals, tars, and acids?

[reflect7]

The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal. (Richard Dawkins)

[IHasChannel]

The first simple celled organisms didn't have DNA. They didn't have a "code" until RNA developed. When you stated that, it was pretty clear your ignorance of science would be phenomenal, so I stopped watching.

[ferrett78]

@Drebln893 Thank you for your well-thought out and constructive comment.

[Drebln893]

@ferrett78 ...Shut the hell up you bloody idiot. There is nothing positive in mutations you muppet.

[Daghead]

I thought this was going to be good but you are an idiot. You do not need the entire human fucking genome to have replicating life. this has been shown in abiogenesis studies. What's needed to get where we are is the mechanism of DNA that causes the production of something else useful, and through NATURAL SELECTION it can become increasingly useful and efficient. You should attack the transition from simple life to an organism that can copy and process DNA. That's why I am presently a deist.

[foxlake02]

DNA is not code. It's a crude analogy for the model we use to describe molecular reactions. Even if we assigned different letters than A, T, G or C to the nitrogenous base molecules it would still work. It's a metaphor you idiot. This would be like saying Jesus walked on all four feet because the Bible says he was a lamb.

[xchris1800]

Evolution, stupidity on wheels, I havent found one evolutionist with human intelligence, i am starting thinking that they really come from monkey. Perhaps they are also children of Pinocchio.

[elisk2]

Because letters and DNA are the same thing.

[Xerock]

Standard Creationist Idiocy:

Step 1: Find something complex or unknown

Step 2: Default to God

Step 3: Stick fingers in ears and say "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA"

[taicleis]

Random letter-mashing is not subject to natural selection.

Chemistry is subject to tendencies and selective pressures that will 'reward' certain configurations - if they occur - with greater numbers. Imagine if every time a monkey got the right letter - even a single letter - that letter would 'stick'. You'd have a sonnet quite soon.

[peopleswave]

SO WHAT IS THIS 'SOMETHING' THAT CREATED THE INFORMATION CODE? GOD? EVERY THEORY SEEMS TO BE VERY COMPLICATED...BUT FROM THE PAST TILL NOW WE'VE SEEN AND WITNESSED SCIENTIFIC INVETIONS..MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN SAVED VIA ADVANCEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY...TODAY NO DOUBT ABOUT REALITY OF SCIENCE POWER..IT'S EVERYWHERE..

FOR MORE THAN 26YEARS I'VE PREACHED AND TALKED ABOUT GOD BUT I NEVER KNEW/SEEN THE GOD I BELIEVED IN...READING RELIGION BOOKS ETC NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE GOD..SHOW GOD TO WORLD ..