WHAT IS THE MOST COMPLEX COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE?

The human genome is the most complex computer operating system anywhere in the known universe.

It controls a super-complex biochemistry that acts with single-molecule precision. It controls the interaction network of hundreds of thousands of proteins. It is a wonderful testament to the creative brilliance of God and an excellent example of the scientific bankruptcy of neo-Darwinian theory. Why? Because the more complex life is, the less tenable evolutionary theory becomes. Super-complex machines cannot be tinkered with haphazardly or they will break. And super-complex machines do not arise from random changes.

The four dimensional human genome defies naturalistic explanations.

Our computer programs are essentially one-dimensional. The human genome operates in four dimensions. This is one of the greatest testimonies to the creative brilliance of God available.

ecoli-bacterium-lge

Figure 1: A comparison of the control of transcription in E. Coli (left) with the Linux call graph (right). The bacterial cell is able to control many protein-coding genes (green lines at bottom) with relatively few controls (yellow and purple lines). Linux, while obviously a result of intelligent design, falls far short in that it requires many more high-level instructions to control relatively few outputs. From Yan et al. 2010.1

I am serious when I compare the genome to a computer operating system. The only problem with this analogy is that we have no computers that can compare to the genome in terms of complexity or efficiency. It is only on the most base level that the analogy works, but that is what makes the comparison so powerful. After millions of hours of writing and debugging we have only managed to create operating systems that can run a laptop or a server, and they crash, a lot. The genome, though, runs a hyper-complex machine called the human body. The organisation of the two are radically different as well. A team made up of computer scientists, biophysicists, and experts in bioinformatics (in other words, really smart people) compared the genome of the lowly E. coli bacterium to the Linux operating system (figure 1) and have discovered that our man-made operating systems are much less efficient because they are much more “top heavy”.1 It turns out that the bacterial genome has a few high-level instructions that control a few middle-level processes, that in turn control a massive number of protein-coding genes. Linux is the opposite. It is much more top heavy and thus much less efficient at getting things done. The bacterium can do a lot more with fewer controls. I predict that the study of genomics will influence the future development of computers.

This is very brief summary of the information contained in the DVD by Dr Robert Carter  The High Tech Cell. You need to get this valuable resource and I suggest you purchase a copy from the Creation Ministries webstore.

Human Genome Decay supports Biblical History

img1003

 

Recent reports on the human genome provide powerful support for the Biblical history of Creation and The Fall.

In his landmark book Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, geneticist Dr John Sanford clearly demonstrates that human genomes are decaying at an unstoppable rate.

Dr Sanford became famous back in the seventies when he jointly invented the “Gene Gun” which enabled scientists to genetically modify fruit and vegetables.

An even more important development occurred with Sanford and colleagues release of a powerful computer simulation programme Mendel’s Accountant. It allows greater refinement in predicting the fate of mutations in populations and the results agree with Sanford’s earlier work. There are no realistic evolutionary models in the scientific literature that contradict these results. This overwhelming negative evidence clearly contradicts Darwinian expectations, but clearly and dramatically fits the Biblical record of Creation and The Fall.

‘The Darwinian claim – that life could have started with low fidelity self replicating molecules – is exposed as culpable foolishness. The ‘RNA world’ scenario collapses into error catastrophe so quickly it is scandalous that such nonsense can be taught as a realistic model of origin in our school and universities.”

This article was extracted from a paper in Journal of Creation Vol 28 (1) 2014:  Human genome decay and the origin of life by Alex Williams.

The book Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome can be obtained from http://www.creation.com

 

 

IS CONSENSUS SCIENCE, ANTI-SCIENCE?

Ben Stein Expelledignaz_semmelweis
Pictured is Dr Ignaz Semmelweis. He struggled against the scientific consensus of his day. The cost of ignoring his research findings was the loss of countless lives and much suffering.

Sadly consensus science has a poor record. In fact the task of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science on the contrary requires only one investigator who happens to be right.

Dr Ignaz Semmelweiss, a Hungarian surgeon, was one of those investigators who was right. He discovered that ‘childbed fever’ which typically caused a ten to thirty percent mortality level, could largely be abolished if doctors simply washed their hands in a chlorine solution before examining pregnant mothers.
The compelling evidence however failed to impress his superiors and he was eventually dismissed from the clinic even though the mortality rate for his patients was essentially zero. Semmelweis’s procedure went contrary to the whole theory of medical consensus existing in his day. He spent the last years of his life unsuccessfully trying to convince European doctors of his systems effectiveness. He ended his life in a mental hospital and his ideas forgotten until Dr Joseph Lister took up the battle this time successfully.
The story of Dr Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen is much the same. In 1795 he suggested that the fevers which were the number one killer of women following childbirth were an infectious process and he was able to prevent/cure them. The consensus said NO…. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right/same conclusion. These are but two of many examples of scientists resistance to accepting the truth when it conflicts with accepted dogma.

Evolution is also an entrenched dogma despite the overwhelming evidence for amazing design of life and the universe. Since the discovery of the complexity of  DNA (ENCODE PROJECT) and sub-microscopic cell machinery of irreducible complexity there is a growing number of eminent scientists embracing intelligent design.  Why the establishment is so wedded to materialism and evolutionary naturalism is perhaps best explained by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and probably one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment , a commitment to materialism. It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori  adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations no matter how counter- intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist from Kansas State University said it more succinctly: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

Evolution sheds no light on the beginning of the Universe and life. It postulates matter, energy and time brought this beautiful orderly Cosmos into being, with its intricate life forms, its complex natural laws, its intangible moral qualities and the creative and reasoning powers of man. Even Aristotle and Plato knew this speaks of infinite intelligence and yet evolution insists blind chance can account for it all. At a foundational level we are involved in a battle of world views.

Christians know God, so the idea that matter and energy and blind chance can produce the Cosmos we inhabit is absurd.

Recommended reading: By Design, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, The Design Inference, Dr William Dembski, The Edge of Evolution, Dr Michael Behe and of course  www.creation.com

DNA & INFORMATION DEBUNKS EVOLUTION

ENCODE_logo

The ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project proves beyond doubt that the Evolution inspired view that the human genome is mostly “junk DNA” is false.
Many evolutionists don’t like the findings. One blogged on Scientific American’s website that he doubted the death of junk DNA and complained about the “public damage” being caused by ENCODE publicity.
Damage to what? Surely not science? Atheism?
Giving three reasons why evolution requires lots of junk DNA, he concluded that the findings of ENCODE that 80% + (100% is likely) is functional must be wrong or misreported.
Junk DNA is dead and this blog only shows that evolution should die with it.
There are three fundamental theorems of information:
Theorem 1: The fundamental quantity information is a non material (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information.
Theorem 2: Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act.
Theorem 3: Information comprises the nonmaterial foundation for all technological systems and for all works of art.
The greatest known density of information is that in the DNA of living cells exceeding by far the best achievement of highly integrated storage densities in computers.
Thousands of man-years of research as well as unprecedented technological developments were required to produce a Megabit chip, but we are expected to believe that the complex storage principles embodied in DNA, with their much higher degree of integration, developed spontaneously in matter which was left to itself.
Such a “theory” is, to say the least, absurd in the highest degree.
References:
Dazzling DNA by Dr Don Batten http://www.creation.com
In the Beginning was Information by Dr Werner Gitt Master Books 2007.