DNA, A Witness for God: Part 1
72 | Amazon Price: $11.99 List Price: $22.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $0.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $1.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $24.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $63.99 List Price: $99.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.83 List Price: $16.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $11.99 List Price: $24.95 |
STRUCTURE OF DNA
1. The informational density stored within the organic molecule, DNA, is amazing! At a certain resolution DNA looks like a string( if stretched out) but increase the resolution and its double helical structure is revealed, which makes it look like a very long and twisted ladder. A small section of this ladder is represented at image 1. At the resolution of a string we can calculate(1) its volume to be about 8X10^(-18) cubic meters(m^3); however, six men with Phd's said(2), "DNA could in theory be packed into a cube 1.9μm on each side," which gives it a volume of 6.86X10^(-18)m^3. This is the volume we will be using in this article(hub), and this is the volume in which the hereditary information for each individual is stored in their own respective DNA molecules.
NUCLEOTIDES TO LETTERS
These six authors also said in the same paragraph, "A typical human cell thus contains a total of 46 chromosomes and about 6X10^9 nucleotide pairs of DNA," and that, "By comparison, 6X10^9 letters in this book would occupy more than a million pages, thus requiring more than 10^17 times as much space."
DNA INFORMATION WEIGHS 2.5 TONS
The book they refer to, and authored, is a full sized textbook titled, Molecular Biology of the Cell. It is well written, thoroughly organized, and measures about 8.5 inches by 11 inches. Allowing for small margins a total of about 6000 letters and spaces( to separate words) can be fit on a page( so 12,000 for each sheet of paper). One million pages( 500,000 sheets of paper) would be a stack of paper about 110 feet high, and it would weigh 4,961 pounds( 2.5 tons). This is the informational density God put within a single DNA molecule.
MATHEMATICS IS GOD'S LANGUAGE
2. Mathematics is, in my opinion, God's language. He can speak all languages, of course, but His fluency in mathematics dwarfs anything anyone has ever achieved with this language. We do not invent mathematical techniques; we just continue to discover them. But even now we have barely learned to "speak" it; nevertheless, even a rudimentary understanding of basic arithmetic will reveal aspects of God's omniscience and omnipotence which we would not clearly see without using God's language--mathematics. So let's put some more numbers to the informational density God packed into all the DNA molecules, which He created by Jesus Christ.
87 MILLION TONS OF INFORMATION CAN BE PUT IN HAIR
3. Grab a single hair from the top of your head, and cut it to a length of 1 inch, which is about as long as my thumb is wide. Now gaze at that hair and notice just how narrow is its diameter and how short is its length; nevertheless, we could still theoretically pack 35 million DNA molecules into it. If we stick with our current analogy that those six authors suggested, i.e. assigning a letter to each nucleotide pair, then our 1 inch hair, in this thought experiment, will contain 2.1X10^17 letters. Using our 8.5X11 copy paper( full size textbook pages) it will require 3.52X10^13 pages( 1.76X10^13 sheets of paper) to contain all those letters. This represents a stack of paper 733,000 miles high( 3 times further than the moon or a distance of 29 times around the earth's equator). This stack of paper would weigh 87 million tons, which represents the weight of 239 Empire State Buildings.
AT DNA'S DIAMETER, OUR HAIR WOULD BE 50,000 MILES LONG
4. Whether it is bread dough, silly puddy or malleable clay, most of us know how to take a chunk of one of these substances and roll it into the shape of a tube( right circular cylinder). As we continue to roll it back and forth in our hands, the tube's diameter gets smaller, and its length gets longer but its volume remains constant. Let us hypothetically do this with our 1 inch long hair, which has a pretty small diameter to begin with. We will continue to roll it until its diameter is a constant 2nm( 2 nanometers or 2X10^-9 meters), which is roughly the diameter of a DNA molecule. Now how long would this tube be in order for the volume of this hair to remain constant? It would be 50,000 miles long or twice around the earth's equator. So what can we conclude from this arithmetic? Well, one thing we can conclude is that God "types" His information on very thin "lines" indeed.
GOD IS AWESOME
5. There is a song sung in Christian churches with these words in it: "Our God is an awesome God." The informational density that God packed into a DNA molecule is only one example, from an arsenal of millions of examples, which prove those six words are absolutely true. Just as the luminosity of quasars, or the rotational energy in stars and galaxies are powerful witnesses testifying, by Jesus Christ, to God's omnipotence, so also DNA in one of numerous other polymers which testify, by Jesus Christ, to God's omniscience.
 | Amazon Price: $10.60 List Price: $24.25 |
 | Amazon Price: $35.52 List Price: $40.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $7.35 List Price: $12.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $25.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $49.40 List Price: $69.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.59 List Price: $19.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $16.99 List Price: $27.95 |
CREATION MAGAZINE PRAISES GOD WITH HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES:
Dr. Werner Gitt wrote a similar article to this one, and I highly recommend it. Dr. Gitt uses different comparisons that are very fascinating. If you want access to hundreds of well written articles by competent authors who address the complexity that God designed into His creation, and articles that praise and glorify God, then this is a good place to go to get just that.
- Dazzling design in miniature (DNA information storage)- Creation Magazine
Creation Ministries International, home of Creation Magazine; scientific evidence supporting Genesis
ONGOING FOOTNOTES:
As I mentioned in the first paragraph of "Read Me First . . . " I would let readers know when any footnotes were completed. Footnotes 1 and 2 were done on "Is there any proof the Bible is God's Word, part 2." These are concerning earth as a sphere, and the polarity of space.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (2)
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
LewSethics, I appreciate your comment. Be patient; this is just part one. Part 2 goes into how much more denser the information is than what part 1 described. I think part 3(probably more) is what you are expecting. It describes how the informational density glorifies God through Jesus Christ; how it displays God's omniscience, and how it proves God's existence. It addresses the origin of information, its nature, and how its existence violates a foundational law of physics: entropy, the relentless tendency of all things to go from order to disorder.
Having said that, I still disagree with your comment. If I wrote nothing in this hub except, "The DNA molecule stores 6 billion bits of information," then that is all you need to know that God exists(Romans 1:20). If I handed you a book, and said it had an author, would you say, "The existence of that book does not prove it has an author."? No one needs to hear a lecture on the partition function and entropy to know that any book cannot exist without an author. Romans 1:20 says we are without excuse because everyone intuitively knows that, without God's providence, nothing goes from disorder to order all by itself; i.e. by random processes. If you maintain your stance that this first hub does not prove God's existence, then do you have an alternative explanation of how this information even exists, let alone how it got stored within the geometric structure of DNA molecules. I have not heard an evolutionist even attempt to explain the existence of this information, let alone having solid argumentation to back it up. As far as how it got on DNA, some evolutionists may claim it is the electromagnetic force that constructs the nucleotides, and that is how the information got on DNA; it is not God. But that is like saying it is the typewriter that puts letters on a piece of paper, and therefore information; it is not the typist.
Caleb, with all due respect to the data you presented, I must agree with Lew. All this information you provided doesn't really tell us anything useful. In essence, all you've said in this hub (and I suspect in the next two hubs as well) is that complexity is a "witness" for God.
Yet this argument is nothing more than a more modern presentation of the old "god of the gaps" rationalization that has been a mainstay of religious apologetics for millenia. If scientists can't explain it, then it must be God.
This is nothing new. All you're doing by adding all the data is putting a scientific polish on a very, very old (and very rotten) apple.
Paladin, Ignoring a good argument is not, in itself, a good argument. This is essentially what most atheists and evolutionists do--they ignore good argumentation; however, you are correct concerning me. I absolutely, unequivocally, and undeniably believe that complexity is a witness for God. Complexity is a witness for God in 3 extraordinary and majestic ways; it gives testimony to, and proof of, God's existence, omniscience and omnipotence--these three. With entropy( all thing having a tendency to go from order to disorder) right smack in the face of both science and mathematics, they(science and math) not only cannot explain complexity but they are two of God's great allies. The more our science discovers, the more it proves God's existence and majesty. The mathematics of probability defines entropy, and it is foundational in proving that it is not possible that random processes are responsible for God's magnificent creation.
Perhaps I have the wrong perception of the arguments coming from the atheist's camp but it seems to me they are long on huffin and puffin, and short on throwing any real punches. Give me some scientific and mathematical one-twos to knock me off my feet . . . if you can. Paladin--and this goes to any atheist who can answer it--from your perspective, what is the source of this information, and how did it get on the DNA molecule? How do the atoms and molecules know what to do with this information? Where do they store the ability to process the information, and then make constructive use of it as in the building of proteins?
You are right about me concerning another point you made: If science can't explain it, then it must be God. Yes, I believe that also. It is science, or more specifically the mathematics of science, which has convinced me, and confirmed to me, that the living God not only exists, but that He truly is God; i.e. omnipotent and omniscient. No, I'm not going to wait for science to explain complexity when everyday it discovers more complexity that it cannot explain.
As far as nothing useful in this hub, I suppose that depends on one's perspective and what one wants to believe. When I did the simple arithmetic to determine this informational density, I could not believe it. I checked the figures a couple of times, and then remained still, possessed with astonishment at what God can do. I consider that kind of building of my faith very useful. The coup de grace that ought to deliver a mortal blow to anyone's doubt in God is the next hub on this subject, which proves that the actual informational density dwarfs what was described in this hub.
Well, Paladin, I truly do appreciate you visiting my site and leaving your well written comment. Incidentally, the word Paladin has a nice ring to it. I looked it up in the dictionary . . . good choice.
Caleb, in the midst of all your bombastic fist-shaking and daring someone to knock you off your little hill, you've clearly missed the pitiful irony in your own incoherent position.
You insist that "the more our science discovers, the more it proves God's existence and majesty," yet the entirety of your "proof" lies in things that science supposedly CANNOT EXPLAIN. Which is it?
You've challenged atheists like myself to answer your question, "what is the source of this information, and how did it get on the DNA molecule?" I'm happy to offer an answer just as valid and just as scientifically demonstrable as yours:
My dog did it.
To paraphrase your own rant: "I absolutely, unequivocally, and undeniably believe that complexity is a witness for MY DOG. Complexity is a witness for MY DOG in 3 extraordinary and majestic ways; it gives testimony to, and proof of, MY DOG's existence, omniscience and omnipotence--these three. With entropy( all thing having a tendency to go from order to disorder) right smack in the face of both science and mathematics, they(science and math) not only cannot explain complexity but they are two of MY DOG's great allies. The more our science discovers, the more it proves MY DOG's existence and majesty. The mathematics of probability defines entropy, and it is foundational in proving that it is not possible that random processes are responsible for MY DOG's magnificent creation."
Caleb, I'm not ignoring your argument. I'm saying it's a ridiculous argument from ignorance. It tells us nothing, and it proves nothing. You can put all the lipstick on that pig that you wish and insist that it's a prom queen, but in the end it's still a pig.
Paladin, Let us suppose that God intends to prove to you that He exists. What would He have to do to get that message across? What proof are you looking for? What proof do you require?
My apologies to your dog--excuse me, DOG--for doubting him. If it turns out that he is indeed the creator, then I will repent in dust and ashes.
Touché, Caleb! Your comments regarding my dog gave me a good chuckle.
As to what proof I would find acceptable I can only answer, sincerely, "I don't know." This is nothing to be ashamed of, for evidence of any stated claim must be examined as it is offered. You presented yours, I examined it, and I rejected it.
Hello Caleb DRC,
I read your profile and I agree thoroughly with what you said concerning animals. Proverbs 12:10 states:
"A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Also did you know that Caleb means a dog, a crow, or a basket?
You have a very strong voice and I appreciate the fact that you are not ashamed of the Gospel. Appreciate is too much of a mild word but I cannot find one to express the thought right now.
God is indeed the Great Mathematician and those trying to catch up with Him cannot even begin to think of the ways with which Math can be used by Him and is used by Him. He is also the True Scientist as He knows the secrets of the universe which none can solve. He knows the beginning and the end of all things and He is awesome as you said.
Thank you for reading this hub, North Wind. I hope this information will help you to bring others to Christ, or to help build the Faith of other Christians you know.
I read your hub, Everybody Loved Him. It gives an essential message which everyone should have in their heart.
I look forward to reading Part 2 of this Hub, Caleb DRC. This information will help I am sure. It has certainly edified me.
I am humbled that you read Everybody Loved Him. I hope others see the message and learn from it.
Hm. Caleb, I appreciated both your profile and the text of this Hub...but do have to wonder somewhat regarding your challengers here. The thrust of their comments seems to be, "That's no proof!" Okay, but...
...but I never saw what you wrote as an attempt to PROVE anything, just to ILLUSTRATE a bit of what's going on within the body of every life form on the planet. Your title refers to DNA being a WITNESS for God, and while I'm not a Christian (I follow another faith), every paragraph in your text looks like pretty good "witnessing" to me.
In the absolute sense, NOTHING can EVER be "proven". The human mind has more than enough self-defensive loops to reject any argument, if an argument is what's perceived. But "things" CAN be REVEALED...and that's what I see you presenting here.
In a much less mathematically esoteric but still numerically rhythmic way, it was the science/art of astrology that "showed me" God did indeed exist. When I first began casting charts in early 1972, it was the first time in my life that I'd lifted my perspective from the worm's eye view and taken a serious look at the extreme sense of order permeating the cosmos.
Anyway, please do soldier on!
Voted Up and Across. (Yes, even including Funny, mostly because of my struggled-for B grade in Calculus 101 in the face of your mathematical expertise.)
I had to put some thought into your comments, Ghost; me thinks ye hath studied some philosophy. First I thank you for your endorsement of the profile. I'm pretty sure hell will freeze over before I change what I said about cruel people. I believe the world should know the essence of their character: pusillanimity( my business card says, "Have thesaurus--will travel").
I agree that "nothing can ever be 'proven'" to some people, but that does not change the fact that proof exists( Romans 1:20--see response to LewSethics above). The act of revealing God's creation as DNA, proteins, eyes, ears, quasars, spiders and trees is proof of God's existance. You said in your profile, "No longer bare land--now living in a 'border fort' build with(!) my 2 bare hands." You studied calculus, Ghost, so this will be a really easy calculation for you: calculate the probability of that land being in its current improvement if you had not done the work. If I were to come over there with The Frog Prince, and reveal to him your improvements, then I've also given evidence of your existence. He would be too smart( I've read some of his hubs) to say, "How do you know a hurricane didn't come by and make these improvements?"
Keep pumping out those political hubs, Ghost. The truth they contain is worth nothing less than saving this nation if people will hear it.
("Nothing you said proves anything.")
...then all we can do is provide evidence.
("Yet this argument is nothing more than a more modern presentation of the old "god of the gaps" rationalization that has been a mainstay of religious apologetics for millenia. If scientists can't explain it, then it must be God.")
If science cannot explain it, it does not prove that God doesn't exist.
When somone uses the term, "God of the gaps," it is important to make a distinction whether or not it may be a "science gap" or a "nature-gap."
Often the skeptics use the "God of the gaps" as an argument against the existence of God, but is often not countered by giving a more plausible explanation.
The mistake is made when asserting that science is the only means to gaining understanding, and that natural explanations exclude God.
On both sides, there are theories and evidence on how the "natural" and the "supernatural" is explained with logic and evidence.
The physical world is not divine, but it is the creation of the "divine." The "gap" does not disprove God, nor does God need to be the gap-filler that defines Him. The "divine" activity in nature is that which cannot be explained in a naturalistic way. The phenomena that cannot be explained by natural science can be plausible evidence that there is a God.
What is it?
1. God does not exist; therfore, nature-gaps are physically impossible.
2. God does exist; therefore, a nature-gap is theologically impossible because God would never allow it.
God is active in the natural processes as well as the supernatural ones, but to use God as a gap-filler by both theists and atheists without reasonable evidence and logic, is not justifiable.
When there is something that is not logically decisive for, or against, then it is imprecise and approximated.
"I don't know, then God did it," or "It cannot be explained; therefore God does not exist," is not an acceptable gap-filler.
Planks, you sound terribly confused. You conclude your most recent comments with the assertion that,
"I don't know, then God did it...is not an acceptable gap-filler."
This is quite true. Which makes me wonder why, only a few sentences before, you offered this gem:
"The phenomena that cannot be explained by natural science can be plausible evidence that there is a God."
You also declare, in that same concluding sentence, that
"...It cannot be explained; therefore God does not exist," is not an acceptable gap-filler."
This is also true -- which is why I've never heard anyone make such an incomprehensible claim. In fact, this makes so little sense I'm not even sure how to address it. Why would a skeptic try to fill a void in human understanding by saying that God DOESN'T exist? God is offered as an explanation by believers to fill the gaps. By claiming God doesn't exist -- by REMOVING that explanation -- how is the skeptic trying to "fill" the gaps?
For all your confusing and contradictory diatribe, all you've accomplished is constructing a pair of ragged strawmen. The first is your claim that skeptics are trying to prove that God doesn't exist. But we don't make that effort, nor do we need to. With respect to the burden of proof, all that is required is to deconstruct and demolish arguments made on God's behalf, such as the "god of the gaps" explanation. Which is the focus of my previous comments here.
Your second strawman is your claim that skeptics assert that "science is the only means to gaining understanding." Yes, the scientific method is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the physical world, but it is not the only path to understanding, and I'm certain even scientists would agree.
As for me, I do, indeed, strongly believe in science, but I also have faith in such things as intuition, logic, personal experience and trial and error (to name a few) to guide me in my understanding the world.
Planks, though I disagree with Caleb, he at least obviously made some significant effort to fashion a convincing argument, however fundamentally flawed I consider it to be. I wish I could say the same for your most recent comments.
Pladin,
("Why would a skeptic try to fill a void in human understanding by saying that God DOESN'T exist?")
I would suggest you Google, "proof that God does not exist" for your answer.
("The first is your claim that skeptics are trying to prove that God doesn't exist. But we don't make that effort, nor do we need to.")
You are making your effort. Here are some of your basic claims:
("It tells us nothing, and it proves nothing.")
("My dog did it.")
These are your gap-fillers.
("though I disagree with Caleb, he at least obviously made some significant effort to fashion a convincing argument, however fundamentally flawed I consider it to be.")
In my opinion, Caleb DRC has made a more plausible argument and provided better evidence.
If there is no scientific proof, then what is your theory for the evidential complexity that is beyond human knowledge?
1. There is a God because of complexity in DNA because....
or
2. There is no reason to justify God has any part in DNA because "it tells us nothing" and "my dog did it."
As I stated before, to use God as a gap-filler by both theists and atheists without reasonable evidence and logic, is not justifiable.
Caleb DRC has provided something more logical and reasonable. Your arguments seem to sway more toward lampooning parody.
Planks, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? In none of my comments here have I tried to "prove" anything. Nor have I tried to "fill" any gaps (everyone, including Caleb, knows I was merely being facetious with my "dog" comments). You toss around phrases like "gap-filling," but clearly have no understanding of what they mean.
All I have done here is to challenge and critically examine claims made by others. Caleb made an argument based on the "god of the gaps" premise. I challenged it. You continue to reiterate Caleb's argument (even though you continue to insist it's wrong to do so), and I've challenged you.
Do you truly not understand the difference between deconstructing someone else's argument and offering an argument of your own?
Planksandnails, and Paladin, thanks for leaving your comments during the last 3 days. It is exciting to see so many tennis games played at thousands of sites here at hubpages, and the ball gets shot at strategic locations on both sides of the court. I'm afraid I will be jumping to Planksandnails side of the court, as I'm sure you expected, Paladin. You may get a partner and make it a doubles game; however, your Dog is excluded. I refuse to play against an opponent who knows how to make a tree.
It should be noted that DNA represents a single drop in the Pacific ocean of evidences( witnesses) proving not only God's existence but His omniscience and omnipotence also, but that's fine. A single drop will do just fine.
The authors I mentioned in this hub used the analogy that each nucleotide can be represented by a single letter. In part 2 of this hub I will be arguing that that analogy is pitifully insufficient to represent the amount of information required to construct proteins. They also said in their text that the nucleotide order is very specific. Order? Sounds like a permutation. The permutations for 6 billion letters is roughtly 10^(50,000,000,000). Fill the universe with sand and we have 10^91. Make the universe a billion times bigger and fill it with sand, and we are only up to 10^100. It is impossible for random processes to make a DNA molecule, even if the universe is infinitely old, which it is not, because there would be entropy and degradation working against construction, and we still have to explain where the forces, matter, energy, and space( proven to have structure) come from.
Evolutionists claim random processes, mutations and modifications. How? Through what process? Exactly what is mutated, and what is modified, and why are the "favorable" mutations and modifications remembered, and how are they remembered?
Well, I'm not an evolutionist so I do not have to answer those questions, but I can tell you what must be "mutated", and "modified": the electromagnetic force(emf). There is not a competent chemist alive who will deny that it is the emf that constructs molecules. If anything is going to be changed, the carpenter must be given the plans and blueprints, not to mention, I hope he knows what he is doing.
But how does the emf know how to fight the odds of 1 chance in 10^(50,000,000,000)? The Bible says at Job 38:36 that God put wisdom in the inward parts. Wisdom is not just knowledge, it is knowing what to do with knowledge. The emf must have access to information,and it must know what to do with that information in order to construct DNA, proteins, and everything else.
So where is it? Where are those "inward parts?" The Bible says at Jeremiah 51:15 that God stretches out the heaven by His understanding. It does not take a rocket scientist to stretch a rubber band, nor should it require much understanding for God to stretch space. It may take a whole lot of power but not understanding. However, that is assuming our simple-minded approach to Jer. 51:15 is valid. The dimension of space( length) pops up very often in the dimensional portions of our mathematical equations. If God is stretching space in a very complex way in order to store the information that the emf requires, then yes, we are now in the realm of understanding.
Paladin, this and much more will be in the other parts of this hub. Ask yourself, why is it you do not know what evidence you require? Is your refusal to acknowledge the evidences that God has supplied us based on analytical reasoning or emotional bias? If it is the later, then why do you suppose that is the case?
Caleb, all I can say with certainty is that in one respect, we are exactly the same: Neither of us currently knows the reason for the complexity of DNA.
It appears that the DIFFERENCE between us is that, when I see something in nature that is beyond my current level of knowledge or understanding, I'm willing to admit "I don't know." You, on the other hand, insist that it's evidence for the existence of God.
If, in the future, someone arrives at your hub with a scientific explanation for your question (it's only a matter of time), will you reject it out of hand, or will you merely abandon it and seek out other examples of "evidence" for the existence of God?
If it's the latter, how many times will you be willing to do so until you begin to realize that, instead of patching hole after hole in your sinking vessel, perhaps you ought to abandon ship?
Paladin, there is nothing wrong with your sense of humor. Since I'm using science and mathematics to make my case for the existence of God, I have to admit that I doubt that the entire structure of science will make a 180 degree turn to negate what I've written. However, if that highly unlikely event does happen, I will come to your side of the fence and bend my humble knees to your Dog.
Has anyone ever considered Math to be a parallel of His character?...like looking at the characteristics of Math theorems could possibly explain the character of God? Most people know something exists...but WHO is the question?...would you be interested in that approach?
4th Edition, thank you for your comment. God's character is described in the Bible. No, I do not think aspects of creation or mathematics parallel characteristics of God; however, tangents, yes, because tangents would touch upon certain characteristics of God. For example, I see quasars and black holes revealing God's omnipotence, and I perceive the exquisite design of proteins to disclose God's omniscience. Mathematics is another glimpse into God's omniscience. These things touch upon the vast character of God, but not really parallel it. I guess what I'm very poorly trying to say is to parallel something like God is too inclusive and limiting.
DNA proves Eve existed before Adam quite the opposite of any religious book.
Peter, thankyou for your comment. This is the first I've heard of that. In what way has it been proven?
LewSethics Level 2 Commenter 7 months ago
Nothing you said proves anything.