DNA proves the existence of God

This is a bold claim by Perry Marshall, whose definitions of code and pattern I have used here. Note that Marshall is not a biologist, but an information specialist.

For this post, I will outline the argument Marshall makes for the existence of God. After that I will prove him wrong. At the time of going to press, God could not be reached for her comment.

The difference between a code and a pattern

A pattern is a random sequence that does not need the aid of a designer. Marshall claims snowflakes and tornadoes are examples of patterns.

Codes are defined as patterns that carry information. Codes we know the origin of are designed by an intelligent designer. Patterns do not have embedded information, whereas codes do carry information. Marshall lists music, computer programs and DNA as examples of codes.


Is this mama? Did aliens design DNA? If they did, why didn't they keep the good DNA for themselves?

Marshall's proof that DNA was designed by a mind

Marshall claims the following for DNA:

• DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern, but an information storage mechanism. Since it is a pattern which carries information, DNA is a code


• codes we know the origin of were created by an intelligence. Codes are created by conscious minds


• therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind

Marshall then proposes five possible origins of DNA:

1. Humans designed DNA.


2. Aliens designed DNA.


3. DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously.


4. An undiscovered physical law creates information, and by extension DNA.


5. A superintelligence, who Marshall calls God, designed DNA.

Some DNA. Somewhat puzzling. Especially to Perry Marshall.

Consideration Marshall gives each proposal:

1. For humans to design DNA, we would require time travel or infinite generations of humans. Since we have no time travel and according to Marshall, finite generations of humans, this proposal is refuted.


2. Aliens may have designed DNA, but this explanation "only pushes the question back in time".


3. That DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously is a possibility, but it is not a process that could be repeated.


4. An undiscovered natural law could have created DNA, but it would only be proved once someone observes a naturally occurring code.


5. A superintelligence, who Marshall calls God, designed DNA.

Marshall claims scientific reasoning can prove anything, and DNA is proof of its own intelligent designer.

Proof that Marshall is misleading, and by misleading I mean wrong

The syllogism
Marshall's proof that DNA was designed by an intelligent designer rests on a syllogism.

A syllogism is a logical argument that is used to infer a conclusion. The syllogism is comprised of three parts:

• a major premise: "DNA is a code."


• a minor premise: "Codes are created by conscious minds."


• a proposition, in other words a conclusion: "Therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind."

Fun fact: Aristotle is generally credited with the invention of the syllogism.

There are fundamental flaws in Marshall's syllogism:

• "DNA is a code." That depends on which level you are looking at DNA. From the level of conscious minds, it would appear as if DNA is a code read by cells to produce a magnificent organism.
  
  However, at a molecular level, DNA is a nucleic acid. Genes store a particular sequence of DNA, and this sequence determines how the genes interact with each other and its environment. The DNA sequence is never read or interpreted as information at this level. Physical, chemical properties of DNA determine which traits are conserved, expelled or just there.
  
  An allele is an instance of one of multiple viable possible instances of a gene. To clarify, a gene exists for creating eyes. An allele determines whether your eyes could be blue. The nature of this allele is determined by interaction of the gene with other genes and its environment.
  
  For the sake of Marshall's argument, let us assert that DNA is a code carrying information as he envisages it. The jury is still out on that one, but let's give Marshall the benefit of the doubt.


• The minor premise: "Codes are created by conscious minds." Marshall is not so lucky with this premise. Marshall specifically states that "all codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind" (bold text mine). We do not know the origin of DNA.
  Since we do not know the origins of DNA, we can not assume that DNA is a code that was created by a conscious mind.
  
  There are many plausible explanations, mostly pointing to Marshall's third conclusion, namely that DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously. In any event random is not that random upon closer investigation, since as we have seen genes rely on interaction with each other and interaction with their environment to determine exactly how alleles form.
  
  Furthermore, planetary orbit around the sun is not random at all. It is a pattern, but it is still a code, since from our perspective on the third rock from the sun, this movement transfers information we interpret as the passage of time.
  
  We do not know the origins of this pattern, but we do know the origins of this code of time. It is indeed a conscious intelligence.


• The proposition: "Therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind." The problem with this proposition is that an amoeba has DNA. An amoeba does not have a conscious mind. Amoeba were not created with the intervention of the only conscious minds we know, namely human beings.
  
  Marshall also proposes the idea that aliens created DNA. It should be noted that we have made contact with aliens, but they were cellular organisms. We have not discovered intelligent consciousness besides ours on earth, but we have discovered aliens that came into being without the intervention of intelligent consciousness as we like to define it. Could it be that the process of randomly occurring DNA is repeated, in space no less?

This syllogism suffers from the classic mistake of an illicit minor. This mistake has the following form:

• All A are B ("all DNA is a code")


• All Z are C ("all codes we know the origins of were designed by a conscious mind". If it were "all codes were designed by a conscious mind", the minor would have the correct form All B are C.
  
  At face value, it seems that Mr Marshall proposes the correct form, however his minor is still illicit, because this claim is false. At first, Mr Marshall incorrectly claims that all codes we know the origins of were designed by conscious minds. Then, when it comes to constructing his key argument, he conveniently forgets that his requirement is that we have to know the origins of the code, which we don't for DNA. Either way the words are minced, the minor is an illicit one.)


• Therefore, all A are C ("therefore, DNA was designed by a conscious mind")

In closing, the larger argument here is a classic example of the god of the gaps, as described in layman's terms in the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Since we can not disprove that god designed DNA, it has to be true. To mister Marshall: Epic fail. Thank you for playing.

To the rest of us: since we can not disprove that Cthulhu will swallow your soul, it has to be true. Cthulhu Ftaghn!

Related links

• Can you prove that god exists? Convince Jim Randi and get a groovy million benjamins for your efforts in proving a supernatural phenomenon. Thanks to mampara Jacob Zuma, that's worth about eight million "bokke en blare", and it is bound to get more.


• If you can read this, I can prove that God exists. Perry Marshall's reasons for joining the fellowship and tithing. Tithing is the fellowship's reason for accepting you.


• Inmagine stock images, where I got the royalty free stock images.


• The Genetic Genealogist, highly recommended.


• The Wikipedia page on DNA.


• The Wikipedia page on genes.


• The Wikipedia page on illicit treatment of the minor term.


• The Wikipedia page on junk DNA.


• The Wikipedia page on syllogism.

The controversial essay by Serj

One of my pet hates is Mall-core (well, that is what I call it, you know it as Nu-Metal).It follows that I have a special vial of pet hatred stashed for System of a Down (well, that is what you call it, I know it as Syndrome of a Down). This is my take on the controversial essay posted by Serj (lead syndrome of a down singer) shortly after the 11-9 attacks (well, that is how we know it here, since we know the date first and then the month, you probably know it as 9-11, you imperialist bastards).



The only reason why I even bother commenting on this is that SonyBMG found this essay significant enough to remove from their web site. They are the honourable record company in the privileged position of sporting such drivel as System of a Down releases - or at least some of them. The vial of poisoned hatred I have for record companies and SonyBMG in particular (ask me about rootkit software, I dare you) is far more potent than the Mickey Mouse one I have stashed for Mall-core, so in this Serj and I are on the same side of the fence.You can find the entire essay which resembles one of my poorly assembled blog posts more than an actual essay here. I will only comment on the particularly poor parts.

BOMBING AND BEING BOMBED ARE THE SAME THINGS ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE FENCE.Terror is not a spontaneous human action without credence. People just dont hijack planes and commit harikari (suicide) without any weight of thought to the action.[sic]

This raises the question how violence started in the first place. Is it really safe to assume that our prehistoric ancestors were less spontaneous than ourselves? I don't think so. I would love to think that ever since our neighbours saw something we worked for and were too lazy to work for it themselves, there was violence. This violence would have been thought through. Somehow, I do not think violent acts are necessarily thought through, in fact, in my personal experience of violence most of it is not thought through and quite spontaneous.We are violent beings in the same vein as we are sexual beings. I am not suggesting that violence is always necessary, but that violence is part of our nature.Electricity and cars kill people, and in much greater numbers than guns, but we do not moralise them. No, we moralise guns and video games and pornography and the Alice Coopers and the Marilyn Mansons and the Ozzy Osbournes of the world, because they spawn high school shootings and terrorists. Right...

Hari-kiri in particular occurs without much weight of thought to the action. It is a spontaneous thing to avoid falling in the hands of the enemies. It is not particularly beneficial to the person committing hari-kiri, but it is preferred by his superiors who do not like him having his guts spilled in a metaphorical sense, since state secrets could be revealed then. Point being, it is spontaneous.

After WWI, secret back door deals by our State Dept. yielded oil rights from then defeated Turkey to fields in what is now Iraq and Saudi Arabia, in return for looking the other way at a crime against humanity, the Genocide of the Armenians by the Turks. Oil profits have been the motivating factors behind many attempts at counterinsurgency of democratic regimes by the CIA and the U.S in the Middle East (such as Iran in the 1950s, where the Shah replaced the Prime Minister who refused to give up oil rights to the U.S., and since the people couldnt deal with the Shah, an extremist government headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini ultimately prevailed). [sic]

It is speculated that WWII was also based on controlling oil, but since we are making a case against the current status quo, Serj needs at least a
^{[citation needed]}. Supposedly this essay is less spontaneous than human violence, so this speculation had to originate somewhere. In his treatise on the history of the SS, Heinz Hohne speculates that Germany wanted to send all its Jews back to Israel first, years before their Final Solution was even on the cards^{I know, [citation needed] but I am appealing to fans of Serj, so what's good enough for him is good enough for me}.Germany was met with considerable opposition from Britain with this plan, because the Brits controlled the oil fields at the time and feared an influx of Jews could render the area unmanageable. Would it have been a better plan to send the German Jews back to Israel? Arguably, a less violent plan if Britain did nothing about it.Would WWII be avoided by such action? I do not think so. We would have had a Gulf War in the fifties instead of in the nineties, and perhaps Germany would have been an ally to Russia in the Cold War against the allies. Hey, we are speculating here.

PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST WILL LEAD TO HIGHER OIL AND GASOLINE PRICES. Lets not also forget the power of the Arms industry, disguised as defense, that still sells billions of dollars of weapons to the area. [sic]

The world buys oil in American dollars. This means - yes, higher oil prices means a demand for more dollars. Stability in the middle east usually leads to lower oil prices. The middle east raises oil prices to raise funds for war it wages against America. It is true that America supplies arms to the Middle East, to who it deems allies - friendly guys like Saddam and Osama. You know, guys trained by America as CIA agents and then it turns out they were Muslim extremists after all. Doh! So, what we have here is an America that wants an unstable middle east because it wins when oil prices go up: on one hand there is an international demand for more Dollars and on the other hand there is a Middle East in demand of more weapons - both which benefits America. It follows that peace in the Middle East does not benefit America.

During the war between the then Soviet Union and Afghanistan, the U.S. armed and supported the Taliban, a fundamentalist Muslim organization, and allowed them to export opium and heroin out of their country to pay for those weapons.[sic]

Yes, that is an Internet conspiracy theory. I would love to see some credible sources on this. Come on Serj, your music proves that you have a gullible audience, why not back up your talk? Oh wait, you don't have to with a gullible audience.

People in Serbia, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan to name a few have seen bombs fall, not always at military targets and kill innocent civilians, as the scene in New York city yesterday.

Innocent civilians? Civilians in America vote for their president. Civilians in Iraq can't vote for their leader because America puts up a puppet government for them. Civilians are responsible for their leader, but in reality, when is a leader ever accountable for his actions? The World Trade Centre is the symbol of where the middle east gets exploited by the west. These are not innocent civilians, but hapless accomplices in the latest chapter of the age old crusade saga. The only difference is that the west does not march in on noble steads, they march in with indoctrination highlighting the benefits of Democracy and equality of the sexes to nations who have no need for it and have not needed it in thousands of years.It is immoral to teach those people the benefits of political correctness for their own good. We have no right to stipulate to them what is right and what is wrong, it is disrespectful to their culture.If we could do that, then we as Westerners should be executed for portraying caricatures of Mohamed the Prophet. Our rules do not apply to them, because their rules do not apply to us. To assume that America has innocent civilians when they choose their leader in a Democratic fashion is absurd. OK, I will meet Serj half way - only Republicans are not innocent American civilians.

This does not mean that we should not find the guilty party(s), Bin Laden, or whoever they may be, and not try them. Put simply, as long as a major injustice remains, violence precipitates to the surface of life.

Wait a minute, "BOMBING AND BEING BOMBED ARE THE SAME THINGS ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE FENCE", remember? Serj, surely you mean turn the other cheek on Osama? That's the way to prevent major injustice! Or not. Actually, we do not have corporal punishment to teach people morality. We have it as a big old finger wagging in their faces. It is a kind of blackmail, and it works. This is why bombing and being bombed are not the same thing at all. Yes, you do need to try those who commit major injustices, but not because it clears the moral tabs. If that were the case, there would be no turning cheeks, but an eye for an eye and a tower for a tower. Trying guilty parties is a means to maintain superiority and to instill the ideology that justice prevails.

Native American folklore, the Bible, Nostradamus, and many other major religious beliefs point to this era with the visuals of yesterdays disasters, and conditions of ecological disasters we experience daily in our lives today.

Last time I checked, there were only four major religious beliefs in the world, and Native American folklore and Nostradamus were not among them.

The U.S. should stop sidestepping the U.N. Security Council, and allow U.N. Peacekeeping troops and missions to the Middle East. Stop the violence first.

Newsflash: the U.N Security Council IS the U.S. It is the way the U.S abolishes itself from accountability. If the U.N does it, it is perceived as sound because the richest nations in the world agreed to it. If the U.S does a peacekeeping mission on a limb, it is not sound? Despite having veto powers in the U.N? Same pudding, different sauce Serj.

As shown from yesterdays events, you cannot stop a person whos ready to die.[sic]

You can, by killing them. The more people who are ready to die in the middle east, the more likely the war will carry on. The longer the war carries on, the higher the oil price climbs, the stronger the dollar gets, the more pissed off people who are ready to die in the middle east buy weapons... the longer America has its coffers full. Simple, eh?

The truth is that someone like Serj has to thank his lucky stars and his hammer and his sickle that there are civilians who are willing to fight this war on his behalf. It enables him to sit and bitch and moan about it back home, produce his cacophony and brandish his label-tarnished clothes, of which each item has a virtual genocidal story of exploited labour to tell. These brave souls put him in a position where he can tell fans to steal his albums. By being part of the American dream, exploiting it to its full capacity and then pretending to be against it, Serj doesn't have much moral leverage over his fellow innocent civilians.