Poetry Discovered In A Bacterial Genome

Can scientists detect intelligently-designed complexity in nature? It’s an interesting question that came to mind with this latest discovery. Poetry has been detected for the first time in nature although it’s known that this was done intentionally in a lab. The BBC reports on this work…

“Poet Christian Bok has encoded his verse into a strip of DNA and had it inserted into a common bacterium, E.coli. DNA is at the heart of every cell. It is a string of molecules called nucleotides which come in four types – adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T).

This genetic sequence is used as an instruction manual for cellular operations. Individual commands are contained in shorter chunks of the DNA called genes. Dr Bok used cryptography to embed his poem into the genetics of the bacterium, devising a chemical alphabet in which each letter is represented by a specific triplet of nucleotides. So, for example, the nucleotide sequence “ATA” codes for the letter “y” and GTG stands for the letter “n”. It took him four years just to work out the code.”

Natural section was brought up in the article as claiming it would remove the poem because there was no benefit. Since natural section is being missed used and often times has a variety of meanings for example, Hodge, M. J. S. 1992. Natural Selection: Historical Perspectives. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 218 which was quoted in ICR states the following… “A quite general issue has still received no canonical treatment: what kind of a thing is natural selection anyway? A law, a principle, a force, a cause, an agent, or all or some of these things? The view that natural selection is a law has been countered by the view that it is a principle, while that conclusion has been countered in turn by an insistence that it is neither.”

The fact of the matter is it’s possible for scientists to intentionally insert messages into the genetic code which therefore should alert everyone to the idea that creationism or intelligent design is a scientific theory! As a matter of fact, it’s possible for an unbiased observer to distinguish natural law from intelligent design in a living organism by examining the code for the presence of specified information!

Natural section is mindless, there is no caring on what gets tossed out, but a Darwinist would claim functional information aids the survival of the organism but poetry would not, but what’s the difference? In a study to help evolutionary scientists understand natural selection as predicted by evolution, Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University conducted an experiment on Salmonella bacterium which was published in the journal of science during November 2010.

Their aim was to come up with new insights on how evolution increases fitness. The researchers were surprised about the results about this experiment because evolutionary expectations were not met. The mutations caused a loss in fitness rather than an increase in fitness! Fitness is supposed to be the strong evidence for evolution yet this experiment adds a new twist, now evolution evidence consists of loss of fitness and gain, another way of the data predicting the theory…

This brings us back to the first question, Can scientists detect intelligently-designed complexity in nature? The answer is, “yes” of course evolutionists will deny that “poetry” is not fitness, the same way they embrace loss in function or fitness as being new evidence for evolution which is why you have a soup full of definitions for natural selection. The evidence however which is detectable, points to a creator, namely God!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Poetry Discovered In A Bacterial Genome

  1. Can scientists detect intelligently-designed complexity in nature? It’s an interesting question that came to mind with this latest discovery. Poetry has been detected for the first time in nature although it’s known that this was done intentionally in a lab. The BBC reports on this work…

    “Poet Christian Bok has encoded his verse into a strip of DNA and had it inserted into a common bacterium, E.coli. DNA is at the heart of every cell. It is a string of molecules called nucleotides which come in four types – adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T).

    OK, Michael/ Yer on. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is: get a listing of the DNA sequence for the E. coli, and find the poem in it..

    Of course, just like any biologist trying to figure out DNA, we’re not going to tell you what the poem is, where it is in the sequence, or how it is encoded.

    .

    Of course, that is just a toy problem. Your real test is to take some other genome and sort out the intelligently designed parts, separating them form the ones that are not designed. You’ll have to find the “complex specified information” in the sequence, and show how it got there.

    Good luck. .In the 13 years since he introduced the concept,[1] William Dembski has not produced a single specific example of complex specified information. In fact, he has never even defined it. So again, bon chance, maazel tov, viele Glueck.

    ============

    [1] W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference (Cambridge 1998).

  2. . . . . . . . Poetry Discovered In A Bacterial Genome

    The word “discover” applies only when the the thing discovered had previously been unknown.

    Only creationists can “discover” `something that has already been shown to exist.

    Such as functions for non-coding DNA.

  3. Natural section was brought up in the article as claiming it would remove the poem because there was no benefit. Since [sic] natural section is being missed used [sic] and often times has a variety of meanings for example, Hodge, M. J. S. 1992. Natural Selection: Historical Perspectives. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 218 which was quoted in ICR [sic] states the following… “A quite general issue has still received no canonical treatment: what kind of a thing is natural selection anyway? A law, a principle, a force, a cause, an agent, or all or some of these things? The view that natural selection is a law has been countered by the view that it is a principle, while that conclusion has been countered in turn by an insistence that it is neither.”

    One common argument of creationists is to insist that, if you don’t know what a thing is, then that thing does not exist. For example, no one knows what dark matter consists of—therefore, there can be no such thing as dark matter.[1]

    We might call this argument the “Ignoramus ergo nullus” fallacy.

    Guess, what, Michael; whether we call natural selection a law, a principle, a force, or whatever does not affect its existence in the least.. Newton called gravitation a “force.” In Einstein’s theory, it is a geometric “curvature.” Now we look for a “particle” of gravitation, the Higgs boson. However gravitation is characterized, it still squashes you flatter than a communion wafer if you jump off a tall building. Whatever natural selection “is,” it still affects the frequency of traits in a population due to differential reproduction of their hosts.[2]

    =====================

    [1] This is related to the creationist principle of expropriation of essence. DNA is often called a “code”—therefore it must have been created by an intelligence. Real scientists, of course, do not imply any mode of origin to codes, or to any information; information just is, like data.

    [2] That is a nutshell definition,by the way. In case you seriously believe that this term has a variety of incompatible meanings.

  4. The ICR article Michael cites uses the creationist argument that a phenomenon in the physical world assumes all the characteristics of a word used to name that phenomenon:

    In Darwin’s 1872 edition of Origin, he responded to those calls for him to justify use of the word “selection.” Darwin admitted, like all evolutionists will when challenged, that calling the process of how organisms fit environments “selection” was not true. He confided, “In a literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term…it has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the planets?”14 No one objects to that metaphor, since attractive gravitational forces are real and measurable.

    The argument is that, if Darwin called it “selection,” then an intelligence must perform the selecting. The evidence? Because dictionaries define selection in terms of an intelligence.

    So dictionaries gets to determine reality! Wow! I always thought it was the other way around.

    .

    Note how the author of the ICR screed almost sees the flaw in his reasoning, in the last two sentences. Gravitation is different, he says, because the forces are “real and measurable.” Apparently the author is unaware of the Fischer-Wright equations, which measure trait frequencies. He has never read a paper that measures the “selection pressure” of a trait.

    For example:Lu et al., “Predicting Functional Alternative Splicing by Measuring RNA Selection Pressure from Multigenome Alignments” PLoS Comput. Biol. 5(12): e1000608, Dec. 18, 2009.

    Numbers. Measurements. Real.

  5. If the finer details of how evolution could produced all species in the world remains a mystery that still doesn’t come close to proving anything about God. that’s like saying all the gaps in human knowledge proves somehow that an all intelligent loving entity made it all happen. a good look at the bible will answer none of these questions in detail. the bible is actually very childish in it’s explanations and leaves God looking like a troubled kid talking to his fish in the aquarium he just set up. now i’m not saying all this proves that God doesn’t exist just that man’s understanding of this God in the bible is a story created by people to help them understand the rules in the neighborhood and the universe and the one God that somehow made it all happen. for all we know maybe there are actually two Gods or 200 Gods or maybe 0 Gods. it actually took me like a whole week just to get my christian friend to admit he is in fact an animal. I have a problem with the notion God made man in his own image. sounds to me like an insult to God no? the whole notion of making God into a father like figure is way to simplistic but obviously serves the human psyche well for those that need such reassurances. God needing man to obey him, God punishing people in the most outlandish wasteful manners seems way too human for such a awesome entity. the study of evolution or other science may one day reveal a true God whatever that means. just because it (science) doesn’t all seem to jive with the bible means less then nothing. what seems apparent to me is that a miracle of sorts did happen to create life and that this miracle took a mind numbing amount of time to produce us and all life on earth. we are all part of the vital inclusion and we may one day be judged by what we save not kill and destroy. in the spirit of Noah’s Ark let us save the beauty of our marvelous world from ourselves. peace & love, Gary Heiden

  6. g.heiden,

    In regards to your comments, “If the finer details of how evolution could produced all species in the world remains a mystery that still doesn’t come close to proving anything about God.” Atheist Ernst Mayr of Harvard wrote in his book, “What Evolution is” back in 2001 which says this…

    “Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particular evolutionary events, must be inferred from observations.”

    Experiments like mutating fruit flies for many generations in a lab. This produced very little changes, and as the progression of mutations carried on, fruit flies became more resistant to change. The creationist model is that nature is intelligently design, and variants within a kind. While evolution requires non-living material to produce living (which hasn’t been observed) and to one species to another. If evolution was true, mutating fruit flies would have produced more than tiny changes rather fruit flies should have become more open to change rather than resistant to change as the mutation process continued! That my friend is not a gap but an observation. All evolution is, is nothing more than inferring from observations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s