Conservation of Information Evolution Intelligent Design

At Evolution News: Conservation of Information — The Theorems

Spread the love

William Dembski writes:

I am reviewing Jason Rosenhouse’s new book, The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism (Cambridge University Press), serially. For the full series so far, go here.

Until about 2007, conservation of information functioned more like a forensic tool for discovering and analyzing surreptitious insertions of information: So and so says they got information for nothing. Let’s see what they actually did. Oh yeah, here’s where they snuck in the information. Around 2007, however, a fundamental shift occurred in my work on conservation of information. Bob Marks and I began to collaborate in earnest, and then two very bright students of his also came on board. Initially we were analyzing some of the artificial life simulations that Jason Rosenhouse mentions in his book, as well as some other simulations (such as Thomas Schneider’s ev). As noted, we found that the information emerging from these systems was always more than adequately accounted for in terms of the information initially inputted. 

Yet around 2007, we started proving theorems that precisely tracked the information in these systems, laying out their information costs, in exact quantitative terms, and showing that the information problem always became quantitatively no better, and often worse, the further one backtracked causally to explain it. Conservation of information therefore doesn’t so much say that information is conserved as that at best it could be conserved and that the amount of information to be accounted for, when causally backtracked, may actually increase. This is in stark contrast to Darwinism, which attempts to explain complexity from simplicity rather than from equal or greater complexity. Essentially, then, conservation of information theorems argue for an information regress. This regress could then be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) the information was always there, front-loaded from the beginning; or (2) the information was put in, exogenously, by an intelligence. 

And no, Darwinian evolution cannot, according to the conservation of information theorems, create information from scratch. The way out of this predicament for Darwinists (and I’ve seen this move repeatedly from them) is to say that conservation of information may characterize computer simulations of evolution, but that real-life evolution has some features not captured by the simulations. But if so, how can real-life evolution be subject to scientific theory if it resists all attempts to model it as a search? Conservation of information theorems are perfectly general, covering all search. 

Push Comes to Shove

Yet ironically, Rosenhouse is in no position to take this way out because, as noted in my last post in this series, he sees these computer programs as “not so much simulations of evolution [but as] instances of it.” (p. 209) Nonetheless, when push comes to shove, Rosenhouse has no choice, even at the cost of inconsistency, but to double down on natural selection as the key to creating biological information. The conservation of information theorems, however, show that natural selection, if it’s going to have any scientific basis, merely siphons from existing sources of information, and thus cannot ultimately explain it. 

We’ve seen active information before in the Dawkins Weasel example. The baseline search for METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL stands no hope of success. It requires a completely random set of keystrokes typing all the right letters and spaces of this phrase without error in one fell swoop. But given a fitness function that assigns higher fitness to phrases where letters match the target phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, we’ve now got a better search, one that will converge to the target phrase quickly and with high probability. Most fitness functions, however, don’t take you anywhere near this target phrase. So how did Dawkins find the right fitness function to evolve to the target phrase? For that, he needed active information.

My colleagues and I have proved several conservation of information theorems, which come in different forms depending on the type and structure of information needed to render a search successful.

Dembski concludes this regarding Rosenhouse’s evasion of the conservation of information theorems:

For [Rosenhouse] to forgo providing even the merest sketch of the mathematics underlying this work because “it would not further our agenda to do so” (p. 212–213) and for him to dismiss these theorems as “trivial musings” (p. 269) betrays an inability to grapple with the math and understand its implications, as much as it betrays his agenda to deep-six conservation of information irrespective of its merits.

Dembski’s approach to prove the conservation of information is complemented by a generalization of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics from quantum statistical physics. His theorems are also backed up by common sense and observation. No one has ever observed a closed system ratcheting up its information content with the passage of time.

It takes an intelligence to recognize information. Why does a live rabbit have more information than a bucket of mud? (I hope no one will insult the rabbit by insisting that it contains no more information than a bucket of mud.) The specific arrangement of atoms that make a rabbit is obviously unique. To see this, imagine stirring up the bucket of mud. The particular arrangement of atoms has changed, but it’s still a bucket of mud. On the contrary, stirring up a rabbit will destroy it, since the arrangement of atoms that make a rabbit are unique. Information is related to the comparison of how many arrangements of the rabbit’s atoms there are that don’t result in a rabbit (nearly countless) to how many arrangements there are that do yield a rabbit (a much smaller number). To claim that natural processes can land on the arrangement of atoms that result in a living system composed of even a single cell is to deny scientific understanding, evidence and proof to the contrary.

For further discussion of these ideas, my book, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See, is a resource that speaks to this topic in more depth, specifically in chapter 9.

The full article by Dembski is available at Evolution News.

28 Replies to “At Evolution News: Conservation of Information — The Theorems

  1. 1
    chuckdarwin says:

    Rosenhouse’s reply to Dembski’s review of The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism:

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Call me when Rosenhouse wins Perry Marshall’s 10 million dollar OOL prize. Until then it is all unsubstantiated bluff and bluster of Rosenhouse’s part.

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – 2020
    An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at ,,,,
    “A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.”,,,
    Scientific advisors/judges include:
    Denis Noble (Oxford and Royal Society biologist; first in the world to model the human heart on computer):
    George Church (Harvard geneticist; on TIME 100’s Most Influential)

  3. 3
    relatd says:

    CD at 1,

    Not worth reading. It lacks logic, critical thinking and makes unfounded assumptions.

  4. 4
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @Relatd #3
    On the contrary, it points out Dembski’s lack of logic, lack of critical thinking, and really bad math.

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    How about a side wager: I’ll bet you $100 that Rosenhouse, Lee Cronin, or someone similarly situated in traditional biology/chemistry collects Marshall’s prize long before Dembski or anyone else at DI….

  6. 6
    relatd says:

    PK at 4,

    Nonsense. As in nonsense. Whatever errors Dembski made are equaled or surpassed in this very lame reply. Evolution is not about math but random events that we’re told led to man.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD, how about this side bet? Black holes will evaporate long before ANYONE collects that 10 million dollar prize, and gives an ounce of scientific credence to Darwinian fantasies.

    The Future of the Universe
    Excerpt: After about 10^(100) years, all the black holes are gone.
    The Dark Age
    After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. — Not a happy ending.

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    Of note,

    “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.’… Information doesn’t have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn’t have bytes… This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.”
    – George Williams – (late) professor of biology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook – “A Package of Information” – page 43

    “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
    And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.
    In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires.
    Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.”
    – Intelligent design: Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process? – Stephen Meyer – video
    –Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University, (Newton’s alma mater), for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 7,

    They just discovered “information” BECAUSE it’s the 21st Century? Not credible. Not credible at all.

    We don’t send information down wires. We send coded electronic bits down wires. An early example is the Telegraph. Another is the phonograph record and Morse code. Coded information has been sent down wires for a long time.

    The rest of the statements are sound.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Relatd, FYI, Dr. Meyer did not say ‘discovered information’ in the 21st century, he said “At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize,,,, etc..

    Big distinction.

    Moreover, Dr. Meyer is also certainly aware of the method(s) by which we transmit information down wires , through the air, or what have you. He certainly did not imply that we send information, all by it lonesome, down wires. It is simply ludicrous for you to imply that is what he meant.

    Dr. Meyer may just be a little smarter than you seem to think he is. 🙂

  10. 10
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @BA77 #2

    To apply for that $10 million prize, you have to sign away your rights to the discovery. (I’ve seen the application form) A discovery which would be worth way more than $10 million. Which means only idiots and cranks would ever apply. Which makes it a complete scam from the get-go. Perry Marshall uses it to promote his book.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Pater Kimbridge: “A discovery which would be worth way more than $10 million.”

    So Pater Kimbridge, since you yourself are honestly admitting that such a discovery of the ability of unguided material processes to generate coded information, (which is something that only intelligence has ever been observed to create), “would be worth way more than $10 million”, why has this VERY important discovery not been made yet?

    As you yourself honestly admit, it is not as if the incentive for such a discovery is not immense.

    Besides the fame and fortune, not to mention Nobel prizes, that would be lavished on the discoverer, it would also falsify ID in one fell swoop, and would also prove, once and for all, that Darwinian evolution has some real, i.e. scientific, connection to the real world, and that Darwinian evolution is not just a pseudoscientific theory that is based on a endless series of unsubstantiated just-so stories.

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.

    “… another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness… Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling… it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…”
    — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism – The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

    Why Evolutionary “Just So” Stories Fail – September 28, 2016
    Excerpt: In his excellent book The Experience of God, David Bentley Hart offers a helpful illustration for how naturalist just-so stories fail to explain key features in reality, such as consciousness:
    “If I should visit you at your home and discover that, rather than living in a house, you instead shelter under a large roof that simply hovers above the ground, apparently neither supported by nor suspended from anything else, and should ask you how this is possible, I should not feel at all satisfied if you were to answer, ‘It’s to keep the rain out’—not even if you were then helpfully elaborate upon this by observing that keeping the rain out is evolutionary advantageous.”[i]”
    Hart is exactly right. Offering a positive benefit of why a hovering house protects from rain does not explain how such a feature originated. Similarly, explaining how consciousness benefits mankind does not to explain how consciousness first emerged. An explanation that merely explains why such a feature is beneficial leaves the mystery unexplained.
    ,,, The key point is that, for Darwinism to be considered a successful worldview with explanatory power, it needs to explain some of the big features of reality, such as the origin of, (coded information), morality, consciousness, personhood, and free will. Unless it can successfully explain these features, Darwinism itself is merely a “just-so” story.
    – Sean McDowell, Ph.D.

  12. 12
    Pater Kimbridge says:


    So you think that all it takes to solve the hard problems in science is to dangle enough money and the answers will roll in? A bit naive, n’est-ce pas?

  13. 13
    ET says:

    No Pater, but you would think it would be incentive enough to try. But scientists really know it didn’t happen and never will happen. There are no such discoveries to be made.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Pater Kimbridge, I guess someone who believes poly-functional, multiple overlapping coded, information can arise by purely unguided material processes would be an expert on being naive. 🙂

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].

    38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142.
    39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432.
    40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654.
    41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997.
    42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816.
    43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589.
    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013

    Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?

    Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video

    In the preceding video, Dr. Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, “Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!”. And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically essential, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, he lists a total of 13 codes on a powerpoint.

    And last but not least, at the 10:30 minute mark of the video, Dr. Trifonov stated that the idea of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years:.

    Let’s just say that Dr. Trifonov is not a fan of Richard Dawkins. 🙂

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    According to Wikipedia, Trifonov has also proposed an abiogenic theory of the origin of life. So all those codes have a natural origin? Maybe he’s on to something.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states, “Trifonov has also proposed an abiogenic theory of the origin of life. So all those codes have a natural origin? Maybe he’s on to something.”

    And indeed Trifonov “inferred” that GCU and GCC “could be” the first two codons. And having the “suspected” first two triplets, they “pondered” which amino acids appeared the first,

    The first triplets
    Since GCU and GCC appeared to be the most expandable (or the most “aggressive”) triplets, Trifonov and Bettecken inferred that they could be the first two codons. Their ability to expand rapidly comparing to other triplets would provide them with evolutionary advantage.[29]:?123? Single point mutations of these two would give rise to 14 other triplets.
    Consensus temporal order of amino acids
    Having the suspected first two triplets, they pondered which amino acids appeared the first, or more generally in which order all the proteinogenic amino acids emerged.

    Needless to say, “inferred”, “could be”, “suspected”, and “pondered”, are all words that reflect a lack of any real experimental proof. In short, Trifonov has an imaginary hypothesis about how the genetic code could have possibly come about but he has no real experimental proof that it is really possible.

    And indeed there is a very good reason to believe that Trifonov, (as impressive of a experimental scientist as he is), nor anyone else, will ever have actual experimental proof for the hypothesized gradual, i.e. evolutionary, appearance of the genetic code.

    Moreover, I can quote Richard Dawkins himself as to why it is impossible, “Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation…this would spell disaster.”

    Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life – and Another Dawkins Whopper – March 2011?Excerpt:,,, But first, let’s look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal:
    “The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation…this would spell disaster.”
    (Dawkins – 2009, p. 409-10 – The Greatest Show On Earth)?OK. Keep Dawkins’ claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 19 variants of the genetic code).
    Simple counting question: does “one or two” equal 19? That’s the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two.?

    And indeed, the genetic code has been referred to, by Darwinists, as a ‘frozen accident’ since “A mutation that altered the codon table would also alter the structure of ever protein molecule, and thus would almost surely be lethal.”

    Ode to the Code – Brian Hayes – 2004
    Excerpt: Given 64 codons and 20 amino acids plus a punctuation mark, there are 10^83 possible genetic codes. What’s so special about the one code that–with a few minor variations-rules all life on Planet Earth?
    The canonical nonanswer to this question came from Francis Crick who argued that the code need not be special at all; it could be nothing more than a “frozen accident”. The assignment of codons to amino acids might have been subject to reshuffling and refinement in the earliest era of evolution, but further change became impossible because the code was embedded so deeply in the core machinery of life. A mutation that altered the codon table would also alter the structure of ever protein molecule, and thus would almost surely be lethal. In other words, the genetic code is the qwerty keyboard of biology-not necessary the best solution, but too deeply ingrained to be replaced or improved.,,,
    The few variant codes known in protozoa and organelles are thought to be offshoots of the standard code, but there is no evidence that the changes to the codon table offer any adaptive advantage. In fact, Freeland, Knight, Landweber and Hurst found that the variants are inferior or at best equal to the standard code. It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which we’ll never see again in the modern world.

    Moreover, despite the fact that Darwinists, because of their atheistic presuppositions, are forced to believe that genetic code is a ‘frozen accident’, and that it is a code that is “not necessary the best solution”, it is now known that the genetic code is, (directly contrary to their presuppositions_, ‘optimal’.

    The Optimal Design of the Genetic Code – Fazale Rana – 2018
    Excerpt: Subsequent analysis performed later that decade incorporated additional factors. For example, some types of substitution mutations (called transitions) occur more frequently in nature than others (called transversions). As a case in point, an A-to-G substitution occurs more frequently than does either an A-to-C or an A-to-T mutation. When researchers included this factor into their analysis, they discovered that the naturally occurring genetic code performed better than one million randomly generated genetic codes. In a separate study, they also found that the genetic code in nature resides near the global optimum for all possible genetic codes with respect to its error-minimization capacity.3
    It could be argued that the genetic code’s error-minimization properties are more dramatic than these (one in a million) results indicate. When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code’s capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10^18 (a quintillion) possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. Nearly all of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of 10^18 possible genetic codes, only a few have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature.

    Moreover, it is also known that Darwinian mechanisms lack the time to find the optimal code, (if it were even possible for Darwinian processes to search through variations of the genetic code in the first place),

    “Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature.”
    (Fazale Rana, -The Cell’s Design – 2008 – page 177)?

    Thus in conclusion, Trifonov, because of his naturalistic presuppositions, is forced to “infer”, “could be”, “suspect”, and “ponder” that the genetic code could have possibly about gradually by evolutionary means, but he simply has no experimental proof that such a scenario is realistically possible. And indeed, we have very good reasons to believe that such a scenario is physically impossible.

    In short, Perry Marshall’s 10 million dollar OOL prize is in no threat of being collected now, nor in the foreseeable future.

    A few supplemental notes:

    Dynamic Genomes in Bacteria Argue for Design
    By Ann Gauger
    “Codes within codes within codes – highly efficient and highly intelligent systems – don’t happen by accident and/or selection. The cell might begin with one code, which is incredible in itself. To layer another code in the opposite direction is far and away beyond that. Then to add a third layer of structural dynamics is simply awe-inspiring.”

    In short, Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity.

    The primary, and insurmountable, problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism is this
    To put it plainly, the finding of a (severely) poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study, and by further studies, has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible.

    To clearly illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained by poly-functionality, I refer to this illustration found on page 141 of Dr. John Sanford’s book ‘Genetic Entropy’.

    S A T O R
    A R E P O
    T E N E T
    O P E R A
    R O T A S

    Sator Square

    That five-word palindrome translates as, “THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.”

    This ancient palindrome, which dates back to at least 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Yet, if we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new (beneficial) meaning for a single reading read any one way, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center letter). Moreover, mutating any subsequent letter in the palindrome will greatly exasperated the problem.

    This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations.

    The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to ‘only’ 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity. Yet, it is now discovered that some sequences in genomes trounce that level of interdependent complexity.

    Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? – Sept. 10, 2012
    Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins!
    While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25.

    For Darwinist to believe that random mutations can possibly generate that ‘jaw-dropping’ integrated level of poly-functional complexity is simply absurd!

    Also see post 14 for this citation, “Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation – George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4”


    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  17. 17
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    “Codes within codes within codes – highly efficient and highly intelligent systems – don’t happen by accident and/or selection. The cell might begin with one code, which is incredible in itself. To layer another code in the opposite direction is far and away beyond that. Then to add a third layer of structural dynamics is simply awe-inspiring.”

    Darwinists understand that very well but they have no clue how to oppose it so they choose to play stupid and change the subject talking about biochemistry. 😆 They lost the plot.

  18. 18
    ET says:


    How about a side wager: I’ll bet you $100 that Rosenhouse, Lee Cronin, or someone similarly situated in traditional biology/chemistry collects Marshall’s prize long before Dembski or anyone else at DI….

    Well, no one at the DI or from ID will even try! Why attempt the impossible? No one will ever collect the prize because the challenge is impossible.

  19. 19
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 9,

    I wrote what I did because I’m skeptical about the ‘discovery’ date. Those dealing in cryptography, for example, have been sending coded bits for a long time and were looking for new ways to send coded bits since the invention of the telegraph and radio.

    I also did not imply anything about Dr. Meyer’s intelligence just his choice of words. Stating that we send ‘information’ is not the same as saying coded bits. I think, based on experience, that the average person has no idea how information is transmitted through wires, the equipment involved, etc. The average person has no thorough comprehension. That is what I meant.

  20. 20
    relatd says:

    PK at 12,

    Science without the money cannot be done. The Cold War was about the military going to the government to get the money to fund research and development.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Relatd, what you wrote certainly came off as if you thought Dr. Meyer was making elementary mistakes. Perhaps when critiquing someone else’s words you yourself should be careful in your own words?

    You came off far differently than you are now trying to portray yourself as being.

  22. 22
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 21,

    Dismiss me all you want. Like I wrote, I’m skeptical about the timing. I’m looking at word choices and comprehension levels.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Relatd, it not so much as ‘dismissing’ you as it is defending Dr. Meyer, I’m sure you might have some informative things to contribute. It is just that you are way off base on Dr. Meyer.

    The point is is that you have ‘dismissed’ Dr. Meyer by implying he made some elementary mistakes in science that even a college freshman in science would be ashamed to make.

    Since it readily appears that you are not all that familiar with who Dr. Meyer actually is, and have accused him of making elementary mistakes in his understanding of basic science, it might interest you to know that Dr. Stephen Meyer has more than earned his stripes in the Intelligent Design community.

    In fact, Dr. Meyer leads the Discovery Institute which is the leading think tank for the Intelligent Design community in America

    Dr. Meyer has literally been on the cutting edge of the Intelligent Design movement for at least 20 years, perhaps even 30 years since he rubbed elbows with Phillip Johnson in the late 1980s during the inception of the Intelligent Design movement.

    And perhaps you might also like to read Dr. Meyer’s trilogy on Intelligent Design, (or at least watch some Youtube videos of him lecturing on the subject), so that you don’t repeat the mistake of accusing Dr. Meyer of not understanding basic science?

    The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
    By: Stephen C. Meyer – 2021

    Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design – 2014 (Times (of London) Literary Supplement Book of the Year)

    Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design – 2010

  24. 24
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 23,

    Thank you for the additional information. I was shocked by the timing of the information claim. As in, you just noticed this? I’m sure his credentials are in order.

    As part of my job, I read work by professional writers. Word choices matter to me perhaps more than to others. Even when writing for a Masters or Ph.D., one should be careful of word choices.

    My reply was that “information” is not properly defined in his example of “We buy it. We sell it.” The average person would hear this and draw a blank. An average person would not know the details of how information is bought and sold.

    Thanks again for your helpful reply.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr. Meyer’s words were completely comprehensible to me. I don’t know how ‘average’ I am, but I certainly was not confused on how information is actually bought and sold, nor was I confused about the overall point that Dr. Meyer was making about information, i.e. that we have only recently come to appreciate just how fundamental information actually is in reality, i.e. on par with matter and energy as Dr. Meyer made clear in his video.

    Intelligent design: Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process? – Stephen Meyer – video

  26. 26
    Querius says:

    Relatd @19, 24,

    Those dealing in cryptography, for example, have been sending coded bits for a long time and were looking for new ways to send coded bits since the invention of the telegraph and radio.

    Depending on how familiar you are with crytography, you might already know about a communications cover. For example, a communication might be an endless stream of pseudo-random data that might occasionally contain a random-looking coded message. So how would one know what part of a pseudo-random string is a message and what part isn’t?

    My reply was that “information” is not properly defined in his example of “We buy it. We sell it.”

    I agree. So, how would you define information as differentiated from noise?


  27. 27
    relatd says:

    Querius at 26,

    Your specific example is cryptographic cover. Radio broadcasts sent by the British during the war included a constant broadcast of a series of words on one channel that meant nothing to anyone listening except for the French resistance who was looking for a specific string of words that only they would know the meaning to.

    Your noise example has no context. Generally speaking, in wartime, attempts would be made to correlate the time and day for a particular message and any actions that may have occurred shortly after. For example: ‘bright red moon’ broadcast at 11:00 hours might be the go-ahead signal for a specific attack.

    In Biology, all signals are useful.

    In commerce, nothing can be sold that contains useless information mixed with the useful.

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    Relatd @27,

    Here’s what I meant regarding a communications cover:

    Your noise example has no context.

    Imagine tuning into a radio station. All you hear is a crackling noise. Could there be an encrypted message in a fragment of that noise?

    In commerce, nothing can be sold that contains useless information mixed with the useful.

    The New York Times?


Leave a Reply