Genomics Intelligent Design

Tim Standish on those five new alternate genetic codes in bacteria: It’s way more complicated than they are making out.

Spread the love

Readers may recall that a couple of days ago, we noted the surprising find that even more species of bacteria do not use the traditional universal genetic code they were thought to have inherited from the First Cell or whatever. From a researcher: “Changing the genetic code requires changing ancient, important molecules like tRNAs that are so fundamental to how biology works.”

Tim Standish

Tim Standish at the Geoscience Research Institute offers some thoughts on the situation — and the spin put on it:


The spin inherent in the headline for this article is fascinating: Screen of 250,000 Species Reveals Tweaks to Genetic Code.

Changing codon meaning isn’t merely a tweak. As one of the authors notes, “It’s just mind-boggling that an organism could survive that.” But he is dead wrong when he says, “Stop codon shifts are considerably less ‘dramatic’”. Changing a stop codon seems significantly more challenging than changing any other codon meaning because the mechanism for stop codon recognition is totally different and involves more than RNA-RNA interactions.

It’s also a mindbender that on average having 1/3 of genes read through after a regular stop codon, producing who knows what random AA sequence until another still functioning stop codon is encountered, could be survived. Even if either kind of change was survivable, the idea that there might be some incremental increase in fitness at each necessary step along the way makes about as much sense as hitting one’s big toe with a hammer and expecting this will make you a faster runner.

As is so common with these things, some functional explanation for why the different genetic codes in these new examples are somehow better than the “universal” code is treated as sufficient to explain these impossible changes that must be achieved in an incremental and unguided way. This implies that some need on the part of an organism is miraculously capable of producing an outcome that resolves the need. If only life was really like that, because I need a few million dollars to buy a home on the shore of Sydney Harbour and a private jet to get there.

I’m not sure that they are listing all known genetic codes in this article as there are variations in the genetic codes used in mitochondria, and these show an interesting pattern of distribution that requires the same changes in multiple taxa. In addition, using a different genetic code than the nucleus makes moving genes from mtDNA to chromosomal DNA and expecting a good outcome incredibly optimistic.


Good luck with the private jet and Sydney Harbour, Tim. That mind of magic only works with Darwinian theory. Not with life.

You may also wish to read: Five more species of bacteria use alternate genetic codes At The Scientist: “The genetic code has been set in stone for 3 billion years,” study coauthor Yekaterina Shulgina, a Harvard University graduate student in systems biology, tells The Scientist. “The fact that some organisms have found a way to change it is really fascinating to me. Changing the genetic code requires changing ancient, important molecules like tRNAs that are so fundamental to how biology works.”

3 Replies to “Tim Standish on those five new alternate genetic codes in bacteria: It’s way more complicated than they are making out.

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    “Changing codon meaning isn’t merely a tweak. As one of the authors notes, “It’s just mind-boggling that an organism could survive that.” But he is dead wrong when he says, “Stop codon shifts are considerably less ‘dramatic’”. Changing a stop codon seems significantly more challenging than changing any other codon meaning because the mechanism for stop codon recognition is totally different and involves more than RNA-RNA interactions.
    It’s also a mindbender that on average having 1/3 of genes read through after a regular stop codon, producing who knows what random AA sequence until another still functioning stop codon is encountered, could be survived.”
    – Tim Standish

    Even Richard Dawkins, in one of his rare moments of honesty, agreed with Standish’s observation.

    Specifically, Dawkins stated, “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.”

    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.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....44681.html

    The preceding article links to the following cite which lists the “variant” Genetic Codes as such:

    The Genetic Codes – (Last updated 2019)
    The following genetic codes are described here:
    1. The Standard Code
    2. The Vertebrate Mitochondrial Code
    3. The Yeast Mitochondrial Code
    4. The Mold, Protozoan, and Coelenterate Mitochondrial Code and the Mycoplasma/Spiroplasma Code
    5. The Invertebrate Mitochondrial Code
    6. The Ciliate, Dasycladacean and Hexamita Nuclear Code
    9. The Echinoderm and Flatworm Mitochondrial Code
    10. The Euplotid Nuclear Code
    11. The Bacterial, Archaeal and Plant Plastid Code
    12. The Alternative Yeast Nuclear Code
    13. The Ascidian Mitochondrial Code
    14. The Alternative Flatworm Mitochondrial Code
    16. Chlorophycean Mitochondrial Code
    21. Trematode Mitochondrial Code
    22. Scenedesmus obliquus Mitochondrial Code
    23. Thraustochytrium Mitochondrial Code
    24. Rhabdopleuridae Mitochondrial Code
    25. Candidate Division SR1 and Gracilibacteria Code
    26. Pachysolen tannophilus Nuclear Code
    27. Karyorelict Nuclear Code
    28. Condylostoma Nuclear Code
    29. Mesodinium Nuclear Code
    30. Peritrich Nuclear Code
    31. Blastocrithidia Nuclear Code
    33. Cephalodiscidae Mitochondrial UAA-Tyr Code
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi?mode=c

    ,,, The origin of the standard Genetic Code is already considered to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible,,,

    The Optimal Design of the Genetic Code – Fazale Rana – 2018
    Excerpt: 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.
    https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2018/10/03/the-optimal-design-of-the-genetic-code

    “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible”
    – Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life

    ,,, The origin of the standard Genetic Code is already considered to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible, thus for there now to be found multiple ‘variant’ Genetic Codes is to make what was already a bad situation for Darwinists exponentially worse.

    Though not directly addressing the origin of multiple variant Genetic Codes, the following quote is, none-the-less, very fitting, “For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,,”

    Bernard d’Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist – October 5, 2011
    Excerpt:  renowned butterfly scholar and photographer Bernard d’Abrera considers the mystery of mimicry.,,,
    “For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51571.html

    In short, Darwinists can’t even explain the origin of one Genetic Code, much less can they explain the origin of multiple ‘variant’ Genetic Codes.

    In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can demonstrate the origin, not just of the Genetic Code mind you, but the origin of ANY code whatsoever by unguided processes.

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – Jan. 2020
    Excerpt: 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 http://www.evo2.org.,,,
    “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.”
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD
    Excerpt: What You Must Do to Win The Prize
    You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without “cheating.” The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.)
    You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully.
    So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done.
    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0?_ga=2.137932403.2143719756.1636808687-652400248.1636808687

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, it is not just the fact that there are multiple variant Genetic Codes in different species that is causing an extreme headache for Atheistic Naturalists/Materialists, but even more problematic for Darwinian Atheists is the fact that it is now shown that there are multiple overlapping codes within each individual organism.

    In the following video, Edward 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!”.

    Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB3fMCfk0E

    The concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark) states:

    “Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages.”
    – Edward N. Trifonov – 2010

    In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 overlapping codes that are listed on a powerpoint.

    And here is a wikipedia article on the subject:

    Multiple genetic codes
    Excerpt: Trifonov,, was also the first one to demonstrate[20] that there are multiple codes present in the DNA. He points out that even so called non-coding DNA has a function, i.e. contains codes, although different from the triplet code.
    Trifonov recognizes[19]:5–10 specific codes in the DNA, RNA and proteins:,,

    chromatin code (Trifonov 1980)
    RNA-to-protein translation code (triplet code)
    framing code (Trifonov 1987)
    translation pausing code (Makhoul & Trifonov 2002) protein folding code (Berezovsky, Grosberg & Trifonov 2000)
    fast adaptation codes (Trifonov 1989)
    binary code (Trifonov 2006)
    genome segmentation code (Kolker & Trifonov 1995)

    The codes can overlap[19]:10 each other so that up to 4 different codes can be identified in one DNA sequence (specifically a sequence involved in a nucleosome). According to Trifonov, other codes are yet to be discovered.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Trifonov#Multiple_genetic_codes

    As should be intuitively obvious, multiple overlapping codes create yet another insurmountable difficulty for Darwinian materialist.

    In short, if we were to get a ‘beneficial’ mutation in a genome of 4 overlapping codes we would be facing a situation very similar to trying get a ‘beneficial mutation in the following palindrome.

    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
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square

    This ancient palindrome, which dates back to at least 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, 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 obviously induce “antagonistic epistasis” towards the first mutated letter, wherein any benefit that the first mutated letter may have conferred will be compromised by any subsequent change, with the benefit being compromised even further as even more letters are changed in the palindrome.

    Moreover, mathematical analysis has now confirmed what is, or what should be, intuitively obvious. Namely, the probability of getting a truly beneficial mutation in a poly-functional genome is, for all intents and purposes, ZERO.

    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
    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].
    ,,,
    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?
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli. Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleteri- ous mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion muta- tions in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    12. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion muta- tions in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    13. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    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.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Moreover, there are now found to be many other codes in life which are not even part of DNA sequences,

    What is Code Biology?,,,
    A world of organic codes
    In addition to the genetic code and the signal transduction codes, a wide variety of new organic codes have come to light in recent years. Among them: the sequence codes (Trifonov 1987, 1989, 1999), the Hox code (Paul Hunt et al. 1991; Kessel and Gruss 1991), the adhesive code (Redies and Takeichi 1996; Shapiro and Colman 1999), the splicing codes (Barbieri 2003; Fu 2004; Matlin et al. 2005; Pertea et al. 2007; Wang and Burge 2008; Barash et al. 2010; Dhir et al. 2010), the signal transduction codes (Barbieri 2003), the histone code (Strahl and Allis 2000; Jenuwein and Allis 2001; Turner 2000, 2002, 2007; Kühn and Hofmeyr 2014), the sugar code (Gabius 2000, 2009), the compartment codes (Barbieri 2003), the cytoskeleton codes (Barbieri 2003; Gimona 2008), the transcriptional code (Jessell 2000; Marquard and Pfaff 2001; Ruiz i Altaba et al. 2003; Flames et al. 2007), the neural code (Nicolelis and Ribeiro 2006; Nicolelis 2011), a neural code for taste (Di Lorenzo 2000; Hallock and Di Lorenzo 2006), an odorant receptor code (Dudai 1999; Ray et al. 2006), a space code in the hippocampus (O’Keefe and Burgess 1996, 2005; Hafting et al. 2005; Brandon and Hasselmo 2009; Papoutsi et al. 2009), the apoptosis code (Basañez and Hardwick 2008; Füllgrabe et al. 2010), the tubulin code (Verhey and Gaertig 2007), the nuclear signalling code (Maraldi 2008), the injective organic codes (De Beule et al. 2011), the molecular codes (Görlich et al. 2011; Görlich and Dittrich 2013), the ubiquitin code (Komander and Rape 2012), the bioelectric code (Tseng and Levin 2013; Levin 2014), the acoustic codes (Farina and Pieretti 2014), the glycomic code (Buckeridge and De Souza 2014; Tavares and Buckeridge 2015) and the Redox code (Jones and Sies 2015).
    The living world, in short, is literally teeming with organic codes, and yet so far their discoveries have only circulated in small circles and have not attracted the attention of the scientific community at large.
    http://codebiology.org/

    In fact, classical information, such as DNA sequences, is now known to be a subset of quantum information.

    In the following site entitled “Quantum Information Science”, a site where Charles Bennett, (of quantum teleportation and reversible computation fame), himself is on the steering committee,

    Quantum Information Science
    Steering Committee
    C. H. Bennett IBM
    D. P. DiVincenzo IBM
    N. Gershenfeld MIT
    H. M. Gibbs University of Arizona
    H. J. Kimble Caltech
    J. Preskill Caltech
    U. V. Vazirani UC/Berkeley
    D. J. Wineland NIST
    C. Yao Princeton University
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/nsf00101.htm

    On that site, they have this illustration showing classical information to be a subset of quantum information,

    Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information – illustration
    https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/images/figure1.gif
    below that illustration they have this caption,
    “Figure 1: The well-established theory of classical information and computation is actually a subset of a much larger topic, the emerging theory of quantum information and computation.”

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, the fact that quantum information is ubiquitous within life has now also been theoretically and experimentally established.

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    As Elisabeth Rieper states in the following video, “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons.,,,”

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    The absolutely fascinating thing about finding quantum information to be ubiquitous within life, “in a wide range of important biomolecules”, (and finding classical information to be a subset of quantum information), is that it takes a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, cause in order to explain quantum correlations in the first place,. (In fact, quantum non-locality, i.e. instantaneous action at a distance, is precisely the primary thing that makes quantum mechanics so ‘spooky’ and inexplicable for Atheistic Materialists).

    As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Darwinian Atheists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and especially with the falsification of ‘hidden variables’, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum information and/or quantum entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.

    “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize.
    John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it.
    How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?”
    per Jimfit
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quantum-physicist-david-bohm-on-why-there-cannot-be-a-theory-of-everything/#comment-662358

    Whereas Christians, on the other hand, readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Moreover, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, cannot be created nor destroyed, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.

    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have empirical evidence strongly suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing)
    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

    Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of theological, even personal, significance.

    As Jesus once asked his disciples and a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    John 10:10
    The thief cometh not but to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

    Moreover, it is also very interesting to note that the Bible is on record as to uniquely, and correctly, predicting that life had an author long before it was even known that life is filled to the brim with multiple different, and overlapping, codes.

    Acts 3:15
    You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

    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.

Leave a Reply