5 Amazing "Alien Technologies" in Life That Strike Down Darwinistic Evolution

Terrestrial Alien technology

Digging in the deep jungle tangle, you are in search for lost ancient civilizations. Finding primitive technology is your expected end because of the surrounding primitive cultures.

Your slow sleepy digging suddenly is awakened by the earth's yawning mouth, you are plunged down into the bowels of the earth. A hidden cavern awaits your arrival. Heart pounding, you crawl over the mess, and then you stumble into a maze of artifacts.

One Life Mystery That Is Destroying Darwinism But Points To The Creator

Exponential Life - Epigenetics Deepens the Mystery of Design

I was blown away when the scientist said it; my mind yelled, "What? That's crazy!" His topic was the famous, or maybe infamous, tiny friend living down in our lower digestive tract, Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria. He said that, on average, any given strain of E. coli shares about twenty percent of its core genes with any other E. coli -bacterial strain. In other words, about twenty percent of the E. coli genes are shared by all strains, but around eighty percent can very throughout the species!*

One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that other information-carrying structures besides deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) may partly define the E. coli's final shape. This was startling news to me, for throughout my early biology education, I had understood DNA to be something like destiny.*

New Research Says Life Started Hot, But Here's What They Won't Tell You.

Up From a Hot Micropore We Arose – Did Life Start Hot?

In a recent Nature Chemistry article, we are informed that some scientists feel they may have found a mechanism for the formation of life’s precursors, DNA replication in hot rock micropores [1]. An experiment was set up to mimic hot rock’s micropores in the supposed early earth environment. However, this experiment unintentionally demonstrated that naturalistic process could not have started first life, rather a mind is needed.

What Is The Difference Between Shannon Information and Specified Complex Information? And why it's important.

Information is interesting, here I want to specifically discuss Shannon Information verses Specified Complex Information. I know, you may be saying "so what, it sounds boring to me." Maybe so, it may even zip over your head, in that case duck so it will hit the person behind you! While being of an esoteric philosophical nature, I think it's significant because of its implications.

The Difference Between Shannon Information and 

Specified Complex Information

There's a view that information in DNA and biological systems contain just Shannon Information - this is not true. Yes, biological systems do contains Shannon Information, but it is more specific than that - it contains Specified Complex Information. Let me first define the two and then tell you why biological systems have Specified Complex Information and why this discussion is so important.

Shannon Information verses Specified Complex Information

Shannon Information is only concerned with the improbability or complexity of character strings. In other words, it's just mere complexity or it has information-carrying capacity. Specified Complex Information on the other hand, is complex, but also has patterning significance. This is functional information that carries meaning. 

Let me put it this way, all Specified Complex Information is Shannon Information, but not all Shannon Information is Specified Complex Information (see bottom half of the meme). For example, Shannon Information just means that a string of characters are complex and improbable in their arrangement, but it does not define if this string carries significant meaning. Again, Specified Complex Information is specified and always carries meaning.

For example, this is Shannon Information:

“dfsad sdaf oije .zvsdlkfjas sdlfj” and also can be “Learning about information is fun!” 

However, Specified Complex Information always carries meaning: 

“Learning about information is fun!”

“dfsad sdaf oije .zvsdlkfjas sdlfj” is not specified functional information - at least as far as I know, it holds no meaning to an English speaker!

In case you did not get that, let me put it this way. Consider a key and lock. You can take a key blank and file down any pattern on the key blade - that is Shannon Information. However, if you want the key to fit the lock, you have to cut the key blade to specified sequences, shapes and depths for proper key-lock fit. Now that is Specified Complex Information.

Biological Systems and Text on the Page

Now both the text you are reading and DNA are improbable and complex. However, both carry meaning. The text you are reading is telling you something in English. DNA contains information that transcribes to RNA that gets translated to protein. In fact those sequences must be in a specific order else the organism will not produce the correct protein, a protein that does not function well or maybe none at all! The organism's enzymes must be able to transcribe it, if there is no correct sequence, there is no transcription.

Why Know the Difference?

Oh, by the way, just so you know why this distinction is so important, Specified Complex Information is only generated from a mind. In fact, that is the only source we know of that produces this type of information! Think of the text you are reading now, it has come from my mind. Thus this leads to the conclusion that life's specified informational core is grounded in intelligence - an intelligent mind!


Have you heard materialists say the "DNA is just Shannon Information" so it can arise by chance? What do you think, have you gained a new level of respect for "Information theory?"

The Mystery of the Secret Code

Let me tell you a little secret, your body is made up of  about 100,000 billion cells. All these come from one cell. Amazing. But wait there is more, inside each of your cells you have longs strands called DNA. These strands carry information, much like the text you are reading now.

This is amazing right? But there is more, there are specific sections of your DNA that supply the instructions for the manufacturing of the building blocks of life, protein. These segments were recently shown to contain two layers of information! However, we already talked about this in a previous post. So you're like, I know already.

Another study has came out with more to add. Protein coding regions are not the only locations that contain this duplex layer of information. Non-coding regulatory regions are duplex as well!

Think of it this way, you're a cook holding a cook book. Great, but you need some information such as measurement conversions, they type of recipe you want to pick from, etc. So you either go to the index or the outline in the front. Maybe you go to the conversion table in the back of the book. Think of the regulatory regions as the areas that contain this type of information.

While the "recipe" contains two layers of instructions, the "index" and "conversion tables" also contains double meanings. In this study, using zebrafish DNA, the two layers of this regulatory region get used at different times in its life! This highly condensed design is amazing!


Haberle, V. et al. 2014. Two independent transcription initiation codes overlap on vertebrate core promoters. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature12974.

Genetically Modified Tomatoes

Are genetically modified (GM) foods bad for you? This is a controversial topic and at this time I am not going to talk about that question entirely. Nor am I here right now to discuss the ethics of manipulating genes. However, recently there was a study that pointed out that there were no large unintended genetic consequences in the GM tomato's which were designed to resist ripening.

When the scientists compared the biochemicals of the GM tomato and a wide assortment other non-GM tomatoes, including modern and heirloom varieties, they found no significant differences overall. Thus, although the GM tomato was distinct from its parent, its metabolic profile still fell within the "normal" range of biochemical diversity exhibited by the larger group of varieties. However, the biochemicals related to fruit ripening did show a significant difference -- no surprise because that was the intent of the genetic modification (1).

All in all, it seems that the scientists were able to edit the genome as they intended with no other large unintended genetic changes, which is good. But I do have two questions. First do these "extended ripening genes" have any adverse human consequences? Second, for this tomato it sounds like these ripening genes still fall within the normal tomato range of genes. But what is this "normal" range and what measurement did they use?

(1) Crop Science Society of America. "New approach to detecting changes in GM foods." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 April 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140403131942.htm>.

"Superbugs" In Sewage

Image source: Iqbal Osman/Flickr.

"Superbugs" have been found breeding well in Chinese sewage plants.

Tests at two wastewater treatment plants in northern China revealed antibiotic-resistant bacteria were not only escaping purification but also breeding and spreading their dangerous cargo.

Joint research by scientists from Rice, Nankai and Tianjin universities found "superbugs" carrying New Delhi Metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM-1), a multidrug-resistant gene first identified in India in 2010, in wastewater disinfected by chlorination. They found significant levels of NDM-1 in the effluent released to the environment and even higher levels in dewatered sludge applied to soils (1).

How do they become resistant?

Antibiotic resistant bacteria become resistant when there's a mutation or they acquire an antibiotic resistant gene from another bacteria. Even though we think that this is bad, from the bacteria's perspective it gives them greater flexibility in different environments.

Does this prove evolution?

Some have advocated that superbugs are evidence for macro-evolution. However, this is not so. These resistant bacteria are still bacteria before and after they have the gene. They have never changed to a different type of creature. In fact, some bacteria have had the capability to be resistant to our antibacterials even before those antibacterials were marketed. These means that these capabilities were already built in to the bacterial population for greater survival potential.

(1) http://phys.org/news/2013-12-superbugs-sewage.html#jCp

Throw Your Genome Away!

In a recent article by Dr. Tomkins, he writes the following:

It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are teeming with functional activity—and a new study shows they are actually required for life (1).

The idea of junk DNA is another area where the evolutionary ideology has failed us. Only about 1-5% of the DNA codes for protein. The rest of the DNA was assumed by many to be leftovers from evolutionary ancestors.  Most who held to this view were biologists with evolutionary presuppositions. Directly steming from this assumption, much of the genome regions went unexplored for years.

Now we know different. In fact most of the DNA has been assigned roles, very important roles within the cell. Interestingly, many of those who held to the view of life originating from a deity, have for years theorized function to most of the "junk DNA". Truly, as the old saying states "ideas have consequences."

(1) Quoted text and image are from the following source: Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., . N.p.. Web. 3 Mar 2014. <http://www.icr.org/article/7875/>.

Double Function: DNA Code and Duons

Cells are the "building block of life", they form organisms. Inside, DNA resides, storing the instructions that tell how to build proteins. Protein are made up of something called called amino acids. The instructions in the DNA are called genes. However, the DNA has other functions as well, it regulates some of the cell's activities.

DNA code seems to have multiple layers of information, from molecular tags. Much of the information outside of the DNA is called the epigenome.

While genes and epigenomes are interesting, there is evidence that DNA itself, the four letters that make up the DNA (A, T, C, and G), contain at least two layers of information. One that directs the sequence of the amino acids to make protein. The other helps regulate where types of molecular machines can copy the code to make RNA, an intermediate between DNA and protein. This is a regulatory function. These instructions are found many places on the DNA code. However, some of it is found coded right with the genes, in the same sequences that code for protein!

The sequence of the DNA is "nonrandom". This means that these genes are highly specified. They need to be, they are carrying at least two layers of information on some genes. The writers of the below study state the following: "The information architecture of the received genetic code is optimized for superimposition of additional information." This causes a simultaneous encoding of amino acids and regulatory information within exons, the parts of the gene that code for protein.

We only see information come from a mind. In this case, we have two layers of information, in the same "text". Think of reading a book. Now what if you turned the book and read it in another direction, ore even backwards. While doing this, the author has written more information that is with in the same text that you were just reading. You have a very compact book with couple layers of information. Just one layer of information points to a creator. However, given that we find at least two layers of information makes it even more stunning. Two layers makes it even more stunning and exponentially points to a mindful origin.

Stergachis, A. B. et al. 2013. Exonic Transcription Factor Binding Directs Codon Choice and Affects Protein Evolution. Science. 342 (6164): 1367-1372.

Things I Have Learned From Dr. Steven Meyer

Throughout the years I have listened and have learned from Dr. Steven Meyer. I agree with most concepts he presents, but do take exception to others. However, this post is not about this arguments, rather his methods and tactics in presenting and talking to those who oppose his views. I am impressed by how he handles himself in conflicting situations. Because of this, I have tired to isolate attributes that I can learn from.

There are three main categories: his personal attributes, his conflict handling persona, and how he argues his case.

Personal Character

He comes across as intellectual but illustrative, making the complex simple. His dress and demeanor does not draw attention away from his arguments. I remember him and his arguments, not some sort of jazz, fancy or sloppy clothing. While intellectual, he is still modest and minimizes himself in debate. He ignores it when people don't call him "Doctor" or when others minimize his credentials.

Handling Conflict

When I see him in conflict, he handles himself well. I think part of this comes for confidence and knowledge of the subject material. However, he is open to critique and is fair minded. He admits mistakes and he is willing to learn from his antagonist. He critiques the arguments rather than his antagonist. Lastly, he is quick witted and he is open to dialog with anyone.

Arguing His Case

I like how he argues his case. He makes modest claims which have much evidence. He uses what I would call "minimalist argumentation method," he focuses on things that provide the best arguments and gives the greatest evidence supporting those arguments. In other words, he uses only few topics but gives powerful arguments for them. This gives him less "turf" to defend. This allows him to stay focused and reduce sidetracking. Other issues are often baited in front of him, he does not budge, he stays focused and argues for his modest claims.

Ham vs. Nye

Overall, I think Ham had strong foundational points, especially philosophically. Nye seemed to be stronger on the natural sciences but weak philosophically with no grounding for his would view.

Ham talked about the fact that Nye, a materialist, has no grounding for things like reason, science and morality. If the universe, including ourselves, are just banging molecules that stick together at times, then why do we have laws like math or how can we all reason and have a fairly accurate way of understating each other? What about aesthetics? What about the laws of uniformity which science is built upon? Nye can't give good responses for these origins because first there is no grounding in his world view, second a materialistic world view tries to ignore non tangible things that “science” can't explain. In fact this concept is strange on its own because the concept of science is itself non-tangible.

On the other end, Ham could have built a stronger design argument. I saw a slide in passing that talk about it, but this topic needed more focus. Another powerfully area that I feel that he should have focused upon was the origin of information such as contained in DNA and RNA. It is not explained by materialists except via “just-so” stories. Lastly, he should have pounded away at the foundation of the materialistic view of first life. I have not been impressed with the different theories nor do they satisfy traditional scientific rigor.

Also, when asked if any piece of evidence could cause him to question his view, I think he missed a great opportunity to say what Paul said, in that if Christ did not die and was raised from the dead, his faith would be in vain (1 Corinthians 15:12-30). By saying this it would have given him more credibly. Second, it would have been a great opener for a quick discussion of the unsuccessful attack upon the Christian foundation since the time of Christ. He also could have given the evidence that we do have reliable evidence for Christ's death and resurrection from our four primary sources: the Gospels.

Concerning Nye's arguments I was impressed that he used observations of the natural world to draw his conclusions. While Ham did do some of this, (such as no new information needed for bacteria to digest citric acid, rather it is done by just a "flipped" switch on a gene in that species of bacteria) he did not seem to do as well as Nye.

While I had many concerns with Nye's views, one was that he took out of context a line from the constitution. The constitution says the following concerning congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, on stage he made it sound as if the writers of the constitution were referring to educating our youth, not authors and inventors.

Second, for him to use the word “science” from this document is a misrepresentation of it without proper definition in that day and time. In the old 1828 Websters dictionary, published 41 years after the constitution basically defines science in the broad sense of knowledge (this book was based upon his earlier dictionary from 1806 “A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language”). This is in opposition to some contemporary definitions which only try to limit it to understanding the natural, material world through the lens of natural causes.

I feel that his view was weak when he argued that to be a good scientist and engineer one must have a foundation in materialistic understanding of “science.” This makes no sense, many if not most of the fields of science and math were started and continue to be propagated by thinking Christians and other religious people. Second, the university system was started in the middles ages with many Christians leading the way. Many of the these early Christian scholars had a great tolerance for diversity of thought and arguments from different points of view. Third, without the grounding of the Christian world view, there would not even be science, math,  reason, etc.

If you can remember only two things here, first Nye's case is foundationless because of his materialistic world view. Second his case is groundless because this world view does not make senses logically when one looks at the origin of life issue. Both issues demonstrate lack of grounding which makes his case illogical.

Elegant Design In A Cell

In freshman year biology, students learn the amazing complexities of the cell. For example, we have been told for years of the cells amazing four letter alphabet or the genome. Of course we know that information always comes from a mind, at least that is our everyday experience (books we read, conversations we have). Just this level of biologically understanding should point one to a creator. However, this is truly just the tip of the iceberg.

Other Information

Epigenetic mechanisms: Click image for full illustration.

What most don't realize is that the DNA is not the only information carrier in the cell. RNA, a close cousin of DNA and copied from DNA, also caries information. But wait, that is not all, there are little, and not so little, tags on the genes that tell the cell to do certain things. These tags included methyl and acetyl groups among other tags.

Epigenetics

In fact, these tags are just the small part of a
n emerging field called epigenetics, layers of information above the DNA. Even the cell structure is now being recognized to hold information. Part of the internal cell scaffolding is now thought to contain parts of this information. More we learn about this information, the more complex just one cell gets. Material does not create information randomly or systematically. Information needs a mind for causation. This translates into what many of us knew already, designs like this need a designer.


Image source: "Epigenetic mechanisms" by National Institutes of Health