|
Introduction
to the Mathematics of Evolution Chapter
18 Patterns
of Intelligence "He who joyfully marches to
music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a
large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice." Albert Einstein, Nobel Prize, 1921 in Physics Introduction The key
claim of neo-Darwinism is that random mutations of nucleotides created new
genetic information. This had to have happened long before natural
selection came into play. The first
comment about this claim is that real
data from real scientists
proves an alarming rate of genetic entropy (i.e. deterioration of genetic
information) in all DNA, including
human DNA. In other words, what
scientists actually see, and what the theory of evolution claims; are exact opposites of each other. To put it
another way, "science" claims genetic information in DNA is
constantly increasing, but
real geneticists see a constant
decrease in genetic information. This
chapter will demonstrate, using computer simulations, why genetic information cannot increase by random
mutations of nucleotides. Genetic
entropy is actually a result of two independent facts. First, it is the result of the perfection of
our DNA. If our DNA was not virtually
perfect, genetic entropy would not be so pronounced. Second, genetic entropy is the result of normal
mutation rates, which are uncomfortably
high. Since DNA
contains an enormous amount of intelligence, as has been discussed in this
book; including gene complexes all the way to the morphing of the embryo algorithms;
the claims of neo-Darwinism are
essentially that random mutations of nucleotides can create massive, massive
amounts of new genetic information or intelligence. This claim does
not fit the scientific data of real geneticists working with living species!! Of course
the classic example to refute the claim of evolutionists is to claim that any
attempt to add intelligence to Shakespeare's plays and other works, by using
random letters of the alphabet, will fail. Indeed,
even if we take an existing play of Shakespeare, and modify it (which is the
equivalent of taking a perfectly good gene complex and modifying it), the
exercise will also fail to provide any new concepts or new intelligence in the
play. Actually,
the claim of neo-Darwinism is that by using totally random, totally pointless,
totally directionless, etc. mutations; that a level of intelligence and
information can be achieved in DNA which not even human beings can conceive. Is this
possible? Most people,
including many creation scientists, think that random mutations of DNA will
eventually create a situation where there is an increase in genetic
information. They might ask: from a
statistical viewpoint isn't it obvious that the laws of probability will
eventually generate an increase in genetic information via random mutations? The rest of
this chapter will prove this is not possible.
It will examine whether intelligent information can be produced from
random mutations or other random events. A Computer Program First, let
us look at a computer program. This is a
program I wrote so I could have an alarm clock on my computer. While I wrote the program, actually most of
the program was written by Microsoft Corporation programmers. They essentially wrote a lot of subroutines
which did various things; then I came along and organized their library of
subroutines into an alarm clock program. The program
was actually "compiled" as bits of information, meaning a long string
of '0's and '1's. Analyzing '0's and
'1's is kind of boring so I grouped each 8 consecutive '0's and '1's into a
"byte" and analyzed the program as a set of "bytes." A
"byte" is really nothing but eight consecutive '0's and '1's. For example, these are "bytes"
(i.e. permutations of 8 bits): 00000000 01010100 11011110 10101011 00001100 11111101 and so
on. After
breaking down the program (which was a long string of '0's and '1's whereby I
took each 8 consecutive bits and converted the 8 bits into one byte), I then
took each byte and counted how many times this byte occurred in the listing of
the program. In other words, I took the
compiled binary (i.e. 0s and 1s) listing of the program; then took each 8
consecutive bits and counted how many times each permutation of 8 bits (i.e.
each byte) occurred. This counting
process generates what is called a histogram. The intent
was to count how many times each byte occurred and then analyze these counts. Each string
of 8 bytes is meaningless gibberish; when converting 8 bits into a byte, which
dealing with a computer listing; but our interest is only in counting how many
times each letter or number (i.e. each consecutive "byte," meaning
each permutation of 8 bits) occurred in the listing. In this
table is a listing of how many times each byte occurred in the compiled binary
listing of the alarm clock program. Alarm Clock
Program Histogram Table 1: 0 [.] = 42114 (i.e.
consecutive bits: 00000000) 1 [] = 2208 (i.e. consecutive bits:
00000001) 2 [[1]]
= 2442 (i.e.
consecutive bits: 00000010) 3 [.] = 322 (i.e. consecutive bits: 00000011) 4 [.] = 1848 (i.e.
consecutive bits: 00000100) 5 [] = 377
and so on. 6 [] = 634 7 [] = 486 8 [] = 539 9 [.] = 174 10 [.] = 2045 11 [.] = 409 12 [.] = 295 13 [.] = 170 14 [.] = 243 15 [] = 113 16 [] = 200 17 [] = 416 18 [] = 263 19 [] = 338 20 [] = 171 21 [] = 179 22 [] = 491 23 [] = 336 24 [] = 246 25 [] = 244 26 [] = 183 27 [] = 158 28 [ ] = 172 29 [] = 171 30 [‑] = 232 31 [] = 500 32 [ ] = 1296 33 [!] = 59 34 ["] = 163 35 [#] = 52 36 [$] = 93 37 [%] = 185 38 [&] = 175 39 ['] = 69 40 [(] = 509 41 [)] = 79 42 [*] = 280 43 [+] = 128 44 [,] = 648 45 [-] = 88 46 [.] = 1407 47 [/] = 41 48 [0] = 1354 49 [1] = 570 50 [2] = 159 51 [3] = 321 52 [4] = 303 53 [5] = 672 54 [6] = 267 55 [7] = 411 56 [8] = 304 57 [9] = 412 58 [:] = 118 59 [;] = 65 60 [<] = 118 61 [=] = 600 62 [>] = 78 63 [?] = 41 64 [@] = 121 65 [A] = 512 66 [B] = 189 67 [C] = 524 68 [D] = 476 69 [E] = 117 70 [F] = 105 71 [G] = 83 72 [H] = 138 73 [I] = 130 74 [J] = 27 75 [K] = 223 76 [L] = 339 77 [M] = 481 78 [N] = 74 79 [O] = 142 80 [P] = 462 81 [Q] = 53 82 [R] = 166 83 [S] = 695 84 [T] = 340 85 [U] = 40 86 [V] = 287 87 [W] = 59 88 [X] = 89 89 [Y] = 72 90 [Z] = 72 91 [[] = 42 92 [\] = 46 93 []] = 36 94 [^] = 31 95 [_] = 592 96 [`] = 49 97 [a] = 1537 98 [b] = 981 99 [c] = 750 100 [d] = 743 101 [e] = 4301 102 [f] = 390 103 [g] = 224 104 [h] = 130 105 [i] = 1407 106 [j] = 57 107 [k] = 391 108 [l] = 1606 109 [m] = 1252 110 [n] = 1280 111 [o] = 2938 112 [p] = 550 113 [q] = 36 114 [r] = 2035 115 [s] = 1768 116 [t] = 2749 117 [u] = 1617 118 [v] = 352 119 [w] = 156 120 [x] = 347 121 [y] = 797 122 [z] = 64 123 [{] = 1240 124 [|] = 49 125 [}] = 226 126 [~] = 19 127 [] = 26 128 [€] = 153 129 [] = 50 130 [‚] = 13 131 [ƒ] = 20 132 [„] = 34 133 […] = 17 134 [†] = 67 135 [‡] = 22 136 [ˆ] = 54 137 [‰] = 15 138 [Š] = 15 139 [‹] = 18 140 [Œ] = 36 141 [] = 35 142 [Ž] = 36 143 [] = 31 144 [] = 50 145 [‘] = 22 146 [’] = 17 147 [“] = 31 148 [”] = 27 149 [•] = 19 150 [–] = 31 151 [—] = 21 152 [˜] = 36 153 [™] = 20 154 [š] = 55 155 [›] = 17 156 [œ] = 19 157 [] = 10 158 [ž] = 24 159 [Ÿ] = 10 160 [ ] = 34 161 [¡] = 40 162 [¢] = 44 163 [£] = 9 164 [¤] = 24 165 [¥] = 9 166 [¦] = 21 167 [§] = 7 168 [¨] = 30 169 [©] = 16 170 [ª] = 13 171 [«] = 7 172 [¬] = 8 173 [] = 15 174 [®] = 8 175 [¯] = 9 176 [°] = 27 177 [±] = 14 178 [²] = 8 179 [³] = 10 180 [´] = 13 181 [µ] = 9 182 [¶] = 14 183 [·] = 7 184 [¸] = 26 185 [¹] = 7 186 [º] = 13 187 [»] = 9 188 [¼] = 21 189 [½] = 10 190 [¾] = 11 191 [¿] = 14 192 [À] = 43 193 [Á] = 12 194 [Â] = 8 195 [Ã] = 9 196 [Ä] = 18 197 [Å] = 21 198 [Æ] = 27 199 [Ç] = 6 200 [È] = 15 201 [É] = 9 202 [Ê] = 24 203 [Ë] = 10 204 [Ì] = 37 205 [Í] = 13 206 [Î] = 12 207 [Ï] = 10 208 [Ð] = 9 209 [Ñ] = 61 210 [Ò] = 17 211 [Ó] = 14 212 [Ô] = 12 213 [Õ] = 7 214 [Ö] = 14 215 [×] = 14 216 [Ø] = 20 217 [Ù] = 13 218 [Ú] = 9 219 [Û] = 13 220 [Ü] = 28 221 [Ý] = 12 222 [Þ] = 30 223 [ß] = 10 224 [à] = 20 225 [á] = 13 226 [â] = 14 227 [ã] = 9 228 [ä] = 17 229 [å] = 5 230 [æ] = 14 231 [ç] = 8 232 [è] = 29 233 [é] = 28 234 [ê] = 5 235 [ë] = 28 236 [ì] = 12 237 [í] = 10 238 [î] = 14 239 [ï] = 11 240 [ð] = 32 241 [ñ] = 15 242 [ò] = 12 243 [ó] = 2 244 [ô] = 29 245 [õ] = 6 246 [ö] = 9 247 [÷] = 19 248 [ø] = 19 249 [ù] = 5 250 [ú] = 8 251 [û] = 10 252 [ü] = 11 253 [ý] = 14 254 [þ] = 58 255 [ÿ] = 1403 Total = 110592 bytes Note in the
above chart that the minimum number of times a single byte was found was 2. This happened once for byte 243. The maximum
number of times a byte was found was 42,114, for byte 0. The second highest was 4,301, for byte 101. Note also
the large number of times that bytes 97 through 128 were found!! Compare this to the number of times bytes 163
through 254 were found (with a few exceptions). The above
chart is a "histogram," meaning a chart which shows the frequency of
how many times a particular pattern of 8 'bits' exists in the program. The
computer program, in total, had 110,592 bytes. Using A Random Number Generator I then used
the random number generator to generate 110,592 random "bytes." The next chart is this histogram: Alarm Clock
Histogram Generated By Random Number Generator Table 2: 0 [.] = 451 1 [] = 407 2 [[1]]
= 402 3 [.] = 442 4 [.] = 428 5 [] = 426 6 [] = 440 7 [] = 444 8 [] = 458 9 [.] = 434 10 [.] = 452 11 [.] = 437 12 [.] = 429 13 [.] = 469 14 [.] = 415 15 [] = 466 16 [] = 430 17 [] = 469 18 [] = 431 19 [] = 460 20 [] = 394 21 [] = 437 22 [] = 427 23 [] = 453 24 [] = 428 25 [] = 426 26 [] = 473 27 [] = 403 28 [ ] = 414 29 [] = 413 30 [‑] = 445 31 [] = 460 32 [ ] = 419 33 [!] = 450 34 ["] = 438 35 [#] = 449 36 [$] = 434 37 [%] = 395 38 [&] = 440 39 ['] = 404 40 [(] = 462 41 [)] = 461 42 [*] = 429 43 [+] = 405 44 [,] = 445 45 [-] = 480 46 [.] = 473 47 [/] = 443 48 [0] = 444 49 [1] = 410 50 [2] = 457 51 [3] = 452 52 [4] = 432 53 [5] = 458 54 [6] = 470 55 [7] = 438 56 [8] = 432 57 [9] = 424 58 [:] = 442 59 [;] = 403 60 [<] = 449 61 [=] = 420 62 [>] = 447 63 [?] = 459 64 [@] = 486 65 [A] = 481 66 [B] = 413 67 [C] = 413 68 [D] = 417 69 [E] = 450 70 [F] = 412 71 [G] = 427 72 [H] = 406 73 [I] = 402 74 [J] = 460 75 [K] = 431 76 [L] = 435 77 [M] = 416 78 [N] = 439 79 [O] = 484 80 [P] = 432 81 [Q] = 407 82 [R] = 402 83 [S] = 416 84 [T] = 435 85 [U] = 411 86 [V] = 440 87 [W] = 404 88 [X] = 421 89 [Y] = 402 90 [Z] = 433 91 [[] = 394 92 [\] = 428 93 []] = 432 94 [^] = 447 95 [_] = 448 96 [`] = 444 97 [a] = 430 98 [b] = 415 99 [c] = 413 100 [d] = 467 101 [e] = 458 102 [f] = 419 103 [g] = 409 104 [h] = 449 105 [i] = 413 106 [j] = 422 107 [k] = 462 108 [l] = 439 109 [m] = 428 110 [n] = 420 111 [o] = 413 112 [p] = 437 113 [q] = 418 114 [r] = 436 115 [s] = 464 116 [t] = 448 117 [u] = 430 118 [v] = 415 119 [w] = 406 120 [x] = 409 121 [y] = 427 122 [z] = 423 123 [{] = 442 124 [|] = 443 125 [}] = 372 126 [~] = 406 127 [] = 423 128 [€] = 443 129 [] = 409 130 [‚] = 403 131 [ƒ] = 387 132 [„] = 440 133 […] = 403 134 [†] = 438 135 [‡] = 454 136 [ˆ] = 423 137 [‰] = 423 138 [Š] = 441 139 [‹] = 440 140 [Œ] = 426 141 [] = 429 142 [Ž] = 483 143 [] = 411 144 [] = 452 145 [‘] = 412 146 [’] = 469 147 [“] = 415 148 [”] = 437 149 [•] = 397 150 [–] = 438 151 [—] = 439 152 [˜] = 438 153 [™] = 417 154 [š] = 476 155 [›] = 403 156 [œ] = 417 157 [] = 416 158 [ž] = 441 159 [Ÿ] = 441 160 [ ] = 458 161 [¡] = 463 162 [¢] = 452 163 [£] = 450 164 [¤] = 450 165 [¥] = 418 166 [¦] = 451 167 [§] = 432 168 [¨] = 427 169 [©] = 422 170 [ª] = 418 171 [«] = 403 172 [¬] = 444 173 [] = 466 174 [®] = 382 175 [¯] = 404 176 [°] = 429 177 [±] = 393 178 [²] = 449 179 [³] = 437 180 [´] = 436 181 [µ] = 425 182 [¶] = 441 183 [·] = 459 184 [¸] = 387 185 [¹] = 440 186 [º] = 481 187 [»] = 436 188 [¼] = 439 189 [½] = 430 190 [¾] = 434 191 [¿] = 421 192 [À] = 450 193 [Á] = 430 194 [Â] = 401 195 [Ã] = 430 196 [Ä] = 445 197 [Å] = 437 198 [Æ] = 406 199 [Ç] = 423 200 [È] = 458 201 [É] = 435 202 [Ê] = 423 203 [Ë] = 453 204 [Ì] = 420 205 [Í] = 407 206 [Î] = 417 207 [Ï] = 443 208 [Ð] = 426 209 [Ñ] = 451 210 [Ò] = 434 211 [Ó] = 404 212 [Ô] = 423 213 [Õ] = 432 214 [Ö] = 432 215 [×] = 441 216 [Ø] = 421 217 [Ù] = 446 218 [Ú] = 459 219 [Û] = 440 220 [Ü] = 445 221 [Ý] = 446 222 [Þ] = 443 223 [ß] = 454 224 [à] = 444 225 [á] = 408 226 [â] = 420 227 [ã] = 406 228 [ä] = 417 229 [å] = 433 230 [æ] = 424 231 [ç] = 417 232 [è] = 421 233 [é] = 434 234 [ê] = 418 235 [ë] = 461 236 [ì] = 424 237 [í] = 403 238 [î] = 409 239 [ï] = 428 240 [ð] = 462 241 [ñ] = 463 242 [ò] = 419 243 [ó] = 442 244 [ô] = 389 245 [õ] = 405 246 [ö] = 453 247 [÷] = 413 248 [ø] = 425 249 [ù] = 437 250 [ú] = 411 251 [û] = 413 252 [ü] = 421 253 [ý] = 430 254 [þ] = 456 255 [ÿ] = 422 Total = 110592 Whereas the
histogram range for an actual intelligently designed computer program ranged
from 2 to 42,114 (or 4,301 if you don't count 0), the range for the randomly
generated histogram was 372 (for byte 125) to 486 (for byte 64). The
"range" or "gap" for an intelligently designed computer
program was at least 4,299 (i.e. 4,301 - 2), whereas the "gap" for a
randomly designed computer program (which obviously would not have done
anything useful) was 114 (i.e. 486 - 372).
The size of the "gap" of the randomly generated program was
only 2.65% of the range or "gap" of the intelligently generated
program!! Random
number generators; which are essentially what random mutations of nucleotides
are represented by; do not have nearly the variety of counts as a truly
intelligent set of bits. The wide variety
of bits of an intelligent program is a side-effect of intelligence. The point
is that in order to create intelligence you need a wide range in values in the
histogram, but a random number generator cannot create that wide range of
values. There is no randomness in
intelligence and there is no intelligence in randomness!! We could
have done the same thing with a book. A
book written in the English language would have very few 'z' or 'q' or 'j'
characters. Yet, if we randomly
generated the letters in the book, one out of 26 of the letters would be a 'z'
or a 'q' or a 'j'. If we
"weighted" or "biased" the selection of letters, to the
same proportion as in a real book; we would get the right weighting, but not the right distribution of groups
of letters. The point
to this exercise is this question: "Could we ever randomly generate the
alarm clock program using a random number generator?" The answer is 'no', at least not in the time
frame of a trillion trillion trillion
trillion years. Intelligence
has patterns which are vastly different than the patterns of randomness. You don't get intelligence from randomness. Randomness
creates very consistent patterns, which is exactly the wrong thing to do if you
are trying to generate intelligence or information. But
intelligence creates a high variety of patterns. If you plotted the above numbers for
intelligence on a graph; the intelligence would create a very active chart
which would have a wide range of highs and lows. On the
other hand, you would see a very flat and boring pattern generated by the
random numbers. From a distance the
pattern would look like a straight line. The Photograph Just for
fun, I did a similar thing with a photograph used commonly by Microsoft. This doesn't really have any intelligence to
it, but it certainly was not a photograph generated by a random number
generator. Using the
"bliss.bmp" file, and checking out its
"intelligence," I got a minimum value of 324 and a maximum value of
26,792. That is a range or gap of
26,468. The random number generator
generated a minimum of 5,379 and a maximum of 5,848. The bliss.bmp file
is 1,440,054 bytes long so more random numbers had to be generated. It generated a gap of 469. The ratio of the two gaps, randomness to
intelligence (i.e. non-random), was: 1.77%. Again, we
see a vast difference in the patterns.
Could a random number generator ever generate the "bliss.bmp" file?
No. In fact, I
wrote a computer program to generate random images. Never, at any time did any small section of any
of the images ever resemble an identifiable object. Not even a small object in a small section of
the screen could be identified. What About DNA? Analyzing
DNA should yield the same kind of results.
In fact, I took a portion of chromosome 5 and analyzed it. Chromosome
5 has about 1,643 genes in it, which is about 5.1% of all the genes in the
entire DNA. It also has about 198
million base pairs, which is about 6.1% of the entire human genome (including
the X and Y chromosomes). I analyzed a
section of 41,199,371 consecutive nucleotides, which is about 21% of the
nucleotides in chromosome 5. If you want
to see this sequence, do the following: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.org On left
side click: Genomic Biology In middle
of page click: Homo sapiens (human) Then click:
chromosome number: 5 On right
side of page click: "Download/View Sequence/Evidence" Select the
item nearest 41.2 million nucleotides. Here is
their breakdown of the actual nucleotides in this segment. Total = 41,199,371 A =
12,664,928 C = 7,942,096 G = 7,927,395 T =
12,664,952 In order to
examine "bytes," I took each four consecutive nucleotides and
compressed them into one byte. This meant
the number of "bytes" I examined was 1/4th the number of nucleotides
because each four consecutive nucleotides (i.e. A, C, G, T) were compressed
into one byte. To make
this conversion I used the following chart: A converted
to bits: 00, by definition C converted
to bits: 01, by definition G converted
to bits: 10, by definition T converted
to bits: 11, by defintion Here is an
example of how four consecutive nucleotides were converted into a single
byte. Let us take the sequence AGTC. The A would
convert to 00 (i.e. the first two bits in the byte), The G would
convert to 10 (i.e. the second two bits in the byte), The T would
convert to 11 (i.e. the third two bits in the byte), The C would
convert to 01 (i.e. the fourth two bits in the byte). Thus, the
four nucleotides would convert to: 00 10 11 01. |