Possible experiment to test for a "Divine" intelligent designer

“Literally”. That’s funny. Could you explain how human language is even “digital” in the first place?


Digital information is composed of abstract entities involving discrete mathematics or statements of logic that apply to and exist by necessity. It involves language that humans use to communicate with each other every day, such as phrases, signs, and symbols that are meaningful and personal. Analog information refers to continuous or redundant but orderly complex patterns of information reflected within the laws of nature. DNA possesses these types of information processes where the nucleotide sequence both specifies the digital information of the gene and the higher order architectures of the genome, which have an impact on the expression of the digital information found in the gene.

More importantly, our conscious agency seems to be reflected within both the digital and analog information present in DNA. For example, the genome is virtually identical to computer operating systems (Yan et al. 2010), and the genetic information in DNA is mathematically identical to that in human language (Yockey 1981). Of course, some scientists insist that these comparisons between DNA information and human information are merely used in a metaphorical sense (Pigliucci & Boudry 2011). This contradicts the work done by biotechnologists who store specified information within the nucleotide sequences of DNA or RNA. For instance, Church and Kosuri (2012) were able to create a biotech version of an e-reader, with the highest storage capacity to date.

However, this close relationship between digital and analog information does not necessarily mean that physico-chemical laws of nature produce digital information. This is because the forces of chemical necessity (analog information) produce redundant order or rule-generated repetition that reduces the capacity to convey specified information (Polanyi 1968). For instance, random mixtures of polymers or granite are examples of complex structures generated, but they are not specified. Crystals are typically understood as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules held together in a uniform way. However, neither crystals nor polymer mixtures qualify as living organisms because they do not possess both information forms simultaneously found in DNA, leading to “specified complexity” (Orgel 1973).

Crick (1958), who was one of the first to elucidate the information properties of the DNA molecule, explained this meaning of information in biological terms in 1958 as “the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. … the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein.” Shortly thereafter, leading molecular biologists defined biological information to incorporate this notion of specificity of function and complexity (Sakar 1996).

I aim to show how we can test whether or not a Universal common designer exists in biochemistry. Let me be clear, this is going to be about testing for the existence of a Universal common designer or an undiscovered law of nature to potentially explain the origin of digital information within the bounds of biochemistry . However, this is NOT about showing how the origin of life or advanced life emerged whether its our life or another. Finally, I wish to explicitly clarify that my hypothesis does not defend the intelligent design theory proposed by intelligent design theorists. In fact, intelligent design theorists do not actually pioneer or promote a theory of intelligent design that involves a transcendent agent because they do not believe it is a testable scientific model and they do not believe present experiments or observations can lead us to infer or conclude a transcendent agent.

That’s nonsense. Journal articles have “DOIs” which have many uses including serving as a means to access them on the Internet. All the articles you cited (and the ones you will cite) have DOIs. Next time, provide them to enable others easily access your sources.

This is horribly wrong. They never argued genomes are almost operationally identical to a computer OS and I cited the abstract of the article as evidence to that effect.

You are deeply confused and badly misinterpreted that paper.

There is no analogy between how a computer OS and genome works. Stop getting it twisted. Genomes simply serve as information archives in biological systems, a far cry from the functions of a computer OS.

It appears you suffer from amnesia. In an earlier post of yours, you claimed the findings in the Church and Kosuri (2012) contradicted a supposed claim of Pigliucci and Boudry (2011). This is what you wrote:

I read that Pigliucci and Boudry article and none of its contents clashed with anything in the Church and Kosuri article. This indicates you most likely don’t read the articles you cite, but blindly copy them from your favorite ID sites and paste them here.

Notice how his response ignores your question, and is a verbatim repeat of his earlier comment. He doesn’t understand many of the things he writes and has to fall back to his ID sources even if what they say is irrelevant to particular questions like yours.


Is it really? Why are you convinced of this? TBH, I’m not sure what you wrote there actually means anything.


The article you quoted from specifically said:

“we present a comparison between the transcriptional regulatory network of a well-studied bacterium (Escherichia coli) and the call graph of a canonical OS (Linux) in terms of topology and evolution. We show that both networks have a fundamentally hierarchical layout, but there is a key difference:”

You even acknowledged this: What they likened to a computer OS was the transcriptional regulatory network.

Guess what, THIS WAS MY POINT.

From the study:

“A computer OS is described by a regulatory control network termed the call graph, which is analogous to the transcriptional regulatory network in a cell .”

Oh, this is my mistake then. I misunderstood the objection you were making. Just to clarify, I was not suggesting that Pigliucci and Boudry’s article was denying DNA houses digital information but that they were arguing how the comparison between digital information in DNA and the digital information that comes from minds was used in a metaphorical sense. You even suggested this yourself:

“The article centered on the use of problematic metaphors in biology communication to students and the public.”

I looked at your source, which was great by the way, but I am trying to figure out what you disagree with in regards to my actual proposal here rather than the stuff I said in my introduction, which is not the overall point of emphasis on this topic.

I made the changes accordingly here:

A Comprehensive Theory of Intelligent Design - Peaceful Science

1 Like

Here is why I am convinced:

The genetic information in DNA is mathematically identical to that in human language (Yockey 1981).

More importantly, Church and Kosuri (2012) created a biotech version of an e-reader, with the highest storage capacity to date. This involved encoding an entire book (along with illustrations) in DNA. The book consisted of 53,246 words, 11 JPG images, and even a javascript program.

You indeed have amnesia, because that was never your point. How can you forget your own words for crying out loud:

Read your own words carefully. You used the Yan paper to support the contention that the “genome is virtually identical to computer operating systems”. I looked up the paper and no such claim was made or defended there.

This leads me to the conclusion that you conflated the genome with a transcriptional regulatory network (TRN) leading you to misinterpret the Yan paper. A genome is not the same thing as a TRN, rather it is part of it. I’d recommend you get a grip on the basic biology here before you attempt to engage with the experts, to prevent you from fooling yourself.

Your ignorance of the distinction between a TRN and genome reflects here again. If your reply to this comment doesn’t show you have acknowledged your mistake and updated yourself on it, don’t bother expecting my reply because I simply don’t have the strength to correct you over and over again.

Seeing that you can admit to your mistakes, I hope you will do same with the mistake in your previous comments I pointed out.

That means you misrepresented that paper, making the authors say what they didn’t and are still misrepresenting them because nowhere in that paper do we even find the phrase “digital information” with respect to DNA or humans. You are just making things up.

No biologist denies DNA contains information that could be described as digital in some sense (which is why you attacking a strawman claim that Pigliucci and Boudry never made). In computers, specific arrangements of 1’s and 0’s are used to represent some type of information: 1100 could mean letter “A” or number “2”. In DNA we see something similar, where triplet arrangements of nucleotides (codons) specify particular amino acids: AAU codes for leucine, UUU codes for lysine. That’s as far as the analogy between DNA “digital” information and human digital information goes.

Some good articles to read on the uses and limits of DNA metaphors in biology:

For metaphors in general:

Learn not to push analogies too far.

You said:

I replied, correcting you that every OoL experiment must involve conscious agency, in the form of an experimenter, to some extent. You agreed to that, so we are good.


You should understand that just repeating what you believe is not providing evidence for that belief.

Before that, human language would be encoded on things like stone, papyrus and paper.

Are those things, then, also “digital information”? I don’t see how.


I would say that only parts of the genome are parts of the TRN.

Meerkat is amazing in that way…

Indeed, because in biology, they always break. Analogies and metaphors are explanatory devices. They are not arguments in and of themselves.


Then you’re convinced by your misunderstanding of some-one else’s misinterpretations of a paper you haven’t read. Not only is that not in Yockey’s paper, it has been denied by Yockey himself:

FTE is wrong: “the mathematical treatment of these biological message texts” is NOT “identical to that of human written language.”

Don’t expect anyone else to be as gullible as you are.

Also, since you have cited Yockey directly, and not the FTE amicus brief submitted at Kitzmiller (or some similar secondary garbage) that you actually got that idea from, you bear sole responsibility for the difference between what Yockey wrote and what you have claimed Yockey wrote.

You have some explaining to do. Otherwise the natural expectation of any other source you cite will be that you haven’t read it, have no idea whether your description is accurate, and don’t care anyway. In short, you will have zero credibility.


Indeed. If that were universally understood then this thread would never have happened.


I was making an inference that there was a Universal common designer that exists in biochemistry based on all three studies I referenced in the introduction. These studies convince me the digital information is literally the same as digital information among humans.

But, I am not saying those studies prove it therefore came from humans, which is what I think is your issue here. In fact, this is probably Michael’s and Mercer’s issue as well who were the ones who recently made comments. Ultimately, the invitro selection experiment I reference is what I was arguing provides evidence that digital information not only came from a mind but a “Divine” mind.

And you are absolutely right. I should have been more precise.

Exactly. Let’s hope he takes the advice.


No, that is not my “issue.” My issue, and it would appear that of others, is that you keep misrepresenting scientific papers as if they support the belief to which you are already committed.


At the start of making this topic, I specifically said:

“I really need to know from expert scientists whether this experiment could potentially test for a Universal common designer existing in biology.”

At some point, I added the introduction to help reviewers adequately critique my case.
This means that I never pretended to be an expert this field nor do I have a desire to be one. You either did not care to read this or did not fully absorb it into your brain. For this reason, I don’t care whether I make mistakes or not but I care about getting the mistakes right. So I’ll admit I was attacking a strawman argument in regards to their article because I was ultimately focused on trying to make a larger point, as a NON-expert, to get expert advice. However, unlike other users on here, almost all your objections and sources (except for one maybe) have NOT addressed the topic at hand. Therefore, I am only going to address the things you said that are relevant to the topic from here on out.

Yes, I agreed but what was the point of your objection in regards to the topic. Do you agree that my proposal can be tested in a way that verifies or at least potentially falsifies the hypothesis that a Universal common designer exists in biochemistry? If you do, then I encourage you to move on from this and politely ask you to start critiquing the next topic I made:

A Comprehensive Theory of Intelligent Design - Peaceful Science

And the experts have answered “no”, but I agree some have wandered from the key question to details which beg the question of testability. My expertise includes framing hypotheses so they can be tested with mathematical rigor. Not every hypothesis requires statical testing, of course, but asking a clearly defined question in the right way always matters.

The specific error you are making is common for ID; you are trying to disprove evolution to prove design. That’s not how it works. You first need to define design in a way to distinguish ID from evolution (or other hypotheses). Then you need to seek evidence to disprove design, and fail.

Edit to add: The possibility of failure is the “falsifiability” of the hypothesis. With a very few exceptions, ID is not falsifiable.


@Meerkat_SK5, please read this ^^^^^^^^^^. It concisely summarizes all of the reasons why everyone has answered “no.”


The transcriptional regulatory network IS NOT DIGITAL, because it is not limited to DNA.


Remember Dan, I specifically said in the introduction that this topic was NOT about showing how the origin of life or advanced life emerged whether its our life or another NOR was I defending the intelligent design theory proposed by intelligent design theorists.

The ultimate purpose was to confirm whether a Divine agent even exists in the first place within the bounds of biochemistry in order to answer the question “Where did the digital information in DNA come from?” and explain it’s origins. This means its either an undiscovered law of physics or a Divine agent.

Yes, an all-powerful designer could have but the question is… “would we expect this?” if this designer is personal like us, which is suggested by the high similarity between digital information in DNA and digital information among humans, we would not expect a miracle or random event to happen based upon that designer’s personal nature that is similar to ours.

Furthermore, this particular aspect of this designer’s nature is what limits the behavior of the designer in a way that is testable like what we see in other fields of science that involve a intelligent designer, like SETI.

Again, as I mentioned above, if you factor in the similar personal nature of this designer, then it does exclude an unconscious computer-like designer.

Right, I agree. This is why another experiment showing an unguided process is required (which ALSO must be in accordance with the second experiment that shows a guided process) in order to show there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged. The unguided experiment would support the “necessary” attribute of this intelligent designer.

For example, here is a clearer definition of this designer…

The Universal common designer hypothesis involves an intelligent designer that exists by necessity where life emerging from a natural condition could not possibly have been otherwise without a quantum mind. A quantum mind is a causal agent that is not contingent upon classical space-time physics or a prior natural cause.

Again, all a biochemist has to do is produce digital information within a natural condition that does not require his assistance to falsify it.

In the second round of experiments, the biochemist can intervene to produce positive results and verify it.

Now, it is ok if you still disagree that this could be a way to verify this hypothesis despite my refined definition because providing a way to falsify this idea is more important. But, keep in mind, I am not the only one who has made a similar inference in regards to these experimental results:

“…After all, it is not easy to see what replaced the flasks, pipettes and stir bars of a chemistry lab during prebiotic evolution, let alone the hands of the chemist who performed the manipulations. (And yes, most of us are not comfortable with the idea of divine intervention in this context.)”


Although I am not an expert, there are two reasons why it may not be realistic to require or expect a mathematical model in order for this hypothesis to be considered scientifically viable. First, according to the Orch-Or theory, consciousness is not supposed to be an emergent property of space-time but goes beyond the math. Also, experimental results are supposed to be determined by the act of the conscious observer in quantum experiments similar to what we see with in-vitro experiments.

Secondly, although this is somewhat off topic, there is not supposed to be a big contrast between common design and descent because common design is primarily supposed to be an improvement of the Modern Synthesis NOT a negation. There are only two key differences that I outline in another topic and those differences would not involve testing a mathematical model.