“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Bill Gates

I just was surfing the internet, reading some things about Bill Gates, and I came across this quote:

We have all had teachers who made a difference. I had a great chemistry teacher in high school who made his subject immensely interesting. Chemistry seemed enthralling compared to biology. In biology, we were dissecting frogs – just hacking them to pieces, actually – and our teacher didn’t explain why. My chemistry teacher sensationalized his subject a bit and promised that it would help us understand the world. When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson’s "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. It seems amazing to me now that one great teacher made chemistry endlessly fascinating while I found biology totally boring. (Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised, 1996 p. 228)

It was interesting reading about Bill Gates’ teachers, but, then I saw the sentence in bold italics:

Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.

Wow. DNA, which is a teensy tinsy molecule inside each cell of each living thing, including humans, is more advanced than computer software?

Yes indeed.

But, we are told by mainstream science that life developed over millions of years by a process of time and chance. How could one molecule in each cell of a randomly generated life-form be so complex?

Perhaps mainstream science is wrong and life is not an end product of a process of time and chance. Perhaps it was designed by God, as I have believed for 13 years, and have been telling people in my website.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1

(See My Testimony for how I came to believe in God.)

X

Share with Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, StumbleUpon, etc

Advertisements

46 Comments

Filed under My Faith

46 responses to ““DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Bill Gates

  1. Greg

    Think about how much computers have "evolved" since he wrote that in 1996. He’s obviously speaking in a pre-iPad universe. And that was just 14 years ago. Imagine what computer programs will look like in a couple of million years. Maybe they’ll even be writing themselves. 😉

  2. X-Evolutionist

    @Greg: I’ve been expecting you here for days! Thanks for your fun spin, as always. Oh, and you are thinking of Cylons. X

  3. Fernando

    The concept of evolution can be applied to algorithms as well. There is something called evolutionary programming in which you look for a good heuristic to a given problem using trial and error, simulating natural selection. I did a project on this at the university. Trial and error, trial and error that’s what natural selection is X…

  4. X-Evolutionist

    @Fernando: I look at natural selection the same way as quality control at an automobile factory: The good ones get passed along, the ones that don’t work are scrapped, but they are all still automobiles. Check out this page of my website: http://x-evolutionist.com/using-the-dog-kind-of-animal-to-disprove-evolution X

  5. Dave

    I’ve always been a great one for science, but no one has ever managed to satisfactorily explain to me how it’s possible to pack a whole oak tree into an acorn. There’s obviously a bit more going on somewhere………………..

  6. Jim

    Evolution, the anti-creationsists lie, is built on innumerable lies. The more lies an untruth is built upon, the bigger the lie, or untruth. It takes an immeasurable amount of faith to believe that creation happened by chance (coined "natural selection") than the amount of faith it takes to believe all creation was created by an all knowing (limitless in knowledge) creator God. Evolutionists justify their belief by innumerable explanations which are mere attempts to justify the belief in the lie. Design does not ever happen by chance, it takes intelligence. Most evolutionsts believe in the Big Bang theory, which is totally mind blowing. Since when has anything as destructive as an explosion ever created anything? An explosion is destructive. The faith in anything but creation is ultimately the faith in the destroyer and the father of lies, namely Satan, Lucifer, the deciever of the ages. Lies are vicious circles that entrap and enslave a person’s mind. Jesus has come to set the captive free. If one wants to truly be free thinking, he will allow him/her-self to be set free by the Father of the Universe. DNA is just one of many proofs that all things were intelligently created and designed by a free thinking, creative, and supremely intelligent Creator-God. It takes intelligence to determine what is error and what is not. If "natural selection" were a reality and followed the course of "trial and error" the universe would have been destroyed in its very beginnings by the mistake organisms that would have diseased and poisoned anything that had potential for life. The intelligent Creator built in protections for any pontential destructive side affects of the things He created. For example, life could not exist without the light and energy of the sun. Yet it would destroy life if it were not for the protection of the harmful rays and energy that our atmosphere provides.May God Bless Everyone In Their Honest Pursuit of the Truth,Jim

  7. X-Evolutionist

    @Dave: Fitting an oak tree into an acorn, huh? That is a very interesting observation! Thank you for the honesty. I was always a great one for science, too, by the way. I had to be dragged to creation by God kicking and screaming, believe me! Read my testimony some time: http://x-evolutionist.com/testimony@Jim: I think you just wrote a great blog entry in your comment. You might as well post it in your space. X

  8. Lebohang

    Hi XHere is my little take on the subject of intelligent design (creation) versus evolution. The notion of creation makes it necessary that there is an absolute zero hour, what we visualize as the beginning of time. Looking at the universe as we understand it today, it is made up of matter, energy, time and the three spatial dimensions. These fundamental components of the universe are quantities that are expressible as numbers and numbers as we know them are infinite sets, viz neither is there the smallest nor the biggest number (no start and no ending to number sets). While I admit that the infinite quality of numbers does not necessarilly imply the infinity of the fundamental components and with particular reference to time, they are a strong very strong suggestion that it might be the case.When arguing for the case of creation, one has to initially affirm, whether by rational or empirical methods, that there is a starting point to time (absolute zero hour) and that shall necesarilly be the moment of creation. Only then can the zero hour fact be used as a basis commence the argument that affirms the even more complicated proposition that design occurred at the hands of some intelligence the predates and is causation of the zero hour. It is important that this intelligent creator predates the zero hour otherwise he\she is also the consequence of whatever brought us and everything we know into being and so on will the argument go infinitely "Then who created him/her". If you asked me which of the two schools of thought is true, I will say "I dont know and I dont think anyone knows for sure" RegardsLebo

  9. Mandy

    "How could one molecule in each cell of a randomly generated life-form be so complex?" I think the answer may be to do with the millions of years, it didn’t start that complex, but became that way. If god is the creator, why then did he make it SO complex? When all he needed was life? Why build in such a eensy but super complex DNA into every living thing? Did he painstakingly design each DNA for each life form, (millions of them) from the cabbage (or oak tree) to the ape? (and how long did it take?) Did he make the billions of stars with gazillions of worlds – just for us to look at? or is there more life created by him out there? If the answer is just god – it begs too many more question!

  10. Greg

    @ X – Regarding your response to Fernando, I think your car analogy is on the cusp of understanding how natural selection works. Yes, natural selection is like quality control. The cars that are designed to proper specs are allowed to drive off the assembly line, while those with design problems are scrapped. If I may take it one step further, though, suppose one car comes off the line with wings. It makes a pretty terrible car, but an amazing airplane. In other words, not all variations are failures.

  11. Jeffrey

    X: “But, we are told by mainstream science that life developed over millions of years by a process of time and chance. How could one molecule in each cell of a randomly generated life-form be so complex?”We are not told to blindly believe anything. Is it beyond your grasp to understand how things change and evolve over time? Is the stalagmite there because “god made it that way?” Or did it come from a simple drip and millions of years’ time? Complex behavior happens in the natural world all the time. Why do we have weather or ocean currents? I bet I can guess where the planets came from. Do you live of the flat one right smack in the middle of everything?Do you believe any complex system evolved to its current state? Your inability to comprehend how something complex can come from something simpler is a personal limitation and proves nothing except that you have no tolerance for anything that stands in the way of your beliefs. OK – so what? For all I care you can believe the Earth is the center of the universe and flat. The rest of us have moved on. So why must you drag on about this? You repeatedly insult some of us with this attitude that “I was like you (a poor ignorant idiot) but then 13 years ago I saw the light, and I must make you see it too… So let me shed some light on you. “Mainstream science” represents the best known process of human intelligence to explore the possibilities. If you don’t believe in evolution, then suit yourself. It’s your right. It could actually ultimately be proven wrong. This is a possibility. That’s why it’s a theory and not a dogma. On the other hand, how’s your untiring agenda of trying to disprove evolution theory in any way proof of a god(s) or designer – now or ever? One does not follow from the other! And do you think they both can’t be true? Why won’t you just admit that the real reason you attack evolution is because of the biblical basis of your belief and one of the really big problems you have is the conflicting timelines of the bible and science. You are a Christian, right? You do believe in Jesus and the bible, right? There is evidence outside of evolution that the Earth is well over 8,000 years old. Is that bad science too? Or is the bible just wrong.There are other problems for you as well. But, if evolution is true then the bible must be wrong. And it, being the basis of your unwavering religious belief, causes you and yours to have unpleasant inner conflict. Admit it – you’re conflicted. It erodes your faith and saps your soul. After all, it is the word of GOD. But common sense contradicts it. The bible defines hell, for example, and you personally and willfully and publically choose not to believe in hell. You can’t make the rules up as you go along. Does that mean you’re going to end up in HELL? Hell exists to keep you in line! Does it make you a bad bible believer? C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T-E-D! Cherry pick your favorite parts of the bible! Go ahead. But you do not believe what you were told to believe. You do not believe the “word of GOD!” And GOD will prove hell to you! It says so in the BIBLE!So, forgetting evolution for the moment, if we can “prove” the bible is wrong, that it is not perfect, that it is not the divinely inspired word of god, that it is full of hideous behavior completely undignified for a moral god, that it is hopelessly flawed and inconsistent with itself, etc., would you even care? You need to care or you’re just a hopeless case. Or would you just make some other excuse to blindly believe? You have better things to prove! I mean, after all, assuming you really are a Christian lady, can you really even prove that Jesus existed? He is the basis of your religion. I mean, try to think about it… What would Jesus do if there never was a Jesus? It’s like a paradox.

  12. X-Evolutionist

    @Jeffrey: It is nice to see you in my space again. We will never agree on this. We think each other is wrong in our assumptions. But, isn’t great we can each give our point of view? I made my point and you and others made their poionts. When I have a forum to have my say, I’m happy. I hope you are too. X

  13. X-Evolutionist

    @Jeffrey: Where did your message go? I’m glad you come and raise a ruckus. X

  14. Jeffrey

    Oh sorry X. I deleted it because I saw the answer to the question I had about your conversion right on the screen. So I went there and read it. I thought it would be something dramatic like a "Paul" conversion story. But you were just proselytized. I thought you might have experienced a miracle or a vision or were struck blind or something. I’m wondering where all that "kicking and screaming" drama comes from but your testimony seems a pretty standard surrender. But if you say so… But I am curious… Since "we will never agree on this" and I never discussed any proof of evolution (in fact, I disregarded it for the sake of argument), am I to accept as fact that you will never agree that the basis of your issues with evolution is the bible? Is this what we will never agree on? It sure seems like the case from your website. If it isn’t then please tell us what the basis is… I mean, evolution can be right or wrong. But your passion to destroy it must have some basis, right? If it’s not the bible then what is it? You really don’t seem to be a dedicated hard core scientist type with the goal of discovering the scientific truth for the sake of truth. Indeed, you seem quite the opposite. I went to this website, http://www.thetruthabouthell.net/, to try and understand your point of view. I see this guy trying to use individual verses of the bible like axioms of geometry and trying to construct a "proof" and when something doesn’t work – well – it becomes a parable. Basically, throw it out. I don’t agree with this. You can’t make the bible “feel good” unless you cherry pick what you want to believe. Another question: Do you believe in creation? Which of the two different stories in Genesis do you believe is the correct account of Creation and why? http://bit.ly/a0aawW

  15. X-Evolutionist

    Jeffrey: The kicking and screaming part was because I thought creationists were as ignorant as you think I am. I flat-out told people that they were ignorant. As far as which creation I believe in: One is the story of the creation of the universe and the other describes what God specifically did in the Garden of Eden. X

  16. X-Evolutionist

    @Jeffrey: PS: You missed a part of my testimony. Here is my "Paul Conversion: "One Sunday morning during rehearsal I was reading one of my books and I suddenly started to cry. I didn’t know why. But I kept reading. I started to shake and continued to cry, but I kept reading. All of a sudden, I felt something that I can only describe as being filled by God. I suddenly believed everything. I believed in God, I believed that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and I believed that Jesus is the name of God."http://x-evolutionist.com/my-christian-testimony-how-i-came-to-believe-in-god

  17. Jeffrey

    Hi X – no I read that. I just expected beams of light or speaking in tongues or something. This just seems to me like an emotional moment for you or you became possessed by free will defeating spirits. As for the rest, LOL, which is which? So in which universe did Adam come before the trees and in which did the trees come before Adam? You can’t say they are two different stories IN THE SAME UNIVERSE!! LOL! They are conflicting accounts… Here is a list for you. Conflicts between the creation stories: There are some apparent inconsistencies between the first and second creation accounts: 1. There may be a conflict over the number of days over which creation happened. a. Genesis 1:3 and subsequent verses say that God created the universe in six days. b. In Genesis 2:4, some translations, including the King James Version, imply that it took one day. 2. In the first account, God created fruit trees before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees, then Eve.3. In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the animals, then Eve.4. Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth …fowl" ; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground".5. In the first account, God created the fish on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all.I’m sure you have some "geometric proof" to explain this all away.

  18. Greg

    Wow, do we know how to kill a Saturday night or what? 🙂

  19. X-Evolutionist

    @Jeffrey: As I said, they are talking about two separtate things. One is the initial six day creation of Genesis chapter one. The other is the building of the Garden of Eden and populating it with critters. I tell you what, with all this studying, you must really want to believe. X

  20. X-Evolutionist

    @Greg: I’m still trying to figure out how that car got its wings…. There’s a lot I don’t know, I guess….Thanks for stopping by! X

  21. Jeffrey

    In both stories they talk about the creation of man and animals. In chapter one, the animals were created first. In chapter 2, man was created first. I assume the garden exists in the same universe, no? Are you saying the order that man and animals were created is different in the entire universe story vs. just the garden story? I mean, these actually happened in the same place, right? Was man created more than once? So what kind of skewed logic are you using to allow yourself to believe this isn’t a contradiction?

  22. Jeffrey

    Ah Greg – you know you love reading this blog just for the comments, if nothing else!! LOL! I love flying cars, by the way. I want one more than you know!

  23. Greg

    @ X – It’s an analogy. You gotta work with me a little. Imagine that every car has a blueprint, and most of the time the assembly workers build each one precisely to spec, but once in a while, some of them get a little creative. Who knows why? It’s random chance. They don’t know what’s going on outside the factory, so they just try different combinations. Some changes are minor, such as making the cup holders a little bigger. Some changes don’t work out so great, and you end up with an Edsel. On top of that, the road outside of the factory is constantly changing, so what worked last year isn’t necessarily well suited for this year. But every minor improvement builds upon a previous one, and eventually you end up with an incredibly bad-ass car or something that’s so different from the original blueprint that you can’t even call it a car anymore. You now have an airplane.

  24. Mandy

    With the already confused state of the story of creation, what I want to know, is where in the story do Dinosaurs come into it, were they already here with the ecosystem that goes along with them, before god created the world followed by either trees or man. Or did god create them first and if so why? (Maybe he was still practising getting the DNA sequencing right?) Did he decide to wipe them out, after several million years, then create men and/or trees/animal. Then there is the Cain and Abel story, They were the FIRST sons of Adam and Eve, after they were chucked out of Eden, yet there seems to be a whole world out there waiting for them, outside of Eden.

  25. Colin

    It’s your call: choose to believe that all was created by an omniscient, omnipresent, infallible deity or choose to believe that life is a product of the complexity of the universe. Either way, it’s about belief; neither side will ever be swayed by intelligent discussion, because there are too many points of contention.

  26. X-Evolutionist

    @Jeffrey: God populated the Garden of Eden with more animals after he made the garden for Adam and Eve to live in.@Greg: There’s no evidence that natural selection makes new species (or cars with wings):http://x-evolutionist.com/using-the-dog-kind-of-animal-to-disprove-evolutionThey are just variations of the same thing that can still interbreed and produce fertile offspring (the definition of "Species")@Mandy: There is no problem with creation and dinosaurs fitting together:http://x-evolutionist.com/how-do-dinosaurs-fit-in-with-creation-are-dinosaurs-alive-todayX

  27. Jeffrey

    @Colin: There are more theories than this. For example, a third theory is that "all was created by an omniscient, omnipresent, infallible deity" and “that life is a product of the complexity of the universe" at the same time. The only problem with this, if you’re a Christian, is the bible.

  28. Greg

    I agree with Colin. It comes down to your personal belief, or as I like to say, whose story you trust more. And you’re right as well Jeff; it doesn’t have to be one or the other, as least for many of us. I’m quite comfortable saying that I just don’t know how all this came to be, and I don’t think anyone else knows either, based on the data currently available. To me, it’s a rather trivial matter, ranking right up there with UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. No matter how we got here, the fact is we’re here now. In my opinion, the value of evolutionary science is to deepen our understanding of biology and environment to improve our daily lives. And the fact is we wouldn’t have much of the technology, medical treatments, or environmental awareness we enjoy today if the Body Science hadn’t challenged dogmatic religious beliefs that dominated most of the last 2000+ years.I’ve been having occasionally spirited but respectful dialogs with X for over a year about this and related topics. I enjoy friendly debate, and it’s a particularly interesting topic for me, so it has made for some good discussion at times. I’ve never sought to change X’s opinion, as I think each of us really does have a right to our own point of view about such issues. However, I’ve come to realize that there’s really no point in my engaging her in these discussions. X is never going to even acknowledge the possibility of anything other than the Biblical account of creation, because it’s indelibly linked to her faith. I think she spends a lot of time explaining (and re-explaining) her viewpoint as a means of personal affirmation. It’s a way of trying to get the physical evidence to support her predetermined conclusions about God and faith. The Bible can’t be wrong about the creation story, because that means it’s fallible. Therefore, the evidence must be made to fit the Biblical account.That’s the difference between science and religion. Yes, the both require a modicum of faith, but at the end of the day, you’ve got to be able to acknowledge the possibility that your point of view is incorrect. As an agnostic, I can say it’s very likely that we currently don’t know all the facts, and we may never know. Is X prepared to say the same about her creationist beliefs? If not, then there’s really nothing to discuss.

  29. Jeffrey

    LOL! Yes Greg – I’ve been right there with you much if not all that time! I seem to recall that many of those discussions we all had revolved around trying to change each other’s opinions. So, I’ll disagree with you there. And I recall that very sad day you gave up! Quite dramatic! She finally wore you down. I, however, still have hope for X.

  30. Mandy

    I read your link, X, and I’m amazed. so not only are Evolutionists wrong but so are geologists, archaeologists and palaeontologists. Fossilization came about in a few thousand years? Carbon dating is out the window? And The Loch Ness Monster is proof that there are still Dinosaurs. I think not!

  31. X-Evolutionist

    @Mandy: You are making an assumption that all scientists agree with each other. That is not true. I have a lot of books linked on my website by scientists with evidence that is on my side of the fence:http://x-evolutionist.com/recommended-reading-books-with-scientific-evidence-that-god-existsThat's what changed my mind. But, like I said, I’m never going to change anybody’s mind. I just like to have my say and I also let you all have your say. X

  32. Mandy

    But the vast majority, agree with the basics. ie the age of the world (roughly) when dinosaurs roamed it, how long fossilisation takes. I applaud your faith X, but citing half a dozen books as scientific proof – is just that, Faith.Ps it’s been proven that there is no Loch Ness Monster.

  33. X-Evolutionist

    @Mandy: I have a lot more than half a dozen books linked on my website. Did you know that the ages of fossils were determined long before radiometric dating was invented? They used the belief in evolution to determine how long evolution took for that particular critter, and gave it that age. So, evolution proves evolution. That is not scientific. About the Loch Ness Monster, and many other critters around the world – Not seeing something does not mean it does not exist. X

  34. Greg

    That’s why I continue to believe in the magic shoe fairies.

  35. X-Evolutionist

    @Greg: It is Elves that help cobblers with the shoes, according to the Brothers Grimm…. Get your facts straight. (tee hee) X

  36. Mandy

    So the dozen or so, mainly proven to be FAKED photos, against completely sweeping the lake with the best available equipment (appr 600 sonar beams and satellite tracking) and finding nothing, bigger than a buoy?It’s as likley to be at the bottom of my garden, with Greg’s fairies!

  37. X-Evolutionist

    @Mandy: I’m just saying what I believe. I do not mind that you do not agree. X

  38. X-Evolutionist

    Mandy brought up an interesting point. Why fake evidence if something is true:http://x-evolutionist.com/why-are-there-evolution-frauds-if-evolution-is-a-proven-factX

  39. Mandy

    Actually I didn’t bring that point up at all! There is NO truth in the Myth of Loch Ness Monster Just a lot of FAKED photos!

  40. X-Evolutionist

    @Mandy: Sorry I was unclear in my statement. What you said just reminded me of something totally different: Why Are There Evolution Frauds if Evolution is a Proven Fact?http://x-evolutionist.com/why-are-there-evolution-frauds-if-evolution-is-a-proven-fact X

  41. Jeffrey

    Evolution is a leading theory – that’s all. The real issue here is the bible. And it’s flawed. Literal creation per the bible cannot be true because it conflicts with itself giving two different accounts of the same event. While I think he is a god, the Bill Gates quote is really not that impressive, but I sense that it moved you. In any event, I’m hoping it wasn’t quote mined. I say this because, well, a simple bing search shows that it is quoted quite frequently all over the place, and I expect poor Bill is having words put in his mouth. http://www.bing.com/search?q=In+terms+of+doing+things+I+take+a+fairly+scientific+approach+to+why+things+happen+and+how+they+happen.+I+don%27t+know+if+there%27s+a+god+or+not&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRCNonetheless, while the quote is stated in the past tense, it uses that strange word "ever" which shoots on into the future much like that word “everlasting” in your hell post – which you say isn’t even there! You’ll take you everlasting life to go please, but you can keep your everlasting punishment! If ever there was a case of wishful reading… LOL!So, for example, to say a movie is the best movie "ever" is only true until the next best movie comes along. So, will his statement be true in 2,000 years from now? Who knows? But I’m open to the possibility that it won’t be. In fact, any program that could simulate DNA would likely be as advanced and complex as DNA itself. And the way things are going we’ll probably be there someday soon. So, while he marvels, I wonder, how long till his statement is no longer true?

  42. Nigel

    Scientists: Just some dumb asshole like the rest of us trying to figure out life.

  43. X-Evolutionist

    @Nigel: I’ve never have seen the term "scientist" defined quite like that before. X

  44. X-Evolutionist

    @Jeffrey: I missed this post earlier, sorry. I find it interesting you only typed in part of the quote — you missed where Bill Gates says: "I think religious principles are quite valid". Here it is in context:"In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."X

  45. X-Evolutionist

    All in all, I think that DNA quote by Bill Gates is pretty impressive, especially coming from somebody who knows a thing or two about computer programs. X

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s