사람 세포 각각의 DNA에 들어있는 유전정보는 4,000 권의 책이 있는 도서관의 정보의 양과 동일하다.1 물질과 생명체(아마도 한 마리의 박테리아)가 어떻게든지 발생했다손 치더라도, 돌연변이와 자연선택으로 이러한 방대한 양의 정보가 만들어질 수 있는 가능성은 원천적으로 제로이다.2 4,000 권의 책이 만들어지기까지, 다음과 같은 과정들이 계속 일어났을 것이다.3
1) 의미없는 문장들이 만들어지기 시작한다.
2) 이 문장들을 복사한다. 그러나 몇몇 실수도 일어나고, 몇몇 글자들이 첨가된다.
3) 이 새로운 문장이 의미가 있는지를 검사한다.
4) 만약 새로운 문장이 의미가 있다면, 그것이 원래의 문장을 대체한다.
5) 다음 문장을 만드는 단계로 넘어간다.
(이러한 문장들이 모여 4,000 권의 책이 완성된다)
수년동안 진화론자들은 'junk DNA'(쓰레기 DNA, 목적이 없는 DNA로 추정하는)와 같은 DNA의 코드화되지 않은 부분에 주목했다. 지금 우리는 이 'junk' 가 유전자 스위치의 온, 오프를 결정하는 것과 같은 결정적인 기능을 수행함을 알게 되었다. 'junk DNA' 라는 용어는 과거의 무지를 나타내고 있다.4 한 생물체의 효소들(enzymes)을 (우연히) 만들기 위해서는 1040,000 의 시도가 요구될 것이다. (1040,000 의 크기는, 눈에 보이는 우주는 1080 보다 적은 원자들로 구성되어 있다는 것으로 알 수 있다.)
References and Notes
1. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. [See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.]
Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 1014 cells. Somewhat less than 1,000 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to its 4,000 books, it would fill the Grand Canyon 78 times
The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one person’s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.
The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 x 10-12 grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever lived - enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in excruciating and microscopic detail - would weigh only
less than the weight of one aspirin.
2.'Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.
'No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.” Ibid., p. 148.
'From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’, the beckoning spectre.” Ibid., p. 150.
'Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.” Ibid., p. 141.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe go on to say that our own intelligences must reflect some sort of vastly superior intelligence, 'even to the extreme idealized limit of God.” They believe life was created by some intelligence somewhere in outer space and later was transported to Earth. [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 144.
*'All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996), p. 138.
3. Murray Eden, as reported in 'Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.
*'It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws?physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, 'Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
4.'But scientists have discovered many riches hidden in the junk, and as the [genome] project nears completion, several researchers predict that some of the most intriguing discoveries may come from areas once written off as genetic wastelands. Included among the noncoding DNA, for example, are the crucial promoter sequences, which control when a gene is turned on or off. ... The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.” Gretchen Vogel, 'Why Sequence the Junk?” Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.
5.'The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2,000 = 1040,000 an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.
'Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 1040,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 1040,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” Ibid., p. 130.
After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Fred Hoyle, 'Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.