JC's Blog

God Is On Facebook

2012-01-20T20:39:00.003-05:00

I know, He doesn't have a profile with "Work and Education", "Philosophy", "Arts and Entertainment" interests, etc. He doesn't have a friends list or photo albums; but He definitely IS on Facebook.

When Christian friends share their hopes, concerns, blessings, problems, questions, and opinions on Facebook -- whenever the Bible is quoted or referenced, then God's viewpoint is heard. Sometimes it is a doctrinal issue that is discussed, and obviously God's Word must predominate. But it can be ANY kind of situation that comes our way along life's journey, and there is always something in God's Word to provide guidance and a foundation for understanding and dealing with the situation.

God's Word itself claims that it is relevant for all kinds of things:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

"...the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4)

"Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. And take ... the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6:13, 17)

"I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation." (Psalm 119:99)

I have found that when there are discussions (yes, even arguments) on Facebook, it is often just one opinion vs. another opinion. And when I feel the urge to offer my opinion, I think, "Why should they listen to me? I'm just another opinion. I'm not an authority." Then my mind turns to The Authority, The Creator, The Lord of Lords and King of Kings (MY Lord, my Creator, and my Authority), the One that challenged Job with questions like these --

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements?" (Job 38:4-5)
"Who has put wisdom in the mind? Or who has given understanding to the heart?" (Job 38:36)
"Does the hawk fly by your wisdom, and spread its wings toward the south? Does the eagle mount up at your command, and make its nest on high?" (Job 39:26-27)

-- and many others in chapters 38 and 39 of Job.

And so I quote the Bible, and let God interject His opinion into the conversation. And I encourage others to do the same, and many do, without my encouragement.

And so, God is on Facebook.

When I Disappear

2011-09-29T09:41:00.002-04:00

If you find that I, and many other Bible-believing Christians, have disappeared from the earth, leaving behind all our earthly possessions, even the clothes we wear, you will wonder what has happened. What has happened is the Rapture (snatching away) of believers that the Bible has predicted. Believers that have died will be resurrected and joined by those alive, all receiving new bodies in an instant, meeting Jesus in the air and going to heaven with Him.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 --
“For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep [dead].
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 --
“Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed --
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

We believe this will happen shortly before God pours out His wrath to judge the earth, because the Bible says:

1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 --
“For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.“

Those resurrected and raptured will include all those that trust that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is entirely sufficient to pay for all their sins, not relying on anything that they do; not those that call themselves 'Christian', but follow the traditions of men rather than the Word of God, the Bible.

Some time later (perhaps a few weeks), a leader in Europe will come to prominence and confirm a covenant with Israel for seven years, bringing peace to the world. He will be welcomed as the Messiah by many 'Christian' leaders, and as the Mahdi by Muslim leaders, but the Bible says he is the Antichrist (false Messiah) and also calls him “the beast”, and the Bible calls the leader of the 'Christian' world that endorses him the “false prophet”. The real Messiah (Jesus Christ) will not come to the earth until after the seven years. In the middle of the seven years, the Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel, and world calamities will increase greatly as never before, as God judges the earth. The Antichrist will do miraculous things, but he is controlled by Satan, not God.

It will be far better to trust the real Jesus and die (but have eternal life after resurrection) than to worship the image of the Antichrist or to accept the mark that the Antichrist will require:

Revelation 13:15-17 --
“He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,
17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Revelation 14:9b-11 --
“If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Revelation 20:4b --
“Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.”

As Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 --

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Call on the name of Jesus (the name means savior) for salvation:

Romans 10:13 --
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Ephesians 2:8-9
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that [grace] not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

If you read this before the Rapture, trust Jesus now to save you.

If you have questions, see http://www.GotQuestions.org .

Science and the Bible

2011-07-27T17:40:00.002-04:00

A Christian friend asked me, "What are the boundaries between all science theories and the Bible? As a Christian, to me, the Bible is the truth. So what position and conclusion do we give to these theories?"

That's an interesting question, and I'll try to answer it here.

A Christian scientist (not the cult that calls themslves that) realizes that he is examining God's creation. The facts never contradict the Bible, but give glory to God. It is the theories that are sometimes the problem. When the theories are based on non-biblical principles, the Christian should doubt them. So we must know what is the basis for the theories and put biblical principles first.

In my blog, Thinking Outside the Box, I said "Evolutionists don't want to think outside the box of materialism." They like the definition of science as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world", because materialists believe that everything is material, and that science explains everything.

But there is a broader definition of science: "a study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". Science actually includes immaterial things like information, and abstract mathematical concepts.

And Christians know that there is a spiritual realm that is part of God's creation, but beyond the reach of science. And of course, God is also beyond the reach of science, because He exists outside of His creation. Yet He can reach inside His creation to communicate with His creatures and to intervene in our affairs. The epitome of that was when He made himself a human body in the womb of a virgin, and putting aside His power and glory for a while, indwelt that body as Jesus.

So Christians see science as an incomplete study of God's creation -- we can study some parts in enough detail that we can partly understand and thus enjoy and use.

We realize that science doesn't explain everything. We don't even claim that it potentially could explain everything, given enough time for study. We realize that there are things outside the scope of science, even important things that our Creator has revealed to us.

The Bereans were commended for comparing the apostle Paul's preaching to the Scriptures, to check whether they should believe what he said (Acts 17:10-11). And Christians today should also check Bible teachers against the Bible. Likewise, Christians should check scientific ideas against God's Word, knowing that science is incomplete and developed by fallible men, but the Bible was inspired by God. In fact, scientific theories should also be checked against scientific facts, because some theories are inspired by political or philosophical agendas.

Thinking Outside the Box

2011-07-08T17:07:00.005-04:00

Synopsis
First, I'll explain how, I think, the expression "thinking outside the box" originated. Then I'll give two examples of how great strides in math / science / engineering were accomplished by "thinking outside the box". But the most important point that I want to make is that evolutionists are stuck inside the box of materialism because they are afraid to think outside the box. I discuss a vibrating string as an example of the limitations of materialism. Outside the box of materialism (but not outside science) is information theory, and in particular, the structured information of design. Here, the evolutionists are "out of their element".

The Puzzle
I think that the expression "thinking outside the box" was inspired by the following puzzle. You are presented with an array of nine spots arranged as shown below on the left, and are challenged to draw a sequence of four connected straight lines such that they will pass over all of the spots, touching each spot only once. The lines must be connected end-to-end, and are allowed to cross over each other, for example, as shown on the right.

It was reported that the puzzle is difficult for most people because they mentally think of the array of nine spots as defining a square area as depicted in the next diagram, and they assume that the puzzle operates within this area.

The puzzle does not require the lines to stay inside this assumed 'box'. Adding this restriction prevents a solution, because the puzzle solution must go "outside the box", as shown next.

Science and mathematics have grown by "thinking outside the box".

Imaginary Numbers
For example, it was once thought that it was meaningless to speak of the square root of a negative number. It could be proved, for example, that the square root of minus one, if it had a value, could not equal any known numeric value. But if we IMAGINE that it had a value -- call this value 'i' (for Imaginary) -- then, logically, we could compute the square root of any other negative number. The square root of -9 would equal the square root of 9 (that is, 3) times i. So 3i would be an "imaginary" number, while 4 is a "real" number.

But then it was reasoned that we could think of these out-of-the-box numbers as newly discovered numbers rather than "imaginary" numbers. We could even add "real" and "imaginary" numbers to create "complex" numbers. It all made sense (it didn't lead to contradictions), and it opened up a new world of mathematical discovery. At first, it appeared that this branch of mathematics was an abstract, theoretical-only world unrelated to the physical world; but scientists and engineers found that it could precisely describe the behaviour of resonant electronic circuits. Our modern electronic devices could not be designed without the aid of this out-of-the-box mathematics.

Finite Numbers
I'll give one more example from mathematics and engineering, but I'll keep it extremely simple. We are all familiar with doing arithmetic with integers (whole numbers), and we know that we have an infinite supply of integers, because no matter how large an integer we might be given, we can always add one to it and get a larger integer. Wouldn't it be weird if we had a finite supply of numbers, and no matter what arithmetic operation (add, subtract, multiply, or divide) we did with any two of them, the result would be found in our finite supply of numbers? Well, mathemeticians have discovered how to construct a finite set (of any size) of 'numbers' with associated arithmetic operations that operate like this. (They are called finite fields, a kind of finite algebras. Math geeks, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ring.html) The arithmetic is weird, but easy to learn to do in most cases.

Like the "imaginary" numbers, these weird systems of arithmetic seem like mathematical toys or games that bear no resemblance or relationship to the real world. Why don't we stick to normal math that describes how the real world operates? But engineers have used this weird math to construct codes used to detect and correct errors that occur in the communication or storage of digital data. For example, CDs and DVDs would not function without Reed-Solomon error-correction codes, which are based on these "finite fields".

The Box of Materialism
Evolutionists don't want to think outside the box of materialism. One of the definitions of science (from dictionary.com), is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation", which limits the scope of science to the material world.

Of course, evolutionists have a problem with the "observation" part, because nobody has observed genetic changes from one kind of creature to a completely different kind (such as dog to horse, rather than dog to another kind of dog). So they mostly content themselves with inferring (by theory) past events from current observations.

And of course, evolutionists also have a problem with the "experimentation" part, because a true experiment requires control over the conditions of the experiment. Their experiments only show things such as that one can breed flies just like one can breed dogs, not major changes of kind. Even by broadening the concept of experiment so that "predictions" can be made and tested regarding past events fails. For example, evolution predicts that there should be millions of intermediate forms ("missing links"), but none are found.

But the evolutionist argues, and rightly so, that the creationist also has similar problems with the "observation" and "experimentation" parts of the definition of science, and thus feels that he is on a 'level playing field' with his game of 'my story is more plausible than your story'. (He considers this story-telling to be "science", but if it weren't based on a theological / philosophical battle, it would be called "science fiction" instead.)

But the evolutionist thinks that the "physical or material world" part of the definition of science works to his advantage, because it rules out the supernatural, which is the essential part of the creationist's "theory". And, after all, his main objective is to rule out God. But is it honest to 'win' an argument by virtue of a definition?

Vibrating String Example
Consider, for example, the vibration of a guitar string. If we know certain characteristics of the string, we can apply the laws of physics by means of a branch of mathematics called differential calculus to determine how the string will vibrate, and the nature of the sound that it will produce. We need to know:

(1) the weight (such as ounces per foot) of the string
(2) the tension (such as pounds of force) of the string
(3) the length (between fixed points: a fret and the bridge) of the string

These, which can all be measured, suffice to compute the 'steady state' vibration of the string. To determine the initial 'transient' component of the vibration that quickly fades before settling into the 'steady state', we would also need to know if the string were plucked or struck, and where on the string. To know the intial amplitude and how quickly the vibration will fade, we would also need to know how hard the string was plucked or struck, and other details.

So by observing (measuring) a guitar string, we can use science to predict precisely what will happen when we pluck the string. But what if we are not in control?

First, we have a 'future' problem. We might observe the string vibrating and make a prediction, only to find that the guitarist (the one in control) stops the vibration, without our permission, before our prediction can be fulfilled.

Second, we have a 'past' problem. If our observation of the string began after the 'transient' component of the vibration has faded, we will have insufficient data to determine when the vibration started, and we will be unable to determine if it were plucked or struck, or were given its inital energy some other way.

Note that our problem, essentially, is not that the guitarist is a material object too complex for us to analyze, but rather that the guitarist has a mind outside of the scope of our observation and control. If the guitarist were a robot, our problem would be difficult, but not impossible.

So what do we learn from this vibrating string parable?

We realize that the size and age of the material world makes nearly all of it beyond the scope of our observation and control. And science that is limited by definition to apply only to the material world is, by definition, limited in its application. Defining this box does not prove that there is nothing outside the box. If there is a Creator outside the box who is ultimately in control, and if you want to be the one in control, you may be inclined to hide inside your box, but you can't make God go away.

A Broader Definition of Science
Dictionary.com gives a broader definition of science, one that precedes the definition that we quoted earlier: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." So more generally, science is not limited to material things, but anything that can be studied "systematically" such that it can be explained in terms of "the operation of general laws". For greater clarity, "mathematical sciences" is mentioned, indicating that there should be sufficient precision that the language and methods of mathematics can be applied.

So what is immaterial that can be included in this broader definition of science? Information is immaterial, and is studied systematically and operates in accordance with specific laws with sufficient precision so that the language and methods of mathematics are applied. This area of science consists of information theory and related theories of formal languages, algorithms, etc., and the corresponding applied science consists of the technologies of information storage, communication, and processing.

In a previous blog, ALL Things, I made the case that the material world consists of four interrelated elements: matter, energy, space, and time. Then in a later blog, Is Encoded Information an Essential Part of the Universe?, I made the case that encoded information is an optional fifth element, not required by the laws of physics, but nonetheless present where (and only where) life is present. The reason why information is found only where life is found is that the design paradigm of life is chemistry guided by DNA information, as I explained in the blog, Life is more than chemistry. Without the guiding information, chemistry can only make inorganic molecules. DNA information is needed to make organic molecules, which are much larger and more complex. (Some simple molecules such as certain amino acids are traditionally classified as 'organic' if they are used as components of large organic molecules, but that is like listing raw iron as a machine part, along with the nuts, bolts, and cotter pins.)

Information Outside the Box
Before the functions of DNA and RNA, and the genetic code were discovered, evolutionists could take advantage of the mystery of genetics to tell imaginative stories of how evolution might operate. But these discoveries irreversibly brought information theory into the scientific arena of the creationism / evolutionism debate. Just as someone caught in a lie feels forced to tell new lies or to modify the first lie to maintain credibilty, the evolutionists felt compelled to change their story; and just as a gang of liars are not likely to agree except on their innocence, the evolutionists don't agree except that God is not involved.

Some evolutionists insist that there is no information in DNA and RNA, as though closing their eyes will make the information bogeyman go away. Some insist that information theory is not a valid science (because information is not material). Some claim that information can come from nothing, or from randomness (which is zero information according to information theory), attempting to prove this by equating patterns and information. And some claim that new information can be generated by random re-arrangements of scraps of information, as though it were possible that if you scrambled parts of the Koran long enough, you might end up with the Bible. Even those that admit that information always originates from intelligence deny that God is a plausible source of that intelligence, but prefer an "extraterrestrial" source, replacing the question "How did life information originate on earth?" with the question "How did life information originate on planet X?" (Do I need to explain the fallacy of that logic?)

So the evolutionists that dare to wander outside the box of materialism either flounder like someone diving into water without learning to swim first, or they retreat to the more comfortable zone of materialism.

But that is only the beginning of the problems for the materialists. The information in DNA is not just information, but more specificly, DESIGN information. And here the evolutionists are completely lost in an unfamiliar world. Most of the contributors to the science of intelligent design have a background in the applied science of engineering, because this is familiar territory that they understand.

Structured Information (Top-Down Design) Outside the Box
The key to understanding the evolutionary problem is that design information is structured information. Let me give a simple example to make this clear. In a book, whether fiction or nonfiction, letters are arranged to make words, words arranged to make phrases, phrases arranged to make clauses, clauses arranged to make sentences, sentences arranged to make paragraphs, and paragraphs arranged to make make chapters. Does any author start with letters and play with different sequences to make words, etc., finally making chapters? No, the author starts with an array of related concepts, and starts at some high level of organization and works downward, finally working out the details of how best to arrange a sentence and how to spell the words. Rarely does the author accomplish the final work in one pass, but each revision starts with a new concept at some level and works downward.

Does a designer start with an assortment of parts, like a box of legos, and wonder what he might do with them? No, he starts with a concept, such as using suction to remove household dirt, and designs a vaccuum cleaner "top down", as designers like to say. He may begin with a simple set of features, and add features such as exchangeable attachments, but additions and revisions are always "top down". For example, when he decides that he needs a hose to connect attachments to the vaccuum pump, he first determines its desired properties (lightweight, flexible, does not collapse like a fire hose, etc.) and then works out the details, such as using a wire coil to keep the hose from collapsing.

Unlike the book example, a design typically mixes different technologies. For example, the engineer needs to choose appropriate materials, and so depends on experts in metallurgy, plastics, etc. Or he needs a motor, and orders one meeting his specications designed by a specialist.

Living things, even single-celled organisms, are likewise complex designs, systems made of subsystems that are made of sub-subsystems, etc. And they mix mechanical, chemical, electrical, communication, etc. 'technologies' to acheive coordinated purposes.

So, the evolutionist, in re-telling his story to adapt to the undeniable presence of design, imagines that accidental genetic changes can modify designs to make new designs. But experienced designers recognize this as "bottom-up" design: that is, a foolish, unworkable strategy. Fiddling with the details never makes a truly new design; it only 'tunes up' or adjusts a design.

For example, the first television sets had about a dozen adjustment knobs in front, which was dangerous, because people that had no clue about the internal technology would fiddle with them with disasterous results. It took a while for the engineers to design automatic adjustment mechanisms to replace all of those knobs except for the channel selector and the volume control. But note that a billion adjustment knobs on the television will never suffice to make it function like a cell phone or a vaccuum cleaner.

Complex systems generally require many automatic adjustment mechanisms. And that is exactly what scientists observe in biology. Genetic adjustment (adaptation) is just one category of these mechanisms. So species are designed to adapt to environmental changes, and we can influence the process by breeding (outside intelligence). But breeding dogs to make horses takes a leap of imagination, and supposing that inorganic matter can turn into human beings with no outside intelligence in something less than an eternity takes a enormous leap of faith.

So if and when evolutionists dare to wander outside the box of materialism, they are likely to discover that evolution is a religion, after all, not a science. That is, if they are willing to be honest with themselves.

Origami Water Lilly and Lilly-Pad

2011-05-10T19:42:00.133-04:00

Overview

This blog article provides instructions for folding origami Water Lillies and Lilly-Pads designed by Jim Clark. It is a modular design: each lilly is made of 6 squares of various sizes plus two octagons of slightly differing sizes. The lilly-pad is made of one square. The design is not pure origami, because there is some use of glue and cutting, but origami is the main method.

I used photos of real water lillies such as this > one as a guide to the design. Some water lillies have wider petals than this.

(Click on any photo here to see a larger copy.)

I made two table centerpieces like the one in < this photo. Each centerpiece had three lillies, one lilly-pad, and one 'puddle'. The blue foil of the 'puddle' simulates water by providibg a reflection of the lillies. I didn't include photo instructions for the 'puddle' because it is so simple and almost obvious. You start by folding the corners of a square of foil underneath, two opposite corners more than the other two, to approximate an oval shape; then fold more corners under to get a smoother, rounded shape.

In the instructions, I provide recommended sizes and colors, but you can vary these as you like after you learn the design.

The Water Lilly (Skip to Lilly Pad)

Here > is the origami water lilly. It has 24 petals and about 200 or more stamens in the center. It is made from 6 white squares of various sizes (white on both sides), and 2 yellow octagons (yellow on both sides).

< For the petals, you need squares of 5.25, 5.0, 4.5, 4.0, 3.5, and 3.25 inches on a side; 6 squares, or 1 of each size. Use the 'A' design for the 2 smallest squares, and the 'B' design for the 4 largest squares. The 'AB' steps are for both 'A' and 'B' designs.

Four-Petal Unit ('A' and 'B' Petal Designs)

AB1. Valley-fold the two diagonals, and mountain-fold in half (twice) parallel to the sides, like this >

< AB2. Fold flat into a square shape (preliminary base) like this. (After this, the A and B designs differ. Go to A3 or B3. For the center of the lilly, start at C1. For a lilly-pad, start at P1.)

'A' Petal Design

A3. > Raise one 'wing' and fold another wing up against it like this. The narrow end of the new triangle must be toward the open corner. Using the raised wing as a guide prevents the folded wing from going past the center. We want a small gap at the center.

< A4. Repeat A3 on the other side. There should be a small gap at the center.

A5. > Turn the model over and repeat A3-A4 on the remaining 2 wings to get this. Then unfold to AB2 and flex all the creases made in A3-A5 both ways.

< A6. Push the model into this shape.

A7. > Fold the top and bottom edges inward on existing creases.

< A8. Push the left and right sides together, like this.

A9. > Hold the 2 wings that were folded narrower and pull apart to get this.

< A10. Fold the top and bottom edges inward on existing creases (as in A7) to get this. Then swing the left and right ends together.

A11. > This paper form with 4-way symmetry is called a bird base, because it's often used to fold birds. (But sometimes fish are folded from a bird base and birds from a fish base.) I'll call the 4 bottom points 'legs', the top point 'head', and the 4 side points 'shoulders'.

< A12. Pull 2 opposite 'legs' past the 'head' as far as they can go, and flatten. Each new crease will be between 2 'shoulder' points.

A13. > With one 'leg' point raised, fold the 'head' point to the center of the crease at the base of the raised 'leg', like this. Then unfold, flatten, turn the model over and repeat from the other side.

< A14. Returning to the A11 position, notice the creases made by step A12. (In this view, notice the crease between 'shoulder' points on the right side, but no similar crease on the left.) Turn the model and repeat step A12 to get 2 more creases between 'shoulder' points. Also, fold the 'head' point both ways as in A13 in this position.

A15. > Returning to the A11 position, flatten the paper around the 'head' point along the creases made by the folding the 'head' point in step A13, forming a flat square on existing creases, like this. (This prepares for a 'sink' fold.)

< A16. Now, the sink fold: Push down on the diagonals of the new square and push inward the middles of the sides of the square, making all folds on existing creases.

A17. > Flatten the sink fold, like this.

< A18. Raise 2 opposite 'legs' as in step A12, and fold each raised leg in half, to get this position.

A19. > Holding one of the raised 'legs' in its folded-in-half shape. pull it half-way back to line up with 2 'shoulder' points, like this. Check that the pivot point inside is at a crease intersection. This makes the creases shown in view A20. Repeat on the other raised 'leg'.

< A20. Returning to the A17 position, the new creases form an up-side-down V crossing the vertical and horizontal creases, as seen here. Rotate the model to repeat step A19 on the remaining 2 'legs'.

A21. > The model has 4 'sides', each with one 'leg' point and 2 'shoulder' points. Flatten one side, then flatten a second nearby side so that its left shoulder lands on the center crease of the first side, as shown here.

< A22. Holding the alignment of sides 1 and 2 (pointing left and down in this view), align side 3 (pointing right here) with side 2 in a similar way. (The sink fold in the center will begin to open.)

A23. > Align side 4 with side 3 in a similar way. (The sink fold in the center will open more.)

< A24. Open the sink fold completely and flatten. (I 'iron' it with the back of a fingernail.) This forms a square 'button' at the center.

A25. > Raise one of the 'shoulder' points up against the nearest edge of the square 'button', creasing it along the edge of the square, like this.

< A26. The 'shoulder' point should land on the center of the square. Part the paper from the center of the square to the corner of the square, but allow the paper to be curled past the corner, like this.

A27. > Lift the side of the square button and slip the new fold under the button, like this.

< A28. Repeat steps A25 through A27 on the remaining 3 'shoulder' points to get this. (The curled areas will be creased later.) These are four petals.

A29. > The bottom side looks like this.

< A30. Looking at the bottom, mountain-fold a petal on two angled creases while valley-folding on the center crease from where the angled creases meet to the center of the model. The angle of the new creases should be sharper for the smaller squares (inner petals) to make these petals stand higher, and should be blunter for the larger squares (outer petals) to make these petals lean out more.

A31. > Repeat step A30 on the remaining 3 petals to get this (bottom view).

< A32. Top view of a set of 4 petals. Press the curled paper areas against the creases made in step A30. Curl each petal so that it is curved rather than simply folded on its center line.

A33. > To make a set of inner (smaller) petals stand more erect, form a cup with your fist, and stuff the petals into the cup; then put a finger inside and smooth the paper against the cup (inside of fist). Skip to step AB35.

'B' Petal Design

< B3. Fold (softly) a wing over and past the center line so that the top surface and the exposed surfaces on the left have equal angles (3 x 30 degrees = 90). Do not press down hard on the new crease yet.

B4. > Fold the wing on the other side over the first wing. Adjust so that the first (bottom) wing is tucked close to the crease of the second wing, and the second wing NEARLY reaches the crease of the first wing. After adjusting, press down hard on both new creases.

< B5. Fold the raw edge of each wing back to the previous crease. There should be a small gap at the center.

B6. > Turn the model over and repeat B3-B5 on the remaining 2 wings to get this. Then unfold to AB2 and flex all the creases made in B3-B6 both ways.

< B7. Push the model into this shape.

B8. > At the top, fold inward on the existing crease closest to the center of the paper (back), then fold outward on the existing crease farthest from the center of the paper (front).

< B9. Repeat B8 on the bottom.

B10. > Push the left and right sides together, like this.

< B11. Hold the 2 wings that were folded narrower and pull apart to get this.

B12. > Fold the top and bottom edges inward on the existing creases closest to the center of the paper, then fold outward on the existing creases farthest from the center of the paper (as in B8 and B9) to get this.

< B13. This modification of the bird base I call a 'skinny bird base'. (I haven't tried folding skinny birds yet.) I'll call the 4 bottom points 'legs', the top point 'head', and the 4 side points 'shoulders'.

B14. > Pull 2 opposite 'legs' past the 'head' as far as they can go (but don't pull too hard!), and flatten. Each new crease will NOT be between 2 'shoulder' points, as for the unmodified bird base. Instead, the folding is limited by lower points ('armpits'?!), so be careful.

< B15. With one 'leg' point raised, fold the 'head' point to the center of the crease at the base of the raised 'leg', like this. Then unfold, flatten, turn the model over and repeat from the other side.

B16. > Returning to the B13 position, notice the creases made by step B14. (In this view, notice the crease on the right side below the shoulder points, but no similar crease on the left.) Turn the model and repeat step B14 to get 2 more creases between 'shoulder' points. Also, fold the 'head' point both ways as in B15 in this position.

< B17. Returning to the B13 position, flatten the paper around the 'head' point along the creases made by the folding the 'head' point in step B15, forming a flat square on existing creases, like this. (This prepares for a 'sink' fold.)

B18. > Now, the sink fold: Push down on the diagonals of the new square and push inward the middles of the sides of the square, making all folds on existing creases.

< B19. Flatten the sink fold, like this.

B20. > Raise 2 opposite 'legs' as in step B14, and fold each raised leg in half, to get this position.

< B21. Holding one of the raised 'legs' in its folded-in-half shape. pull it half-way back to line up with the crease used to raise the 'leg', like this. Check that the pivot point inside is at a crease intersection. This makes the creases shown in view B22. Repeat on the other raised 'leg'.

B22. > Returning to the B19 position, the new creases form an up-side-down V crossing the vertical and horizontal creases, as seen here. Rotate the model to repeat step B21 on the remaining 2 'legs'.

< B23. For EACH of the FOUR 'V' creases, continue one side of the V over to a 'shoulder' point by creasing like this.

B24. > The model has 4 'sides', each with one 'leg' point and 2 'shoulder' points, and a 'cross' crease that is used whenever the side is raised (prominent in view B19). Flatten one side, then flatten a second nearby side so that its 'cross' crease aligns with the center crease of the first side.

< B25. Holding the alignment of sides 1 and 2 (pointing left-down and down-right in this view), align side 3 (pointing right-up here) with side 2 in a similar way. (The sink fold in the center will begin to open.)

B26. > Align side 4 with side 3 in a similar way. (The sink fold in the center will open more.)

< B27. Open the sink fold completely and flatten. (I 'iron' it with the back of a fingernail.) This forms a square 'button' at the center.

B28. > Raise one of the 'shoulder' points up against the nearest edge of the square 'button', creasing it along the edge of the square, like this.

< B29. Lift the side of the button and fold the shoulder point under the button, like this.

B30. > Repeat steps B28 and B29 on the remaining 3 'shoulder' points to get this. These are four petals.

< B31. The bottom side looks like this.

B32. > Looking at the bottom, mountain-fold a petal on two angled creases while valley-folding on the center crease from where the angled creases meet to the center of the model. The angle of the new creases should be sharper for the smaller squares (inner petals) to make these petals stand higher, and should be blunter for the larger squares (outer petals) to make these petals lean out more.

< B33. Repeat step B32 on the remaining 3 petals to get this (bottom view).

B34. > Top view of a set of 4 petals. Curl each petal so that it is curved rather than simply folded on its cemter line. Press inward at each notch between petals, blunting each corner of the square button.

Petal Assembly

AB35. Stack the 4-petal units, starting with the smallest (on top) and proceeding to the largest, using glue on the central square between units.

< Here we show the first 2 (smallest) units. Notice that the gaps between petals at top, bottom, left, and right are a little larger than the other 4 gaps. This slight assymetry or 'imperfection' provides a more natural look. The petals of the next (3rd) unit (underneath) should be placed approximately at the larger gaps. The petals of the 4th unit should be placed under the smaller gaps seen here. In general, each set of petals should be placed approximately under the largest gaps currently seen. (See the view of the finished water lilly.)

Lilly Center

C1. > For the center of the lilly, use 2 squares of a contrasting color (color on both sides of the paper). One square should about 1/16 inch more than 2 inches on a side, and the other about 1/16 inch less than 2 inches on a side. Cut enough off of each corner that the all 8 sides are approximately equal (octagon). Draw a circle in the middle with a diameter about 1/3 of the width of the paper. A lipstick container or toothpaste cap may be the right size to make a smooth circle. (The circle will be hidden later.)

< C2. Cut slivers as narrow as you can all around, from the edge of the paper to the edge of the circle. Each sliver will be wider at the outside end and narrow at the inner end. Aim the scissors towards the center of the circle, and watch the circle edge for spacing the cuts. Don't worry if 2 or 3 slivers fall off; you can easily get over 100 slivers.

C3. > Stack the smaller octagon on top of the larger one, with the drawn circles hidden between them, and a spot of glue between them, and with the octagon corners NOT aligned (for a more natural, random look).

< C4. Bend all the slivers toward the side with the smaller unit, and pinch the circular edge all around to get a good crease.

C5. > Holding the center with one hand, stir the slivers (stamens) into random positions by pushing them up and down and sideways repeatedly.

< C6. Form a cup shape. Some water lillies have a noticable hole in the middle of the stamens, like this.

C7. > Some water lillies have a barely noticable hole in the middle of the stamens, like this. Glue the stamens unit in the center of the lilly. For a tiny hole, you may need the eraser end of a pencil to press the stamens unit down until the glue sets.

Lilly Pad

< P1. For a lilly-pad, start with a 7 to 8.5 inch square of green paper. Mine is green on both sides, but you can use paper that is green on one side only.

P2. > Fold in half parallel to an edge, like this. If green on one side only, the green should be inside here.

< P3. Fold the bottom-left and top-left corners of the top layer over to the center of the right folded edge. Two raw edges should land on the folded edge on the right, and two raw edges should meet in the middle.

P4. > Turn over and repeat step P3 on the other side.

< P5. Unfold the first fold, and you have a blintz base. (Named after the Jewish pastry that is folded this way.)

P6. > Mountain-crease as shown here, by twice folding one side over to the opposite side and unfolding.

< P7. Make a valley crease by bringing two mountain creases together. Do on opposite sides, as shown here.

P8. > Rotate the model 90 degrees and repeat step P7 to get a total of 4 valley creases equally spaced around the center.

< P9. Using the end-points of the last valley creases as a guide, fold the 4 corners toward the center. Each new crease starts at an end-point of one of the previous valley creases, and the corner should land on a diagonal.

P10. > Turn the previous corner folds inside-out as shown here progressing clockwise:
9-o'clock - the original position;
12-o'clock - opened up;
3-o'clock - corner pushed in;
6-o'clock - closed (all folds on existing creases).

< P11. Do the process P10 on all 4 corners, like this. This side, with the 4 'cracks', is the bottom of the lilly-pad.

P12. > Here's the view from the opposite side. It is an octagon (8 equal sides). This side, with no 'cracks', is the top of the lilly-pad.

< P13. Bottom side up. For this step, consider each of the 8 sides to be each 4 units long. Fold each of the 8 corners inward, each fold extending 1 unit on each side of the corner. (The width of each fold is equal to the space between folds.)

P14. > Top side up. We now have a polygon of 16 sides, which nearly looks like a circle.

< P15. Open up two of the folds made in step P13 on either side of a 'crack'. Folding on existing creases, flatten an 'arrow-head'-shaped area, as shown here on the left, then push in the angle-dividing creases as shown on the right. (All folds are on existing creases.) Then pinch closed. These are called 'sink' folds.

P16. > The 2 sink folds seen edge-on. Do 3 more pairs of 2 sink folds, for a total of 8 sink folds.

< P17. Bottom-side view when all 8 sink folds are done.

P18. > Along one of the 4 'cracks' on the bottom, cut the top layer from the outside to the center.

< P19. Fold up on either side of the cut, from the edge of each nearby 'arrow-head' sink fold straight to the center.

P20. > Turn over, and reverse the folds made in step P19

< P21. Open up one side of the cut, and fold the paper inward on the recently made creases, like this. Notice the point at the right where the 2 new folds meet.

P22. > Step P21 seen from another viewpoint. Notice 2 small triangular surfaces next to the 'arrow-head' sink. Push this area toward the center of the model.

< P23. Seen from another viewpoint, the new point is swinging toward the center and will fit between the top and bottom layers.

P24. > Seen from this viewpoint, the new point has swung nearly inside, between the top and bottom layers. (It needs to be pushed a little more to the left.)

Repeat steps P21-P24 on the other side of the cut.

< P25. These white circles (from a paper punch) mark the locations where a SMALL drop of glue is needed -- not on top, but inside between the top and bottom layers. First check that the folds on either side of the cut are neatly tucked in. Do the glue spots near the center first.

P26. > Bottom-side view.

< P27. Top-side view. Water lilly pads usually have a waxy surface texture. To imitate this look, you can rub the finished lilly pad with a white or green candle.

'Rhombicized' Classic Origami

2011-05-06T17:03:00.024-04:00

This article is written for folders that are familiar with the basics of origami and the classic models such as the Crane and the Masu box -- and especially for folders that like to experiment.

Overview

I have recently experimented with some simple modifications of classic origami bases. First, I was developing a modular Water Lily design using bird bases, and I wanted more slender petals. So I modified the classic bird base to make what I call the "skinny bird base" (photo below).

Later, I was contemplating the classic Masu box, wondering if there was a way to make it rectangular. So I envisioned a rectangular Masu box, unfolded it in my mind, and found that I got a rhombus rather than a rectangle. I then verified the mental exercise with a physical experiment: I started with a rhombus and did all the same folds as I would use on a square to get a Masu box. The result was a rectangular tray, with a few surprises that I did not anticipate. The photo below shows two trays and a rhombus of the size and shape used for the trays.

This encouraged me to try folding other classic bases and designs using a rhombus instead of a square:

preliminary and water-bomb bases
blintz fold
fish base
bird base
classic crane
classic flapping bird
petal-topped container

I'm calling these "Rhombicized Classic Origami", and I am reporting my findings here. But first, let's return to the "skinny bird base".

The Skinny Bird Base

When making a bird base, one starts with a preliminary base and folds each 'wing' angularly in half. Two wings are shown folded in the photo at the right.

For the skinny version, each 'wing' is angularly folded in thirds. The first step is to fold a pair of wings over each other so that they divide the 90 degrees of the bottom corner in thirds, making three 30-degree angles, as shown in the photo at the left.

Then each wing is folded again at the center line, so that the 45 degrees of each wing is divided in thirds, making three 15-degree angles (stacked) for each wing, as shown in the photo below right.

As for the classic bird base, these folds are repeated behind, and all folds are converted to reverse folds, to obtain the skinny bird base (below left).

Notice that there are two corners instead of one on either side of each wing. The 'top' corner is easily seen on the outer layers, but the 'bottom' corner is below it on the inner layers. If a wing needs to be hinged upward, it cannot fold along a horizontal line joining the two outer top corners without tearing the paper. Instead the fold line must be between the two inner bottom corners. We will call this the 'hinge line'.

If a sink fold is needed at the top of the bird base (sometimes leading to a twist fold), the preparation for this sink fold should be to fold the top corner (central point) down to the center of the 'hinge line' as shown in the photo at the right. (The wing in front is hinged toward the viewer, and the wing behind is hinged to the right.)

Making a Rhombus

Like a square, a rhombus has four equal sides; but instead of having four corners with equal (90 degree) angles, two opposite corners have equal angles less than 90 degrees, and the other two corners have equal angles greater than 90 degrees. We will call these the 'sharp' corners and the 'blunt' corners.

To make a rhombus from a rectangle such as an 8.5 by 11 inch sheet of letter paper, fold the rectangle in half by bringing two opposite corners of the rectangle together, as shown in the photo at right. Then cut off the two triangular areas that are only one layer thick. Unfold the remaining two-layer-thick area, and you have a rhombus, already creased on the diagonal between its blunt corners. You can crease the other diagonal by bringing together the two blunt corners and bisecting the angles of the two sharp corners.

Folding the Rhombus

There are two different ways of adding two more creases after creasing the two diagonals:

On the left of the photo, the angles between the diagonals are bisected by bringing two half-diagonals together and creasing the paper between them. This folding method is appropriate when making a rhombicized bird base.

On the right of the above photo, each new crease is made by bringing one side of the rhombus over to align with the opposite side as shown in the photo at left. (See how the corners don't meet.) Each of these creases is parallel to two sides of the rhombus, and intersects the mid-points of the other two sides. This folding method is appropriate when making a rhombicized blintz fold, and also for dividing a rhombus into four similar rhombuses.

To make the blintz fold, fold each short edge of the top layer over to the folded edge, as shown in the photo at right, being careful not to go past the folded edge.

Turn over and repeat, then unfold the first (longest) fold.

Some Results

Here are the rhombicized bird base, blintz fold, and windmill base:

Notice that two wings of the rhombicized bird base are longer than the other two wings. Notice that the rhombicized blintz fold is rectangular. Notice that the rhombicized windmill base is shaped like a rhombus.

Here on the left are two fish bases, both folded from identical rhombuses.

The difference between these two fish bases is which diagonal of the rhombus is used as the central axis of the fish base. The 'tail' angle of one version is exactly half the 'head' angle of the other version.

Here on the right is the classic Masu box (left) and the rhombicized Masu box (right).

When making the rhombicized Masu box, the short sides must be closed last, because they are taller. The result of using existing creases to close the box is that the long sides lean outward.

Here on the left are two Cranes, both folded from identical rhombicized bird bases.

Recall that two of the wings of the rhombicized bird base are longer than the other two wings. The difference between the two cranes is which pair of wings of the bird base were used for the head and tail of the crane.

Here on the right is a rhombicized Flapping Bird.

The Petal-Topped Container can be made from any regular polygon. An easy polygon to use is an octagon, made by modifying a square. For the rhombicized version, we modify a rhombus in a similar way, getting an octagon that appears to inscribe an ellipse. The Petal-Topped Container is then folded from this 'elliptical' octagon. In the photo on the left, the rhombus for one container was made from an 8.5 x 11 inch rectangle, and the other from an 8.5 x 10 inch rectangle.

Advice for DIY Irreducible Complexity

2011-04-08T16:37:00.007-04:00

This is an addendum to the previous blog, "Do-It-Yourself Irreducible Complexity". Here I give advice to anyone who wants to construct, demonstrate, or experiment with the 4-stick weaving illustrated in the previous blog.

(1) To construct the 4-stick weaving, begin by holding a V in each hand, with the left-leaning stick on top for each V, as shown in the next photo. Keep your index fingers free, because you will need them later. That is, use the thumb and the lower three fingers to hold each V.

(2) Next, make a W by overlapping the two V's a bit, with the left side of the right V underneath the right side of the left V, as shown in the next photo.

(3) Next, pivot the V's, bringing the tip of the left side of the right V over the left side of the left V, and the left side of the right V over the right side of the left V, as shown in the next photo. The basic principle is that each stick will have an alternating over-under-over or under-over-under pattern.

(4a) Next, pivot the V's some more, bringing the two tips at the top of the configuration closer together. The tip coming from the right will naturally be on top, but you will need to reverse this. Here is where you need your index fingers. With your left index finger, push up on the middle of the left-most stick, and with your right index finger, push down on the middle of the right-most stick. Now, as you pivot the V's, the tip coming from the right can go under the tip coming from the left, as shown in the next photo.

(4b) BUT BEFORE letting go or putting it down, check that all six overlap 'joints' are secure and equally spaced. Because you can't let go yet, you need to use whatever fingers are closest to the joint that needs adjusting.

Extra Challenge

Those practiced with crafts such as origami will feel more comfortable using all fingers individually like this. If you have this kind of dexterity, you may want to accept the challenge of 'evolving' the design into the 5-stick weaving shown in the next photo. Or you can get a partner so that four hands can be used together. To truly emulate evolution, you must add the fifth stick without the configuration 'dying' (coming apart). And strictly speaking, you must do this without a plan (so I'm not giving you one), because evolution is supposed to be mindless and without even a goal, no less a plan. (So partners are not allowed to talk.)

If you succeed in assembling the 4-stick weaving, and especially if you could assemble the 5-stick weaving, you will have noticed that there is absolutely no way for the sticks to fall together this way. In fact, many simultaneous forces at very specific positions and directions and sequence were needed -- in other words, INFORMATION was needed.

An Abstract Analogy

This exercise also provides a rather abstract analogy of a problem encountered in biology. Proteins are made of peptide chains that are folded in specific ways, and often multiple folded chains are assembled into a working unit. Often, proteins cannot fold correctly without the help of a tool to guide or to correct the folding. Also, tools are often needed to assemble multiple-chain protein units. These tools are called chaperone proteins; and they are also used to disassemble and unfold proteins (for digestion, for example). So the DNA information defines not only the 'parts' but also the 'tools', with built-in 'assembly instructions'. When constructing a stick weaving, your hands are acting (abstractly) 'like' chaperone proteins, but the details are very different, of course.

Do-It-Yourself Irreducible Complexity

2011-04-06T22:56:00.007-04:00

This weaving of four sticks is irreducibly complex. You can't do it with less than four sticks. (By "it" I mean a construction that holds together: that if you pick up one stick, the others come with it.) Therefore you can't construct it one stick at a time.

It is held together by six overlapping 'joints'. ALL six are needed, because if you undo the overlap at ANY one of the six locations, the WHOLE thing falls apart. Therefore you can't construct it one joint at a time. You have to hold all four sticks in the right positions and force the last overlap WHILE also forcefully maintaining all other overlaps, thus applying forces in the right directions on ALL overlaps at once.

Try it yourself, and you will surely be convinced that shaking a bunch of sticks will NEVER make this, the simplest possible weaving of sticks. If you are still not convinced, try 'evolving' the 4-stick weaving into a 5-stick weaving without it 'dying' (coming apart). Better yet, try doing it without a plan in mind. For fun, invite your friends to watch or even help you do it, because it will be hilarious! (Did you guess that I have tried it?)

God's biological designs have LOTS of irreducibly complex components, often MORE complex than this. Evolutionary theory has NO WAY of explaining this. (But they are great story-tellers, and will PRETEND to explain it.)

More about Irreducible Complexity

The complexity of many designs can be reduced with the result that the design remains useful and functional, although the usefulness and functionality are reduced. For example, automatic adjustment features can usually be removed. A temperature control on a heater can be removed, for example, and it will still provide heat. It may be a nuisance to manually turn it off when there is too much heat and to turn it on later when more heat is needed, but it's better than no heater at all.

But there comes a point when removing parts does not simplify a design, but rather destroys it. If we remove the heating element from the heater, we might as well discard the entire heater. When we can find no way of reducing the complexity of a design without making it no longer suited for its fundamental purpose, the design has “irreducible complexity”. The concept was introduced in 1994 by Michael J, Behe and later (1996) in his book “Darwin's Black Box”. Actually, we have simplified the concept by talking only about parts, but things like shape and position of the parts are also important, as should be obvious in our first example. In general terms, 'critical characteristics' are counted rather than, or in addition to, just parts.

Example: The Knee Joint

An example of a biological design exhibiting irreducible complexity is the knee joint. The knee cap is an example of a part that can be eliminated, although this reduces safety and durability. It has been estimated that the knee joint has at least 16 critical characteristics, and these cannot tolerate much variation without destroying the design. Because of this, evolutionists have not been able to describe a step-by-step process whereby the simpler ball-and-socket joint can be converted to the more sophisticated knee joint. For more details, see “Is the ‘irreducible complexity argument still valid? (Critical characteristics and the irreducible knee joint)” by Stuart Burgess.

Example: A Molecular Motor/Generator

A much smaller example of a biological design exhibiting irreducible complexity is ATP Synthase, which is needed for all cells, plant or animal. ATP Synthase is a tiny 'motor/generator' that uses the energy of fuel to recharge tiny 'batteries' called ATP molecules, which transport the energy to wherever it is needed in the cell.

One scientist said “The enzyme is composed of 8 distinct peptide chains. If any one of the chains is missing, the enzyme does not function. So ATP synthase is an irreducibly complex system.” Another scientist considers the enzyme F1-ATPase, a subunit of ATP synthase, to be the essential motor. The F1-ATPase motor has nine components, (using five different proteins, two of which are used three times each). This motor is so tiny that 100,000,000,000,000,000 of them would be the size of a pinhead.

Another scientist said: “I am a biologist. Irreducible Complexity is actually a very sound argument against Darwin's theory of macroevolution. There's not a man alive that can demonstrate convincingly how, for example, the ATPase enzyme could have possibly evolved into its present form. If you can, you're up for the next Nobel prize.”

A Failed Evolutionist Argument

I recall debating an evolutionist on Facebook about whether the irreducible complexity argument proved that ATP Synthase was designed. He argued that ATP Synthase could be broken into two parts, each of which were already used elsewhere for other functions. I didn't question his premises about other functions. I answered that if his line of argument were valid, then an automobile isn't designed either, because the first automobile combined an engine design that previously was used in a factory with a buggy design that previously was pulled by a horse. I never heard from him again.

Even if he was correct about the two parts, at least one of the parts would be irreducibly complex, so he didn't dodge the problem like he thought he did.

If it was that easy to construct ATP Synthase, or even ATPase from two parts, then you could put those parts in a beaker and do an experiment and get a Nobel prize like the quoted biologist said. Why not? What is overlooked is that DNA provides the assembly instructions and tools for the construction of ATP Synthase (and all other biological designs). These complex protein subsystems do not assemble themselves without DNA instructions.

But here's another problem for which evolutionists have no solution. Evolutionists admit that ATP Synthase is needed for all cells, plant or animal. So how did plants and animals survive before ATP Synthase evolved? (Details, please. Don't tell me it just had to happen SOMEHOW because we just KNOW that evolution is true. I've heard that backward logic before.)

Another Failed Evolutionist Argument

As I said earlier, evolutionists are great story-tellers (but poor system engineers). Another evolutionist argument is that Hermann Joseph Müller had previously devised a scheme whereby complex system could evolve two steps at a time. The two steps are:

Step 1: Add a component;

Step 2: Make it necessary.

This simple description says nothing about the 'critical characteristics', which presumably are handled by modifying the proteins.) But if this is a valid explanation, this two-step cycle should work in practice, not just in a story made to sound like a theory. So let's try to use this method to make our simple 4-stick weaving, starting with one stick:

Step a1: Add a component. (Add 2nd stick)

Step a2: Make it necessary. Well, it's only one of three more necessary sticks, but it's not sufficient for the weaving. You could claim that you now have a pair of chopsticks, but a hand is needed for this 'system', because they won't feed you all by themselves.

Step b1: Add a component. (Add 3rd stick)

Step b2: Make it necessary. We really need to use our imaginations here. Make a triangle? Use it for what? Is it really a system? -- because they aren't connected, and can't stay together and hold any shape.

Step c1: Add a component. (Add 4th stick) Actually, we can't add the 4th stick without first arranging the first 3 sticks, which can't hold themselves together. And as explained earlier, or perhaps experimentally confirmed by the reader, we need to apply a specific set of forces on all sticks at the same time. These forces are totally unrelated to using two sticks as chopsticks or other hypothetical intermediate functions.

Step c2: Make it necessary. The completed design can fulfill a number of purposes. It can be used as a fence to prevent small animals from entering a pipe or hole. It can provide insulation between a hot mug of coffee and a table, etc.

Summary: We had a lot of problems and needed a lot of imagination trying to apply this method to one actual, SIMPLE design. Explain step by step how it works for a knee joint. Try for a Nobel prize – I dare you.

For advice on constructing, demonstrating, or experimenting with the 4-stick weaving, see Advice for DIY Irreducible Complexity.

Can Artificial Intelligence be Evolved?

2010-09-05T21:27:00.004-04:00

Now and then we see a claim that an evolutionary program has advanced the pursuit of artificial intelligence (AI). Because the degree of 'intelligence' is invariably minuscule compared to advances in AI using non-evolutionary methods, the report will typically use words such as "..evolved to produce basic intelligence" and "it is hoped that the discovery may in future.." That is, even though the 'intelligence' could be demonstrated by a pre-schooler, there is great hope of super-human intelligence down the road.

Usually the reports lack the detail required for critical review. Partly, this is justified because there is so much detail involved that it is not practical to publish everything. But usually there is not even complete disclosure at a functional level.

For example, suppose it is claimed that the 'artificial life-form' developed the use of memory. It could be that the simulated system was simply given the opportunity to do a task with or without memory, and it found that using memory led to greater success. Well, you don't need an evolutionary algorithm to do that. But without disclosing a functional description, the reader can be left with the impression that a memory mechanism was 'evolved'.

For many readers, AI is a great mystery, and the reader has no way to judge whether such reports are overly optimistic or not. So here I will try to remove much of the mystery by providing an overview without getting too deeply into the math and logic.

An Overview of AI

AI is a broad field of study, and not all researchers or developers have the same goals, nor use the same methods.

The process of intelligent thinking is generally described as having two parts: analysis (taking apart) and synthesis (putting together). Closely related to these, the terms induction (logically proceeding from the specific to the generic) and deduction (from generic to specific) are also used. Some AI efforts focus on analysis, some on synthesis, and some on both.

For example, one project focused on using highly abstract formal language to build a data base of 'expert knowledge' garnered from doctors (who did most of the analysis) to synthesize an 'artificial expert' to diagnose diseases, thus simulating a team of medical experts.

Fields of practical science generally have two sub-fields of endeavor: research and development. Research seeks to discover new principles and methods, and development seeks to find effective ways to use the new principles and methods to accomplish practical purposes. Some AI efforts focus on research, some on development, and some on both.

There is a wide variety of methods used to try to create artificial intelligence. Usually an AI project focuses on one method, but sometimes methods are combined. Some methods are attempts to mimic natural patterns or structures.

The 'evolutionary' (selective adaptation) algorithms are in this category. Some model biological selective adaptation closely, and some more loosely, using the 'evolution' concept more as inspiration. It seems to depend on the motive. The motive may be theoretical -- to prove evolution -- and they may talk of "intelligent agents". Or the motive may be practical -- to provide better computing -- and they may talk of "intelligent machines" instead.

Another AI method that mimics nature is neural networks. I remember that the early research in this area focused closely on modelling the operation of actual neurons, trying to understand how they worked. Some used software models, and others built circuits that mimicked neurons. But these early models were very complex, so they chose simpler models so that they could build larger networks.

Other AI methods seek to borrow and adapt the mental methods that people use to reason and solve problems. These AI systems are primarily rule-based -- instead of just handling data that represent facts, they use lists of rules, including rules for choosing rules, or making new rules from other rules, etc. They use category theory, means-end analysis, and planning strategies to try to construct a logical network connecting known facts to a target question. These rule-based systems depend heavily on very abstract formal languages to describe relationships, categories, and attributes of objects.

As an engineer and programmer who has seen up close the development of computing from the days when transistors were first used, I see the rule-based AI methods as a natural extension of the development of computing.

For example, suppose the solution of a problem requires us to determine the length H of the hypotenuse (longest side) of a right triangle when we know the lengths A and B of the shorter sides. To find the answer for a particular case, all we need to do is arithmetic. (I'm including finding square roots as arithmetic.) A machine that can do arithmetic for us is called a calculator.
But to express how to solve all such problems, we use an algebraic expression to say that H is the square root of the sum of A squared and B squared. We have gone to a higher level of abstraction -- from describing the solution of one problem to describing the solution of a class of similar problems. A machine that can do arithmetic for us, guided by an algebraic expression (a formula) is called a programmable calculator.

Now suppose that we need to know how to compute length B when we know length H and length A. This requires a different algebraic expression, which can be derived from the expression that we described earlier. A programmer that knows algebra can manipulate the first expression to derive the second expression, then write another program to solve this new kind of problem. But suppose that we require that the computer should do this algebraic manipulation? This is a different matter. Instead of merely writing software that can interpret an algebraic expression to do the correct arithmetic procedure, the programmer must write software that "knows how to do algebra", that is, to manipulate algebraic expressions. Now we have stepped up to an even higher level of abstraction.

Years ago, I bought a program called MathCad (from Mathsoft) that "knows how to do algebra" -- and calculus, statistics, matrix algebra, graphs, and many other mathematical techniques. It is so good at this that the program taught me math that I hadn't learned in college. There is a similar program named Mathematica produced by Wolfram Research, which is more powerful (and expensive).

Now, Wolfram Research is developing an even 'smarter' program, making the current "Wolfram Alpha" available on the Internet. It has access to a wide variety of scientific data. For example, you can enter "amino acids" and it will list the 20 kinds. Enter "weights of amino acids", and it will assume you meant atomic weights, and tell you the highest, lowest and median values. Better yet, it knows how to interpret these facts. Enter "distance from Venus to Mars", and it will consult its data about the planetary system, and report that right NOW, the distance is 148.7 million miles (and in other units) and that it takes 13 minutes for light to travel that distance in empty space. It's an even higher level of abstraction, without evolution, just more abstract rules.

Conclusion

In summary, the rule-based style of AI has been far more successful in a practical way (accomplishing smarter computing than ever before) than the neural networks and evolutionary algorithms. The neural and evolutionary strategies are pursued not for near-term practical benefit, but on theoretical grounds.

The neural networks are pursued to try to demonstrate that brain-like structures can produce artificial 'thought', in contrast to philosophers who see the brain as not the producer of thought, but more like the soul's keyboard. After decades of research, progress has been painstakingly slow, and results very limited.

The evolutionary strategies are pursued to try to demonstrate that evolution can produce design. But so far, the results only demonstrate what selective adaptation does in the biological world -- namely, to adjust and adapt a design within the confines of the resources already provided within the design.

To designers, such as myself, the reason why the rule-based systems are far more successful is obvious: they are compatible with the top-down principles of design, which works from well-defined purposes toward increasingly more-detailed design. The other methods attempt to achieve design bottom-up, starting with the details and working toward a goal that is not defined, with no strategy as to how to get there. It's implicitly based on the myth that randomness magically produces information, or on the concept of a 'learning machine'. When a design IS 'found', AND the researchers allow you to look at their software, it becomes evident that the result was actually designed into the software. When you hide Easter eggs and search randomly, you might actually find Easter eggs.

But 'learning machines' are inherently complex, and must themselves be designed. Also a 'learning machine' is just an optimizer that finds the 'best' within some domain that is limited by the design. And the principle of irreducible complexity is a huge hurdle that blocks the bottom-up approach. When probabilities are computed for achieving complex designs by random methods, they invariably turn out to be practically zero.

What is "practically zero"? I will define it as 1 divided by a very large number. So what is "a very large number"? In the physical world, it is hard to get numbers larger than about 100 digits. For example, if you estimate the ratio of the mass of the observable universe to the mass of the electron, you get only an 84-digit number. But when you compute the probability of getting some irreducibly complex design by a random method, and express it as 1 divided by X, then X is typically thousands of digits long.

That generally means that the universe doesn't have enough material and enough time for the random experiment to succeed. That's practically zero.

The Digital Control of Life

2010-06-26T18:29:00.000-04:00

In other blog articles such as Life is More Than Chemistry and Can Chemical Evolution Work? I point out how living things fundamentally differ from nonliving things. Both are controlled by the laws of chemistry, but in living things, the chemistry is guided by information from the DNA data source. That explains why organic molecules are generally much larger than inorganic molecules. To make such large molecules, the limitations of pure chemistry are overcome by 'helper' molecules such as chaperone molecules made according to the DNA design plan. If the DNA data source is cut off, the organic molecules decompose as the laws of pure chemistry take over.

In a recent blog article, The First Digitally Controlled Designs, I point out that each living organism is a digitally-controlled design, using the same design paradigm now commonly used in most household appliances, where an embedded controller uses symbolic digital codes (software) to control the functions of the appliance. Because the 'software' in these cases is stored in read-only memory (ROM), it is technically called 'firmware'.

The DNA is also firmware, because:

(1) It is digital: the digits are Adenine, Cytosine, Thymine, and Guanine, equivalent to a 2-bit code. The fact that genetic control uses 4-valued digits, and man-made controllers use 2-valued digits (bits) is a mere design detail.

(2) It is symbolic: Each codon, a sequence of three DNA digits, equivalent to a 6-bit code, is NOT an amino acid, but a symbol that represents an amino acid (or in one case, a stop signal). The fact that genetic control uses 6-bit codons, and man-made controllers use 8-bit bytes is a mere design detail.

(3) It is stored in read-only memory. There is no information flow from polypeptides to mRNA to DNA, or any writing process.

(4) In the reading process, selected information from the DNA is copied to mRNA (temporary copies) and then interpreted: that is, translated to polypeptides (the basic form of proteins). In man-made digital controllers, selected information from the read-only memory is copied to temporary memory and then interpreted: that is, translated to signals that produce desired actions.

In addition to the temporary (mRNA) copying, in cells there are two other copying processes. There is a copying process that occurs during cell mitosis for growth and repair, and a rearrangement/copying process that occurs during cell meiosis for sexual reproduction. Neither process creates new information. Man-made digital controllers are not designed to grow and reproduce by themselves, so similar copying is not provided. Instead, there is copying in the manufacturing process.

(5) There is a higher structure typical of digital control languages. These specialized languages have data units that operate somewhat like the verbs, nouns, and modifiers of 'natural' (human) languages. Some, like a noun, specify an object or subject; some, like a verb, specify an action; and others (modifiers) specify a condition or selection or limitation, etc. The DNA information is used not only to create the basic structures (nouns) of life, but also specialized molecules (modifiers) that control the operations (verbs) of these structures.

If you want to appreciate the complexity of life designs at the cellular level, look at diagrams for Cellular Respiration, Photosynthesis, the Calvin Cycle, Glycolysis, the Krebs Cycle, and the Electron Transport Chain. Unless you are an organic chemist or a student of organic chemistry, you will not understand these diagrams, but one glance will give you a good idea of the level of complexity of 'primitive' life. These diagrams represent only some of the cell processes, and they are only summaries!

Update on Dave McKean's 'Luna' Film

2010-05-05T21:49:00.009-04:00

Here is an update on Dave McKean's upcoming film Luna for which I folded two origami crabs in 2007. If you haven't read my previous blogs about this, they are Origami Emergency and More About the Origami Crabs.

First, some additional details about the crabs.

Luna filming began in early November of 2007. The request for the origami crabs was sent on 10-30-07 and the crabs arrived on the set 11-08-07.

Through my friend Mark Kennedy and Nick Robinson, word reached Dennis Walker, the articles editor of the British Origami Society (BOS), who asked me for permission to put my blog article in the BOS magazine. Dennis also told me that he was "VERY jealous" and "pretty chuffed that it was through the Origami Database". I think he figured that a British filmmaker should have asked the British Origami Society first.

After completing the live action shooting, and starting some editing, financing for the film collapsed at the end of 2007. About two years later, new financing allowed post production of Luna to resume in March of 2010.

Twitter Info

I extracted the following information from Dave McKean's Twitter page:

"Answering request for Luna stills, here's a few, from the live action shoot only. As we progress I'll post more: http://bundl.it/MjY2Mjk "

A "90% version of Luna" has been shown to producers. "Four people have now seen my film all the way through." "... the crab performed beautifully."

"Several small animated scenes + fx, music, sound etc." need to be done. Many 'small' details, but "a long process". Anticipate completion by the end of 2010. Listing in the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) by July 2010, perhaps.

"It's nothing like MirrorMask to be honest, although it does have Stephanie Leonidas in it, and some dreamlike scenes. It's an adult drama."

While looking for details on Luna progress, I came across this delightful bit of banter which I'll include for your enjoyment:

Ken Fries: Steve probably already has a copy of Luna...

Dave McKean: Great! Can I see it? Then I'll know if it's worth finishing...

Ken Fries: Nah, u shouldn't see it, I don't want to spoil the ending for you.

Photos:

Dave McKean sent me the following still shots from the film, in addition to the above photo of the crab "that will be in the book of the film." "The stills show Grant (Ben Daniels) folding the crab, with his wife Christine (Dervla Kirwan), which he symbolically buries in the sand. They hide behind a rock and watch a real crab emerge from the same place."

Folding the crab, wide shot and close-up:

The crab, on hand:

The crab burial:

Some contributors to the Luna film:

Dave McKean (writer, director, designer, editor)

Keith Griffiths, producer (produced 78 films, directed 16 films)

Simon Moorhead (produced all Mckean's films, including MirrorMask)

Antony Shearn (director of photography)

Tessa Beazley, production manager (production manager for about a dozen films, and other production)

Darkside Animation of London, animation support (graphics and special effects for 3 films)

Ashley Slater, music (actor, music writer, performer, and producer; music producer, mixer, programmer, and performer for "MirrorMask" soundtrack)

Iain Ballamy (jazz player and composer, composed the score for MirrorMask)

Dervla Kirwan, actress (Ballykissangel, Casanova, Dr. Who, Ondine)

Stephanie Leonidas, actress (MirrorMask, Yes, Feast of the Goat, Crusade in Jeans, Dracula)

Michael Maloney (In the Bleak Midwinter, Babel, Notes on a Scandal, Truly Madly Deeply)

Ben Daniels (Spooks, Doom, The State Within, Fogbound, I Want You)

Maurice Roëves (The Damned United, Hallam Foe, Tutti Frutti, Beautiful Creatures)

The First Digitally-Controlled Designs

2010-03-18T19:55:00.017-04:00

Since the discovery of DNA and RNA and the Genetic Code, it is indisputably clear to biologists that the structure and function of all living things is determined by the information stored in the DNA. The interpretation of the DNA information according to the Genetic Code creates a enormous set of specific proteins and other complex organic molecules that implement the structure and function of a particular organism. (See The Genetic Code - how to read the DNA record and More About the Genetic Code.) Some of these complex molecules are building blocks of the living structure; some are the tools or 'workmen' that build the structure; other organic molecules function more like supervisors that control when and where and how this work of construction is done. Still others supervise various functions of the living structure, such as digestion, breathing. sight, growth, etc. All of these complex functions are guided not exclusively by chemical laws, but also by the information from the DNA. (See Life is more than chemistry and Can Chemical Evolution Work?) This is true of all living things, whether a single-celled organism or a much larger plant or animal such as an oak tree or an elephant. Such a complex, coordinated interplay of material and function at multiple levels is clearly DESIGN.

I ought to explain that I understand and appreciate this from experience. I worked for 43 years as a designer and inventor of computers and other digital systems, acquiring 45 patents in that time; and in my retirement years, I have been studying organic chemistry. When I started my career, a typical computer was a roomful of refrigerator-sized cabinets. but less powerful than today's pocket calculator; and I have seen the technology grow functionally and shrink physically since then. In between then and now, the Quintrel computer that I designed, one of the first to do speech processing (like speech recognition) in real time (that is, as fast as you can talk) was the size of a cookie baking pan. Inside all GPS satellites, the computer system that controls all the signals is my design. So I know a design when I see one.

I especially appreciate the advantages of a digitally-controlled design over a design that is just digital. The old-fashioned mechanical adding machines did digital calculation, but the control was manual; that is, the operator had to select the sequence of operations as well as the input data. I remember the company used to have one with a typewriter-like shifting carriage so that it could do multiplication and division; but it was still manually controlled.

In human history, digitally controlled designs started with things like the 'player piano', where the keyboard was controlled by a roll of paper with punched holes to specify the sequence and timing of the notes, and the Jacquard loom, where punched holes caused threads to be raised or lowered to create intricate designs such as brocade and damask. Herman Hollerith adapted the punched cards of the weaving industry for data input for his Tabulating Machines, and Charles Babbage planned to use punched cards for his Analytical Engine, which began the age of computers. (See The Development of Information Processing.)

Let me tell a story that illustrates how "I especially appreciate the advantages of a digitally-controlled design" as I said earlier.

There was a period in my career when we designed digital devices for communication of digital messages. No calculation in the ordinary sense of the word was needed, but the digital logic needed to be 'smart'. For example, before sending a piece of a message (called a packet), an error-checking code needed to be generated and attached to the message, along with a packet number. When receiving a packet, the error-checking code needed to be checked to see if the packet had any errors. (Most errors were detectable.) If the packet had no errors, an 'ack' (acknowledgement) message was returned to the sender; but if errors were detected, a 'nak' (no-acknowledgement) message was returned. Both ack and nak messages included the number of the good or bad packet that had been checked. A nak message was a request to resend the packet (hoping to get it right on the next try), and an ack message told the sender that it no longer needed to keep a copy of the packet. A communication protocol like this was controlled by logic hardware similar to that used to construct a computer, but there was no computer and no software involved. The designs were digital, but not digitally-controlled as computers are controlled by software.

A major problem with this style of design was that if a design error needed to be corrected, or a new design feature added, new parts would need to be added, and the layout and wiring of the parts modified. The parts might not fit, so even the mechanical design might need to be redone.

An obvious solution to this problem is to include an 'embedded' computer in the design, so that software can define the functions of the design, because software is far more easily changed than the hardware. Once the software is thoroughly tested and no longer needs to be changed, it is typically embedded in read-only memory (ROM) and is called 'firmware'. This tactic is commonplace today, with embedded computers in automobiles and in nearly every electrical household appliance. That's easy today, because electronic circuits have shrunk enough for small computers, including all memory and other supporting logic, to be placed in one small, low-cost chip. But back then, electronics had shrunk only enough for simple circuits such a counter to fit in one chip. An embedded computer would require at least several chips.

We couldn't buy a general-purpose computer chip (they didn't exist then), but had to design a computer made of several chips. But this gave us the freedom to design a smaller 'custom' computer with only the functions actually needed. For example, we didn't need to add, subtract, multiply or divide; the only 'arithmetic' needed was to count the bits of a packet. Mostly, the computer needed to make decisions based on a specialized set of conditions. If such a design primarily controlled not a sequence of calculations, but a sequence of other operations (such as those needed for a communications protocol), it was usually called a 'controller' rather than a computer. Often, such a simplified computer / controller could be made with only a half-dozen parts. This 'custom' controller would thus have a 'custom' set of instructions that it could execute. (Each instruction is a group of binary codes and data that tell the computer / controller what to do for each step of its actions.)

Theoretically, a programmer (software writer) could write out the sequence of instructions (the software, or program) in the form of the ones and zeros that the hardware actually reads. But this would be very error-prone, because it is hard for people to memorize these codes, or even to copy them from a list without making mistakes. So, instead, equivalent codes that look more like English are invented, thus creating a special language that is much easier to learn and understand. Then a program called an 'assembler' is used to translate the semi-English to the ones and zeros that the hardware uses. (Also, decimal numbers are translated to binary numbers.)

Thus, almost every computer / controller design would have a different instruction set, and a correspondingly different 'assembly language', and a different assembler program. The assembler is what connected the software design to the hardware design.

Mostly, there were two kinds of designers: hardware logic designers that knew at least how to design parts of the computer hardware, and software designers that knew how to write software. A third kind of designer was a relative minority: the 'system designer', who understood both hardware and software -- the whole system, or the 'big picture'. (See The Start of System Engineering.) A few of these, who also knew the theory of formal languages, were able to write assembler programs, and even 'compilers', which can translate more abstract software languages. With my insatiable curiosity and willingness to self-educate myself in related fields on my own time, I became part of that minority.

The engineering supervisors resisted the idea of embedding computers in a design. Their reasoning was that we had hardware designers and software designers, but nobody that knew how to make a custom assembler. We would have to give such a job to outside specialists, which would be too expensive and troublesome.

It irked me that this judgement was hindering us from making compact and flexible designs. So, on my own time, I designed what I called the "General-Purpose Assembler". It was a step beyond a custom assembler, because before assembling a program, it first read a "language table", which defined the custom assembly language. So, the next time that a supervisor tried to veto a proposal for a design with an embedded computer / controller, I explained that I "happened to have" an assembler that could do the job. I did the extra work on my own time because I knew that digital control of a design was an optimum design paradigm.

I wrote an instruction manual for how to construct a "language table" and how to use the "General-Purpose Assembler", and soon other departments and projects were using it. A few years later, I estimated that about two dozen language tables had been written, creating that many custom assemblers for that many different embedded controllers. The "General-Purpose Assembler" also became a component of the assembler for the Quintrel processor that I mentioned earlier. These were all digitally-controlled designs.

Now, this story may seem like an utter digression from my initial discussion of DNA and RNA and the Genetic Code, but it was all to underscore and emphasize the following point:

I used to think of digitally-controlled designs as a modern phenomena -- but this is true only if you are limited to designs made by humans. But when I started to study organic chemistry and the workings of the Genetic Code, I soon realized that the greatest Engineer of all, God, got there first. For indeed, all living things of all kinds are digitally-controlled designs. The DNA is the read-only memory (ROM) that holds the genome, which is the software (firmware) that controls the chemistry that plays the role of 'hardware'. Each unit of DNA (nucleotide) is equivalent to two bits, having one of four values, and each codon (three DNA units) is equivalent to six bits, with one of 64 values. It compels one to ask "Where did all that DNA-software come from?" (See In The Beginning Was Information .) The reason why there is only one universal genetic code, and why so many life-forms share common design structures is not because all descended from a single common ancestor (unlikely if evolution is inevitable, as Richard Dawkins claims), but because all have a single Creator.

I know that some readers will dismiss my comparison of life designs to man-made designs as mere analogy. But my argument rests on more than analogy. It involves what in category theory is called isomorphisms. Rather than getting too technical, I will illustrate the principles involved by a simple example:

If two species have sufficient similarities (putting them in the same category), we can expect them to have similar locomotion. For example, cats and dogs both have four legs of nearly equal lengths, and the knees bend in the same directions; so we can expect them to walk and run in similar ways. Frogs, kangaroos, and apes also have four legs, but not all four of equal length, so the locomotion is different. There is greater similarity of function when there is greater similarity of structure.

With similar logic methods, we can show that DNA-controlled life forms are more similar to embedded controllers than personal computers. For example, in both, the completed design has no capability of loading new software (not true for PCs). In both computers and controllers, the same hardware with completely different software will have completely different functionality. In life, the same chemical laws, chemical resources (food, air, water, etc) and same genetic code with a completely different genome will have completely different functionality.

As an experienced designer, I not only know a design when I see one, I know a digitally-controlled design when I see one; and I appreciate that it is an optimum design paradigm. No wonder that people are using the term "Intelligent Design" to describe living things.

For more on this subject, see The Digital Control of Life.

God's Unilateral Agreement

2010-03-08T00:56:00.004-05:00

The Bible is divided into two major parts called the Old Testament and the New Testament. "Testament" and "Covenant" are two English words that are used to translate the Hebrew "beriyth" and the Greek "diatheke" as used in the Bible. Both words are used to refer to a solemn or legally binding contract or treaty.

In the time of Abraham, a covenant between men was often solemnized by a ceremony whereby an animal was cut in half and both parties walked between the pieces of flesh, signifying "so let it be done to me if I do not keep this covenant". But when God made a covenant with Abraham (in Genesis 15:7-21) to give to his descendants the "Promised Land" (called "The Land of Israel" until the Romans renamed it "Palestine"), the ceremony was remarkably changed. After "a deep sleep fell upon Abram" (verse 12), "there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces" (verse 17), signifying the presence of God certifying the contract. Since sleeping Abraham (then called Abram) did not also walk between the pieces, this signified that the covenant was unilateral -- God took full responsibility for keeping His promise to Abraham and his descendants.

However, God's covenant through Moses with His chosen people concerning the Law, repeated in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, was a bi-lateral covenant, because the people promised "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient" (Exodus 24:7 and elsewhere), and because curses were promised if His people broke the covenant, and blessings promised if they kept it.

Central to the Old Testament covenants was the sacrifice of animals, signifying the debt of mankind toward God for his sin, which was only symbolically paid by the animal sacrifices. The most solemn of these sacrifices occurred each year at Passover, which foretold the true sacrifice, the actual payment, to come.

In the New Testament, we read of a day when Jesus celebrated a modified Passover ceremony with His disciples. It was modified because He ended the ceremony before the third cup, and because the ceremony was given new meaning while fulfilling the old meaning. Jesus Himself was the Passover Lamb that the cup signified; and hours later, He was sacrificed on a cross. Jesus gave the first cup (Luke 22:17) to His disciples, saying "Take this and divide it among yourselves", but didn't partake Himself, saying "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." At the second cup (Luke 22:20), Jesus said "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." Since then, Christians repeat an abbreviated form of that Passover ceremony that we now call Communion or The Lord's Supper.

The sacrifice of Christ on the cross fulfilled the old covenants and introduced a new covenant because His actual and effective sacrifice ended the need for symbolic sacrifices. The apostle Paul called it the 'covenant confirmed by God in Christ' (Galatians 3:17), and 'a better covenant' (Hebrews 7:22, 8:6, 9:15, and 12:24). Paul also explains that when the prophesy of Jeremiah (31:31-34) is fulfilled, this covenant will be embraced by a rejuvenated nation of Israel.

The new covenant is also unilateral, because Jesus Christ has paid the price in full, and we bring nothing. God says that "...all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags". (Isa 64:6) There are many Bible passages that make it clear that our righteous obedience of God's laws contributes nothing to the salvation that Christ freely offers to us. A few verses are:

Gal 2:16
...a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Rom 4:4-5
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

Rom 11:6
...if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace...

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

If our righteousness is insufficient, then how can we settle our debt of sin with God, and escape condemnation? We need to "declare bankruptcy", by confessing our sin and accepting the free gift of Christ's sacrifice, His payment for our sin:

1 John 1:9-10
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

John 3:16-19
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

(The name "Jesus" means "Savior", so believing in His name means that you trust His ability to save you.) There is no other way:

Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

It doesn't take a lot of faith; a genuine faith is sufficient to begin, and God will cause your faith to grow. A man once told Jesus "Lord, I believe", and then, doubting himself, added "help my unbelief". (Mark 9:24) Ephesians 2:8, quoted above, indicates that even faith is a gift of God.

Rather than righteousness saving us, it is God's saving of us that leads to righteousness, because God's Spirit works in us to change us, and God's love motivates us to please Him:

Titus 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

Eph 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Phil 2:13
for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

There are also many verses that indicate that 'works' that result from God's work of renewal in us, demonstrate to others that we truly know God, such as:

Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him

(All verses quoted from the New King James version)

So, we start by confessing our sins, which implies a desire to stop sinning; but God, while He helps us to stop sinning, does not make our success at not sinning part of His covenant. He knows we are unable to keep such a requirement. Our righteousness, however much it was, was insufficient in the first place, and it makes no sense to add it afterward. Any righteousness we achieve afterward is by availing ourselves of His help, so how can we claim any credit for that?

It is truly comforting to know that our right standing with God rests securely on His unilateral agreement and promise to us, motivated by His unconditional love for us.

When in trouble, we may reach up as a child to grasp His hand; but His hand is too big for us. Instead, He reaches down and holds us -- and that is far more secure.

For more on trusting God, click here.

More About the Genetic Code

2010-03-06T09:53:00.006-05:00

Sometimes I will go back to one of my blog articles to correct minor errors; and a few times I have made major additions. But a disadvantage of this is that people that have already read the original article will probably not go back to read it again.

A little more than a year ago, I wrote The Genetic Code - how to read the DNA record, and recently added some details to a paragraph and expanded the conclusion of the article. So here is the amended paragraph and the expanded conclusion.

The original article gave the impression that only the transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules define the genetic code. Actually, other, larger, molecules are also involved. So the amended paragraph clarifies this:

===
The key elements of translation are small transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules. Each kind of tRNA molecule has a region called the anticodon that can recognize and attach to a particular codon of a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule. The tRNA molecule has another region called the "3' terminal" that attaches to a particular amino acid. This attachment is aided by molecules called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, of which there is generally one kind for each kind of amino acid. There are even helper molecules that provide a proofreading function to detect and correct any translation errors.
===

(Actually, there are some variations of this, but discussing these would be distracting. There are also many other types of complex molecules that control the code-translation process but do not define the genetic code -- another subject.)

Then I expanded the conclusion:

===
Where does the genetic code come from? It is not the result of chemistry or any laws of physics. It is determined by the set of tRNA molecule types, and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase types, which are constructed according to DNA information, which encodes not only the building materials and the building plans, but also the building tools and the building methods. In other words, the genetic code is just information that has always been there since life began.

The number of possible genetic codes is a huge number, 85 digits long:

1,510,109,515,792,918,244,116,781,339,315,785,081,841,294, 607,960,614,956,302,330,123,544,242,628,820,336,640,000

and all of these many codes would work equally well. But all of life uses just one genetic code, about 280 bits of information, the one that scientists Watson and Crick discovered in 1953, but was there since creation. The theory of evolution has no explanation for how the genetic code began, because it can't explain how information can arise from no information. Nor can it explain why there is only one genetic code (out of such a huge number of equally workable codes), even though there is extreme variation of everything else. The mechanism of the present genetic code is very complex; and evolutionary theory supposes that it randomly evolved from a simpler, smaller code. But because there are so many equally viable genetic codes, random evolution should have produced species with many different codes. The evolutionary explanation is far more unlikely than dumping a bucketful of dice on the floor and expecting them to all land with the same number up.

The creationist explanation is that the universal genetic code is like a signature of the creator, who chose a uniform code for all of the designs of life. A short story will illustrate the principle:

During the Cold War, Russia was suspected of stealing American technology. Proof came when some Russian war equipment given to a third country was captured and examined. It contained an integrated circuit that was identical to an American design. It is theoretically possible that the Russians had the same design concept, leading to a similar design. But digital circuits have thousands of component parts connected by thousands of wires. There trillions of ways to position the parts on the chip and trillions of ways to route the connecting wires that work equally well. It would be impossible for the Russians to independently produce the same positions and routings even if the logical design were identical. But examination showed the details were identical, even details left over from correcting wiring errors. In effect, there was an American 'signature' in the copied design.
===

For the Math fans, I'll add a footnote on how that 85-digit number was calculated:

That big number counts the number of ways that the 64 codons can be mapped to 21 interpretations, or interpreted as 21 'messages'. One message is to start with a Methionine (or add a Methionine if already started); one is to stop, and the other 19 messages are to add one of the other 19 amino acids [to the peptide chain that will fold into a protein molecule]. This 64-to-21 mapping can be enumerated in two steps:

First, we count the number of partitions of a set of 64 items into 21 non-empty, pair-wise disjoint subsets. In plain language, this means that:

Together, the 21 subsets must contain all of the 64 codons.
Each codon must be assigned to only one subset.
None of the subsets can be empty; each must contain at least one codon.

This count is calculated by a mathematical function called the Sterling number of the second kind, which is S(64, 21) in this case.

Second, we need to count the number of ways that the 21 subsets can be mapped to the 21 messages. This the number of permutations of 21 things, which is 21 factorial, written 21!

So the desired number is S(64, 21) times 21! But typical computer hardware cannot directly compute numbers that large. Special software that partitions a big number into slices small enough for the hardware is needed. When I was designing special hardware for very large integers (for public key cryptography; I have two patents, #4,658,094 and #5,289,397, for that), I wrote such software so that I could test and verify my designs. So I used my 'BigInt' software to do the arithmetic.

Dawkins' Confession

2010-01-25T10:08:00.015-05:00

I found this video showing Gary DeMar of The American Vision discussing Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth:

DeMar points out some interesting quotes from Dawkins' book which I have reproduced below, and will comment on each.

Many churches, and even parachurch organizations, each have a 'statement of faith', or 'confession of faith' whereby they define their core beliefs. It seems that in the beginning of his book, Dawkins gives his 'confession of faith', beginning with:

"It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips..."

Notice that he speaks of cousins, not brothers, because brothers, mothers, and fathers are not to be found. He continues:

"Evolution is a fact, and [my book The Greatest Show on Earth] will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it..."

Speaking of evolution as a fact doesn't sound, at first, like a statement of faith, but given his admission of lack of evidence (quoted later), it seems that what he really means by this is that he believes so fervently in evolution that it seems like a fact to him. Thinking of my own faith, I know the feeling.

He also promises that his book will demonstrate the 'fact' of evolution, but no real demonstration of this is possible. There is experimental demonstration, where one sets up initial conditions, controls, and measurements on real physical objects, living or not. But the evolution that relates man to turnips is an interpretation of the past, and no part of it has been experimentally demonstrated in modern times. Parenthetically --

We perhaps may need, at this point, to explain to some readers the distinction between macro-evolution, also called goo-to-you evolution, and micro-evolution, the kind that when guided by man breeds cats to get more kinds of cats, but never dogs, and breeds dogs to get more kinds of dogs, but never cats. Creationists believe in micro-evolution, and that's not debated here. The relevance here is that experimental demonstrations have been applied to micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution, which remains in the realm of story-telling.

There is also logical demonstration, which in its most reliable form is a formal proof. But the lack of evidence, which Dawkins admits to, precludes logical demonstration of macro-evolution.

His statement "No reputable scientist disputes it" is a tautology in disguise. There are many reputable scientists that dispute evolution, but to evolutionists like Dawkins, that defines them as not reputable.

As though to illustrate the fervency of Dawkins' faith, the next quote sounds like an enthusiastic description of a miracle:

"The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -- just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -- the fact that life evolved literally out of nothing -- is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it."

His phrase "lifeless and simple" is similar to Genesis 1:2, where the earth is described as "formless and empty" before God gives it form and fills it with life; but in Dawkins' account, God gets no credit.

His description of dust giving "birth to time and space" contradicts physics as we now know it. According to modern physics, matter cannot exists separately from time and space, and vice versa.

Again he uses the word 'fact' to refer to his interpretation of facts. But I would agree that the idea that "life evolved literally out of nothing" is staggering -- so much so that one would be mad to believe it.

If you still doubt that Dawkins' words are a 'confession of faith', read this quote:

"We have no evidence about what the first step on making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started."

In other words, Dawkins knows that there must have been an event when life began, there must have a 'first cause' that caused it to begin, and he knows that he has no evidence of how it began. He is unwilling to believe that God was that cause, so he resorts to a tautology: "It must have been whatever it took".

Given the huge amount of information and artful design that we now observe in all living things, requiring enormous intelligence, I'd say it must have been God -- it took God to get natural selection started. And by God's account, He created various kinds of living things, so natural selection started on some collection of kinds, rather than one kind of life. And the experimental evidence is that even when we give natural selection an extra push, and the advantage of our intelligence, we can't change cats into dogs, or vice versa, let alone turning turnips into chimpanzees.

I think my faith fits the evidence better.

A Seed-Catcher for Pole-Mounted Bird Feeders

2009-11-13T22:25:00.002-05:00

We have two "shepherd's crook" type poles supporting bird feeders in our yard. The one in the back yard (shown below) provides sunflower seed, and the one on the east side of the house provides nyger seed. I have tried various methods of dealing with the seed hulls and uneaten seed that falls below the feeders, but I think the new seed-catchers that I have designed and built are the best solution. I am providing the design details here for the many other birdwatchers that have pole-mounted feeders.

From Seed Catcher Project

The Problem:

Among the seed hulls that fall to the ground are uneaten seeds or fragments, which attract mice and rats. Also attracted are ground feeders such as pigeons, grackles, and starlings, which because of their mobbing behavior tends to frighten away the more desirable songbirds. A screen a few inches above the ground with a mesh large enough to allow the seed to fall through will deter the ground feeders. But the mesh must be smaller than one inch and the sides also enclosed securely to prevent small birds from being trapped inside. However, to deter rodents from tunneling into the enclosure, the bottom must also be secured. The bottom must also allow rainwater to pass through. Also, there is the problem of how to dispose of the fallen seed when the enclosure becomes full of old seed.

My seed-catcher design solves all of these problems, using two 3-by-5 foot wooden frames that fit on either side of the pole, covering a 6-by-5 foot area. Notches on one side of each frame allow the frames to fit snugly around the pole. Hardware cloth with a half-inch grid covering the top and bottom of each frame allows seed to fall through while excluding ground-feeding birds and rodents. Above the bottom hardware cloth is a sheet of porous plastic that prevents seed from falling through the bottom onto the ground or into a rodent tunnel, but allows rainwater to drain. The fabric/plastic sold as "weed stop" fabric for use under stone or mulch beds works well here. Both hardware cloth and weed-stop fabric are available in 36-inch wide rolls.

At the center front of the pair of frames, extra boards closely spaced will support you when you need to refill the feeders, but old seed can fall between these boards.

To dispose of the old seed, turn each frame over, dumping the old seed onto a tarp or plastic sheet. Then, folding the sheet in half, you can dump the sheet into a waste container. No shoveling or sweeping of the ground is needed.

Materials List:

6 8-foot lengths of "1-by-4" inch lumber (actually 3/4" by 3 1/2")
4 pieces of 36 inch by 5 foot hardware cloth, with 1/2 inch mesh
10 feet of "weed-stop" fabric, 36 inches wide
64 wood screws, 1 1/2 inches long, (1 box, Philips head recommended)
about 150 galvanized staples, 1 inch long (1 box)
about 15 to 20 feet of tape that can stick to plastic and wood.

The "weed-stop" fabric may be called by other names. It is a porous plastic or fabric intended for use under stone beds, paving stones, or mulch to allow rain water to drain while preventing weeds from penetrating.

Cutting list for the six 8-ft lengths of "1-by-4" lumber:

Each line lists the cuts for one 8-ft board:

60" + 34 1/2"
60" + 34 1/2"
29" + 29" + 34 1/2"
29" + 29" + 34 1/2"
24" + 24" + 24" + 24"
24" + 24" + 34 1/2" + 6 3/4" + 6 3/4"

Save two pieces of scrap for temporary use.

The last 34 1/2" piece should be rip-cut in half lengthwise, so that each half will be about 1 3/4" wide.

The two 6 3/4" pieces don't need to be exactly that length. Just cut the remainder in half, and they will be about 6 3/4" each.

Recommended tools:

tape measure
square
carpenter's pencil
circular power saw
1 or 2 corner clamps (holds 2 pieces at right angles)
battery-powered drill
battery-powered screw driver
(two power drill/drivers saves changing bits)
drill bit, size to match shank of screws
hammer
scissors or knife (to cut tape)
tin snips (heavy-duty scissors for sheet metal, to cut hardware cloth)

From Seed Catcher Project

Construction:

All of the following diagrams show edge-on views of the lumber. They are not exactly to scale. (The thickness of the lumber is somewhat exaggerated.)

Predrill holes for all screws using a drill bit that matches the diameter of the solid center of the screw. I hold a screw and the drill bit parallel to each other up to the light to check that the drill bit does not obscure the threads of the screw.

Align two 29" pieces over a 60" piece, supported by the 6 3/4" piece and two scrap pieces as shown, centering the 6 3/4" piece under the 2" gap. Fasten the 29" pieces to the 60" piece with 2 screws on each side of the gap. This makes a 60" side with a notch at the center. If the screws go in too far, they may attach slightly to the 60" piece. If this happens, pry them apart with a screwdriver. Be careful of the protruding screw points when handling; but these points will end up inside the finished frame where they will be harmless. Make two notched sides like this.

From Seed Catcher Project

Next, assemble a basic frame using a notched 60" side, a one-piece 60" side, and two 34 1/2" end pieces. Be sure the notch is facing outward. A corner clamp is useful for holding two pieces together at each corner while drilling and screwing. Use 3 screws at each corner. Make two frames like this.

From Seed Catcher Project

Three 24" pieces are added to each frame to create an area that will support you when you refill the feeders. Space these 4 inches apart (3 3/4" between boards), starting at the notched side. Fasten with 3 screws each. Do two frames as shown.

From Seed Catcher Project

The frames are identical until the pieces shown in blue in the next diagram are added. These narrow pieces come from a 34 1/2" length of 1x4 lumber that is cut in half lengthwise. Orient the frames with the notched sides facing each other as shown. (When pushed together, the two frames will wrap around the pole at the notches.)

First. hold each narrow piece over the side where the 24" pieces are fastened, and copy the spacing onto the narrow piece. Then fasten each narrow piece to the free ends of the 24" pieces at the top of the frame so seed can pass below it. Use one screw for each piece. Last, fasten the ends of each narrow piece to the long sides, using one screw at each end. The frames are now mirror images of each other, and the narrow pieces mark the top side of each frame.

From Seed Catcher Project

Cover the bottom of each frame with a 3 by 5 ft piece of porous "weed-stop" plastic, holding in place with pieces of tape about six inches apart all around. Then cover with a 3 by 5 ft piece of hardware cloth as follows. First, un-roll the hardware cloth so that it is nearly flat, or slightly curled. (I sit with the roll in my lap and push the hardware cloth over my knees, working from side to side and gradually toward the other end, with the semi-flattened part extending away from me.) Anchor one corner of the hardware cloth to one corner of the frame with a screw (a washer on the screw helps), with the hardware cloth curling upward, then stretch out the hardware cloth and anchor the opposite corner in the same manner. Then anchor the remaining two corners. Check that the hardware cloth fits the long sides well; it can over-shoot the short sides at first.

Fasten the hardware cloth along the long sides, except for the corners, using 1-inch staples about six inches apart. (The staples also hold the "weed-stop" plastic in place, so the tape was needed only temporarily.) Next, remove the anchor screws and trim the ends of the hardware cloth with tin snips, cutting next to a parallel wire to avoid making sharp points. Staple the short ends. If any hardware cloth protrudes past the edge of the frame, use a hammer to bend the hardware cloth down over the edge. First angle the hammer to bend it half-way, then make another pass over it to bend it all the way.

Cover the top with only hardware cloth, in the same manner.

My Favorite Invention

2009-10-17T23:19:00.013-04:00

(UPDATE: I've added some photos to the end of this blog.)

My favorite invention is my Phase Meter (U.S. Patent 6,441,601), for a number of reasons:

It began as a simple insight, which led to further discoveries, and then to more complex implementation.

Its performance seems almost magical to me.

About a half dozen of these phase meters are being put into all new GPS satellites, where they will improve GPS accuracy, especially for military guided weapons.

It exemplifies how designs grow top-down rather than bottom-up.

Also, a number of friends and relatives have asked me to explain at least one of my inventions. With the help of some video demonstrations, I will explain the basic concepts of this invention in simple terms and how it gradually leads to more complex details (but I won't get into the details). The reader will get an understanding of how basic concepts are developed into working designs.

The Phase Meter compares the timing of two very different clocks with a surprising degree of accuracy. In a GPS satellite, accurate clock timing is necessary for accurate measurement of global positions, that is, for accurate navigation. The Phase Meter is accurate to within five picoseconds. (How small is that? Well, if you had a rocket that could go from New Jersey to California in one second, it would go only a hair's breadth in five picoseconds.)

Some Clock Basics

Basically, a clock is a device for counting oscillations. For example, a pendulum clock keeps track of the passage of time by using gears to count the swings of a pendulum. Traditionally, we divide each day into 24 hours, each hour into 60 minutes, and each minute into 60 seconds. So we adjust the length of the pendulum as best we can so that each swing to the left and right takes exactly one second; then we count 60 swings for each minute, and 60 minutes for each hour, etc.

The more precise digital watch uses digital counters to count the oscillations (vibrations) of a quartz crystal. (Instead of tick, tock, tick, tock, etc., digital oscilators create a 1010.. repeating sequence.) The rate of oscillation can be set by the cut of the crystal (and other factors), and good performance is obtained at about ten million oscillations per second (10 megahertz). So the crystal oscillator is typically set to 10 megahertz as accurately as possible, and ten million oscillations are counted to measure one second before counting off minutes and hours.

The most precise clocks now are atomic clocks, so called because they are based on the oscillation of atoms, typically rubidium or cesium atoms. However, the oscillation rate cannot be set to some convenient figure such as 10 megahertz. Instead, the rate is set by the laws of nature. For example, the oscillation rate of the cesium atoms in an atomic clock is 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second. The figure for a rubidium atomic clock is also an 'odd-ball' number.

The GPS Clock Situation

In each GPS satellite, a crystal oscillator with 10,230,000 oscillations per second is used to control the timing of the signals sent to GPS receivers. The timing accuracy of these signals determines the accuracy of all GSP navigation. The 10,230,000 rate is a convenient number for generating the signals, but the crystal oscillator isn't nearly as accurate as the atomic clocks on each GPS satellite. So the crystal oscillator clock needs to be compared to the atomic clock and then adjusted to make it just as accurate as the atomic clock.

But comparing these clocks with very different rates is tricky -- it's like comparing a poorly made yard stick, with inch markings, with a more accurate meter stick with centimeter markings.

Here is a video showing two rulers representing two clock signals. One ruler is represented by alternating blue and green line segments of equal length, equivalent to the 101010.. sequence of one of the GPS clocks. The other is represented by marks at equal intervals on a red line, each mark equivalent to a moment when the other GPS clock changes from 1 to 0. As you play the video, notice how the marks on the red ruler sometimes align with a blue section on the other ruler, and sometimes a green section. Suppose we colored the marks to match the color opposite it on the other ruler. Then we would get a sequence of blue and green marks in a seemingly random sequence. In a similar manner, whenever one GPS clock changes from 1 to 0, the state of the other clock is sampled, generating a seemingly random sequence of ones and zeros.

Observations Leading to the Invention

Sometimes a mark on the red ruler comes very close to a blue-green boundary, so that a small shift of one ruler relative to the other will change the color sequence. Likewise, a small shift of the timing of one GPS clock relative to the other changes the seemingly random sequence of ones and zeros (the 'sample' sequence). Because the sample sequence is sensitive to timing shifts, I tried to discover some way to decipher the sample sequence to measure the timing shift. The next videos illustrate the method that I discovered.

Suppose the blue/green ruler were wrapped around a circle with a diameter such that the blue segments always fall on one half of the circle and the green segments always fall on the other half of the circle. Suppose that the red ruler is also wound around the same circle. (Imagine that the rulers are so thin that they don't stack up on the circle, not making the path around the circle progressively longer.) Actually, we don't need to wrap the blue/green ruler around the circle; we can just mark the two halves of the circle blue and green to indicate where the blue/green ruler lands on the circle. When we wind the red ruler around the circle, we can see where the marks land on either the blue or green half.

In the video, the halves of the circle are marked as blue and green; and as the circle 'wheel' turns, winding on the ruler, the marks are moved slightly inside the circle when they land on the blue half, and are moved slightly outside the circle when they land on the green half. When you play this next video, notice that even though the marks are fairly far apart on the ruler, they become spread around the circle and eventually become closely spaced. It is this close spacing that allows more precise measurement than expected, because it is normally expected that the precision is the same as the ruler spacing.

So how can we calculate the offset alignment of the rulers from the positions of the green and red (one and zero) samples? Here is an analogous example that may suggest a method:

Suppose the famous "Old Faithful" geyser in Yellowstone Park in Wyoming erupts every one hour and 13 minutes exactly. (Actually, that's close to the average interval, but it varies, usually between 65 and 92 minutes, and sometimes about 45 or 125 minutes.) Now, suppose that the first eruption on some day is 41 minutes after midnight, and some one records a list of all the eruption times starting on that day and for one week, using a digital watch. They give us a copy of the list that doesn't include any of the numbers, but only the am/pm indicators, and ask us to figure out the time of the first eruption.

It's really simple to find the answer. We assume that the first eruption is at midnight, and advancing around a 24-hour circle at intervals of one hour and 13 minutes, we mark these locations on the circle "am" or "pm" according to the list. Unknowingly, we have started our list 41 minutes early, but when we look at our circle and see that the "am" marks begin at 11:19pm instead of midnight (12am on digital watches and clocks), it becomes obvious that our list started 41 minutes early, so we conclude (correctly) that the first eruption must have been at 12:41am.

How the Phase Meter Works

The phase meter uses a similar method. Starting at a "zero" position on the circle, positions are computed that are associated with "one" and "zero" samples (analogous to the "am" and "pm" marks). An early version of the invention used a list of these samples, which would become more costly with more samples. A later improvement reduced this cost by eliminating the list, making it practical for millions of samples to be processed.

In this later version, the circle is divided into three equal parts, and the number of "one" samples falling in each third of the circle are counted, using three counters. We figured out how to estimate the angle of the line that best divides the region of the 'one' samples from the region of the "zero" samples from these three counts. (This is a little tricky, but we will skip these details.)

In the next video, you can see these three counts increasing as the samples arrive on the circle, and you can see the estimated angle (computed from these counts) becoming more accurate as the counts increase. The marks outside the circle represent "one" samples, which are counted, and the marks inside the circle represent "zero" samples, which are not counted. The thirds of the circle are divided by black lines, and the estimated angle is indicated by a magenta line.

You can see that the result is not perfect, but in this demonstration, we have only 50 samples. A phase meter in a GPS satellite can process about 30 million samples every 1.5 seconds, and the error is about one ten-thousandth of the circle.

Conclusion

When all the details are worked out, we get something fairly complex, even though the initial concepts were relatively simple. The following is a "block diagram" of the final design; there are more details inside each rectangular block:

The yellow area and the blue area below it do most of the operations illustrated by the last video above, exept that the computation of the estimated angle is done by a computer elsewhere. The areas above allow a computer to set up the measurement parameters, and the areas on the left control the measurement timing. (Click on the diagram for a larger view.)

Designs like this are not developed one detail at a time, but rather one idea at a time. The big idea leads to middle-sized ideas, ... and finally to lots of details. That is the essence of what is called "top-down design".

============================================
I recently found some photos from the time that the phase meter prototype was tested. Here is a photo of the phase meter prototype 'test bed'. Most of the circuit board is a microprocessor with its support circuits (because part of the phase meter function is software). The phase meter hardware is the small black integrated circuit in the white square at the upper-left corner of the gridded area at the near end of the board.

The next photo shows the test team gathered around the test bed, with related instrumentation in the background. In the foreground is John Petzinger, co-inventor for the second phase meter patent, who worked with me in Clifton, NJ. I don't recall the names of the other two, but one is a software engineer from San Diego, CA, and the other a hardware engineer from Ft. Wayne, IN. We worked together by email and occasional phone call for months, before meeting for the first time in Clifton for the test.

Finally, I found this graph showing the results of one of the tests. Two stable clock signals with different frequencies were compared by the phase meter prototype at 1.5-second intervals ('epochs') for five minutes, and the variation of the measurements were recorded here. Assuming that neither clock signal was jittery, we assumed that all the variation was due to phase meter errors. Sometimes the error was plus or minus two picoseconds, but the average (rms) was 1 psec -- that is 0.000,000,000,001 second.

Creation vs. Evolution -- an Overview of my blogs

2009-09-06T15:55:00.005-04:00

I've worked as an engineer for 43 years (getting about the same number of patents) designing computers and similar electronic devices that are controlled by information (that we call software) and/or that process information (that we call data). I've even written software that creates other software, and software that creates hardware designs.

In my retirement years, I've been studying the basics of biology and applying my expertise in information systems to investigate the fundamentals of the creation/evolution debate. I look at how living things work from the molecular level on up, and as a systems engineer I recognize a system design when I see one. Living organisms are also controlled by information and process information. Chemistry does the 'hardware' function, and DNA (with its derivatives) does the 'software' function.

I have published my findings, as well as common-language interpretations of other technical sources, on my blog. My blog talks about many other subjects, too, so if you are only interested in the creation/evolution/information stuff, go to the "Find by Subject" section on the right and click on one of those key words. Or you can start with the following overview of a few basic subjects:

Information From Randomness?
In this blog, I discuss the myth that information can somehow arise out of randomness, and discuss Dawkins' Weasel Algorithm in particular. In information theory, pure randomness is zero information. All systems that process information have a tendency to lose information, like the way they lose useful energy. So information always drifts toward randomness, not the other way around.

In The Beginning Was Information
Back in Darwin's day, evolution seemed somewhat plausible, just as the ether and phlogiston were once plausible. But more modern findings have unraveled the claims of evolution (macro-evolution, to be more precise), primarily the discovery that biology is chemistry guided by information. Since we know that information doesn't come from nothing, it begs the question: where did the information come from?

Is Encoded Information an Essential Part of the Universe?
In a previous blog, I had explained that space, time, matter, and energy are inseparable aspects of the universe. Here I argue that information is transcendent to all these. The transport of information across space (communication) and across time (storage) uses various forms of matter and energy for conveyance; yet none of the physical laws that govern space, time, matter, and energy require information to exist. Indeed, in vast regions of the universe where there is no life, there is no [encoded] information.

Can Chemical Evolution Work?
Here I discuss Miller’s Experiment and related issues. The outcome of these experiments is like making jumbled piles of bricks, but no houses. The fundamental reason why experiments such as Miller’s don't make life out of non-life is that the chemistry isn't getting the informational guidance that it needs.

Life is more than chemistry
This expands on the previous blog. Life isn't just chemistry, but chemistry guided by the information stored in the DNA.

The Genetic Code - how to read the DNA record
Here I try to explain, in plain language as much as possible, how the DNA information is read and interpreted by the Genetic Code to construct the peptide chains that are the basis for all organic molecules. It is fascinating that there are potentially a vast number of possible genetic codes, or 'DNA languages', that would each work equally well; yet all living things on earth use the same 'language', and there is no evidence that there ever was any other 'language'.

The First Digitally-Controlled Designs
Here I observe that "The interpretation of the DNA information according to the Genetic Code creates a enormous set of specific proteins and other complex organic molecules that implement the structure and function of a particular organism" and that "All of these complex functions are guided not exclusively by chemical laws, but also by the information from the DNA." I point out that this is not only design, but digitally-controlled design; and I tell how in my engineering experience, I learned to appreciate that this is an optimum design paradigm. The first digitally-controlled designs were not computers, or the Jacquard looms and player pianos that preceeded computers; but were the living things that God created.

The Digital Control of Life
Here I provide further evidence of the similarity of the design of life and that of digital controllers.

My Latest Project -- A Portable Cold Frame

2009-08-25T20:45:00.009-04:00

First, if you are not a gardener, you may be asking "What is a cold frame?" A cold frame is something like a miniature greenhouse, typically used to start plants from seed earlier in the season than out in the open, by providing a warmer, more protected environment. If a heater were used to provide warmth, it would be called a hot frame; but a cold frame just captures the heat of the sun through a window, and a simple enclosure helps to retain the warmth.

Sometimes an old window is simply placed over a bottomless box made of boards set on edge, and seeds are planted in the earth enclosed by these boards. But I wanted a portable cold frame that could be placed over a stone walkway, and moved under the deck when not used. Other suburban gardeners, and city gardeners, with limited space, might want to set up such a cold frame on a patio or paved area, and store it elsewhere. perhaps standing on edge, when it is not used. So I'm publishing my design to share it with others -- here in this blog, and in a Picaso web album.

I decided to use deck planking for the sides, because this lumber is generally treated for weather resistance, and use to plastic for the window -- the kind made as a substitute for window glass. I wanted the cold frame big enough to comfortably hold nine seedling trays (in a 3-by-3 arrangement), the kind that you get from greenhouses or gardening stores. That closely matches a 3 by 4 foot window piece.

The bottom of the cold frame is covered with 'hardware cloth', a wire mesh with 1/2-inch spacing, to allow drainage and support for the seedling trays. But that would allow stray dirt to fall through, which is not good if used over a stone or paved walkway or a patio. So 'weed-block' fabric is lain over the hardware cloth. This kind of tough porous fabric is made for use under a bed of loose stones or paving stones to allow drainage while preventing the soil from mingling with the stones, and blocking access to the soil by any seeds that fall among the stones. For the cold frame, we get drainage without allowing soil to fall through.

All my garden areas are automatically watered, controlled by timers, either by porous 'soaker' hoses for the larger areas, or by a drip system for containers and the raised-bed herb garden. So I naturally wanted a watering system for the cold frame. But this is an optional feature; the cold frame can be built without it, and you can water it with a watering can or a hose with a spray attachment.

To make the cold frame portable, it is made of three stacked frames, each one of which is not too heavy to carry. The frames begin as identical units:

JC's Blog

God Is On Facebook

When I Disappear

Science and the Bible

Thinking Outside the Box

Origami Water Lilly and Lilly-Pad

'Rhombicized' Classic Origami

Advice for DIY Irreducible Complexity

Do-It-Yourself Irreducible Complexity

Can Artificial Intelligence be Evolved?

The Digital Control of Life

Update on Dave McKean's 'Luna' Film

The First Digitally-Controlled Designs

God's Unilateral Agreement

More About the Genetic Code

Dawkins' Confession

A Seed-Catcher for Pole-Mounted Bird Feeders

My Favorite Invention

Creation vs. Evolution -- an Overview of my blogs

My Latest Project -- A Portable Cold Frame

Comparing Technologies

A Disingenuous Argument

Bird Rescue

The Genetic Code - how to read the DNA record

Life is more than chemistry

Restraining Evil

Doing Science in History Class

Fluorescence -- Getting Pumped Up

My Summer Projects

The Day I Saw a UFO

Can Chemical Evolution Work?

Why the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI)?

Multiprocessing, or Distributed Computing

Origami Turtles by the Dozen

More about the Origami Crabs

ORIGAMI EMERGENCY!!!!

Reductio ad Absurdum

Is Encoded Information an Essential Part of the Universe?

Fairness Doctrine? Who are They Kidding?

I Dreamed I Met My Guardian Angel

"Literary Meme"

The Better Mouse Trap

The Nine-Bite Sandwich

Susan's Novel to be Published Soon

Dawkins' Weasel Algorithm, Revisited

Why Music Sounds Musical

ALL Things

Praying for Strangers

Growing Up Shy

Communication

Invention or Discovery?

The Big Picture