1. You said about molecular gene concept: “I don’t know any proved fact showing it its wrong. Then, it is an opened falsifiable theory, requiring investigation.”

The original proposal of the gene made by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909 was ‘nonphysical gene’. But the scientific community was not comfortable with a nonphysical entity perhaps because of its divine connotation. With the discovery of the role of nitrogen bases of the DNA molecule (as codon) in the determination of amino acid sequence in protein synthesis and following the elucidation of the double helical structure, DNA came to be known as the blueprint of life as it is supposed to encode biological information. Thus Johannsen’s nonphysical gene metamorphosed into material gene in the 1950s. Molecular gene was born that way. Today molecular gene concept is in a ‘do or die’ situation although scientists may not accept it. It may be recalled here that Johannsen had cautioned against perceiving gene as physical entity and also against assigning gene for particular character. Both these warnings have now been proved correct. Fogle observes: “Today, in the era of genomic sequencing and intense effort to identify sites of expression, the declared goal is to search for genes, entities assumed to have physical integrity. Ironically, the sharper resolving power of modern investigative tools make less clear what, exactly, is meant by a molecular gene, and therefore, how this goal will be realized and what it will mean” (Fogle, T. 2000. In Peter Beurton, Raphael Falk, and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Historical and Epistemological Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-25). Horace Freeland Judson (Nature, 2001, 409:769) notes: “The phrases current in genetics that most plainly do violence to understanding begin “the gene for”: the gene for breast cancer, the gene for hypercholesterolaemia, the gene for schizophrenia, the gene for homosexuality, and so on. We know of course that there are no single genes for such things.”

The role of determining the amino acid sequence in protein synthesis is not enough of a criterion to describe DNA as the molecule encoding the genetic information of an organism. Amino acid sequence is not the whole story of life. Even here it fails. There are DNA molecules (non-coding or the so-called junk DNA) that do not encode that information. The genome of the dead body is identical to that of its living counterpart. But yet it does not show any sign of life. What happened to the biological information encoded by the DNA in the dead body? All that we attribute to DNA molecule are, in one way or the other, violations of chemical fundamentals. We cannot explain any of these anomalies based on chemistry. For a detailed discussion of the inadequacy of molecular gene, please see post 4 at my another blog http://atheismpseudoscienceblog.blogspot.com.

2. You said: “Wait, please. The Quran? Who is/are/were the person revealing it? Which real fact, which experiment, he/them showed in the way that I can repeat it?”

The pathetic plight of modern biology is the best proof of the validity of my theory. The reason for the current plight of biology may be traced to the erroneous concept of gene. Biology is the science of life but biologists are unable to define life. Molecular gene is the fundamental basis of biology but molecular biologists are unable to define what molecular gene is. Dozens of ‘theories of origin of life’ have been proposed but none of them tells us how life arose. Yet they all go by the name ‘theory of origin of life’. Species is the unit of evolution but evolutionists do not know what ‘species’ is! Without having any idea of these, can we say biology is on the right path? On the other hand, the computer model of organism based on the Quranic revelation of nonphysical biosoftware explains all these and more. Please see my blog http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com. If it is possible to explain the phenomena of life and death based on this theory, is this not sufficient proof for its validity? If one wants experimental proof that is also there. The theory of nonphysical biological information or nonphysical basis of life, which I proposed, is also scientific theory as it is falsifiable. Scientific evidence of my theory comes from the failure of molecular gene theory. The validity of the nonphysical basis of life can be confirmed from the prediction that it will be impossible to create life from pure chemical substances via chemical synthesis without involving living cell or organism at any stage during the experiment. That will unambiguously confirm my theory, which in turn will prove the divinity of the Quran and existence of God because it is based on the Quranic revelations, I proposed that theory. In fact biologists are poised to prove that through failure of molecular gene theory. It is just a matter of time they realized it is impossible to create life from nonlife (i.e., from chemical information).

3. You said: “What came first in computers: the hardware or the software?

Please see post 5 on my blog http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com that discusses creation of species through programmed evolution. It may be pointed out here that even without an iota of evidence for the origin of life from chemical molecules, biologists adopt that line. But you do not question that. My theory considers the term ‘origin of life’ as misnomer; it should be ‘origin of biological information’. It is the advent of biological information on the earth that marked the origin of life on the planet. We have to distinguish chemical information from biological information.

4. You said: “I think that the comparison of life with computers makes no sense.”

It only makes sense. Thousands of journals publish papers in areas relating to molecular gene, origin of life, evolution of species, etc., regularly over the past several decades. Yet nothing worthwhile is known about life. This reflects the uselessness of the information based on molecular gene to define life. It also proves that all that is published in journals is not science or credible information. Phenomena of life and death can be defined and explained only in the light of Quranic revelations based on computer model of organism. Please point out the reason why my definitions of life and death are not correct. One of the important differences between artificial forms (e.g., computer, robot, etc.) and natural forms (i.e., organisms) of life is that the biosoftware of the latter also carries information for reproduction.

I accept your challenge and am prepared to debate on my theory of nonphysical basis of life with you.

Mr. Wahid, I have seen your profile at your blog and think that you are a good man for Humanity. Thirty years of research experience in perennial crop nutrition – loll, it is a good job. Thanks for existing. You know that Humanity is in trouble and need urgent solutions, so, any force that avoid Humanity going far away off the beam focused on the search for solutions is not good for human kind. Sorry, but your post suggests in my single opinion, that after you retired you are unconsciously being used and applying a force not good for human kind. Each phrase from yours has no proved foundation on reality or cannot be grasped by the human reason built by Nature. What is happening?

You are propagating a theory, which can be influential to students, then, we are competitors because I also have a theory that I think is better for students, called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles Theory”. As competitors we will fight for the space through debating the details of ours theories. Ok? Let’s go?

Your theory: The molecular gene concept is scientifically untenable.
Matrix/DNA: I don’t know any proved fact showing it its wrong. Then, it is an opened falsiable theory, requiring investigation. If your antenna is not opened for all possibilities, my suggestion is cleaning it, because the most cause are wrong beliefs attached to the antenna as dust. Look if the antenna is not pointed to only one direction; it must have arms pointed to all directions.

You: The Quran reveals…
Matrix: “Wait, please. The Quran? Who is/are/were the person revealing it? Which real fact, which experiment, he/them showed in the way that I can repeat it?”

You: “… validating the original proposal…”
Matrix/DNA: “Wait… Proposals, theories, are not the objects under focus. They are process of human thoughts. Any human thought obey evolution through the mechanism of life’s cycles. In a human life’s cycle the shape of teenager is transformed into the shape of adult. You cannot have the two shapes at the same time. So, in the evolution of a human thought, the external stimulus is the spermatozoon, the idea is the fecundation, the theory is the teenager, the real knowledge in the shape of a natural law, for instance, is the adult. At the momentum that something is really known (adult), the theory (teenager) already does not exists. The thoughts of Mr. Quran can validate the thoughts of Mr. Johannsen? Maybe only in the realm of thoughts, not in the realm of the object. If Mr. Quran did not show the experiment, it is a theory, and a theory does not validate another theory… Ok for me it is enough. I am seeing we will not have a conversation on this issue about life’s definition.

But I was looking your website. The idea of the Universe working as a computer (hardware + software), is interesting because my theoretical models are suggesting the same thing. But I am layman about computers. Then I have questions:

You: “The Quran informs that nonphysical rooh (or nafs) is the cause of life”.
Matrix/DNA: “What came first in computers: the hardware or the software? First I thought that was the hardware that began with the “abacus” , but the abacus was made from a necessity in the human mind (the origins of the computer software). But the human mind was a product from the hardware human body. Really I have no resource for proving that the life of the bacteria that evolved to humans was caused by this software or the opposite, the software was caused by the bacteria. Do you have? How was the diagram of your suggested alien software that developed the first cell’s system?

Ok. Looking from this perspective, I think that the comparison of life with computers makes no sense. But, my resulting models from my calculations continue suggesting the comparison. They show a single diagram of software existing at the primordial soup, coming from the matter of non-living world. Then I was looking at your website the mention about which software has you or Mr. Quran detected in the primordial soup or, at least, a theory of the software inside our ancestors astronomical or atomic systems, and you have not inserted it. Could you, please, show the diagram?

Payment of Original Sin

(Cash, please!)

Its a book title, yes, but the book is about life and thermodynamics.

[But maybe Bill @42 has best summed it up.]

or less cryptically

metabolism(metabolism) = metabolism