|
Prophets or
Evolution - An LDS Perspective Chapter 29 Ramifications
of the Computer Simulations Randomness is Predictable Most people
think that randomness is not predictable.
While predicting the value of a single random value is not possible;
picking the overall results of thousands or millions of random values is very
predictable. This was demonstrated in
the prior chapter. "Outliers,"
meaning rare events (such as hitting the 19,003 "right" nucleotide
level starting at 95%), cannot be predicted as to when they will happen, or how
often they will happen; but predicting the vast majority of the normal data is
quite easy. There is always very little
variation except for the outliers. For
example, in the 500,000 simulations at 95%, the range of "first
mutations" (i.e. only looking at the very first mutation in each
simulation) which were "bad" mutations, in each group of 50,000
simulations, only ranged from 47,399 to 47,602. In this
same set of simulations, the range of simulations which never even achieved
1,000 "right" nucleotides, ranged from 46,594 to 46,772. Also, in
these 10 groups of 50,000 simulations, the maximum number of "right"
nucleotides achieved, among all the simulations in each group, was either
19,002 or 19,003. In other words, from
500,000 simulations; 19,004 "right" nucleotides was
never achieved. Large
volumes of random data will follow the pattern predicted by statistics. In fact, that is one way to verify your
formulas are correct or to deal with situations where it is not practical to
derive a formula because there are so many different scenarios. However, we
also saw from the simulations, that when a single event has a probability of
.000004644 or less, it is not going to happen very often; even though it is
impossible to predict exactly when it will happen or exactly how often it will
happen. But we do know the event will be
very rare. Thus, even
though we cannot predict the exact number of outliers, or when they will occur,
we know they will be very rare. Only "Good" Mutations
are Allowed In order to
challenge the very damaging evidence from statistics, some scientists have
speculated that only the "wrong" nucleotides are mutated. In other words, they claim that an original
"right" nucleotide; or a "right" nucleotide which resulted
from a mutation; is somehow protected and will not mutate into a
"wrong" nucleotide. With this
theory, "right" nucleotides are never converted to "wrong"
nucleotides. Thus, the number of
"right" nucleotides never goes down, it only goes up. While such
a theory may help the mathematical problems of the theory of evolution, the theory is scientific nonsense
and has absolutely no basis in fact. There is no
secret mechanism in the body; of a developing new species; which knows which
nucleotides to preserve or protect, meaning there is no mechanism that knows
which are the "right" nucleotides or which are the "wrong"
nucleotides. To put it
another way, there is no secret, unseen, abstract, non-existent pattern of DNA
which knows what the goal of evolution is for a new gene complex; which has
never existed before in Nature. Thus, there no mechanism which can prevent a "right"
nucleotide from mutating into a "wrong" nucleotide.
Nor is there any mechanism which can selectively fix only
"wrong" nucleotides. It is
nothing but an absurd tactic, without any scientific basis, to try and overcome
the statistical problems of the theory of evolution. Even if
"natural selection" selected a gene complex which barely worked,
there is still no mechanism to selectively "fix" the
"wrong" nucleotides. At no
time is there ever anything but totally random, totally mindless, and totally
without direction mutations of nucleotides.
This is the entire basis of neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism has no goal in mind. While there
is in fact a mechanism related to DNA which can fix certain kinds of errors in
an existing DNA strand, this mechanism does not know what nucleotide should be
in a particular position. The mechanism
only knows which kind of nucleotide should be paired with an existing nucleotide (i.e. it knows an 'A'
should be paired with a 'T"). It
may do this by examining the hydrogen bond to see if it is the right kind of
bond. Creating New Genes From Scratch Let us
consider an "evolution gene" of 20,000 nucleotides (technically a
moderate sized gene complex). We already
know that if we instantly created a random DNA strand of 20,000 nucleotides,
the probability this random DNA strand would equal our "evolution gene"
would be 4‑20,000. Even
taking into account a reasonable amount of "flexibility" in the
nucleotides (i.e. a reasonable number of permutations which would
"work"), the probability a new gene complex could be created form
scratch is still obscenely ridiculous. There are
some who would say that there are so many viable permutations of nucleotides
that the probability of evolution is reasonable, given several billion years. In other words, they claim there is a high
level of "flexibility" in sequences of nucleotides. This is
known to be false. The vast majority of
human DNA is not coded for proteins; rather, it consists of
"instructions" or "computer programs." There is very little "flexibility"
in these sections of our DNA. But even
nucleotides which code for proteins have very little variability. At the
single nucleotide level there may be some flexibility, but when you start
changing dozens of individual nucleotides, which are part of the same function,
you could end up with a disaster. The term
"allele" (i.e. allelomorph) has to do with variety
of nucleotides in specific locations on DNA.
It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss alleles on human DNA, but
I can assure the reader that a study of human DNA alleles would confirm my
comments; namely that human DNA is not as flexible as thought by the average
person, meaning I am being very generous to the theory of evolution with my
probabilities. But there
is another reason neo-Darwinism is incorrect, even with regards to nucleotides
which code for proteins. When an animal of
a new species needs a new gene it needs a highly specialized new gene. For
example, if a camel needs a new type of heart protein, in order for a new
species to arise with a superior heart; it needs a highly, highly specialized
heart protein made specifically for a camel. If a camel
needed a new heart protein (for example, so the camel can function better in
the extreme heat of the desert); but instead it got a new lever protein for a
mouse; the new liver protein for a mouse would not provide the camel any
survival benefit. It would
literally be like taking a bolt from the engine of a 50 year old automobile and
trying to find a place to put it in a new jet engine. In general,
when an animal needs a new protein or new enzyme, it needs a highly specialized
protein or enzyme because the protein needs to fit in with, or help create, new
complex protein structures which include several or many proteins. Thus, there is very little "flexibility"
even when considering nucleotides which code for specialized proteins. Thus, to
assume there is a lot of flexibility in DNA is simply not true. The flexibility is usually in microevolution,
but even then there is little margin for error. So what if
the new gene complex, created from scratch, was not right, could it over time mutate
into being the right sequence of nucleotides?
In this case, we have the same situation as in the prior chapter. Even if the new, from scratch, gene complex
was 95% right on the first attempt; within about 11 mutations the percentage of
"right" nucleotides would deteriorate below 95%, just as in the prior
chapter. Thus, the
very first attempt at making a new gene complex would have to be virtually
perfect, perhaps 99.999% accurate.
Essentially, the gene complex would have to work the first time because
almost all new mutations will make it worse. But if the
copy of the gene complex worked the first time, there would be no new genetic information!! The problem
comes in creating new genetic information.
It is the mutations which attempt to create new genetic information which
causes the deterioration of the DNA. The Claims of
"Modern" Science Frequently,
two genes, or other sequences of DNA, are claimed to be identical in two or
more species. That is interesting, but a
person never knows exactly what scientists who make such claims are really
talking about. Many times
scientists will see some similarities in a single sequence of nucleotides in
two different animals; and will claim that entire genes (actually it would have
to be the entire gene complex, which they never talk about) are
identical in two different animals.
Scientists are somehow very vague when talking about these kinds of
things. For
example, you sometimes see claims that the DNA of a certain kind of primate is
96% "identical" to human DNA.
This is nonsense. They may be
talking about a single, small section of DNA.
I am never quite sure what they are talking about because they always
speak in broad generalities. But even if
it were true, this would simply be a proof that human intelligence comes from
our spirit intelligence, not from our physical brain. Any religion which believes in "life
after death" believes in "intelligence after death" and thus
believes that our human intelligence comes mainly from our spirit body, not our
physical body. Thus, it
would be fine with me if some primate had 96% identical DNA to human DNA, but
it is simply not true. Look at
this claim that the DNA of a worm functions nearly identically to human DNA: "The main difference between
worm DNA and human DNA lies in the amount [of DNA]; a human genome has about 30
times as much DNA as a worm genome." YourGenome.org In other
words, worm DNA is 30 times shorter
than human DNA, yet the "main difference" between worm DNA
and human DNA is in the length of the DNA.
Ugh. I suspect
that the laws governing DNA are identical in all species, so I don't exactly
know the intent of the above quote.
Perhaps that was their point because certainly human DNA is far more
sophisticated than worm DNA. The point
is that no matter what scientists discover, they somehow "spin" it
into a claim for the theory of evolution.
That is how you get published. Human DNA There are
two ways to look at the data in the prior chapter. A person
can say that the higher the ratio or percentage of initial "copy gene" nucleotides to "evolution
gene" nucleotides, the quicker the total number of "right"
nucleotides will drop forever below the initial level and even will more
quickly drop below the 10% "lower than initial" level (Kehr's Paradox). But there
is another way to look at this same data.
The second way is to say that the "more perfect" human DNA is: 1) The more
common it will be that a mutation will be negative (or neutral), and 2) The
rarer it will be that a mutation will be positive. If DNA was
"perfect," meaning 100% "right" nucleotides, the first
mutation will be a "bad" mutation 100% of the time. But even as
we saw in the prior chapter, when the "copy gene" was 99% equal to
the "evolution gene," "good" mutations were rare in the
early stages of mutations. Thus, we can conclude that if we
analyze the percentage or ratio of "good" mutations to
"bad" mutations, in an existing species, we can tell how perfect the
DNA of an animal or plant is. Ponder that
prior sentence carefully. Applying
this mathematical fact to human DNA; the more perfect human DNA is; the fewer
"wrong" nucleotides there are to convert to "right"
nucleotides and the more rare "good" mutations will be. The reality
is the vast, vast majority of mutations in human DNA are either neutral (i.e.
they have no effect) or they are harmful. Unfortunately
many point mutations are "neutral."
This does not mean, however, that they are really neutral. For
example, as could be surmised from Dr. Sanford's book on genetic entropy, many
of the "neutral" mutations may be small detrimental mutations or
small positive mutations which cannot be measured due to other factors (i.e.
"background noise"). For
example, a mutation may be positive or negative, but it may have such a small effect
compared to other factors, the effect is essentially "drown out," meaning
the effect of the mutation cannot be detected. As Dr.
Sanford explained, this scenario can be compared to laying
on top of a stack of 15 mattresses. If
you put a small rock under the bottom mattress (to represent a point mutation) you
won't be able to feel it because the stack of 15 mattresses you are laying on
buffers or "drowns out" the negative effects of the small rock. Thus it is counted as a "neutral"
point mutation, even though it is negative. Such is the
genius and fault tolerance of human DNA!!!! As another
example, a football player, on the offensive line, may miss a block, but the
overall play may still result in a touchdown for his team. His missed block may be lost to the crowd
because of the overall exuberation which results from the touchdown. However, it
would be logical to say that the "neutral" mutations follow roughly
the same pattern as those mutations which can be measured. This would mean that virtually all
"neutral" mutations are in fact negative, but we simply cannot detect
the damage because so many other things (such as fault tolerance) get in the
way of measuring the damage or the damage is so small. The Ratio in the Real
World So what is
the actual ratio of "favorable" point mutations to
"unfavorable" point mutations?
Here is a quote from Dr. Sanford: "I have seen estimates of the
ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations which range from one thousand to
one, up to one million to one." Genetic Entropy & The Mystery
of the Genome, page
24 Actually,
as Dr. Sanford points out in his book, even this ratio is misleading. Most so-called "beneficial"
mutations actually decrease the
information in DNA. It just so
happens that certain types of decreasing of DNA information turn out to have
some relatively favorable results. One example
of this is the (By the
way, it is almost a requirement to read Dr. Sanford's book at some point - it
is an absolute eye-opener and is actually a requirement to read in order to grasp
some of the concepts in this book!! It
is essential that a person fully understand the concept of "genetic
entropy" because it is at the core of understanding several key concepts
in this book. This book cannot go into
the depth of Dr. Sanford's book on this topic.) So even
when there are beneficial mutations, relative to a given situation, it always
involves either a loss of genetic
information or a change to normal genetic information. It never
involves an increase in genetic information!! The key
question is this - has science
actually ever seen new genetic information result from random genetic
mutations; especially new genetic information which includes a new gene
complex? The prior
chapter proves the answer to this question is 'no'!! A future chapter will go into this in even
more detail. Let us
again quote Dr. Sanford, a world-famous plant geneticist: "When it was discovered that
certain forms of radiation and certain chemicals were powerful mutagenic agents
[i.e. they caused mutations], millions and millions of plants were
[intentionally] mutagenized and screened for possible
improvements. Assuming the Primary Axiom
[of neo-Darwinism], it would seem obvious that this would result in rapid
"evolution" of our crops. For
several decades this was the main thrust of crop improvement research. Vast numbers of mutants were produced and
screened, collectively representing many billions of mutation events. A huge number of small, sterile, sick,
deformed, aberrant plants were produced.
However, from all this effort, almost no meaningful crop improvement
resulted. The effort was for the most
part an enormous failure, and was almost entirely abandoned." Genetic Entropy, page 25 In all
these experiments, he mentioned one notable case where there was a
benefit. However, this benefit actually
resulted from the net loss in
genetic information. Thus, the
whole concept of "beneficial mutations" is misleading. The "beneficial
mutations" that scientists see are the result of a loss of genetic information or a variation in normal DNA
sequences. They have
never seen new genetic information result from random mutations, especially if
a person is speaking of enough new genetic information to create a new gene
complex. When
thinking about the computer simulations in the prior chapter, and the above
quote and comments, it is very, very,
very clear that human DNA; and the DNA of all species on the planet earth; are
virtually perfect!!! This is
obvious because almost every
noticeable mutation is detrimental and even the "beneficial"
mutations really result from a loss of genetic information. That prior
paragraph is so critical to understand I am going to repeat it: This is
obvious because almost every
noticeable mutation is detrimental and even the "beneficial"
mutations really result from a loss of genetic information. This observation
is proof that human DNA is not 99% or 99.9% or 99.99% perfect, but is virtually
100% perfect. In fact, considering
genetic entropy, meaning our DNA is continuously deteriorating, it hasn't been long ago since human DNA
was perfect. Let's do
some math. Assuming human DNA was 99%
perfect; a random mutation would affect a "wrong" nucleotide only 1% of
the time. However, only 33.33% percent
of these mutations would end up creating a "right" nucleotide. This amounts to .01 times .3333...: giving an
answer of .00333... Thus, out
of 100,000 mutations, there would be about 333 "good" mutations. However, a
realistic rate of the ratio of unfavorable to favorable mutations is that for
every 100,000 mutations, only 1 of them is a "good" mutation. Thus,
human DNA could be said to be 333 times better than if our DNA was 99% perfect!! And even
that rare favorable mutation probably was the result of a loss of genetic
information. To put it
another way, if human DNA were 99% perfect; beneficial mutations, with no
negative side-effects, would be fairly common (333 times more common that
today). We can
conclude: human DNA, and the DNA of
all other creatures on earth, is virtually perfect!!! This is
very important to understand and it is the result of understanding the prior
chapter!! Genetic Diseases With our
DNA so perfect, it is likely to expect that genetic disease would be rare. In fact,
there are many different kinds of genetic diseases, but when considering the
total population of humans; severe genetic diseases are very rare. When there
is a genetic disease, the disease will be passed on to some or all of the
children of the person with the disease (assuming the person lives to be old
enough to have children). Scientists
can, in fact, look at the percentage of the population which has a particular
type of genetic disease, and make a fairly good guess as to which century the
common ancestor (I am not talking about common ancestor species) of these
people first got the mutation in their DNA. By tracking
how genetic mutations are passed from one generation to another, it turns out
that genetic diseases should spread fairly quickly. Think about
a huge tree of human genealogy, including every person who has ever lived on
this earth, beginning with Adam and Eve, who lived about 6,000 years ago. The closer to Adam and Eve a genetic mutation
occurs, the more people downstream (i.e. today) would be affected. Most
genetic problems with humans are not diagnosed because they are so mild. In some cases, multiple genes affect one
condition or multiple genes affect multiple conditions. That is why genetic epidemiology is so
complex. But generally genetic-caused
conditions are mild. But no
genetic disease affects such a high percentage of humans that it can be traced
back more than a few hundred years. Of course,
some genetic diseases create such a severe health condition that the person
does not live to be old enough to have children. But enough
"mild" genetic diseases exist that no "mild" genetic
disease can be traced back more than a few hundred years. This is an evidence that as we move back in time closer to Adam and
Eve, that human DNA was even more perfect than it is today. The key
concept is that "good" mutations are so rare that there is huge
evidence human DNA is incredibly perfect. Even though
DNA mutations must be in germ cells to be passed on to the next generation,
genetic diseases are still good evidence as to the perfection of human DNA
several thousand years ago. Adam and Eve If our DNA
is nearly perfect, the DNA of Adam and Eve must have been totally perfect. DNA does not improve over time, rather DNA
deteriorates over time. So how did human
DNA start out so perfect? The only
logical answer turns out to be that human DNA was designed by an Intelligence much higher than our own and that human DNA started
out to be perfect. In fact, it
is scientifically consistent with real data to say that Adam and Eve had
perfect DNA. The reason I say this is
that our DNA today is almost perfect, and our current DNA has deteriorated
slowly since the days of Adam and Eve. Their DNA had to be better than ours and
ours is almost perfect. There is no
way that a person can say that the DNA of Adam and Eve was inferior to
ours. That would be nonsense. DNA deteriorates, and the more perfect it is,
the faster it deteriorates because all nucleotides are "right"
nucleotides in perfect DNA, thus all mutations are "bad" mutations
when starting with perfect DNA. But even
when DNA starts out imperfect (there is no evidence this has ever happened in a
new species), but close to perfect, it still deteriorates. Thus, the
fact that our DNA is nearly perfect is an indication that Adam and Eve's DNA
was significantly more perfect than ours. It is also
an indication that the Biblical account of Adam living to be more than 900
years old is not only true, but is an indication of the potential of our DNA. George and Mary Now let us
talk evolution's alternative to Adam and Eve. According
to science, the first two homo sapiens sapiens
lived about 100,000 years ago. The exact
time claimed by science changes from year to year, but in this book we will
assume 100,000 years is an average of all the numbers that have been put forth
so far. In order to
perpetuate the human race, there had to be two first homo sapiens sapiens, namely a male and a
female. These two
early humans, a man and a woman, who
have the exact same type of DNA as our modern DNA, will be named George
and Mary. What Adam and Eve are to
creationists; George and Mary are to orthodox science. Adam and
Eve would have lived about 6,000 years ago, according to Biblical accounts, and
George and Mary would have lived about 100,000 years ago, according to various
fossils which have been discovered. Someone
might assume that the DNA of George and Mary was perfect 100,000 years ago. Had their DNA been perfect, our DNA today would
be much more imperfect than it is today.
Remember, no genetic diseases can be traced back more than a few hundred
years. DNA deteriorates fairly quickly
(when we think about millennia, not years), thus, there is no way our current
DNA would be as perfect as it is if our ancestors were alive
100,000 years ago. However, if
the theory of evolution is true, the DNA of George and Mary would have been very imperfect. There are
many reasons the DNA of George and Mary would have been very imperfect. First,
genetic mutations are not only passed from one individual to another, but genetic mutations are passed from one
species to another, if the theory of evolution were true. The parents of George and Mary would have
inherited very imperfect DNA from their ancestor species and so on. Second,
George and Mary had both a father and a mother.
To think that their DNA was perfect and that each of them had exactly
the same random mutations to their DNA, so that George and Mary could have been
born with perfect DNA, is totally ludicrous. Not only
did the parents of George and Mary have imperfect DNA, but the mutations to
their gene cells would not have been exactly the same, thus the DNA of George
and Mary would have been worse than the DNA of their parents. Thus, it is
obvious the DNA of George and Mary would have been very flawed. But DNA
does not improve with the generations.
If George and Mary had imperfect DNA; our DNA today would be so severely
damaged that few of us could survive and all of us would have serious genetic
diseases. In other
words, if George and Mary had had a severe genetic flaw, all humans today would
have that same genetic flaw. But most
people don't have any serious genetic flaw. More will
be said about genetic entropy affecting multiple species in a future chapter. All of this
creates a paradox for the theory of evolution. If science
wants flexibility in DNA (to try to overcome the statistical problems of the
theory of evolution); then George and Mary would have had very imperfect
DNA. Had that been the case, the DNA of homo sapiens sapiens
today would be a complete disaster.
Humans today would be like the mutants monsters in the movies. Actually, a
much more likely scenario is that humans would have been extinct many thousands
of years ago due to damage to the morphing of the embryo algorithms, among
other DNA problems. While it is
true that individuals born with serious genetic damage generally die before
they can have children, or at least they cannot have children; many "moderate"
genetic defects exist that do not cause this severity of damage. The inescapable reality is that if we were
descendants of a couple who lived a hundred thousand years ago our DNA would be
severely damaged and "good"
mutations would be common. That is the
point. The perfection of our human DNA
is so good that point mutations are almost always bad or neutral. For
example, suppose one of the descendants of George and Mary, who lived 80,000
years ago, had a moderate genetic defect.
This moderate defect would be noticeable in all human beings today
because any descendant of George and Mary of 80,000 years ago would be an
ancestor of all humans today (do your genealogy)!! The other
side of the paradox is that if science claims no flexibility, and claims the
DNA of George and Mary were perfect, then they have to subject their claims to
a much higher statistical tolerance.
This would make the theory of evolution even more ludicrous than when a
great deal of "flexibility" is allowed. Either way
the theory of evolution fails to explain the real scientific data. But the irrefutable
fact is that had the DNA of George and Mary been perfect, by combining their
DNA with 100,000 years of DNA entropy (i.e. deterioration), there is no
question our human DNA today would be much worse than it really is. But even
more important, if human DNA was 100,000 years old, genetic diseases would be
spread over a much larger percentage of the population today than they really
are. But the
reality is that no genetic flaw causes a disease except in a very small
percentage of the human population. Thus, all non-fatal and non-reproducing
mutations (i.e. mutations which prevent reproduction) which currently inflict
the human race are of very, very recent origin. Certainly, by
now favorable mutations would be very common due to the vast number of "wrong"
nucleotides after 100,000 years of genetic entropy. But we don't see favorable mutations. Thus we see
enormous scientific evidence, real scientific evidence, that human beings are
not only a very recent species (i.e. our DNA is still very, very perfect); but
that our DNA was initially perfect. Defective
point mutations which occurred during the generations of human beings; between
the time of Adam and our own time; may be the very nucleotides which, if
changed back to their original Adamic nucleotide; can
lead to the very rare positive mutations, which have no negative side-effects,
that are occasionally seen. But don't
hold your breath waiting for one these net favorable mutations to happen in
someone's germ cell. The reality
is that humanity will never achieve, by random mutations, the perfect DNA of
Adam and Eve. Human DNA is continuing to
slowly deteriorate. But don't worry; God
knows all of this and like everything else, it is all part of His plan. There is no doubt He designed DNA to be significantly
fault-tolerant, which it is. |