|
Prophets or
Evolution - An LDS Perspective Chapter 31 Genetic
Entropy and Genetic Debris Favorable Mutations In prior
chapters, a "favorable" mutation was assumed to occur 25% of the time
because there are only four types of nucleotides. But in the real world of genetics,
"favorable" mutations only occur "one in a million" times,
according to Dr. Sanford's book on genetic entropy. And Dr. Sanford was quoting other sources
when he gave that statistic! "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. The best
estimates seem to be one-million to one (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The
actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual
measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). ...
In conclusion, mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when
one may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is still usually
part of an over-all breakdown and erosion of [the] information [in the
DNA]." Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, page 24 & 27 Dr. Sanford
was talking mainly about "point mutations," meaning the removal, add
or change of a single nucleotide on DNA.
There are, of course, several other types of mutations. If there
are only four different types of nucleotides, why are point mutations
beneficial only "one in a million" times? Actually,
the "one in a million" number itself is deceptive. Even in the case of "favorable"
mutations, there is a loss of
genetic information, as Dr. Sanford mentions.
It is environmental reasons which cause the "benefit," not new genetic information. The reason
beneficial mutations are so rare is because the body does not look at DNA as
individual nucleotides. The body looks
at DNA as groups of nucleotides. To
understand this concept, suppose we looked at the works of Shakespeare. What if we randomly changed a single letter
in one word in one of his plays? Would
this give us a one-in-26 chance of intellectually benefiting from one of his
plays? The answer
is 'no' because the probability that the overall concepts in that play would be
noticeably improved, by that one change of one letter in one word, is virtually
zero. When we
look at a play, we see the "big picture" of what the play is telling
us. We also see the smaller picture of
what the current scene is telling us and we even see what one dialog is telling
us and even what one word is telling us. When we get
down to the level of a specific dialog we are concentrating on every word that
is said and visualizing that word in
the context of the entire play and scene. To randomly change
one letter of one word, when we are thinking about the "big picture"
of the play, is not likely to give us added intellectual benefit. In fact, if
we analyzed every letter in every word of a play by Shakespeare, it is unlikely
we could find more than a few single letters in the play which could be changed
such that there would be an overall improvement in the value of a scene or the
entire play. A similar
thing can be said about DNA, except that DNA is millions of times more complex
and more intertwined than any of Shakespeare's plays!! Similar to
the way we look at Shakespeare's plays, the body uses DNA in a "Big
Picture" way. DNA has many layers
of sophistication and it has many different groups of complex instructions. That is why random mutations have never been
observed to create new genetic information and/or new genetic intelligence. This is
also why scientists are having such a hard time decoding what DNA is really
doing. It is also
why it is so difficult for humans to intelligently create new DNA from scratch
(such as designing the DNA of an extinct egg-laying dinosaur, both male and
female). While one
point mutation can be bad, it would be very, very rare when one point mutation
would yield new, useful genetic information when considering the "Big
Picture" of human DNA. It would
take large numbers of nucleotides to create new genetic information, but we
have already seen the statistical absurdity of that happening. This is why
"beneficial" mutations are always the result of a loss of genetic
information. This loss of genetic
information (such as making short hair instead of long hair) may coincidentally
have an environmental benefit because the animal lives in a very hot climate. This can also
be seen in medicine. When a bacteria or
other microbe develops a resistance to a drug, this resistance is not developed
because of any intelligence on the part of the microbe or any additional
genetic information; rather the benefit is caused by a loss of genetic
information which just coincidentally creates a resistance to a drug. The book: The Edge of Evolution--The
Search for the Limits of Darwinism, by Dr. Michael J. Behe, goes into this
subject in great detail. In animals
and plants, a single mutation does not provide additional information to the
cell or additional benefit (such as an improved and more intelligent
"supervisor protein"), it only provides benefit in the context of
coincidental environmental issues. If
a favorable point mutation is ever observed, it will most likely be a former detrimental point mutation
which was coincidently reversed to its original state by a new mutation. Evolutionists
believe a new species has a significantly higher level of new genetic information than the "old" species
from which it "evolved." But
new genetic information has never been observed to form from mutations. The entire
basis of neo-Darwinism is that new genetic information is formed by
mutations. This has never been observed
in the real world. What has been
observed is the loss of genetic information or more likely, neutral mutations have
been observed which have no noticeable affect. Multiple Mutations Let us again
think of a play by Shakespeare. If we
made a random change to a single letter, in
thousands of different words, it is impossible that the overall play
would be made more satisfying. It is far
more likely that a single letter change in a single word would create a
favorable outcome than if one change was made to each of thousands of different
words. So it is with DNA. If only one in a million mutations is
favorable, then the more mutations you have, the less likely it is that there
will be an overall favorable outcome!! In other
words, if you randomly made a million mutations in a DNA strand, it is far less
likely you will have a favorable outcome than if you made one mutation because
detrimental mutations will massively overwhelm any very, very rare favorable
mutation. But one
mutation will never create a new species or a new gene complex. This is actually a paradox for
evolution. The more changes you make,
the less likely there will be an overall favorable outcome, but many changes
are necessary to create a new species. The only
possible way for evolution to work is for an entire gene to be copied (or some
other bulk mutation is made) and then the copy is mutated with point mutations. These point mutations, and even additional
nucleotides, would be necessary so the new gene complex (of a new species)
provided some new feature (i.e. new genetic information and/or intelligence) for
the new species. But we have
already seen this is impossible because the more perfect the copy of the gene is
to begin with, the quicker the segment deteriorates due to random mutations
(i.e. Kehr's Paradox). A person
might think that evolution would work by modifying existing gene
complexes. The problem with this theory
is that if you have a failed attempt to convert an existing gene complex into a
new and improved gene complex; then you have destroyed an existing, and
important, gene complex in the germ cell!! Also, in
ways no human fully understands, pivotal genetic sequences, which are involved
in one action, are the result of non-contiguous segments of DNA (e.g. introns). The DNA needs all the information contained
in the non-contiguous sections, thus it must know where the scattered pieces
are located and what they do. Thus,
creating a new species will likely involve making changes to many different
locations on the DNA, which, in itself, creates massive problems for the theory
of evolution. But things
get worse for evolution, because like it or not, the DNA of all species is
arbitrarily deteriorating at random points on the DNA. This is universally called: genetic entropy. Genetic Entropy and
Evolution Genetic
entropy means that the DNA of all species on earth is deteriorating due to various
types of mutations. It is a scientific
fact which is known by all geneticists. Let us try
to conceive what genetic entropy really means when considering hundreds of
millions of years of speculated evolution. Let us
start with the "first living cell."
To think that the "first living cell" had perfect DNA would be
ludicrous. If there was a "first
living cell," most likely it could barely survive. Most likely it had very poor DNA, but was
just able to survive. What about
the second "living cell?" The second
living cell would also have had very poor DNA.
In fact, it is unlikely the "first living cell" could have
replicated. But in any
case, as more and more cells came into existence, all made from the mold of the
"first living cell," which had poor DNA, all of the descendants of
the "first living cell" would also have had poor DNA. But genetic
entropy would have made their DNA even worse. Actually,
the mechanism of copying nucleotides in the "first living cell" would
have been far less perfect than the sophisticated mechanism which copies
nucleotides in today's species. Thus,
genetic entropy would have been far worse in the early days of life than it is
now. But even now mutations are
dangerously common. This
copying mechanism, by the way, is made of proteins, which is a paradox because
it means a protein had to exist to copy the RNA or DNA before the first protein
was made. Even if
there had been a "first living cell," it is unlikely life on this
planet could have survived for very long.
Not only would the "first living cell" have had poor DNA, but
genetic defects; which would have accumulated from one generation of the
"first living cell" species to the next generation; would have
quickly wiped out the first and only species on this planet. But let us
move forward and talk about the first multi-celled creature which had
circulating blood (or some other fluid that was circulating). How could
such a creature have ever come into existence?
If you start with poor DNA from the "first living cell," and
then you have generation after generation of abnormally high genetic entropy, meaning
the deterioration of the DNA because of various types of errors in copying DNA
segments, how could a complex species ever have come into existence? Moving Backwards in Time With this
introduction, let us now start to look at DNA from the perspective of the first
homo sapiens sapiens,
who, according to evolution, lived more than 100,000 years ago. Let us
trace the ancestry of the first homo sapiens sapiens (who would have been brother and sister for
reasons previously mentioned) back to the first complex cell with a circulatory
system of some sort. First of
all, we would go through many generations of their "ancestor
species." An "ancestor
species," as we have seen, is a species on the evolutionary tree or
phylogenetic tree of the species. We will
define the first homo sapiens sapiens
to be "Species 1." We humans
are Species 1 according to evolution. So let us
say that the species on the phylogenetic tree represented by the parent species
of "Species 1" is called: "Species 2." In other words, on our phylogenetic tree, Species 2 was the species just before
Species 1, which is homo sapiens sapiens. How many generations of "Species 2" existed (moving backwards
in time) to go back to "Species 3," the parent species of
"Species 2?" We obviously
don't know (since evolution doesn't exist), but let us assume it was 22,000
generations. Then let us
assume there were 22,000 generations of Species 3 (we are moving backwards in
time) to get to Species 4. Then let us
assume there were 22,000 generations of Species 4 before we get to Species 5. And so on. Let us
assume, for the sake of argument, that the earliest "ancestor
species" of humans which had a circulatory system (again, assuming the
theory of evolution were true) was Species 3,000 and that in each case there
were 22,000 generations between each of the 3,000 species. (Technically it would have been species
3,001, but let's keep things simple.) Note that
as we get further from humans; that the time between birth and breeding (or
dividing) gets shorter and shorter.
While humans may reproduce at an average age of 25 years, Species 3,000
on our evolutionary tree probably bred or divided within days of
"birth." We will assume an
average breeding age of 10 years. Thus we
have: Species 3,000
(our earliest and first
ancestor species with a circulatory system, which lived 660,000,000 years ago) 22,000 generations of Species 3,000 Species
2,999, created by evolution from Species 3,000 22,000 generations of Species 2,999 Species 2,998,
created by evolution from Species 2,999 22,000 generations of Species 2,998 ... (these three dots represent hundreds of millions of years) Species 3
(grandparent species of homo sapiens sapiens) 22,000 generations of Species 3 Species 2
(parent species of homo sapiens sapiens) 22,000 generations of Species 2 Species 1 (homo sapiens sapiens) 5,000 generations of Species 1 to get
to you and me (at an average age of 20 when our ancestors had children
according to the theory of evolution) Altogether
we have 3,000 different species (from the first species with a circulating
system) and 66 million generations
(22,000 times 3,000) and roughly 660 million years (at 10 years per generation). Keeping in
mind that the DNA of Species 3,000 was not very good, and keeping in mind that
genetic entropy would have been in force for 66 million consecutive generations
(i.e. 660 million years), and most importantly, keeping in mind that there is
no mechanism to "fix" most types of DNA damage or remove unneeded
nucleotides from DNA; all genetic
mutations would have accumulated on the DNA of animals from generation
to generation and from species to species. In other
words, in this process the worthless and defective nucleotides (created by
genetic entropy) would have remained on the DNA, and been passed from one
generation to another, and from one species to another, forever because there
is no mechanism to remove them from defective DNA. There would
have been a continuously accumulating
number of genetic defects at birth among our ancestor species!! Every one
of the 66 million generations which led to humans would have had some genetic
entropy. Thus, human DNA today (that is the DNA of you and me), and the DNA
of our earliest ancestors, would have the cumulative genetic defects of 66
million generations of animals!! In other
words, genetic defects would have not only very seriously damaged the DNA of
each species, but the genetic defects would have remained and accumulated on
the DNA, from generation to generation and from species to species. So how bad would the DNA of the
first homo sapiens sapiens
have been after 660 million years of increasingly accumulated genetic defects? Suppose, for
example, there was a single mutation every year, due to genetic entropy. Humans would have 660,000,000 mutations on
our human DNA!! We could never have existed!! It would be
impossible for a species to exist after 660 million years of accumulated
genetic defects. It is ludicrous. And remember than Species 3,000 had poor DNA
to begin with and the copy mechanism back then would have been far less perfect
than it is today. Every
generation of a species would have had genetic defects passed on to the next
generation. Furthermore, when there was
a new species, the genetic defects of
the prior species would have been passed on to the new species. DNA
deteriorates over time, it doesn't get better.
If the theory of evolution were true, every human, you and me, would
have 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects. We could not exist. The Facts What is the
scientific fact? The scientific fact is that human DNA is virtually perfect. If it were not perfect, genetic diseases, and
deaths at birth from genetic defects, would be millions of times worse than they
really are. Ponder this carefully: evolution claims to
start with a "first living cell," which had a very short RNA or DNA
which could barely allow it to survive, and then after many hundreds of
millions of years of accumulated genetic defects/entropy, from generation to
generation and from species to species; humans (homo sapiens sapiens) come on the scene
with virtually perfect DNA; plus they have incomprehensively complex DNA
containing 3 billion pairs of nucleotides!!
This is nonsense; hundreds of millions of years of constantly deteriorating
DNA does yield virtually perfect DNA of a much, much greater length and an
almost infinitely higher level of sophistication. It is
claimed that natural selection created this massive, massive increase in DNA
length and DNA sophistication. But
natural selection only works on existing living, walking and breathings
species. Natural selection does not
create species, it only "selects" from among existing species. Natural selection only affects the mix of
species, not the creation of species. Every
minute step of evolution had to be driven by totally blind, random mutations of
DNA and all of these random mutations (which started with simple and poor DNA)
were constantly being degraded by genetic entropy!! You
can rest assured that genetic entropy works much,
much faster than favorable random mutations of nucleotides. In fact, we can compare genetic entropy to a
jet airplane, and compare favorable mutations to a child with a pair of "roller
skates." The jet
airplane of genetic entropy has been flying at jet speeds for 660 million years
and the roller skates of favorable mutations (which actually don't exist) has
tried to catch up and surpass the jet airplane.
But every year the child on roller skates gets further and further
behind. Evolution
essentially claims that favorable mutations can create new species at the same
time as the deterioration of the species is moving at jet speeds. It is scientific nonsense. Genetic Debris If the
theory of evolution were true, any human could trace their ancestry back to the
"first living cell." While we
have discussed genetic entropy, genetic entropy does not count failed attempts
to create new genetic information. In
addition to genetic entropy, we also have what I call "genetic debris,"
meaning failed attempts by evolution to create a new and improved species. Remember,
new species are created by evolution by "bulk mutations," followed by
point mutations. Of course this is
simplistic, but it is the only way evolution could have happened. Genetic
debris means there is a failed
attempt by evolution to create a new species (e.g. new genetic
information). The attempt does create the bulk mutations, but the point mutations
fail to create new genetic information.
Thus, the mutated bulk mutations stay on the DNA without adding any new
genetic information. For each
new species there would have been many thousands or many millions of failed
attempts to create the new species, especially if several new gene complexes
were needed for the new species. There is no
mechanism on DNA to remove these failed attempts to expand and improve DNA. The copies of DNA which failed to create any
benefit to the new species will just sit there on the DNA forever. Someone
might think that genetic debris is not an issue because any attempt to create a
new species, which included failed attempts to create new genes (which would
normally include a large amount of copied genetic material via a mutation)
would simple lead to the death of the attempted new species. However,
most new species would need 10 or 20 or more new gene complexes. It is statistically impossible that 20 or
more new gene complexes could be created, each
in a single attempt. It is
absurd to think otherwise. Thus, because
it is insane to think that all new gene complexes for a new species were
created in the first attempt for a new species; the first male and female of
each and every new species would of necessity have had many failed attempts to
create all of the required new gene complexes.
These failed attempts would stick to their DNA forever. Humans
would thus have the left-over failures (i.e. failures to create new gene
complexes) of every one of our 3,000 ancestor species, permanently stuck on our
DNA. The number of nucleotides stuck on
our DNA would number in the many, many billions. (Note:
Evolutionists may claim that it was existing
gene complexes which were modified by evolution; and that it was not copies of existing gene complexes
that were modified. As already mentioned,
this theory generates its own problems for evolution. The reason is that if you modify an existing
gene complex, and the attempt fails to create new genetic material; then you
have destroyed existing genetic
material and the offspring of the animal will likely die off as a result
rather than form a new species.) The point
is that the failures of "genetic debris" would have been "on
top" of the failures caused by genetic entropy. Genetic entropy can be thought of as point
mutations, whereas genetic debris can be thought of as large amounts of DNA
being copied, in preparation for a new species.
But the copies did not turn out to be useful. This means
that in addition to genetic entropy, many additional clumps of genetic defects,
in each new ancestor species, would have been added to our DNA in the attempts of
our ancestor species to create new genetic information (i.e. genetic debris). So what are
the facts? Human DNA is between 50% and
99+% necessary and useful. Regardless of
what the percentage is, our human DNA is virtually perfect and genetic defects
are very rare. How do you
start with simplistic garbage (the DNA of the "first living cell")
and end up with incomprehensibly complex human DNA which has very, very, very
few defects? You don't end up with
perfect DNA by using randomness; that is for sure. Yet, randomness is the one and only heart and soul of neo-Darwinism. What all of
this means is this: 1) Because
humans have virtually perfect DNA, our first ancestors would have had perfect
DNA, 2) Because
of genetic entropy our first ancestor with perfect DNA could not have lived
more than several thousand years ago (or our DNA would be very imperfect by
now). But this is
not all. All complex living species today are in exactly the same situation as
humans; meaning they have virtually perfect DNA, meaning their earliest
ancestor could only have lived a few thousand years ago!! The theory
of evolution is scientific nonsense. The
teaching of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is the only doctrine which
matches real scientific data. But things
get even worse for evolution as we will see in the next chapter. |