|
Prophets or
Evolution - An LDS Perspective Chapter 32 Genetic
Chaos Introduction to Genetic
Chaos Let us now
look at evolution from the perspective of the creation of a single new gene
complex, which, by the way, is not likely to be contiguous on the DNA. We must
remember that this new gene complex does not live in a vacuum; it lives in an
incomprehensively complex environment. Thus,
to generate a new species is to modify an incomprehensively complex DNA and
come up with numerous sophisticated modifications to create a new
incomprehensively complex species. In other words, the changes to the DNA need to be made in many different
places, especially if there is a significant change in the function of any
organ, bone structure, physical function, etc. For
example, if you change the bone structure you also have to change the muscle
structure, the circulatory system, the lymph system, the programming in the
brain, etc. These are likely to require
making changes in the DNA in
many different locations; plus making additions
to the DNA in many different locations, in order to create new genetic
information and new species function.
Even some deletions of nucleotides may be needed (but this will be
ignored in this chapter). But we will
be simple for now. Let us
start with the DNA of an animal which has 2 billion pairs of nucleotides. We will randomly create an extra "copy"
of one of sections of the DNA, a gene complex, which has 5,000 nucleotides. We will
place this copy, of a contiguous section of DNA, in a new location on the DNA
in the attempt to begin to create a new species. The DNA now has 2,000,005,000 nucleotides. In order to
create a new gene complex let us assume we need to do two things to the copied
gene complex (i.e. just creating an extra copy of a gene complex won't give us
a new species because it does not add any new genetic information to the DNA). First, let
us assume, to create a new species, we need to modify 1,000 of the 5,000 nucleotides of the new gene
complex. Second, let
us assume we need to add 1,000
more nucleotides to the new gene complex.
To simplify things, we will assume these additional nucleotides need to
be inside the copied gene complex area. Thus, our initial 2 billion nucleotide (pair) DNA is first
increased to 2,000,005,000 nucleotide pairs by copying a gene complex. Next, 1,000 of the 5,000 copied nucleotides
will be modified by point mutations, and simultaneously 1,000 new nucleotides
will be added to the new gene complex area.
This will give us a new gene complex, new genetic information and a new
species. Of course,
the order in which mutations or adding new nucleotides is done is not
important, only the end result is important. We expect
to end up with a DNA of 2,000,006,000 nucleotides which will have new genetic
information inside of a new gene complex and the new DNA will constitute a new
species. Of course,
in the real world, a new species would require a lot more changes than in this
example. But let us start small. The Key Issue Before
going on, we need to have a little discussion.
If we have a single point mutation, where will it be on the DNA of the
new species? Will the single point
mutation be within the 5,000 nucleotides which were accidentally copied from an
"old" gene complex? Or will the
point mutation occur somewhere else on the DNA outside the copy of the
"old" gene complex? In other
words, if we randomly mutate a nucleotide somewhere on the entire DNA, what is the probability that this
mutation will be in the range or area of the 5,000 contiguous nucleotides where
we want the mutation to be? The
probability is 5,000 divided by 2,000,005,000 or 1 in 400,001. What this
means is that if we randomly mutate this
DNA strand 400,001 times, only one
of these mutations will likely occur in the desired new segment of 5,000
nucleotides. There are
two problems when doing this. First, we
are not sure the one mutation (inside the segment of 5,000) changes a
nucleotide which needs to be mutated within that segment. Second, we are not sure, even if a desired
nucleotide is mutated, that it will mutate to the correct nucleotide we want. But there
is a third and even bigger problem: there will be 400,000 mutations in sections
of the DNA where we definitely don't want to mutate the DNA!! In other words,
in order to make a single nucleotide change where we want the change to take
place (i.e. mutating a single nucleotide in a section where we want mutations),
we will accidentally mutate the DNA strand in 400,000 places where we don't want any mutations. What kind of
damage is going to be done by random mutations in 400,000 places where we don't
want any mutations? The damage would
obviously be fatal. And this is just the
first mutation of a single nucleotide in the desired section!! The second mutation
inside the extra gene copy will result in another 400,000 mutations in places
where we don't want to mutate the DNA. And on and on and on. In fact, by
the time we have created 1,000 mutations to the extra gene copy, which is the
requirement, we have made approximately 400,000,000
undesirable mutations (that is 400
million undesirable mutations!!) on the former "good part" of
the DNA (i.e. outside the area where we want mutations). Likewise,
when we try to add 1,000 new nucleotides to the new gene complex area, we will
have to add roughly
400,000,000 additional
nucleotides to the entire DNA, in places we don't want to add nucleotides, in
order to add 1,000 nucleotides to the new gene complex area. If you do
the math that is 800,000,000 damaging mutations just to get one new gene
complex. However, while doing this will
create 1,000 different nucleotides to the new gene complex, and 1,000 new
nucleotides inside the new gene complex area, there is no guarantee that these
2,000 mutations are the 2,000 mutations we want!! It is at this point that the prior chapters on this subject come into play because the chances these
2,000 mutations (including 1,000 new nucleotides) create a new gene complex is
virtually zero. Thus, not
only is the probability of creating a new gene complex virtually zero, we have
damaged the DNA of the new species by 800,000,000 undesirable mutations or new
nucleotides in undesirable locations. Our
resulting DNA strand will have roughly 2,400,006,000 nucleotides, of which
there are 400,000,000 mutations in sections we don't want mutations and
400,000,000 new nucleotides are in places where we don't want added nucleotides!! Literally one-third of
the DNA (800,000,000 divided by 2,400,006,000) of this species will be damaged
while trying to create a single new gene complex from an old gene complex!!!
Do you think a species can survive if one-third of its DNA is randomly damaged by undesirable
mutations just to take a chance on creating one new gene complex?? Obviously not. I call this
"genetic chaos." What if we
took a computer program; and remember human DNA is more complex and more
functional than any computer program on earth; and randomly changed 1/6th of
its "bits" and randomly add 1/6th (of the original size) additional
random bits. Do you think the computer
program would still work? Obviously
not!! Do you think the computer program
will be more productive? This is
absurd!! However, we
have only talked about one new gene complex.
A new species will likely need to have 20 new gene complexes and massive
changes to hundreds of other sections of the DNA which remain as part of the
new species, but need to be modified (e.g. modifications to the DNA which
controls the creation of the circulatory system)!! Trying to
add 3 new gene complexes to an existing DNA will wipe out (i.e. randomize) the
entire DNA with mutations, but the average new species probably needs 20 new
gene complexes. 400,000,000
additional nucleotides will be added in the attempt to create a single new
gene, as mentioned above. But for 20 new
genes there will be 8,000,000,000 additional nucleotides, making a total length
of about 10,000,000,000 nucleotides on the DNA, all of which were either
randomly added or were randomly mutated several times over!!! And this is
just for one new species!! In prior
chapters our mutations were always conveniently put inside the copy genes were
we wanted the mutations to occur. But in
the real world, all mutations are random.
This means the location
of each and every mutation can happen anywhere
on the DNA, not just the section we want the mutation to occur!! Comments on Genetic Chaos What just
happened in this discussion is that in the attempt to create a new species and
create new gene complexes, new morphing of the embryo algorithms, etc.; which is a requirement of the theory of
evolution, we killed the new species long before its new DNA was
modified (though even at this point the modifications are not guaranteed to be
functional, all we have done at this point is count the mutations in the area
where we want them). So many
mutations and undesirable new nucleotides were added to this species, in the
attempt to add a single new gene complex, that we killed the species. No species could survive with this many
random mutations or even 1% of this many mutations in undesirable locations. But as just
mentioned, the average new species, considering complex species, probably needs
at least 20 new gene complexes, plus massive numbers of changes to the morphing
of the embryo algorithms, the reprogramming of the brain, etc. etc. And don't
forget that the new species needs both a male and female, whose DNA must align (this applies to genetic debris as well). Thus, if these billions of detrimental
mutations happened to a male, then a female (especially considering the added
nucleotides) would need to have billions of added nucleotides in the same places on her DNA so their
DNA would align. But all of the
mutations in the male and female would be totally random and independent
of each other!! The point
is that randomness is randomness.
Randomness can hit any part of DNA at any time; not just the highly
specific places we want to change. So when an
evolutionist says that a copy of a gene (they should talk about the entire gene
complex, not just the gene) is modified to create a new gene (complex), the
reality is that the mutations needed to change the old gene into a new gene can
occur anywhere on the DNA
strand, not just where we want them to occur!! Thus, in
the attempt to create a new gene, "genetic chaos" (or we could call
it "genetic randomization") occurs randomly all over the DNA and is
guaranteed to kill the new species long, long, long before any benefit is
realized from the mutations. Even if we
were not dealing with a copy of a gene complex, but were dealing with modifying
an original gene complex, the numbers are almost identical. "Nothing Is
Statistically Impossible" The theory
of evolution claims that "nothing is statistically impossible." When they are shown the statistical insanity
of a new species arising by random mutations, they simply say "nothing is
statistically impossible." But their
comments are based on the assumption that the location of mutations is exact. But genetic chaos takes into account the fact
that the location of mutations
is itself random. Thus, the
location of the mutation and the mutation itself are both random. While
"nothing is statistically impossible" (when assuming every mutation
occurs in the exact location where you want it to occur), genetic chaos doesn't
follow the assumptions of evolution. The
insane probability of evolution has just become inane. In other
words, genetic chaos goes beyond probability.
Probability has to do with the actual mutations in places where they are
needed. But genetic chaos says that in
the process of converting and
adding specific nucleotides in specific places, something unexpected happens: billions
of unwanted mutations and billions of new nucleotides occur in areas they are
not supposed to occur. Statistics
cannot fix this problem. The results
of the process are not
statistical, but factual. And the process is fatal in every case
once complexity is introduced to the DNA because there is no way to avoid
killing the new species due to the complexity of its DNA. There is no
mechanism on the DNA of any species to "fix" these genetic errors,
whether they are mutations where we don't want them, or additional nucleotides
where we don't want them. As far as
scientists know, all mutations become "baggage" forever, meaning the
baggage is passed on to all descendants. Between
genetic entropy, genetic debris and genetic chaos (the latter two of these
three phenomenon do not occur in nature, but would occur if the theory of
evolution were true), our human DNA would be many, many billions of defective
nucleotides long. This length
alone would kill us by the amount of energy our DNA would consume. But even if the energy did not kill us, the
genetic damage would kill us. Peppering DNA With Random Mutations Suppose we
took a perfectly good DNA strand and started randomly changing nucleotides and
randomly adding nucleotides one at a time.
I call this "genetic peppering" of DNA, though technically it
is called "genetic entropy." Doing this
would be like taking a digital picture and randomly changing the values of the
Red, Green and Blue (or whatever color scheme is used) pixel values. If we
"pepper" a digital picture often enough it will eventually become
total noise. Likewise, if we pepper DNA
often enough it will eventually become total garbage. But DNA is
functional and pictures are not functional, they are only aesthetic. As
mentioned before, you can change one nucleotide in a fertilized germ cell and
kill the forming baby or create massive damage to the new baby. Imagine making ten thousand random changes to
the morphing of the embryo algorithm of a recently fertilized egg!! In short,
if you pepper the morphing of the embryo algorithm you could have instant death to the new species. Human DNA
is not very resistant to peppering because it is so sophisticated. As another example, inside every human gene
are introns and exons. If you mess with either
of these types of nucleotides, you are going to get damaged genes and thus
damaged proteins. But if you
have a damaged protein, the entire protein structure, to which this protein
belongs, may not bind where it needs to bind or it may not repel where it needs
to repel or it may not be water-resistant where it needs to be water-resistant,
etc. In other words, one or more
incorrect amino acids which are inserted into the protein structure may
neutralize the function of the protein structure. Also, at
the end-points of each gene on the DNA are special nucleotide sequences which
tell other proteins where the gene begins and where it ends. If you mess with one of these nucleotides,
two genes could run together to make one very long protein. This would effectively destroy the usefulness
of the proteins made by both genes. This
in itself may destroy an entire protein structure inside the cell. The point
is that genetic chaos will destroy the DNA much
faster than the reader may think.
Considering that only the DNA in the germ cells are passed to the next
generation, and that these same germ cells use the critical morphing of the
embryo algorithms, and considering that all evolution must occur exclusively in
the germ cells, it is clear that genetic chaos does not need the millions of
randomly mutated nucleotides or millions of randomly added nucleotides to destroy
a new species. It may only take one misplaced nucleotide or one misplaced
additional nucleotide. There are
many reasons genetic chaos is proof that the theory of evolution is scientific
nonsense. So What
is the Truth? If the
theory of evolution were true, there would be so much baggage accumulated on
our DNA, from our ancestors and ancestor species, that only a puny fraction of
a billionth of 1% of our DNA would be functional. But this is not what is observed. If
evolution was true, we humans would not only accumulate genetic entropy and
genetic debris from our ancestors and ancestor species, we would also
accumulate genetic chaos. But the
genetic chaos created by the change or addition of one single nucleotide would result in the death of the new
species. And a new species typically
needs about 20 new gene complexes. Some people
might speculate that there is some unseen template that protects correct
nucleotides from being mutated. If this
were true mutations would only affect unimportant sections of the DNA. This possible response is nonsense; there is
no hidden or secret template that protects correct nucleotides from being
mutated, especially for a new species
which doesn't exist yet. Even
evolutionists admit that evolution is "blind" and has no direction
when it is creating new species. Furthermore,
no one can point to a section of human DNA and prove it is worthless. Scientists used to think that large sections
of human DNA were so worthless they called them "junk DNA." As Dr. Sanford stated, the concept of
"junk DNA" is disappearing as scientists learn what these DNA
sections are used for. For example,
scientists still don't have a clue where all of the morphing of the embryo
algorithms are scattered on human DNA. Also, some
might speculate that when an extra copy of a gene is made, even though the
extra copy is useless to the plant or animal; they may theorize that mutations
will be more likely to happen to the extra copy of the gene than to the rest of
the gene. While the
endpoints of the copy of a gene may be abnormally vulnerable to mutations
because they may be weak bindings, these represent only a handful of
nucleotides. The vast majority of the
copy of the gene is no more or less prone to mutations than is any other part
of the DNA. Time As always,
there is also the issue of time. As
mentioned above, in order to get one nucleotide "inside" the area of
the DNA where a new gene complex is supposedly being built, it took 400,000 damaging
mutations in sections of DNA where you did not want mutations. How long (in
terms of time) do you suppose it takes a DNA strand of 2 billion nucleotides to
experience 400,001 mutations (and 400,000 additional nucleotides), in the
attempt to get one mutation and one new nucleotide inside a key area? This
creates a paradox for evolutionists. If
they say mutations happen fast, to accommodate evolution; then they are
admitting that genetic entropy would have killed off every one of our very
distant ancestor species due to accumulated genetic entropy. On the
other hand, if they say mutations are slow, then there is not enough time,
meaning the first animal or plant of a new species would die of old age long
before the first nucleotide of
the first new gene complex lands in an area where it is needed. In fact,
taking a middle ground leads to the conclusion the new animal or plant would
die of old age long, long before a single new gene complex could form. If
evolution were true, genetic chaos would be true and we would not exist. Because we exist, therefore evolution is
false. |