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.




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.