|
Patterns of Intelligence
|
|
Chapter 8: The Location of Mutations (i.e. "Genetic Chaos")As already mentioned, true evolution (i.e. macroevolution) requires purely random modifications to the DNA of an existing species in order to create a new species. These mutations must create new genetic material which would likely include several new genes, numerous improvements to the morphing of the embryo algorithms and many other changes to the DNA. Evolution totally rejects the belief that God designed the DNA of each species or that He even "helped" evolution along. Thus, the changes to the DNA of the parent species must be totally random and totally without direction. One of the most damaging facts that the theory of evolution has no answer for is the issue of the location of the mutations. Evolutionists never talk about random locations of mutations, they always assume that all mutations only affect the nucleotides that need to be changed. But this is nonsense because it would require intelligence to know where to make the changes (i.e. the location of the changes) and it would require intelligence to know what the new nucleotide(s) should be!! But evolution rejects any type of intelligence!! In this chapter we will talk about the "location" of the mutations. In the real world all nucleotides on the DNA have an equal chance of being randomly affected by a mutation. It is totally absurd to think that only the nucleotides a person may want to be changed will be changed. The location issue applies to changed, added and deleted nucleotides. This chapter will only talk about changes to existing nucleotides. Added and deleted nucleotides will not be discussed in this chapter because the "location" issues are the same for changed, added or deleted nucleotides!! Thus, this chapter will only deal with one-third of the location issues that the theory of evolution must deal with. I call the fact that every nucleotide on the DNA strand has an equal chance of being changed: "Genetic Chaos." What this means is that every nucleotide, no matter where its location, has an equal chance of being changed by a mutation.
"Target Nucleotides" and "Stationary Nucleotides"Suppose you have a 2 billion nucleotide string of DNA and you want to change 10,000 nucleotides (i.e. the "target nucleotides") to create a new species. It doesn't matter whether these nucleotides are in the same general location or are scattered in many different places, the mathematics is the same. The point is that you want to change 10,000 specific or "target nucleotides" of an existing species to create a new species. You want to keep the other 1,999,990,000 nucleotides (the "stationary nucleotides") the same as they are on the existing or original or parent species. If you listen to evolutionists you would think that this is easy to do: you simply randomly mutate the DNA to create the new species. However, with evolution there is nothing to control whether a "target nucleotide" (i.e. the nucleotides you want to change) or a "stationary nucleotide" (i.e. the nucleotides you want to keep the same) will be affected by a mutation. The location of all mutations to the DNA (i.e. all changes to the nucleotides on the DNA of the parent species) must be totally random. Evolution claims there is no direction, no plan, no goal, no "intelligence," etc. which controls mutations (i.e. random changes) to DNA. Thus, not only is the location of the mutation random, but so is the nucleotide it is changed into. The four nucleotides are A, C, G and T. Thus, a 'C' can be changed into a 'G'. In fact, a nucleotide can be changed into the same nucleotide (i.e. a 'C' can be changed into a 'C'). For example, suppose a nucleotide is an 'A' and you want to change it into a 'G'. When you change this 'A' there are four possible outcomes: an 'A', a 'C', a 'G' or a 'T'. If you randomly mutate this nucleotide, three of the four possibilities are wrong. If it is an 'A' or a 'C' or a 'T' it is wrong (that is 3 out of 4 or 75% are wrong). Only if it is a 'G' is the new nucleotide what you want (that will happen 25% of the time). In other words, if you randomly mutate a nucleotide, 75% of the time (i.e. 3 out of 4) you will end up with the wrong nucleotide. This fact is independent of the location of the mutation. It doesn't matter if the existing nucleotide is a "target nucleotide" or a "stationary nucleotide." It doesn't matter if the existing nucleotide is already what we want or if it is what we don't want. It is a fact that 75% of all mutations (i.e. changes to a nucleotide) will end up with the wrong nucleotide being in that location!! So let us discuss what happens when you start to randomly mutate DNA.
Case StudySuppose there are 200,000 random mutations to the DNA of the parent species, which has a 2 billion nucleotide long DNA. Using simple statistics, if you have a 2 billion nucleotide long DNA strand, and 10,000 "target nucleotides" (and thus 1,999,990,000 "stationary nucleotides") how many of the 200,000 random mutations (both random in terms of location and random in terms of which nucleotide will replace the old nucleotide) will affect (i.e. change) one of the 10,000 "target nucleotides?" Try to do the math before reading on. The answer is ONE (i.e. [200,000 divided by 2,000,000,000 times 10,000])!! One mutation will affect a target nucleotide and the other 199,999 mutations will affect stationary nucleotides!! To make that clear, 199,999 of the mutations will not affect a target nucleotide, meaning the mutations will affect perfectly good stationary nucleotides that you don't want to change!! Statistically, about 150,000 (i.e. 75%) of these 199,999 errant mutations will damage a correct, stationary nucleotide (i.e. the result of the mutation will be an incorrect nucleotide)!! Furthermore, the one mutation that affects a target nucleotide will not necessarily fix that nucleotide. For example, the target nucleotide may be an "A," which you want to change into a "G." But it may be changed into a "T." Even when you change a target nucleotide, the new nucleotide will be correct only 25% of the time. Thus, every time you try to fix a single target nucleotide (in this example) you will damage 150,000 perfectly good stationary nucleotides without any guarantee you have fixed a single incorrect target nucleotide!! I am going to repeat that because it is a very key concept: Every time you try to fix a single target nucleotide you will damage 150,000 perfectly good stationary nucleotides without any guarantee you have fixed a single incorrect target nucleotide!! In many cases an animal or human has died, or was severely handicapped, before it was born, because of a very small number of mutations on key parts of their DNA!! For example, in some cases a single erroneous nucleotide can cause a severe handicap or even death. Imagine how much damage 150,000 erroneous nucleotides can do!! We see that in the attempt to fix a single nucleotide for evolution, 150,000 defective nucleotides are created. These errors will be randomly spread across the DNA, meaning many of these mutations would affect the morphing of the embryo algorithms!!! Suppose you want to change 1,000 target nucleotides. How many mutations are needed affect 1,000 target nucleotides? For each target nucleotide you need to mutate 200,000 nucleotides. Thus, it will take (1,000 times 200,000) 200,000,000 mutations to affect 1,000 target nucleotides!! And roughly 149,999,250 of the 199,999,000 "stationary nucleotides" that are affected will be damaged (i.e. 75%)!!! Can you imagine damaging almost 150 million nucleotides in the process of "fixing" 250 (i.e. 1,000 times .25) target nucleotides!!! In addition, even when an accidental mutation does fix or correct a target nucleotide, it is absurd to think that this correct nucleotide will be "protected" from being changed back into an incorrect nucleotide by a later mutation!! Nucleotides will constantly be changed, sometimes into an incorrect nucleotide and sometimes into a correct nucleotide, back and forth. For example, the one target nucleotide above which was changed into a "T" may eventually be changed into a "G," which is what you wanted. But a later mutation (after it has been changed into a "G") may change the "G" into a "C," which you don't want to happen. No nucleotide, even correct nucleotides, are "protected" from being changed!! Every time a target nucleotide is changed, in 75% of the cases the resulting nucleotide will be a wrong nucleotide!! Ditto for "stationary nucleotides." It doesn't matter whether the existing nucleotide is a target nucleotide or a stationary nucleotide, nor does it matter whether the existing nucleotide is the correct nucleotide or an incorrect nucleotide; 25% of all mutations will be correct and 75% of all mutations will be incorrect!!!
Trying To Fix ALL 10,000 Target NucleotidesThe next question is this: How many mutations have to occur on the DNA before all 10,000 "target nucleotides" are changed by a mutation? To calculate how many mutations must occur, multiply 200,000 nucleotides (i.e. 200,000 nucleotides must be changed to affect one target nucleotide) times 10,000 target nucleotides that need to be affected. That is 2,000,000,000 changed nucleotides, most of which will damage nucleotides you don't want to change!! By the time all 10,000 target nucleotides have been changed (and there is certainly no reason to think that more than 25% of them will be correct nucleotides after they have all been changed!!) the vast majority of the target nucleotides and the stationary nucleotides will have been damaged!!! Literally, 75% of the nucleotides on most of the DNA will be incorrect nucleotides!! In the end, about 75% of all stationary nucleotides will be wrong and about 75% of all target nucleotides will be wrong; just to have the opportunity to change 10,000 target nucleotides to try to create a new species!! The reader may think that all of the nucleotides will have been changed, because the DNA had 2 billion nucleotides and 2 billion nucleotides were changed. However, statistically some of the nucleotides will be changed more than once and other nucleotides will not be changed at all. The point is that the DNA will be decimated and roughly 75% of the stationary nucleotides and roughly 75% of the target nucleotides on the DNA will be wrong nucleotides!! If these changes affected the DNA in a reproductive cell (which we are assuming), do you think that this cell could create a viable offspring? Not a chance!!
All of this damage is because of two mathematical facts: It is always a fact that seventy-five percent (75%) of all mutations will not yield the correct nucleotide, whether among target nucleotides or stationary nucleotides or whether among correct nucleotides or incorrect nucleotides!! So much damage will be done to the DNA in trying to create a new species that it is impossible the new species could survive. Thus, in the attempt to fix only 10,000 nucleotides, the entire DNA will be totally obliterated and only about 25% of the nucleotides on the entire DNA will be a correct nucleotide!! Even the 10,000 target nucleotides will only be 25% correct. In fact, no matter how many millions of times you randomly change the target nucleotides, the number of correct target nucleotides will always be about 25%. This is because 75% of all mutations are incorrect. After the first few hundred mutations, it is impossible that all of the nucleotides on the DNA will ever all be correct at the same time!!! Remember, once a nucleotide is correct, there is nothing to protect it from being mutated into an incorrect nucleotide. No new species could survive with a fraction of such a massive, massive destruction of its DNA!! If the old species has both a male and a female, the DNA in both of their reproductive cells (i.e. the sperm and the egg) will be damaged beyond repair. But the male and female will not have the same damage, thus it is even more ludicrous that they could have viable offspring. But we have only been talking about going from one species to the next species. When you consider that evolution claims humans descended from a "first living cell," which existed billions of years ago; to get from the "first living cell" to human DNA, the nonsense of randomly creating a new species had to have happened thousands of consecutive and independent times!! There are no words in the English language to describe the absurdity of the theory of evolution, yet this discussion is only a small part of the problems with the theory of evolution. What evolutionists do to justify their "theory" is to make two assumptions: first, they assume only "target nucleotides" are changed, and second, they assume that once a nucleotide is correct, that it is protected from ever becoming incorrect. But both of these assumptions are mathematical nonsense. Randomness does not work that way.
Evolution Without DirectionSome people might complain about this discussion and claim that evolution has no direction, thus we should not be talking about a "goal" for evolution, meaning we should not be talking about "target nucleotides." DNA is literally like a computer program, though it is much, much more complex and sensitive to errors. If you took an existing computer program, and randomly changed many of the "bits" of compiled code, it is impossible that you would end up with an improved computer program even if you had no goal for the new program!! This is because mutations are reasonably evenly spread throughout the program. But the sections of the code that may need to be changed (even if you have no goal for a new program) would not be evenly distributed. For example, take a very powerful computer program and save its executable code. Then make sophisticated changes to the program (make any changes you want to make). Then compare the new executable code to the original executable code. You will see sections of the executable code which have not been changed and other sections which have had many changes. That is why you cannot create a new and improved computer program by randomly mutating an existing program. Now let us consider the morphing of the embryo algorithms. For the DNA of advanced species, perhaps most of the DNA is the morphing of the embryo algorithm. This is a section of code which is very, very sensitive to errors and changes. While a very small number of mutations in this area would likely be needed for the creation of any new species; no matter what the new species will look like, its new morphing of the embryo algorithm would need certain sections changed far more than other sections. And some sections should not be changed at all. But random mutations are randomly spaced across the entire DNA and these mutations do not tend to cluster together in specific sections. This is the nature of randomness. Thus, the entire morphing of the embryo section would be relatively evenly peppered with mutations. But that is not the pattern of mutations that will lead to any new species. But let's look at this issue from another perspective.
Using a Male and FemaleThere is another way to look at the issue of "no direction." Suppose that a new species has both a male and a female. The mutations to their DNA will be totally independent of each other because the mutations are in different bodies and thus in totally different reproductive cells. Let us pick the male (you could pick the female if you want, it doesn't matter) and assume its DNA has 10,000 random mutations in 10,000 different locations. Let us define the male's 10,000 mutations to be the "target nucleotides" for the female DNA. In other words, in the above discussion we defined 10,000 nucleotides to be the "target nucleotides" that the new species needed to have. Someone may have complained that evolution has no direction. But when the male DNA mutates, the mutations in the female now have a "direction" because her DNA must match the male DNA!! For example, we will assume the male has his 10,000 mutations first, and then we will define the 10,000 mutations on the male DNA to be the "target nucleotides" for the female because the DNA of the male and female must be functionally similar in order to produce viable offspring!! To say this again: if the male DNA had 10,000 mutations in random locations, we will define his new DNA to be what the female DNA should look like. Their DNA is different by 10,000 nucleotides. Thus, these 10,000 nucleotides must be the ones that need to be changed in the female in order for their DNA to be functionally similar at mating. The mutations in the female have a very specific "direction" and there is no way to avoid that!! This means the 10,000 mutations in the male are the "target nucleotides" for the female DNA. Because the male and female DNA must align, and the male has 10,000 mutations in specific places, then the female must also have her mutations in these same 10,000 locations and be the same nucleotides as the male (well, it is not quite that simple but the general concept is absolutely correct). Thus, we have neutralized the issue that evolution has no direction. If a male and female DNA must align then there must be a direction for the female DNA because the female DNA must match the DNA of the male and his mutations were first.
The Issue of TimeLet us go back to the scenario where we had 200,000 mutations and only one target nucleotide was affected. We wanted to change 10,000 nucleotides to create a new species. How long do you think it would take in nature (i.e. real life) for 200,000 mutations to occur in the DNA which is inside of a single reproductive cell? In other words, there must be 200,000 mutations to the DNA in the same cell. These mutations would probably take a lot longer than the life of the animal!! What this means, is that in the attempt to fix the first of the 10,000 nucleotides, there is a very small chance that even one of the "target nucleotides" will be affected before the animal died of old age. And even then, there is only a 25% chance that if it was changed it was a correct nucleotide. It is not just about statistics, it is about time. How could a new species ever be created?? One way is to assume that only part of the mutations occur in an animal and that additional mutations will occur in its offspring. A future chapter will deal with the issue of spreading out mutations into multiple generations.
Chapter 9: About the Scientific Establishment
|