Friday, September 5, 2014

Probably--Not

Naturalistic evolutionists say that specific changes to the gene DNA would not be that difficult by evolution because once the gene has one beneficial change, the organism will out-reproduce others and then subsequent organisms in the gene pool will be more likely to come up with the right combination when other mutations occur. One change is supposed to build upon another. 

Perhaps one mutation in a particular protein will improve the fitness of the gene or the organism, even though research is showing that the more mutations, the more fitness declines.

Unfortunately, when the Darwinists describe evolution to the public, they are often mixing metaphors. One example they use is a string of nonsense letters which slowly changes to a readable sentence. The changes are supposed to play out in the DNA, where the mutations take place. This model leads to a lot of confusion. A very short word is pictured here to show an illustration of their model.

To give some background, inside our cells some areas of DNA are copied for the production of proteins (known as coding DNA), and some areas of DNA are not (known as non-coding). The coding areas must have very close to exact sequences of the sub-units, called "bases," in order to produce functional proteins. Previously, before the latest results of the Human Genome Project (ENCODE), it was thought that non-coding DNA was “junk” from millions of years of evolution, and could mutate freely in order to experimentally produce entirely new proteins. However, the ENCODE Project showed that these areas also have important functions, such as regulation and organization.

The evolutionists have been fighting the ENCODE results and still claim that accumulation of mutations in the DNA leads to selection of the fittest, so that the reproduction of organism with the better changes gives a bigger pool of the better genes. This is supposed to then mathematically reduce the number of “tries” for the gene to get it right and therefore the gene does not have to go through a completely random series of changes until it produces a functional protein.

The naturalistic evolutionists use the nonsense sentences to represent both coding and non-coding DNA at different levels. This mixing of metaphors is important since evolutionists use the computer simulations to make people believe that evolution is easy. They start with the nonsense sentence, and when a letter randomly becomes “right,” it sticks (in my short word illustration above, the “A” sticks once it appears). The computer programmer knows what letters should accumulate in order to get the end meaning and manipulates the letters to stay where s/he wants them. For many of these changes, the sentence is still nonsense. Only at the last few changes will you figure out what a sentence says. And in the word illustration, there is no reason that A should stick until the whole word "CAT" is present, with this functional word representing a functional gene.

At first they are saying the nonsense line of letters stands for individual sub-unit bases in the “junk,” non-coding DNA which can mutate freely. But as soon as one of the letters is right, the single letter stands for an entire set of coding DNA that is a workable, superior gene. This gene is supposed to be selected because it makes the organism more fit and that is how they justify the “sticking” of the letter. But a string of nonsense letters can NOT represent a gene that has to code for specific proteins because these gene sequences have to be fully functional in the very beginning of when protein’s biological function in the organism exists. And to make one letter stand for a whole gene that is selected because it improves the organism is to change the metaphor.

Evolutionists want you to think the working genes came about this way, but the nonsense letters can only simulate “junk” DNA that is not used by the organism and can therefore make “tries” for functional proteins with each mutation of the next generation. Nonsense DNA does not produce the functional proteins needed in life from the very beginning. The systems are things like photosynthesis, citrate cycle, carbon fixation, and glycolysis, to mention a few.  And if you start with a meaningful sentence and change letters by chance, you will see how quickly the sentence becomes unreadable and therefore represents a non-functional gene.

In journal articles and places like Wikipedia, those who insist on evolution often say something like: this or that system “is very ancient in evolution” or “was evolutionarily early.” Yes, they would have had to be early all right—like from the start. There are no partial enzymes here trying to work up step by step into working enzymes. And they did not come from previous systems and reform for these jobs, as so many evolutionists claim about functional proteins, because there were no previous systems.

The mixing of metaphors can confuse people when scientists write articles about the origin of life and how chemical reactions can take place in “natural” settings like oceans. It is true that different biological molecules don’t need a cell in order to combine with other molecules and either break or combine into something else. But for them to produce the right products, have the side-products removed, do it in the right time-span and concentration, there needs to be pretty much coordination. Otherwise, why would the cell bother to use so much energy to make the protein enzymes that are now found in all living things? And that they are fully present now means they must be accounted for.

The second image shows the process of one of the systems, glycolysis. This is the breakdown of glucose, which is made from the products of photosynthesis and is critical for the cell's energy. (I describe some specific proteins of photosynthesis in my booklet, Creation Biology.) Each step in the chain of events needs its own protein enzyme. The first enzyme in some bacteria is glucokinase (others use hexokinase as marked in the second image). Glucokinase is pictured in the third image. This protein has 355 amino acids in a Cyanobacteria species, supposedly one of the first organisms on Earth. That would require at least 1065 DNA sub-units (bases) in close to exact order (I say "close" because there are usually some substitutions tolerated). Since there are 4 subunits, the number of possible combinations for the 1065 DNA sub-units needed for the protein is 4^1065, which in more familiar base ten is about 10^640.

Many proteins and the counterpart DNA sub-unit sequences would have had to be there in close to exact order from the beginning. As I show in Creation Biology, even if all the atoms of the Earth were lined up in strings of bases, it would be vastly improbable for even a short protein to form.  Though it might be hard to believe at first, if you follow the numbers you can see that the beginning of life AND evolution by chance are virtually impossible by the natural laws we know now.

Evolutionists don’t seem to like Creationists using probabilities to disprove evolution. But they are the ones who insist the functionality comes by chance mutations of DNA, so they are the ones who introduce the concept of probability in the first place. The facts used here are from data given to us by the scientific discoveries already accomplished. Though our knowledge of science changes through the years, what the public needs is a clear picture of what the facts are telling us right now. The question is, why isn’t the public receiving it?