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 ENCODE Project Consortium, "An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome," Nature 489 (Sept. 5, 2012), 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, protein databases, and places like Wikipedia (e.g. introduction for glycolysis HERE), 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
a whole bunch of coordination. 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. (2020 Update: the image was retrieved in Sept. 2014 at the URL listed at the bottom and is no longer accessible. However images and information on glycolysis are available at Wikipedia HERE.) Glycolysis 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, from NCBI entry 1SZ2. This protein has 355 amino acids
in a Cyanobacteria species, supposedly one of the first organisms on Earth (Uniprot entry Q55855).
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.
