Chapter 9. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis*
Transcript of Chapter 9. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis*
Evolution-1
Chapter 9. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis*
Did life evolve through unguided, materialistic processes from simple chemicals into single cell
organisms and then through a process of random genetic mutation acted upon by natural
selection into the plants and animals we see today? Or, was life designed by an amazingly
competent, perhaps supernatural agent with an end in mind? These are foundational questions.
If we are here because of random materialistic processes, then it is hard to argue that our
existence has a purpose, but if we are here through the agency of a supernatural creator with an
end in mind, then we have value and a purpose defined by our creator.
Having previously established my credentials as a Christian heretic to some, I will also establish
my credentials as a scientific heretic to others. I believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution, or its
neo-Darwinian version, is an elegant theory and worthy of investigation. Darwin was a keen
observer of small changes in species, and he tied these small changes to the large changes seen in
the fossil record with a plausible theory of accumulated variation operated on by natural
selection. However, I believe that Darwin’s theory is a failed theory. But first, we have to
define what evolution and Darwin’s theory are.
Evolution (or general evolution), according to most biology text books, is simply change over
time, or an inheritable change in the characteristics within a population from one generation to
the next, or the change in the gene pool of a population over time. Defined in this way, evolution
is a well substantiated fact. The fossil record, observed small changes in species over time, and
drug resistant strains of bacteria all testify that life has changed over time.
Darwinian evolution is the theory that all organisms developed from one or maybe a few
original one-celled organisms 1. This theory is often called common descent. Darwin observed
the fossil record and small changes in varieties of animals, such as pigeons, produced by
selective breeding. He postulated that small changes could naturally produce large changes such
as seen in the fossil record given enough time. The mechanism for change that Darwin
suggested was variation operated on by natural selection. A variation was a small change from
one generation in a species to the next, and if that change allowed the organism to survive or
reproduce better, nature would select it and preserve it. At the time, the source of variation was
not known. Darwin believed that change occurred gradually, step-by-small step, over a long
period of time.
Neo-Darwinian evolution is the theory that common descent is true and that random genetic
mutation to DNA operated on by natural selection is the mechanism for change. It is the same as
Darwinian evolution except that variation is explained in terms of genetic mutation.
Microevolution describes small changes in organisms due to random mutations and genetic
variability. We know this is true from bacterial resistance to antibiotics and from changes in
animal and plant species over time.
_____________________________________ * I borrowed this title from Michael Denton’s 1986 book. Darwinian Evolution is still a theory in Crisis.
Evolution-2
Macroevolution is the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. It implies that
successive microevolutionary steps lead to large changes in organisms.
Chemical Evolution is the hypothesis that the origin of life is explained by chemicals combining
through random natural interactions to form the molecules of life and then these molecules
organizing into one-celled organisms by natural processes.
General evolution is quite often treated as an umbrella for Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, and
chemical evolution. That is, general evolution being true implies that Darwinian, neo-
Darwinian, and chemical evolution are also true, but this is faulty logic. Observed change over
time does not imply that Darwinian mechanisms are the cause.
In this chapter, we will explore chemical evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution, common descent
and design, but first we will discuss some basic biochemistry, which is the foundation for all
these subjects.
Modern Understanding of the Cell and Basic Biochemistry
In Darwin’s time, and until the early 20th century, the cell was thought to be a very simple bag of
protoplasm--unstructured organic material. Discoveries of modern science have proved this
concept to be in error. Even the simplest cell is now compared in complexity to an industrial city
with roads, factories, and libraries. The human cell is constructed of roughly 120,000 proteins,
many of which are integrated to form complicated molecular machines that conduct the cell’s
processes. Different compartments in the cell allow the assembly of molecules which require
unique environments. In fact, an environment that is benign to one molecule may be hostile to
another. The cell’s compartments have doors or windows that open automatically when the right
molecule approaches but stay closed when others approach. Molecular haulers transport
materials along highways that connect different parts of the cell. Molecular machines, with the
help of cables, ropes, and pulleys, unzip, read, and duplicate DNA which is a very long molecule
that stores information. The information in DNA is equivalent to many printed volumes and
specifies how to construct and regulate proteins.
Life’s Building Blocks Atoms--the building blocks of matter
(hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and others)
Molecules--combination of atoms bound together by electrical forces (water, sugar, salt,
amino acids, and many others)
Amino Acids--molecules that are the building blocks of proteins
Proteins--folded chains of amino acids that form the structural building blocks and
machinery in cells
Cells--the building blocks of living organisms
DNA--a long, ladder-like molecule, found in a cell’s nucleus, that stores the information
(code or directions) for building proteins (deoxyribonucleic acid)
Mutation--an error in the DNA code
Evolution-3
Genetic information is stored as chromosomes. We have 23 pairs of chromosomes (apes have
24, mice have 20, corn has10, dogs have 39, but flowering plants have the most). One
chromosome in a pair comes from our mother and the other from our father. A chromosome is
composed of a “ladder” of nucleotides, twisted into a helix. Chromosomes are copied during
reproduction but no new genetic information is created except by an error (mutation). Nearly all
mutations are detrimental, and the cell has mechanisms to correct all but a very few.
A nucleotide is made up of one sugar
molecule (deoxyribose), one phosphate
molecule, and one base molecule. Sugar
and phosphate molecules make up the sides
of the “ladder,” and pairs of bases make up
the rungs. There are four kinds of base
molecules: thymine (T), adenine (A),
cytosine (C), or guanine (G). Base
molecules are paired across the rungs of the
“ladder” with A always pairing with T and
C always pairing with G; thus, one side is
the “reverse image” of the other. The sides
of the ladder hold the base-pairs in a
sequence. The sequence of bases makes up
the genetic code. Any base-pair can follow
another in the sequence.
The Cell Separate compartments with unique
chemical environments
Controlled access passages between
compartments
A molecular transportation network to
supply raw materials and distribute finished
products
Molecular machines
Hauling cargo Cables, ropes, pulleys
Switches Energy conversion
Propulsion Manufacturing
Unzipping, reading, and duplicating DNA
A library (chromosomes) containing
information that specifies how to build and
regulate proteins (DNA)
Harris; DDD-V; September 2004 2
© 2001 Sianuer Associates, Inc.
Life: The Science of Biology, 6th edition by
Purves et al (2000) Fig 4.7a.
By Permission of Oxford University Press, USA
www.oup.com
Evolution-4
Humans have a total of roughly 3 billion base-
pairs divided among our 46 chromosomes. Each
chromosome contains base sequences called
genes, which are the code for building proteins
and comprise roughly 2% of our DNA. A typical
gene is composed of 3,000 bases. The remainder
of our DNA has been called “junk” DNA because
it was thought to serve little or no useful purpose,
consisting of repetitive sequences and discarded,
damaged genes. Between 1990 and 2003
information from the Genome Project suggested
that we have between 25,000 and 40,000 genes in
total that code for roughly 120,000 proteins
implying that genes must code for more than one
protein. Between 2005 and 2011 the ENCODE research project indicated that at least 90% of
the genome, previously called “junk” DNA, plays a coordinating, control, and regulatory
function and is not junk at all 3.
Proteins form the building blocks, energy converters, and machinery of cells. Our cells use
roughly 120,000 proteins. Twenty different amino acids are used to construct proteins, and a
typical protein comprises a sequence of hundreds to over one-thousand amino acids. Amino
acids are assembled into a properly sequenced chain by a molecular machine called a ribosome
and folded by other molecular machines to form a functioning protein. The figure below shows
four amino acids and how they are assembled using peptide bonds to form a possible protein
segment.
We say chromosomes hold the
genetic code because they contain
information that specifies the design
and regulation of proteins. The
information stored in a chromosome
by bases is analogous to the
information stored on a computer
disk as binary bits, or to the
information stored in a decimal
number as digits, or to the
information stored on a printed page
as letters and punctuation. The
information stored in one typical
human gene is roughly equivalent to
that stored on one-fourth of an
encyclopedia-type page (1300 letters).
The total information content of the
human genome is roughly equivalent
to 300 encyclopedia volumes (See the note at the end of this chapter). Each set of three bases (a
base triplet is called a codon) within a gene is a code that defines an amino acid by the sequence
of bases in the triplet. The sequence of base triplets in a gene defines the sequence of amino
Amino Acids combine to form a Protein Segment
From Darwin’s Black Box 4
DNA model
Evolution-5
acids in a protein. The genetic code for amino acids is shown in the following table. Most
amino acids can be specified by more than one codon (base triplet).*
Genetic Code for Amino Acids 5
The directions in DNA are read by a molecular machine called RNA polymerase and copied in
the form of mRNA (messenger RNA). This process is called transcription. The mRNA is
transferred to a molecular manufacturing machine called a ribosome. Using the directions in the
mRNA molecule, the ribosome assembles an amino acid chain from amino acids brought to the
ribosome by tRNA or transfer RNA. After assembly, another molecular machine helps the
amino acid chain fold into a protein. Proteins are assembled into the cell’s building blocks and
molecular machines.
Genetic mutations are changes to the sequences of bases. There are different kinds of mutations.
A point mutation replaces one of the bases in a sequence with another base. There are also
deletions, insertions, and transpositions which may change many bases. These changes may
change the amino acid specified in a protein chain which could cause the protein to malfunction,
they could have no effect at all, or they could conceivably improve the protein’s function or
specify a new, functional protein.
To summarize, DNA is a code that has a purpose. Its purpose is to specify the construction and
regulation of proteins through an elaborate process that requires an integrated system of
specialized molecules and molecular machines. DNA replication, necessary for reproduction,
requires the operation of molecular machines that unzip, read, and copy DNA, and molecular
machines require DNA to specify their assembly. DNA and proteins form an interdependent
system, which is necessary for life and reproduction.
______________________________________ * The multiplicity in codons for a single amino acid gives the code a sophistication that goes far beyond what will be
discussed here.
T T T T T
T T A A G
T C A G A
T T C C C C C C
T T T T T T A A
A G T C A G T C
A A A C C
T T T A A
T C A A G
A A A
T A A
G T C
G G G A A
T T T A A
T C G A G
G G G
C A A
A T C
T T T T A A G G
C C C C G G A A
T C A G T C A G
C C C C T T
C C C C G G
T C A G T C
A A A A T
C C C C G
T C A G G
G G G G C C C C A A
C C C C G G G G G G
T C A G T C A G A G
T T G G G G
A A G G G G
T C T C A G
Phenylalanine
Leucine
Isoleucine
Methionine/Start
Valine
Valine/Start
Serine
Proline
Threonine
Alanine
Thyrosine
Stop
Histidine
Glutamine
Asparagine
Lysine
Aspartic acid
Glutamic acid
Cysteine
Tryptophan
Arginine
Glycine
Evolution-6
Chemical Evolution
Darwin’s theory of evolution did not explain how life got started, but the theory of chemical
evolution attempted to fill in this very important
gap. Chemical evolution is the theory (or
hypothesis) that life started when chemicals
combined through random natural processes to
form the molecules of life. According to the
theory, gases in the earth’s early atmosphere, with
the help of lightning, combined to form amino
acids, sugars, phosphates, bases, and other
molecules. These were washed into lakes and
ponds where the amino acids linked into chains to
make proteins. Sugars, phosphates and bases
combined to form RNA and DNA, and lipid
molecules organized to form membranes.
Ultimately, the proteins, RNA or DNA and membranes
“cooperated” to form the first, living one-celled
organisms.
In 1953, the Miller-Urey experiment synthesized some amino acids (the building blocks of
proteins) from atmospheric gases--methane, ammonia, and hydrogen--that were thought to have
been the main gases in the atmosphere at the time life began. Since then, other amino acids and
molecules used in proteins, DNA and RNA have been synthesized in similar experiments. At the
time, the Miller-Urey results seemed to be strong evidence for the theory of chemical evolution
since it demonstrated that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which are the building
blocks of life, can be produced by natural processes. Following this success, it was believed that
amino acids could then assemble into functional proteins by natural processes. To date, this has
not been demonstrated. While amino acid strings have been synthesized under very careful
conditions in the lab, they have not been found to assemble into functional proteins in simulated
natural environments outside the cell. In addition, there are some rather serious problems with
the chemical evolution theory.
Problem 1: The Miller and subsequent experiments used an “atmosphere” consisting of
methane, ammonia, and hydrogen but no oxygen. Oxygen would disrupt the formation of amino
acids and other molecules needed for life. Today, scientists believe that methane, ammonia, and
hydrogen were not primary constituents of the early atmosphere, and some believe the
atmosphere may have contained small amounts of oxygen from the photo-dissociation of water
vapor 6.
Problem 2: Amino acids link to each other by peptide bonds, but these bonds do not form
spontaneously. In a neutral environment, peptide bonds require the addition of energy and a
mechanism for using the energy to assemble the molecules 7. In a living cell, amino acids are
linked together by a molecular machine called a ribosome using an RNA transcript and ATP as
an energy source. The peptide bond reaction liberates water and requires a drying environment.
At the same time, a wet environment loaded with amino acids is required to bring different
amino acids together.
Miller Urey Experiment from
answersingenesis.org
Evolution-7
Problem 3: The processes that form amino acids and other basic life molecules also form
contaminants including amino acids that are not used in proteins. There are about 500 different
amino acids, but only 20 are used in proteins. If a non-protein amino acid or other contaminant
links with an amino acid chain, the chain will be useless as a protein.
Problem 4: Nineteen of the twenty amino acids used in proteins come in both left- and right-
handed symmetries. Roughly equal numbers of each are produced in origin-of-life experiments,
but proteins can use only left-handed amino acids. If a right-handed amino acid is included in
the amino acid chain, the chain will be useless as a protein. This is called the chirality problem.
The probability of assembling a short chain of amino acids (400 amino acids long) with all
left-handed amino acids is infinitesimally small (roughly one chance in 5x1061). This
probability is computed in the Chirality Problem breakout below.
The computation assumes the following:
All the carbon in Earth’s crust is used to assemble a reservoir of amino acids;
Amino acids are randomly drawn from the reservoir of half left-handed and half right-
handed amino acids to form strings of 400-amino acids until all amino acids are used;
Every second for 500 million years the chains formed are disassembled to restore the
reservoir and the assembly process is repeated; and
The probability that one of those strings formed every second for 500 million years
contains all left-handed amino acids is calculated.
Problem 5: Not all amino acid strings, even if there are all left-handed amino acids in the string,
will fold into a functioning protein. Doug Axe estimates 1 in 1077 amino acid chains will fold to
produce a functioning protein for amino acid chains that are 150 amino acids long 8.
Problem 6: The simplest living, reproducing cell requires at least 100 (and probably 200 to 400)
average sized proteins 9. Proteins consist of between 50 and 3000 amino acids, and the median
length for bacterial proteins is roughly 400 amino acids 10. If the probability of assembling a
single functioning protein using random, natural processes is infinitesimally small, assembling
100 proteins that work together is far beyond the reach of natural processes. Mathematician and
Astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated the probability of randomly producing the proteins necessary
for a living cell to be 1 in 1040,000 11.
Problem 7: The first living, reproducing cell would also require DNA and RNA to specify
proteins and a cell wall to protect the cell. This cell would require DNA with at least 120,000
base pairs 12. The problems associated with assembling sugars, phosphates and bases into DNA
or RNA is a more difficult problem than assembling amino acids into proteins.
Evolution-8
Note: Large and Small Numbers
In this Chapter I use scientific notation as a shorthand to represent very large or very small
numbers. These numbers are written like 103 or 106 or 10-3. We call them ten to the third
power, ten to the sixth power, and ten to the negative third power respectively. 103 means
10 used as a multiplying factor three times or 10x10x10, which is equal to 1000 or one-
thousand. 106 means 10x10x10x10x10x10, which is 1,000,000 or one million. 10-3
means 1 divided by 103 or 1/(10x10x10), which is one one-thousandth, 1/1000, or 0.001.
109 is one-billion (1,000,000,000), and 1012 is one-trillion (1,000,000,000,000). 10100 is 1
followed by 100 zeros, and 10-100 is a decimal point followed by 99 zeros and a one. The
following examples will give a rough idea of how large or small a number is.
A typical worker in the U.S. earns 4x104 (4 times 104 or 40,000) dollars a year.
There are about 3x108 (300 million) people in the U.S.
The U.S. national debt is about 2x1013 (20 trillion) dollars.
There are roughly 7x1013 cells in the human body (70,000,000,000,000).
There are about 4x1025 atoms in a cubic meter of air
(40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
There are roughly 1x1011 (one-hundred billion, 100,000,000,000) stars in the Milky Way
Galaxy.
There are toughly 1x1011 galaxies in the known universe.
There are about 1x1057 atoms of hydrogen in our sun.
There are roughly 1x1080 atoms in the known universe.
Human hair ranges from 2x10-5 (.00002) to 2x10-4 (.0002) meters in diameter.
A micron is 1x10-6 meters across (.000001).
An atom is roughly 2x10-10 meters in diameter (.0000000002).
Evolution-9
The Chirality Problem
A simple bacterium needs a few hundred proteins to live and reproduce. The average
bacterial protein is 400 amino acids long. Amino acids from Miller-Urey type experiments
come in equal numbers of left- and right-handed symmetries—chirality. Only left-handed
amino acids are used in proteins. What is the probability that a random, natural process
could have assembled a single 400 amino acid string using all left-handed amino acids?
It is estimated (on the high side) that there are 1020 kg of carbon in the earth’s crust,
oceans, and atmosphere—that is 5x1045 carbon atoms. An average amino acid uses
roughly 4 carbon atoms, so, using all the Earth’s carbon, 1.25x1045 amino acids can
theoretically be made. We assume that these amino acids go into a reservoir from which
amino acids are drawn to assemble amino acid strings. From this reservoir, we will
assemble amino acid strings of 400 amino acids to make 1.25x1045 /400 = 3.1x1042 strings.
To make a string of amino acids we randomly draw amino acids from the reservoir
containing half left-handed and half right-handed amino acids. The probability that the
first amino acid we draw from the reservoir is left-handed is ½ since half are left-handed.
The probability that the second is left-handed is also ½. The probability that both are left-
handed is ½ x ½ = ¼ since there are four possible outcomes with only one of them getting
left-handed amino acids on both draws: RR, RL, LR, LL. If we draw three amino acids,
the probability that all three are left-handed is ½ x ½ x ½ = 1/8. There are eight
possibilities with only one being all left-handed: RRR, RRL, RLR, LRR, RLL, LRL, LLR,
LLL. We use ½ as a multiplying factor each time we draw a new amino acid to calculate
the probability that we get all left-handed amino acids. The probability that we will get
400 left-handed amino acids is (1/2)400 = 3.8 x 10-121 or 1 chance in 2.6 x 10120. This is for
the first try, but we can assemble 3.1 x 1042 strings (see above) using all the amino acids
made from all of Earth’s carbon. With all these amino acid strings, the probability of
getting one string with all left-handed amino acids is 3.8x10-121 x 3.1x1042 = 1.2x10-78.
But we have lots of time so we can disassemble and randomly reassemble that many
strings. We assume we can do that every second in the 500 million years between the time
the earth cooled sufficiently for life to exist and the first living cells are seen in the fossil
record. 1.6 x 1016 is the number of seconds in 500 million years. I use one second as the
assembly time even though it takes a ribosome about a minute to assemble a small protein.
The probability of getting one string with all left-handed amino acids is 1.2x10-78 x
1.6x1016 = 1.9x10-62.
This is the probability of getting one 400 amino acid string with all left-handed amino
acids using all of Earth’s carbon and all of the time available. This probability is:
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000019
Evolution-10
In a living cell, the assembly of a protein requires carefully controlled environments, molecular
machinery, and the information provided by RNA, not just matter, energy, and amino acids.
RNA transcription and DNA replication require the action of protein machines. These form an
integrated, interdependent system in a living cell. Assembly of the first living cell is out of reach
for natural processes. Astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle compared the probability of
the first living cell being naturally assembled to a tornado going through a junk yard and
assembling a Boeing 747 13.
Since assembly of proteins or DNA by natural processes is extremely improbable (outside a
living cell), it has been conjectured that the path to life started with self-replicating molecules.
One conjectural example is a reproducing strand of RNA called a ribozyme. Some ribozymes
have catalytic capabilities like proteins and store information like DNA. However, their catalytic
properties are insufficient for the integrated, coordinated functions required for reproduction.
Also, ribozymes are fairly long strings of bases, and assembling a functioning ribozyme faces the
same difficulties as assembling proteins or DNA.
To summarize: while the basic molecular building blocks for proteins and DNA have been
synthesized in the lab using a carefully controlled environment, the assembly of these building
blocks into proteins and DNA has never been achieved in the lab using natural conditions. The
probability that they could randomly assemble into functional proteins and DNA, much less a
living cell, even if all the Earth’s material and temporal resources were available, is so
infinitesimally small that the chemical evolution hypothesis should be discarded. Problems with
the origin of life have been acknowledged by some.
Klaus Dose: (Dose is a professor of biochemistry at the Johannes Gutenburg University.) “More
than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular
evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on
Earth rather than to its solution. At present, all discussions on principal theories and experiments
in the field end either in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance” 14.
The Chirality Problem, Continued
Calculating the probability by multiplying the number of tries by the probability of getting
one right is not exactly correct, but it is an accurate approximation for small probabilities,
which is true for this case. [Rigorously: P = 1-(1-p)n where “P” is the probability of getting
at least one left-handed string in “n” tries, and “p” is the probability of getting a left-handed
string in one try.] Thus, the probability of getting a single string of 400 left-handed amino
acids using all the available resources and time on Earth is infinitesimally small, and this
assumes there is a mechanism for assembling amino acids into a string, but there is no
known natural mechanism for assembling amino acids outside the living cell. This
calculation tells us that the chances of getting a single, functioning protein is infinitesimally
small. The probability is actually much smaller than that because we have neglected other
amino acids that do not participate in proteins and contaminants which could poison the
assembly of an amino acid string, and because very few strings of left-handed amino acids
will form a functioning protein.
Evolution-11
Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA’s structure in 1953 and an evolutionist) said “An honest
man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the
origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which
would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” 15. This statement is still true today. On
the other hand, claiming the death of the chemical evolution hypothesis is premature as seen in
the following statements.
For example, Robert Shapiro stated: “Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable
chemical experiments run to discover the probable origin of life have failed unequivocally.
Further, new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appearance of life on earth. Finally, we
may have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or processes leading to life,
elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists may choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others,
however, myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific
explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder” 16.
Neo-Darwinian Evolution
Neo-Darwinian Evolution is considered to be a proven fact among many scientists.
Official 1995 Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology
Teachers: “The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised,
impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that
is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.”
(This statement has since been altered by removing the words “unsupervised” and “impersonal.”)
Julian Huxley, 1959 speech in Chicago: “In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no
longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did
all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as
brain and body.”
Although chemical evolution fails to explain how life started, we will presume that life did get
started by some mechanism and consider the possibility that Darwinian processes explain the
evolution of life from single celled organisms to the variety of complex, multi-celled organisms
we see today. Darwin noticed that selective breeding can produce new varieties within a species,
for example in pigeons. He also saw change over time in the fossil record. Darwin theorized
that, if variation and natural selection can produce small beneficial changes over a short time,
then variation and natural selection can produce large beneficial changes over a very long time
and lead to the new biological organisms seen in the fossil record. This is the basis for the theory
of Darwinian Evolution. For the information Darwin had available at the time, this was a
reasonable theory. At the time, Darwin did not know the mechanism for a variation, but when
the structure and role of DNA was discovered in the 20th century, variations were explained by
mutations to DNA and resulting changes to proteins.
The neo-Darwinian mechanism consists of random changes (mutations) to DNA, which
supposedly produce new proteins and protein interactions. Since the sequence of bases in DNA
determines the sequence of amino acids in a protein chain, a change in the DNA base sequence
Evolution-12
can change the amino acid sequence in a protein and theoretically produce a new functioning
protein. If the new protein is beneficial, it will be passed to future generations by natural
selection. If it is detrimental, it will be bred out of the population by natural selection. If it is
neither detrimental nor beneficial, it could persist indefinitely if it does not change the protein’s
function.
Mutations can cause small changes to the offspring of an organism. These small changes are
referred to as microevolution.
Another example of mutations causing changes is seen in parasitic, bacterial, and viral
development of resistance to drugs. Resistance is usually developed by a single point mutation.
Even though mutations can provide resistance to drugs, no bacterium has been observed to
evolve into a new species of bacteria.
Darwinian evolution must explain not just the small changes of microevolution but the large
changes of macroevolution. It must explain the evolution from single celled organisms to the
complex organisms we see today. To evolve from a single celled organism to the organisms we
see today requires the development of many new systems such as nervous systems, circulatory
systems, skeletal systems, digestive systems, and reproductive systems. These new systems
required thousands of new proteins and multi-protein interactions, which required large-scale
changes to the genome by adding new genetic information to chromosomes. Can a process of
random genetic mutation operated on by natural selection produce these new proteins and protein
interactions?
In the next few paragraphs, five arguments against Darwinian evolution are presented.
1. Argument from Irreducible Complexity
In his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Ph.D. microbiologist Michael Behe discusses the evidence
against the neo-Darwinian mechanism offered by irreducibly complex molecular systems 17.
Irreducibly complex systems are systems made up of several parts that will not function unless
all parts are present. To illustrate irreducible complexity, Behe uses the example of a mouse trap
consisting of a platform, a spring, a hammer, a holding bar, and a catch. If any one of these parts
is missing, the mouse trap will not function. Likewise, the formation of a new, microbiological
system requires many new interactive proteins and corresponding mutations to the DNA
sequences which code for the new proteins. If any single protein is missing, the whole system is
useless. All proteins of a microbiological system must be present at the same time for the system
to function and be beneficial. Can the system be built up over time, protein by protein? If a
An example of mutations causing a small change is seen
in a fruit fly where three mutations produce an extra set
of wings, but the fly has no muscles, nerves, or control
system to make them work. Natural selection would
soon remove these fruit flies from the breeding
population because the extra set of wings interferes with
flight.
Evolution-13
protein and its corresponding DNA sequence is not beneficial, it will disappear through the same
mutation process that formed it. Neo-Darwinian evolution does not plan ahead and retain
proteins that may be useful in the future. The probability that mutations can produce a single
new functional protein is very small. The probability of getting all the necessary new proteins
together at the same time to produce a new, functioning system before some are mutated away is
infinitesimally small and cannot explain the large number of these systems that exist. Behe gives
some examples of irreducibly complex protein systems:
Vision: There are 10 proteins in the cascade that turns a photon striking the retina into an
electric impulse in the optic nerve. If any of these 10 is missing, the process does not work at all.
In addition to these 10 proteins are many supporting proteins. Not only do the proteins have to
be there, they have to be constructed in the proper sequence and maintained in proper balance.
Blood clotting: Blood clotting is a complicated and very precise process that requires a cascade
of at least 14 proteins. If any one is missing, blood will not clot or it will clot throughout the
organism.
Immune system antibodies: A first antibody attaches to the surface of an invading cell, and the
cell is destroyed when ten different antibodies (proteins) intricately lock together and blow a hole
in the invading cell’s membrane. Each protein must be present for the system to operate.
Molecular machines perform the processes necessary in a living cell. They are irreducibly
complex, requiring a large number of interacting proteins. If one protein is missing, the machine
will be useless. All of the parts of the machine must be there at the same time for the machine’s
instructions to remain in the genome.
The bacterial flagellum is a good
example of an irreducibly complex
molecular machine. It consists of
parts formed by 40 different
proteins. If any one of the proteins
is absent, the flagellum is useless
and would be eliminated in future
generations of bacteria. Building a
nonfunctioning flagellum requires
significant energy but gives no
benefit. A bacterium with a
useless flagellum would be unable
to compete with bacteria that
require less energy. It would be
eliminated from the population.
Kenneth Miller, in his article “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible
Complexity,’” argues that proteins analogous to the motor proteins in the flagellum’s motor are
found in other molecular machines within the bacterium 18. In fact, he suggests that all of the
proteins found in a system might have independently developed in other beneficial systems.
When they are all present in the next generation, they will assemble into a bacterial flagellum. If
this is true, having all the necessary proteins at the same time is much more probable. This
Bacterial Flagellum
(Artist’s reproduction from an electron micrograph)
From the Discovery Institute, discovery.org
Evolution-14
argument is called co-option, and while it sounds like a reasonable theory, it has some serious
problems.
If co-option were true, we would expect to find all analogous bacterial flagellum proteins used in
different beneficial functions in the bacterium, but we don’t. Only some analogous proteins are
found. They are analogous to but not the same as those needed for the new flagellum. They
must undergo at least a few mutations to interact with the other proteins in the system. There
must also be a protein system for the assembly process which builds the flagellum and another
protein system to maintain the flagellum. The machine, its assembly process, and its
maintenance process would have to be present for the flagellum to be built, work, and keep
working. We would expect to find proteins for assembly, repair, regulation, and control of the
flagellum that came together from other systems, but we don’t. The idea that all of the
components of a multi-protein flagellum, its assembly process, and its maintenance process
developed independently and then came together to form a new biological system is
infinitesimally improbable and has never been demonstrated.
2. The Problem with Changing Protein Function
Is it even possible for a protein having one function to evolve by random mutation into an almost
identical protein with a different function? In recent experiments, Gauger & Axe started with
functional proteins that are almost
identical in structure but have different
functions 19. They attempted to mutate
one protein to obtain the function of
the other. They determined that more
than seven mutations were necessary,
ran a population genetics model, and
found that seven mutations would
require far longer than 15 billion years
and is thus out of reach for a random
mutation-natural selection process. This implies that the probability of random mutation and
natural selection developing a new functional protein, even from a nearly identical one is
extremely small. In addition, many systems contain “orphan” genes and proteins. These are
genes and proteins that are unique in structure. The number of mutations needed to develop
these proteins is far beyond the capability of random mutation and natural selection.
3. The Problem with Creating New Protein Binding Sites
Proteins interact with each other through binding sites. Most proteins work together in groups of
six or more. The bacterial flagellum consists of forty interacting proteins. New biological
systems using hundreds of new proteins and their interactions are required for Darwinian
evolution. In The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe documents laboratory experiments on cell
growth and the development of resistance by parasites, bacteria, and viruses to drugs. P.
falciparum is the parasite that causes malaria by attacking red blood cells. The drug chloroquine
interferes with the parasite’s ability to neutralize the heme molecule of hemoglobin which is
poisonous to the parasite. P. falciparum developed resistance to chloroquine when two amino
acids were changed (with corresponding DNA mutations) in a protein which participates in
pumping chloroquine out of the parasite’s gut. By multiplying the number of people who have
Nearly Identical Proteins
from Bio Complexity 19
Evolution-15
been infected by malaria since chloroquine was introduced times the number of P. falciparum
parasites in an infected person, Behe concluded that the two coordinated mutations occurred at
some point in a population of 1020 parasites. According to Behe, it takes five or six mutations to
produce a new protein binding site that would bind two proteins. He generously assumed that
the mutations needed to produce a new binding site would require the same number of cells
(1020) as the number of parasites required to change two amino acids in P. falciparum. Since
mutations are random, two new coordinated binding sites for a new three-protein interaction
might be possible in 1040 cells. Since 1040 cells is the number of cells that have lived on Earth in
all organisms from the beginning of life, the coordinated interaction of more than three new
proteins is out of range for a Darwinian process 20. New biological systems, like nervous
systems, circulatory systems, skeletal systems, digestive systems, and reproductive systems,
require far more than three new proteins and their interactions and therefore did not arise through
random genetic mutation operated on by natural selection.
4. The Problem of Searching for a Functioning Protein
Genetic mutations may change the amino acids in a protein. Theoretically changing one or more
amino acids in a protein could produce a new functioning protein, but how many functioning
proteins are there among all the possible amino acid strings? In a paper Estimating the
Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds in the Journal of
Molecular Biology, Doug Axe estimated that only 1 in 1077 amino acid chains will fold to
produce a functioning protein for amino acid chains that are 150 amino acids long 8. Thus,
functioning proteins are very rare among strings of amino acids, and finding one by random
mutation is like finding a needle in a haystack. Since there have been 1040 cells since the
beginning of life, there have not been enough cells to find a functioning protein by random
mutation.
5. The Source of an Organism’s Architecture
Besides the development of new systems, Darwinian evolution requires he development of new
body architectures. A body architecture is the way the body is put together, for example, worms,
fish, and birds all have different body architectures. Until recently it was believed that DNA
determined the architecture of an organism. In 2009, Jonathan Wells, a Ph.D. in biology
specializing in embryological development, gave a lecture on research indicating that DNA may
have little to do with an organism’s architecture 21. The design for an organism’s body comes
from something in the egg or ovum (for animals). In this research, experiments with various
animal species replaced the DNA in the egg or ovum of one species with the DNA of another
species. The embryo developed with the architecture of the egg’s species then died, presumably
because the DNA did not produce the proteins necessary for the egg species’ architecture. It
appears that DNA plays a very limited role in the architecture of a species other than supplying
and regulating the building materials, which are proteins. This implies that the neo-Darwinian
process of random mutation, which alters DNA, and natural selection is not the mechanism for
changing body architecture 22,23. I hate mentioning this because I really enjoyed the movie
Jurassic Park.
Each of these five arguments show that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and
natural selection is inadequate to produce the biological systems required for evolution from a
bacterium into a complex vertebrate. The mechanism of random mutation and natural selection
Evolution-16
is incapable of producing the life we see today. So, what is capable of producing the life we see
today? We will get to that in a minute.
The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is not going to die easily, but cracks are forming.
James Shapiro, who is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of
Chicago, wrote: “The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have
brought us revolutionary discoveries. Rather than confirm the oversimplified views of cellular
organization and function held at mid-century, the molecular revolution has revealed an
unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology
than with the mechanical viewpoint, which dominated when the neo-Darwinian Modern
Synthesis was formulated. The conceptual changes in biology are comparable in magnitude to
the transition from classical physics to relativistic and quantum physics. … The point of this
discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with
postulates held by neo-Darwinists” 24.
Common Descent
The neo-Darwinian process of random mutation operated on by natural selection is not a viable
explanation for the evolution we see in the fossil record, but could common descent still be true?
Common descent is the theory that all life has evolved from one, or perhaps a very few, single-
celled ancestors. The fossil record appears to support the Theory of Evolution in that life has
changed over time. According to the fossil record, the first multi-cellular organisms came into
existence 570-565 million years ago in the form of sponges, cnidarians, and Ediacaran biota. A
detailed look at the fossil record shows that changes were not gradual. Large numbers of new
species, which were totally unlike previously existing species, suddenly appeared from time to
time, remained unchanged for millions of years, then, in most cases, disappeared. A good
example of this sudden change is the “Cambrian Explosion” 530 million years ago in which
there was a giant step from single celled organisms to complicated, multi-celled organisms.
Between 19 & 35 out of 40 phyla came into existence in only 5 to 10 million years 25,26. The
idea that one phylum gave rise to another in an evolutionary process is not supported by the
fossil record. Fossils representing transitions from one species to another appear in the fossil
record very rarely if at all, and those that have been proposed as transitional have been
challenged.
Stephen J. Gould (Harvard Paleontologist) stated: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the
fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The Evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however
reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” 27.
In Robert L. Carroll’s popular textbook, he states: “Progressive increase in knowledge of the
fossil record over the past hundred years emphasizes how wrong Darwin was in extrapolating the
pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populations and species” 28.
Evolution-17
The Fossil Record
The fossil record contains few if any intermediate links, and all are controversial and often
revised.
Archaeopteryx—Archaeopteryx was proposed as the missing link
between reptiles and birds. “Paleontologists now agree that
Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of modern birds 29.”
Horses—The presumed horse ancestry changes from time to time.
Pliohippus, once thought to be intermediate between merychippus and
equus, is now thought to be a dead-end side branch.
Whales—A 2001 National Geographic article cited evidence that
hippos are the closest land-dwelling relatives of whales. A 2007
Nature article cited evidence that Indohyus, a small, deer-like animal is
the whale’s closest land relative.
Tiktaalik—A 2006 article in Nature calls this fish with limb-like front fins an intermediate
between fish and amphibians. A 2010 Nature article tells of finding tetrapod (amphibian)
footprints with toes dated at 20 million years before Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik was touted as the
missing link between fish and amphibians until the footprints were found.
Man—Evidence tying modern humans and chimpanzees to a common ancestor is controversial.
Early DNA studies had shown that base pair sequences of protein coding genes for chimps and
humans are 98-99% the same, but more recent studies have shown that total DNA may be only
70-76% the same 30. In addition, Humans have “ORFan” genes dissimilar to any chimpanzee
genes. Possible evidence for common descent is that humans and chimpanzees have the same
“broken copy” of a vitamin C gene. Some animals can synthesize vitamin C, but man and
chimpanzees cannot. If this is truly a broken gene, common ancestry would be the best
explanation. This broken gene is in a class of DNA sequences called “pseudo-genes.” Many
pseudo-genes like the “broken vitamin C gene” have been found to have important functions
implying that common descent may not be the only explanation 31. Skeletal evidence for
anthropoids who lived before Homo Erectus touted them them as missing links between modern
man and a presumed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, but the evidence is fragmentary,
inconsistent, and inconclusive 32.
Archaeopteryx from Wikipedia
Organism Years Ago Blue-green algae in the oceans 3.5 to 1 billion
Blue-green algae and bacteria on land 1.2 billion to 800 million
Single celled animals 1 billion
Invertebrates 600-500 million
Higher plants on land 425-400 million
Fish, amphibians, forests, insects 400-345 million
Reptiles 345-280 million
Dinosaurs, flowering plants 225-65 million
Mammals, birds 65 million
Man 1 million?
Evolution-18
The Original Evolutionary Tree
The original evolutionary tree was constructed using
physical characteristics of organisms to determine
evolutionary connections. Since then, evolutionary trees
have been constructed from the comparison of different
gene and protein sequences and from embryonic
developmental patterns. The relationships shown by one
tree is different than those from other trees. A consistent
tree has not been found. This implies that the
relationships among organisms is far more complicated
than shown by an evolutionary tree and that evolutionary
connections are in doubt 33.
Common descent is by no means a proven fact. The
evidence is inconclusive and molecular and embryonic
evidence challenges the theory of common descent. What
does seem to be true is that change over time, as illustrated in the fossil record, is not gradual.
The general lack of intermediate fossils implies that the Darwinian mechanism of random
mutation and natural selection, being gradual by nature, cannot explain the sudden changes that
are seen in the record. This does not necessarily eliminate common descent, but a non-
Darwinian mechanism for change must have been in operation.
Design in Biology
Richard Dawkins was an Oxford Zoologist and the University of Oxford’s Professor for the
Public Understanding of Science from 1995 to 2008. He is a noted champion for the theory of
evolution. Francis Crick, with Watson, uncovered the structure of DNA. Both Dawkins and
Crick observed that life seems to be designed, but rejected their observations in favor of
materialistic, Darwinian mechanisms.
One of the major problems for the Theory of Evolution is that life is complex, and not only
complex in a random way, but complex in a specified way. By specified, we mean that it has
purpose or meaning, and William Dembski, who has Ph.Ds. in both math and philosophy, calls
this specified complexity 35. In other words, some aspects of life show characteristics of having
been designed for a purpose, with an end in mind.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose” 34.
(Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker)
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what
they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
(Crick, What Mad Pursuit, 1988, p.138)
Evolution-19
To state it simply, design is something humans can recognize:
It has a Meaning or Purpose (we call this “specification”),
It is sometimes Complex, and
It is not the product of an Automatic Process.
Quite often design can be recognized in an integrated system of parts that has a function.
Something can be very complex and not be designed, for example the Grand Canyon. The
difference between the Grand Canyon and the carved heads on Mt. Rushmore is that Mt.
Rushmore specifies something, namely faces of known presidents. Specification can refer to a
pattern agreed upon in advance, a prescription that performs a specific function, or a pattern that
has recognizable meaning. It is also possible that something can be designed but not complex,
like a plain glass window; therefore, Dembski’s criteria for specified complexity cannot identify
everything that is designed; but it can infer that something which has specification and is
sufficiently complex is designed. In some cases, things that are the result of an automatic
process, like crystals or snow flakes, may appear to be specified but are not.
A living cell is full of molecular machines that carry out the cell’s processes. Molecular
machines use a system of integrated, interacting parts, they are extremely complex, and they
serve specific functions. Many of them look like machines designed by human engineers. The
best explanation for their existence is that they were designed with a purpose in mind. Three
molecular machines are shown below.
A bacterial flagellum rotates to propel the
bacterial cell. The flagellum is driven by a
molecular motor, which runs on protons
(instead of electrons). The flagellum is made
up of more than six different moving parts
(rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, a
universal joint, and a propeller) consisting of
roughly 40 proteins. Not only is the system
complex, but it must be assembled in a
specific sequence by assembly machines.
One might be inclined to say that it looks
like a motor. That would be incorrect
because it is a motor.
F1F0 ATP synthase is a molecular machine embedded
in a mitochondria’s wall that synthesizes ATP from
ADP using the energy from a proton motor. ATP is a
highly energetic molecule used to store, transport, and
provide energy for cell functions. The head of the
machine protrudes into the cell and joins an ADP to a
phosphate molecule making ATP using the spinning
head’s energy. The ATP gives up its phosphate
molecule to power a cell function and then returns to
the ATP synthase to be recharged. Lipidmembrane
b
ab
g
ATP
ADP
H+
H+
ac’s Lipid
membrane
b
ab
g
ATP
ADP
H+
H+
ac’s Lipid
membrane
b
ab
g
ATP
ADP
H+
H+
H+
H+
ac’s
F1F0ATP Synthase
Bacterial Flagellum
(Artist’s reproduction from an electron micrograph)
From the Discovery Institute, discovery.org
Evolution-20
A ribosome (left) is a molecular machine made of 50
proteins that assembles proteins as described earlier in
this chapter. Amino acids are brought to it by tRNA
(transfer RNA). An mRNA (messenger RNA) template
is brought to it from the cell’s nucleus. The mRNA is a
string of base letters (A, C, U, and G) with each three
letters (a codon) in the sequence specifying an amino
acid. The sequence of codons specifies the amino acids
to be connected and the order in which they are to be
connected. The ribosome reads the template and
connects the prescribed amino acids in the prescribed
order to form a protein.
DNA is a complex code that has a purpose, which is to specify how to build and regulate the
proteins that compose molecular machines; thus, it has specified complexity. During
reproduction, the DNA code must replicate, which it does using molecular machines that read the
code and duplicate it. These DNA replication machines are assembled from proteins by other
molecular machines, ribosomes, that use the specifications given by DNA through RNA. Thus,
DNA and molecular machines form an integrated system of interdependent parts whose purpose
is to give life and reproduce. Design, with an end in mind, is the only realistic explanation for
this living, reproducing system.
According to Paul Davies (Davies is a theoretical physicist, visiting professor at Imperial College
and honorary professor at the University of Queensland, Australia.): “The world is already full of
nanomachines: they are called living cells. Each cell is packed with tiny structures that might
have come straight from an engineer's manual. Miniscule tweezers, scissors, pumps, motors,
levers, valves, pipes, chains, and even vehicles abound. But, of course, the cell is more than just
a bag of gadgets. The various components fit together to form a smoothly functioning whole,
like an elaborate factory production line. The miracle of life is not that it is made of nanotools,
but that these tiny diverse parts are integrated in a highly organized way.” “A law of nature of
the sort we know and love will not create biological information or indeed any information at all.
... The secret of life lies, not in its chemical basis, but in the logical and informational rules it
exploits. ... Real progress with the mystery of biogenesis will be made, I believe, not through
exotic chemistry, but from something conceptually new” 36. While Davies described a designed
system, he is not an intelligent design proponent.
William Dembski, in his essay in Debating Design says: “Science is supposed to give the full
range of possible explanations a fair chance to succeed. That’s not to say that anything goes; but
it is to say that anything might go. In particular, science may not, by a priori fiat, rule out logical
possibilities. Evolutionary biology, by limiting itself exclusively to material mechanisms, has
settled in advance the question of which biological explanations are true, apart from any
consideration of empirical evidence. This is armchair philosophy. Intelligent Design may not be
correct. But the only way we could discover that is by admitting design as a real possibility, not
by ruling it out a priori.” He goes on to quote Darwin from The Origin of Species: “A fair result
can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each
question 37.”
Evolution-21
Conclusion
There is little, if any, evidence that the mechanism of random mutation operated on by natural
selection can do more than fine tune an existing organism, and there is significant evidence that
it is incapable of evolving the systems necessary for complex life. There is even less evidence
that chemicals can organize by natural processes into the molecules of life beyond amino acids,
much less living cells, and there is convincing evidence to the contrary. Even the evidence for
common descent is inconclusive. The most reasonable explanation for the existence of DNA,
molecular machines, and life is both intuitive and mathematically defensible--they were
designed. So, if life did not develop by a neo-Darwinian evolutionary process but was designed,
who designed it?
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. He created vegetation,
living creatures in the water, in the air, and on land according to their kind, and
He created man in His image. (Genesis 1)
While evidence pointing out the weaknesses of the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution has been
growing since the 1950s, most scientists and biology teachers still believe that macroevolution is
a proven fact. Neo-Darwinian Evolution was an elegant and plausible theory before the
discoveries of modern genetics and biochemistry revealed the complex nature of the cell, the
code for proteins in DNA, and the operation of molecular machines. The fossil record was
relatively incomplete in Darwin’s time leaving open the possibility of transitional forms being
discovered, but that has not happened. Even so, there appears to be a commitment to a
naturalistic explanation for the origin of life by many scientists and biology teachers, as is
demonstrated in the statement by Richard Lewontin below.
Richard Lewontin is a Harvard Genetics Professor, and his comment comes from The New York
Review of Books, 2/9/1997: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods
and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
(emphasis added). 38
There is a divine foot in the door, and no one has the authority to allow or disallow it, only to
accept that it is there or to ignore it. Since “there is a divine foot in the door,” the resurrection of
Jesus, discussed in Chapter 1, is plausible.
Evolution-22
The Information Content of DNA
To compare the information content of DNA to that of English words, we can use some
basic information theory 35. According to the theory, the information content for a string of
letters is related to the number of permutations (different arrangements) that can be formed
by the string of letters. Imagine an alphabet containing three letters, A, B, and C. If a word
contains 1 letter there are three possible ways to “spell” it: A, B, or C, and we have 3
permutations. If our word in our three-letter alphabet has two letters, there are 9 (which is 3
x 3) ways to spell it: AA, AB, AC, BA, BB, BC, CA, CB, CC, and we have 9 permutations.
If there are three letters in our three letter alphabet word, there are 27 ( which is 3 x 3 x 3)
ways to spell it: AAA, AAB, AAC, ABA, ABB, ABC, ACA, ACB, ACC, BAA, BAB,
BAC, BBA, BBB, BBC, BCA, BCB, BCC, CAA, CAB, CAC, CBA, CBB, CBC, CCA,
CCB, CCC. Do you see the pattern? Each time we add a letter to the word (or sequence)
we multiply by the number of letters in our alphabet. So, the number of permutations is
equal to the number of letters in our alphabet used as a multiplier N times where N is the
number of letters in our word.
Now, consider our 26-letter alphabet but ignore capitalization and punctuation. For a
sequence of 10 letters (for example a 10-letter word) there are 2610 (which is 26 x 26 x 26 x
26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26) possible combinations or permutations of letters. There
are 26 ways to pick the first letter, 26 ways to pick the second letter, 26 ways to pick the
third letter, and so on 10 times, and we multiply 26 10 times to get the total number of
possible combinations. A specific sequence of 10 letters represents 1 out of 2610
possibilities, and if the sequence has meaning, its uniqueness eliminates a lot of other
possible meanings and it conveys information. If there are more letters in a word, phrase,
sentence paragraph or book, then more information can be conveyed. For our example of a
26-letter alphabet and 10 letters in a sequence, the information content is said to be 2610 and
the specific information is 1 in 2610.
Since there are 3 billion base pairs in human DNA and there are 4 base molecules (4 letters
in DNA’s alphabet), then a measure of the information in our DNA is 43,000,000,000, which is
roughly equivalent to 261,300,000,000. In other words, 3 billion base pairs contain roughly the
same information content as 1.3 billion letters. My encyclopedia set contains roughly 650
pages per volume, 120 lines per page, and 55 letters per line. The number of volumes
needed to hold 1.3 billion letters is 1.3 billion divided by (650 x 120 x 55) ≈ 300. Thus,
our DNA contains roughly the same information content as 300 encyclopedia volumes.
Evolution-23
References
1. Darwin, Charles; The Origen of Species, Modern Library; NY, 1998.
2. Harris, William; Darwin, Design, and Democracy V; Albuquerque, September 2004.
3. Wells, Jonathan; The Myth of Junk DNA; Discovery Institute, 2011.
4. Behe, Michael J.; Darwin’s Black Box; Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1996; Page
261.
5. Behe, Michael J.; Darwin’s Black Box; Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1996; Page
269.
6. Meyer, Stephen; Signature in the Cell; Harper One, New York, NY, 2009; Page 224.
7. Thaxton, Charles; Bradley, Walter; and Olsen, Roger; The Mystery of Life’s Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories; Philosophical Library, 1984; Page 135.
8. Axe, Doug; Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme
Folds; J. Molecular Biology, 341, 2004.
9. Denton, Michael; Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD, 1986; Page
264.
10. Behe, Michael J.; Darwin’s Black Box; Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1996; Page
262.
11. Meyer, Stephen; Signature in the Cell; Harper One, New York, NY, 2009; Page 213.
12. Denton, Michael; Nature’s Destiny; The Free Press, New York, NY, 1998; Page 309.
13. Meyer, Stephen; Signature in the Cell; Harper One, New York, NY, 2009; Page 257.
14. Dose, Klaus; The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers, Interdisciplinary Science
Review 13, 1988; Page 348.
15. Crick, Francis; Life Itself, 1988.
16. Shapiro, Robert; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth; Bantam, 1986.
17. Behe, Michael J.; Darwin’s Black Box; Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1996.
18. Dembski, William and Ruse, Michael; Debating Design; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
19. Gauger & Axe; The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from
the Biotin Pathway; Bio Complexity 2 no. 1, 2011.
Evolution-24
20. Behe, Michael J; The Edge of Evolution; Free Press (Simon and Schuster), New York, NY,
2007; Page 143.
21. Wells, Jonathan; DNA Does Not Control Embryo Development; Lecture in Albuquerque
NM, January 20th, 2009. See also reference 22 and 23.
22. Meyer, Stephen; Signature in the Cell, Epilogue; Harper One, New York, NY, 2009.
23. Wells, Jonathan; Zombie Science; Discovery Institute, 2017; Chapter 4.
24. Shapiro, James; “Scientific Alternatives to Darwinism: Is there a Role for Cellular
Information Processing in Evolution,” Boston Review, February/March 1997.
25. Wells, Jonathan; Icons of Evolution; Regnery, Washington, DC, 2000; Page 41-42.
26. Meyer, Stephen; Darwin’s Doubt; Harper One, New York, NY, 2013.
27. Gould, Stephen; Natural History; V 86, May 1987.
28. Carroll, Robert; Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution; Cambridge, 1997.
29. Wells, Jonathan; Icons of Evolution; Regnery, Washington, DC, 2000
30. Buggs, Richard, as quoted by Casey Luskin; Critically Analyzing the Argument from
Human/Chimpanzee Genetic Similarity; evolutionnews.org, 9/2011.
31. Wells, Jonathan; The Myth of Junk DNA; Discovery Institute, 2011; Page 54.
32. Gauger & Axe; The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from
the Biotin Pathway; Bio Complexity 2 no. 1, 2011.
33. Meyer, Stephen; Darwin’s Doubt; Harper One, New York, NY, 2013; Chapter 6.
34. Quoted by: Johnson, Phillip E; Darwin on Trial; 2nd edition, Inter Varsity Press (IVP), 1993;
Page 168.
35. Dembski, William; Intelligent Design; Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill, 1998.
36. Davies, Paul; The Fifth Miracle; Simon and Schuster, 1999, Page 210-216.
37. Dembski, William and Ruse, Michael; The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design;
Debating Design; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
38. Reproduced from: Johnson, Phillip E; Objection Sustained; IVP, 1998.