Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution

 

Chapter 4

 

The Debate - Part 1

 

 

Overview

 

The scientific establishment; meaning the entities which control what is considered "science," including scientific journals, the television stations, the magazines, almost all universities, etc. etc.; all claim that the theory of evolution is a "proven fact of science."

 

Aside from the fact that the theory of evolution is scientific nonsense, one of the key things that the scientific establishment wishes to do is suppress the research and claims of the creationists.

 

If the claims of the creation scientists were known to the general public, and were placed on an equal basis with the claims of the scientific establishment, the general public would consider the claim that the theory of evolution is a "proven fact of science" to be laughable.

 

The data and theories of creation scientists are far, far superior to the data and theories of the theory of evolution.  But few people know that fact.

If the truth be known, every major argument of the theory of evolution is based on false information, assumptions and pure deception.

 

There is no scientific evidence that a "first living cell" came to exist by a random series of accidents.  There is no scientific evidence that any segment of DNA on the planet earth came to exist by random mutations of nucleotides of DNA.

 

Creation scientists literally dissect the claims of the scientific establishment and rip them to shreds.

 

This chapter and the next chapter will present a non-mathematical discussion of the theory of evolution versus a hypothetical creation scientist; by telling a story.  The story is about a discussion between yourself, the reader (an evolutionist); and a young man named "Herman," the creation scientist.

 

This chapter and the next chapter will represent one specific way of representing the debate between "evolution" (i.e. the evolution establishment) and creation science or creationism and will explain why it is so important to the scientific establishment to suppress the discoveries of creation scientists.

 

This chapter and the next chapter are essentially a "big picture" of what is going on in "science" today.  Many details of what is wrong with the theory of evolution will be given in later chapters.

 

 

The Debate

 

To visualize the debate between the two different camps (evolution versus creation science), suppose there is a football field and all the contestants in the evolution debate are on the field.  There is a fence that crosses the football field on the 50 yard line (which divides the field into two equal parts).

 

You (a high school student in this case) are standing at one end of the fence, on the sideline, at the 50 yard line, looking across the fence.  On your right side (i.e. the right side of this fence from your perspective) are all of the people chosen by the scientific establishment to represent the theory of evolution in the debate.

 

On your left side (i.e. the left side of the fence from your perspective) is a rag-tag group of under-funded creation scientists; who you did not even knew existed; and who are always broke and thus are not dressed in fancy clothes; among whom is a young man named Herman.

 

Many times in school you have heard that the creation scientists are “renegades” or "religious fanatics" who are simply not smart enough to understand true science.  You have been told many times to ignore them.  After looking at what they are wearing, you tend to agree with what you have heard.

 

Yet, today you have the choice of listening to the "establishment" (i.e. the evolutionists on your right side) or the "renegades" (i.e. the creation scientists on your left side) or both.  This is the first time in your life you have seen a real creation scientist (i.e. someone who knows the issues in the scientific debate), so what do you do?

 

How will you proceed to find the truth (as best as you are capable of honestly determining as an "open-minded" person): Is evolutionism or creation science correct based on the scientific evidence currently available?  Let us suppose you have no other options.  You cannot leave the field until you make up your mind.

 

 

Your Quest Begins

 

Suppose you decide to start your decision-making journey by first talking with the establishment evolutionists; because everything you have heard in school is that evolution has been scientifically proven to be true.  So you head to the right side of the fence and start talking to an evolutionist.

 

Suppose this person tells you all the reasons why evolution occurred by a series of accidents.  He talks about microevolution, macroevolution, why transitional species cannot be found in many cases, punctuated equilibrium; the other evidences from fossils the paleontologists have found, and so on.

 

After this conversation, you are impressed and you start to walk away, but the evolutionist stops you and calls you back.  Then this same evolutionist starts telling you all of the things that are wrong with the creationists.  He tells you one theory after another of the creationists and why each theory cannot be true and why all creationists are a bunch of uneducated goons who don't know how to talk, but can only babble.

 

You marvel that he has mocked the creation scientists so much, and you wonder why he has done this; but since he has portrayed himself as a brilliant scientist, you think that he must be right.

 

After this conversation, you thank him and you now feel that you understand both the evolutionist's theories and the creationist's theories about how mankind came to be.  You decide it is not necessary to go to the left side of the fence and talk to a creationist because you already think you understand their views and why their views are wrong.

 

At this point the only thing you know about creation science is what an evolutionist has told you.

 

 

The Four Concepts of a Truth Table

 

If you decided not to visit the left side of the fence, you would be making a huge, but common, mistake: you have heard both sides of the issue, but from only one person on one side of the fence.  You have really only heard how the people on one side of the fence feel about both sides of the issue.  But you haven't heard the arguments of the creationists, from the mouth of a real creation scientist, nor have you heard why the creation scientists think that the evolutionists are wrong.

 

There are actually four categories involved in the two sides of the fence.  These are the four things in the "truth table" that you need to hear to make an informed decision:

 

 

The Truth Table

 

The four parts of the truth table can be broken down into two groups, the evolutionist perspective and the creation scientist perspective:

 

From The Right Side of the Fence (the evolutionists)

 

1) The pro-evolutionist arguments (from the evolutionist side of the fence),

2) The anti-creationist arguments (from the evolutionist side of the fence),

 

[The above two items are the two things you have already heard.]

 

From the Left Side of the Fence (the creation scientists)

 

3) The pro-creationist arguments (from the creation science side of the fence),

4) The anti-evolutionist arguments (from the creation science side of the fence).

 

[At this point, you don't know anything about these last two items because you haven't talked to a real creation scientist.]

 

In other words, from the right side of the fence you have heard the pro-evolutionist arguments (item #1) and also from the right side of the fence you have heard all of the anti-creationist arguments (item #2).

 

But these things only represent two of the four categories.  It is at this point that most people stop looking for the truth because they have been told all their lives it is not necessary to listen to the renegades because the establishment has all the answers.

 

It is at this point that science (i.e. the scientific establishment) wants people to stop looking and thinking!!

 

The most common error people make is to think they are experts in a subject when they have only heard from the people on one side of the fence.  They haven't heard a word from the mouth of a renegade, yet they think they are experts in what the renegade creation scientists believe!!

 

After talking to the evolutionist, you may think that you are an expert in both evolution and creationism.  You are not an expert in either subject!!

 

THIS IS THE KEY!! If the evolutionists will exaggerate the validity of the theory of evolution, they will also exaggerate the faults of creation science.  Ponder that again and again!!

 

If they will deceive you (via their ignorance or intentionally) about the validity of evolution; they will also deceive you about the flaws in creation science.  That is why everything you have heard to this point, about both sides of the fence, may be wrong.

 

That is why you cannot, at this point, be an expert in either belief; and certainly you are not an expert in creation science!!

 

It is exactly this type of control of information which forms one of the five basic tactics of modern science to manipulate and control information.  Evolutionists cannot tolerate that a student might actually listen to a real creation scientist.  If it forbidden.  It is taboo.  It is unacceptable according to the Supreme Court.  All information about creation science must come from an approved evolutionist under highly controlled conditions.

 

At this point in your search for truth, however, even though you have only heard half of the four items listed above, you probably wonder why anyone could be a creationist.  You might think this because you haven't heard yet about creationism from a creation scientist.

 

(This is another key point!)  You have been taught in school all your life that an "open-minded" person is someone who absorbs the propaganda of why the establishment is always right, and defends the storyline propaganda of why the renegades (the people on the left side of the fence) are always wrong.  You are taught never to talk to a renegade or your mind might become contaminated.

 

So in reality "you" (the hypothetical person at the end of the fence) probably have absolutely no desire to talk to anyone on the left side of the fence.  You have heard everything you think you need to hear.  You feel you are an expert on both sides of the issues.  Thus, you are a member of the establishment and a certified "defender of the faith" of the evolutionists.

 

End of story - time to go home.

 

 

Your Trip to the Left Side of the Fence

 

Oh well, just for the heck of it, out of morbid curiosity, and to test your debate skills, you decide to walk over to the left side of the fence and talk to a creation scientist.  You randomly pick a person and you decide to try and convince him to become an evolutionist, now that you feel you are an expert in the errors of what the creationists believe.

 

You carefully walk up to (gulp, drum roll): Herman the Horrible Hermit Heretic.    Be careful, you say to yourself, close your ears and don't listen, this person is an idiot.  Oh well, because you have been taught in Sunday School to be courteous to your enemies, you shake hands with him and start to listen.

 

(Note to the reader: Do not be intimidated by the terminology Herman uses below, some of these terms will be discussed later in the book.)

 

After shaking hands with Herman and exchanging pleasantries, you are immediately amazed at something: Herman can talk!  You had always been taught that creationists had the IQ of a rodent and wore beanie caps with rotors.

 

Herman starts by talking about life on earth.  He states that life on earth began with a single cell, according to the theory of evolution.  This "first living cell" on the planet (which would be the first living thing and it would only have been a single cell); had to have an RNA or DNA component and it had to have a cell membrane, among many other things.

 

He states that the "first living cell" would have needed at least 300 specialized proteins in order for it to survive and divide.  He estimates that the 300 genes which created these 300 proteins would have needed an average length of 1,000 nucleotides.

 

By the way, Herman tells you; in human DNA the average gene can create 10 different proteins and is much, much longer and vastly more complex than the genes of any imaginary "first living cell".  Some human genes can create 50 different proteins he says.

 

Getting back to the "first living cell," Herman says that each of these genes would have needed an additional 2,000 nucleotides to: manufacture the proteins from the genes, fold the polypeptides, incorporate the proteins into the cell, etc.

 

Herman defines for you what a "gene complex" is.  He says it is a gene plus all of the other nucleotides necessary for the gene to be manufactured, folded, incorporated into the cell, etc.

 

Thus, Herman estimates the minimum size of the DNA or RNA of the "first living cell" would be 3,000 nucleotides (for the average gene complex) times 300 genes, or about 900,000 nucleotides long.

 

Herman then asks this question: "Has science ever created a 900,000 nucleotide RNA or DNA chain by purely random means?"

 

The answer, he says, is an emphatic 'no'.  Furthermore, he says, there are many reasons, especially from chemistry, that such a chain of amino acids (note: proteins are made from amino acids) could ever have formed by accident.

 

Herman states that amino acids form proteins, but that amino acids cannot bind to each other in a stable fashion.  He states that to create proteins, amino acids must have a chemical bonding, controlled by a chemical agent, and that the natural attraction between amino acids could never create a protein.  Herman states that science has many theories as to how such chemical bonding could have happened in nature, but that all of these theories are not possible.

 

Herman also says that all single-celled entities today, which are able to sustain life without a host (as the "first living cell" must have done), are very, very complex and even the evolution establishment admits that a prokaryotic cell or eukaryotic cell could not have been made by accident in a prebiotic (i.e. pre-life) pool of water.  Thus, says Herman, the "first living cell" of evolution is now extinct.  "How convenient," Herman says sarcastically, "that the evidence of a "first living cell" is gone."

 

He also asks whether science will ever create life from non-life, meaning a living cell created by a series of random events which replicate the prebiotic (i.e. pre-life) world.  Herman states with great fervor that they never will create life from non-life by random means, but he says he doesn't have time to explain why it is mathematically impossible.

 

However, Herman does provide a partial explanation of the mathematical problems of this happening when he states that it would have been impossible for a randomly created nucleotide chain that long to have had a "permutation of nucleotides" which could have created the necessary exactness to create life.  You think you have a vague idea of what he is talking about, but you are not quite sure what a "permutation" is.

 

You then ponder on your own that the "first living cell" only had a 900,000 nucleotide chain, but that human DNA has 3,000,000,000 pairs of nucleotides.  You realize the creation of human DNA by random processes would have been far more impossible than the creation of the "first living cell" both because of the length of the DNA and the much smaller tolerances for error because of the vastly added complexity.

 

(The discussion with Herman is continued in the next chapter.)