Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
The Debate - Part 2
"Why may not the Bible and especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in school? Where else can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?"
Vidal v. Girard's Executors,
Justice Story delivered the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion
Microevolution and Macroevolution
Herman tells you that one person has red hair and another person has brown hair and another has black hair because of microevolution. The three people not different species because they have exactly the same DNA structure, but there is variety within the nucleotides of their DNA.
Herman says, even the data of
states that microevolution is quite powerful, and gives as an example,
"Macroevolution," Herman says, is totally different because macroevolution means the two plants or animals have a different structure of DNA. For example, a horse and a mouse have a different structure of DNA. They have a different set of genes, for example.
True evolution, if it existed, would require macroevolution. It requires "new genetic material," which would include at least one new gene complex, and probably many new gene complexes.
Herman states that in order for science to be honest, every time they use the term "evolution" they should be referring to an example where there are new genes, as part of the new genetic information and new genetic material.
Yet, says Herman, every example of "evolution" science uses has nothing to do with any new genetic material; it is only the result of microevolution or their vivid imaginations.
For example, Herman mentions the peppered moth. The various colors of peppered moths is no different than the different colors of human hair, it is an example of microevolution. Yet textbooks claim it is an example of macroevolution. This is false, Herman says.
Another example Herman gives is viruses which are claimed to "adapt" a resistance to medications, such as for AIDS. Herman says this is absolute and total nonsense.
Herman states that some microbes have very, very high rates of point mutations (i.e. a "point mutation" is a mutation of a single nucleotide) and they multiply in huge numbers. By pure coincidence, by combining their huge populations with very, very high mutation rates, they purely and coincidentally have a point mutation or two which provides a resistance to drugs.
Herman states that textbooks make it sound like viruses have intelligence and are constantly trying different experiments to develop an immunity to a medication. Science textbooks make it sound like the viruses hold a convention to discuss how they can change their DNA to "adapt" to drugs. Herman says this is pure fantasy.
Herman states that there is no new genetic material (i.e. additional sequences of nucleotides and new genes) developed in these microbes at the time they develop a resistance to a drug.
He then states that everything which is claimed to be caused by evolution must have new genetic material, meaning the DNA must have new sequences of nucleotides and new genes added to the DNA of the species in order to create a new species.
Herman warns you that every time you hear the term "evolution" you need to ask yourself: "have they proven that there is new genetic material, including new genes, and that the new genetic material was created by random mutations of DNA -- or are they just using clever definitions and their vivid imaginations?"
The fact is, Herman says, scientists have never, never seen useful new genetic material form by random mutations of nucleotides. All they have observed is very, very rare partially beneficial point mutations. Herman then says with a flare: point mutations do not represent new genetic sequences of nucleotides, including new genes!! There must be new genes formed by random mutations, Herman adds, with voice raised, to truly constitute evolution!!
A point mutation, Herman says, involves one or two or three nucleotides, but a gene complex involves at least 3,000 new nucleotides!!
Herman takes a minute to calm down. Herman then states that all of the "evidence" for macroevolution (i.e. true evolution, meaning the creation of new genetic information) comes from the study of microevolution (variety within a single species); but that microevolution and macroevolution are as different as a rock and a jet airplane. Both a rock and a jet airplane can fly, but he tells you that throwing a rock into the air (microevolution), does not qualify a person to design, build and fly a jet airplane (macroevolution).
You then learn about the improbability of irreducible complex protein systems forming large numbers of complex inter-related proteins in the same random mutation event in macroevolution. He gives the bacterial flagellum as an example. Its parts are so complex they could not have "evolved" by gradual random mutations. Until all the proteins were in place, the flagellum would have been a burden to the bacteria.
Herman states that attempts by orthodox science to dispute the claims that "irreducible complex" mechanisms are evidence of creation; are ridiculous, but because the scientific establishment controls the media, people don't know how absurd their attempts to refute this evidence really are.
You then hear about the "morphing of the embryo," which is the time period between the fertilization of the egg and the time the baby is born.
A new creature starts out as a single cell, a fertilized cell, which is undifferentiated (meaning it has no specific function in the body), but when the "baby" is born it has hundreds of different kinds of differentiated cells, mixed with massive amounts of natural chemicals (which came through or from the mother).
To accomplish hundreds of different kinds of cells; when cells divide, they must divide into one or two different kinds of cells which are not the same as the original cell, or some mechanism must go back and "fix" some of the cells. The timing of these many strange cell divisions has to be with pinpoint accuracy.
You learn that the instructions for this pinpoint accuracy must be built into the DNA, thus making random mutations even less likely to be advantageous (i.e. requiring more precise chains of nucleotides, meaning the percentage of "correct" permutations of nucleotides is much smaller than might be expected if only genes are considered).
Herman states that every different kind of cell in the body must create different kinds of protein structures within the cell. He states that these different kinds of cells have exactly the same DNA, but each type of cell must pick different subsets of genes to create the protein structures for that specific type of cell.
Herman asks: how could a single undifferentiated cell turn into hundreds of different kinds of cells, each of which knows which subset of genes to pick to meet the needs of that kind of cell?
Then Herman talks about the circulatory system, the nervous system, the lymph system (including the lymph nodes), the electrical system (including the brain), and the immune system of the body. He tells you the DNA must contain unbelievably complex morphing algorithms to properly put all of these systems in place as the embryo is being formed.
He describes this as trying to put the electrical system, plumbing system, water systems, windows, pipes, desks, rest rooms, etc. into a tall building as the steel beams are being put into place and are being riveted. In other words, as the steel workers are riveting I-Beams for the 50th floor (of a 100 story building), hundreds of other people are standing on that I-Beam waiting to put the desks, water fountains, plumbing, pencils, etc. in place.
Herman also talks about the human heart. The heart starts beating in about week 5 after conception. If the heart started beating before the circulatory system was enclosed the embryo would bleed to death. Herman then asks you how the cells are given oxygen prior to the heart starting to beat? You don't know. Herman says a very specific chemical reaction keeps the new cells alive until the heart can beat.
Herman then says that as animals got more complex (assuming the theory of evolution), so did the morphing of the embryo algorithms on the DNA. The more complex the animal the more complex the algorithm and the less likely it could have happened by accident.
When Herman started taking about the morphing "timing" issues, the incomprehensibly complex computer programs which needed to be built into the DNA to control the morphing of the embryo, etc. you started thinking that Herman might not be retarded after all, like you had always been taught.
Herman interrupts your thinking by explaining that modern science wants you to think that the morphing of the embryo algorithms built into DNA are simple, and only involve a handful of nucleotides. Herman explains this is like claiming that the computer programs which put astronauts into space were written by monkeys.
Herman then starts talking about the evolution of species which had both a male and female. He starts talking about how the same random mutations must occur in the germ cells (i.e. the cells involved in reproduction, meaning the sperm and eggs) in both the male and female in order to have viable offspring.
Herman likens this to two different people (who do not know each other) receiving an email with a 10,000 volume encyclopedia. Each of the two people is instructed to independently make 20,000 random word changes to their soft copy of the encyclopedia. These 20,000 word changes can be to any of the pages in any of the 10,000 volumes.
Herman states that the probability that the DNA of both a male and female germ cell having the same random mutations (and thus being able to have offspring with new genetic material) is equal to the probability that the two different people coincidentally make the same 20,000 random word changes to the 10,000 volume encyclopedia. Herman actually started laughing at such an absurd possibility.
Yet, Herman says, such an improbable event would have had to have happened millions of times in order for the theory of evolution to be true!!
Herman then started talking about a few things for which you had no clue what he was talking about. All you could make out was that it involved the male and female issue, coupled with multi-generational changes to DNA to form a new set of inter-related genes.
Then Herman starts to talk about the evolutionists (this is the anti-evolution part, heard from a creationist viewpoint, the fourth item in the truth table).
He tells you that the first argument the evolutionists use (when confronted with the severe problems caused by probability and statistics, such as the issues related to permutations of nucleotides) is to respond by saying that "we exist, thus our existence is proof of evolution and the statistical issues related to evolution can be ignored."
In fact, Herman tells you that every time an evolutionist looks at a fossil bone, this bone is claimed to be a "proof" of evolution.
Herman then uses a common analogy (common to him, but you had never heard it before) and likens their logic to the theory that all of Shakespeare's plays were written by six monkeys locked in the basement of a building. It is someone's theory that Shakespeare did not write his works, but that the works attributed to Shakespeare were actually written by these six monkeys randomly pointing to letters on a chart on the wall.
He states: is it logical that because Shakespeare's plays "exist," that their existence is proof that six monkeys actually wrote Shakespeare’s plays?
If the answer is 'no', then why do evolutionists claim that the mathematical problems with their theory are irrelevant because humans exist?
You then hear how "punctuated equilibrium" (e.g. the Cambrian Explosion) is really many super irreducible complex protein systems forming at the same time, and you hear how absurd it is for science to challenge irreducibly complex protein systems, but at the same time to believe in punctuated equilibrium. Herman tells you this is like choking on a single sunflower seed, then swallowing a large watermelon in one gulp.
You hear why the phylogenetic tree was designed by scientists who were assuming that evolution was true; then it was used by other scientists to "prove" evolution. In other words, they assumed evolution was true in order design the tree; then the tree was used to "prove" evolution was true. Herman spends an hour talking about the logic tricks used by the evolutionists.
You also learn about the massive assumptions evolutionists make with regards to carbon dating of bones and how these assumptions allow them to come up with the "right answer" when they need it.
The theory of evolution, he tells you, in order to be true, requires massive amounts of time (hundreds of millions of years). Herman tells you the public must be convinced that life has been on this earth that long in order to justify the theory of evolution. In order to appear that life on this earth has been around for hundreds of millions of years, they use dating techniques which are known to be defective.
Herman tells you the defect is because moisture leeches radioactive atoms from samples (and thus throws off the accuracy of radiometric dating). This extremely relevant fact is intentionally ignored by labs in order to obtain the huge time periods needed for the theory of evolution.
Herman tells you the age of the earth is not a big issue (i.e. few people really care about the age of the earth, but some do), but it is the dating of bones and fossils which are the key issue.
Herman tells you that fossils are the "best" evidence for the theory of evolution, but in fact the fossil record absolutely disproves the theory of evolution.
Herman tells you that bones of humans have radiometric dating techniques used on them which are known to be false, in order to date the bones to be older than the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Herman tells you this is pure fraud and that these fossils are no where near as old as labs claim.
Regarding fossils, Herman says, obvious transitional species simply don't exist in the fossil record. Second, and more importantly, is that many hundreds of millions of random mutations to DNA would have been needed to create evolution, but this would mean that new species would appear on the earth in an increasing, but gradual count.
In other words, Herman says; if Darwin had known about random mutations of DNA, and if Darwin would have had a computer to simulate evolution, he would have concluded that the fossil record would display "a slowly increasing gradualism." The gradualism would have been an "increasing gradualism," not a flat gradualism, but it would have been gradualism nonetheless.
The fact is, Herman says, when you have huge numbers of random events, which would be required for evolution to be true; the main data is very predictable.
However, the "increasing gradualism" predicted by any computer model of evolution, using random mutations of DNA as the driving factor, is not what is observed in the fossil record.
In other words, Herman states: "punctuated equilibrium" is not at all compatible with random mutations of DNA and he states that there is no way to explain the Cambrian Explosion by using random mutations of DNA.
Herman states that the permutation of nucleotides issue is the very issue which makes the theory of evolution totally ludicrous because as DNA got longer and more complex (as species got more and more complex); the issues related to permutations of nucleotides would have become more and more impossible to explain.
Herman tells you that mutations on DNA are always at random locations on the DNA, but that evolution assumes that all mutations are precisely in the locations where they are needed.
Herman then states there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the DNA of all plants and animals is slowly deteriorating (i.e. genetic entropy). He states that geneticists have never observed new genetic material form by mutations.
In fact, geneticists see nothing but genetic entropy, and no new genetic material. Thus, what scientists actually observe (entropy of DNA) is not in harmony with what the theory of evolution claims (constantly growing and improving DNA sequences by random mutations)
In other words, says Herman, every factual amount of information from the study of genetics is exactly the opposite of the claims of evolution!!
Thus, Herman says, the overwhelming mathematical and observed data all point to the fact that evolution could never have happened on any planet, or on any Galaxy. Furthermore, there is zero evidence from labs that evolution is even possible under controlled conditions, much less in truly random conditions.
When all is said and done, Herman says, there is not one shred of evidence for the theory of evolution.
Ten hours pass and you realize the sun went down and it is now dark - and Herman is still talking. You also realize that for four of the ten hours you had no clue what Herman was talking about.
You also realize that this is not what you expected. You expected some wild and crazy theories. But in fact you realize that creation scientists are not stupid and they really do have some very strong arguments.
But most importantly you realize that what you had been taught by the evolutionists, about what the creation scientists believe, was totally wrong. You realize you had been deceived into thinking the creationists did not have any strong arguments.
You finally thank Herman for his time, and go back to the end of the fence a very confused person.
As incredible as this sounds; it is very, very difficult to get people to grasp the concept of hearing both sides of an issue from both sides of the fence. All your life you have been taught that it is not necessary. Society always has all of the right answers, for both sides of the fence, and anyone who does not agree with society is a crackpot, quack, moron, rebel, incorrigible, mentally unstable, or whatever.
Of course, many individual scientists and many individual educators are strong believers in God and do not believe in the theory of evolution. There are many known flaws with the theory of evolution, but above all, there is simply zero evidence for the theory of evolution. It is a theory, and a very poor theory at that. It is based on poor chemistry and very poor mathematics and a massive amount of falsehoods.
Yet, in the public arena, the scientific establishment has such total control of information; that anyone who defends God is an outcast and a renegade and is ridiculed. Nobody wants to be a renegade; it is very lonely. People would much rather be a conformist:
"When they give a person a Bachelors degree, they take away their mouth, when they give them a Masters degree, they take away their brains, and when they give them a PhD, they give them back their mouth."
Helen Kehr Billings, PhD (1901-1995) (an aunt of the author)
Not all renegades are right, but many of them are.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw
While the media and many schools have portrayed the creation scientists as the "unreasonable man," the reality is that it is the evolutionists who are using their vivid imaginations to invent things that science and mathematics simply cannot even remotely support.
The reality is, and don't forget this fact, creation science has a complete and absolute monopoly on good science and good mathematics; but the evolution establishment (i.e. "science") has a complete and absolute monopoly on the control and manipulation of information. That is what the evolution debate is all about.
The debate is between overwhelming scientific truth (i.e. creation science) versus the overwhelming control and manipulation of information (i.e. the theory of evolution).
Note To Reader
The community of creation scientists is large in size but is virtually unknown to the general public. The large number of creation scientists, as a whole, can totally shred the absurd theory of evolution.
However, even though the community is large they do not always agree among themselves.
For example, how long did it take to create the earth and all life on earth?
Some creation scientists think it took six 24-hour calendar days to create the earth and everything on it.
Others claim it took six thousand years (via versus in the New Testament which define the term "day" to mean a thousand years).
Others claim it took six creative periods, of indefinite and not necessarily equal time periods. In other words, some creation scientists define the term "day" to mean "period" and have no problem with believing it took God millions or billions of years to create all of the life on this earth.
The reader may dismiss some of these theories because of the age of the earth and the age of fossils as determined by radiometric dating and other methods.
Few creation scientists refute that the earth (as a large rock) is billions of years old; but some do refute it and they have good evidence for their claims because they believe in the power of God.
The point is that the reader should not assume that just because a person is a "creation scientist"; that they necessarily agree with all other creation scientists or that they agree with your beliefs.
The creation science community is a close knit community in condemning the perceived corruption in mainstream science; but they are not close knit with regards to all issues relative to the actual creation.
Many of the creation science books are written to support the specific creation science beliefs of a specific group of creationists or religionists. Thus, just because a book is a creation science book, does not mean its focus is on the same brand of creation science the reader believes.
The scientific establishment has a "field day" (i.e. a good time) criticizing "Young Earth Creationists" (Y.E.C.) because their claims do not fit the data of geologists and others.
While God is certainly capable of creating this planet in six calendar days or six thousand years, the claims of the Y.E.C. are an easy target (which is called a "straw man") for evolutionists, even though the creation scientists may be correct.
The reader should also note that there are many people who believe in a combination of evolution and creation science. For example, some people believe God created the "first living cell" and then left the rest of creation to evolution.
Those who believe in a hybrid of evolution and creation science most likely do so because they have been taught over and over again that the theory of evolution is scientifically valid.
However, as this book will show in graphic detail, every aspect of the theory of evolution is scientific nonsense.