|
Introduction
to the Mathematics of Evolution Chapter
15 Evolution
and Time "A statistician is a person who
stands in a bucket of ice water, sticks their head in an over and says: 'on
average, I feel fine!'" K. Dunnigan Gene Complexes In prior
chapters we talked about genes and DNA, among other things. While a "gene" is a template to
make a protein, a "gene complex" (which was actually mentioned by
"Herman") is a gene, plus
all of the other sections of DNA which are needed in order for this gene to be
converted into a protein and
for the protein to be placed into the proper position inside the cell, etc. A gene
would be useless without the gene complex; of which the gene is a small part. No one
really knows what the average number of nucleotide pairs (generally just
referred to as "nucleotides") are in the average "gene complex." In the book: Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the
Genome, by Dr. Sanford, there is a clue (what he calls a "whole
gene" is called a "gene complex" in this book): "While only a small fraction of
the [DNA] directly encodes for proteins, every protein-encoding sequence is
embedded within other functional sequences that regulate the expression of such
proteins. This includes promoters, enhancers,
introns, leader sequences, training sequences, and
sequences affecting regional folding and DNA architecture ... While a typical
protein-coding sequence may only be 3,000 nucleotides long or less, the typical
'whole gene'[i.e. gene complex] that controls the expression of that protein
can be in the range of 50,000 nucleotides long." Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, page 38 Let us, for
the sake of argument, assume that the average gene complex, for advanced
animals and plants, consists of 15,000 nucleotides (i.e. "nucleotide pairs"). Dr. Sanford says they can be as large as
50,000 nucleotides (i.e. "nucleotide pairs"). By the way,
the book just quoted is one of the best sources for understanding genetic
entropy. Genetic entropy is, by itself, an absolutely superb evidence that the theory of evolution
cannot be scientifically true. Getting
back to gene complexes, there are exactly 415,000 different ways
that a sequence of 15,000 nucleotides can be ordered (remember, each way they
can be uniquely ordered is called a "permutation"). Converting from base 4 to base 10, this
number is approximately 109,000.
This number is about 108,920 times larger than the number of
atoms in our Universe and it represents the number of permutations in just one gene complex. The theory
of evolution claims that DNA "evolved" by "random mutations"
of nucleotides (i.e. nucleotide pairs), meaning by randomly linking sequences
of nucleotides. This means that the
15,000 nucleotide pairs in a single gene complex must have been constructed by totally randomly putting the
nucleotides in a sequence. To
understand what is going on; suppose we put Shakespeare's King Henry VIII play
into a computer and then scrambled the letters up randomly (we will also
scramble up the spaces between words).
Then, suppose we isolated 900 of these randomly generated letters and
spaces. This is what the scrambled King
Henry VIII might look like (note: a period ('.') is really a space in this list): .gibmmeg.signrryd.uet..mrhbhcro..efeul.feoe.ewe.li.befubl.ne k.ekenlhinat.oaet.hwde.trmtrlev..t.eluttl.r.hfdsepilrsafcltt tv.esewes.y.holgo.nlialywlggtrd.a..r.lhcm..juldagute.imtkckh .ooat..hrviesl.maablhe....asohf.a.e.i.r.nwnnnooolasia.atordw yhviondseabdme.ntonlmnfor.ya.livyyceae..m.ii.o..aoaactliahtr satythhrcwnrro.re.rca.anlitdntdtmihleosseiveammouweesrrtafli peeittehfrnre..teyl..eiso.bytrk.dhcaemoigeieip.ut.oeymnm.nyu sipseoo...othcttyeh..hbuaecsysesrus.rs.yaa..ly.tttrte.yihwra m.cet.dolwdeen..keiehi.bannu.irwa.le.teotli.snot...dmluc.adf iiocehdgdt.r.wo.aamr.w.aioisehh.r.ek.gtiigreaies..c.pohpnots .ncyl...reauidhtesa.itthenldts.ioak.euwbieat.ionerk.otiftyr. o.h.gtfhtnom..sesai....dgawutedie.on.dnechtua..pdertntar.ete .noriehamehooevsedaiafsooi.mw.otlhistdm.s.e..aeh.ll.dkesuaa. h.eosrdgye.dtesbctsoernlnsoacs.tanoyurhh..nwnhe.tdpako.tkyaa aceehfcgt.hnmireds.ensi.dyinrwn.ohh.whofe.e.wcra.srt.yoktean This is
just one way of randomly writing a Shakespeare play. Now ask yourself this question: can we
"fix" this worthless ordering of letters and spaces by replacing the
above letters, one by one, with other
random letters of the alphabet?
That would be absurd. You don't
fix nonsense with more nonsense. Yet
that is exactly the way the theory of evolution is supposed to work. The
important thing to note is that there is no intelligence in the above letters. You won't get a better grade in literature
class by reading thousands of pages of randomly generated letters of the
alphabet, even when they are "weighted" by the actual letters in the
actual play. Likewise,
when we randomly scramble nucleotides, we would not expect to have a sequence
of nucleotides which would provide any "information" or
"intelligence" which would be useful to the body. Unfortunately, it is not as easy to glance at
a sequence of nucleotides and describe what the sequence is there for. A scrambled;
or randomly put together sequence of nucleotides; would not be expected to make
a viable gene complex any more than a scrambled King Henry VIII play would tell
us much about who King Henry VIII was and what his part was in the play. The play was named after him so you can
assume he was one of the main characters. When
putting together gene complexes, the theory of evolution states that the
nucleotide pairs were randomly put together and then were randomly mutated until
a viable gene complex resulted. This is
as nonsensical as trying to write a play using randomly generated letters of
the alphabet and then continuing to change the letters until you got a deeply
profound play. The Probability of the
"First Living Cell" Suppose the
day comes that scientists claim to have created life from non-life, by totally random accumulations of amino
acids (or random accumulations of RNA or DNA or whatever). Proteins
are nothing but a string of amino acids.
However, the amino acids need to be chemically bound together and then "folded"
so that they form a shape so that they can be functional to the cell. Likewise, certain amino acids stick to each
other and other amino acids repel each other, etc. Let us
assume there was a protein structure in a cell which needed 50 different
proteins (i.e. 50 different sequences of amino acids folded together to make
one very large structure). Physically,
the 50 different proteins must "fit together" much like you would
build a toy robot using 50 different kinds of LegoŽ building blocks and fit the
pieces together. But that is
only half the problem. Unlike
building a toy robot, individual amino acids, from different proteins in the
structure, must "stick" or "bind" to each at certain locations
so that the entire protein structure is strong.
This would be like gluing the LegoŽ building blocks together. But in some cases sections of the proteins
must repel each other. There are no
building blocks that do that. The focus
of the book: The Edge of Evolution, by Dr. Michael J. Behe, totally disproves the theory of evolution by talking
about "binding sites." His
claim is that it is impossible that random mutations of nucleotides could
produce enough binding sites to create a single complex protein structure. He is right, it is a superb book. It is not a very popular book among the
evolutionists, however. Not only
must the 50 different proteins have shapes which fit together "like a
complex glove," certain amino acids (in different proteins) must have very
specific amino acids, in exactly the
right place, so that the 50 protein parts "stick" to each
other or repel each other to make the complex strong or provide some other
function. Thus,
proteins not only must have the right amino acids in the right places in order
for the proteins to fold in the right places, there must also be amino acids in
just the right places so the proteins with bind together, will repel each
other, will repel water, will attract water, and so on. Designing complex protein structures is an
insanely complex process. Yet, science
claims it happened many millions of times by pure accident. Now let us
get back to our hypothetical scientists and the "first living cell." They claimed that they used a randomly generated DNA or RNA strand of
900,000 nucleotides, and ended up creating life from non-life. The "life" would include at least
300 very complex gene complexes (i.e. which are used to create proteins). Would you
believe them? Note that in the above
paragraph is the term "randomly generated DNA or RNA." If they carefully designed the order of the
nucleotides for the DNA of a "first living cell;" good for
them, they should win the Nobel Prize (and no doubt they would). But in this
case the scientists are claiming that they used a totally random sequence of nucleotides to build the amino
acids and proteins necessary to create life from non-life. Let us
assume the "first living cell" had 300 gene complexes, with an
average length of 3,000 nucleotides (or nucleotide pairs). Human gene complexes are far more
complicated, and longer, than the gene complexes of the "first living
cell" (if such a cell ever existed). Now let us
assume the probability of a random
permutation of 3,000 nucleotides, being able to create a gene complex
for the "first living cell," was 10‑5. This number is ridiculously generous to the
theory of evolution (i.e. the real probability is much, much less than that). Thus, we
have a probability that an RNA or DNA strand for the "first living
cell" would have a viable permutation of nucleotides is: 10(‑5 x 300)
which is equal to 10‑1,500.
The "‑5" is the probability of a single new gene complex
forming from a randomly generated permutation of 3,000 nucleotides; and the 300
is the number of gene complexes which must be made. Even this
number ignores a lot of things, such as the viability of different combinations of proteins
(remember, proteins must fit together, thus just having a protein doesn't help
at all, it must have a very specific shape and have specific amino acids in
just the right place), but we will use the above numbers. Remember,
10‑100 is an impossible probability. A probability of 10‑500 is
an insane probability because it is 10400 times smaller than an impossible probability. Now we are
talking about a number which is 101,000 times smaller than an insane probability (i.e. 10(1,500‑500)
equals 101,000). Should you
believe these scientists? No, you should
not believe them. It is not the accumulation of 900,000
amino acids which is the problem (though this is actually a very severe problem
because amino acids do not easily chemically bind to each other); rather it is the permutation of nucleotides
which is the problem. Even though
there would be many successful permutations of nucleotides which would create a
living cell; even taking this into account, if these scientists had had a
thousand failures, the chances of a success would still be 10‑1,497. Simply put, such a claim would be a clear case of fraud and deceit. Now let us
move from the "first living cell" to human DNA, as proposed by the
theory of evolution. Building a New Species
Randomly This is the
key question we are examining: What is the probability that a new species could
be created by randomly putting together pairs of nucleotides? These
random mutations are events that occur to
an existing species (starting with the "first living cell,"
but actually we will start with the first complex animal which is an ancestor
of humans - meaning an "ancestor species"). An
"ancestor species" is a species from which we are descended on our phylogenetic tree (assuming the theory of evolution is true
for a moment). To create a
new species we will take the DNA of an existing species, and 1) Randomly
mutate some of the nucleotides (i.e. randomly change one nucleotide into
another nucleotide) of the DNA of the existing species; and 2) Randomly
delete some of the nucleotides of the DNA of the existing species; and 3) Randomly
add nucleotides to the DNA of the existing species. Some of this
activity may have happened after an entire chromosome was accidentally copied
in the existing animal. Some of the
mutations, deletions and additions may have happened in the extra chromosome. Let us
begin with a discussion of creating a single new gene complex. This is a gene complex which does not exist
in the existing species, but must exist in the new species. A single gene
complex of a new species would likely consist of about 15,000 randomly chosen nucleotides, as
mentioned above. A "gene complex"
is very specialized for a specific
type of animal or plant. All
mutations must be effective for the specific type of animal or plant they occur
inside of. We must
remember that each animal or plant has a very sophisticated set of highly
coordinated functions. In other words,
you cannot take a rat liver and put it in a horse. The horse liver must be compatible with the
other organs in a horse. All the
computers in the world, in a trillion years, could not calculate the
probability of accidentally creating a single viable gene complex for a
specific type of animal. So we have
to use some common sense. It will be
assumed the probability of randomly mutating (i.e. changing, deleting and
adding nucleotides), which will result in the formation of a new gene complex
for a new species, is 10‑10 (1 in 10 billion), though in
reality it is probably worse than 10‑40 (which is why it is
impossible to calculate). The number 10‑10
is very, very generous to the theory of evolution even taking into account that
some new gene complexes are not completely new, but are significant
modifications to already existing gene complexes. My computer
is not powerful enough to prove that the number 10‑10 is
actually very, very generous to the theory of evolution. However, I have been able to come close to
ten billion simulations. Here are
the results of 10 sets of 100 million simulations, which represent 1 billion
simulations (i.e. a 10‑9 probability) . Using a very generous assumption as to the
mix of nucleotides (i.e. very generous to the theory of evolution); these are the percentage of "correct" nucleotides for
each simulation of 100 million attempts): 1) Maximum Achieved 0.4288667 2) Maximum Achieved 0.4330667 3)
Maximum Achieved 0.4353333 4)
Maximum Achieved 0.4364 5)
Maximum Achieved 0.4329333 6) Maximum Achieved 0.4316667 7)
Maximum Achieved 0.4358 8)
Maximum Achieved 0.4339333 9)
Maximum Achieved 0.4338 10) Maximum Achieved 0.4346 Obviously,
if my computer had been more powerful, and I could have run 10 billion
simulations (or even 1 trillion simulations), the "Maximum Achieved"
would not have been anywhere near 99%; or whatever rational benchmark is chosen
for being able to create a functional protein for a new species. How Many Unique Gene
Complexes Per Unique Species? The next
assumption we must make is to calculate how many unique gene complexes are in a
typical unique species. Human DNA
has 30,000 gene complexes. The
"first living cell" would have had about 300 gene complexes. Thus, we have an increase of 29,700 gene
complexes going from the DNA of the "first living cell" to human DNA
(obviously assuming evolution, which is what we are trying to calculate the
probability of). However,
the gene complexes of human DNA are huge compared to the gene complexes of the
"first living cell" or even the first complex animal which was an
ancestor species of humans (assuming evolution), plus human DNA would have to
be far, far more complex. So we can
ignore the "first living cell" DNA or the DNA of the first complex
ancestor of humans. Thus, for all
practical purposes, we need to build 30,000 gene complexes from scratch. Assuming
there are 150 unique species between the first complex animal (which is an
ancestor of humans), and human DNA, the average "ancestor species" (i.e. a species which is on our evolutionary tree) would have 200
unique gene complexes (30,000 divided by 150).
We will round this number down to 50 to be very generous to the theory
of evolution and to take into account that our earliest "ancestor
species" were fairly simple compared to us. In summary,
we will make these assumptions in our next calculation: 1) The
average "gene complex" of a complex species is 15,000 nucleotides. 2) The
probability of a randomly generated sequence of 15,000 nucleotides being able
to form a single, viable gene complex for a specific species: 10‑10 3) Each unique
species, of our ancestor species, has an average of 50 unique gene complexes. With these
generous assumptions, the probability of a new species "evolving" by
random mutations of nucleotides (which is the only way that the theory of
evolution can work) is: 10(‑10
x 50) = 10‑500 This
probability is for a new species
using randomly generated and modified nucleotides from an existing species or
from all new nucleotides. Note that
this number is the "insane" probability of 10‑500
mentioned earlier. The reader
might think that the probability of 10‑500 is 5 times more
impossible than 10‑100, the "impossible probability." This is wrong, and if you thought that, you
should reread sections of the previous chapters. The reality
is that 10‑500 is 10400
times smaller than the probability of 10‑100. This is the nature of working with
exponents!! This
probability applies to every one
of the unique species which have lived, and do live, on this earth. In other words, for every complex species
which has ever lived on this earth (including extinct species), there is a
probability of 10‑500 that this species was derived by random
mutations of nucleotides (actually this is an average). And even
this probability is very generous to the theory of evolution. There are
actually other factors which have been ignored which would be very damaging to
the theory of evolution if they had been included. For
example, consider the male and female issue.
When there is a new species, which has a male and female, the DNA (after the random mutations in each of
their germ cells) must be identical in the germ cells of both the male
and female, in order for them to have viable offspring. What this
means is that the probability that a male and female will have the same random
mutations in the same generation in the same location of earth is impossible. The 10‑500 probability does not
even begin to take this into account. Another
example is the morphing of the embryo algorithm (i.e. computer program) in the
DNA of each and every complex species which converts a single egg into a living
animal. Every time there is a physical
structural change in the species, the highly complex morphing of the embryo
algorithm must change in a very precise way.
This, by itself, is an insane probability. Multi-generational
issues are also ignored. Multi-species
issues are also ignored. Now let's
get to another important part of this discussion. How Many Species? How many
species have existed on this earth?
Scientists know of many millions of species which have lived on this
earth (counting plants and animals). However,
in these counts there are many examples of "microevolution," meaning
variation in a single species. The key
question is how many unique species (i.e. a "species" is defined as
having the same DNA structure, meaning the same general sequence of
nucleotides) have lived, and do live, on this earth? The answer will
be assumed to be about 10 million unique species. This includes living plants and animals
(including fish and other species in the deep ocean) and extinct plants and
animals (including extinct fish and other species in the deep ocean). This means
that in the 5 billion years evolutionists claim this earth has existed (most of
this time there was no life on earth according to science); an insane
probability of 10‑500 had to have happened 10 million times!!! Actually,
all of this had to happen in less than a billion years because we are starting
with animals with complex DNA (i.e. a "complex species" means there are
multiple types of cells which perform some coordinated function necessary for
life). But it gets
worse. If there
are 150 species, between the first complex animal and human DNA, then each of
these ancestor species had to be
consecutive, meaning one after the other, because they are our ancestor
species. Just like
our grandfather (our father's father) and our father cannot both be born in the
same year, our 150th ancestor species (starting with our oldest ancestor
species with complex DNA) must have existed prior to our 149th ancestor species. Our 149th ancestor species had to exist prior
to our 148th ancestor species. And so
on. Thus, human
evolution, from the DNA of our oldest complex ancestor species to the DNA of
human beings, would be like winning "150 consecutive lotteries," where the probability of each
was 10‑500, not
10‑100. In other
words, the probability of going from our 150th ancestor species to our 149th
ancestor species was 10‑500.
Going from our 149th ancestor species to our 148th ancestor species was
10‑500. And so on. And our 148th ancestor species could not have
existed until after our 150th ancestor species and our 149th ancestor species existed,
and so on. Thus, the
theory of evolution is a true "consecutive lottery" of 150
consecutive lotteries, each with a probability of 10‑500. There is no word in the English
language to describe just how ludicrous the theory of evolution is!! Other Consecutive
Species The 150
consecutive species only applies to human DNA.
What about the "consecutive species" needed for the other 10
million species which have or do exist on this earth? Each species,
whether living or extinct, would have needed unique ancestor species back to
the point they have a mutual ancestor species with humans or other
animals. We see in this case the need
for literally hundreds of thousands
of situations where 5 or 10 or 50 consecutive lotteries must be won, which have
nothing to do with human DNA. And this
is being very careful to avoid any duplication of ancestor species (i.e. no
ancestor species is counted more than once). Are you beginning to see the inane absurdity
of the theory of evolution? It has been
said that the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. Actually, the
lottery is a tax on people who are bad at understanding the power of
permutations. In fact, a belief in the theory of evolution is a
"tax" on people who are bad at understanding the power of
permutations!! Small Increments One of the
arguments of the theory of evolution to try and overcome its vast statistical
problems (their primary argument is to "bury" this problem and not
talk about it) is that evolution occurred by many "small" sets of
mutations, not by large sets of mutations. The first
absurdity of this theory is that "small" sets of mutations do not
provide any survival benefit to species. But there
is also a statistical problem with this theory. Answer this
question: Which is less likely: 1) Rolling
a 10-sided dice 100 consecutive times, each time getting a '1' 2) Rolling
a 10-sided dice 2 consecutive times, each time getting a '1', but then having
to do this 50 consecutive times. Statistically,
there is no difference between item #1 and item #2. In both cases a person has to roll a '1' for
100 consecutive attempts. The theory of
"small" sets of mutations does not; in any way, shape or form; solve
the statistical problems of the theory of evolution. Actually,
multi-generation "small" sets of mutations actually add a lot of
problems to the theory of evolution, as has already been seen in this book. Now you need brothers and sisters mating
(well, after awhile they could be cousins) for many consecutive generations. This adds a massive amount of uncertainty and
problems to the theory. The reality
is that whether the scientific establishment talks about many millions of
"big" sets of mutations or billions
of "small" sets of mutations, the fact is that the theory of
evolution is statistical and scientific utter
nonsense. A Murder Mystery #1 To
comprehend why the theory of evolution is scientific nonsense, let us consider
a murder mystery. Suppose a
person was murdered in a small town, a 4 hour drive from Paris, France, at
exactly 1 A.M. Central Standard Time, U.S.A., on a Thursday morning. Suppose for
some reason the French government wanted to frame me (i.e. Webster Kehr) for the murder. Thus, they
gathered hundreds of pieces of evidence which implicated me in the murder. Suppose
that I did not know the person who was murdered, in fact I did not know a
single person in the city where he lived.
Nor do I speak French. Yet,
supposedly, there was a ton of "evidence" that I was guilty. How could I
prove my innocence? Suppose on
the week this person was killed, I was working 8 hours a day (from 7:30 AM to
4:30 PM, which includes a lunch break) in To prove my
innocence, I would prove that I was at work, as scheduled, every day in the
week the person was murdered. Let us
assume the following facts: 1) It would
take me 30 minutes to drive to the nearest large airport, the Kansas City
International airport (KCI). 2) I would
have to be at the airport at least 1 hour before the plane left, since it was
an international flight. 3) I would
have to change planes (there are no non-stop flights from 4) The
total flying time to 5) It would
have taken me 4 hours to drive from the Thus, to
get from Thus, it
would have taken me 37 hours to complete the trip to the city in How much
time did I have? The answer is 15
hours. From 4:30 P.M. to 7:30 A.M. is 15
hours. I could not
have killed the person. I was innocent. A Murder Mystery #2 Now let us
take all the above facts, but in this case the person was murdered on a distant
planet, 5 light years away. How long
would it take for me to travel 5 light years, at 100,000 miles per hour? It would
take about 67,000 years to go
to the star and back. How could I travel for 67,000 years
in 15 hours? Again, I was innocent. Conclusions The problem
with the theory of evolution is time.
The scientific establishment has tried to make it appear that the theory
of evolution has had 600 million years or so to happen, since the first complex
animal. That is not
enough time. Even 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion years is not enough time. The theory of evolution is more like Murder
Mystery #2 than Murder Mystery #1. There
simply hasn't been enough time on this earth for the theory of evolution to have
occurred. Could you win
150 "consecutive lotteries" in 600 million years? Such a belief would be mathematical and
scientific nonsense. It is virtually impossible
you could win 3 "consecutive lotteries" in 600 million years. But even
the problem of winning 150 "consecutive lotteries" is just a small
tip of the iceberg for the theory of evolution. Winning 150
"consecutive lotteries" is just for human DNA. How about the DNA of millions of other unique
species and the "consecutive lotteries" each of them needed to have
"won," which did not include any duplication of ancestor species. You also
have problems with the male and female issue.
Both the male and female have to have DNA which aligns with each other
in order to have offspring. Thus, each
must have the same impossible mutations in their germ cells, and the male and
female must live in the same geographical area and same time period. This alone generates insane probabilities. Those who
support the theory of evolution might say that the same "external"
events caused the same mutations in the DNA of the male and female. This theory is totally absurd for many, many
reasons, but this book will not take the time to discuss this issue. The point
is that six-hundred million years is not enough time for evolution to have worked. Even 600 billion years would not be
enough. Even 10100,000
years would not be near enough time for evolution to have occurred by random
mutations of DNA. Not even close. Do the
math. You will find out that adding a
few numbers to an exponent do not help the overall problem the theory of
evolution faces. Evolution
never happened, on this earth or any other earth, or on any other galaxy or on
any other Universe. This
Universe, the planets, and life on this earth were created by intelligent
beings, all under the watchful eye of God Himself or life was created by God
Himself. There is no other explanation
for the DNA of millions of different species of animals and plants. |