Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
Genetic Entropy and Genetic Debris
In prior chapters, a "favorable" mutation was assumed to occur 25% of the time because there are only four types of nucleotides. But in the real world of genetics, "favorable" mutations only occur "one in a million" times, according to Dr. Sanford's book on genetic entropy. And Dr. Sanford was quoting other sources when he gave that statistic!
"I have seen estimates of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations which range from one thousand to one, up to one-million to one. The best estimates seem to be one-million to one (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). ... In conclusion, mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when one may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is still usually part of an over-all breakdown and erosion of [the] information [in the DNA]."
Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, page 24 & 27
Dr. Sanford was talking mainly about "point mutations," meaning the removal, add or change of a single nucleotide on DNA. There are, of course, several other types of mutations.
If there are only four different types of nucleotides, why are point mutations beneficial only "one in a million" times?
Actually, the "one in a million" number itself is deceptive. Even in the case of "favorable" mutations, there is a loss of genetic information, as Dr. Sanford mentions. It is environmental reasons which cause the "benefit," not new genetic information.
The reason beneficial mutations are so rare is because the body does not look at DNA as individual nucleotides. The body looks at DNA as groups of nucleotides.
To understand this concept, suppose we looked at the works of Shakespeare. What if we randomly changed a single letter in one word in one of his plays? Would this give us a one-in-26 chance of intellectually benefiting from one of his plays?
The answer is 'no' because the probability that the overall concepts in that play would be noticeably improved, by that one change of one letter in one word, is virtually zero.
When we look at a play, we see the "big picture" of what the play is telling us. We also see the smaller picture of what the current scene is telling us and we even see what one dialog is telling us and even what one word is telling us.
When we get down to the level of a specific dialog we are concentrating on every word that is said and visualizing that word in the context of the entire play and scene. To randomly change one letter of one word, when we are thinking about the "big picture" of the play, is not likely to give us added intellectual benefit.
In fact, if we analyzed every letter in every word of a play by Shakespeare, it is unlikely we could find more than a few single letters in the play which could be changed such that there would be an overall improvement in the value of a scene or the entire play.
A similar thing can be said about DNA, except that DNA is millions of times more complex and more intertwined than any of Shakespeare's plays!!
Similar to the way we look at Shakespeare's plays, the body uses DNA in a "Big Picture" way. DNA has many layers of sophistication and it has many different groups of complex instructions. That is why random mutations have never been observed to create new genetic information and/or new genetic intelligence.
This is also why scientists are having such a hard time decoding what DNA is really doing.
It is also why it is so difficult for humans to intelligently create new DNA from scratch (such as designing the DNA of an extinct egg-laying dinosaur, both male and female).
While one point mutation can be bad, it would be very, very rare when one point mutation would yield new, useful genetic information when considering the "Big Picture" of human DNA. It would take large numbers of nucleotides to create new genetic information, but we have already seen the statistical absurdity of that happening.
This is why "beneficial" mutations are always the result of a loss of genetic information. This loss of genetic information (such as making short hair instead of long hair) may coincidentally have an environmental benefit because the animal lives in a very hot climate.
This can also be seen in medicine. When a bacteria or other microbe develops a resistance to a drug, this resistance is not developed because of any intelligence on the part of the microbe or any additional genetic information; rather the benefit is caused by a loss of genetic information which just coincidentally creates a resistance to a drug. The book: The Edge of Evolution--The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, by Dr. Michael J. Behe, goes into this subject in great detail.
In animals and plants, a single mutation does not provide additional information to the cell or additional benefit (such as an improved and more intelligent "supervisor protein"), it only provides benefit in the context of coincidental environmental issues.
If a favorable point mutation is ever observed, it will most likely be a former detrimental point mutation which was coincidently reversed to its original state by a new mutation.
Evolutionists believe a new species has a significantly higher level of new genetic information than the "old" species from which it "evolved." But new genetic information has never been observed to form from mutations.
The entire basis of neo-Darwinism is that new genetic information is formed by mutations. This has never been observed in the real world. What has been observed is the loss of genetic information or more likely, neutral mutations have been observed which have no noticeable affect.
Let us again think of a play by Shakespeare. If we made a random change to a single letter, in thousands of different words, it is impossible that the overall play would be made more satisfying. It is far more likely that a single letter change in a single word would create a favorable outcome than if one change was made to each of thousands of different words.
So it is with DNA. If only one in a million mutations is favorable, then the more mutations you have, the less likely it is that there will be an overall favorable outcome!!
In other words, if you randomly made a million mutations in a DNA strand, it is far less likely you will have a favorable outcome than if you made one mutation because detrimental mutations will massively overwhelm any very, very rare favorable mutation.
But one mutation will never create a new species or a new gene complex. This is actually a paradox for evolution. The more changes you make, the less likely there will be an overall favorable outcome, but many changes are necessary to create a new species.
The only possible way for evolution to work is for an entire gene to be copied (or some other bulk mutation is made) and then the copy is mutated with point mutations. These point mutations, and even additional nucleotides, would be necessary so the new gene complex (of a new species) provided some new feature (i.e. new genetic information and/or intelligence) for the new species.
But we have already seen this is impossible because the more perfect the copy of the gene is to begin with, the quicker the segment deteriorates due to random mutations (i.e. Kehr's Paradox).
A person might think that evolution would work by modifying existing gene complexes. The problem with this theory is that if you have a failed attempt to convert an existing gene complex into a new and improved gene complex; then you have destroyed an existing, and important, gene complex in the germ cell!!
Also, in ways no human fully understands, pivotal genetic sequences, which are involved in one action, are the result of non-contiguous segments of DNA (e.g. introns). The DNA needs all the information contained in the non-contiguous sections, thus it must know where the scattered pieces are located and what they do.
Thus, creating a new species will likely involve making changes to many different locations on the DNA, which, in itself, creates massive problems for the theory of evolution.
But things get worse for evolution, because like it or not, the DNA of all species is arbitrarily deteriorating at random points on the DNA. This is universally called: genetic entropy.
Genetic Entropy and Evolution
Genetic entropy means that the DNA of all species on earth is deteriorating due to various types of mutations. It is a scientific fact which is known by all geneticists.
Let us try to conceive what genetic entropy really means when considering hundreds of millions of years of speculated evolution.
Let us start with the "first living cell." To think that the "first living cell" had perfect DNA would be ludicrous. If there was a "first living cell," most likely it could barely survive. Most likely it had very poor DNA, but was just able to survive.
What about the second "living cell?"
The second living cell would also have had very poor DNA. In fact, it is unlikely the "first living cell" could have replicated.
But in any case, as more and more cells came into existence, all made from the mold of the "first living cell," which had poor DNA, all of the descendants of the "first living cell" would also have had poor DNA.
But genetic entropy would have made their DNA even worse.
Actually, the mechanism of copying nucleotides in the "first living cell" would have been far less perfect than the sophisticated mechanism which copies nucleotides in today's species. Thus, genetic entropy would have been far worse in the early days of life than it is now. But even now mutations are dangerously common.
This copying mechanism, by the way, is made of proteins, which is a paradox because it means a protein had to exist to copy the RNA or DNA before the first protein was made.
Even if there had been a "first living cell," it is unlikely life on this planet could have survived for very long. Not only would the "first living cell" have had poor DNA, but genetic defects; which would have accumulated from one generation of the "first living cell" species to the next generation; would have quickly wiped out the first and only species on this planet.
But let us move forward and talk about the first multi-celled creature which had circulating blood (or some other fluid that was circulating).
How could such a creature have ever come into existence? If you start with poor DNA from the "first living cell," and then you have generation after generation of abnormally high genetic entropy, meaning the deterioration of the DNA because of various types of errors in copying DNA segments, how could a complex species ever have come into existence?
Moving Backwards in Time
With this introduction, let us now start to look at DNA from the perspective of the first homo sapiens sapiens, who, according to evolution, lived more than 100,000 years ago.
Let us trace the ancestry of the first homo sapiens sapiens (who would have been brother and sister for reasons previously mentioned) back to the first complex cell with a circulatory system of some sort.
First of all, we would go through many generations of their "ancestor species." An "ancestor species," as we have seen, is a species on the evolutionary tree or phylogenetic tree of the species.
We will define the first homo sapiens sapiens to be "Species 1." We humans are Species 1 according to evolution.
So let us say that the species on the phylogenetic tree represented by the parent species of "Species 1" is called: "Species 2." In other words, on our phylogenetic tree, Species 2 was the species just before Species 1, which is homo sapiens sapiens.
How many generations of "Species 2" existed (moving backwards in time) to go back to "Species 3," the parent species of "Species 2?"
We obviously don't know (since evolution doesn't exist), but let us assume it was 22,000 generations.
Then let us assume there were 22,000 generations of Species 3 (we are moving backwards in time) to get to Species 4.
Then let us assume there were 22,000 generations of Species 4 before we get to Species 5.
And so on.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the earliest "ancestor species" of humans which had a circulatory system (again, assuming the theory of evolution were true) was Species 3,000 and that in each case there were 22,000 generations between each of the 3,000 species. (Technically it would have been species 3,001, but let's keep things simple.)
Note that as we get further from humans; that the time between birth and breeding (or dividing) gets shorter and shorter. While humans may reproduce at an average age of 25 years, Species 3,000 on our evolutionary tree probably bred or divided within days of "birth." We will assume an average breeding age of 10 years.
Thus we have:
Species 3,000 (our earliest and first ancestor species with a circulatory system, which lived 660,000,000 years ago)
22,000 generations of Species 3,000
Species 2,999, created by evolution from Species 3,000
22,000 generations of Species 2,999
Species 2,998, created by evolution from Species 2,999
22,000 generations of Species 2,998
... (these three dots represent hundreds of millions of years)
Species 3 (grandparent species of homo sapiens sapiens)
22,000 generations of Species 3
Species 2 (parent species of homo sapiens sapiens)
22,000 generations of Species 2
Species 1 (homo sapiens sapiens)
5,000 generations of Species 1 to get to you and me (at an average age of 20 when our ancestors had children according to the theory of evolution)
Altogether we have 3,000 different species (from the first species with a circulating system) and 66 million generations (22,000 times 3,000) and roughly 660 million years (at 10 years per generation).
Keeping in mind that the DNA of Species 3,000 was not very good, and keeping in mind that genetic entropy would have been in force for 66 million consecutive generations (i.e. 660 million years), and most importantly, keeping in mind that there is no mechanism to "fix" most types of DNA damage or remove unneeded nucleotides from DNA; all genetic mutations would have accumulated on the DNA of animals from generation to generation and from species to species.
In other words, in this process the worthless and defective nucleotides (created by genetic entropy) would have remained on the DNA, and been passed from one generation to another, and from one species to another, forever because there is no mechanism to remove them from defective DNA.
There would have been a continuously accumulating number of genetic defects at birth among our ancestor species!!
Every one of the 66 million generations which led to humans would have had some genetic entropy. Thus, human DNA today (that is the DNA of you and me), and the DNA of our earliest ancestors, would have the cumulative genetic defects of 66 million generations of animals!!
In other words, genetic defects would have not only very seriously damaged the DNA of each species, but the genetic defects would have remained and accumulated on the DNA, from generation to generation and from species to species.
So how bad would the DNA of the first homo sapiens sapiens have been after 660 million years of increasingly accumulated genetic defects?
Suppose, for example, there was a single mutation every year, due to genetic entropy. Humans would have 660,000,000 mutations on our human DNA!! We could never have existed!!
It would be impossible for a species to exist after 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects. It is ludicrous. And remember than Species 3,000 had poor DNA to begin with and the copy mechanism back then would have been far less perfect than it is today.
Every generation of a species would have had genetic defects passed on to the next generation. Furthermore, when there was a new species, the genetic defects of the prior species would have been passed on to the new species.
DNA deteriorates over time, it doesn't get better. If the theory of evolution were true, every human, you and me, would have 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects. We could not exist.
What is the scientific fact? The scientific fact is that human DNA is virtually perfect. If it were not perfect, genetic diseases, and deaths at birth from genetic defects, would be millions of times worse than they really are.
Ponder this carefully: evolution claims to start with a "first living cell," which had a very short RNA or DNA which could barely allow it to survive, and then after many hundreds of millions of years of accumulated genetic defects/entropy, from generation to generation and from species to species; humans (homo sapiens sapiens) come on the scene with virtually perfect DNA; plus they have incomprehensively complex DNA containing 3 billion pairs of nucleotides!! This is nonsense; hundreds of millions of years of constantly deteriorating DNA does yield virtually perfect DNA of a much, much greater length and an almost infinitely higher level of sophistication.
It is claimed that natural selection created this massive, massive increase in DNA length and DNA sophistication. But natural selection only works on existing living, walking and breathings species. Natural selection does not create species, it only "selects" from among existing species. Natural selection only affects the mix of species, not the creation of species.
Every minute step of evolution had to be driven by totally blind, random mutations of DNA and all of these random mutations (which started with simple and poor DNA) were constantly being degraded by genetic entropy!!
You can rest assured that genetic entropy works much, much faster than favorable random mutations of nucleotides. In fact, we can compare genetic entropy to a jet airplane, and compare favorable mutations to a child with a pair of "roller skates."
The jet airplane of genetic entropy has been flying at jet speeds for 660 million years and the roller skates of favorable mutations (which actually don't exist) has tried to catch up and surpass the jet airplane. But every year the child on roller skates gets further and further behind.
Evolution essentially claims that favorable mutations can create new species at the same time as the deterioration of the species is moving at jet speeds. It is scientific nonsense.
If the theory of evolution were true, any human could trace their ancestry back to the "first living cell."
While we have discussed genetic entropy, genetic entropy does not count failed attempts to create new genetic information. In addition to genetic entropy, we also have what I call "genetic debris," meaning failed attempts by evolution to create a new and improved species.
Remember, new species are created by evolution by "bulk mutations," followed by point mutations. Of course this is simplistic, but it is the only way evolution could have happened.
Genetic debris means there is a failed attempt by evolution to create a new species (e.g. new genetic information). The attempt does create the bulk mutations, but the point mutations fail to create new genetic information. Thus, the mutated bulk mutations stay on the DNA without adding any new genetic information.
For each new species there would have been many thousands or many millions of failed attempts to create the new species, especially if several new gene complexes were needed for the new species.
There is no mechanism on DNA to remove these failed attempts to expand and improve DNA. The copies of DNA which failed to create any benefit to the new species will just sit there on the DNA forever.
Someone might think that genetic debris is not an issue because any attempt to create a new species, which included failed attempts to create new genes (which would normally include a large amount of copied genetic material via a mutation) would simple lead to the death of the attempted new species.
However, most new species would need 10 or 20 or more new gene complexes. It is statistically impossible that 20 or more new gene complexes could be created, each in a single attempt. It is absurd to think otherwise.
Thus, because it is insane to think that all new gene complexes for a new species were created in the first attempt for a new species; the first male and female of each and every new species would of necessity have had many failed attempts to create all of the required new gene complexes. These failed attempts would stick to their DNA forever.
Humans would thus have the left-over failures (i.e. failures to create new gene complexes) of every one of our 3,000 ancestor species, permanently stuck on our DNA. The number of nucleotides stuck on our DNA would number in the many, many billions.
(Note: Evolutionists may claim that it was existing gene complexes which were modified by evolution; and that it was not copies of existing gene complexes that were modified. As already mentioned, this theory generates its own problems for evolution. The reason is that if you modify an existing gene complex, and the attempt fails to create new genetic material; then you have destroyed existing genetic material and the offspring of the animal will likely die off as a result rather than form a new species.)
The point is that the failures of "genetic debris" would have been "on top" of the failures caused by genetic entropy. Genetic entropy can be thought of as point mutations, whereas genetic debris can be thought of as large amounts of DNA being copied, in preparation for a new species. But the copies did not turn out to be useful.
This means that in addition to genetic entropy, many additional clumps of genetic defects, in each new ancestor species, would have been added to our DNA in the attempts of our ancestor species to create new genetic information (i.e. genetic debris).
So what are the facts? Human DNA is between 50% and 99+% necessary and useful. Regardless of what the percentage is, our human DNA is virtually perfect and genetic defects are very rare.
How do you start with simplistic garbage (the DNA of the "first living cell") and end up with incomprehensibly complex human DNA which has very, very, very few defects? You don't end up with perfect DNA by using randomness; that is for sure. Yet, randomness is the one and only heart and soul of neo-Darwinism.
What all of this means is this:
1) Because humans have virtually perfect DNA, our first ancestors would have had perfect DNA,
2) Because of genetic entropy our first ancestor with perfect DNA could not have lived more than several thousand years ago (or our DNA would be very imperfect by now).
But this is not all. All complex living species today are in exactly the same situation as humans; meaning they have virtually perfect DNA, meaning their earliest ancestor could only have lived a few thousand years ago!!
The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense. The teaching of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is the only doctrine which matches real scientific data.
But things get even worse for evolution as we will see in the next chapter.