Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution

 

Chapter 21

 

Conclusions

 

 

"God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right, even though I think it is hopeless."

Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

 

 

The Track Record of the Scientific Establishment

 

This is the "track record" of the scientific establishment in their attempts to "prove" the theory of evolution is scientific:

 

1) If evolution did occur by random mutations of DNA, the laws of large numbers of random mutations would mandate that an "increasing gradualism" would be observed in the fossil record.  There is no such evidence.  In addition, the Cambrian Explosion is a total violation of the laws of the mathematics of random mutations of DNA (i.e. the laws of random numbers).  Science uses paleontology (fossils don't have DNA), and huge imaginations, to "prove" evolution.  This is in spite of the lack of transitional species and the lack of "increasing gradualism" in the fossil record.  Every fossil paleontologists find is "proof" of evolution.  No, this is not a proof of evolution; it is a proof of their commitment to the theory of evolution.  There is no "proof" by the use of the nineteenth century technology of morphology.  The evolution establishment refuses to talk about real issues and instead talks about totally subjective issues.

 

2) Science keeps changing the theory of evolution every time there is a new discovery.  The theory of evolution today is nothing but a list of recent discoveries in biology, paleontology, genetics, etc.  Science keeps the general public believing in the theory of evolution because of their control of information, not because of any scientific evidence.

 

3) Science claims that DNA has improved by random mutations of nucleotides.  This theory is in direct opposition to discoveries in genetics.  DNA deteriorates, not progresses, over time.  This is a scientific fact.  The vast majority of mutations are neutral or detrimental in all species.  Yet the entire theory of neo-Darwinism is that DNA improves over time; that new genetic information is constantly being formed; and that more complex DNA is constantly being developed by random mutations of DNA.  There is no scientific evidence for any of this.

 

4) Can new and improved DNA result from randomly mutating existing perfect, or nearly perfect, DNA?  This is as ridiculous as trying to write new computer programs by randomly mutating '0's and '1's of existing computer programs.  They haven't proven that randomly mutating DNA can result in millions of species with perfect, or nearly perfect, DNA.  This concept violates any law of mathematics, statistics or any common sense.

 

5) Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex.  All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years.  Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.  Every time a new species is discovered (alive or extinct); the theory of evolution becomes more ludicrous because it just means there is more genetic information to explain by random mutations (i.e. more impossible probabilities to explain).

 

6) Most of their "evidence" (and some of their "evidence" is nothing but the use tricky definitions) for evolution comes from microevolution or point mutations.  Neither microevolution nor point mutations have anything to do with creating new genetic information, including new genes.  Creating new genetic information, including new gene complexes, is a requirement for true evolution (this is true macroevolution) and has never been observed in the lab or in nature - only by assumption (i.e. if you assume it is true, you cannot claim you have proven it is true) or wishful thinking (which is total nonsense).  Logic should travel from truth down to assumptions, not from assumptions up to truth.

 

7) Science has totally and absolutely failed to create life from non-life; so why do they claim they have proven that life could have randomly formed from non-life?  From a statistical standpoint, life could not have developed from non-life especially due to permutation issues.  But another problem is the fact that amino acids do not bind to each other strong enough to make polypeptides which can be folded into proteins.  Some outside chemical binding process is needed.  This has not been shown to be a realistic possibility in nature.

 

8) Perhaps the single most damning evidence against the theory of evolution is that more than 10 million events; one set of events for each unique species; each with an insane probability; needed to have happened in less than 1 billion years, in order for the theory of evolution to be true.  But other issues, such as the 150 "consecutive" insane probability events which would have been needed to create human DNA, are equally damning.  Other issues involve the male and female issues, the adjustment of the morphing of the embryo algorithm every time there is a new physical feature or new type of cell, multi-generational issues, etc. etc.  Other species would also have required their own unique (non-overlapping) "consecutive" impossible events.

 

9) The logic of the scientific establishment is that everything is a disproof of intelligent design (i.e. God).  Two examples are natural selection (i.e. survival of the fittest), and the concept of using DNA to prove common descent.  Both of these examples are fatally flawed because they are both non-differentiating, meaning they apply equally well to the theory of evolution and to creation science, but for different reasons.  Microevolution is another non-differentiating event which is claimed to be a "proof" of evolution.  Microevolution is sometimes used, along with tricky and defective definitions, to "claim" macroevolution has been observed.

 

10) Human DNA is far too perfect to have resulted from evolution.  Each of our ancestor species would have had genetic entropy.  These genetic defects would have resulted in an accumulation of genetic defects passed on from one of our ancestor species to the next.  Our earliest homo sapies sapies ancestors would have had DNA which was riddled with genetic defects passed to them by their ancestor species.  By the time humans came around the human race simply could not have survived.  This book does not dive into this issue, but the truth is that life on a planet such as this one could not survive for a few million years from a single ancestor.  The only possible exception might be single-celled microbes.  Complex species could not survive all of their inherited, cumulative DNA defects from scores or hundreds of ancestor species, with many millions of years of accumulated DNA defects.

 

11) Human DNA today is so perfect it is obvious our earliest homo sapiens sapiens ancestors had perfect DNA.  Furthermore, due to the lack of global-wide genetic defects of the same type, it is clear that current genetic defects can only be traced back several hundred years, not several hundred million years!!

 

12) Knowing that DNA contains an enormous amount of intelligence, we also know that random numbers; simulating randomly generated nucleotides; cannot create intelligence.  Intelligence creates a vastly more diverse set of patterns than a randomly generated set of patterns.  There is no way that human DNA could have resulted from random mutations of DNA within 5 billion years or even 5 trillion trillion trillion trillion years.

 

13) There are many other problems with the theory of evolution regarding DNA, which have not been discussed in this book.  As just one example, there are no mechanisms to identify or remove useless, old sequences of DNA from the DNA of a "new species."  In other words, when there is a new species, there is no mechanism to remove the left over DNA from the ancestor species.  If evolution were true, human DNA would be many, many trillions of nucleotide pairs because of this.  Human DNA would include the entire DNA of the "first living cell" and the entire unique DNA of all of our ancestor species plus all of the useless permutations of nucleotides which did not create anything useful in our DNA (because they were random, mindless, purposeless and directionless mutations that failed to product anything useful, but got stuck on our DNA), plus the useless attempts to create viable genes in our ancestor species which would have gotten stuck on their DNA and would have been passed on to us.  All of this would be part of human DNA because there is no mechanism to identify and remove useless and old DNA sequences.

 

Yet this is what the evolution establishment claims:  "The theory of evolution is a proven fact of science."

 

The theory of evolution is not a fact.  In reality, it is not even science.  The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense and as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."

 

The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and new and improved superior species.  There is no evidence for either of these things unless you assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy.

 

Indeed, almost all "evidence" for the theory of evolution (e.g. the phylogenic tree) is based on assuming the theory of evolution is true then using your assumption and imagination to "prove" the theory of evolution is true.

 

If the two most basic components of the theory of evolution are nonsense, how can they say that evolution is a "proven fact of science?"

 

They can't, but yet they do because they ignore God.  Their claim that evolution is "true" is nothing but a highly disguised statement: "if you ignore God, the theory of evolution is our 'best guess' as to how human DNA came to be."

 

As was said before, the battle over the theory of evolution is about the superior science of creation science and the superior control of the media by the evolution establishment.

 

What science should say is this: "Our absolute control of the media and schools is a proven fact."   Then they would be telling the truth.

 

Their control over the media and schools is so complete that they have created a fantasyland of totally fictitious science which is now believed by virtually all people on the planet earth.

 

It is all a fabrication and facade.

 

 

The Evolution Debate

 

When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them.  One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person.  However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person, they could only put the other person in a situation which was impossible to escape alive.

 

For example, the conversation might go like this:

 

Me:             The bad news is that you fell out of the airplane at

30,000 feet.

Son:            The good news is that I had a parachute.

Me:             The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.

Son:            The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.

Me:             The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the

haystack.

Son:            The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.

Me:             The bad news is that you missed the haystack.

Son:            The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.

Me:             The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.

Son:            The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot

and melted the frozen manure instantly.

and so on.

 

This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate.  It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.

 

I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest."  Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother?  Who goes out first?  The strongest and most ambitious goes out first.  Is this kitten ready to take on the world?  Absolutely not.  In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they leave the protection of their mother before they are strong enough to defend themselves.

 

Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says.  And that is the point.  It doesn't matter what you say.

 

The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world.  That is the fact.  There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.

 

If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.

 

The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury.  Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.

 

But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost.  So what would be the point of the debate?

 

In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly.  Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution.  That was long before scientists knew much about DNA.

 

It didn't matter.  After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to sell new books and preach the theory of evolution.

 

The battle will go on and on and on.

 

 

My Final Comments About the Theory of Evolution

 

Anyone who believes in the theory of evolution does not understand the power of permutations.

 

For example, I wrote an encryption program which is "uncrackable."  Most people don't think an uncrackable encryption algorithm can be written.  Actually, many people can write such an algorithm.  All you have to do is have a really big "key" and include some sophisticated mathematical techniques which cannot be traced backwards.

 

The general public is under the impression that no matter what encryption algorithms are developed in other countries, our "intelligence community" will be able to crack the code.  This is nonsense.  Many people around the world know how to write uncrackable encryption algorithms.

 

The laws forbidding the export of powerful encryption algorithms are designed to pacify the general public into an artificial state of security.  Almost all civilized nations have people who can write impossible to crack encryption algorithms.

 

Let me talk about my algorithm (and key size).  If the entire planet earth were converted into a huge microprocessor, and if the speed of electricity were increased a trillion-fold, my encryption keys could not be cracked in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years.  Why?  Because I understand the power of permutations.

 

The "intelligence community" doesn't like permutation-based encryption algorithms because they are impossible to break (if they are done right) because they involve huge, huge probability exponents.  They only allow mathematical-based algorithms because they are easy to break or algorithms which have small keys which can be cracked by brute force with their huge computers.

 

My algorithm is impossible to break, yet the "key" used in my algorithm is 9,000 times shorter that a key would be if it were the size of human DNA.  If we converted human DNA into base 10, the number of permutations needed to analyze DNA would be about 10^1,800,000.  The number of permutations of my key would be a little over 10^200,000.  Remember, there are 10¹⁰⁰ atoms in 10²⁰ Universes.  There are 10^200,000 atoms in 10^199,920 Universes.  That is why my key cannot be cracked by using "brute force."

 

I could give the "intelligence community" the source code to my program and they still couldn't crack my keys.

 

Most people would look at the above permutations of human DNA (10^1,800,000) and the number of permutations in my key (10^200,000) and say that a key the size of human DNA would be 9,000 times more difficult to crack than a key the size of my key (1,800,000,000 / 200,000).

 

That is the problem.

 

People don't understand how to work with permutations.  A key the size of human DNA would be 10^{1,600,000,000} times more difficult to crack than my key.  That is: 10^{(1,800,000‑200,000)} equals 10^{1,600,000,000}.  People don't understand the power of permutations because they don't understand the mathematics behind it.

 

If my key is impossible to crack, in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years, then the theory of evolution is mathematical nonsense.  If someone couldn't break my key using a computer the size of this planet, then evolution could not have created a human being, plus the DNA of 10 million other species, by random, mindless and directionless mutations, in 5 billion years.  It is insane, purely insane to think otherwise.

 

Even allowing for 10^200,000 permutations of human DNA which could create a unique and viable human being; a random permutation of human DNA would only have a probability of leading to a viable human being of 10^{‑1,600,000,000}.  This is far, far beyond an insane probability.  How about the probability of the other 10 million species on this earth, or which have been on this earth, which have multiple unique gene complexes?

 

So what do all the bones of all the species tell us?  They tell us God has a very vivid imagination.  They also tell us that scientists have very vivid imaginations and that they don't want any competition from God.

 

Some people think that evolution occurred on some other planet or on some other galaxy or some other Universe and was transported to this earth.  Are the laws of permutations different on other planets?  Are the laws of chemistry different on other planets?  I think not.

 

The fact is that if evolution didn't happen here, it didn't happen anywhere in any Universe.

 

So what is the truth?

 

Go outside on some dark, cloudless evening.  Look at the stars.  Or better yet get a large telescope and look at other galaxies.  For every star our ancestors of a thousand years ago could see, we can now see a trillion stars.  What you are looking at in the sky is the handiwork of God.

 

When you study a DNA strand, you are looking through a microscope at the handiwork of God.  No human, and certainly no random series of accidents, could have created human DNA or a single prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell.

 

When you hold the tiny fingers of a newborn baby, you are holding the handiwork of God.

 

These things are the truth.  Scientists are not the center of the Universe.

 

Most religions consider humans to be the literal children of God.  Perhaps, when the theory of evolution is done away with, we will find out we really are important.

 

But we are not important because we have made ourselves important by living in a scientific fantasyland; we are important because God has made us and thus God has made us important.

 

Indeed, if evolution did not create humans, then God created us.  This makes us important to God because we are His most important creation - His children.