Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution

 

Chapter 21

 

The Claims of Evolution

 

 

"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

 

 

Introduction

 

This chapter will discuss some of the "evidence" of the scientific establishment that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory.  Not only are their theories nonsense, their techniques to convince people to believe in evolution are also nonsense.

 

 

Claim #1: Macroevolution Has Been Observed

 

Those who claim that macroevolution has been observed are being totally deceptive.

 

In order to observe "macroevolution," someone must observe and prove that new genetic information has been formed by totally random processes.  This new genetic information must include at least one new gene complex; by totally random means.  This has never happened and never will happen!!

 

Macroevolution has NEVER been observed and will NEVER be observed.  It completely violates the laws of mathematics.

 

Their false claims are based on:

1) Microevolution, or

2) Point mutations which reduce the amount of genetic information but coincidentally create some benefit, or

3) The use of inconsistent definitions.

 

Let us talk about the use of inconsistent definitions

 

In this book the term "species" is defined by the DNA structure of the animal.

 

In this book the term "microevolution" is defined by the DNA structure of the animal.

 

In this book the term "macroevolution" (i.e. true evolution) is defined by the DNA structure of the animal.

 

These three definitions are consistent because all three of them are based on "DNA structure."

 

Now consider these four definitions:

 

The term "species" is defined based on the ability of two animals to physically mate.

 

The term "microevolution" is defined based on the ability of two animals to physically mate.

 

The term "macroevolution" (i.e. evolution), as used by some scientists, is based on the ability of two animals to physically mate.

 

The term "macroevolution" (i.e. evolution), as used by the general public, is based on the DNA structure of the two animals.

 

What is wrong with these four definitions?  What is wrong is that three of the definitions are based on the physical ability to mate; and one of them, the one used by the general public, is based on DNA structure.

 

In recent years science has claimed that evolution occurred by random mutations of DNA.  Thus, in recent years the general public has been converted into thinking about true evolution solely in terms of DNA structure.

 

Among scientists, many of them still use the term "evolution" to mean two animals cannot physically mate with each other.

 

This intentionally deceptive tactic can be explained as follows:

 

Suppose scientists follow many generations of a type of animal which has a high degree of microevolution (i.e. high variation in physical features in spite of the fact they all have the same DNA structure).

 

Eventually, after many generations, the variation in this species becomes so great that two of the variations cannot physically mate with each other.

 

The scientists then claim that this is "proof of evolution."  What is wrong with this claim?  Nothing, so far.

 

In the minds of these scientists, the term "evolution" is used when two variations of the same animal cannot physically mate.  In other words, they use the term "evolution" in their claim that they have observed two variations of the same animal (the two variations have the same DNA structure) and these variations cannot physically mate!!

 

Now comes the problem.

 

When these scientists go public with their claims, because they use the term "evolution," the general public thinks that the two animals have a different DNA structure.  But they do not have different DNA structure; they have the same DNA structure.  They are "cousins," but they cannot mate because of physical differences caused by microevolution.

 

For example, there are breeds of dogs, which have the same DNA structure, which cannot mate because of a massive difference in their physical size.  For example, try to breed a Great Dane and a miniature Poodle.

 

The same is true of some breeds of horses.

 

Thus, because of the clever terminology used by scientists, the general public thinks there is new genetic information and new genes because the term "evolution" was used.  But there are NO new genes and NO new genetic information because the two variations have exactly the same DNA structure.

 

Microevolution can be so powerful that two animals with an identical DNA structure cannot mate due to physical differences.

 

But this is not "macroevolution," it is the result of "microevolution."  Be warned that scientists may call this phenomenon "evolution."  But it is not "evolution," it is microevolution.

 

In fact, when dogs, or any other animal, are bred for a specific physical feature, the end result is the loss of genetic information.  It is not the loss of nucleotides; rather it is the loss of variation in their genes.

 

Because patterns of randomness can never create patterns of intelligence, such as a new gene complex, macroevolution has NEVER, NEVER, NEVER been observed; nor will it ever be observed.  Let me repeat that again: macroevolution has NEVER, NEVER, NEVER been observed, nor will it ever be observed.

 

Never forget that.  When such a ludicrous claim is made, ask to see the new genetic material and how the "new" species DNA compares to the "old" species DNA.

 

 

Claim #2: Wishful Thinking is a Source of New Genetic Information

 

How many times have you watched a television show on evolution and heard a statement such as this one: "this species developed the ability to stand on two legs so that it could reach fruits which were higher up in the tree."

 

This is "wishful thinking," meaning an animal "wished" it had a different physical feature so it could reach fruit higher up the tree; then over many generations, even over many centuries, the species developed the new features necessary to reach the fruit which was higher in the tree.

 

To the credit of some evolutionary biologists, they abhor such nonsensical "wishful thinking" claims; but the popular media and popular textbooks are full of such claims.  However, on many occasions evolutionary biologists have inadvertently used "wishful thinking," such as when they look at a fossil and claim: "This dinosaur wanted to fly."

 

There are three major problems with using "wishful thinking" to prove evolution.

 

First, new physical features require massive, complex changes to DNA.  For example, if you change the leg bone, most likely you will also have to change the circulatory system, the muscles, the brain (to control the muscles), etc.  All of this requires highly sophisticated changes to DNA, including morphing of the embryo algorithms.

 

Second, no animal on earth knows what DNA is - except humans, thus no animal knows how to change their DNA.  Even humans have only known about DNA for just over 50 years.  Thus, no animal on earth, including humans, knows how to redesign its DNA so that it could have some new physical feature (note the pre-liver chapters).

 

For example, any new physical feature in humans would have to include major changes to the morphing of the embryo algorithms in our DNA.  Scientist don't have a clue where the morphing of the embryo algorithms are in human DNA, much less how to redesign them.

 

Third, even if an animal did know how to change its DNA (which, of course, is a ludicrous theory for all animals except humans), how could it physically change its DNA?  What mechanism exists, for example, in a chimpanzee, such that a chimpanzee would physically change the DNA in their germ cells?

 

In short, the entire concept of "wishful thinking" is total and absolute nonsense.

 

Amazingly, the concept is also applied to single-celled microbes, such as viruses.

 

When the scientific community states that "microbes developed a resistance to a new drug," they are implying three things:

 

First, they imply that a group of viruses held a series of scientific meetings to discuss how they could mutate their DNA to become resistant to a new drug.

 

Second, these viruses had the "scientific brains" to figure out which nucleotide(s) to change in their own DNA in order to develop a resistance to the new drug.

 

Third, these viruses had the ability to physically change their own exact nucleotide(s), with pinpoint precision, using point mutations; so that their offspring (which, by the way, are identical copies of themselves) are able to develop a resistance to the new drug.

 

All three steps are nonsense.

 

The Dr. Michael Behe book: The Edge of Evolution, discusses single-celled microbes and drugs in great detail.

 

In fact, much of the theory of evolution is "wishful thinking."  Just like viruses, and other microbes, cannot custom design and custom change their DNA; no animal which has ever lived (including humans) has had the intelligence, and the ability, to know where to change their DNA; and has had the ability to physically change their DNA.

 

The whole concept of "wishful thinking" is just so much nonsense.

 

What this means is that every mutation of DNA, in the history of the world, must have been totally mindless, totally random, totally accidental, totally without direction, etc.

 

This includes highly complex changes in DNA, such as the change from walking on four legs to walking on two legs, which would have required massive changes to DNA (such as the creation of semi-circular canals in the ears, which are a long way from the leg bones and are incredibly, incredibly complex).

 

A good example of "wishful thinking" was given by one of the most famous evolutionists.  He claimed that roses may have developed thorns to keep from being eaten.  There are many flaws with this logic, such as:

1) The only roses which know about being eaten are already in the belly of some animal, and by then it is too late to mutate their DNA.

2) How does a rose which is in the belly of an animal communicate to its fellow roses to warn them to build thorns to avoid getting eaten?

3) Why hasn't wheat developed thorns strong enough to puncture the tires of farm tractors?

 

But above all of these things; the addition of thorns to a rose bush, which has never had thorns, requires massive changes to their DNA.  To claim that "wishful thinking" of roses was able to create massive, intelligent changes to the DNA of a rose is more ludicrous than thinking a first grade class can build a space shuttle by themselves.

 

Any change in a species which requires a change to DNA cannot be the result of "wishful thinking."  Evolution can only be the result of totally mindless, totally accidental, totally without direction, mutations of DNA.

 

 

Claim #3: Multi-Species Evolution Has Been Proven

 

Multi-species evolution is the claim that it took evolution multiple different species to fully effect a major change to a bodily structure, such as a new and improved eye.  For example, it may be claimed that the steps needed to convert the eye from a light sensor only, to being able to fly an F-22 Raptor, was so complex that it took multiple species to totally effect the massive change.

 

Aside from the absurdity of multi-generation evolution, multi-species evolution is even more absurd.  There is no evidence that multi-species evolution ever occurred.

 

For example, it is claimed that the human eye "evolved" from very simple "eyes," which could only detect light (but not see anything) to more sophisticated light detection, to "pinhole" eyes, etc., from species to species, all the way to human eyes.

 

There is no evidence for this theory.  There is nothing in the fossil record to verify this theory.  The species which are used as "evidence" for this theory are not ancestors of humans.

 

The appearance on the earth of new species for the first time is "punctuated."  Perhaps the Cambrian Explosion is the best example of this.  Suddenly, without ancestors, numerous new complex species were formed on this earth.

 

Simon Conway Morris is the world's foremost expert on the Burgess Shale fossils (they are in the Canadian Rockies), which were part of the Cambrian Explosion.

 

Many of the creatures found in Canada are very, very odd and are nothing like any animal currently on earth.  Simon Conway Morris said this about his research on the wide and strange variety of animals he studied:

 

"It is almost as if you've gone to another planet, you've been given a fishing boat and a net and you've been allowed to throw that net over into the deep ocean and you have no idea what was going to come up."

PBS Video: Evolution Series: "Great Transformations"

 

The vast array of weird and strange species in the Burgess Shale site; and in other Cambrian Explosion sites; do not have any ancestors, nor did they have any descendants.  Thus, all of their features just suddenly appeared on this earth without ancestors and just as suddenly disappeared.

 

So how about the human eye?

 

". . . there is no evidence whatsoever of how a single-celled organism might have converted into multicelled organisms.  The metazoa just abruptly appear in the fossil record with every organ and structure complete.  Some of the most complex structures are present in the Cambrian [Explosion] organisms, such as the eye of the squid, which is very similar to the human eye."

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, Revised Edition, p. 52

 

For all practical purposes, the eye of the squid that Mr. Sunderland was talking about is equally complex as the modern human eye.  Yet the squid has no ancestors in the fossil record.

 

In short, there is no evidence that the human eye evolved from species to species.

 

 

Claim #4: Natural Selection Solves the Improbability Issues

 

This is one of the arguments designed to justify the theory of evolution in spite of its statistical problems.

 

The problem with this theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of genes.

 

Natural selection occurs AFTER the new species exists.  In other words, natural selection occurs AFTER totally random mutations of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of evolution is true).  The only thing natural selection can do is decide which of the already existing species will survive.  Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the species or the design of its DNA.

 

Natural selection, which is non-differentiating as mentioned before, does not come into play until all of the mutations are finished and the species is ready to start surviving.  Why do you think it is also called "survival of the fittest?"  The term "fittest" means the species is already alive.

 

 

Claim #5: Evolution Occurred at the Gene Level

 

This is yet another theory designed to "solve" the statistical problems of the theory of evolution.

 

Some evolutionists have claimed that evolution occurred at the level of the gene.

 

A prior chapter talked about protein synthesis.

 

Let us remember that a "gene" is nothing but a "cookie cutter," meaning a template.  A gene is a sequence of nucleotides on the vast sequence of nucleotides of an entire DNA strand.  It is nothing but a sequence of nucleotides (i.e. a pattern) used by the cell to create one or more proteins.

 

But that is just the beginning.  More nucleotides are needed to convert the gene from a cookie-cutter to being placed in the cell as a complex, folded protein, than the actual number of nucleotides of the gene itself.

 

Thus, when changing a gene, the entire gene complex must be changed.

 

In order for evolution to occur at the level of the gene, several things must happen.

 

First, the gene (which is nothing but a "template" or "cookie-cutter" for a protein, meaning a sequence of nucleotides) must be alive and trace the progress of its "offspring" from being a gene, to an mRNA strand, then to being a polypeptide (created by ribose), then to a folded amino acid string (i.e. a folded polypeptide), and then the placement of the protein into the cell.

 

Second, the gene must also observe the survival skills of the entire animal (not just the cell in which the gene and DNA live).  The cookie-cutter must evaluate the relative survival skill of the animal in which it lives, compared to other animals.

 

Third, the gene must decide that it needs to be modified based on what it observes of the animal (not just the cell) in which it lives and the surrounding species.

 

Fourth, it must theoretically redesign itself and its gene complex in order to provide the entire animal better survival skills.

 

Fifth, it must have control over some mechanism which can physically reorder the nucleotide sequences which make up itself (the gene) and the entire gene complex.  This reordering of nucleotides is based on the theoretical evaluation of the weaknesses in the current order of nucleotides.

 

(Note: As noted above, a microbe does not have the "intelligence" to know where to change its DNA or how to change its DNA.  But some scientists claim that a strand of nucleotides is smarter than a microbe and can improve the DNA of a complex animal; which is a far more complex task than just developing an immunity to a drug.)

 

If the needed changes to the species involved multiple genes (complex changes to a species involve changes to many genes).  These genes must also be notified that they need to be changed, along with instructions on what changes need to be made.

 

All of this must be orchestrated by a cookie-cutter, a segment of a static DNA string.

 

Oh, by the way, I almost forgot to mention, this cookie-cutter (i.e. gene) must also figure out how to change the morphing of the embryo algorithm if any new types of cells or new morphology changes are involved.

 

Now, is it possible that a cookie-cutter can monitor its offspring, all the way to the macro animal level and environment, and redesign itself and the entire gene complex and redesign and change the morphing of the embryo algorithm, and many other things?

 

The absurdity of thinking that evolution occurred at the gene level or the nucleotide level is totally ludicrous.  Cookie-cutters do not have intelligence.