Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
Seven Scientific Reasons the
Theory of Evolution Cannot Be True
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck, Nobel Prize, 1918 in Physics
This chapter is an important summary of several of the prior chapters because it allows the reader to see the "big picture" of the problems with the theory of evolution.
The first seven sections are concepts which prove the theory of evolution cannot be true on this planet or on any other planet. The reader might note that all seven of these items have to do with DNA.
Prior to the discovery of DNA the only thing evolutionists and creation scientists had to debate about were the morphology of fossils, bones and living species. Because the fossil record was overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution; such as the fact that the predicted gradualism was never observed and intermediate species were rarely found; the theory of evolution was dying a slow death.
When DNA was discovered in 1953, the theory of evolution should have died on the spot because now creation scientists had a new tool to disprove the theory of evolution. That tool was probability. But the theory of evolution did not die even after the Wistar Symposium in 1966.
What has happened is that the scientific establishment's total and absolute control of the media has completely buried the mathematical and genetic problems with the theory of evolution.
The blacklisting of the problems with the theory of evolution is so complete that many people today do not even know that there are scores of anti-evolution books which are very critical of the theory of evolution.
But in the process of burying the creation scientists, the scientific establishment had a lot of outside help!! Various "charities," ultra wealthy families, and other organizations (such as the American Civil Liberties Union), spent many, many, many millions of dollars exercising their massive influence over the media, the universities (via grant money) and the courts to the extent that these outside groups came to the rescue of the scientific establishment.
In fact, for reasons left to conspiracy historians, the theory of evolution started to flourish and today it is a very, very dominant scientific theory even though the scientific establishment still cannot address even the simplest criticisms of the theory of evolution.
Seven reasons why it is impossible that the theory of evolution could ever have happened anywhere in the Universe will now be discussed in summary form. After these seven sections, some additional criticisms will be discussed.
Reason #1) Genetic Entropy
"Genetic entropy" is a scientific fact which is admitted by all prominent geneticists. Genetic entropy is the natural deterioration of DNA via mutations which are caused by various types of errors; such as errors in copying a chromosome. Dr. Sanford, for example, stated that DNA is deteriorating at an alarming rate.
If evolution were true, our human DNA, and the DNA of all other living species on this earth, could trace their genealogy back to the "first living cell" and thus all DNA on earth would contain 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects because there would have been 660 million years of accumulating and continuous genetic entropy.
Why would we see these mutations on our DNA? The reason is that there is no mechanism on any DNA to fix most type of genetic errors.
The genetic defects would have accumulated from generation to generation and from species to species. It is ludicrous that any animal could survive 1 million years of continuous genetic entropy, but to survive for 660 million years of continuous genetic entropy is simply far beyond ludicrous.
Human DNA is too perfect to have been exposed to 660 million years of genetic entropy. If George and Mary (evolution's equivalent to Adam and Eve) existed 100,000 years ago, they would have had 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects (e.g. genetic entropy).
Furthermore, if George and Mary had lived 100,000 years ago, our human DNA would have an additional 100,000 years of genetic entropy, on top of the 660 million years of George and Mary's genetic entropy.
If the theory of evolution were true, and all of our ancestors and ancestor species only had 1 mutation every year on average, we humans would have 660,100,000 random defective mutations on our DNA due to genetic entropy. No species could survive with this massive amount of defects in their DNA.
If evolution were true, 22% of our DNA would be defective. This means 22% of our gene complexes, 22% of our morphing of the embryo algorithms, etc. would be defective. But there is very little tolerance in many aspects of our DNA, so humans could not exist even if our DNA was 0.1% randomly defective.
But in reality our ancestors would have had far more than 1 mutation per year on average and the 22% would be far, far above 100%.
Furthermore, if a significant set of additional genetic defects would have occurred in a descendant of George and Mary, say 90,000 years ago, this defect would be seen in a very, very high percentage of humans today. But no such broad genetic defect has been observed.
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. Given the mathematical problems of the theory of evolution, detrimental mutations caused by genetic entropy would have occurred millions of times faster than favorable mutations. It would be like trying to swim upstream of a 5,000 foot tall waterfall.
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 these claims.
But the main point of this section is that because genetic entropy is a scientific fact, and if evolution were true, we humans could not exist because our DNA would have the accumulated mutations of 660 million years of genetic entropy.
But the fact is that no complex species can exist for more than a million years due to genetic entropy.
Bottom Line: If evolution were true; because of genetic entropy; humans could not exist. Furthermore, our DNA is far too perfect to contain 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects.
See Chapter 19 for more information on genetic entropy.
Reason #2) Genetic Chaos
"Genetic chaos" is not a scientific fact because evolution is not a scientific fact. But if evolution were true, genetic chaos would be far more significant than genetic entropy!!
There is an assumption in the theory of evolution that when an extra copy of a gene or chromosome is accidentally made, that the mutations needed to complete the transition to a new species all occur in exactly the right locations on the DNA. This is nonsense.
"Genetic chaos" is the concept that all mutations on DNA can occur anywhere on the DNA, not just in the locations evolutionists want the mutations to occur.
For example, suppose you have a 2,000,000,000 nucleotide pair long DNA. Suppose you make a copy of a gene complex which is 5,000 contiguous nucleotides long and place it somewhere on the DNA (or suppose you want to change an existing gene complex, the math is about the same). The DNA is now 2,000,005,000 nucleotides long.
Now suppose you have 400,001 random point mutations. How many of these random point mutations will occur inside the area of the copy of the gene, given that all mutations are randomly distributed over the entire DNA, which consists of 2,000,005,000 nucleotides?
The percent of the DNA where the desired mutations are located is:
5,000 divided by 2,000,005,000, which equals 0.00025%.
Thus the target area for the mutations is 0.00025% of the entire DNA.
400,000 mutations times .00025% is 1, meaning 1 mutation will be in the target area.
In other words, of the 400,001 mutations, only a single mutation (i.e. 1 out of 400,001 mutations) will be inside the desired target area of the gene complex because every nucleotide on a DNA strand has an equal probability of mutating.
Thus, to get a single mutation inside the area of the copy gene where you desire mutations, you will have 400,000 random mutations of DNA outside of the area where you want the mutations to be; meaning they will be in areas where you don't want any mutations.
No species on earth could tolerate 400,000 random mutations to their DNA in locations where the mutations are not wanted!!
Thus, in the attempt to get a single nucleotide inside the desired area for the mutations (in order to create new genetic information) the mutations in wrong places would literally destroy the "new species" due to genetic damage.
But a typical new species would need thousands of favorable mutations to create one new gene complex (i.e. modify an existing gene complex or modify a copy of a gene complex) and would usually need 10 to 20 or more new gene complexes to create a new species!!
Furthermore, not only would existing nucleotides need to be modified (after genes are copied), but new nucleotides would need to be added to the DNA to increase the sophisticated genetic information and intelligence on the DNA.
If you multiply 10 new gene complexes, by 3,000 desired mutations per gene complex, you have 30,000 desired mutations. In addition, you would likely need 30,000 additional nucleotides to the DNA for more sophisticated information and intelligence on the DNA.
But in the process of getting 30,000 mutations in the desired areas to create a new species, you will create 12,000,000,000 mutations in undesirable locations (i.e. 30,000 times 400,000)!!! This would wipe out the entire DNA several times over!!!
If you also add 30,000 new nucleotides to get even more new genetic information, you will have 12,000,000,000 additional nucleotides (i.e. which would be a second form of mutations) in undesirable locations (i.e. they are added outside of the desired target area). The DNA of humans out be 14 billion nucleotides long!!
In summary, to create a single new species from an existing species, would add 12 billion undesirable additional nucleotides to the DNA, plus there would be 12 billion undesirable mutations scattered among the 14 billion nucleotides.
Virtually 100% of the original DNA would have been randomly mutated.
By the way, there is no guarantee that the 30,000 mutations that are inside the desired area; and the 30,000 additional nucleotides in the desired area; are the correct nucleotides in the correct locations!!
And all of this is for a single new ancestor species. This book estimates humans have 3,000 ancestor species. If evolution were true, our human DNA would be more than a trillion nucleotides long, and far more than 99.999% of our DNA would be totally random nucleotides.
Welcome to genetic chaos.
Literally, the undesirable mutations which miss the "target area" (i.e. miss the area of the copied genes) would totally destroy (i.e. totally randomize) the entire DNA of the new species many times in the attempt to put new genetic material on the DNA for the new species.
The new species would be peppered or littered with unexpected mutations which would destroy the new species long, long before any benefits from the mutations could be obtained.
Bottom Line: No new species could ever exist via evolution because in the attempt to create new genetic information, the species would die long, long before the new genetic information could be created. Nor is there any evidence on human DNA of massive numbers of undesirable mutations or undesirable added nucleotides.
See Chapter 20 for more information on genetic chaos.
Reason #3) Genetic Debris
"Genetic debris" is not a scientific fact because evolution is not a scientific fact. But if evolution were true, genetic debris would manifest itself on our human DNA; meaning our human DNA would be vastly different than it is today if evolution were true!!
Genetic debris is similar to genetic entropy, but it works at a different level.
The theory of evolution postulates that new genetic material can be caused by "bulk mutations," such as creating an extra copy of a chromosome or an extra copy of a section of DNA, and after the bulk mutation, point mutations (which would include new individual nucleotides) fine tune these bulk mutations into new gene complexes, new morphing of the embryo algorithms, etc.
Genetic debris has to do with the failed attempts by evolution to create new species. 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.
Let us start by looking at the big picture of evolution.
After the "first living cell," evolution had to create much more genetic material than it had to create for the "first living cell." Not only was there more genetic material, but it had to be massively more complex.
For example, the average gene on the "first living cell" would have only created one protein. Modern day human genes can create an average of 10 proteins, and each one of these proteins is much longer and massively more complex than any gene on the "first living cell" would have been.
Not only that, but human genes have "introns" in between the "exons" and the introns are not part of the final mRNA. In fact, typically, not even all of the exons are part of the final mRNA. This means that the instructions for making proteins are no longer in contiguous sections of the DNA, which adds a lot of complexity to DNA.
When complex life started to exist (assuming the theory of evolution); gene complexes, the morphing of the embryo algorithms, etc. became so complex that the percentage of viable random permutations (given the growing length and complexity of DNA for the increasingly complex species) became increasingly and astonishingly small.
As things got more complex, and the percentage of viable permutations plummeted, the seemingly infinite number of failed attempts to create a new gene complex (either from an existing gene complex or a copy of an existing gene complex) or make a change in the morphing of the embryo algorithm, etc. would massively outnumber the successful attempts.
There are two problems for evolution at this point.
If you start to modify an existing gene complex, but the attempt fails to create a functional new gene complex, you have very likely destroyed an existing and important gene complex and it will never again function properly in the descendants of the animal!! This also means the offspring of this animal may not survive.
On the other hand, if you start to modify a copy of an existing gene complex, but the point mutations fail to create a new gene complex, then you have a large amount of worthless genetic material on the DNA.
Neither of these options are good. But if evolution were true, both of these options would have happened many millions of times during the creation of human DNA due to the statistical problems of the theory of evolution. Vastly, vastly more failures would occur than successes.
These failed attempts would extend the length of the DNA, by worthless nucleotides, plus would have extended the length of time needed to create humans, even under the most ideal conditions, to a virtually infinite amount of time.
These failures would have massively extended the length of DNA because there is no mechanism to remove unwanted debris.
A person might think that if there was a failed attempt in creating a new gene complex; that the new species simply would not survive, thus the genetic debris issue would not be a factor.
It is not that simple because most new species would have needed 10 or 20 or even more new gene complexes. The probability of creating 20 new gene complexes, each on the first attempt, on a new DNA strand (i.e. in the same attempt to create a new species) is insanely absurd and would not happen a single time in a quintillion quintillion quintillion years!!
Thus, it would be impossible that the creation of a new species would not include massive amounts of "baggage or debris" from failed attempts to create viable gene complexes from copies of existing gene complexes.
In fact, starting with the first complex species (i.e. a species which had a circulating fluid), every new species would have had residuals of bulk mutations which did not end up being viable genetic material.
There is no mechanism on DNA to get rid of these mutations; partly because these are new species, by definition, and the final design of the DNA is unknown until the species is complete and functioning.
Since humans have roughly 3,000 ancestor species (i.e. different species on our evolutionary or phylogenetic tree), on 3,000 different occasions there would have been a significant amount of new genetic debris added to our DNA.
Scientists do not see any residual bulk mutations, which have no function, on human DNA. While there are sections of DNA which are not understood yet, there is no section of DNA which has been shown to be unnecessary.
But genetic debris would have created many trillions of unused nucleotides during the creation of the 3,000 ancestor species of humans due to the impossible odds of creating a new gene complex by random mutations, on the first attempt, and the fact that many new ancestor species would have needed 10 or 20 new gene complexes.
Bottom Line: If evolution were true, massive, massive numbers of non-functional nucleotides would be left on our DNA due to the concept of "genetic debris." Such nucleotides are not observed.
See Chapter 19 for more information on genetic debris.
Reason #4) Consecutive Impossible Probabilities
We have assumed that the number of ancestor species, between the first complex species (which was our ancestor species) and human beings, was 3,000.
In a prior chapter it was calculated that the probability of creating a new species from an existing species is 10‑100. Thus, a person might conclude that the probability of human beings being created, after the first complex animal, was 10‑300,000.
Evolutionists would look at this probability and say "this is no big deal." This is how they "brush off" their obscene statistical problems.
Well, they can't brush off this probability for two reasons. First, this probability is equivalent to picking the single, correct atom from among 10299,920 Universes, because it is estimated that there are 1080 atoms in our Universe. Try to pick the single correct atom (in a game of "hide and seek") from among 10299,920 Universes in a billion years!!
But there is a second reason which makes the theory of evolution even more absurd. That concept is "consecutive or sequential lotteries."
Creating each new species from an existing species is like winning a lottery with a probability of 10‑100.
The concept of "consecutive or sequential lotteries" is that you have to win one lottery before you can even "buy tickets" in the next lottery.
If there are 3,000 species, between the first complex animal and human DNA, then each of these ancestor species had to be created consecutively, meaning one after the other, because they are all our ancestor species, assuming the theory of evolution.
Just like our grandfather (our father's father) and our father cannot both be born in the same year, our 3,000th ancestor species (starting with our oldest ancestor species with complex DNA) must have existed prior to our 2,999th ancestor species. And our 2,999th ancestor species had to exist prior to our 2,998th 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 "3,000 consecutive or sequential (i.e. one after the other) lotteries," where the probability of winning each lottery was 10‑100!!!
This creates an issue of time for the theory of evolution.
For example, suppose you could buy 1,000 tickets in a lottery every second, 24 hours a day, in a lottery with a probability of winning of 10‑100. How long would it take you to buy half of the lottery tickets to give you a 50% chance of winning this lottery?
You could buy less than a trillion lottery tickets a year, which is 109, but we will assume you could buy a trillion lottery tickets a year (this book is always generous to the theory of evolution).
It would take 5 times 1099 (this is the number of tickets you must buy) divided by 109 (which is the number of tickets you could buy every year) to have a 50% chance of winning this lottery. This would be more than 1090 years!!
Thus, it would take more than:
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to have a 50-50 chance of winning one lottery!!
But you must win 3,000 of these lotteries, one after the other!! In other words, you cannot buy a "ticket" in the second lottery until after you win the first lottery. You cannot buy a "ticket" in the third lottery until after you have won the first lottery, then the second lottery.
To apply this to evolution, suppose you take an existing animal, which is an ancestor species of humans, and you make 1,000 attempts to create the next ancestor species of humans, every second, 24 hours a day, for 10 billion years. It is almost impossible you could create the next ancestor species of humans in double the estimated age of our earth.
But that is not the problem.
Each of our 3,000 ancestor species must be created consecutively or sequentially, meaning one after the other.
For example, we could not begin to create our 2,999th ancestor species until after our 3,000th ancestor species already existed (i.e. we had already won that lottery).
Likewise, we could not begin to create our 2,998th ancestor species until after our 2,999th ancestor species already existed (i.e. we had already won two consecutive lotteries).
And so on.
Thus, the theory of evolution consists of 3,000 true "consecutive or sequential lotteries," each with a probability of 10‑100.
While evolutionists might brush off a probability of 10‑300,000, they cannot just brush off a probability of winning 3,000 consecutive or sequential lotteries, each with a probability of 10‑100. They have to win 3,000 impossible lotteries, one after the other (i.e. one lottery cannot start until after the prior lottery is won), in a time period of about a billion years.
There is no word in the English language to describe just how ludicrous the theory of evolution is!!
Bottom Line: Evolution could not have occurred in a billion years or even a trillion years or even a quintillion quintillion years. The reason is that human DNA would have required "winning" 3,000 consecutive or sequential evolution lotteries, each with an impossible probability of 10‑100.
See chapter 15 for more information
Reason #5) The Multi-Generation Issues
Many of the claimed jumps in evolution had to have occurred over the time frame of many generations.
For example, the claimed evolutionary change of animals which walked on four legs evolving into animals which walked on two legs. This complex change had to occur over the period of many years and many generations.
For example, let us assume that a million mutations to the DNA of the four-legged species had to be made to generate a species which walked on two legs (this includes the creation of the semi-circular canal, redesigning the bones, redesigning the circulatory system, etc.).
To simplify things let us assume that it took 100 generations to make the changes, and that each generation had an average of 10,000 new mutations (to total 1 million mutations spread over 100 generations).
There are many problems with multi-generation evolution. The first problem is population size.
Because of probability issues, those who support evolution contend that there were large populations on which evolution occurred.
The large population concept works just fine for the first generation of a multi-generation evolutionary process, but after that the population size drops to two and they have to be brother and sister and they must mate and must have at least one male and one female offspring.
To understand this, suppose there is a species with 2,000,000 animals which walked on four legs. From this population, evolution wants to create a new physical feature, such as walking on two legs so the animals can reach higher in the trees. This will take 100 generations to complete.
From this population size, it is unlikely, but possible, to find a male and female which have the same 10,000 partial mutations (remember it takes many generations of mutations to make a large physical change), meaning the first 1% of the total mutations needed for evolution.
However, for the second round of mutations, the population size can only be two, and they must be brother and sister (i.e. male and female of the same parents), meaning they must be animals which were born with the first 1% of the mutations.
Why do they have to be brother and sister? The reason is that their parents had the first 1% of the mutations and their offspring (i.e. which are all brothers and sisters) are the only animals on the planet earth which were born with the first 1% of the mutations. To get to 2%, you have to start with 1% of the mutations in both the male and female. If you skip that first 1%, you have to start all over again.
While all of the offspring of the original parents were born with 1% of the mutations, it is highly unlikely two of them would coincidentally have the same additional 1% of new mutations (to equal 2% of the desired mutations), but to think that three of them had the same mutations is absurd. So we will assume exactly two of the offspring had the correct additional 1% of the next generation of mutations.
In other words, to get to 2% cumulative mutations, only those animals which were born with the 1% cumulative mutations could mate to extend the cumulative mutations to 2%. This means they must be brother and sister because they must be born with 1% of the mutations.
Then, by sheer coincidence, one male and one female offspring had to have an additional 1% of mutations, such that both of them had 2% of the mutations. Then they have to mate with each other, not some other animal.
For the third round of mutations, a male and female, which are born with the same two cumulative partial mutations (i.e. the 1% then 2% partial mutations) must have offspring. By coincidence, a male and female of this generation must have an additional 1% of new mutations for the next "step" of the multi-generation evolution. This makes 3%, but only two animals on earth have the 1%, then 2% then 3% mutations.
While we have been assuming brother and sister mated, technically it could have been first cousins or even second cousins. But even this is of no help to the statistical problems of evolution so this possibility is ignored (i.e. a population difference between 2 and 100 does not help evolution, evolution needs millions of attempts in each generation).
What this means is that in 99 consecutive generations the "population size" for evolution to work with consisted of the offspring of a single male and female. And in each case their offspring had to include both a male and female which by sheer accident had an additional 1% of new mutations in addition to the mutations they were born with. Plus they must mate with each other and have a male and female offspring.
When all is said and done, to get to 100% of the mutations, a long sequence of males must have the set of mutations: 1%, then 2% then 3%, etc. and these males must mate with a long sequence of females which also have the same set of mutations: 1%, then 2%, then 3%, etc.
To show how absurd this is, consider that a male with the set of: 1%, then 2%, then 3%, then 4%, then 5% mutations; mates with a female with the set of: 1%, then 2%, then 3%, then 4%, then 6% mutations. Their descendants can never walk on two legs. It is also unlikely they could have any offspring because their DNA won't align.
In other words, multi-generation evolution breaks down completely, and becomes increasingly more absurd, after the first generation, because for generation after generation a male and female, which must be brother and sister (or close cousins), which have exactly the same sets of prior mutations, must have the same mutations in their generation and then they must mate and have at least one son and one daughter.
Bottom Line: Multi-generation evolution is pure and absolute nonsense, even if it takes only 3 or 4 generations. Yet many "jumps" in evolution would have required multi-generation evolution.
See Chapters 11 and 12 for more information.
Reason #6) The Male / Female Issues
The male and female issues have to do with the alignment of DNA in the germ cells of a male and female when they mate.
When there is a new species which has both a male and female, evolution must create a massive amount of new genetic material. Bulk mutations must be made, then point mutations must follow behind to fine tune the bulk mutations into new genetic material.
This is hard enough to do when the species does not have a male and female, but when there is a male and female, things get a lot more complex.
When mating, the male and female DNA must have the same gene complexes, in the same locations on the DNA, plus the same morphing of the embryo algorithms in the same locations, etc. etc.
With evolution there is a severe problem with this when there is a male and female. The same bulk mutations and point mutations must occur totally coincidentally in the same locations on the DNA of both a male and female, in the same generation, in the same geographical area, and they must mate.
In other words, the same totally random mutations must independently happen to both the DNA of the male and the DNA of the female in the same locations on their DNA.
While there is some minor tolerance in this issue, there is not even remotely enough tolerance to salvage the theory of evolution.
Here is a story to help explain this concept. Suppose a man and a woman, who do not know each other, were sent a "soft copy" (i.e. an electronic copy) of an encyclopedia. Each person was told to randomly make 10,000 changes to the data in the volumes of the encyclopedia. This included adding, deleting and changing individual letters. What are the odds 98% of their changes would be in the same volumes, same pages, same sentences and affect the same letters? The probability is purely insane.
Likewise, it is insane to think that new genetic material could form on a germ cell of a single male of an existing species; and to think that coincidentally the same impossible new genetic material could also coincidentally be created on the germ cell of a female, in the same locations on the DNA, and in the same generation and in the same geographical area, and these two animals would mate. It is far beyond insanity.
Now let us combine the male-female issues with multi-generation evolution. In the above example, not only did a male and female have to have the same 1% new mutations in each generation (with a population size of 2 in each of the last 99 generations); but when considering the alignment issues between a male and female, the 1% random mutations in each generation had to align almost perfectly, between the male and female, for 100 consecutive generations!!
This is far, far beyond nonsense.
Bottom Line: The theory of evolution became impossible when species included both a male and female. No more evolution could have occurred, especially when multi-generation evolution was involved.
See Chapters 11, 12, 15, et. al. for more information.
Reason #7) Patterns of Intelligence
Computers are very good at creating random numbers. I have personally run many billions of computer simulations to test various aspects of the theory of evolution.
But 10,000 of these simulations may be the most important. These are the simulations in which I made 10,000 attempts to create 40 million real human nucleotides.
It was not an attempt to duplicate these 40 million nucleotide pairs; that would not have been a fair test; rather it was an attempt to achieve the statistical "standard deviation" of these 40 million nucleotide pairs.
The concept of "standard deviation" is a concept which mathematically measures how much variety there is in a sample or population.
For example, if a histogram looks like a mountain range then it will have a high standard deviation.
On the other hand, if a different chart looks like a slightly squiggly, horizontal line, then it will have a very small standard deviation.
As was mathematically shown in Chapter 18; patterns of randomness always create a slightly squiggly line and thus create a very small standard deviation. In the case of the 10,000 computer simulations, their standard deviations ranged from a low of 169 to a high of 236.
On the other hand, the patterns of intelligence, taken from real human DNA, resulted in a standard deviation of 25,505. As can be easily calculated, all 10,000 of the patterns of randomness standard deviations were less than 1% of the standard deviation of patterns of intelligence (i.e. real DNA).
The data in the charts was actually a histogram of patterns of 4 consecutive nucleotides, either real nucleotides or randomly generated nucleotides, depending on the chart.
Mathematically, it was shown that intelligence, in just a 40 million nucleotide range of DNA, was impossible to replicate using patterns of randomness.
This subject is far too complex to discuss in detail in a summary chapter. If interested, the reader is directed to chapter 18 for mathematical, graphic and statistical information.
Bottom Line: Patterns of randomness cannot create the highly sophisticated patterns of information and intelligence, such as exist on real DNA.
See chapter 18 for more information.
Other Things to Consider
The seven concepts above are clear and absolute proofs that the theory of evolution is scientific nonsense and could not have happened on this planet or on any other planet.
Here are a few more things to consider when looking at the theory of evolution. These represent significant reasons the theory of evolution cannot be true, but they are not as strong as the above items.
1) The First Living Cell
The "first living cell" was not descended from existing life, by definition. Thus, its RNA or DNA had to consist of totally and absolutely random permutations of nucleotides.
While "evolutionists" claim that existing DNA was easy to modify into new genetic material and new species, they have no basis for such a claim for the "first living cell."
The probability that a purely random permutation of nucleotides will create life, even if it is carefully put inside of a cell membrane, was calculated in an earlier chapter to be 10‑1,500 (see chapter 15). This is an insane probability. It is like picking the correct, single atom from among 101,480 Universes!!
And even this probability ignores a lot of things, such as having the correct combination of genes, the chemical binding problems of amino acids, various paradoxes, the formation of the cell membrane of the "first living cell," etc.
If any scientist claims they have created life from non-life, using a randomly generated permutation of nucleotides, you know they have committed pure fraud. If billions of attempts were made; every second for a hundred billion years; it is still a case of fraud.
But scientists still have not created life from non-life using the luxury of carefully designing DNA (i.e. stealing ideas from DNA created by God) for a "first living cell."
2) The Morphing of the Embryo Algorithms
Scientists know virtually nothing about the morphing of the embryo algorithms on human DNA. This is because the algorithms are so complex, humans cannot comprehend them.
The morphing of the embryo algorithms, which are really incomprehensively complex computer programs which are coded on DNA, are so accurate and so intolerant of mutations, that no complex species (i.e. a male and female), or its descendent species, could survive for 1 million years due to just genetic entropy of these algorithms, much less genetic chaos.
In other words, the morphing of the embryo algorithm is so sensitive to errors that it would be quickly destroyed by the smallest amount of mutations caused by genetic entropy and/or genetic chaos.
While some aspects of DNA may have a little tolerance for error, the morphing of the embryo is not one of them.
No one knows how many nucleotides are involved in the morphing of the embryo algorithms in an advanced species, but it surely numbers in the millions of nucleotides. One or two defects in this mechanism, via genetic entropy, genetic debris or genetic chaos (obviously in the germ cells) and there will not be any surviving offspring or new species.
The issue this algorithm creates for evolution is that it makes any type of mutation to be far more damaging, far more quickly, than a person might thing.
There is no mechanism to protect these nucleotides from mutation, since they are obviously scattered throughout the DNA.
3) Fossil Evidence
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 (i.e. the number of new species would appear on the earth for the first time evenly spaced over time, but the number of new species would gradually increase over time due to a gradually increasing number of species).
This is because creating a new species is so difficult that you simply won't see clusters of new species (i.e. a "punctuated" number of new species appear on the earth at the same time).
When you deal with large numbers, "outliers" (i.e. rare exceptions) are so small in number that it is impossible evolution could have created any significant "punctuated pattern" of new species appearing on the earth for the first time.
However, there is no evidence in the fossil record for an "increasing gradualism."
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) because many, many new and odd species suddenly came on the scene.
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 according to science. No, they are not a proof of evolution; they are 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, such as how mutations of nucleotides could have generated the morphology, and instead talks about totally subjective (i.e. visual) issues.
4) The Failure of Evidence
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 unique genetic information to explain by random mutations (i.e. more impossible probabilities to explain).
Thus, not only have scientists totally failed to create life from non-life, but they have also never seen new genetic material form.
Nor are scientists, even with the DNA of millions of species to study and steal ideas from; ready to design the DNA of extinct dinosaurs which had both a male and female.
While scientists constantly claim they have witnessed "evolution," this is nonsense. The test for true evolution is the creation of new genetic material, including at least one new gene complex.
In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:
1) It was a case of microevolution,
2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.
They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution. Never!!
So on what basis do they claim the theory of evolution is a proven fact of science? It is nothing but wishful thinking.
5) Genetic Leftovers
Virtually every gene, on every DNA, of every ancestor species of humans, from number 3,000 to 1,000, is no longer needed in humans because these old genes were needed for functions which do not apply to humans. Thus, there was no need for evolution to modify these genes.
So where are the sets of genes for at least 2,000 of our ancestor species than humans do not need?
Because there is no mechanism to remove the no longer needed gene complexes from our ancestor species (remember these gene complexes are not in any way needed by humans), they must still be stuck on our DNA because these species are our ancestors. But they cannot be found on our DNA!!
If evolution were true, human DNA would include many billions of previously used, but no longer needed, nucleotide pairs from a variety of our ancestor species.
For example, human DNA would include the entire DNA of the "first living cell" and the unique DNA of all of our ancestor species (which apply to functions which humans do not have), because there is no mechanism to identify and remove useless, failed and old DNA sequences.
Our DNA would include many billions of unused nucleotides if evolution were true. But in reality no more than 1.5 billion nucleotides are unaccounted for. But remember that scientists still haven't unraveled many mysteries of DNA, so most of these unaccounted for nucleotides will some day be known to be needed.
Again, human DNA is a proof that the theory of evolution never happened.
Hormones are the very complex molecules which lure a male and female of a species to mate and thus allow that species to perpetuate.
Isn't it interesting that when a new species is made by evolution that new hormones, unique to that species, and different between a male and a female, just happen to be created?
Are hormones also accidents, like all other actions of evolution?
Actually, like many other things, it is ludicrous to think that these unique, highly complex and highly specialized molecules would be made every time there is a new species and that a different hormone is made for the males than for the females.
Furthermore, in many species, the hormones don't "kick-in" until the male and female are of age to mate. Another coincidence?
This is yet more evidence as to the absurdity of evolution.
7) The Perfection of Human DNA
Time after time the results of evolution would create massive defects in DNA of species after species.
But human DNA today is so perfect it is obvious (given evolution's claims of 660 million years of genetic entropy, genetic chaos, genetic debris, etc.) that evolution is scientific nonsense.
In fact, our human DNA is so perfect it is obvious that 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 genetic defects on human DNA can only be traced back three or four thousand years, not tens of thousands of years or hundreds of millions of years!!
The Biblical account of Adam and Eve fits real scientific data perfectly. But real scientific data, meaning the perfection of our DNA, doesn't fit the theory of evolution at all!!
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 a theory. The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or 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 intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.
However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.
In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.
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 someone's assumptions and imaginations to generate "evidence" to "prove" the theory of evolution is true.
Without any scientific evidence, the scientific establishment continues to attribute all discoveries in paleontology, genetics and biology to the theory of evolution. There is absolutely zero scientific justification for this allocation of credit.
If the two most basic components of the theory of evolution are both nonsense, how can they say that evolution is a "proven fact of science?"
They can't, but yet they do because they want people to embrace philosophical naturalism. 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 because we want to believe in philosophical naturalism and we want to be considered the highest form of intelligence in the Universe." Creation scientist Phillip E. Johnson got it right.
As was said before, the battle over the theory of evolution is about the vastly superior science of creation science versus the vastly superior control of the media, universities, journals and courts by the evolution establishment.
It is a battle between truth and the control of information. As far as the general public is concerned, the control of information will always win.
What science should say is this: "Our absolute control of the media, courts, universities and science journals is a proven fact." Then they would be telling the truth.
Their control over these things 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 to justify their philosophies and their egos. They want to be considered the highest form of intelligence in the Universe. Evolution is all about ego, status and prestige; it is certainly not about science.