HURDLE NUMBER 23. THE RANDOM MUTATION/INFORMATION HURDLE.
Evolutionists purport that one species can “evolve” into some different species. They purport that this happens by a process of RANDOM MUTATIONS. This hypothesis is supported by the majority of the scientific community; and dissenters from this hypothesis put their academic careers severely at risk. The problem is that this hypothesis is ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG! Simple logic and commonsense tell us that this hypothesis CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT! Also, all mutation experiments so far carried out confirm that this hypothesis DEFINITELY IS NOT CORRECT! And yet this hypothesis, in the teeth of the overwhelming contrary evidence, is rigidly enforced in the scientific community by a system of coercion and reprisals – ie:- job loss, loss of funding, loss of academic tenure – etc. for dissenters.
First let’s consider the simple logic of this hypothesis. Each cell in our body contains DNA, which is effectively “software”, ie:- information “telling” our bodies how to function and what morphological shape to adopt, etc. A POINT MUTATION (by a mutagenic agent of some kind) alters one of the nucleotides in the long chains of our DNA. This alters the “information” “telling” our bodies “what to do”. Evolutionists believe that a series of RANDOM mutations, over many generations, can “change” one species into another completely different species. This notion flies in the face of common sense and simple logic, which can be demonstrated by a couple of analogies.
Let’s consider the following sentence:-
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
The individual letters in this sentence will represent the individual nucleotides in the DNA
The whole sentence will represent the total DNA for one individual.
Just as the DNA provides “information” (to direct bodily functioning), so the sentence provides information (about a particular fox’s activities).
If you randomly alter one of the letters in the sentence, this represents a single random point mutation in the DNA (ie:- altering one of the individual nucleotides).
Here is a single random “point mutation” for the above sentence.
The zuick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
Question:- Did this random “point mutation” improve or DEGRADE the information contained in the sentence?
Here is the same sentence with TEN random “point mutations”:-
Tfe quice brqwn doe jmted ovtr ehe lwzy dtg.
Question:- Did these random “point mutations” improve or DEGRADE the information contained in the sentence?
Answer:- Clearly the informational content of the sentence was degraded.
Here is a quote from the book The Cosmic Blueprint, by Paul Davies (Professor of Theoretical Physics at The University of Newcastle upon Tyne), published by Heinemann, 1987, page 109:-
“Information theorists have demonstrated that - - - - random disturbances have the effect of REDUCING INFORMATION.” (My capitals.)
By analogy, if “evolution” by RANDOM mutations provides a correct account of evolution, then it should be possible to use a series of single fortunate “point mutations” of this above sentence to convert it, through a series of intermediate sentences, into another MEANINGFUL sentence – BUT - - - (and this is a very very big “BUT”!) – EACH INTERMEDIATE STAGE MUST ALSO BE A MEANINGFUL SENTENCE! Each successive “point mutation” must not DEGRADE the meaningfulness and informational content of the sentence. Any non- meaningful sentence (by analogy) would be “out-competed” by other more meaningful sentences, just as poorly functioning animals are “out-competed” in the “struggle for existence”.
If you try this exercise, you will find that it simply cannot be done. If a sentence – or a species – is to be transformed by RANDOMLY chosen “point mutations”, most of these “point mutations” WILL DEGRADE THE INFORMATION in the sentence or in the DNA of the species.
Now let’s consider another scenario:- A software expert obtains a computer that has Windows 7 installed. Now Windows 7 is a “higher level software platform”; but it rests upon a “lower level software platform” of “machine code”, which is a series of zeros and ones, eg:- 0001101110011001000100011111010010010101000 etc.
Now suppose the software expert decided to “improve” Windows 7 by a series of “RANDOM mutations” of the machine code. He would randomly pick a particular digit in the machine code and convert it to its alternate. (In other words, he would convert a zero to a one, or a one to a zero, as the case may be.) Suppose he performed several hundred “random mutations” on the machine code.
Question:- Would the result be an “improved” version of Windows 7 – or would the result be a DEGRADED version of Windows 7 – a version with various “glitches” that would annoy the customer?
The logic of the above two examples suggests that – if the “information” contained in an animal’s DNA is altered by a single point mutation, that “information” will be DEGRADED rather than enhanced; and during a series of random mutations over many generations, that “information” will become DEGRADED still further, and the animal’s function will be adversely compromised, and that animal will be “out-competed” by animals that are without the DEGRADING random mutations, and will therefore “go extinct”.
Let me quote from the book Genetic Entropy – The Mystery of The Genome, by Doctor J.C. Sanford (a Cornell University Professor, with a Ph.D. in plant breeding and plant genetics), Classroom edition, published by FMS Publications, third edition, 2008, page 27:-
Doctor Sanford tells us that:- “I do not doubt that there ARE beneficial mutations, but it is clear that they are EXCEEDINGLY RARE - - - - - MUTATIONS APPEAR TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY DELETERIOUS.” (My capitals.)
In that case, let us consider the following scenario:- Let us suppose that we have a herd of 100,000 animals, who produce no more than 30 progeny per female.
Let us suppose that, out of 1000 mutations, 999 are harmful (ie:- DEGRADING the “informational content” of the animal’s DNA), and only one is beneficial.
Let us suppose that each animal receives just one point mutation to its DNA.
For 50,000 females, there will be 1,500,000 progeny, of which only 1500 will have “beneficial” mutations. The other 1,498,500 progeny will have “bad” mutations which DEGRADE the informational content of the animals DNA, thus causing a loss of functional efficiency. These animals with “bad” mutations will be “out-competed” by the animals with “good” mutations, and will “go extinct”.
The fortunate 1500 animals with “good” mutations will be just 750 females who will produce 22,500 progeny. Only 23 of these animals will have “good” mutations. The others will “go extinct”. These 23 animals will comprise only 12 females, who will produce 360 progeny, of whom less than one animal will have “good” mutations. In that case, it is “game over”. Random mutations, far from driving the “evolution” of these animals to become a different species, will simply DEGRADE the informational content of these animals’ DNA, reducing functional efficiency, and drive them to “go extinct”.
The question is:- How is it possible for any species to survive the “RANDOM MUTATIONS HAZARD”? The fact is that (according to authoritative sources) 99 % of all the species that ever existed have “gone extinct”. It would be speculative to suggest that some of these extinctions were due to the “Random Mutations Hazard”, but we should not entirely rule out this explanation.
The possible explanations for the survival of many species are as follows:-
(1). According to authoritative sources in molecular biology, the DNA of many species is associated with “error correction software” that detects “errors” (ie:- point mutations) to individual nucleotides in the DNA and corrects the “errors”.
(2). In many species many of the possible mutations make the egg or fetus unviable, ie:- they never develop into eggs or fetuses in the first place, and so the progeny are never born. We may speculate that, in many species, THE MAJORITY of mutations prevent the development of egg or fetus. If so, this means that most of the surviving eggs or fetuses will be un-mutated. The progeny born with “bad” mutations will be less viable, and will therefore be “outcompeted and “driven extinct”.
The only way for a species to survive “THE RANDOM MUTATIONS THREAT” is to adopt a “policy” of rigid “evolutionary stasis”. This entails “error correction software” at the cellular level, and a rigid and rigorous “eugenical” program where only those animals that perfectly adhere to the statistical norm in every respect can survive.
Indeed, it is a well attested fact that – for instance, in the case of birds – during extreme cold weather conditions, the birds that survive are closer to the morphological mean for that species than those birds that perish. Any animal deviating from the rigid statistical morphological norm has a reduced chance of survival.
In support of this previous statement, here is a quote from the book Did Darwin Get It Right?, by John Maynard Smith, Emeritus Professor of Biology at The University of Sussex, published by Penguin Books, 1993, pages 126 to 127:-
“Population geneticists argue that if a species does not change, that is because (of) - - - - NORMALISING SELECTION - - - that is selection that ELIMINATES EXTREME PHENOTYPES AND FAVOURS THE NORM.” (My capitals.)
All this above being the case, it is quite clear that “evolution” cannot possibly proceed in an advantageous direction by RANDOM MUTATIONS. Random mutations generally DEGRADE genetic “information”, and therefore reduce functional efficiency.
Here is a further quote that substantiates this conclusion. The quote is from the book Evolution – Fact or Fiction?, by John Blanchard, published by Evangelical Press, 5th impression, 2006. Pages 24 to 25:-
The author quotes biophysicist Lee Spetner (Who taught courses at the Johns Hopkins University, Howard University and the Weizmann Institute, including probability theory, and statistical communication theory):- “(Mutations) all LOSE INFORMATION - - - - Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by MUTATIONS THAT LOSE INFORMATION is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale, but thought he could make it up on volume.” (My capitals and highlighting.)
HURDLE NUMBER 25. THE MUTATION/INFORMATION LOSS HURDLE.
Evolution must necessarily be about the creation of (genetic) information. All the evidence suggests that mutation involves LOSS of (genetic) information. Here is just one quote that supports this statement.
This quote is from the book Kicking The Sacred Cow, by James P. Hogan, published by Baen, 2004, pages 42 to 43.
The author discussed bacterial resistance to antibiotics:- “The drug molecule works by attaching to a matching site on a ribosome of the bacterium, rather like a key fitting into a lock and interfering with its operation - - - - - The resistance-conferring mutation - - - - altering one part - - - - of the ribosome “lock” in such a way that the drug’s molecular “key” will no longer match”. The author then argues that there is ONLY ONE correct version of the ribosome “lock”, but any number of wrong versions – which will defeat the antibiotic. In other words, the bacterium acquiring resistance is tantamount to a LOSS of specificity – a LOSS of information. He continues “The same applies to pests becoming resistant to insecticides - - - - the mutant strains show impairment - - - - slowed metabolism or sluggish behavior”. (My capitals.)
We have seen that simple logic and commonsense dictate that RANDOM mutations cannot possibly drive “evolution”. However, what is the actual experimental evidence? To see this, check out the next hurdle.