Please be aware that the contents, statements and any conclusions contained within this thread are NOT in any way advocating creationism as the one
and only correct interpretation of genetic evolutionary theory.
The aim of this thread is to present circumstantial (yet strong) evidence for the purpose of general discussion indicating that the currently accepted
Darwinian theory that evolution is the direct result of environmental pressures acting on random changes in an organisms genome, is a seriously flawed
and untenable one.
Using an example from my previous threads, I will be showing from a mathematical perspective, that the total number of nucleotide base pairs
accumulated within the human genome during a time period of 3.8 billion years, is statistically extremely improbable if random mutations, coupled with
environmental pressures, is the currently accepted primary mechanism for evolutionary change.
I will additionally, be examining the insulin molecule. Insulin is a crucial and significantly important molecule that came into existence quite early
in the evolutionary timescale. Again, I will be using mathematics to attempt to show the statistically improbable odds against it's creation if based
on nothing more than random interactions of nucleotide bases.
Finally, a process that is specifically tailored to energy metabolism within plants and animals will be examined. This process is the Citric Acid
cycle (also known as the Krebs cycle). An attempt will be made to show that the inherent complexity and sophistication of this process is incompatible
with an evolutionary development through trial and error type of mechanism.
DARWIN ... and ... ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
The underlying basis to the current theory of evolution has remained essentially unchanged since the English naturalist
first postulated it in his book "On
the Origin of Species" published in 1859.
Darwin made the then bold leap and postulated a paradigm whereby
... all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry ... that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process labeled
It should be stated that all of Darwins evidence for natural selection was derived purely from empirical observations as the genetic/molecular basis
for life was completely unknown at that time. He had no understanding of the underlying mechanism allowing how small changes in a species could
potentially accumulate over long periods of time to ultimately result in the emergence of a new descendant species.
However, as the science of genetics began to become established in the early part of the 20th century, and then later with the decryption of the DNA
double helix by Watson and Crick, Darwins empirical observations could finally be explained as being the result of random mutations within the
organisms DNA accumulating over long periods of time. These random mutations could just as likely be deleterious to the organism, as beneficial. If
beneficial and conferring some slight advantage to the affected organism, the organism stood a slightly better chance of out-surviving it's
competition, eventually breeding and passing on the newly acquired trait to its offspring. Eventually the newly acquired trait would become spread
throughout the specie.
The above sounds great on paper as a "working" theory and seems to explain the emergence of new species but unfortunately research into exactly how
and why the alleged mechanism works hasn't made much substantial progress since Darwin first published his theory.
The prime reason for this is money or more accurately, the lack of research grants, status and prestige. Researchers in government, industry as well
as academia follow the research path where recognition, status and above all, grants are readily available and forthcoming.
Modern genetic research is nothing if not a money making multi-billion dollar industry. Consequently areas such as research into the how and why of
genetic changes within species over the billions of years attracts very little money and therefore very little research.
If it can't be patented and mega bucks made as a result, then such research will simply languish or stagnate. It also doesn't help that the majority
of the scientific community as well as the general populace have been led to believe that essentially Darwin's theory explains it all and that it's
a done and dusted theory that needs no further explanation, let alone further investigation.
Evolution is so obviously
caused by environmental stresses acting on random mutations within an organism ... simple, easy to understand,
explains everything ... so no need to waste any more time on it. And so it has settled into the general consciousness as a complete theory - which is
a highly unfortunate state of affairs. With Watson and Crick's monumental deciphering of the genetic code, the flood gates were opened up to genetic
research and the vast majority of geneticists began to embrace with open arms the now wide open future for the genetic manipulation of human dna ...
and in the process began to neglect dna's past.
TOO MANY MUTATIONS ... NOT ENOUGH TIME
So can this rock-solid pillar of science be shown to be far from complete as well as being significantly deficit in answering many key questions ?
Surprisingly enough the answer is yes, and it's not really that hard to do.
For most of my life, until very recently, I went along with the consensus that Darwin had essentially nailed evolution and that genetic science had
additionally, supplied all the incontrovertible proof that was necessary.
But this all changed for me when I looked at the answers I was getting from a very simple mathematical exercise ... and alarm bells began to ring for
me indicating that all was not well.
The trigger point was when I took the results published by the Human Genome
showing their determination that the human genome contains approximately 3.1 billion nucleotides within the 23 chromosome pairs and then
divided it into the estimated number of years that have elapsed since life in the form of the simplest cell began 3.8 billion years ago.
3.8 billion years / 3.1 billion nucleotides = 1.2 nucleotide additions per year.
There we have it in plain view.
To successfully insert a total of 3.1 billion nucleotides into the human genome within the time frame of 3.8 billion years, implies that ON
, nature had to cause a mutation to occur approximately once per year ... each and every year ... for a total of 3.8 billion years !
But this figure of approximately one mutation per year must be considered to be a minimum value. The reason being that the majority of random
mutations that occur within the genome are either neutral, in that they confer no advantage or disadvantage to the organism; or are harmful and
ultimately result in the organisms death. Therefore the derived value of 1 random mutation per year ONLY
refers only to those mutations that
did not result in the organisms death and were passed on to succeeding generations.
If the many fatal random mutations are also to be taken into account, one must therefore assume an overall increase in natures rate of mutation
generation to possibly a value of 2 or even more random mutations per year ... each and every year ... for 3.8 billion years.
Now I fully understand that there will be many responders claiming that my conclusion of an extremely rapid mutational rate having taken place
continuously over the last 3.8 billion years is either completely incorrect and/or seriously flawed.
However I stand by the extremely simple mathematical result that leads to this logical contradiction to that of Darwins theory, namely that species
change gradually and only over long periods of time.
In fact, I challenge anyone to firstly, dispute the fact that the human genome has gained 3.1 billion nucleotides over a period of 3.8 billion years;
and secondly, to propose an alternate mechanism of nucleotide insertion into the genome that does NOT require such an extraordinarily high mutational
rate to have been sustained continuously over billions of years, as I have proposed.
One of the primary roles of the chromosomes is to store the necessary information by which many different proteins can be manufactured by the cell.
This information is contained within specific areas along a chromosome called genes. These genes are essentially sequential locations of nucleotide
In this section, an examination will be made of one of the simpler yet extremely important proteins called
. Insulin is central to regulating carbohydrate and fat metabolism in the body.
Insulin is a protein molecule composed of just 51 amino acids.
Because each amino acid is defined by just 3 sequential nucleotide bases (called a codon),
the entire insulin protein molecule is constructed from a length of chromosome comprising a total of
3 x 51 = 153
Interestingly enough, porcine (pig) and human insulin are virtually identical, differing in only one amino acid out of the total of 51.
The logical conclusion here is that insulin originated in an organism that pre-dates both pigs and humans and therefore this organism must have been a
common ancestor to both. Additionally, this also means that nature managed the astonishing feat of randomly generating a fully working insulin
creating sequence quite early in terms of evolutionary time scales.
So here we have insulin being produced by a gene that is comprised of 153 sequential nucleotides. These 153 nucleotides MUST
be added by nature
to the chromosome in the correct sequence for insulin to be the resulting product.
Now the fundamental belief behind evolution is that random mutations are the primary driving force responsible for species acquiring new capabilities.
With this in mind, lets do a little simple maths and determine what are the odds that nature would be able to randomly
select the correct 153
nucleotide bases and arrange them in the correct sequence to produce an insulin molecule.
Ok, nature has only 4 choices to make for each nucleotide, namely the selection of A, C, G or T.
So the odds of selecting the 1st nucleotide correctly will be 1 in 4 or 0.25.
Because the correct selection of a preceeding nucleotide has NO
effect on the odds of selecting additional nucleotides, we can see that the
odds of selecting the 2nd correct nucleotide is also 0.25, as is the odds of correctly selecting the 3rd nucleotide (0.25) ... and the odds of
selecting the final nucleotide also is exactly 0.25.
Therefore probability theory tells us that selecting the correct sequence of 153 nucleotides is simply a matter of multiplying 153 lots of 0.25 (i.e.
0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25 x ... x 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25).
Or put another way, the odds of nature assembling a sequential chain of 153 correct nucleotides and doing it randomly, is approximately
8 x 10^90 to one AGAINST
To put it into perspective, the above says that picking 153 nucleotides randomly and creating a sequential chain with them, that there are an
astronomical 8 x 10^90 different ways of doing it ... but only ONE OF THEM
will be the correct sequence to successfully produce insulin !
So essentially nature has almost 8 x 10^90 chances of messing up the sequence and virtually NO
chance, before the sun turns into a red giant,
of getting it right ... and yet considering all the overwhelming odds stacked against it, no one seems prepared to or interested enough to say WTF ...
instead the majority of people accept it on nothing more than blind faith alone that somehow nature still managed to pull of this incredible feat !
Finally, before moving on to the next area, let me summarize the salient points made so far.
Fact: We have 3.1 billion nucleotides in the human genome and we have 3.8 billion years of evolution since the 1st living cell was formed.
Fact: Nature had to generate random mutations at the astonishing minimum
rate of approximately one mutation EVERY YEAR
of those 3.8 billion years ... and if lethal mutations are also taken into account, then the mutation rate would be much higher than 1 per year.
Fact: The insulin producing gene consists of 153 nucleotides.
Fact: The odds are 8 x 10^90 AGAINST
nature producing the SINGLE
correct sequence purely by chance/random mutations.
CITRIC ACID CYCLE
So far there have been many references to dna, nucleotides and bases. Before continuing, it needs to be strongly stressed that the current
understanding regarding the primary purpose of dna is to encode the necessary information that will be used to create an individual of a particular
specie. This information is encoded in a very simple manner ... namely by the sequential adding of one of four bases (A,C,G and T) repetitively.
Three sequential bases then represent a particular amino acid, of which there are 20 different ones. When a length of dna is read, this length is read
3 sequential bases at a time and the corresponding amino acid produced. Then the next 3 base group is read .. then the next ... When every 3 base
group in the length have been read, all the resultant amino acids are then combined to produce a specific protein.
And thats it essentially it in a nutshell. Yes, dna does have other functions but as described above, that is its primary function ... the encoding of
the information to produce proteins.
Here is a pictorial representation of a section of dna showing the way in which bases are arranged sequentially along the dna's length:
and as shown earlier in this thread, here again is a pictorial representation of how 3 sequential bases are used to represent a specific amino
Ok, on to the Citric Acid cycle, also known as the Krebs cycle.
The Citric Acid cycle is critical to the production of usable energy within a cellular environment and essential to cellular metabolism.
The citric acid cycle ... is a series of enzyme-catalysed chemical reactions, which is of central importance in all living cells that use oxygen as
part of cellular respiration.
In aerobic organisms, the citric acid cycle is part of a metabolic pathway involved in the chemical conversion of carbohydrates, fats and proteins
into carbon dioxide and water to generate a form of usable energy.
This energy producing cycle is an incredibly complex process with the end product being one of energy generation. This end product being
dependent on a multitude of separate sub-processes all working in perfect synchronization and harmony. It's the cellular equivalent
of a sophisticated chemical industrial complex that has been finely tuned, where the removal, failure or malfunction of just a single one of any of
the sub-processes would be catastrophic from the cell's (and ultimately the organisms) survival point of view.
The following is an illustration summarizing the process by which the cell generates energy:
As is immediately obvious, the process requires many steps to accomplish it's goal of energy production ... and each of these processes require the
presence of a large number of different proteins.
Now this is where an immediate difficulty becomes apparent.
Each of the many proteins required by the Citric Acid cycle are produced just like the insulin protein discussed earlier, namely by sequences of A, C,
G and T nucleotide bases stored within the chromosomes. But unlike the insulin protein that is located on a particular location on just one
chromosome, the many proteins required by the Citric Acid cycle are stored in multiple locations and spread out over more than one chromosome.
So if the odds were astronomically stacked against
the random assembly of 153 sequential nucleotide bases in just one chromosome location, how
much more impossible must it be to randomly
assemble the required number of sequential nucleotide base pairs for MULTIPLE
And if that wasn't bad enough, for the Citric Acid cycle to function at all, every one of the required sequences would have had to come into
existence at approximately the same time so that they could all come together to make the energy production process work.
Remember, this cycle is incredibly fine-tuned and so dependent on all the sub-processes being in existence, meshing together and functioning
perfectly. If just ONE
of the essential proteins was not in existence (because it had not been randomly created yet), then the Citric Acid
cycle would NOT
function ... therefore NO
cellular energy production ... therefore NO
So we are therefore left with the conundrum that to make the Citric acid cycle work, every part (protein) had to have been created through random
mutations at the very same time which, as has been demonstrated, is statistically as close to zero as one can get without it actually being zero.
And like the insulin process, the Citric Acid cycle MUST
have come into existence very early in the evolutionary time scale as it is critical
to, and used by all organisms that metabolize oxygen for respiration ... therefore giving nature very little time for trial and error. Somehow, and in
a very short space of time, nature successfully beat the almost insurmountable odds stacked against it.
As has been demonstrated in this thread, the belief in the process of a slow and random mutation mechanism acting over many millions of years as the
primary means by which evolution proceeds, appears to be difficult to reconcile with observational evidence.
This difficulty has been highlighted by using nothing more complex than simple mathematics to demonstrate that to generate the existing human
nucleotide sequences (and therefore proteins) within the accepted time frame of approximately 3.8 billion years, and in particular groups of critical
nucleotide sequences (as in the Citric Acid cycle), indicates the potential to consider two alternative evolutionary possibilities.
1. The rejection of the Darwinian belief that the rate of random mutation being a slow and gradual process and the acceptance of the possibility that
the rate of random mutation has been maintained at an incredibly high rate as a result of some unknown process or mechanism.
2. That evolution, and human evolution in particular, has been deliberately manipulated and enhanced by causes unknown.
And in parting, I once again repeat (with addition) the challenge I made earlier in this thread ...
I challenge anyone to firstly, dispute the fact that the human genome has gained 3.1 billion nucleotides over a period of 3.8 billion years; and
secondly, to propose an alternate mechanism of nucleotide insertion into the genome that does NOT require such an extraordinarily high mutational rate
to have been sustained continuously over billions of years, as I have proposed.
Addition: Provide a reasonable explanation for the creation of the Citric Acid cycle based on the prevailing concept of a slow rate of mutations
accumulating in random locations of the organisms genome.