Truth Really Matters

The genetic differences between species are so awesome that there isn’t enough time for them to occur, according to evolutionists’ calculations – even if evolution’s foundations were valid.

It’s hard to quantify the differences between living creatures simply by looking at them. The human arm may “look” a lot more complex than a fish’s fin, but how do you measure the difference numerically?

The answer is by looking at the information content in the genes – or in the protein molecules coded by the genes. We won’t do an in-depth look in this short article, but we will give you a feel for the numbers that should make an evolutionist lose sleep at night.

Recall that there are twenty different proteins. Let’s let a given protein be represented by a simple sequence of amino acids and let the aminos be represented by letters of the alphabet. Consider 3 different proteins – pretending that these proteins are only 10 amino acids in length, instead of the usual several hundred.

Protein 1: A D C D E F B H I J
Protein 2: A B C D E F G H I J
Protein 3: A B B D E F G H I H

How can we quantify the differences among these proteins. Here’s a simple way. Protein 1 differs from Protein 2 in two locations. We can say that they are 20% divergent. Protein 2 differs from Protein 3 in two locations. So they are also 20% divergent. Protein 1 and Protein 3, however, are 40% divergent.

If these proteins provide similar functions in 3 different species, the evolutionist might postulate that the gene for Protein 2 (let’s call it “Gene 2”) mutated into the other two proteins and so there might be some evolutionary lineage. He might also postulate that Gene 1 mutated into Gene 2 which later mutated into Gene 3.

This type of analysis on a much larger scale for real animals has produced some nasty surprises. Not surprising, typically, is the size of the divergences. The haemoglobin molecules for man and dog diverge by 20%. Between man and carp the difference is 50%. What’s interesting is that identifiable sequences are isolated and distinct from one another. There are no intermediate sequences or group of sequences, such as we saw in our simplistic Protein 2 above.

For example, insects and vertebrates differ in their cytochrome C protein by typically 20-30%. There are no vertebrate groups that can serve as any type of a link intermediate between the two. The “percent distances” are fairly uniform. This pattern of evidence occurs across nature. A classification system of organisms based on these ideas would not show a hierarchy, but rather a collection of separate islands – reminiscent of separate Biblical “kinds”!

The genetic differences between organisms are mathematical show-stoppers for evolution. A simplistic comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA shows that the genetic divergence is at least 4%. (The difference is certainly much larger than this number which was derived from a technique not as precise as lining up sequences as in our example above. This “4% difference” does not take into account the different number of chromosomes in the two genomes, the different arrangement of genes among the chromosomes, and a lot of non-coding, but regulatory DNA that show significant variations.  If you take these real issues into account, as you should, the divergence is 15 – 20%.)

But let’s assume the measly 4% often quoted. How big is 4% in the DNA? It doesn’t sound big, does it? But the human genome has the information content of one thousand 500-page books. A 4% change would be about 40 large books, equivalent to about 12,000,000 words. We are expected to believe that random mutation plus natural selection (somehow driven by the right combinations of zillions of environmental changes) can generate 12 million words in a precisely meaningful sequence – just to get the “little” divergence between chimps and people.

But the evolutionist always says that “given enough time – millions and millions of years,” such miracles can happen. But evolutionists claim that human evolution would have taken place over the last 10 million years, with creatures like humans and apes sharing a common ancestor. Is that long enough? Note that a human generation is about 20 years. You have to hope very optimistically for rapid mutation and natural selection. In fact, detailed population genetics calculations have shown that only about 1700 mutations could arise in a population over a 10 million year period. That’s only a “page or two” out of the required 40 large books.

Another thought, considering our discussion in Parts 1 and 2 of this series . . . as impossible as it is to go from raw materials to the first functional proteins, and as impossible as it is to go from at least hundreds of functional proteins to the wonderfully integrated system of a single cell, the impossibilities are yet unimaginably greater to generate the information content of multicellular creatures, like “simple” invertebrates. And from there to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, etc., the NEW INFORMATION CONTENT is ridiculously great, but must be generated by mutations and natural selection. Wow . . . what blind faith!

Once again, note that evolution – to qualify as a science – must provide evidence that these events have actually occurred! Not only is the evidence lacking, but any mathematical analysis shows that these transformations of species are impossible! This is analogous to a district attorney hoping to convict someone, not only with no evidence, but with overwhelming data that proves that the suspect could not possibly be responsible.

Wai References:

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1985.
Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Master Books, 1999.