Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Charles Darwin
• Gregor Mendel
• Breeding by Human Selection
• Random Mutations
• Functional vs. Neutral Mutations
• Antibiotic Resistance
• Enzyme Evolution
• Limited Evolutionary Potential
• Growing Neutral Gaps
• The Ladder of Functional Complexity
• An Illiterate Construction Forman
• Adding a Stereo to a Car
Home Page
The theory of evolution is based on a very simple and elegant idea. The idea is that
all living things have a common ancestor. The differences between living things that
exist today are thought to be the result of "common decent with modification" or slight
changes over time that have simply added up over many millions of generations to
produce the remarkable variety that we see today. These modifications are the result of
Natural selection is able to select between these randomly produced genetic sequences
in such a way that those sequences with the greatest attached beneficial function
provide their host the the greatest reproductive advantage. In this way, natural
evolution. 3,4,5,6
If the amazing diversity of life forms on this planet arose from the evolutionary
potential of a common ancestor life form, the assumption can be made that all or nearly
all life forms living today have the same potential for future diversity. If true, this
mindless force is a very creative force. But, how does this mindless force work?
Most will agree that if living things change over time, they change because their
D.N.A. (deoxyribonucleic acid) changed. The information contained in the DNA is called
the “genotype.” The expression of this information in the physical form of the creature is
called the “phenotype.” 1, 2 DNA is very much like the paper that the blueprint for a
house is written down on. This blueprint is equivalent to the genotype. The actual
house, once it is built, is equivalent to the phenotype. The phenotype changes only if
cynical stand in silent awe. If humankind could harness this power and speed it up with
the aid of our intelligent minds, the implications for advancement seem unlimited.
How then does this mindless evolution work? How does the equivalent of a
blueprint for a house change over time to code for phenotypic structures as diverse as
degree of diversity is seen in living things in the forms of creatures like bacteria, oak
trees, and elephants. In considering this question perhaps we should begin with Darwin
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) came up with his famous version of the theory of
evolution after observing some very interesting differences, such as the variation in the
size and shape of finch beaks on the Galapagos Islands. Many other similar changes
have also been observed and carefully documented. Certainly these are “changes” and
as changes many would call them evolutionary changes. If the theory of evolution is
defined as any and every phenotypic change that occurs from parents to offspring, then
it might be perfectly fine to say that finches are demonstrating evolution in real time.
But, are they demonstrating genotypic evolution? Has the blueprint changed in an
change in genotype? In other words, do the phenotypic changes in the finches that
Darwin observed require new meaningful genetic information that the ancestor finches
Gregor Mendel
and a number of other traits, are passed on by unchanging genotypic alleles. Different
For example, lets say that a house needs colored carpet. Colored carpet is a “trait”
or characteristic of the house listed in the blueprint. The blueprint of this particular
house is interesting however in that it is a double blueprint. There are two pieces of
paper that code for every aspect of the house. The two blueprints are identical as far as
the traits that they code for (ie: colored carpet), but they are different as far as the trait
variations are concerned (ie: red, yellow, green, blue or white carpet). If one blueprint
coded for green carpet and the other coded for white carpet, what color would the
Mendel found that allelic traits could be either dominant or recessive (We now know
that they can also be co-dominant, incompletely dominant, additive, multiplicative etc.)
This is made possible because of the fact that many traits have at least two alleles, or
two separate codes on two blueprint copies, that code for the same trait. If both alleles
are the same, then the expressed phenotype will match both alleles. If the two alleles
are different, then the phenotypic expression will match the dominant allele. Each allele
is inherited unchanged, one from each parent. During the process of sexual
reproduction, the alleles coding for the same trait trade places with each other randomly
(from one blueprint copy to the same place on the other blueprint copy) so that the next
generation will be uniquely different from the current generation in their phenotypic
expression of the same alleles. This is why siblings from the same parents never look
exactly alike unless they are twins arising from the same fertilized egg. Siblings can in
fact look very different from each other and even their parents. One may have a big
nose and the other a small nose. Similarly, a finch may have a bigger or smaller beak
than its siblings. Such phenotypic changes do indeed occur, but they need not be
based in any change of the common "gene pool" of options. 2 (Back to Top)
were gathered together over a few generations into one animal. Most of traits
themselves already existed, fully formed, in the common ancestral gene pool of dogs.
Thus, neither of these breeds has “evolved” much of anything that their common
ancestors did not already have in their common gene pool of options.
The ability for great phenotypic variation is obvious, but there are clear limits to this
variation. Using genetic recombination alone, a dog cannot be anything but a dog. A
dog can never be changed, via genetic recombination alone, into a cat or a chicken or
anything else. Why? Because cats, dogs, and chickens are made from different
blueprints that code for different trait types and trait options that are not contained by
the gene pools of the others. Also, traits that may be similar may not necessarily be
Again, using the house blueprint analogy as an example, one house might have a
blueprint that codes for carpet at the bottom right-hand corner of the page. Another
house might have a blueprint that codes for an electric garage door opener at this
location and has no code for carpet at all. Also, the first house might not have a code
for a garage much less an electric garage door opener. Neither one of the blueprints for
one house will match with the options or order of options for the other house.
So, what does this mean? It means that the blueprints for the different houses in
this case cannot talk to each other, mix and match, or "recombine" their collective
viable "offspring". Only blueprints that have the same setup and "trait" types can
exchange equivalent information with each other. It is impossible then for blueprints
that do not have a position for a garage code to trade equivalent information that results
in the formation of a garage. The same is true for different animals such as dogs,
chickens and cats. They cannot breed with each other, nor can they be bred to look like
Although genetic recombination can and does result in some very dramatic
phenotypic changes for these creatures, this process is limited by the edges of a large
but finite pool of options. Such a gene pool remains fixed while various creatures within
the gene pool give phenotypic expression to various aspects of this genotypic pool of
options. The pool provides the means for huge phenotypic variation or “change” but the
genotypic pool itself may not change from one generation to the next. 8 The changing
"static" genotypic pool. Thus, it is the genotypic pool and not the phenotypic creature
But, if Darwin’s finch beaks are not examples of gene pool evolution is there
anything that is? Is there any creature that has unique traits that its ancestors did not
Random Mutations
This is where mutations come into play. Genetic mutations are relatively rare
random changes that occur in a creature's genotypic blueprint that were not in the
blueprints of that creature’s parents. There are many different types of mutations.
There are point mutations where just one letter is changed in the wording of the genetic
blueprint. There are translocation mutations where a section of the blueprint is cut out
and pasted in another place on the blueprint. There are inversion mutations where a
section of the blueprint is cut out and turned upside down and pasted back in the same
place. There are duplication mutations where a section of the blueprint is copied and
then pasted in another place. The list goes on and on, but basically the mutated
blueprint has genes/alleles or genetic sequences that were not in the blueprints of either
As would seem intuitive, most functional mutations are harmful and may even be
lethal. Fortunately though, most mutations are not functional. Most mutations are silent
or "neutral" and result in no detectable phenotypic change. Very rarely, some mutations
are “beneficial.” The ratio of beneficial vs. detrimental mutations is on the order of 1 in
1,000 for certain types of functions (discussed in more detail below). Common
examples of beneficial mutations are those that give bacteria antibiotic resistance or
those that cause sickle cell anemia in people who live where malaria is prevalent. But
Antibiotic Resistance
the fairly sudden creation of new as well as beneficial functions that the "parent"
Now, it should be noted that bacteria are not like dogs, cats, and chickens, or
words, all of the offspring of a given bacterium will be identical with itself as well as with
each other. They are basically clones of each other. Because of this, there are no trait
options to choose from. There is only one copy of the blueprint instead of the two copies
used in sexual recombination. So, there is only one option for each bacterial "trait."
There is no gene "pool" of options for each trait - so to speak. Of course, many types of
bacteria can in fact laterally exchange genetic information via plasmids and the like.
But, as a general rule of thumb, bacteria do not undergo genetic recombination. So, for
all practical purposes, all bacteria within a given isolated population are identical except
if a mutational change occurs. Such mutations, when they do occur, are passed on to
populations all the time. For example, penicillin resistance is not always gained by the
production of the famous ß-lactamase enzyme "penicillinase." There are several other
pneumoniae and yet they are capable of penicillin antibiotic resistance due to
modification of their penicillin binding proteins (PBPs). Since PBPs are the natural
target of penicillin, many different point mutations within this target are capable of
penicillin resistance. And, importantly, this resistance, combined with what are called
"compensatory mutations", can be achieved without any significant loss of any other
functional system within the bacterium. So, the argument that all mutations end up
producing at least some detectably harmful effect to gain a beneficial effect simply isn't
true.
Other antibiotics require a specialized transport protein to bring them into the
bacterium. Again, many different point mutations can interfere with the ability of the
transport protein to interact properly with the antibiotic. This interference results in
resistance to this particular antibiotic. Again, this interference gained be gained without
any significant functional loss of the mutant bacteria relative to their peers.
Other bacteria already make more complex antibiotic enzymes, such as the
populations. There is not a single documented case where the penicillinase enzyme
code has been observed to evolve in a population where it wasn't already there. The
coded sequence or "gene" needed to produce the penicillinase enzyme was already
there or it was gained via lateral transfer from other bacteria who already had this code
(often via plasmids). The problem is that this coded sequence is usually regulated so
that the penicillinase enzyme is not produce in sufficient enough quantities to protect the
bacterium from high levels of the penicillin antibiotic. Several different mutations are
much greater quantities can be made, which results in enhanced penicillin resistance.
produces an enzyme that (as well as its other useful functions) changes the non-harmful
antibiotic "isoniazid" into its active and lethal form. The now active isoniazid proceeds to
kill the Mycobacterium. Several different mutations are capable of interfering with the
isoniazid-enzyme interaction. And again, this interference results in Mycobacterial
resistance to isoniazid.
To give another example, the 4-quinolone antibiotics attack the enzyme “DNA
gyrase” inside various bacteria. Again, several different point mutations are capable of
Perhaps the most famous and oft quoted example of a beneficial mutation is the
point mutation of the hemoglobin molecule that is seen in people affected by a condition
known as sickle cell anemia. This single point mutation decreases the effective oxygen
carrying capacity of the hemoglobin molecule. It still carries oxygen, just not as well.
Now, it just so happens that the malarial parasite needs a high oxygen concentration to
survive and so cannot survive in blood with the sickle cell mutation.10 Those people who
have only one of their two blueprint DNA copies affected by this mutation do not have
significant anemia, but their blood still doesn't carry oxygen well enough to support the
malarial parasite. So, they are resistant to malaria while at the same time having little
problem with the hemoglobin mutation. However, those unfortunate individuals who end
with their hemoglobin molecules crystallizing under low oxygen tension. This
crystallization effect dramatically distorts the red blood cells and they no longer fit very
well through small vessels in the body. Of course, this means that organs and tissues
supplied by these vessels become starved for oxygen. This causes a very painful and
Now, there are several interesting observations to note. Most beneficial mutations
achieve their benefits with just one or rarely two point mutations. Also, it is hard to miss
the fact that all of the functions gained, at least those listed here, were the result of a
And, as we all know from a famous children's story, it is far easier to break than to
create. The reason is that there are so many different ways to break something
compared to the relatively few ways to make something work. Why else couldn't all the
King's men put Humpty Dumpty back together again? (Back to Top)
Enzyme Evolution
But, how did such apparently complex enzymes, such as penicillinase, evolve? A
bacterium is not going to evolve the enzymatic penicillinase function with just one or two
point mutations to some target sequence because the penicillinase function is not based
on the loss or hindrance of a pre-existing function or interaction. So, how could such a
function evolve?
There are many theories as to how the penicillinase enzyme must have evolved.
However, when it comes right down to it, no one has ever demonstrated the evolution of
the penicillinase enzyme in the lab. As previously noted, bacteria that produce the
penicillinase enzyme were always capable of producing this enzyme or they obtained
the code for this enzyme via a plasmid from another bacterium who had this code
of penicillinase so that much greater quantities are produced, rendering the bacterium
(and its subsequence offspring) instantly resistant to greater doses of penicillin. But, this
change really has nothing to do with explaining how the rather complex penicillinase
function evolved.9 So, are there any documented reports of the evolution of a complex
scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describe how
molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even
might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely
Others,
such as the
well known
evolutionary
biologist
Kenneth
Miller,
disagree. In
his 1999
book, Finding
Darwin’s God,
one of Miller’s
challenges of
Behe’s
position includes a 1982 research study by professor Barry Hall, an evolutionary
biologist from the University of Rochester. In this study, Hall deleted a gene (lacZ gene)
in a type of bacteria (E. coli) that makes an enzyme (ß-galactosidase). This enzyme
converts the sugar lactose into the sugars glucose and galactose. The E. coli then use glucose
Without this lactase enzyme one would think that these bacteria and their offspring
would not be able to utilize lactose. However, what Hall found is that after a short time
modified a different gene with just one point mutation so that it gained the ability to
produce a new lactase enzyme.12 Since the original enzyme was composed of a fairly
large tetramer (~1,000 amino acids for each subunit), it seemed like the evolution of the
lactase function might require a fair amount of enzymatic complexity (fairly large number
and specific arrangement of amino acid residues). In other words, it might be rather
difficult to come across very many enzymes with lactase ability out of the vast numbers
of potential arrangments within sequence space. So, the demonstration of such rapid
success for Hall. How did these amazing bacteria evolve a brand new enzyme to do
As it turns out, these E. coli bacteria had something of a spare tire gene that Hall
called the "evolved ß-galactosidase gene" (ebgA). Just one point mutation was all it
took to give this spare tire gene the ability to produce a protein with the beneficial
lactase activity. Hall was of course disappointed to find out that only one point mutation
was enough to "evolve" this beneficial lactase activity. So, he did a very interesting
thing. He deleted both the original lacZ genes as well as the evolved ebgA gene in
some rather large colonies of E. coli. Interestingly enough, none of these doubly
mutated bacteria nor their offspring never evolved any other gene or DNA sequence into
potential." 12 The interesting thing is that these same bacteria that were limited in their
ability to evolve the lactase function would easily have evolved resistance to just about
are starting to climb the ladder of increasing functional complexity. (Back to Top)
Now I ask, what exactly was limiting the evolutionary potential of Hall's bacteria?
Does the theory of evolution explain such limits? If so, how are they explained? The
theory of evolution claims the power to create incredible diversity via mindless
processes if given enough time. Well, how much time, on average, would it take for E.
coli, without lacZ and ebgA, to evolve the lactase function? Can this time be estimated,
According to Hall's own calculations, a function that required just two independent
(neutral) mutations would take around "100,000 years" to achieve in E. coli.12 It seems
as though Hall does not understand the statistics of random walk very well or he would
not have been surprised when he did in fact isolate such a double mutant in just a few
days. The estimated time for fixation is what caused Hall to estimate a time of 100,000
years for the crossing of a gap of just two neutral mutations. What Hall did not realize is
that stepwise fixation of each mutation (spread to all members of a population) is not
required for such a gap to be crossed. With populations the size of Hall's E. coli
colonies, such a double mutation would be realized in at least one bacterium in the
population in just one or two generations using random walk alone. (Back to Top)
So, is the problem solved? Hardly. With each doubling of the neutral gap between
the current genetic real estate and a new potentially beneficial function, the random
walk increases by a factor of two. For example, a gap of 2 amino acid residue
differences has only 400 different options to fill (20 potentially different residues in each
distribute itself among all these 400 options in very short order (given that these 400
options were all functionally neutral with respect to each other). However, doubling the
gap to 4 differences would increase the number of options to 160,000. Doubling the
gap again to 8 differences would increase the number of options to 25.6 billion. A gap
of 16 would yield 655 million trillion (6.5e20). In such a case, each bacterium in the
options. The time required to traverse this gap, even for a population of one billion
bacteria, would run into the trillions of generations. Why? Because the time required
for a mutation to hit even one of the residues that form the gap runs into the hundreds of
thousands of generations, on average. In other words, each random walk step would
take hundreds of thousands of generations. So, finding one specific spot out of 655
billion options would require 6.55e9 x 1e5 = ~ 1e14 or 100 trillion generations.
This is because natural selection cannot preferentially select for any sequence that
doesn't provide an improved function over what was already there to begin with. The
only forces for change that can sort through such non-beneficial sequences are random
mutations. These random mutations randomly search through sequence space with the
use of either short or long random steps. However, regardless of the size of the
step/mutation, the odds of success are not changed. Such a random walk takes a
whole lot more time than a non-random direct walk would take - exponentially more
time. This simple little problem is what messes things all up for evolution.
For instance, consider that there are many bacterial functions that are far more
lactase or nylonase. Many single protein enzymes are actually fairly complex, don't get
me wrong. They certainly are far more complex than the function of antibiotic
resistance that arises via an interfering mutation. However, their functions are still
For example, there are about 10130 potential protein sequences 100 residues in
length. Of these 10130 potential proteins, how many would have a specific
function? Well, it depends on the function. It depends upon how specific the
arrangement of residues needs to be. So, as an example, lets pick one of the more
specifically arranged functional protein that requires about 100 residues to work - like
cytochrome c. Some scientists, like Yockey, have estimated anywhere between 1050 to
understand how big these numbers are, consider that the total number of atoms in the
visible universe is only around 1080. So, one can see that 1090 different cytochrome c
sequences is an absolutely huge number. The problem is, this pile of 1090 cytochrome c
proteins is absolutely miniscule when compared to 10130, which is the total number of
different potential protein sequences 100aa in length. For every one cytochrome c
And yet, this ratio gets exponentially worse as the complexity of function increases.
For example, the function of bacterial motility involves the interactions of many different
proteins all working together at the same time - over 20 different structural protein parts
in specific arrangement totaling well over 10,000aa that must be specifically coded for in
correct sequence. The question is, how many different arrangements of these amino
acid residues would produce a motility system (or how many arrangements of 10,000
letters would produce a meaningful, much less beneficial, essay in English)? For
argument's sake, lets say that 102000 different motility systems could be made with such
motility systems, 102000 is still a tiny fraction of 1013,010 - the minimum potential protein
sequence space at this level of complexity (10,000aa level). Each sequence with a
motility function would be surrounded by at least 1011,000 sequences without the motility
function. In fact, the beneficial sequence density at this level of complexity seems to be
real time - not one example (i.e., a function that requires more than a few thousand
Now, there are a whole lot of stories about how such functions must have evolved.
These stories are exclusively based on the notion that sequence similarities of portions
of such systems to portions of sequences in other systems of function must mean that
indicate a common origin of some kind. However, as Behe has repeatedly pointed out,
random mutation and function-based selection could give rise to the functional
differences are what are important here - not so much the similarities. How are these
deliberate processes can explain the similarities, but how well can non-deliberate
The problem is that there is always more potential junk than non-junk at any given
level of complexity. The real problem though is that this junk pile grows exponentially,
relative to the pile of potentially beneficial sequences, with each step up the ladder of
rungs where the most simple functions, such as antibiotic resistance, can be found. The
target mutations required to achieve antibiotic resistance are extremely simple to get
"right" because there are so many "right" options. However, the evolution of specific
enzymatic functions, like the lactase function, are a lot harder to get "right" because far
fewer options are "right." Then again, even these functions are relatively easy to get
systems, where all the protein parts work together at the same time in a specific 3-D
orientation with each other. So, as one moves up the ladder of functional complexity,
the difficulty of finding any sequence that does anything beneficial at such a level of
complexity becomes exponentially harder and harder to do until not even trillions upon
Cannot Read
His workers are the ones that know how to read blueprints and follow directions exactly.
The workers also copy parent blueprints to use as templates for each new house that is
to be built. However, although they are extremely careful copyists, the workers make
little mistakes every now an then. These little mistakes may not result in any phenotypic
change whatsoever, but sometimes they translate into slight or even major variations
among the actual houses built (the phenotype). The foreman then comes to inspect the
completed houses and picks the one that is the “best” given the particular needs of that
house for that location and housing market. The choice of the foreman is based only
on current function.5,6 He knows only what works right now. He has no imagination,
memory, or vision for the future. If there is a part of a house that he does not recognize
as having current beneficial overall function, he will not select to keep that house and
the offending part will be lost from future blueprint options. The foreman goes around
saying, “Keeping do-dads around that don’t work is expensive!” He will not maintain
what he does not recognize as beneficial right now in hopes that sometime in the future,
with some potential change in the housing market/environment, it may develop into
something beneficial. Once the selection for the best overall house is made by the
foreman, the workers find the blueprint for this house and use it as a template for the
But what happens if the housing market changes the next year? What if certain
changes would benefit the house in this new environment? For example, what if there
were a prolonged drought and wild fires became a threat making houses with tile
shingles more resistant to fire than houses with wooden or asphalt shingles? Would the
Consider the thought that languages and thus blueprints are arbitrary in that they
use arbitrary symbols to represent ideas. A change or evolution of a symbol does not
necessarily correlate to an equivalent change in the attached idea. If a symbol
changes, even a little bit, the attached idea may simply disappear, leaving the “new”
symbol without any recognized function. The symbol is now meaningless. For
example, what if the blueprint for our house in question called for “wooden shingles.”
Each of the words, “wooden” and “shingles” is an arbitrary group of symbols that
read “tile shingles”, the understood change in meaning and the resultant change in
established alleles for “tile shingles” are available in the blueprint pool of trait options, is
there any way to create the “tile allele” from anything that already exists in the gene
pool?
The problem for gradual change is that each letter change must make sense. If
“wood” is changed to “hood”, the actual word “hood” has meaning. However, is the
meaning for “hood” any closer to the meaning for “tile”? Even though hood has
meaning, does it have beneficial meaning in this case? What does “hood shingles”
mean?
So, not only does each word of the blueprint have to make sense to the workers, but
the combination or location of the words on the blueprint has to make sense as well or
else the workers cannot make anything, much less something beneficial. Order is
important at all levels of complexity. Amino acid residue order is important for the
proper function of a single protein. Also, the order of multiple proteins is important for
the formation of a multiprotein system. Again, if the workers build something that the
foreman cannot recognize as beneficial right now, it will be rejected. It is as simple as
that.
In order to better visualize the problem, put yourself in place of the foreman. You
can only select based on functions that work “right now.” With this in mind, consider the
phrase, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” 6 Now, add, subtract, or change one letter at a
time from the phrase in any position or order that you want. There are just two more
little rules to this game. Each change that you make must make sense in English and
each change must be beneficial in a particular situation/environment. See how far you
can go and how much change in meaning you can get. Changing the meaning very far
is a lot more difficult than one might think even if the beneficial nature of the change is
not a concern.
Nature runs into this same little problem. Changing genetic sequences too much
destroys all phenotypic function before any new function can be reached. Maintaining a
functional phenotypic trait along the path towards any uniquely functional trait requires
complexity) that do not change the original function and do not achieve new function,
until all the changes are in place.5,12 This is because many functional genetic elements
are isolated from each other like islands on a large ocean of neutral function or even
detrimental function.
Consider the fact that most character sequences of a given length have no meaning
to an English speaking person. The same is true for sequences of DNA. The vast
majority of potential genes of a given length mean nothing to a given cell. Any gene that
happens to get mutated into one of these unrecognized or neutral genes becomes
suddenly lost in the ocean of neutrality where no guidance is available. Without
Some say that evolution need not work like this but that the mindless processes of
nature evolve new traits and gene pools by simply adding on previously defined genetic
car. The addition of these units enhances the function of the established system, even
to the point of giving it new functions that it never had before. In this way, a simple
Let's try a thought experiment to illustrate this point. Consider the sentence in a
large book of sentences that reads, "I am." Now add any other word onto this
sentence. The only rule is that whatever word you choose must make sense in the
context of the other sentences and the book as a whole. For example, I could add the
pre-formed word, "pleased" and make the new sentence read, "I am pleased." This
makes sense in English and it adds meaning to the sentence (whether or not it makes
sense to the rest of the paragraph is another story). The new word, "pleased" could
have been the result of a duplication mutation of a gene somewhere else that just
happened to get inserted into our sentence. But, if the mutation had read, "I am very",
this phrase does not necessarily make sense in most situations/environments. The
addition of the word "very" probably destroyed the previous function of our sentence
without creating a new function. However, if the phrase "I am pleased" was first to
evolve, the phrase, "I am very pleased" could evolve next and make sense.
With these rules in mind, try and keep adding on words (or subtracting words) and
see how far you can get given a particular situation/environment. Maybe the next
mutation could read, "I am very pleased Tom." Then, "I am pleased Tom." Then, "I am
Tom." We could also go another route and say, "I am very pleased in Tom." Then, "I
am very pleased in seeing Tom." Then "I am very pleased in seeing Tom run." Then, "I
am very pleased in seeing Tom run fast." Then, "I am very pleased in seeing Tom run
real fast." Then, etc. etc. etc. We can evolve quite a few different phrases with quite a
few unique meanings with the simple addition or subtraction of previously defined
words. Could genes in DNA do the same thing? Technically yes, but there are just a
Remember that not every defined word that exists in English will make sense when
added to the phrase, "I am." Granted, the odds that one will make sense seem to be
fairly good though. However, the longer our sentence gets, the less words there are
that make sense when they are added to our sentence in the context of a specific
situation/environment. Consider also that the placement of the words within our
sentence is extremely vital to the functionality of the sentence. I might say, "I am
green." This phrase makes sense in English. But what if the word "green" had been
inserted into the wrong place? The sentence could just as easily have "evolved" to
read, "I agreenm." This makes no sense in English and destroys the function of a
previously functional sentence. Consider also that the duplication mutation could have
occurred or been inserted into an area of the book of sentences where it was not
needed. What are the odds that it would land in exactly the right "evolving" sentence in
exactly the right position within that sentence when there are potentially millions of other
locations it could have landed? Then consider that the sentence itself, even if it might
make sense by itself, must make sense as it relates with the other sentences around it
and in the rest of the book. If any of these problems arise, that sentence is lost in the
If the theory of evolution runs into such apparently difficult statistical problems, how
is it that this theory can be so earnestly presented as the only "rational" answer to the
(Back to Top)
Debates:
Ladder of Complexity
Evolving Bacteria
Irreducible Complexity
Crop Circles
Function Flexibility
Neandertal DNA
Human/Chimp phylogenies
Geology
Fish Fossils
Matters of Faith