DNA Demands Creation By Design


DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a very large polymer (a string of two or more molecules) which contains more than a billion molecules. It is normally referred to as a very long spiraling ladder or helix. This long ladder is composed of nucleotides which are sets of three different molecules. Each nucleotide has a phosphate and the sugar, deoxyribose. These two molecules alternate to make up the sides of the ladder. Each sugar molecule is attached to one of four different nitrogen bases which attach to another nitrogen base from the other side of the ladder to make the rungs of the ladder. These nitrogen bases, adonine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, are the molecules which provide the programming for the structure and function of the cell.

In the same way that we use two digits (1 and 0) as the basis for programming our computers, our cells use four digits for their programming. It is a very complex process based on the movement of molecules which I previously explained is caused by molecules changing shape. (I will try to keep this as simple as possible but remember that just the basics normally take two or more weeks to teach at the high school level. Fortunately, there will not be an exam at the end of this free lesson. :-)

In a nut shell, a strand of mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) is used to make a copy of a piece of one DNA strand replacing the nitrogen base thymine with the nitrogen base uracil. This mRNA carries this tiny blue print out into the cell where the blue print is used to make a protein molecule. The protein molecule is carried to the appropriate spot in the cell where it reacts with another molecule to change shape and create motion so the cell can function.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.

Micro and Macro Evolution

DNA is very important because it finally provides us with a very precise definition of micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors. If a new phenotype (physical structure) is caused by a gene which was present but recessive in any of the parent organisms, then that must be micro evolution.

A good example of micro evolution would be if our little tribe of people who all had brown eyes but had the "hidden" trait for blue eyes caused by a "recessive" gene, went off to some isolated area and lived out of touch with any other people. Over a period of generations, due to death, disease, or what ever, we bred out all of the genes for brown eyes so that we only had the genes for blue eyes and everyone now has only blue eyes. This can only be defined as micro evolution because the gene for blue eyes was already present in the parent organisms. Micro evolution works fine with both creation and evolution models. The debate is about macro evolution and not micro evolution.

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?

One Base Strand

Evolution had a very serious problem in the 1970's. There wasn't one piece of biological evidence supporting the evolution of life. Then someone discovered in the late 1970's that every living organism on this planet has the same base strand of DNA. Evolutionists quickly grabbed hold of this as biological proof that we all have one common ancestor. It became their biological banner.

You have to understand that evolution is a random process which requires the use of mathematics to analyze its probability. So, instead of blindly swallowing this claim, I decided to analyze the claim with the use of genetics and mathematics to see if it really proves evolution or does it actually prove creation (remember that at this time I was still an evolutionist.) Below is my analysis.

In one strand of DNA there are more than one billion molecules with 1/3 of them being the programming nitrogen bases. Since there are four different nitrogen bases used for the programming, we have 333+ million to the fourth power different possible molecular structures which equals 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power. For simplicity's sake, I rounded this down to 122 x 10 to the 32nd power. It actually works out to the advantage of the evolutionists giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time. Now let's make a very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these structures could support any form of living organism. To do this you subtract the number of zeros in one billion (9) from the exponent 32. This equals 23, so we still have 122 x 10 to the 23rd power possible DNA strands that should have come into existence at the same time.

Next we make another very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these strands would have survived four billion years of evolution. This means that for every DNA strand that survived until today, 999,999,999 strands became extinct which is extremely conservative. This would be a very high rate of extinction. That leaves us with 122 x 10 to the 14th power which is 122 with 14 zeros behind it. It would look like this: 12,200,000,000,000,000. There is a little problem with this; there are only two to three million different species on the planet or 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.

With this in mind, by the most phenomenally conservative estimate which grossly favors evolution to the extreme, there must be tens of thousands of different base strands of DNA for evolution to be true. This is an absolute requirement.

The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities. For evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accurately place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family and not be able to move species around the way evolutionists do today.

Then how do you get one base strand in all organisms?

Let's say we go where man has never gone before to the planet I mentioned on the page for the feasibility analysis. When we decide to use molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on our new planet, would you reinvent a new base strand of DNA for each new organism or use the same base strand and simply make the modifications and additional strands needed for each new organism? Of course you are not going to reinvent the DNA strand every time you create a new organism. That would be stupid. So every organism on our planet would have the same base strand. Therefore, a single base strand of DNA for all organisms proves creation by design and disproves evolution. On the other hand, I guess this does mean that we all had one common ancestor...God. See, we evolutionists were partly right. :-)

Home Page

The Fossils