DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) -The Genetic Wonder That Invalidates Evolutionary Thought

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) – THE GENETIC WONDER THAT INVALIDATES EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT

 

 

The DNA Molecule & the Genetic Code

In 1953 James Watson (1928 – ), an American geneticist and Francis Crick (1916-2004), a British born biologist, made a  scientific breakthrough that was beyond the expectations of even the most passionate and optimistic of scientists. The scholars discovered, deep within the nucleus of the living cell, a wondrous genetic molecular structure, later to be termed deoxyribonucleic acid or acronymically, DNA. Watson and Crick received the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1962.

Over sixty years since Watson and Crick’s amazing discovery, scientists still have not learned remotely close to everything there is to know about the remarkable double helix shaped DNA molecule and the awesome genetic code contained within the structure. Much information about the code embedded within the molecule has been deciphered though i.e. significantly more than is enough to raise serious questions about the origin of life hypotheses as promoted by evolutionary scholarship.

In the process of studying the code embedded within the DNA molecule, scientists discovered the presence of an astounding genetic language comprising some three billion genetic letters. DNA stores information in the form of a four-letter code that translates into detailed instructions for assembling proteins – the molecules required for the structure, function and regulation of an organism’s living cells, tissues and organs, in addition to other unique functions.

A startling revelation of the DNA molecule is the almost immeasurable volume of information it contains. Although the DNA molecule is a structure only about two millionths of a millimeter thick, scientists acknowledge human DNA has the capacity to house information equal to the volume of data contained in 12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica. Molecular biologist Michael Denton says:

 …a teaspoon of DNA could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth and there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p.334)

How could a cipher like the DNA genetic code, which is utterly complex and facilitates the utilization of precise instructions; a code supremely more intricate and multifaceted than even the most advanced computer program ever devised, come about accidentally? Evolutionists try to say such an event did take place, but can they adequately substantiate their claim? No!

How could the extraordinary amount of information contained in a DNA molecule, including the awesome genetic code therein, which boasts over three billion genetic “letters” arranged to produce an exclusive communication system, be housed in such a miniscule cellular structure as a two-millionth of a millimeter thick double strand? How could such a genetic code originate by chance or come into being without the involvement of a superlative engineer? Evolutionists intimate they can, but can they bolster their position with even remotely persuasive arguments? No!

 

The Genetic Code – A Sophisticated Language

Scientists have determined the DNA genetic code satisfies all the requirements for classification as a high-level language. Authentic, complete languages are all human inventions and include such artificial languages as computer codes and Morse codes. Certain animals reach out to their kind via low-level communication signals. However, such communication does not incorporate all the fundamental features of a comprehensive language. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft said:

DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we’ve ever devised.

A high-level language, of which the DNA genetic code is a superlative example, can spring from only intelligent sources. Lee Strobel, the American attorney and journalist turned religionist, in his book, The Case for a Creator, remarks:

The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it’s not simply orderly like salt crystals, but is complete and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task – the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities. (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p.244)

 

Francis Crick, the British born biologist and agnostic, who was a member of the team of scientists that discovered the DNA genetic code and who, along with the other team members, spent countless hours deciphering the code, acknowledged the high degree of improbability of the cipher having a fortuitous or happenstance origin. In Life Itself, Crick admits:

 …an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which should have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”(Francis Crick, Life Itself, 1981, p.88)

 

It is eminently rational to suggest the DNA genetic code is an extraordinarily intricate instruction manual designed by an intellect far superior to the human mind. To think such a cipher evolved over many millions or billions of years to what it is today, after an accidental beginning, contradicts elemental reason. Countless millions of changes through natural selection and chance mutations, if indeed they actually took place, could not have gradually changed a particular information system within the organic cell to another functional information program. Mutations generally are never progressive in nature. Whenever they do occur, mutations are regressive and degenerative.

Another stupefying observation about the DNA genetic code is the unquestionable relevance of the four-letter digital coding system to the ideal storage, translation and transmission of information required for the manufacture of protein molecules from which living tissue emerges. Mathematical logistics confirm that the perfect numerical arrangement for storage, retrieval and transcription of data or information takes the form of a four-letter combination. A four-letter digital code is resident in the genes of every living thing on Earth. It follows that the coding system within the cells of living beings represents the most advantageous configuration imaginable or available. Such a realization lends strong support for the argument that life was the outcome of a purposeful, creative act and it did not originate through chance or accidental occurrences.

Over the hundred and fifty plus years since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of the Species, science has made monumental strides in garnering information about the organic cell. Indeed, a virtual universe beckons, and continuous exploration yields a seemingly endless stream of mind-boggling facts. This hitherto unprecedented volume of information presents an embarrassing dilemma for evolutionists and other secular scientists, as they no longer can conveniently attempt to counter objection to their previously convenient surmises about the origin of life as they did when scientific scholarship advocated the cell was simply a minute protoplasmic structure. The amazing complexity of the living cell, along with the staggering intricacy of its DNA molecule and embedded genetic code and its predisposition to help in the manufacture of protein molecules, leave evolutionists, many of them robotic adherents of a hypothesis of bewildering unscientific conjecture from the outset, wandering in a sea of indecision and incomprehension. It is execrable scientists and secular educators around the world never divulge to hapless, gullible students of science, the multitudinous problems facing evolutionary theory. This fact notwithstanding, more and more scientists are seriously questioning the purported validity of evolutionary theory, many of them to the point of abandoning the scientifically unsound and unproven hypothesis altogether.

The DNA phenomenon understandably stirs the sensibilities of the staunchest of evolutionists, and of agnostics and atheists as well. Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, USA, a biologist and skeptic who wrote extensively in support of Darwinism, renounced his convictions in this regard after learning about the voluminous, startling information revealed through study of the cell and its DNA molecule. In one of his later publications, Kenyon reflects:

This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth

Renowned atheist Professor Anthony Flew recanted his skepticism after he realized he could not fathom how DNA could have originated accidentally and have developed through evolution. In a December 9, 2004 Associated Press article, Leading Atheist Now Believes in God, Flew remarked:

What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary, diverse elements together.

 

Genetic Mutations Contradict, Rather Than Support Evolution

Evolutionists have touted random genetic mutation for scores of decades as one of the three pillars of evolutionary evidence, the other two being natural selection and the fossil record. Charles Darwin, strangely enough, did not accord much importance to random and unusual changes observed in the study of different species of organisms. He seemed to think such variations were of little consequence in the evolutionary process and if anything, would impede rather than facilitate progress or success in the quest for survival.

Mutations are changes in the genetic code. They are random mistakes made when genes copy information.  During the time of Darwin, in the late 19th century, scientists knew precious little about genetic principles and the function of genes. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), the noted Austrian biochemist and anthropologist and Augustinian monk, conducted studies in the field of genetics and published his findings in 1866, about seven years after Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species first appeared in print. Scientists largely overlooked Mendel’s work at the time.

Shortly after the turn of the 20th century, there emerged renewed interest in the study of genetics. Hugo de Vries (1848-1935), the Dutch botanist, reintroduced the principles of genetics to the scientific world as he sought to emphasize the possible significance of mutations, as opposed to the importance of natural selection, in explaining the evolutionary process. De Vries promoted such teachings notwithstanding the prevailing conclusion by most scientists that mutations were genetic mistakes that negatively affected the growth and progress of a living organism. Evolutionists were elated, and unhesitatingly followed de Vries’ lead.

Sir Julian Huxley (1887-1975), the English biologist and obsessive advocate of Darwinism, sought to manipulate the sensibilities of those who were willing to listen by labeling the degenerative and uncertain nature of mutations as unpredictable changes that sometimes may facilitate the evolution of living organisms. In his book Evolution in Action, Huxley stated:

Mutation…provides the raw material for evolution; it is a random affair and takes place in all directions. (J. Huxley, Evolution in Action, 1953, p.38)

Huxley’s musings, as illogical and befuddling as they were, nevertheless helped reenergize what had become by then, diminished attentiveness to the role of genetic mutational effects on so-called evolutionary activity.

 

Genetic Mutations Are Harmful, Not Beneficial

What has nearly a hundred years of genetic research revealed? Such studies have demonstrated mutations are pathological errors and do not represent helpful changes in the genetic code! Scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports this assertion. Genes make a copying mistake once in every ten million attempts at cell division. This fact contradicts, in no uncertain manner, the supposition that mutational effects may enable or enhance the evolution of life. Genetic mutations, firstly, are almost always harmful and lead to a weakened plant or a sick or malformed creature or organism. Secondly, mutations are so infrequent it is irrational to consider their incidence as being remotely germane to any hypothesis at all. Given the profound improbability of a genetic mutation being beneficial to an organism and the infinitesimal chance of such a mutation occurring in the first place, it is scientifically imprudent to suggest two such variables may operate in concert to produce a positive outcome under any set of circumstances whatsoever.

Professor C.P. Martin, an evolutionist at McGill University, Montreal, Canada mused:

Mutation is a pathological process which has had little or nothing to do with evolution. (C. P. Martin, A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, American Scientist, January 1953, p.100)

After much research in the field, Martin concluded mutations were overwhelmingly negative and never productive or creative. When it occurred, a beneficial mutation pointedly was only corrective of a harmful modification that probably occurred in the past.

British science journalist, design engineer and avocational geologist Richard Milton sheds more light on the effects of mutational changes when he observes:

The results of such copying errors are tragically familiar. In body cells, faulty replication shows itself as cancer. Sunlight’s mutagenic (mutation-inducing) power causes skin cancer; the cigarette’s mutagenic power causes lung cancer. In sexual cells, faulty reproduction of whole chromosome number 21 results in a child with Down’s syndrome. (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p.156)

Phillip Johnson, a law professor and one of the founders of the “Intelligent Design” movement, makes the following statement about a mutational occurrence.

To suppose that such a random event could reconstruct even a single complex organ like a liver or kidney is about as reasonable as to suppose that an improved watch can be designed by throwing an old one against a wall. (Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991, p.37)

The genetic error/entry ratio is 1:10,000,000 and as scientists intimate, such an extrapolation is an overwhelming inference. Since such an error or mutation is almost always harmful the  supposition  by  evolutionists  that  a  genetic  mistake  can  aid and abet so-called evolutionary activity is a patently far-fetched and nonsensical surmise. The assumption is also glaringly unscientific.

Notwithstanding the extreme rarity of genetic mutations, such harmful errors, should they accumulate, could pose serious problems for the species of animal experiencing the change. A species, instead of progressing, would eventually degenerate and die. There seems to be, however, an innate self-correcting provision in the genetic systems of living organisms – a provision that smacks of intelligent design and execution. Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and science writer, and an individual who is particularly at odds with the concept of Darwinian evolution, attributes the origin of life to some kind of cosmic, extraordinarily intelligent force. Although Hitching is not a creationist or even a theistic evolutionist (one who simultaneously believes in God and evolution), he makes an interesting observation in The Neck of the Giraffe. Hitching says:

The genetic code in each living thing has its own built-in limitations. …It seems designed to stop a plant or creature stepping too far away from the average…Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities. Genes are a strong influence for conservatism, and allow only modest change. Left to their own devices, artificially bred species usually die out (because they are sterile or less robust) or quickly revert to the norm.’ (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, New American Library, 1982, pgs. 54-55)

 

Christopher H.K. Persaud

May 23rd 2017

 

 About Christopher H. K. Persaud

Christopher Hugh Kawal Persaud is an apologetics writer and poet whose main areas of interest are Bible prophecy and Origins theory. Vocationally, Christopher is a financial services professional who has been engaged in these fields for over forty years.

Christopher has written eight full length books to date, four of which have won nine international awards. His first book of poetry is due to be released soon.

Christopher hails from Guyana, South America, and has been living in the USA for the thirty-five years or so. He is married to Pamela and together, they have three sons. They live in New Milford, New Jersey.

Please visit Christopher’s website at  www.christopherhkpersaud to learn more about his writings and poetry.

Comments are closed.