Episode Transcript
Hello and welcome to Science Conversations a series examining the intersection of science and faith. I'm Dr. Barry Harker and my guest today is Dr.
John Ashton. This is my fourth conversation with Dr. Ashton based upon his book Evolution Impossible twelve Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of Life on Earth.
Today, we're examining the reasons why new types of organisms cannot evolve by random mutations. Dr. Ashton is a chemist working in the field of food chemistry and has a PhD.
In epistemology which is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of knowledge and truth. Welcome, John. Hi.
Welcome, Barry. John, the evolution of new types of organisms from random mutations via the mechanism of natural selection is the cornerstone of the neo Darwinian, or modern synthesis of evolution. The modern synthesis has been described as an inescapable fact, after looking at the evidence, you say that it's impossible so that we are aware of what is not possible.
Give us an example of what the neodarwinian or modern synthesis claims is happening in evolution. Well, over 150 years ago, darwin proposed that there were mutations and small changes that over a period of time would accumulate and that forces of nature would select the best surviving changes. And that over millions of years we have all the different forms of life evolving from some very simple form of life up to humans today and all the other creatures and plants and so forth that we know now.
Since the discovery of DNA and the genetic code people have been mapping the genetic codes of these different species and they have shown similarities in the code. So sequences in the code that are similar. And on this basis they're attempting to demonstrate that the evolution pathways or the trees where different organisms have evolved from one organism to another according to their theory and this is based on the similarities of the DNA the problem that we're facing is and the problem that they're facing is that mutations generally damage the code.
And this is well recognized matter of fact. A lead article in Scientific American that was published in Two Nine pointed out that most of the mutations that we get actually cause problems and there are very, very few mutations that actually lead to something that is beneficial. And so we now have a massive, massive problem for the neodarwinian scenario.
How does the new genetic information form? Because huge amounts of genetic information are required say for a little worm to develop, legs to evolve, say, into some AnthroPod or insect or something. The amount of code, additional code that has to form by mutations is enormous. And how can this happen? All the studies to date have shown that in actual fact it doesn't happen.
And I guess for many listeners we learn about evolution at school. It's taught to us as if it happens. But in actual fact no one has observed the type of evolution that would cause these major structures occurring it has never been observed and to date there's no known mechanism for it so what evidence has actually been given for random mutations, natural selection and evolution? Well, there's the fossil record.
The fossil record is cited. Well, look, these changes occurred over time, but of course, the intermediates aren't there. There should be millions of intermediates.
So essentially people say, well, evolution must have happened because, look, we've got all these changes in the fossil record and of know, Richard Dawkins essentially says that the genome contains this information that enables the best survival and there's a huge diversity in the genome and that this is selected by natural selection. Well, that's fine, but where did this huge diversity originally come from? Where did the code come from? He hasn't answered that question and that question remains so what's the exact evidence that Richard Dawkins is bringing forward in relationship to evolution? Well, he really doesn't have direct evidence of new, entirely new species evolving. He doesn't have that evidence.
If we say for example, take his book Evolution the Greatest Show on Earth, he has lots of examples of say he will talk about male guppies in a pond where there are a lot of predators and the predators are removed or they get into a situation where there aren't predators around. Then suddenly the male guppies develop colors to attract the females and therefore they have a much higher chance of breeding and reproducing compared to the dull colored male guppies. But again, all these examples that he is citing are examples of preexisting genetic code that was already there.
For evolution to occur, to produce a new major body part you've got to have new code. New code has to come from somewhere. And Dawkins doesn't talk about this.
He gives other examples. For example, he talks about the women in Nairobi that have developed resistance to HIV. Now this is because a particular gene, I think it's a CCR gene that isn't functioning properly.
Now this gene actually enables the, provides a transporter system so that the HIV virus can enter cells. When that gene is damaged by a mutation, the HIV virus can't enter the cells. Therefore and the transporter mechanism production is actually down regulated as well.
It's only a small amount of material that was removed when the gene was damaged I think was about 30, 32 base pairs were actually removed. But it was enough to stop that gene functioning which now meant that the HIV virus couldn't enter the cells, which meant that these women are now immune to HIV. And Dawkins says, well, this is evolution in action.
This is demonstrating, and I think in his words he says the unstoppable force of sort of natural selection and evolution. But what it is is it's the loss of preexisting information. It's damaged code that in that particular situation does offer an advantage.
It's not some new code forming, it's a damaged code. How the downside is that what we find is whenever we do damage well, not whenever, but in many cases when we damage the code it causes other problems. And so what we find is that these women, because of that slight damage to the Code, that mutation makes them very vulnerable to a very serious liver.
So the claim that we've produced some evolutionary benefit in one area in this case that Dawkins cites in actual fact produces a serious health problem. And yet Dawkins doesn't refer to this. He doesn't discuss that problem, as far as I can recall, in his book, anyway.
So this is the sort of misleading information that is out there. And I think one of the ways that we need to understand is that the term evolution is used in a number of different ways. And this is where the confusion comes about.
And perhaps I can talk about this and explain this at this particular time. So change is not necessarily evolution? Well, yes, it comes under the classification of evolution. Change of small changes that occur, we talk about as evolution.
So the fundamental aspect of evolution is that a large number of small changes will produce a significant large change that we then will observe. So we can observe the small changes. And I guess this is why you say that much of the evidence is also considered evidence for intelligent design, so that we can see that the small changes happen.
Everyone acknowledges that the real issue is whether these small changes add up to that major change that you were talking about. Well, that's right. We see lots of small changes that take place.
There might be changes in the distribution of color or in the case of the guppies, the changes of the mating colors in the males, or might be a change in the slight changes in the sizes and shapes of beaks or the wings of beetles might become slightly changed in one way or another. But essentially the same organism is there. It's the same species.
Well, sometimes over a long period of time, we might classify them as a slightly different species, but they'll still interbreed. That's the important characteristic. And these small changes do occur.
We don't deny that. The major problem that the major issue that evolution claims is that eventually a worm will evolve some legs and form a different type of creature, say an insect or a spider or whatever. That's the issue.
The issue is that you have something that doesn't have a major body part like a leg. And somehow over a period of small of time, small changes occur so that you have a leg or it might be an eye. The worm goes from being having no eyes to a little creature that has eyes.
And so that's a major change that has occurred. Now, for that to occur, you've got to have a lot of information to go from no eye to go to an eye. So the first creature that developed an eye.
And of course the evolutionary scenario is well, there were certain cells that were sensitive to light and these actually changed slightly and became more sensitive to light and then over a period of time have these that they could transmit signals to the brain and eventually we have the concept of sight. So these are the changes that they claim. The one thing is that we don't find sufficient intermediate species in the fossil record.
We don't see evidence of this happening today in the laboratory or in any creatures in the wild. And thirdly, the amount of information that is required, the amount of changes in the code that the extensive changes in the code are absolutely enormous. Like hundreds and hundreds of new genes are required.
And these genes encoding a lot of information to allow for the structures of an eye, the circulation systems in the eye, the fluids that are circulated, the actual physical structures of the eye, the nervous nerve connectors and so forth in the eye, the optic pathways all these things have to be encoded for and also coordinated with changes in the brain to be able to interpret this data and incorporate it. And so these are major change. Similarly, with the development of a leg, if it has a bone structure then we have to encode for all the structures of the bones, all the joints, the surfaces of the joints, the tendons, the ligaments, the nerves, the blood system and so forth.
And the codes for all these structures are extremely complex and somehow all that information has to form. Perhaps the easiest way to describe this would be if we considered, say, think about a VW car, a beetle car. And we can all imagine little herbie beetle, one of those beetles.
Now, if they're made in a factory by robots, those robots follow a code, a computer code, and they assemble the VW according to that code. The robots now let's say that there's a damage to the code and part of the code can't be read anymore. So as a result, when the robot is assembling the VW car it leaves off the doors and the mudguards and the hood and the bonnet.
These sort of parts of the car are left off. So we now have a lighter car and that car would be selected, say for people that wanted to drive it over sand dunes because it's lighter. So we've lost code.
Now, most of the examples of evolution that we see in textbooks involve that sort of change where there's something there. And they've lost code. Talked about this the other week.
We've got the wingless beetles. They lost part of the code to fully develop wings, these sort of things. So if losing code is the normal thing then you're not going to be adding features, are you? No.
And that's the issue, isn't we've got to be adding features. Exactly. We're producing change and so this is claimed as evolution.
And of course it is. It's change and we're producing that. And that may happen solely or quickly.
And it occurs as a result of damaged code or the loss of code, and it occurs in breeding. The example, for example, cited in the Smithsonian in their display of Darwinian evolution looked at mice that moved into a desert area. And so the dark mice could easily, more easily be seen by the owls.
So the dark mice were eaten in preference over to the light fur mice. The light fur mice remained to breed. Very few dark fur mice bred.
And so essentially there was a color change to all the light colored mice. Now, that's an evolutionary change. Another classic example is the moths.
During the Industrial Revolution, all the suit over all the trees and buildings meant that any of the light colored moths were easily seen and picked off by the birds. And so you had this distribution in color changed. So they talk about this as evolution.
And sure, those examples of evolution occur and the textbooks are full of them. And so people think, wow, okay, so this is evidence of evolution and this is the sort of evidence for evolution that Dawkins claims. But what it is is it's the loss of code that occurs.
There's no new code, which means really, essentially, doesn't it, that these creatures are not going to turn into something else if they're losing code? No, exactly. And this is the major problem for the theory of evolution. Where did the DNA codes from? The DNA codes are enormous if we're looking at the codes for mammals, like a mouse, two and a half billion base pairs in the code, about 4 billion base pairs in humans.
If we're looking at wheat, 20 billion base pairs in wheat in the code for wheat, huge amount of genetic code in some of these seeds. They have quite complex biochemistry and regulatory mechanisms so that they sprout at just the right time and don't sprout too soon under the wrong climatic conditions and thus die. Where did these codes come from? They're not just simple codes of 100 words or something like we'd write in a paragraph.
These are codes that are like a set of textbooks, encyclopedia, and the codes have to be precise. It's sort of like imagining, and I think I might have referred to this earlier the operation manual for a nuclear submarine arising. How could that code that successfully would operate a nuclear submarine how could that arise by chance by some two year old typing on a typewriter? It's never going to happen, let alone the fact that the code requires specific chemical reactions to occur to synthesize the molecule that constitutes the code.
And those reactions don't occur naturally in nature. I mean, this is why James Mtur and for those listeners, they could perhaps Google him james Mtur. Tour and slash evolution or and evolution.
He is one of the most highly cited chemists in the world. He is a synthetic chemist. He designs new molecules.
He builds new molecules. And one of the challenges that he says is, I would like somebody to sit down to me with me and explain to me how evolution can happen, because I can't see how the code can be built, how the code can be chemically built to produce all these new codes. Now, he is, as I said, one of the most highly cited chemists in the world.
He builds new molecules, but how could that code be built? And he's put that challenge out in public, and he says no one has come. No one has come to him and sat down with him and explained to him how evolution can happen. And I think this is something where people where listeners, if they're not aware to it, need to understand.
Scientists don't know how evolution can happen. They don't know how the formation of new code can occur. We know what has to happen, don't we? We know that we have to add to the code novel features that are not there in the existing code.
That's right. So that's the test, and that's a major, major challenge for them. And all the information is pointing to it being impossible.
I think. Another thing, again, another classic example, say, is the example of the guppies and environmental pressures that Dawkins talks about, where he says where there's predators enter the system, it actually causes stress in the guppies themselves, and they actually then don't produce colors. It switches off the color mechanism.
And that is a survival thing. But it's inbuilt. And it's sort of like if we go back to our VW illustration, it's like if we had a VW convertible and it's put together by the robots and it comes out as a VW convertible and it's got the top on it, the canvas top on it.
Or these days, I think they're metal actually, as well. And it goes out. The owner's driving along, and the sunshine comes out, and so he presses a little button, and he or she presses a little button, and the top comes down.
So we have actually now changed the physical form of this car. It no longer has a roof over the top, but all the mechanism to do that was already in place. The electric motors, the levers, the little button was all there, but it was dormant.
But an environmental change stimulated the owner to press that button, and the hood went down. And we now changed the physical structure of the car. But the thing is, the code for that was already there.
The code was there in the computer program for the robots to assemble it, and they assembled that information. And so these are the sort of examples that we see in the textbooks that are claimed as evidence for evolution. Well, they are evidence for evolution, but not the type of evolution that Darwin envisaged that would produce a new type of organism.
So the theoretical construct is that evolution would be able to create these novel features and change an animal from one form to another. And you're really saying that that's impossible because virtually all the examples we have is the DNA code being degraded. Well, that's right.
These are the common examples that occur in textbooks. There's more, of course. I mean, under the mechanisms, under new synthesis where they're trying to explain this, they look at duplication systems and that's another error where a code can be duplicated or you can have a genetic code that is in one area transferred to another organism.
So for example, this happens in this is one of our understanding of the Mage origin of a lot of the current food poisoning bacteria that we have where toxin genes from a highly toxic bacteria that wouldn't normally survive in us because it didn't have acid resistant genes and adherence genes, these sort of things. But the parts of the code responsible for toxins are transferred say into a fairly harmless bacteria like E. Coli and that now becomes a highly toxic species that now can survive in us.
So there's been a transfer of code across and that would be like in the robot VW factory. The robots somehow where you have a VW truck there and somehow they take a part that's meant to go on the VW truck maybe a larger wheel or a larger bumper bar and they put that on the VW car by mistake. And so now we have a VW car that can go through the bush because it has big wheels, these sort of things.
Or we have the Duplication situation. You may have the robot makes a mistake and it duplicates the steering system and so you have a VW car with two steering wheels which would be selected by a learner driver school. But in all these cases we're using preexisting codes that were already there.
But where did new codes come from? See, the claim that evolution is really trying to claim is that, hang on, there's going to be an error in the code. And suddenly the robots are going to be putting caterpillar tracks on the VW, or they're going to be putting armor plate on the VW, or they're going to be putting a cannon or a machine gun on the know, and therefore an army tank will evolve or a bulldozer will evolve from the VW. That's the sort of changes that are required for Darwinian evolution to occur.
But in the VW factory there's no code for caterpillar tracks, there's no codes for a cannon or a machine gun, there's no codes for armor plate. They would require entirely new computer programs and components to make those changes. But the argument that the evolutionists say is when they look at the fossil record well they say well look, an army tank has maybe a four cylinder engine and it has a seat and it has a steering wheel and it has brake pedals.
Therefore it must have evolved. They look at some sort of similarity but that's the major issue that evolution has and that's no evidence we never see in the factory the VW evolving into an army tank or a bulldozer. For evolution to occur in the normal sense of simple to complex you would have to have a code becoming more and more complex as you get more and more complex creatures.
But really what you're saying is that the codes are complex in the beginning, even the simplest form of life has an immensely complex code and that it's being degraded by these mutations that are taking place. So really it comes down to DNA, doesn't it? If the DNA is not changing there's not going to be novel features. Could you take us through the three ways that you've listed in your book that DNA can change? One was removal of genetic information, the second one was transfer of genetic information and the third one was generation of totally new information.
Would you just take us through those three? Yes. I think this is a very important concept to understand that the term evolution can be used to cover a number of different things. And I've discussed those, just referred to them just briefly, the type of scenarios, if we look at it in terms of try and picture it in terms of a VW.
And it's the confusion of these different types of evolution that has led the claim that because one type of evolution occurs, that another type of evolution occurs. And this is where there's a major gap. So in my book I set it out and I describe them in that we've got type one evolution, we've got type two evolution and type three evolution.
Our type one evolution is where we have the loss of code. So we have a DNA code in an organism and part of that code is damaged. It might be physically damaged by some sort of radiation or chemically damaged with some sort of chemical in the environment or during replication.
There may be an error in the replication system. So part of the code is left out or part of the code is incorrectly copied. And so that results in a loss of information.
And there's a change. And most evolution is of that, most claims for evolution of that type, aren't they where the information is simply being removed? Yes. So a classic example would be say we have Gene X that is responsible for turning off gene Y.
So Gene X is there, it's active and the fact that it's active, it stops gene Y from being active and Gene Y is just sitting there dormant. We then chemically damage gene X or environmentally damage Gene X. What happens now is it doesn't have its switching off function anymore and gene Y is now activated and begins some new process.
Now, when this is observed physically on the outside, we say oh wow, this is a change that has taken place. This is an example of evolution. We have a classic example of this in the area that I'm involved in is we're looking at, for example, types of grains that are going to digest more slowly and hence have what we call a lower glycemic index and therefore be better for people who are susceptible to diabetes.
Now, if we have there's a gene that is responsible for the starch granule protein, the SGP gene, GP one. Now, if that gene is damaged, the grain itself is less likely to produce branch starch. Now branch starches are fairly easily digested.
So if we have less branch starches in the grain, it's going to be more slowly digested. So by damaging that gene, we actually produce a more desirable type of grain for human consumption. So these are the sort of things and so we can say wow, this is better grain.
Now the other thing is too, that through our breeding of grains and many plants and animals for that matter as well, we have lost a lot of codes. This is what selective breeding does. This is what natural selection does.
Natural selection removes codes because we start off with more diverse code, more diverse information in our DNA and then environmentally we select for something that is more favorable in the environment. The other codes that were less favorable die out. So we've lost those codes.
And that's why today, in terms of medical research, in terms of food research, we have scientists are exploring the rainforest, they're exploring the underdeveloped regions of the world, hoping to find plants that haven't been tampered with through this selection process of breeding. Because generally speaking, these plants in the wild have much more diverse genetic codes. But where did those codes come from? That's the issue.
So the examples of the type one evolution are the classic examples of where we have the codes being lost, the codes being damaged. Now, what I cast as type two evolution is where we have the transfer of codes from one organism to the other. The classic example in the bacteria transferring a code.
And of course, this is what happens when we genetically engineer foods as well. And we can make soybean plants now that produce an oil that is rich in omega three S and therefore can deliver the omega three benefit without us having to consume fish, given the fish supplies in the world are declining and being overfished. So this is where we have transferred code across and this can happen.
And this is type two, what I would classify as type two evolution. What Darwinian evolution requires is what I call type three evolution. And that is where we produce totally new code.
So we have an organism that doesn't have a code for a leg. We now somehow produce the extra code so we have an organism that has a leg and pelvis system or shoulder system or we now have an organism that has an eye. That new feature of the organism has to come from somewhere.
That new code has to come from somewhere. And I think what many people do not understand is that this is the major research area in biology is to try and work out how can these new codes form. But generally this only is a very tiny little paragraph.
Somewhere in a textbook we have all the other claims of look at the evidence for type one evolution. Look at the evidence for type two evolution. Therefore evolution occurs.
Therefore evolution is a fact. Well, if you define evolution as simply being type one or type two type evolution, sure evolution is a fact. No argument there.
But there's no evidence for type three evolution. And that's the evolution that is pictured in all the textbooks where you see the little chimpan sea slowly evolving into a human or you see the picture of the amphibium slowly evolving into a reptile and into a dinosaur and into birds and so forth. All these chain events.
That's type three evolution. And I think it's important to stress there's absolutely no known mechanism at the present time how type three mechanism can occur. It has never been observed in the laboratory.
And again, there's no explanation for this. This is a major area of research to try and work out how this type of evolutionist can happen. But yet this is what is claimed that this is how things can happen.
When we look at the complexity of the code, though, from biochemistry we can see it's absolutely impossible for the complex code to form. Absolutely impossible. And in terms of type two evolution too, I was just thinking of it.
Some people have thought, well, okay, maybe you can breed between different species and produce some interesting hybrids. But if we look, say, at the Gamut cells, the sperm and the egg on the surface of those cells are the specific proteins so that the protein on the egg will only link up with specific protein sites on the sperm and vice versa. And the same with pollen.
And that's why pollen blowing in the wind won't pollen a whole range of plants. So you can't have some sort of totally new species evolving by this mechanism. Some people think that maybe you could, but that is impossible.
So all the time we have mechanisms that go against evolution. We even have DNA repair mechanisms that once the code becomes damaged to a certain extent or any damage in the code, actually DNA has mechanisms or the cell has mechanisms to repair the DNA to actually prevent mutations occurring. Now, has there been any evidence brought forward for type three evolution as you described it, which is the addition of novel information? I understand that in the book there was an example with Lensky's work.
On the bacteria E. Coli and citrate? Oh, yes, certainly. Well, now, Richard Lensky at Michigan State University there is a leading researcher in this particular area, and he and his team have been studying E.
Coli for over 30 years, and they have bred E. Coli through tens of thousands of generations. Now, Richard Dawkins, in his book Evolution the greatest show on Earth, cites Linsky's work.
As a matter of fact, it's in that entire book of about 450 or 470 pages. The only example that the leading proponent of evolution, richard Dawkins, could provide, that I could find anyway, that was that a claimed example of type three evolution was the work done by Lensky. Now, what happened was this lensky took twelve groups of E.
Coli bacteria and bred them. Now, so that was a laboratory experiment, so it didn't get out of control. They fed the bacteria glucose, and they selected bacteria that could not use citrate as a food, so that they could use citrate as a buffer system to maintain the PH in terms of the waste products and the bacteria and so forth.
Now, after about 30,000 generations, there were no really significant changes. But after 30,000 generations, two of the twelve groups suddenly began growing more quickly. And that was an indication that somehow they were getting an extra food.
And what they discovered was that these bacteria were now utilizing citrate for food. Now, Dawkins says, see, this is a classic example. This is a new novel thing that has happened.
The bacteria are now using citrate for food, whereas before they were only using glucose and they couldn't use the citrate. And he makes a really big issue. He talks about it for several pages.
And see, at last, experimental evidence for type three evolution. But when they did more research into this, they found that it was simply the duplication of a particular gene that switches on other genes. And that duplication happened to occur next to a transporter gene that now activated a citrate transporter gene and switched it on, which now meant that the bacteria could use citrate.
And the whole point is that transporter gene was already there. It was just dormant. So it was really an example of type one evolution.
I'm Dr. Barry Hacker, and you're listening to science conversations. My guest is Dr.
John Ashton, author of Evolution Impossible twelve Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of Life on Earth. John has been explaining why new types of organisms cannot evolve by random mutations in even the simplest life forms. When we come back, John will focus on the problems for type three evolution in more complex life forms.
If you have any questions or comments in relation to today's program, you can call three ABM Australia radio within Australia on 024-97-3456, or from outside of Australia on country code 612-497-3456. Our email address is radio at three Abnastralia.org au.
That is radio at the number three AB naustralia all one word au. Our postal address is three ABN, Australia, Inc. PO.
Box seven five two. Morissette, New South Wales 2264, Australia thank you for your prayers and financial support. If you've just joined us.
I'm Dr. Barry Harker and you are listening to science conversations. My guest is Dr.
John Ashton, author of Evolution Impossible twelve Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of Life on Earth. John has been explaining why new types of organisms cannot evolve by random mutations in even the simplest life forms. In this part of the program, John will focus on the problems for this aspect of evolutionary theory in multicellular and more complex life forms.
John, we've noted the seemingly insurmountable problems for the production of new genetic information in single celled organisms. What's the situation when we look at multicellular forms of life, including the most complex creatures? Well, multicellular organisms have unbelievably complex codes. If we look at, say, E.
Coli, and we've been talking about the Lensky experiment with the E. Coli, well, you've got about 4000, 600 million base pairs in E. Coli.
If we just go to a yeast, which is still a single cell organism like brewers yeast, we're up to about 12 million base pairs. So it's 12 million piece of code or lettuce in the code, you might say. If we then go to something like a worm, a simple little worm, like a little nematode, a little round worm that again used in a lot of laboratory experiments, we're up to 97 million base pairs of code.
If we then go from a little round worm up to a mammal like a mouse, we're up to two and a half billion base pairs of code. So a huge complexity in the codes. So we have probability issues arising then, don't we? The probability that these things can arise by chance, we've got massive probability issues.
From a probability viewpoint, even to form a new gene of just something like 100 base pairs would be statistically impossible, would fall into the realm of being impossible. I think the other point to realize is to if we just quickly go back to the laboratory evidence of Lensky. Lensky bred his bacteria through 30,000 generations.
And there was a claim that there was new code. When we examined the claim, and of course this was later published in the literature, in actual fact, it was just upregulation of a preexisting gene. Lensky continued to breed those bacteria and I think they're now up to 50 or 60,000 generations.
The important thing is they're still E. Coli bacteria. They haven't even evolved into a different genus of different genus.
They haven't even evolved into a different species of bacteria, let alone a different genus of bacteria. So the evidence for evolution occurring, producing a new type of organism, just isn't there. Now for that bacteria to evolve into a yeast, which is still a single cell organism, as I said a few moments ago, somehow you've got to find another seven and a half million code letters to put in there.
You've got to insert another seven and a half million little amino acids in the code. Now, this is a major biochemical problem. How do you insert all those amino acids to make that code? And it's got to be a code that works.
The code has to work. It's got to function when we know that just small changes in the code, like in the case just removing 40 or 50 pieces in certain parts of the code, can make very significant differences. It can stop genes being switched on.
And a lot of these small changes can result in diseases. So this is a major problem from the point of view of biochemistry. How do you construct the new DNA codes? And the number of codes that are required are absolutely massive.
Like, it rolls off the tongue, okay, you've got bacteria, and the bacteria can evolve into different bacteria. And that happened in the past. Okay? So I can't remember offhand how many known species of bacteria there are, but let's say there's sort of 1030 thousand or 10,000 or 30,000 different types of bacteria that are known.
All those bacteria have different codes, and yet they're just bacteria. Where did all those codes come from? And all those codes have to work once we get to these higher organisms like worms and insects and this sort of thing where you've got hundreds of millions of pieces in the code, pair of bases in the code, and you've got to synthesize these together. You've got to actually construct these codes.
And these codes have to work. You just can't put in a random piece of code here because you can put an extra leg on the insect. But where are all the other bits to make it work, to connect it to the rest of the hydraulic system, to connect it to the rest of the nerve system, to the brain, all these things.
You've got amazingly insurmountable problems, particularly when you come to reproduction, and you've got asexual reproduction or male female type reproduction, where you have complementary reproductive organs that have different physical structures and are extremely complex in how they function. All those codes, the codes for those have to actually form together, but they're very different codes, but yet they have to match up. But all these codes have to be constructed by chemical reactions linking together chemical compounds in a particular sequence.
And what we know is that, as James MTU points out, how is this chemistry going to know? The chemists who build molecules are saying, hang on, you just can't build these sort of molecules. It just doesn't happen in nature and very difficult in laboratory as well. And the other thing is you've got people like Lee Spetner, who taught at Harvard, and John Hopkins.
He's a biophysicist, and he's done a lot of work on the statistical probability in these areas. And for the codes to form for these complex, more complex molecules. It's just absolutely impossible, again, from a probability and statistics point of view.
And this material has been published it's been published for it's been known for, well, two decades now. I think it was 1997 that Lee Spetner's first book came out on this, where he details the calculations. And so here we have a senior academic teaching at leading universities specializing in this area, pointing out it can't happen.
It can't happen statistically, we have leading chemists pointing out, saying it can't happen. There's no known biochemistry for the accumulation of these new codes to form. And when we look at the number of organisms that we have out there, I think there are about 2 million cataloged known organisms at the different time, totally different organisms that are cataloged.
And yet this represents only a fraction, one or 2% of the known organisms that have existed in the past via the fossil record. But it gets worse, doesn't it? Because not only the probability and the information theory problems exist, but also most of the code that's ever existed has been destroyed. Well, that's right.
We're losing code. I mean, what we observe is extinction. And the leading etymologist, E.
O. Wilson, again professor at Harvard University, he points out we're just losing genetic code at a tremendous rate. I think the figure is about zero point.
25% of the known species in the world are becoming extinct each year. And this all represents the loss of code, which is irretrievable. Once it's gone, it's gone.
So the actual evidence is indicating that we started with a massive amount of code, and that's degrading over time, whereas evolution requires us to start with a more simple code and work upwards to develop all these complex life forms. That's right. If we say that we have, say, 2 million known types of organisms today existing in the world, that's one or 2% of in the past.
Which means that in the past, you've got one to 200 million species have existed in the past. And essentially, if we look at the fossil record, it's claimed that 99.99% of these have evolved since the Cambrian.
So over past supposed 600 million years, that means that we should see fully functioning, fully developed, totally new organisms evolving every three to five years at least. We should observe that, let alone all the intermediates, all the unsuccessful ones. And so we should at least be able to reproduce this in the laboratory, particularly with high turnover organisms like bacteria.
And yet, as Lensky has demonstrated, we can breed bacteria through 60,000 generations, and they're still the same species of bacteria. There's no observational, experimental evidence for evolution, and this is a very, very important point. And yet scientists are claiming this.
It's claimed in all our textbooks, all our young people are continually being educated, that evolution occurs when we look at the actual data that we have, when we looked at the experimental observation laboratory experiments that we have, it all says, no, no evolution. And we really should call it at this point change, because when we say evolution, we're sort of on a continuum, assuming that the process is actually valid and that it's a type of evolution, when really it's a form of change. What we need for evolution is novel features, and that's not what we're observing.
That's right. We don't observe the formation of these new novel features. And that's very important.
And that's the only way you're going to have your chimpanzee change into an ape, change into a human, or whatever the pathway is, or your amphibian change into a reptile, change into a bird. You got to have the evolution of feathers. That's a totally new structure.
And people have proposed, oh, somehow dinosaur scales changed and this sort of thing. But again, no evidence in the fossil record. So the very important point is that people are hammering the Bible account that God created, but when we look at the evidence, that's exactly what we see.
And the evidence is that there were complete, highly diverse systems, organisms carrying a vast diversity of code in the past, and over a long period of time, we have lost this code. And again, the leading researchers in this area, published in highly regarded journals like Scientific American, lead articles. The authors point out most of the mutations are not beneficial.
Very few mutations ever lead to anything beneficial. And out of those mutations that are beneficial, they all stay within the one species. They don't produce a new species or a new class of organism anyway.
Well, that's a pretty good summary of the evidence that we've looked at today. So the evidence is really for extinction, not evolution. Exactly.
That's what we observe. We should be observing evolution. If they're claimed over these long time frames in the past couple of hundred years, we should have observed a lot of evolution, and we should be able to observe it today and even generate in the laboratory.
And I guess what makes me feel very indignant is that we had people claiming off, we don't teach young people evolution. We're going to hinder science. It's really the very opposite.
We're hindering science because we aren't recognizing that creator has designed fantastic systems and that there's a purpose in these systems. If we recognize that that there's a purpose when we began looking for these purposes, I believe that we would be making a lot more discoveries out in science at the present time. We see it's all random.
If it's random, then there is no purpose. So that we don't look for purpose and then hang on after a while, oh, that's interesting, because that was perfectly suited for that. If we had have recognized, well, a creator is likely to do that, maybe we would have looked for that scenario in the first place.
Where are the trends in the fossil record going to take us because that's our topic for next week. Well, the fossil record is really the main claim for evolution but again in the fossil record what do we find? We find fully developed organisms appear we don't see the evolutionary precursors. Now there are half a dozen or so examples that are claimed to be intermediates but really if evolution was occurring we should find thousands of these intermediates that were in the process of evolving from one into the other.
The intermediate steps like where are the intermediates for turtles? Turtles just appear fully formed in the fossil record flying insects just appear fully formed in the fossil record. Where is the development of these in the fossil record but what we find is these highly developed fully formed creatures then disappear they become extinct, they're gone and that's what we see around us today we see fully formed creatures around us today and then they are being wiped out, they are being lost. I think the main evidence that evolution is impossible really comes back to our understanding of the genetic code.
The code is unbelievably complex. We talk about a mouse having two and a half billion base pairs. Human 4 billion base pairs.
But there's 5000 over 5000 known mammals. The insects have extremely complex codes. There's over 100,000 known insects.
All these insects have different codes. All these birds have different codes. All these fish have different codes.
All these fungi have different codes. All these different trees have different codes. All these different flowers have different codes.
And all these codes are really complex. I'd like to ask of those five or six intermediate forms that you mentioned before are there any that are considered watertight or are they contested? Oh no, the intermediate forms are still fully formed functioning animals. You just might have a fish like creature that has some legs, these sort of things, sort of like the pterodactyl and this sort of thing.
But again, to go from a fish to an amphibium, you've suddenly got to go from a fin system to developing a shoulder blade and a pelvic system to support the weight. So we should have the intermediate sections being developed. I was thinking primarily of within the field would evolutionists say that there is a watertight intermediate fossil or are there disputes within the evolutionary community about the viability of some of these intermediate fossils? Yes, virtually all these ones have been disputed like the Teradac afterwards it was in the wrong sequence they found creatures with legs occurring earlier and so forth.
No, there's no examples that we need to worry about. The evidence for God's picture of creation and extinction via the flood is very very strong. We have the evidence for the flood, it's in front of us and it explains the massive extinctions in the past.
I think the beauty is that when we look at science the science of DNA and so forth it confirms God's creation. It's an amazing system. It just points to an amazing mind that could invent these codes.
Well, I think that's been a pretty interesting review. This is really the hub of the evolutionary theory, isn't it? This concept that you're adding additional information to a genetic code because that's the only way you're going to get novel features. So if this can't take place we can say with confidence that evolution is impossible, can't we? Absolutely.
And that's the point. We now have the evidence that evolution is impossible. It didn't occur.
It can't occur and we can say that now on the basis of good science. I'm Dr. Barry Harker and you've been listening to science conversations.
My guest has been Dr. John Ashton author of Evolution Impossible twelve Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of Life on Earth. Next time, I'll be talking with Dr.
Ashton about the fossil record and why it's evidence for extinction, not evolution. Don't miss it. Until then, bye for now, and God bless you and keep.
