Evolution Impossible (7 page)

Much of what Dawkins presents as evidence for natural selection and evolution in his book is considered evidence for intelligent design and creation by other scientists. As a result, we have the ongoing evolution versus creation debate.
²
So let us go straight to the main premise of evolution and examine the fundamental foundation of Darwin’s thesis. We shall examine whether or not mutations together with natural selection are capable of producing all the genetic information required to generate all the diversity of life that exists today and has occurred in the past. We have already discussed in the previous chapter how the genetic information responsible for an organism’s form and function is encoded in the DNA of that organism. That is, the information to make all the physical components of an organism — its skin or bark, internal and external organs, bones, shell, roots, leaves, flowers, physical shape, color, hairiness, digestive system, brain, nervous system, reproductive system, optical system, immune system, and so on are encoded in its DNA. So are the thousands of individual enzymes, proteins, hormones, and other specific molecules such as defense toxins.

Evolution requires that all this specific DNA information for each and every type of animal, plant, fungi, and bacteria has arisen as a result of random environmental conditions. Alternately, it maintains that predators removing less advantageous new genetic information leave beneficial new genetic information that has been generated by random spontaneous mutations.

Dawkins claims:

In the case of DNA we understand pretty well how the information content builds up over geological time. Darwin called it natural selection.” Dawkins goes on to call it “information that encodes embryological recipes for that survival.”
³

The current challenge is to show that random mutations together with natural selection are incapable of producing the level of genetic information required for the evolution of the millions of difference species of living organisms. This can be achieved using the basis of what we now know about the biochemistry of genetic information, to show that Darwinian evolution is impossible. The claims that evolution can explain the origin of life will then have been refuted as false.

So let us now examine the evidence that we can actually “know” as fact and see what we can learn from it. We will consider the actual evidence we observe today, as opposed to some theoretical construct of the past.

Within the life sciences, the term “evolution” is used to describe the gradual changes over time that can occur in a population, more or less along the lines that Darwin proposed. Hence this type of evolution is sometimes referred to as “Darwinian evolution.” As I have just explained above, all morphological changes, being changes in form or function, are a result of changes in meaningful genetic information encoded in the DNA of the organism. Thus, changing the DNA code has the potential to cause a mutation and is the basis of common plant-breeding techniques used by scientists, including genetic engineering.

There are three distinct ways the genetic information in the DNA can be changed and thereby generate a mutation that could contribute to evolution. For ease of comparison I will assign the numbers 1 to 3 to these.

Type 1
evolution.
This type of evolution involves no new additional genetic information being formed. It most commonly involves the loss of preexisting genetic information that results in changes to the inherited genetic code in the offspring, making it different from the parent. For example, if a mouse population that is carrying genes for both light and dark fur moves to a light-colored sandy area where owls can see and catch the dark mice more easily, after a while there will be fewer dark mice to breed. As the light-colored mice continue to breed, fewer and fewer of them will carry the genes for dark fur, so natural selection for light-colored mice will have occurred. However, some mice may still be carrying the genes for dark fur, and if some of the light-colored mice migrate to a dark soil area after breeding for a while, some dark offspring may now be produced. These now have a better chance of surviving the predator owls, creating a situation where light-colored mice evolve into dark-furred mice.

In this example we have no new genetic information created. Instead we have evolutionary changes produced by natural selection removing genetic information, or changes resulting from much less frequently or rarely expressed genetic information, favoring survival in a new environment. This mechanism explains the typical examples of evidence that are put forward for evolution, such as male guppies evolving brighter colors when they are placed in streams where there are very few predators.
⁴
In the high predator population streams the easily seen male guppies are eaten before they can breed, so mainly dull-colored fish breed. Because the guppies came from parents containing a diversity of genetic material, some of the remaining “dull”-colored guppies will be carrying the genes for bright colors. When some of the dull guppies find themselves in a pond with few predators, the brightly colored guppies survive. But because these fish attract more females, they produce more offspring carrying the bright color genes, and by this process nature selects more brightly colored male fish over dull-colored ones. Again, this evolution of brightly colored male fish involves no new genetic information.

The other important point to note is that in these examples of evolution, and similar examples given in biology textbooks, the changes involved the same type of organism.
⁵
The mice were still mice, the guppies were still guppies, the moths were still moths, the frogs were still frogs. There are no examples of moths evolving into flies or vice versa. In other words, the loss of genetic information did not lead to a new type of organism, just a new variant of the same type of organism.

Different types of environmental effects can trigger the natural selection process using existing genetic information. Changes in an organism can be caused by turning on (or turning off) the activity of an existing gene or genes within the DNA of an organism. This means that these genes now make their encoded information available to be replicated, and therefore more genetic information becomes available for the organism to use. Genes may also be down regulated, resulting in less genetic information being available to the organism. For example, in the guppy situation, environmental pressure in the form of predator stress may turn off the genes for color production. The genetic information is still there but is not active. When the predators are removed, the environmental pressure is removed and existing genetic information for colors switches back to on mode.

Genes can be turned off or on by other genes, or by chemicals in the cell’s environment. For example, one particular gene X may down regulate or turn off another gene Y. If gene X is damaged by an environmental factor, such as a chemical or radiation and no longer functions to turn off gene Y, gene Y is now activated with its encoded preexisting genetic information, and a new trait such as a new color may appear in the offspring.

For example, consider a publisher reading this report:

MOST SCIENTISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

As a result, the publisher does not publish any books on evolution.

If we take a chemical bleach and white out the single word
NOT
, the information destroyed by our chemical bleach changes the information (message) encoded in the sentence. As a result, this new report is sent to the publisher:

MOST SCIENTISTS DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

Our mutation has resulted in a loss of information, but it still makes sense. The publisher reads the mutated report and begins publishing books on evolution. The mutated message has activated a preexisting but dormant action.

The technique of destroying genetic information to produce traits has been used by plant breeders for many decades. In this technique, thousands of seeds are exposed to ionizing radiation or chemicals that damage the DNA molecules, and then the seeds are germinated. Any seeds that actually grow are then examined for possible beneficial traits such as drought resistance or lower glycemic index and so on. For example, if the chemicals knock out the starch granule protein-1 (SGP-1) genes that are responsible for branched chain starch synthesis in the seed, the offspring plants will produce a grain (e.g., corn) that has less branched starch and hence a lower glycemic index (i.e., better for diabetics) than normal corn.

One of the reasons plant breeders collect seeds from isolated and primitive locations where very little plant breeding and selection has taken place is because these seeds are likely to contain a larger diversity of preexisting genetic information, compared with domestic varieties. Knocking out genes in these wild species increases the possibility of producing a beneficial trait in the offspring. However, in all these cases we are dealing with the loss of preexisting genetic information. No new genetic information has been created.

Changes in the cell’s physical environment that put physical pressure on the shape of the large DNA molecule can also affect the activity of genetic information. Thus, for bacteria, even environmental changes around a cell that affect the physical shape of the coiling of the large DNA molecule can affect turning on or off a gene (gene expression). In this way, bacteria can cope with sudden and severe changes in their environment and survive. This capability uses preexisting genetic information. No new information is being created.
⁶

Changes in DNA as a result of an error when the cell’s DNA is replicated can also occur, resulting in a cell with slightly altered DNA. The displacement of a small section of DNA from one place in the code to another place can also cause changes. All these mechanisms can produce mutations that result in type 1 evolution.

In the TV documentary
The Genius of Charles Darwin,
part 1, Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins asserts that women in Nairobi resistant to HIV are evidence for the “unstoppable force of natural selection” being observed by modern science.
⁷
However, this is a classic example of a mutation that involves the loss of genetic information. The observed resistance to HIV occurs as the result of a mutation in the human CCR5 gene in the women, which is caused by the deletion or removal of 32 base pairs of information. This loss of genetic information results in a nonfunctioning HIV receptor (that is a way for a virus or biological factor to enter a cell) together with reduced expression of the receptor that stops or slows the transmission of the disease.
⁸

In this case, the mutation in the women’s cells has a definite beneficial effect, but it is due to the loss of preexisting genetic information. It is not an example of how new purposeful genetic information could arise that is necessary for the evolution of new organs such as an eye or a leg, let alone a new type of organism. So in no way is it an example of even a small successful variation (i.e., mutation) of the type required to produce new types of organisms. This is the case with just about every example that is cited in biology textbooks or evolution documentaries — they are simply cases of type 1 evolution where species have lost already existing genetic information.

In the majority of cases, mutations are actually harmful,
⁹
and many are responsible for genetic or inherited diseases.
¹⁰
Many cancers and malignancies in both animals and humans also can be traced to type 1 mutations,
¹¹
and even the CC5Delta 32 mutation cited by Professor Dawkins as being a beneficial example has now been associated with an increased risk of developing a serious liver disease.
¹²
Thus, Type 1 evolution is the most common type of evolution observed and is usually the type of evolution described in biology textbooks and museum displays as evidence that evolution is a fact.
¹³
However, this type of evolution cannot produce new kinds of organisms. It cannot be a mechanism to explain the existence of the millions of kinds of animals and plants that have been discovered.

Type 2 evolution
involves the transfer of new genetic information from one organism into another organism. That is, additional new genetic information enters the DNA of an organism via, for example, virus-like proteins or by plasmids that can carry specific genes. For example, plasmid R100, which is made up of 90,000 nucleotide code base pairs, carries genes for the resistance to sulphonamide, streptomycin, and several other antibiotics. This plasmid can transfer itself from a harmless Escherichia bacteria to a harmful Salmonella bacteria. The insertion of these genes means a new antibiotic-resistant Salmonella species would evolve. Similarly, the potentially lethal strain of
Escherichia coli
referred to as
E. coli
O157:H7 is believed to have evolved from a nonpathogenic
E. coli
bacteria as a result of the transfer of toxin genes from some other bacteria. In fact, many of the food poisoning bacteria that now concern food processors are believed to have evolved in the past 50 years or so as a result of the transfer of toxin genes and acid-resistant genes between bacteria.
¹⁴

Type 2 evolution is not a case of totally new genetic information being created but rather simply the transfer of preexisting genetic information from one organism to another. It can produce a new strain of an organism but not a new type of organism.

It is interesting to note that in all species there are mechanisms in place to preserve the integrity of the species. Some of these mechanisms prevent two different species from mating and producing a new type of organism. This is an example of a type of anti-evolution mechanism observable in nature. For example, in sexual reproduction involving an egg and sperm, the surface of the egg contains specific proteins that bind only to specific complementary molecules on the surface of sperm cells of the same species. Any hybrid embryos that do form usually either abort or develop into sterile adults.