The genetic code of living organisms is constituted of ultra-highly-specified coded information. This highly-specified nature of the genetic code of individual species is proven by the fact that virtually ALL genetic mutations are either harmful or lethal to the organism due to the degrading of the genetic information that mutations represent. This ultra-highly-specified nature of the genetic code of living organisms is also manifested by the fact that various species cannot mate with each other and produce offspring. Cats cannot reproduce with dogs. Horses cannot reproduce with giraffes. Rhinoceroses cannot reproduce with hippopotamuses, etc. Most of us who have spent any significant time around domestic cats and dogs have probably witnessed the spectacle of a dog “mating” with a cat at one time or another, yet not one person anywhere in the world can claim to have a brood of cute little cat-dogs or dog-cats scampering around his or her house. (This real-world fact should be the basis of our nomenclature and definition of the word “species.”) Why do we not see this blurring of the lines among living organisms? Why do we only see variations within breedable organisms but never any cross-over?
Random changes in the genetic code are precisely analogous to random changes in the characters of a book or a computer program. (See “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” by Michael Denton, Chapter 4: “A Partial Truth,” pgs. 79-92). Books, computer programs, and genomes are all information-bearing systems. The mathematical odds against obtaining a coherent result either in a book, or in a computer program, or in a living organism, by inducing random alterations in the punctuation, sentences, or paragraphs in a book, or the characters in a computer code, or the base pairs or sequences in a genome, are quite literally infinite.The base pairs of the genetic code are not like whores: not any old partner will do! It is not insignificant that very shortly after the nature of the genetic code as a double helix with long sequences of base pairs was determined, some of the first scientists to have doubts about Darwinian evolution based upon this information were mathematicians such as Murray Eden and Marcel Schutzenberger.
Consider, for example, what will happen to the novel “Moby Dick” after random changes are introduced to the letters, punctuation, and paragraphs. Will continuous random changes ultimately transform “Moby Dick” into a historically accurate rendition of “The History of Baseball”? More pointedly, will such random changes ever transform “Moby Dick” into anything coherent at all? No, not in exponential multitudes of hundreds of trillions of years! Yet, this is precisely what evolutionists are asking us to believe in regard to molecules-to-man evolution. And the genetic code is spectacularly more complex than “Moby Dick” (or “The History of Baseball,” for that matter). This whole scenario disproves naturalistic evolution and screams Divine creation.
In my next article, “DINOSAUR BLOOD AND THE >REAL< AGE OF THE EARTH PART 5B,” I will return to an analysis of Fuz Rana’s book, “Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth.”
Featured Image: “Entry of the Animals into Noah’s Ark” by Jacopo Bassano il Vecchio, 1563-1568, Museo del Prado, Spain