Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1 

Chapter 10 Appendix Part 2


Mathematics has a finality that is lacking in some other scientific fields. When mathematicians turn their attention to the probabilities of the DNA and protein codes forming by chance, their conclusions are very uncomplimentary to the cause of evolution:

Chance events could never produce living organisms which can reproduce themselves.

"A simple physical consideration in terms of probabilities indicates that no molecules of the type which eventually generated the self-replicating system, found in living organisms, could have originated by random trials. The entire life of the universe is far too short in terms of probabilities. The origin of life should therefore be looked upon as a unique event."*Edmund Ambrose, Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 139. [University of London.]

Mathematically, anything less probable than 1049 is totally impossible.

"There is general agreement among mathematicians, who incidentally have a reputation for being an ultra-conservative group when it canes to rubric matters of this kind, that anything with less probability than one chance in ten with 49 zeros after it, becomes impossible. Another way of expressing this number is to say, one chance in ten multiplied by itself 50 times. When written out, the number reads: One chance in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000! In other words, anything less probable than this does not stand a chance of ever taking place; that is, it is outside the range of possibility."Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1988), p. 58.

One scientist suggests that the amount of time needed to produce a single physical organ would be a number followed by thousands of zeros. Then, after an equal amount of long ages, a second organ might appear. But by that time the first organ would long ago have died.

[The amount of time needed for biological evolution of a single body organ:] "The length of geological time should be multiplied by 10 followed, by some hundred or thousands of zeros to make possible the arising of a new organ, as small as it could be, by pure chance alone. The time lapse needs to be so great because, in just two words, if the number of elements in a functional structure enlarges in the form of an arithmetic progression, then the time needed for this structure to arise by chance enlarges according to geometric progression." *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. x [p. 10].

An evolutionist explains that each type of protein randomly developed would require a vast amount of time to produce, simply because randomness cannot work very fast. Selection is such a slow process. (In addition, of course, random selection would go both ways, thus destroying that which was made as fast as it was put together, plus the problem that selection cannot impart life.)

"The origin of proteins is held to be a random process, at least ultimately, since selection can work with only what the random process delivers as having a minimum adaptive value."*P. Erbrich, "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function, " (1985), Vol. 34 Acta Biotheoretica p. 53.

Even assuming that all the chemicals were at hand to select from (and in nature they never are), there are 41,000 possible codes, but only one would fit each protein:

"The problem of synthesizing one simple protein of about 300 amino acids has bean cited . . A chain of 1000 nucleotidase made of the four basic units might exist in any of 41,000 ways, but only one will form the protein being sought. The chance that the correct sequence would be achieved by simple random combination is said to be so small that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of a concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."*W. Stokes, Essentials of Earth History, (1984), p. 186.

The mathematical impossibility of chance producing just one of the many blood proteins (cytochrome c) testifies to the impossibility of chance producing even one living being:

"The number of sequences of cytochrome c is now 7.25 x 1080, the number of sequences for 101 sites is 3.4 x 10150. Therefore the probability of selecting a member of the cytochrome c family with the same optical isomers in a given set of 101 rolls of the icosahedral dice is 2.15 x 1094."*H. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," in Theoretical Biology (1977), 67J pp. 377, 387.

Leslie cites point after point, demonstrating the utter impossibility of an evolutionary origin of any living thing:

"We can point also the improbable left-handedness of almost all the amino acids found in life on earth, when left-handed and right-handed varieties are equally easily made in the laboratory; to the 'improbable' DNA molecule, a million times longer than it is wide; to estimates that the information encoded in a single human chromosome is equivalent to several thousand volumes of small print; to a large mammal's thousand trillion cells of about a thousand different varieties, and to how it took Evolution far longer to invent the cell, so naively called 'simple, than to make the leap to mammals; and so on."*J. Leslie, "Cosmology, Probability, and the Need To Explain Life," in Scientific Explanation and Understanding, pp. 53, 64-85.

DNA only works because it has enzymes to help it; enzymes only work because there are protein chains; protein only works because of DNA; DNA only works because it is formed of protein chains.

"But the enzymes only work because the protein chains are coded in a special sequence by DNA. DNA can only replicate with the help of protein enzymes. We are really in a chicken and egg situation!."*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 135.

Mutations could not be the cause of evolution, for they would suddenly have to produce the coding and content of every necessary type of protein molecule:

"If only ten amino acids of particular kinds are necessary at particular locations in a polypeptide chain for its proper functioning, the required arrangement (starting from an initially different arrangement) cannot be found by mutations, except as an outrageous fluke. Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for their survival. This situation is well-known to geneticists and yet nobody seems prepared to blow the whistle decisively on the theory."*F. Hoyle and *N. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 148.

In one medium protein will be found a coded string of 300 amino acids. But there is more:

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotidase in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotidase in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 or 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! . . Imagine how many universes it would take to accommodate 10600 DNA chains!"*F. Salsbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," in American Biology Teacher (1971) Vol. 33, pp. 335-336.

Without a basic code to operate by, the amino acid sequences in protein could not exist, much less function. Yet there is nothing we see in nature that could produce such coding, or its concomitant translator package:

"The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapts function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world."*H. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory, " in Theoretical Biology (1981), 91J. p. 13.

How then did the amino acids ever become coded into complicated protein chains? How did it originally happen? Why does it keep happening over and over again within your body and mine?

"But the question arises as to how these amino acids could have become joined together into polypeptide chains. It is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans, J.B.S. Haldane's 'dilute hot soup' providing a supposedly appropriate medium.

"But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote.. The probability of forming a poly- peptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. The calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living systems are descended from a single protein molecule, which was formed as a "chance" acta view that has been frequently entertained. " *H. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968) p. 158.

Mathematicians have calculated the number of seconds since the theoretical Big Bang. Yet there are not enough seconds to do the job of producing even the enzymes needed by plants and animals:

"There are perhaps, 1080 atoms in the universe and 1017 seconds have elapsed since the alleged 'big bang.' More than 2,000 independent enzymes are necessary for life. The overall probability of building any one of these polypeptides can hardly be greater than one in 1020. The chance of getting them all by a random trial is one in 1040000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 148.

Selection cannot create, and randomness cannot account for life forms:

"The probability for the de novo [suddenly new] emergence of a particular protein by chance alone is extremely small, even for a very imperfect one. A weak initial adaptiveness may be sufficient, but also necessary to make selection work. Without at least a minimum usefulness there are no alternatives between which to select. Selection does not create; it eliminates or conserves what chance produces, and optimizes what already exists according to the demands of life and environment. If the probability for a de novo or independent emergence of a protein is practically non-existent, because the latter implies the former, we have an evolutionary procase which the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and subsequent selection, chance and necessity, cannot account for adequately because the role of chance is overtaxed. . "*P. Erbrich, "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," in Acta Biotheoretica (1985), Vol. 34 pp. 53, 77-78.

To make matters worse, most body characteristics are under the control of several different genes! Yet each gene is composed of millions of DNA codings. The interrelated complexity of all this is astounding.

"Most, if not all, of our characteristics are polygenetic, that is, they are under the control of not one but a number of genes. For instance, eye color in Drosophila [the fruit fly] is under the control of 15 genes. The desirable alteration of a certain characteristic, if that is possible at all, most likely would require changes in more than one particular gene. Precisely coordinated changes in several genes would probably be required.

"If all the above problems could be solved, which seems incredible, one insuperable difficulty would yet remain. In each gene there are thousands of nucleotides, but only four different kinds of bases. In a gene of 10,000 nucleotides, there would be, on the average, 2,500 of each of the four different kinds of bases.

"Let us say we knew that to bring about a specific desirable change, we had to change the adenine, at position 5,263 of the chain, to a guanine. If a chemical or irradiation or some other kind of treatment were used, how could the effect of that treatment be limited to position 5,263 without affecting one of the other 2,499 adenines in this DNA, it could not."Duane Gish, "DNA: Its History and Potential, "in W.E. Lammerts (ed), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 315.

Forget about the possibility of "a simple organism" first being evolved. NASA scientists have settled the matter for all time to come: there is no such thing as a "simple" organism!

"At one point in the space program, in anticipation of forthcoming contacts with other celestial [living] bodies, a determination was made for the makeup of the most meager, unadorned possible form of life based on what we know about present, earth-bound creatures. Let us use figures derived from this hypothetical, simple organism. To simplify matters further, we will consider just one aspectthe protein makeup of such a simple creature.

" . . Thinking in minimal terms, it was the decision of the space scientists working on this problem that the simplest possible form of life would have to possess no less than 124 different proteins. It was also concluded that these proteins would each be composed of an average of 420 properly arranged subunits, called amino acids.

"In reality, this is a very conservative estimate of the proteins required in the formation of something alive. The simplest form of life actually known to exist on earth today is composed of 625 diverse proteins. Bacteria possess upwards of 2,000 different proteinaceous compounds, and the cells of man are estimated to harbor at least 100,000 proteins of assorted makeup. [There are billions of proteins in man, but 100,000 different types or codes of protein.]

" . . [The author then mentions a lengthy list of non-protein requirements for life, and the fact that all but one type of amino acid in the proteins must be left-handed ones] . .

"What then is the probability that just one average protein consisting of 400 left oriented amino acids will fall into place from a mixture offering equal numbers of left and right oriented amino acids? This means, having it take place under conditions thought to have occurred at the time life arose. The probability of this happening calculates out to be one chance in ten followed by 114 ZEROS! This figure should be compared then with the probability of one chance in ten followed by 49 zeros, which labels the portal beyond which lies the realm of the impossible, as previously mentioned. Thus, we are taken far beyond the bounds of that which is possible, in expecting just ONE protein to assemble itself unassisted.

"In comparing the previous numbers, it should be realized that each time a zero is added, the chances get smaller by a factor of ten-fold. This means that by adding two zeros, the chances become 100 times smaller; three zeros makes the chances 1,000 times smaller; four zeros makes the chances 10,000 smaller, etc.

"It might be interesting to know the computed chances of obtaining the necessary left arrangement for ALL the amino acids in ALL 124 proteins of our reference organism. It comes out to be one chance in 10 followed by 14,135 ZEROS!

"To get an idea of the scope of this last number, if the figure is written on a blackboard with normal sized numerals, the blackboard would have to be one quarter mile in length! It means that we have gotten a figure so far beyond the statistical limits of obtainability as to be stupefying.

" . . [The author goes on to explain that all of the 20 variant amino acids in those 124 proteins would then need to be arranged in their proper sequence! He then mentions other factors which complicate the matter still further. (You will want to read McCann's entire book.)]"Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1988), p. 662. Full Caps ours.

Nucleic acid in DNA and protein need each other, but how could one originate without the other? Both depend on one other.

"Nucleotide sequences can be translated into protein synthesis only when mediated with enzymes, themselves proteins. So which came first? DNA or protein? Although Stanley Miller's experiments provided a way for demonstrating synthesis of amino acidsthere has been no synthesis of nucleotides. 'The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides has not yet been accomplished, and this remains a problem.' "*John N. Move, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1990, p. 78. (Quotation from F.J. Ayala and J. W. Valentine, Evolving, the Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution [1979], p. 339.)

"Even if the spontaneous formation of nucleic acid could be explained, life today depends on both nucleic acids and proteins. Nucleic acids require proteins for their formation and proteins require nucleic acids. In addition, we can be certain that they did not both appear simultaneously, and thus a classic predicament occurs for which the evolutionist has no answer."D. and IC Rodabaugh, "Book Review," Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 108. _

Random action could not produce the structure of one biopolymer, yet there are thousands of biopolymers.

"The combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth." *Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientists (1981), p. 526.

*Karl Popper is the leading scientific philosopher in the world today. He says that the mathematical probabilities for a Darwinian explanation of life are, in reality, impossibilities.

"I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite possible that life is so extremely improbable that nothing can 'explain' why it originated; for statistical explanation must operate, in the last instance, with very high probabilities."*Karl Popper, "Intellectual Autobiography," The Philosophy of Karl Popper 2 (1974), p. 135.

Monod admits the impossibility of life originating by itself, but says it did it anyway.

"Monod's suggestion is that life emerged from inanimate matter by an extremely improbable combination of chance circumstances, and that this may not merely have an event of low probability but of zero probabilityin fact, a unique fact."*Karl Popper, "Reduction and the Incompleteness of Science," in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 270.

Darwinian evidences of evolution are no evidences at all, for each of the evidences (such as the darker color of certain moth sub-species) requires only simple gene reshuffling and no actual DNA changes.

"Neo-Darwinist textbooks on evolution keep citing the same comparatively few examples: industrial melanism [peppered moths], sickle cell anaemia, DDT resistance. All are comparatively minor evolutionary changes: all involve variations in which a large and obvious selective advantage can be obtained by a single allele substitution."*P. Saunders and *M. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable?And Does It Matter?, "in Nature and System (1982), p. 191. [An allele is any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation.]

Here, in one statement, are two different unanswerable problems for the evolutionist. The first is B12, which had to be in place in animals from the beginning. It is totally perfect in function, and yet never evolved. The second is the impossibility of random operations producing the 2,000 different enzymes. needed for life.

"The nature of the genetic code itself points to intelligent design as does the very existence of molecules of perfection. The author [L.R. Croft, How Life Began (1988)] cites vitamin B12 as an example of a perfect molecule for which no precursors are found and which, according to evolutionists, has not evolved for billions of years. This, however, contradicts the very essence of evolution as perfection is not attainable and all forms of life are continually evolving according to chance mutations. The mere existence of such a molecule perfectly designed for its role in life can only indicate purposeful and intelligent design.

"The author further demonstrates mathematically that the chance of the 2000 or so enzymes necessary for life arising spontaneously is about 1013000 [!] and thus impossible. Without enzymes there could be no life and without life there could be no enzymes, thus they must have come about by intelligent design. Combining the above examples with others we can demonstrate design at a subcellular level and so fulfill the first criterion for our hypothesis. The author then points out that the hypothesis of intelligent and purposeful design solves several mysteries which are currently plaguing science."David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, "Book Review," Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 109.

Recognized only as zero by the human senses.

"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero."*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p.3.

Like dust from the winds producing Albrecht Durer's paintings.

"'The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.' [emphasis his]."*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 104.

As easy as for typewriting simians to produce Shakespeare.

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material." *Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 148.

The problem of producing enzymes caves in the whole theory.

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)20000 1040000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

"If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs a by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." *Op. cit., p. 24.

The reasons for believing the theory are psychological.

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 1040000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution].

"The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 1040000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."*Op. cit., p. 130.

An enormous probability problem lies at the core of the theory.

"Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible.

"Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10460 (engineer Marvel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10800 (Frank Salisbury in American Biology Teacher)."*William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), p. 196.

Information content in living systems cannot be generated by chance.

"From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called 'natural' processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes. . . Information was also needed. We have argued that the requisite information came from an 'intelligence'."*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 150.

The "randomness postulate" is implausible.

"It is our contention that if 'random' is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws, physical, physio-chemical, and biological." *Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," *Paul S. Moorhead and *Martin M. Kaplan (Eds.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, p. 109.

The "random concept" of life's origins is absurd.

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. "*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 141.

Impossible, even if only one or two interlocking systems required for life.

"That such an event [the chance formation of the first living cell] should occur, however, is in the highest degree improbable. The late H. Quastler, a prominent biochemist, calculated the odds against it as 10301, that is, ten followed by 301 zeros to one, i.e. virtually impossible. Another biologist attempted a similar calculation for the whole universe, on the assumption that there were 1020 planets on which life might appear. He came up with the even more discouraging figure of 10416, rising to 10800 if a longer DNA molecule was required. In short, the mechanism falls short of plausibility by hundreds of orders of magnitude. 'Perhaps some fallacy in the concept of natural selection will give us the way out,' as Frank Salisbury of Utah State University wistfully adds.

"More complicated patterns of interaction are also possible. Thus you could have two interlocking systems, each of which supplies raw materials needed by the other; or more than two. But this just increases the improbability of such a configuration appearing by chance. "*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 202.

In reality, millions of interlocking systems are to be found in an actual living system. In order to arrive at their computable but still immensely large-figures, the mathematicians excessively simplify by calculating the chances on the basis of only one amino acid, one DNA molecule, one enzyme, etc.; when in reality a living being comprises vastly larger factors and interlocked relationships than merely one or two factors. Far more, even, than what is found in a single cell. We will conclude this chapter with some monkey business dealing with randomly producing a simple "code sequence" that is FAR LESS complicated than that found in a single DNA molecule:

"Assume that a monkey types randomly at a typewriter which has 60 keys: 26 small letters, 26 capital letters, a space, full stop, comma, colon, semicolon, two brackets and a question mark. Suppose that the monkey is to produce the word, monkey.'

"Now the chances of the monkey typing the letter m' is 1 in 60, and of typing the two letters mo' is (1/60)2, i.e. (1/60 x 1/60), or 1 in 3600. Hence the chances of the monkey typing the word, monkey,' randomly is (1/60)8, i.e. 1 in 46,656,000,000.

"To type on such a typewriter the title, Monkeys and Typewriters,' would take a million monkeys over a thousand million million million million years (i.e., 1027 years) with each monkey typing at a rate of three digits per second. This time period is a hundred thousand million million (i.e., 1017) times as long as the age of the universe imagined by cosmogonists."A.J. Monty White, "Monkeys and Typewriters," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, p. 128.

All the monkeys in the world could not accomplish the task!

"That these sequences of coordinated reactions and there are literally thousands of them in the human body should all have arisen by chance mutation of single genes is in the highest degree unlikely.

"It is as if we expected the famous monkeys who inadvertently typed out the plays of Shakespeare, to produce the works of Dante, Racine, Confucius, Tom Wolfs, the Bhagavad Gita and the latest copy of Punch in rapid succession. "*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p 184.

It is obviously impossible for even the smallest part of a DNA or protein molecule to form itself by chance. We have seen that clearly in this chapter.

Yet you will notice that the mathematical calculations are generally applied only to a few factors. If you are good with mathematics, try figuring out the mathematical probabilities that the following formula which occurs constantly in the body could be produced by chance:

"Before a cell divides, DNA is replicated or made into identical copies, one for each resulting cell. A section of the DNA strand unwinds and separates along its base joints. The A's, T's, C's and G's, now single, quickly acquire new partners from the many nucleotides floating free within the cell. Eventually, two new complete and identical DNA molecules form.

"When a cell prepares to manufacture a protein, a segment of its DNA a gene begins to open. Free-floating nucleotides attach to one strand of the gene. These nucleotides resemble those of DNA, but they have a slightly different backbone, and uracil, or base U, replaces base T. As the nucleotides are joined in a single chain called RNA, they unzip from the gene. RNA synthesis moves wavelike down the gene to complete the process. The long ribbon of messenger RNA, having been coded by the sequence of DNA bases along the gene, thus relays instructions for protein building.

"The messenger RNA moves out of the nucleus and finds a ribosome for the assembly of the designated protein. The sequence of A's, U's, C's, and G's on the RNA forms in groups of three letter 'words' such as ACU, CGG, and CCU. Each word specifies one of the different amino acids, the building blocks of protein. Another type of RNA, called transfer RNA, reads the words and brings the specified amino acid in from the cell's sea of chemicals to the ribosome. There the particular nucleotide word of the transfer RNA matches up with the counterpart section of messenger RNA. In turn, the amino acid links on to a growing chain that will become a protein. Its work done, the transfer RNA separates and returns to a free state within the cell medium.

"The order of the amino acids in a protein determines the job it performs. To make the myoglobin molecule, the protein globin combines with a red heme, or iron complex. The myoglobin in muscle cells is what stores oxygen to fire their energy furnaces, the mitochondria. "*Rick Gore, "Awesome Worlds Within a Cell," National Geographic Society, September 1976, pp. 366367.


The wonders of the cell will be studied in more detail in the next chapter. But, for a moment, we will let the experts speak to us about DNA and several other substances contained within the cell:

All that is within a living cell could never be placed there by raw chance:

A million-page book would be required to contain all the DNA coding in one mammalian cell:

"About 2,000 pages of this type would be required to show the nucleotide sequence for the DNA in the chromosome of a typical single-cell bacterium; roughly a million pages would be needed to similarly display the genetic code embodied in DNA molecules that make up chromosomes of a mammalian cell." LL Cohen, Darwin was Wrong A Study in Probabilities, (1984), p. 54.

There are thousands upon thousands of different chemical compounds within living bodies, yet we are supposed to believe that each one originated by chance.

"There are thousands of times as many organic compounds [found within life forms] as inorganic compounds. An example of a long chemical term, the name of an amino-acid compound, contains some 3,600 letters, which would consume three pages of this book if they were reproduced." *Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), pp. 84-85.

An immense amount of work was required at the beginning. The solution to the problem of life is not evolutionary randomness, but the power of the Creator.

"Such calculations illustrate the immense amount of organization that went into the production of the first living system . . Purely random chemical combinations cannot account for the origin of life.

"The underlying similarity and unity of biochemical processes imply that life originated only once. The universality of the genetic code . . point[s] to the same conclusion . .The paradox of the origin of the code is removed if the nucleotide sequences were designed and fabricated to couple with the translation machinery and built at the same time . .

"Special creation violates none of the basic physical laws. h generates none of the contradictions . . encountered with the molecular evolution hypothesis."John C. Walton, Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977.

All the blueprints, all the parts, all the functions, all the operations, all the activity, all the life, all the reproduction; it all had to be there together in close-knit organization, instantly, simultaneously.

The very randomness of chance events can solve no problems, construct nothing worthwhile, or produce any life.

"The probability of complex molecules is similar for human proteins, the probabilities of biological evolution of each one (of over 200,000 proteins) are the same as those against a random solution of the Rubik cube (less than 1 chance in 1 billion):

"These odds are roughly the same as you could give to the idea of just one of our body's proteins having evolved randomly, by chance. However, we use about 200,000 types of protein in our cells. If the odds against the random creation of one protein are the same as those against a random solution of the Rubik cube, then the odds against the random creation of all 200,000 are almost unimaginably vast."*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 12.

Perfect accuracy of measurements and structure of parts, is necessary or even the slightest problem would severely weaken or destroy the organism: "A missile that has components even 99.9999 percent reliable is not good enough; statistical analysis tells us such a missile would have only a 50-50 chance of making the successful flight." Apply that principle to origin or evolution of life theories!

"Man, in his quest for finer and finer instruments, has improved the sensitivity of his measurements from an exactness with an inch or two to less than a millionth of that amount. Devices in many modern industries measure products accurately to tolerances of a few hundred-thousandths of an inch, about the diameter of a human hair. In a few industries even greater accuracy is required, such as a millionth of an inch, an amount that has been described as 'the distance a railroad nail would sag if a fly landed on it.'

"Manufacturers take these pains in measurement so that their products will be uniform. Uniformity is necessary in all mass production. It is vital in precision manufacturing to assure the proper performance of such equipment as space exploration missiles, in which as many as 300,000 parts, made at hundreds of different places throughout the country, must be incorporated. With that many interdependent parts, a missile that has components even 99.9999% reliable is not good enough; statistical analysis tells us such a missile would have only a 50-50 chance of making the successful flight."*Philip S Baker, *Domenic A. Fucallo, Jr., *Martha W. Gerrard, *Robert H. Lafferty, Jr. "Radioisotopes in Industry," in U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Special Bulletin, p.10-11.

As for the possibility of proteins inventing themselves, as the evolutionists wishfully think, the evolutionary picture is hopeless:

"Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture [which would randomly produce both left and right amino acids, and not left only], the longest genome which could be expected with 95% confidence in 109 corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the "warm little pond" [that Darwin thought might have produced the first living creature] is missing. . Clearly 109 years is far too short a time and the universe is far too small to select even one molecule of cytochrome c from the primitive milieu. Therefore a belief that proteins basic for life as we know it appeared spontaneously in the primitive milieu on earth is based on faith."*H. Yockey "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," in Theoretical Biology (1977), 67J, p. 377.

*Guye figured out the odds:

"The chance that these five elements [carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur] may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10160 to 1, or only one chance in 10160; that is, 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10243) of years." *Frank Allen, "The Origin of the World--by Chance or Design?" in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe (John Clover Monsma, editor), p. 23.

The mechanisms to produce living organisms only exist within living organisms:

"The requirement for a means of inheritance in the first living thing makes evident the existence of a paradox, as Woese has pointed out. This seemingly self-contradictory condition is that, while genetic mechanisms can exist only within living things, the organisms themselves could not have come into being without such a device."*L Dillon, The Genetic Mechanism and the Origin of Life, (1978), p. 65.

Not only would the amino acids have to be made, and not only would they have to make themselves by code into proteins,but the proteins would just as instantly have to be able to replicate themselves; that is, make more proteins to replace the living ones, all of which are short-lived.

"Second, another minimal definition of life . . is the capability of synthesizing proteins in at least sufficient quantity to replace those that are catabolized by normal processes."*L. Dillon, The Genetic Mechanism and the Origin of Life, (1978), p.408.

The man who discovered DNA ("Crick) tells us that it would be impossible for randomness to produce even one protein, yet living creatures cannot remain alive unless they continually make vast quantities of them. Without necessary enzymes, no proteins could be made yet there are a hundred different types of proteins in each body cell!

"Francis Crick [discoverer of DNA] estimates that for a modest protein, 200 acids long, there is one chance in 10260 that any given specific order will occur accidentally. This is useless for life which needs to print proteins like newspapers! If, by chance, one were generated, another would be required to utilize the product. Without these complementary enzymes, the single enzyme activity would not only be useless but destructive enzymes can break as well as make.

"A simple cell requires at least a hundred different, specific protein molecules plus sugars, lipids, nucleic acids, etc. One lonely protein in an expanse of the 'soup' would be destroyed long before it met so many biological 'friends'; and, if such an unlikely combination did float together, how was it sufficiently separated from similar molecules whose presence would have fouled up the system?"Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 143.

Next consider the awesome problem of enzymes!

"In total there are perhaps 2,000 such enzymes, and their structures are basically the same across the whole of the living world an enzyme from a bacterium can be used in the cell of a man. The chance of finding each individual enzyme by stringing together amino acid beads at random is again like the Rubik cube being solved by a blindfolded person. Although the chance of finding all the enzymes, 2,000 of them, by random processes is not nearly as small as the chance of finding the whole 20,000 proteins on which life depends, the chance is still exceedingly minute."*Fred Hoyle, "Hoyle on Evolution, " in Nature, November 12, 1981, p. 105.

Fifty different enzymes must work together to produce just one new enzyme!

"Cells are unequaled masters of efficient chemistry, but for a cell to produce just one enzyme it requires the action of at least 50 different other enzymes. Just to synthesize one of the 20 amino acid constituents of enzymes, the amino acid histidine, requires the presence of 9 different enzymes.

"Then too, besides being a problem in terms of their chemical synthesis, enzymes are chemically fragile once formed. They are very easily destroyed or inactivated in a variety of ways when not protected. This inherent fragility argues against any accumulated buildup of enzymes in the ancient seas to be on hand, for any accidental turn of events favorable to the origin of life." Lesser McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1988), p. 70.

Enzymes can only be made by other enzymes; once again, life can only come from life.

"In an important work by Malcolm Dixon and Edwin Webb, entitled Enzymes, the authors demonstrated that in view of the fact that enzymes can only be formed by other enzymes, there is no known way for life to have started in the first place."John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1986), page 86-87.

The enzyme problem is overwhelming:

"Enzyme systems are doing every minute what battalions of full-time chemists cannot . . Can anyone seriously imagine that naturally occurring enzymes realized themselves, along with hundreds of specific friends, by chance? Enzymes and enzyme systems, like the genetic mechanisms whence they originate, are masterpieces of sophistication. Further research reveals ever finer details of design . . Dixon confesses that he cannot see how such a system could ever have originated spontaneously."Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1988), p. 144.

Enzymes are too improbable to have happened by chance:

"The whole subject of the origin of enzymes, like that of the origin of life, which is essentially the same thing, bristles with difficulties. We may surely say of the advent of enzymes, as Hopkins said of the advent of life, that it was the most improbable and the most significant event in the history of the Universe." *Malcolm Dixon and *Edwin Webb, Enzymes (1964), p. 665.

In addition to DNA, the complex, sequential codes found within enzymes and proteins would be impossible to produce randomly:

"Now we know that the cell itself is far mere complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene--its complexity must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would be about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms.

"Using a little algebra-logarithms, we can see that 41000 = 10600. Then 10 multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."*Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," in American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338.

The secrets found within the living cell are enough to prove to any thinking evolutionist that his theory is a myth:

"As the years passed, the secret remained locked in its living jelly, in spite of larger microscopes and more formidable means of dissection. As a matter of fact the mystery was heightened because all this intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that it was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth.

"With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."LL Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities, (1984), p. 199.

Chance could never accomplish it.

"Then as now genetics was unable to answer the main question: can chance account for the appearance of a wanted or useful mutation of form at the right moment, and do it again and again? This was only to be expected. But it was also unable to demonstrate a mechanism by which, for instance, the woodpecker could acquire a reversed claw. Much less could it explain the processes by which an intricate organ like the ear was formed. The position is no more encouraging today. Indeed, the discoveries of the 'sixties and 'seventies have made it difficult to account for even the simplest modifications. "*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 166.

The most complicated chemical components and interrelationships are to be found within the smallest organic molecules:

"It was impossible to explain, or to account for, not only the birth of life but even the appearance of the substances which seem to be required to build life, namely, highly dissymmetrical molecules."*Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 39.

Consider the complexity found within insulin:

"Note the complexity of a molecule of insulin, one of the smallest and simplest of the proteins. Like all proteins, insulin consists of complicated chains of amino acids. The insulin molecule has 51 amino-acid units in two chains, one having 21 units, the other 30. Each unit (of the 51) has 254 carbon atoms, 377 hydrogen atoms, 65 of nitrogen, 75 of oxygen, and 6 of sulphur-a total of 777 atoms in exact combination! "Howard Pet, Blind Faith (1990), p. 81 italics his].

There is too much that needs to be present all at once in order for a living creature to exist.

"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are approximately zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? . . There is no virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words.' "George F. Howe, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1986, p. 65.

In this chapter we spent pages on the impossibility of chance formation of DNA, and then more pages on protein. Yet each one needs the other before it can exist.

"The amino aids must link together to form proteins; and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linked, one can't happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without preexisting protein."*Francis Hitching, Neck of the Giraffe, p. 66.

Evolution just cannot accomplish the task.

"The DNA of a typical bacterium comprises some three million nucleotides coding for some 3,000 genes. The DNA of man contains some three billion nucleotides, but only codes for at most 150,000 genes and possibly as few as 30,000.

"To sum up the effect of these discoveries: the gene which was once thought to be a discrete unit, either present or absent, functioning or suppressed, now turns out to be a chain of a thousand or so nucleotides, any one of which might be deleted or damaged, thus impairing or making nonsense of the message i.e. failing to construct the required enzyme. Moreover, to bring about a meaningful alteration, such as the production of a different enzyme, would mean the altering of various individual bases among the thousand or so in the gene in a precise manner. How such alterations could come about by chance is wholly incredible."*G. A. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 168.

The machinery requires the information, and the information requires the machinery.

"The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile. "*John C. Walton, "Organization and the Origin of Life," Origins, Vol. 4, (1977). PP- x-31.

"It is difficult to see how either one could manage alone."

"Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cell two interlocked systems, each supporting the other. It is difficult to see how either could manage alone. Yet if we are to avoid invoking either a Creator a a very large improbability, we must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life. But which one was it? We are left with the ancient riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? "*Robert Shapiro, Origins (1986), p. 135.

So many different creatures have hemoglobin while other species do not that evolutionists have decided it came independently into existence several different times by chance.

"Hemoglobin is the basis of blood's wonderful ability to carry oxygen to your cells. And many different kinds of creatures, including lobsters and spiders, all have some type of blood with hemoglobin in it. Some creatures even have transparent blood. Hemoglobin, all by itself, testifies to a Creator. You see, so many different and obviously unrelated creatures have hemoglobin that evolutionists could only account for this by saying that hemoglobin must have evolved many times in many different creatures.

"This explanation worked when scientists thought that hemoglobin was a relatively simple molecule. But now we know that hemoglobin is a very complex, eight helix twisted molecule of about a hundred atoms, all arranged in just the right way around a central atom of iron. There is a zero chance of this complex molecule happening accidentally even once, no less the many times suggested by evolutionists."Paul Bartz, Letting God Create Your Day, Vol. 1, No. 1(1989), p. 7.

The facts are quite obvious; if we will but consider them, there can only be but one conclusion.

"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolutionary doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but is to be preferred over the evolutionary view.

"We have seen that evidence often taken to support a naturalistic chemical origin of life, actually, upon close analysis, points in another direction, namely, toward the conclusion that the first life was created. The data of molecular biology, especially the details of the genetic-coding and protein-synthesizing systems, lend further powerful support to this view. Probability arguments applied to the problem of the origin of genetic information also confirm the creationist view of origins.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto, the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."Dean Kenyon, Creationist View Of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33. [San Francisco State University.]


 After concluding this chapter, the present writer had a somewhat startling thought about the nature and origin of DNA. There is a strange mystery surrounding the DNA code that is hard to identify. Perhaps this brief analysts may help pinpoint its nature:

We generally think of the genetic code in this way: "The DNA code consists of nothing more than varied arrangements of a few chemicals. Those combinations are able to produce all the millions of hereditary factors in each of millions of different species."

Well, that says it; but something is missing. Something does not fit in such an explanation.

Yet it must be so, for consider the analogy of the modern computer. It works on a binary system of on-off signals which, when programmed in a complicated manner, can work complex mathematics problems, or accept all the typesetting for this set of books.

So it is as simple as that; the DNA code is merely like computer codes. Both are able to use relatively simple base codes to produce multiplied millions of information factors. The codes themselves produced the information.

But, no, that is not so; an error is here. There is more to it than this. An assumption is being made which is not correct. The codes themselves do not produce the information; it was putting the information into the base structure which produced the codes!

In a computer there is, first, machine-function data (erroneously called "machine language"). This is coded data which tells the machine itself how to perform basic functions. This would correspond to the "structural data" in the DNA helix arrangement, and the operating procedures for sending out data from the DNA information banks to loading docks, which will carry that information elsewhere in the cell or body.

An intelligent mind had to put the basic structural codes into the computer; an Intelligent Mind had to design the basin of the DNA molecule. Yet, at this level, there is still no specific, advanced information in either.

In a computer there is also an "assembly language." This uses the on-off binary system of electrical impulses to record, not only the basic machine-function data, but also the advanced information which makes the computer useful to us. This assembly language is extremely complex and few people use it. (Most use high-level "shorthand" languages, such as Pascal, Fortran, Cobal, or one of several Basics, which are much easier to work with, although less specific and therefore less accurate.)

Yet an even more complex "assembly language" was used by an Intelligent Mind to produce the information contained within each DNA molecule. It uses, not a binary system of two, but four different nucleotides in arrangements of three, yielding 64 basic combinations which is more than enough to produce multiplied millions of sub-species gene-pool combinations.

First, the design of the DNA helix structure and operating functions had to be made. Then, an assembly language had to be designed. Then, the basic structure and operational data had to be coded into the DNA molecule. (Apparently, that basic data is approximately the same in most all DNA molecules in the world.) Next, the data for each species had to be designed, and then a specific code for each species had to be produced. Then that predetermined specific species code had to be written into the DNA molecules of each separate plant or animal species. It is almost an understatement to say that this took an "advanced mentality" to accomplish. Neither lichens, bugs, worms, animals, nor people could do it. No created creature would be smart enough for the task.

But, now, let us look more closely at the code itself:

By itself, a random computer code is meaningless. It is just a jumble of words or numbers. If you question that, toss a bunch of random letters and/or numbers into a computer and see if they accomplish anything. Such is not a "code", but only confusion.

The word "code" has only two valid meanings: (1) The basic structure of a code: For example, what is the assigned code for "A," "B," "C," in Morse Code? That is the basic structure. (2) Information is written in code: for example, a sentence written or sounded in Morse Code. Both required an intelligent mind to produce; neither could be produced by random action (natural selection) nor by random accidents (mutations).

"Coded information" is produced when information is placed into code so it can be better used. When you speak, you are coding your thoughts into English so you can better convey your ideas. Coding, then, is merely an intelligent mind at work.

The same would apply to the DNA code and this is the mystery that we sense as we view it: Stringing a few chemicals together in a variety of combinations or even in millions of combinations CANNOT inherently produce hereditary information factors) There simply is no actual, built-in relationship between the chemical combinations in the genes and the information factors in the body they are supposed to represent.

As with the computer codes, an Intelligent Mind had to decide what each code would stand for!

There is no inherent meaning in codes; there is only applied meaning! For example, all the information contained in this book was typeset into a computer. In the process, that data was, within the central processing unit of the machine, changed into codes. Later, it was printed out and you are now reading the finished result. But the formation along with the type font sizes and styles, line length, and all the rest was not generated by a raw code by itself, but from information that was placed in the machine in code form.

An Intelligent Mind had to devise the basic structure of the DNA molecule and the basic chemical coding system. Then information data had to be fed into the DNA molecule of each separate species. Once in place, it could then be processed and used by the living organism.

But two facts should be noted: First, the organism could not survive for a moment without that data being there from the very beginning of its existence. Second, because each species had been separately coded (programmed), there could be no way that one species could change into another. To do that would require a totally new set of codes, applied from without, and only by that Intelligent Mind able to write and insert DNA codes.

At this point, someone will say that creatures can make their own codes. No, they cannot. If they could do so unconsciously, we would have a world of monsters running around, instead of distinct species. If they could do so consciously, then we could enlarge our brains a hundred-fold, put the echo-location equipment of the bat into our bodies for night vision, give ourselves the digestive system of a tiger, regrow lost limbs, and more besides.

In summary then, the DNA code did not make the information contained within that code. A super-powerful Intelligence outside and apart from living creatures made the code structure (DNA helix), and the specific codes (the genotype of each species). Neither worms, animals, nor man made any of those codes. God made the DNA code.

It has been said that Robert Gentry found the fingerprints of God in granite, when he discovered the tiny polonium 218 halos which prove that all the granite, undergirding the continents of the world, was formed solid in less than three minutes (see chapter 5).

But we can also say that, within plant and animal life, the fingerprints of God may also be found in the DNA coding. We have there an actual language, for that is what a code is. It is not the language of heaven, but it is a utility language used to perpetuate all the attributes of each living organism.

Many years ago, the present writer met a man who said he was certain that God created everything, and then presented the reason for his certainty: "A brown cow eats green grass and produces white milk!" Which itself is good thinking.

Whether it be elementary reasoning, or the most complicated, advanced research studies, science has amassed enough information that the case is conclusive: The evidence is on the side of Creationism. Evolutionary theory does not have a chance.



1 - Prepare a diagram of a DNA molecule. Use different colors to indicate the different parts.

 2 - Research the topic of how DNA divides, and write a brief report on it.

 3 - Briefly explain the basic aspects of the 4x16 DNA code.

 4 - Briefly explain one of the following: translator package, messenger RNA, biological compiler, codon, nucleotide, t-DNA. 

5 - Can "non-random patterns" be produced randomly? Can codes, reflective of high-level intelligence, be produced by chance?

 6 - There are 20 essential amino acids, 300 special-sequence amino acids in each medium-sized protein, and billions of possible sequences. What do you think would happen in your body if just one one of those sequences was out of place?

 7 - Fifteen factors. would have to be met in order to make proteins. Which of the 15 do you think would be the most difficult to accomplish? Why?

 8 - If random production of amino acids and sugars always produces a 50-50 mixture of left and right-handed forms of each, how could the randomness of evolution produce living tissue with only left-handed amino acids and only right-handed sugars? Explain why you take that position.

9 - Summarize 5 of the 6 reasons why it would not be possible to originate enzymes by random action or human activity.

 10 - There are 26 reasons why DNA cannot be originated outside of living tissue. List 10 which you consider to be the most unlikely to be accomplished synthetically.

 11- Research into what is in a blood cell, and then write a few brief paragraphs on it. Underline those portions which could be produced by that randomness called "natural selection."

12 - There is one chance in 6 million that you could win a state lottery. That is 1x10- x, which is less likely than being struck by lightning while inside a house. But the probability of randomly producing 124 proteins is 1x1064489. Yet instead of that, let's do something easy: On a single sheet of paper, write out (in zeros) the number of possible code combinations possible for an average DNA molecule (which in scientific notation is written 4x101000). That Is the numeral 4, followed by a thousand zeros. Title the sheet of paper and later pin It on the wall and explain it to others who see it.

 13 - Carefully read again the section on how the theta-x-174 virus makes DNA by "frame shifts." Then write out a lengthy sentence and transcribe it by frame shifts.

You have just completed Appendix 10-b

NEXT  Chapter 11