Biochemistry

I have to say that this page is a bit technical, but not, I hope, beyond anyone who has done Biology to GCSE standard (that's 16+ level for our International friends).  Unfortunately the nature of the subject demands that sort of understanding, although I shall try to use analogies where I can.  The material for this page came largely from Michael Denton's book, "Evolution, A Theory In Crisis", chapter 12 (Denton 1985).

This argument turns around DNA.  DNA is found in the nucleus of all cells, and it is believed to be the 'master tape' for inheritance.  The different organisms that live on this planet are different because the DNA of each is different.  That applies whether we are talking about you and your children, or you and a mushroom.  The similarities and differences are passed on to new generations because the DNA is passed on in the germ cells.  However, because we have two parents there is a certain amount of mixing of inheritable characteristics, and also some carry-over from the characteristics of grandparents, etc.

Now the first assumption that is made by Evolutionists, let it be said entirely without any evidence, is that DNA is an infinitely variable and infinitely varying source of information in the cells.  That is to say they do not consider that there are any limits on how far the DNA can change before it becomes inoperative and ceases to act like a master-tape of information in the cell.

One way of looking at DNA is to think of it as a computer program which determines all our functions and what we look like.  A computer program can be changed a great deal, although its output will necessarily change as well beyond a certain point.  That is no problem.  We want our 'computer program' (our DNA) to produce different results - that is the way we are formed as individuals.  But how far can one change a computer program before it begins to produce rubbish?  Anyone who has programmed computers will know just how few real changes can be made before the program becomes inoperative.  If a change is made it almost invariably demands other changes, and we can easily finish up rewriting the entire piece of software.  Does this sound familiar to programmers?  This is essentially the problem that DNA faces.

There is actually no evidence that supports the assumption that DNA is infinitely variable.  We do know that there are limits to the variability of the DNA, and in point of strict fact all our modern research shows that the limits are quite tight.  The variability of DNA is most certainly not infinite: like any computer program it has distinct and clearly defined limits.  This in turn puts severe constraints on the changes that are possible in any particular living organism.  All the evidence that we have, either from modern research or studies of fossils, of any permanent changes in any species, is that they can only be very small.

The point of this is, of course, that the DNA has to change fundamentally to produce new species.  Evolutionists believe that the magnitude of change required for a new species to be produced is possible within the DNA, but, as I have already pointed out, the evidence is actually wholly against this.

Microbes are known to become resistant to drugs, plants can be bred taller and hardier, moths alter their colouring and so on.  But the microbes remain microbes with their original powers of infection, shape, breeding rate, etc, etc.; the plants remain the same essentially, and so do the moths.  In other words there are quite clear and definite limits on how much change the DNA can put up with before it calls foul. 

It isn't only the DNA of which this is true.  Change is also a problem simply from the point of view of the function of an organism.  How much change can be made in an organ, say an eye or a kidney, before it ceases to function?  A little knowledge of these organs would enable one to say 'not a lot'.  Similar constraints apply to almost all parts of most animals and plants.

I can draw an analogy from car manufacture.  When a car is made there are several thousand parts which have to be carefully designed such that each one fits those around it and works correctly with it.  And before the car manufacturer starts actually turning the new vehicle out in any quantity the whole design is gone through with a fine tooth comb to remove any mistakes, and to ensure that everything fits as it should.  Then there may be many months of testing to be certain that those parts not only fit together, but that they also work together, which is by no means the same thing.

When the car, or whatever, has been produced in thousands, and has been on the road for several years, it usually becomes obvious that improvements could be made in various ways.  At this point the manufacturer has two options open to him.  One is a complete redesign, the other a lot of small modifications.  Quite often he will tend to pick the first, that of a complete redesign.  Why?

The reason is a simple one.  It is often very much easier to completely redesign something than it is to change the design in a few ways only.  This is because when changes are made to one part it necessitates changes being made to other parts, and the whole problem snowballs.  Exactly the same happens when modifying a computer program.  Changes to a complex program sometimes become so involved that the only safe thing to do is to rewrite the program entirely.  Even in these days of so-called modular programs this can still be true: if several changes need to made to a module it is often better to bin it and start again.

The two examples I have quoted above are of laughably simple systems compared with the average living cell, and we go up numerous orders of magnitude in complexity to get to living beings such as ourselves.  Indeed, even now we have very little real idea of the awesomely complex design of the human body.  It is impossible to make more than the most trivial changes in machinery, particularly as it becomes very complex, without calling into question the whole operation of that machine.  Is it then likely that we could do this in living organisms without creating endless other problems as a result?  We certainly have no evidence, even of the most obscure kind, of such changes occurring spontaneously.

The basis of life is centred on its chemistry.  Cells are made of, and trade in, a vast range of chemical molecules.  These molecules, all of special shape and function, are assembled by the construction mechanisms of the cell.  Some molecules, or some types of molecules, perform the same function in virtually all cells.  For example all cells which use oxygen need certain molecules to extract energy from sugars.  One of these special molecules, called Cytochrome-C, has been studied in many different organisms.  While it is true that Cytochrome-C differs structurally in different living organisms, the differences are of minor detail.  The fundamental shape and function are closely similar, and have to be in order for the molecule to be functional.

To use the analogy of the car, it is like the way in which car tyres have changed over the years.  Originally tyres were solid, then they were pneumatic.  The internal structure changed from cross-ply (remember those, Dad?) to radial, the stiffening from steel wire to plastic cord.  The tread changed from smooth, through circular ridges to the highly complex, water-shedding patterns we see today.  Even the rubber mix used today is worlds away from that employed by Dunlop when he made his first tyre.  But they are all tyres, and all support the car and are responsible for the road-holding of the vehicle as well as the comfort of the passengers.  They are all basically the same shape, are flexible, and are fitted to a metal hub.

In the cell, if there are differences, and if evolution has occurred, then we would expect to see the Cytochrome-C molecule changing steadily from the form found in 'simple' cells, such as bacteria, to the form in complex organisms, such as mammals.  We can clearly trace this sort of development in the design of the car tyre, and it has indeed undergone a form of evolution, as the car has developed and improved.  Similarly we should be able to trace a steady change, each more complex life-form having greater differences in their Cytochrome-C compared to the original type in bacteria, which are, presumably, closer to the 'original' life-form.

It is an enticing idea, and one which Evolutionists hoped would finally lay to rest any doubts about their theory.

Unfortunately for Darwinists, the molecules had other ideas.  There is a progression, of sorts, but not one that helps the evolutionists' case.  The differences do become more marked, but not in a fashion which supports steady development.  If anything, the support is for distinct and separate types of organisms.

It is possible to separate these Cytochrome-C molecules in terms of percentage differences.  On this sort of scale, if we compare the differences between bacteria and almost all other types of living organisms, we find to our surprise that they are all equidistant in molecular terms.  The bacterial Cytochrome-C differs from that of organisms such as yeasts, flowering plants, insects, fish, birds and mammals by 64-72%.  In fact yeasts are the 'furthest away', in molecular terms, (and therefore in evolutionary age) from bacteria.  From an evolutionary point of view this simply impossible.

If we remove yeasts from the list, the range of percentage differences narrows to 64-69%.  We can compare other single organisms with a range of living types.  Silkworm Cytochrome-C compared to fish, reptiles, birds and mammals differs by 25-30%.  Lamprey Cytochrome-C compared to the same types differs by 73-81%.  Snail Cytochrome-C compared to that in lamprey, fish, amphibian, bird and mammal differs by 85-87%, only a 2% range and an extraordinarily close correspondence.

If we assume evolution to have taken place, then these figures make the point that, looking from any one organism, all the main living groups have 'developed' virtually the same amount from some ancestor.  In evolutionary terms we would expect a steady increase or change in development in the molecular entities from 'simple' organisms to more complex, and therefore an increase in 'molecular distance'.  The evidence that we have from molecular biology makes it clear that no group of animals or plants is ancestral to, or is the successor of, any other.  This has to be the logical death knell to a belief in any form of evolution.

Yet another problem raised by molecular biology concerns the relative 'rates' of evolution.  It can be shown that a molecule such as haemoglobin, which again is very similar in form and function in many widely different types of organisms, also varies rather like the cytochromes.  But when this molecule is compared to cytochrome, we find that the amount of change itself is significantly different.  For example, the difference between the cytochromes of man and carp are about 13%, whereas the differences between their respective haemoglobins are more like 50%.

This is very hard to explain in evolutionary theory, because it forces the conclusion that these molecules have changed at different rates.  This proposition does violence to the theory by which all molecules are thought to change.  The only known method of altering such molecules is by mutation; mutation occurs almost exclusively as a result of radiation, and radiation intensities and effects do not discriminate between chemical molecules.  Worse, the proportion of each type of molecule which changed would be the same, or very similar.  But it isn't.

If the cytochromes were mutated by radiation, then so also were the haemoglobins.  If something else did the job then, again, it should not be able to discriminate between the two molecules, because they are both products of DNA and statistically all parts of the DNA will be affected equally.  However we find that the 'rates of change' differ by a factor of four.  In practice this means that they could not have changed - they must be the same as when they first formed.  So this throws evolution out as an explanation of their occurrence, and if this is true of two parts of the DNA it must be true of all parts.

Generation rates

There are a number of further problems with molecular 'evolution'.  For example the observed fact that bacteria are chemically equidistant from organisms such as yeasts and man is very difficult to explain when the generation rates are so dramatically different.  One generation of man spans tens of thousands of a typical yeast.  Is it a serious proposition on the part of Biologists that the rates of evolution of the two organisms would be comparable?  Yet that is the evidence of their chemistry.

Conclusion

The upshot of all this is that biochemistry, far from being the wonderful proof of evolution that was hoped, is actually its most potent disproof.  If we are looking for strong indications of Creation we have probably found it here, of all places.

References:
(Press your 'Back' button to return to the text from any of these references.)

Denton, M., (1985) 'Evolution, a theory in crisis', Adler & Adler, Maryland