The Blog

As we have discussed before, the capacity of the DNA genetic alphabet to contain a message is equivalent to the capacity of the English alphabet to contain a message. Since all living things have DNA with its four nitrogen-containing bases (represented by the letters A, T. C, and G), we would expect a high degree of similarity in the biological information among creatures whether or not they are ancestrally related.

Let us use an example from English to illustrate what we mean. Here are two sentences with exactly the same letters.

• Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.
• Charles Darwin was a scientific god.

While the letters in the two sentences are identical and the order is virtually the same (greater than 90%), the slight difference in order conveys opposite meanings. In the same way, only a slight difference in the order of the letters (A, T, C, and G) in living things may yield creatures that are far apart on the hypothetical evolutionary tree.

For example, while some studies show that the DNA similarity between humans and the most simple ape may be about 90%, other studies show the DNA similarity between humans and mice is also about 90%. Such comparisons are extremely controversial, but if mice genetically are as close to humans as apes, this would greatly complicate any Darwinian explanation.

But let’s suppose that further studies show someday that ape DNA is closer to human DNA than any other organism. This would not prove the Darwinists’ conclusion. The reason for this similarity could be for a common creator rather than a common ancestor.

We must find other evidence at the molecular level in order to discover whether the common genetic code is evidence of a common ancestor or of a common creator. That other evidence has been found – comparison of protein sequences.

Proteins are the building blocks of life. They are composed of long chains of chemical units called amino acids. Most proteins contain more than 100 of these amino acids, which must be in a very specific order. It is the DNA that contains the instructions for ordering the amino acids in the proteins, and the order is critical because any variation usually renders the protein dysfunctional.

Here is the problem that arises for Darwinists. If all species share a common ancestor, we should expect to find protein sequences that are transitional from, say fish to amphibian, or from reptile to mammal. But that is not what we find at all. Instead, we find that the basic types are molecularily isolated from one another, which defeats any trace of ancestral relationship. Even though all organisms share a common genetic code with various degrees of similarity, that code has ordered the amino acids in proteins in such a way that the basic types of organisms are in molecular isolation from one another.

There are no Darwinian transitions, only distinct molecular gaps.

Personal Reflection:
Does fossil records support the Darwinian theory?