The Apple Of God's Eye

May 25, 2011

The Impossibility Of Evolution

Filed under: Evolution — melchia @ 5:57 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

Editors Comment – Found this post at (2002 March/April Trumpet – print edition). It really puts into perspective the impossibility of evolution. It’s a must read for those searching for real truth.


Evolution vs. Creation

Since random events within nature are supposed to be responsible for the spontaneous beginning of life and of all living things, let’s evaluate “randomness.” The tool used to evaluate randomness is the mathematical concept of probability.

The basic principle of probability is simple: If you have a coin with two sides, heads and tails, and toss it into the air, each side has a 50 percent chance of being on the top when the coin lands. This is the probability of a random event limited by two possible outcomes.

Now, imagine a pair of four-sided dice. The probability of any certain side landing in the bottom position when one of the pair is tossed is one in four, or 25 percent. Add the second of the pair, and there are 16 possible combinations (four times four). Add a third and there are 64 possible combinations (four times four times four). The probability of getting any certain combination in one toss of three dice would be 64 to one. The more possible combinations, the less the probability of any one specific result.

Evolution is hypothesized to occur when there is an alteration to the genetic material of a plant or animal, and the change produces offspring with a better chance to survive. In animals, the changes take place in the genome, the genetic material of the sperm or egg cells of a parent, and are passed on to the next generation.

In the human genome, there are four possible combinations of amino acids called nucleotides, but, instead of three dice, there are 3.2 billion nucleotides. The possible combinations would be four times four times four—repeatedly multiplying by four a total of 3.2 billion times.

The Human Genome Project, a joint international effort to unravel the structure of genetic material of humans, has determined that a genetic mutation of one billionth of a genome is always fatal. That means for a human, a random change of three nucleotides is fatal, thereby ending any further possibility of evolution for that individual’s offspring.

Evolutionists claim that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to man, with a difference of about 48 million nucleotides. This means at least 48 million random events must have occurred in exactly the right order for the evolutionary gap between man and his hypothesized common ancestor with chimpanzee to have been spanned. Three changes in the genome during one generation would be fatal and stop the process. Therefore this number of changes would require a minimum of 24 million generations to achieve, assuming two changes happened during each generation.

These changes must happen in exactly the proper order, and each step must produce either no noticeable change or provide the offspring with some sort of advantage. Any negative change would stop or prolong the process. Each change must occur in a gene that is passed on to an offspring, and the offspring must survive and must undergo some further sort of change and have offspring and so on for each of the 48 million genetic changes.

Next, since there are 3.2 billion nucleotides in the human genome, the probability of one particular nucleotide being altered is 3.2 billion to one. To determine the mathematical probability of the genetic changes necessary for the hypothesized “evolution” between chimps and people, it is necessary to multiply 3.2 billion times 48 million.

The probability against the evolution from a common ancestor with chimps to modern man, using these figures, is 153 quadrillion (153 followed by 15 zeros) to one.

The scope of 153 quadrillion is incomprehensible. To illustrate the size of this number: If one number is counted every second (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), it would take over 200 million years longer than the estimated age of the Earth to reach 153 quadrillion.

Though this number seems mind-boggling, it is only the tip of the iceberg. This example assumes all changes to genetic material would be positive when, in reality, fewer than 1 percent of genetic changes are beneficial. This example assumes each offspring would be successful in producing more offspring and that each generation would have two genetic “improvements.” It does not include any of the factors like mortality of offspring, unsuccessful reproductive attempts, the order of changes and many more variables, each of which would increase the odds against evolution by millions of times.

If a change anywhere in the chain of events proves to be detrimental, the entire process comes to a halt. For example, if a saber-tooth tiger eats one of the young prehistoric genetically altered monkey-men before it becomes a parent, the process is interrupted—the entire chain of events leading to that child comes to an end.

This represents only the changes that must occur starting with the supposed common ancestor of men and chimps and ending with the first modern man. What about the number of changes necessary to get from the first single cell, which is hypothesized to have taken life in the primordial ooze, until it evolved into this hypothetical chimp-like pre-man?

Here’s a better question: How many multiple millions of times greater would be the probability against such “evolution”?

Amino Acids

Consider an interesting fact of science: the existence of “levo-amino acids.” Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and are necessary for life. They normally exist in two mirror-image forms, referred to as dextro for right and levo for left. One amino acid in protein, for example, is thymine. In inorganic (non-living) material, whether found in nature or produced in the laboratory, it is found in equal amounts of dextro-thymine and levo-thymine. The only noticeable difference in the two is the way light is rotated, either to the left or the right, when passing through the amino acid molecules. The same is true of the other amino acids. All inorganic material contains equal amounts of dextro- and levo-type molecules.

In living things, however—both plant and animal—every amino acid molecule found in proteins is of the levo variety only. Not one dextro-amino acid is to be found among them. A moderately sized protein may be made up of a chain of 400 levo-amino acids. For one molecule in such a chain to be levo is a one in two chance, for two in a row is a one in four chance and for three is a one in eight chance—if determined randomly. This is simple probability, as we discussed earlier.

For 400 in a row to be all of the levo type is a probability of 101 to one. If written out, this would be a one with 120 zeros after it. Said another way, the odds of such a random formation is a thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion to one. But believing evolutionists will remark, “It could happen.”

Numbers this large don’t really have much meaning, as it is not possible to comprehend their size. So, let’s get some perspective. It is estimated that the known universe consists of a total of 108 atoms. So the chance against one modest-sized protein having all levo molecules is 1040 times greater than the total number of atoms in the universe!

The figures we have been looking at are for one amino acid. A human genome is made up of about 3.2 billion pairs of these molecules, and there is not even one that is of the dextro type.

Such figures put evolution beyond the realm of improbability. Evolution is an impossibility.


1 Comment »

  1. Good points

    Comment by Jane Gooding — May 29, 2011 @ 8:26 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: