EVOLUTIONARY PROBABILITY OF THE

HUMAN GENOME

In order for evolution to occur in sexually reproducing species, there would have to be a
mechanism where a recent mutation (either new genetic material, or a deletion of redundant
genetic material) on the chromosome from one parent was able to copy itself to the same location
on the corresponding chromosome inherited from the other parent. This is a key point, and such
a mechanism simply does not exist. If such a mechanism did exist, then both sets of
chromosomes (one set from the male and one from the female) in an individual would become
the same.
Here is what would happen if such a mechanism existed. If all eyes were brown but one parent
evolved the gene for blue eyes, then the other chromosome (inherited from the brown eyed
parent) would then also obtain the gene coding for blue eyes. By the same mechanism, the
genetic information from the brown eyed chromosome would get copied to the blue eyed
chromosome. Over time all the chromosome would become the same. If this mechanism did
exist, then over time there would be less and less genetic variation. There would also be no
diseases involving gene deletions, such as albinism. But there are.
All individuals of sexually reproducing species have two sets of chromosomes. One set from
each parent. The chromosomes all have the same genes but they may have different
expressions (alleles) of those genes. All chromosomes have a gene for eye colour, but some will
have a blue allele and some will have a brown allele. If a mechanism existed that could copy
new or different genetic material from one set of chromosome to another, then over time all
chromosomes would carry all alleles. Everyone would carry both brown and blue eyed genetic
material. Over time there would be less and less genetic variation. There would be a tendency
for all sets of chromosome to carry all alleles, blue eyes, green eyes, brown eyes, blond hair, red,
brunette, black hair, straight, wavy, curly, etc. This is simply not the case.
If this mechanism existed, everyone would have both male and female genes. We would all be
hermaphrodites.
However, if this mechanism did not exist, then over time as genetic mutations continued to
occur, the genetic code would simply become chaos. The different sets of chromosomes (one
from each parent) would be coding for different genes. One set of chromosomes from one parent
may code for blue eyes, the other set may not even code for eyes at all. One set of chromosomes
from one parent may carry the genetic code for some of the enzymes necessary in biochemical
processes, but not all of them. Hopefully, that individual would inherit the genes for all the other
enzymes, by random chance, from the other parent. This however would be genetic chaos and is
simply not the case. In healthy individuals who do not have genetic diseases, or inborn errors of
1

metabolism, both sets of chromosomes have a full complement of all human genes. In other
words, they are homologous. How then is this explained in the absence of a mechanism that can
copy (or delete) the necessary genetic material, from a mutated chromosome, to the
corresponding chromosome from the other parent. This mechanism would have to be able to
recognize the difference between genetic material that is newly mutated and genetic material that
is different simply because it is a different expression of that gene (ie. a different allele).
Evolution also requires the chance (and fortuitous) deletion of genes that are not required any
longer. At one point in time genetic mutations (deletions) must have occurred in individuals that
caused them to stop having scales, or fins, or gills as they evolved into land dwelling creatures.
The gene copy/deletion mechanism would have to know when it was necessary to either delete
genes or copy them from the corresponding chromosome of the other parent. If a beneficial new
gene just evolved, how would the gene copy/delete mechanism know whether it should copy it to
the complementary chromosome from the other parent? It could just as easily be that the gene is
missing from the other chromosome because we no longer needed scales. It could then just as
easily decide to delete this new gene instead of copying it to the other chromosome. On the other
hand, if it copied it back in, then the evolutionary process would have just lost all that ground
and we would still be walking around with scales.
As it is however, there are two pairs or sets of matching chromosomes in each individual of a
sexually reproducing species. One set from each parent. There are genetic mechanisms known
to exist that can repair chromosomes. There are mechanisms known to exist that unzip sections
of the genetic double helix material for the purpose of transcribing (reading) the code. The
mechanisms of transcription have been elucidated. The mechanisms of chromosome duplication
for the purpose of cell division are known. A process referred to as genetic cross over is also
understood. This is a process where paternal and maternal chromosomes exchange genetic
material in the production of gametes. This occurs so that the offspring do not all inherit the
exact same genetic material and end up looking the same. Portions of genetic material are
exchanged, not copied. In spite of all these processes being known, there has never been a
process described involving the copying or deleting of genetic material from the chromosomes of
one parent to or from the corresponding chromosomes of the other parental set.
What is fact however is that all sexually reproducing species have two sets of matching
chromosomes, one from each parent, and both sets have the same genes (but differ in their alleles
for certain characteristics). There are only 2 possible ways this could happen. Either the same
mutations occurred at the same time in both sexes, and these individuals had to find each other
and have offspring (and this would have to occur for each and every genetic mutation), or there
has to exist a very complex, well guided system of gene copy/deletion between complementary
sets of parental chromosomes. Of all the genetic processes that are known, this is not one of
them. If this mechanism did exist, it would lead to the mayhem mentioned above if it were not
well controlled. If it did exist, then genetic mutations (damage from chemicals or radiation) that

do occur on one chromosome should be readily seen to be present on both sets of chromosomes
(eg. malignant melanoma as a result of radiation damage to melanocytes).
Also, if such a mechanism did exist, but had just not yet been discovered, there should be
diseases related to the occasional malfunction of this process. There are lots of genetic diseases
related to the occasional malfunction of the other genetic processes, but no condition has been
described as it would relate to a process of genetic copying/deleting of genetic material to make
one parental chromosome the same as the other.
One could postulate that just because such a process has not yet been discovered, it does not
necessarily mean that it doesnt exist. This is true. Anybody can postulate anything about
something that doesnt exist and they can never be proven wrong! However, genetic
mechanisms have been very well studied and nothing to this effect has ever been suggested.
There are no genetic phenomenon (such as the ones mentioned already or any others for that
matter) known to geneticists, that would hint at such a mechanism being present. There is
evidence (such as what has already been mentioned) to suggest that such a mechanism does not
exist. To postulate then that it does exist but just hasnt been discovered in spite of the fact that
it would contradict what is known, would be ridiculous (or desperate). Having stated this, I
would challenge any geneticist to start doing research on trying to discover a gene
copying/deleting mechanism to explain how sexually reproducing species have two sets of
matching genes.
Although a gene copying/deleting mechanism would explain how sexually reproducing species
end up with two sets of matching chromosomes (even if it was so well regulated as to allow
individuals to have different alleles, different genders, know exactly when it needed to copy new
and beneficial genes to the corresponding gene from the other parent, know when to delete old
redundant genes, never malfunction in any way so as to produce a disease process that would
then be identified and never copy any bad mutations such as cancer causing genes) it still
wouldnt explain evolution.
If such a genetic process did exist, then new mutations would propagate through the gene pool
with each successive generation of that species. In this scenario, there would be a very slow
evolutionary change that would involve the whole herd as one genetic mutation after another
develops and propagates through the herd over long periods of time. The problem with this is
that no new species would develop! In fact, if one goes right back to the first sexually
reproducing species and follows this line of reasoning, then there should still only be one
sexually reproducing species. It would no longer be the same as the original species. There
would be a fossil record demonstrating a slow progressive change over the generations of the
species as a whole but never a branching off to produce a new species. The branching off of new
genetic species would be thwarted by the presence of the gene copy/deletion mechanism, always
working to keep the chromosomes from the same.

The only way a new and separate species could develop and branch off is if very shortly after the
mutation occurred, those with the new mutation became completely and permanently separated
from the herd. If only one individual with the new mutation stayed with the herd, or if there was
ever any mixing of the herd in the future with an individual possessing the new mutation, then
speciation would fail. If an individual with the new mutation did mate with an individual that
didnt have the new mutation, then the gene copy/deletion mechanism would be sure to copy the
new mutation in any of their offspring. Over generations to follow, this gene would spread
through the herd and cause complete genetic homogeneity no new species. Therefore,
complete and permanent separation of mutated individuals from the herd would have to happen
for each and every genetic mutation that ever occurred, for each and every sexually reproducing
species that lives or ever lived. This type of scenario of evolution would predict that genetic
change and mutation would occur but that there would be little to no development of different
sexually reproducing species existing at the same time. If complete separation of the new
mutation from the original herd did occur, then speciation would happen. More often than not
however, new mutations would end up propagating throughout the herd with each successive
generation, causing the whole herd to slowly mutate into a new species over time. The fossil
records just simply do not support this and this would also minimize (if not completely
prevent) the development of new and different genetic species. It would be difficult to logically
explain how more than 1 000 000 sexually reproducing species currently exist if a gene
copy/deletion mechanism actually existed. It would be essentially impossible to give a
reasonable explanation as to how any new sexually reproducing species of plants could occur
since the vast majority of them drop there seed close by, therefore not allowing new mutations to
become separated from the parent species.
As such, the only option that we are left with to explain matching sets of chromosomes in
sexually reproducing species, is that the same mutations must occur in both the male and female
of a species by random chance, and not as the result of a gene copy/deletion mechanism.

Lets look at the total number of possible genetic combinations in the human genome.
There are 2.91 billion base pairs (bps) in the human genome. It is estimated that only 1.1% of
these base pairs are located in exons (the parts of the chromosomes that are actually decoded
and transcripted into proteins). This leaves only 32 010 000 exon base pairs that our cells require
to function. The introns (parts of the chromosomes that are not transcribed into proteins) may or
may not be required for controlling the expression of the genetic code. For the purpose of this
discussion, they will be ignored.
Each base pair of the human genome can consist of one of four possible molecules: adenine (A),
guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). As mentioned already, the human genome consists
of 32 010 000 base pairs that are transcribed into proteins. How many combinations are
possible? For the first 2 locations there would be a total of 4X4 combinations:
A

A. AA, AG, AC, AT;

G. GA, GG, GC, GT;
C.

CA, CG, CC, CT;

T. TA, TG, TC, TT.

As you can see from the above diagram, there are 16 (4x4) possible combinations that can occur
for the first 2 base pairs in the genetic sequence.
The first 3 locations would therefore have 4 x 4 x 4 possible combinations or 4n, where n is the
number of genome base pairs. Therefore the total number of possible combinations for 32 010
000 base pairs would be 4 multiplied by itself 32 010 000 times.
432 010 000.
42=16
43=64
410=1 048 576 This is the number of possible combinations with just 10 base pairs. This is only
enough to code for 3 amino acids (the building blocks of proteins).
4100=1.6 x 1060 This number is 16 000.etc with a total of 60 zeroes. We have no name for this
number. This is the number of possible random combinations of only 100 of the 32 010 000
base pairs (and only 33 amino acids).
4165=2.2 x 1099 Thats 22 with 98 zeroes following it. Thats as high as a regular calculator will
go because they only have 2 spaces for an exponent. This number is greater than the total
5

number of elementary particles (photons and neutrinos) that are estimated to exist in the entire
universe (2.5 x1089) and we have only accounted for the possible combinations of 165 base pairs
so far. (The total number of atoms in the universe is estimated at 1060).
To carry things further, logarithms are required.
Log4=0.60205991
Or 4=100.60205991
Therefore by substitution: 432 010 000= (100.60205991)32 010 000
Which equals 1019 271 940.3224
This equals 1019 271 940 x 100.3224
=2.1x1019 271 940
Thats 21 with 19 271 939 zeroes behind it. If each zero took a cm to write by hand, this
number would require 96 km 359 m and 69.5 cm to write out in long form: 21000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000 000 000.etc.
66 zeroes fit across this page in a space of 16.5 cm. At this size, the number typed out in full
would go for 48 km 179 m and 84.75cm. Thats how many possible combinations there are of
the base pairs A, G, C and T in the human genetic code. Unfathomable.
To attempt to give this number some meaning we can try to compare it to other big numbers. At
a currently estimated 13.82 billion years old, and 365.25 days per year and 86 400 seconds per
day, the universe would then be approximately 4.36126 x 1017 seconds old Seventeen zeroes
only, not even close to 19 million zeroes.
The observable universe is thought to be 93 billion light years in diameter. Thats 8.8x1026
meters, or 8.8x1029 millimeters. Even measured in millimeters, the diameter of our universe does
not come close to the number of possible combinations in the human genome. If we assume that
the universe is spherical, then using the equation V=4/3pi R3, we can calculate the volume of the
whole observable universe to be 6.81x1080 cubic millimeters! Even the number of cubic
millimeters in the entire universe does not come close to the number of possible combinations of
base pairs in the human genome. The biggest number I can come up with is the estimated
number of elementary particles in the observable universe. This number is based on the estimate
of an average of 100 neutrinos and 400 photons per cubic cm, which gives a total of 2.5x10 89
elementary particles.
The probability that the same genetic mutation occurs in both male and female at a particular site
of a chromosome is . The probability that it occurs for all 32 010 000 base pairs is x x
6

 repeated 32 010 000. This equals 1 chance in 2.1 x 1019 271 940. You have a better chance (by
more than 19 000 000 orders of magnitude) at guessing which photon in the universe Im
thinking about.
The oldest bacterial fossil is estimated to be 3 billion years old. With 365.25 days per year x 86
400 seconds per day, there would be 9.47 x1016 seconds since the first bacteria is known to have
existed.
2.1 x 1019 271 940 possible combinations, divided by 9.47 x 1016seconds = 2.2 x 1019 271
923
combinations/second. This is the number of combinations nature would have to try each
second for the past 3 billion years in order to go through all the possible combinations of the
human genome.
This assumes a completely formed genome to start with. However, nature would have to build it
from scratch, one DNA base pair at a time. Even if mutations occurred by numerous base pairs
at a time, it would not change the calculations with respect to how many possible combinations
existed. So the number of possible combinations nature would have to try would be 532 010 000.
For each base pair location there are 5 choices: A, G, C, T or nothing.
532 010 000= 7.058 x 1022 374 029 (55.935 km to type out that many zeroes)
Nature would have to run through 7.5 x 1022 374 012 combinations per second for 3 billion years in
order to have tried all the possible combinations. This is assuming that nature would never try
the same random mutation more than once even though nature would have no way of keeping
track of which mutations it had already tried and failed at.
Even if nature and the evolutionary process got lucky and only had to try 1 out of every trillion
(1012) possible combinations, this would still leave 7.5 x 1022 374 000 (1022 374 012/1012 = 1022 374 000)
possible combinations to go through every second for 3 billion years. Anyone would consider
themselves UNBELEIVABLY lucky if they were able to crack a lock with 1 trillion possible
combinations on the first try. Even giving evolution these kinds of odds, it would still have to go
through 7.5 x 1022 374 000 combinations every second.
It does not appear that there has been nearly enough time since the first bacteria formed 3 billion
years ago in order for evolution to reasonably have arrived at homo sapiens by random mutations
and natural selection, if one considers the number of mutations that would have been required.
One could argue that these numbers are grossly overestimated because of the redundancy of the
genetic code. There are a total of 20 amino acids that our chromosomes code for. Each amino
acid is coded for by a set of 3 base pairs. This set of three base pairs is called a codon.
However, there are 4x4x4=64 possible combinations of 3 base pairs. Since there are only 20
amino acids, most of the amino acids (the building blocks of proteins, which genes code for)
have several codons that code for them. As a result of this, if a mutation of base pairs such as
7

TTT occurred (resulting in the code for the amino acid Phenalalanine), in one individual, one
could argue that a member of the opposite sex would have to either develop TTT as a mutation,
or TTC, since both of these code for the same amino acid. If the code GTT evolved, then a
member of the opposite sex could evolve any of the following: GTT, GTC, GTA or GTG. All of
these code for the same amino acid, Valine. For this one amino acid alone the probability of the
opposite sex developing the genetic code for the same amino acid would be increased from 1/64
to 4/64, or 1/16. If this same reasoning was to be carried out for the whole genetic code then the
probability of both sexes developing random mutations for the same amino acids and proteins
would be far better than the one in 2.1x1019 271 940 calculated above. Calculating this improved
probability however is pointless because both sets of chromosomes that humans have (or any
sexually reproducing species), are in fact homologous. According to evolution, they are
homologous by random chance with no genetic copying/deleting mechanism.
What is rather interesting however, is the pattern in which the 20 amino acids that are used for
protein synthesis are coded for.
The following table shows the codon sequences that code for the 20 different amino acids. How
and why would evolution, which is nothing more than random genetic mutations (usually caused
by mindless radiation or chemical reactions) followed by natural selection be so organized?
Why do both codons for phenylalanine (F) start with TT? Why do all four codons for
phenylalanine (P) start with CC? Why do all six for leucine (L) start with TT or CT? etc. etc.
etc. The codon sequencing for the specific amino acids are so organized that a tri-axial table like
the one below can be created into which the amino acids that are coded for fall into place in an
organized fashion. Why would an organized table fall into place from a series of random
accidents? This table appears to have definite organization. How did evolution do that?
This table shows all 64 possible combinations of three bases chosen from the 4 possible bases
that occur in our DNA. It also shows which amino acids that they code for.

T
T

TTT (F)

TCT (S)

TAT (Y)

TGT (C)

TTC (F)

TCC (S)

TAC (Y)

TGC (C)

TTA (L)

TCA (S)

TAA

TTG (L)

TCG (S)

TAG *

TGG (W)

CTT (L)

CCT (P)

CAT (H)

CGT (R)

CTC (L)

CCC (P)

CAC (H)

CGC (R)

TGA

CTA (L)

CCA (P)

CAA (Q)

CGA (R)

CTG (L)

CCG (P)

CAG (Q)

CGG (R)

ATT (I)

ACT (T)

AAT (N)

AGT (S)

ATC (I)

ACC (T)

AAC (N)

AGC (S)

ATA (I)

ACA (T)

AAA (K)

AGA(R)

ATG (M)

ACG (T)

AAG (K)

AGG (R)

GTT (V)

GCT (A)

GAT (D)

GGT(G)

GTC (V)

GCC (A)

GAC (D)

GGC(G)

GTA (V)

GCA(A)

GAA(E)

GGA(G)

GTG (V)

GCG(A)

GAG(E)

GGG(G)

* stop codons

DNA bases:

A: Adenine

G: Guanine

T: Thymine

C: Cytosine

Amino acids (the building blocks of proteins):

F: Phenylalanine S: Serine

Y: Tyrosine

C: Cysteine

L: Leucine

P: Proline

H: Histidine Q: Glutamine

I: Isoleucine

M: Methionine

T: Threonine

V: Valine

A: Alanine

D: Aspartic acid E: Glutamic acid

R: Arginine

N: Asparagine

K: Lysine
G: Glycine

Evolution must go from simple to complex. There must have been a time when only 5 or 10 or
15 of the codons were specifically used to code for certain specific amino acids before all of the
64 codons were eventually assigned to the various specific amino acids. As things were evolving
and codons were being assigned to code for specific amino acids, why and how did evolution
reserve all the codons starting with TC for Serine (S) only, and all the codes starting with CT
for Leucine (L) only, and all the codes starting with CC for Proline (P) only, and all the codes
starting with CG for Arginine (R) only, and all the codons starting with AC for Threonine (T)
only, and all four codons that start with GT for Valine (V) only, and all four that start with GC
for Alanine (A) only, and all four codes that start with GG for glycine (G) only. In fact exactly
9

half of the 16 groups of 4 shown above code for one and only one amino acid: S, L, P, R, T, V,
A, and G. Why is this table not just completely random? Leucine (L), Arginine (R) and Serine
(S) all have 6 codes so each of these fall into 2 categories. Its interesting that the extra 2 codons
for Arginine and Serine are grouped together in the group of codons starting with AG. Why do
none of the other amino acids that are coded for by four or fewer codons not happen to be split
into two (or more) groups. Evolution occurs as a result of random genetic changes. Why does
this table look like it was thought out before hand?
To estimate the probability of evolution producing all of the plants and animals on earth that
reproduce sexually, this number would have to be calculated for each of those species also and
then multiplied together for a grand total.
Evolution, by random chance, would have to produce the same random but valuable genetic
material in both a male and female of a species for the reasons discussed in the first section. Of
course, one could say that evolution didnt have to produce the specific species that we see on
the earth today and therefore x x etc is irrelevant. This would be true if there were no
species of sexual reproduction. In the case of sexual reproduction, a random beneficial but nonlethal mutation may occur in a male or female member of a species. For sexually reproducing
organisms however, this same mutation would have to then also occur in a member of the
opposite sex of that species (for the reasons already explained). The chance that these same
random mutations then occur in a member of the opposite sex is x x etc. to a total of 2.1 x
10 19 271 940.
Someone could roll a set of dice and randomly obtain 2, 5, 6, 4, 4, 6, 1 or anything else for that
matter. Lets call these the pink female dice. This random code may be a portion of some gene
for a very beneficial protein. If this were occurring in a species of non-sexual reproduction there
may not be a problem. However, for species of sexual reproduction, what are the chances of
doing it again with the blue male dice. The answer is 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x1/6 (or
1/67) = 1 / 279 936. Genetic material doesnt role with dice that have 6 possible outcomes, of
course, it roles with the DNA bases that only have 4 options: A, G, T, C; but the principles are
the same.
To calculate the probability of evolution producing all of the sexually reproducing species that
exist on the planet, all of the probabilities for each individual species would then have to be
multiplied together.
The smallest known genome of a non-viral species is 159 662 base pairs with 182 genes,
belonging to C. rudrii. This gives an average of 877 base pairs per gene. The human genome of
32 010 000 base pairs (exons only) codes for 25 000 proteins. This gives an average of 1 280
base pairs per protein. It is estimated that there are probably well over 1 million sexually
reproducing organisms on earth. Lets assume that every gene that coded for a protein was only
877 base pairs. Let us simplify things and assume that only one gene was required to distinguish
10

one species from the next throughout the whole evolutionary chain. This would mean that only
one gene of 877 base pairs added to species A would produce species B. Only one gene of 877
base pairs would be required to then evolve species C from species B and so on. Lets assume
the simplest of all possible scenarios of evolution and say that there were only 1 000 000
sexually reproducing species on the earth, and each one of these was directly linked to its parent
and offspring by the addition of only one gene of 877 base pairs. In this evolutionary best case
scenario, there would be a total of only 1 000 000 sexually reproduced genes (each one
containing only 877 base pairs) in all of creation. In this best case scenario, there would then be
a total of only 877 000 000 sexually reproduced base pairs in all of creation. In this case, the
best possible chance of evolution developing all sexually reproducing genes and organisms by
random chance would be 1/4877 000 000
4 = 100.60205999136
Therefore, by substitution 1/4877 000 000 = 1/ (100.60205999136)877 000 000 = 1/10528 006 530. Therefore
1/10528 006 530 would seem to be the best possible scenario for the chance of evolution producing
all of the sexually reproduced genes in creation by random chance. The number 10528 006 530 has
no meaning that we can comprehend or compare to. It is the number 1 followed by more than
half a billion zeroes. This would require more than 1 250 km to type it out in full: 1 000 000...

11

Earths crust formed approx. 4.6 billion years ago. The oldest rocks on earth are estimated to be
3.8 billion years old. The first bacterial life forms are considered to have formed about 3.1
billion years ago.
As already mentioned, there are 2.91 billion base pairs (bps) in the human genome. It is
estimated that only 1.1% of these base pairs are located in exons (the parts of the chromosomes
that are actually decoded and transcripted into proteins). This leaves only 32 010 000 exon base
pairs that our cells require to function. The introns (parts of the chromosomes that are not
transcribed into proteins) may or may not be required for controlling the expression of the
genetic code. For the purpose of this discussion, they will be ignored.
This means that on average a correct base pair had to be added by mutation to the human genome
every 96.84 years since the first simple forms of life appeared.
3 100 000 000 years / 32 010 000 base pairs =96.84 years per base pair
If we assume that a proper base pair is mutated correctly 99.9999% of the time, then the
probability of the correct mutation occurring twice in a row (ie. After 96.84 x2 = 193.68 years)
would be
0.999 999 X 0.999 999 = .999998
(calculation: 0.999999a, where the exponent a is the same as the number of base pairs that have
mutated to date)
This means that the likelihood of the first 2 mutations occurring correctly in the first 193.68
years is 99.9998%. This assumes that the correct base pair would randomly mutate in a male and
female of a species (and that they would find each other and have offspring) and survive every
96.84 years on average. It would then continue by random chance to again correctly mutate and
survive 99.9999% of the time. Here is how it would then continue over the following years:
Number of base pairs

Number of years of evolution

Probability of correct sequence

1.

96.84

99.9999%

2.

193.68

99.9998%

100.

(100 x 96.84) 9 684

99.99%

1000.

(1000 x 96.84) 96 840

99.90005%

10 000.

968 400

99.00498%

100 000.

9 684 000

90.48374%

12

1 000 000.

96 840 000

36.78794%

10 000 000.

968 400 000

0.00453999%

32 010 000.

(32 010 000 x 96.84) 3 100 000 000

1.2538 x 10-12 %

Or 1.25 chances in 100 000 000 000 000 (100 trillion). To attempt to give this number some
meaning, 100 trillion km is the distance light travels in (10 years). 100 trillion millimeters is 100
million kilometers! (More than 260 times the distance to the moon, measured in millimeters).
This is 2/3 the distance to the sun (150 million km). There are 1 000 000 mm in a km. There are
one trillion square mm in one square km. 100 trillion mm2 would cover an area of 100 km2.
This number only considers the probability for the human genome and does not account for the
rest of the 1.7 million other named species of living plants, animals, insects, birds, reptiles and
micro-organisms on the earth (4000 of these are micro-organisms). There are widely ranging
estimates of 3 million to 100 million species in total. No one knows for sure.
1.25/100 000 000 000 000 (the same ratio of 1.25 millimeters in 100 million kilometers) is not
the probability of evolution. It assumes that a cell already exists and has the proper functioning
mechanisms for DNA replication and cell division. Cell biologists spend a lifetime researching
the complexity of these mechanisms.
1.25/100 000 000 000 000 accounts for the probability of both a male and female member of the
human species developing the exact same mutations 32 010 000 times over the course of 3.1
billion years of evolution only if it did occur correctly 99.9999% of the time. One could argue
that any mutation could develop because evolution didnt have to produce the species (humans in
this case) that it did. We could just as easily have evolved into something different. However, if
a mutation occurs in one gender of a species then it also has to occur in the other gender for
reasons already described. Along the same lines of reasoning, brothers and sisters of the parents
with the new mutation would have to mate to allow the new mutation to be propagated to the
next generation. This new sub-species would have to segregate themselves enough from the
parent species in order for the new genetic variation to establish itself. This would have to occur
for every new mutation, whether the mutation involves just one base pair or several at a time.
1.25/100 000 000 000 000 also assumes that the new mutations along the way would not be
detrimental to the viability of the organism. Biochemical processes produce biochemical
substrates or intermediate biochemical compounds which are necessary for the next biochemical
reaction. Organisms need to be able to deal with these intermediate compounds in one way or
another. If these substances build up in the cells then the organism will die. As a result of this,
evolution would have to (by chance) develop the proper enzyme pathways necessary for
biochemical processes before they were actually needed by the species. If there is a build-up of a
substrate needed for the next chemical process but the next enzyme has not yet been mutated by
random genetic variation, the substrate becomes a toxin to the cell. These diseases are called
13

storage diseases because the substrate becomes stored in the cells. They result in mental
retardation, dysmorphic features and multiple organ failure and even with human intervention,
usually result in death. There are no known storage diseases that are associated with normal
healthy individuals. I have never seen or heard of a paper produced by a biochemist with a
proposed timeline showing in what order enzymes would have to evolve for all the known (or
even a few) biochemical pathways such that the organism would be viable each step of the way.
The order in which they come into existence would have to be such that their own activity would
not end up creating an abundance of toxins detrimental to the organism, while at the same time
be necessary for future (random and unanticipated) genetic mutations resulting in other enzymes
necessary toward the completion of a complex chemical pathway which in itself is completely
useless to the organism until it is completely finished (eg. Krebs cycle, clotting cascade, liver
cytochrome systems etc.). To blow your mind on the complexity of this topic, google ExPASyBiochemical Pathways and click on Metabolic Pathways and Cellular and Molecular
Processes.

14

These charts begin to give some idea of the complexity of cellular metabolic and molecular
processes necessary for human metabolism. It is in no way comprehensive as there is still a lot
that is not known and even what is known cannot be shown on just two wall charts. This of
course applies to humans only and does not include all the different biochemical pathways for
the other 1.7 million known species. A specific order of enzyme mutations (which in all
likelihood is simply impossible) would have to occur for every chemical and enzymatic pathway
for every species that lives or has ever lived. One has to wonder how random genetic mutations
(most of which are the result of harmful radiation (eg. from the sun, or chemicals), which have
no specific conscious purpose or goal in mind (for they are nothing more than radiation and
chemicals) could end up doing this if intelligent beings are not able to figure it out. There are a
large number of metabolic disorders. All would end up in death if it were not for modern
medical care. Even then, most end up in death. Thirty to 50% of pregnancies end in
miscarriage. The majority of these are suspected to be due to genetic mutations. Proven and
known genetic mutations have never been shown to be of benefit. There is not a case known in
the world that has ever been reported of a human or other species for that matter, born with new
15

and beneficial genetic material! Breeding animals (or humans for that matter) to select for
certain genetic characteristics does not produce new genetic material and therefore is not
evolution. Unfortunately, had Darwin understood this he would not have spent so many chapters
essentially discussing what we simply understand to be Mendelian laws of inheritance and not
evolution. A change in eye colour, height, muscularity etc. is not evolution. Breeding dogs for
the purpose of selecting out certain desired characteristics of strength, height, speed, colour or
temperament, has never produced anything other than another dog. It is not a new species.
There is no new genetic material. It is not a form of evolution. It does nothing to explain how
evolution started with nothing and produced all the genetic material for all species that ever
existed. Shuffling genes by interbreeding animals (ie. different breeds of dogs or in some cases
even of different but closely related species) does nothing to the total gene pool of earth. In the
same way, shuffling a deck of cards doesnt produce anything else but a deck of cards.
Evolution requires the development of new genetic material. Evolution had to start with no
genetic material and end up with more than 1.7 million species worth of chromosomes.
1.25 / 100 000 000 000 000 also assumed that there was only a 1 in a million chance that the next
correct mutation would not occur or would not get passed on to the next generation. Considering
the mounting problems that evolution has to overcome and the astronomical number of possible
mutations that could occur, to say that by random chance the probability of getting the right
order of base pairs every 96.84 years on average, in both male and female, is 0.999 999 and of
getting it wrong is only 0.000001, is indeed very generous.
Even if, against all these odds, evolution still had a 99.9999 % chance of getting the correct base
pair every time, in the obligatory average time of 96.84 years, it would still only have a 1.25 in a
100 trillion (1 / 100 000 000 000 000) chance of getting it right, let alone having to dance around
all the obstacles mentioned in this article, and totally by random chance.

16

One of the theories of evolution requires branch points, where the offspring of a parent of a
particular species carries a mutation and becomes the beginning point of a new species. At first
the new species would appear very similar to the parent species but as time goes on it becomes
progressively different through further gradual genetic change. There are several difficulties
with this. First of all, each new genetic change in the new species that occurs in order to
continue the process of differentiating it from the parent species becomes in itself a branch point
for a new species. Just because one of the offspring of a certain species has developed a
mutation, does not cause the parent species to immediately die off. As a result of this, there
should be a species for each and every individual minute mutation between different species in
the evolutionary chain. Another way of stating this is that there should be a species for each and
every different protein or enzyme that differentiates one species from the next in the chain. If
there are only 500 different proteins that differentiate one species from the next, then there
should be 500 intermediate species from one to the next. This is a conservative number. To say
that all of these 500 intermediates died off and left no trace is difficult to believe considering
how long each parent species (being only one genetic mutation different from its parent species)
must have existed for evolution to randomly be able to produce the next beneficial genetic
mutation. It would be good again to consider the greater than astronomical numbers involved in
randomly getting it right. By the time the next appropriate mutation occurred, the parent species
would be a well establish herd and would have continued to live for a long time even after one of
its kind developed the next necessary mutation. As such, the parent herd should have left
evidence of its existence. Consider also that this would have to have happened for each new
mutation of every species.
Evolutionists themselves say that if you lined up all the parents and offspring that carry a
mutated gene side by side down the line, one would not be able to distinguish the parent from the
offspring because the changes are so small. One would only be able to start to notice a change
very gradually over a long period. However, when evolutionists draw the evolutionary tree
with branch points it looks like a tree when in fact it should look like a shrub with a minimum of
almost 2 billion branches. Each and every new base pair that evolved should be a new species
leaving some fossil evidence. For humans alone that would be 32 010 000 possible evolutionary
ancestors (one ancestor for each base pair that evolved). At the very least, the conclusion of the
evolutionary process would be that there should be a species that would have to have evolved to
account for each and every individual gene that occurs in nature.
Humans have only 20 000 25 000 protein coding genes. (Interestingly, this is only double that
of much simpler species such as the fruit fly and the roundworm.) As already mentioned there is
an average of 1280 base pairs per protein coded for in the human genome. Lets assume that
evolution got astronomically lucky 20 000 to 25 000 times, and mutated the codes for these
proteins in both male and female each time in their entirety (ie. by chance mutated the correct
total genetic sequence (an average of 1280 base pairs) each and every time for the 20 25 000
proteins in both male and female individuals). In this best case scenario, humans should have a
17

minimum of 20 000 25 000 evolutionary predecessors, each of which should have become
large in number and have been a long survived species for the next appropriate genetic mutation
to occur. It is difficult to reasonably imagine that none of these predecessors of ours left any
fossil trace. This should also be true of every other species, with varying numbers of
predecessors. A minimum of 10 000 predecessors should exist for most species that are more
complex than a fruit fly (which has 10 000 genes). The worst case scenario for the evolutionary
theory (which is statistically and astronomically more likely) is that the mutations occurred one
base pair at a time. As mentioned, this should have left humans with 32 010 000 evolutionary
ancestors, none of whom left a fossil trace. The only way to estimate the minimum number of
species in total that have ever lived is to determine how many different genes exist across all
currently known species of plant and animal. The conclusion to this is that there should be a
huge amount of fossil evidence of intermediates, but it simply does not exist.
Evolutionists have not held up one example of a fossil stating that it was a predecessor of any
other known species. Evolutionists have only come as close as saying that these species are
closely related, and that is based on their similar structure. Evolutionists have only come as
close as saying that two species share a common ancestor, or in other words, a common branch
point. Evolutionists admit that they have not found any of the branch point species of the
evolutionary tree. Each branch point however represents a new species in itself and there must
be a minimum of one branch point for each and every gene that exists for each and every species
that ever existed. This is why the evolutionary tree should have so many branch points that in
fact it would look like a thick shrub bound so tight that it would just look like a solid mass of
almost 2 billion (2 000 000 000) branches.
Recall that the smallest known genome consists of 182 genes for the bacteria C. rudrii. Humans
have 20 000 to 25 000 genes, and fruit flies have 10 000 genes by comparison. Recall also that
there are over 1 000 000 known sexually reproducing species in the world today. It would be
quite safe to assume that these sexually reproducing species have at least as many if not more
genes than the smallest known genome for a bacteria. Therefore there should be at least 182
genes minimum for each and every one of the 1 000 000 sexually reproducing organisms known
to exist in the world today. This would mean a total of 182 000 000 genes minimum exist in the
world today. The actual number is probably 100 times this number. Recall that there should be a
branch point or intermediate species for every gene in existence. This means that there should
be a minimum of 182 000 000 branch points in the evolutionary tree. This means a minimum
of 182 000 000 intermediate species, all of which are also branch points, all of which have
vanished without a fossil trace. This is based on the smallest known genome for a bacterium and
as such is a gross underestimate. Even if all the sexually reproducing species on average had
only 1 820 genes (ie. only10 times as many genes as the simplest bacteria) then the world is
missing fossils from 1 820 000 000 species of sexually reproducing intermediates! A minimum
of 20 000 to 25 000 of these would be from the human evolutionary chain alone, and probably

18

closer to 32 010 000 human ancestors. The evolutionary tree needs to have over 1.8 billion
branch points, at best, just to account for the sexually reproducing species.
If evolution was possible, there should be a lot more biodiversity. The incredible number of
possible genetic combinations that must have occurred by random chance should have produced
more viable species. Also, in all of the possible random mutations that must have occurred there
should also have been some very unusual but still viable forms of life. For instance, where are
all the asymmetric species? There are a few asymmetric marine animals. Where are all the
cyclopses? Where are all the creatures that should look like aliens from Star Wars. Evolution
goes from simple to complex. There must have been one eyed creatures before there were 2
eyed creatures. Insects have multiple eyes. Where are all the one eyed insects? Evolution goes
from simple to complex. Why do insects have complex multiple eyes and there are no simple
eyed insects? Bees and flies have compound eyes. Again, evolution has to go from simple (as it
started out with nothing) to complex. Where are all the species of simple eyed flies? I know;
they all became extinct. This answer and the word somehow are the marching songs of the
evolutionists and they become very boring after a while. If when talking to an evolutionist, one
was to add up the number of times they used either of these 2 phrases and then multiplied the
number by itself that many times (meaning that for every time they said this there was a 50/50
chance of it happening), I wonder what the final probability would be. Heres a quick
calculation. If I pointed to every species on earth and asked what happened to all of its
predecessors, an evolutionist would answer that somehow they all became extinct without
leaving a trace of their existence. 1 000 000 = 1 divided by 301 030. And that would be the first
of literally tens of thousands of questions that could be asked for which the answer would have
to include the word somehow because in fact nothing has been proven. Simply starting with
the metabolic charts above would provide someone with several thousand questions alone.
Mathematics is not on the side of the evolutionist.
Those are a lot of unknown questions for a theory which some claim is proven fact and should no
longer be viewed as a theory. There is no other scientific theory in existence for which there are
so many unanswered questions and yet it is still held on to as a viable model. When presented
with these uber-astronomical improbabilities, some evolutionists like to invoke the Goldilocks
Principle. This principle states that in certain situations things have to be just right for the
desired outcome to occur. For example, in order for life to occur on a planet it has to exist in the
habitable zone around the sun. Too close and everything burns up. Too far away and
everything freezes. Earth is in the Goldilocks Zone. Evolutionists misappropriate this
principle and argue that although there is a string of unlikely events (an astronomical
understatement), the fact that we do exist is proof that everything must have happened just right
for evolution to have occurred. First of all the Goldilocks principle is stating that unless
conditions are just right, evolution cannot occur. Mathematics states that the likelihood of the
conditions being just right is just 1 in 7.058 x 1022 374 029 at best. Secondly, the Goldilocks
argument put forward by evolutionists uses faulty logic because it assumes that evolution is the
19

only possible explanation in the first place. Creationists could use the exact same statement:
The fact that we do exist is proof that everything must have happened just right for God to
have created everything. If the same argument can be used to support two or more conflicting
ideas, then it is logically flawed and erroneous. Since there are so many conditions and unlikely
random events that would have to occur just right in order to explain evolution, the Goldilocks
Principle, when used with sound logic, would be an argument far more useful to the creationist,
and something that the evolutionist should run from. It has been used as a smoke screen, by
evolutionists to avoid the impossible demand placed on them to explain the absurdity of the
astronomical improbable odds of evolution. They cant answer the questions put to them by
creationists, so they use confusing words and arguments to throw off the questions and try to
save face.
Evolutionists say that the gene or control mechanism that causes symmetry must have occurred
very early in the evolutionary scheme, before the animal kingdom divided into mammals, birds,
reptiles, insects, and fish. As mentioned before, a mutation in one offspring of a species does not
cause all other forms of life and species that existed prior to it to suddenly become extinct. Nor
does this mutation in one offspring then prevent the evolutionary process from continuing on in
those other species. By all probability, there should be more asymmetrical species than
symmetrical ones because there had to have been a lot of asymmetric species present before one
of them developed symmetry. If one argued that natural selection would eventually eliminate all
asymmetric species, one would also have to then argue that the only creatures that should exist
today should be the ones at the top of their food chain (lions and tigers and bears and killer
whales). In the same way that a balance is reached in any ecosystem, there should have been
survival of these asymmetric species by virtue of their numbers. There are many weaker species
that survive in our world today. Again it becomes very difficult to understand how all odd
species (asymmetrical species, star-wars like creatures, one-eyed animals etc.) could have
disappeared without a trace.
With all the amazing abilities that certain genes bestow upon certain creatures, why are those
abilities lost later on in the evolutionary chain. To say that they are lost because those abilities
are no longer needed is to bestow some mystical powers of intelligence upon evolution. Those
that argue this way forget that evolution occurs as a result of mindless, random genetic mutations
followed by natural selection. For instance, sharks have a lateral line system which allows them
to detect vibration and movement in the surrounding water. Land creatures apparently came
from the sea. Why are there no retained but somewhat redundant traits from sea creatures left in
land dwelling creatures? Why are there no land creatures with a lateral line, or gills. Many traits
passed on to future mutated offspring may not be useful perhaps, but nor would they be
detrimental to the point where natural selection would wipe them all out. If this were the case,
then the earth would in fact have become lifeless because at the very least it would have taken
many generations and thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to de-evolve redundant
traits. It is difficult to consider then, that if all creatures are a series of mutations from previous
20

generations, why are species not replete with left over evolutionary traits. Why do humans not
have a lateral line or scales. Retaining gills would have prevented a lot of deaths over the
millennia. Retaining vestigial webbing between fingers and toes would also have been of
benefit. Given the fact that 80% of the worlds population live near water, retaining these traits
would not have been detrimental. Scales do not seem to have a negative effect on snakes. Why
did all other land creatures loose them? Why did hominid creatures loose sharp pointy claws.
They certainly are better suited for self-defence, digging for roots to eat and climbing trees.
Nature should have an overabundance of these types of examples. It should be rare to find a
species without some redundant traits left over from their ancestors. Why do people not have
more body hair? When and how did that become detrimental to survival. If an evolutionist tries
to explain this by saying that it was too hot in Africa, then all hairy animals in Africa should
have become extinct. Also, why did we lose camouflaging skin pigmentation? It certainly
would be beneficial for survival. Natural selection and survival of the fittest should have kept all
of the best traits from all predecessors along the way for survival even if some of them may have
been redundant but not detrimental: camouflaging, sharp claws, intelligence, body hair, webbed
toes and fingers, the best vision, gills, scales, and a tail. Why would a tail, which is useful, be so
detrimental to hominids that all the tailed hominids would become extinct so quickly as to never
leave a fossil, given the fact that every other land mammal has one. Yet there are no examples of
hominids with tails. Why are there not at least some species of people who have gills, some with
webbing, some with scales, some with a fur coat or at least some left over pattern of
camouflaging spots or stripes. How did evolution so completely and neatly wipe out all of these
variations that must have existed at one time. Gills must have continued to exist for a long time
before the complex cardiopulmonary system of land creatures was developed to the point where
it could function.
Obviously, evolution has also had the ability to randomly delete genes or else all species would
have retained all of the genes from previous evolutionary ancestors. How did evolution know
which genes to randomly delete. The evolutionist would say that the genetic deletions were also
random. This then would be followed by natural selection which would wipe out the ancestral
species that had features that were no longer needed.
The human genome has 2.91 billion base pairs. Evolution has to create new species by
randomly adding genetic material. As mentioned, evolution had to clean up the new species it
created by random genetic deletions so that new species did not retain features that it no longer
needed. Evolution has no way of knowing which genetic material has become redundant.
Evolution doesnt know anything. It is simply the name given to the process of random
changes made to the genetic code followed by natural selection. Evolution has no way of
knowing when it has a genetic sequence right or not. It has no way of locking in a good code.
If good codes were locked in by some process, then evolution would not happen. Old redundant
genes for gills, scales, fins, hair etc. would all be retained. One cannot claim both genetic
stability and variability. To repeatedly press the point home, evolution occurs from random
21

genetic mutations, caused usually by radiation from the sun, or harmful chemicals (both of which
are completely random forces of nature), followed by natural selection.
The variability that would be required for mutations to change the genetic code in the hopes of
randomly producing useful genes would in all probability produce more damage to any genes (or
partially formed genes) that may have already been formed. On average, there would be greater
destruction of good genetic material by radiation and chemicals, rather than production of new
useful genetic material. Mutations occur as a result of damage to genetic material from
environmental factors such as UV light or chemicals (especially flat molecules like benzene).
UV light and mutagenic chemicals have no idea where they should damage genetic material.
Suppose there was a section of genetic code that had mutated, and was eventually going to code
for a beneficial protein, and so far had 10 bases as follows: A C C T T G A A C T, and only 1
base in this sequence was wrong. This means that this sequence of 10 base pairs only requires
one mutation to make it correct. There are 10 possible locations that radiation or a chemical may
affect. There are 5 possible outcomes for each location (A, G, C, T or deletion with no base pair
replacement). A deletion may be followed by a replacement (or repair) of the same base pair that
was originally present. After making a deletion and then randomly replacing the deleted base
with another one, either A, G, C, T or nothing at all, the total number of possible outcomes
would be 10 x 5 = 50. There are 50 possible outcomes in this isolated instance and 49 of them
are wrong. There is only a one in 50 chance that when a mutation occurs in this particular
section of DNA, that it will be the correct one. There is a 49 in 50 chance that the wrong
mutation occurs. If in fact a wrong mutation occurred, then there would be two wrong base pairs
instead of just the one that was originally present. This is completely in keeping with the laws of
thermodynamics. Mathematical probabilities completely agree with the laws of thermodynamics,
that left to random chance, everything tends to go toward greater randomness. Over time, left to
random chance, genetic mutations would cause more destruction of the genetic code, rather than
completion or improvement of it. Just using simple probabilities on this very small sequence of
10 bases it is easy to see how the rules of thermodynamics easily apply to the genetic code. The
law of entropy states that everything has a natural tendency to go from order to chaos. It is not
difficult to understand how natural selection would tend to select for the best genetic mutations.
The difficulty is in overcoming the odds that the desired genetic sequences would ever occur by
random chance in the first place. There are far greater chances that a good code would be
scrambled by mutations rather than made more orderly --- by more than 19 000 000 orders of
magnitude! (2.1 x 1019 271 940).
Darwin of course had no way of understanding this in his day. Understanding the complexity of
the cell mechanisms, chromosome structure and genetic inheritance wouldnt happen for more
than another 100 years. Even if there was just one last base pair in the human genome that was
needed to complete it (perhaps for hemoglobin, or one of the clotting factors, or insulin, or for an
enzyme in the Krebs cycle), by random chance alone a mutation has only a 1 in 32 010 000
chance of choosing the correct base to mutate. It then has a 1 in 5 chance of making the right
22

mutation. Recall that by random chance it could replace the deleted base with the exact same
base that was just deleted, or by any one of the other bases, or simply leave it deleted altogether.
The chance of getting this one last base to be the correct mutation would be
1 /5 x 1/32 010 000 = one chance in 160 050 000. On the other hand, it has 160 049 999
chances out of 160 050 000 of getting it wrong. For the protein examples that were chosen, or
for any of the other enzyme examples in the metabolic charts above, the outcome would be
death.
It is believed that there are as many humans on earth today as have existed in all of history. As
such, evolution should be happening more rapidly now than ever before as there are over 7
billion sets of chromosomes for evolution to go to work on. It is understandable that within the
span of known human history one would not be able to see a noticeable change in human
evolution. Unfortunately, people do not view evolution correctly for the process that
evolutionists claim it to be including evolutionists. Even if it was possible to speed the process
of evolution up to the point where it could be noticed and documented over the course of a
thousand years, one would still not see a change in the human population. Even if during that
thousand years, there was a new and noticeable genetic mutation every generation. According to
the theory, the new mutation would occur in one offspring of a human (Mutant A). Assume that
the exact same new genetic material also happened to mutate into being in someone of the
opposite sex, so that these two individuals could produce offspring with the same new genetic
material. (Assuming that these two also happened to meet and like each other). This would be
the branch point. Remember that having now a total of one mutant couple and their offspring
does not cause the rest of humanity to go into extinction. Nor does the appearance of the new
mutant couple change the way the rest of humanity appears. Only the mutants appear different;
very close in appearance to humans, but different. Evolution does not cause an entire species to
slowly change its appearance over time. It only changes the appearance of the mutated
individuals. Those individuals then give rise to generations and a growing population of
individuals who appear different while the parent species (humans in this case) continue to
appear the way they always did.
Lets assume that the Mutant A population gives rise to a Mutant B population in the very next
generation. Now there are humans and Mutant A and Mutant B populations. Mutant B people
look a little less human than Mutant A people. Lets assume that Mutant B population gives rise
to Mutant C offspring in the very next generation which look a little less human again. Now
there are humans, Mutant A and B and C populations. This would continue to go on until there
were a dozen or more mutant populations of people co-existing with humans before humans
eventually became extinct. Each new mutant population would look progressively less human.
This is how evolution is supposed to happen except for the fact that the process was sped up in
order to demonstrate that although humans were evolving, the parent population of humans
themselves did not change in appearance. Again, this is the process of evolution except for the
fact that the process has been accelerated and should be occurring over tens of thousands to
23

hundreds of thousands of years and for the fact that we should not consider ourselves to be the
parent species but rather perhaps species Q in a long line of mutants LMNOP RSTUV. One
other aspect of this scenario however should hold true if evolution is in fact the cause of
speciation. We should currently be co-existing with one or several of mutant LMNOP RSTU or
V populations here on earth. These other mutants should look very similar to Q (us), but for the
evolutionary theory to hold there should be populations of human mutants coexisting on earth.
These populations would not be able to mate outside of their own mutant population to produce
fertile offspring.
Fertile offspring can only occur if the two sets of chromosomes in an individual are homologous.
Mules are the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. Mules are infertile. They cannot
have offspring. If there were populations of people on earth at various stages of evolution as just
described then this pattern of certain populations not being able to produce fertile offspring
would have become apparent long ago. Species do not become extinct just because mutant
genetic material was born. The parent species live on to produce more mutant genes, as do the
mutants. If this were not the case, there would be no explanation for the biodiversity in nature.
As such, if evolution was the cause of life and speciation then we should be able to see evolution
today. We would not be able to notice a gradual change in a species over time. We dont live
long enough and evolution does not predict this. According to evolution we should be able to
see a spectrum of mutant subspecies for every individual known species on earth, including
ourselves. For all of the minute mutations that have to occur there should be 100s to 1000s of
subspecies currently alive for every known species on earth today, including ourselves. With
current genetic technology, it should be easier today to prove evolution than ever before.
Finding subsets of the human genome would prove this. If evolution has been the cause of life
and speciation, there should be no reason why these random beneficial genetic mutations should
not still be occurring. As mentioned, with 7 billion people and an exponentially growing
population, evolution should in fact be producing more mutations than ever before. To be
evolution, this means it would have to be NEW and beneficial, non-lethal genetic/chromosomal
material, found in subsets of people.
This would apply to all species, not just humans. If evolution was responsible for life then it
should be continuing today. We should be keenly aware of it, not because we would be able to
follow the process over time like watching a movie, but because we should be able to see the
expected effects it would have produced over time as described above. These effects are just not
present. For every species of plant and animal that currently is known to exist there should be a
confusion of close but not perfectly matched genetic mutations that cannot be mated. There
should also be a spectrum of every species. For instance, there should be a spectrum of
alligator species coexisting and alive today such that if you lined them up, you would see the
gradual change in their appearance from alligator to crocodile to the South American cayman.
Alligators and crocodiles in particular should have plenty of A through Z relatives / mutants coexisting today as they are referred to a living fossils. They have lived on past all of the branch
24

points of mutations and must have coexisted with every one of their mutant offspring.
Presumably their parent and offspring species should also have the excellent survivability for at
least the first few 100 to 1000 mutations. As such there should be at least 100s of alligator
species. It is surprising to hear an evolutionist talk about certain species as living fossils and
say that they have remained unchanged for x number of years. Of course they have remained
unchanged. The theory of evolution (as demonstrated above) does not predict that all the
individuals of subsequent generations of a species slowly and uniformly start to change in
appearance over the years. It predicts branch points, while the parent species carries on as they
were before, until extinction. Taxonomy should be an impossible job short of doing a complete
genome determination on every species if evolution were the cause of life. According to the
evolutionary theory, it would be correct to say that all species known to exist on earth today have
remained unchanged since their last branch point. When talking about living fossils
evolutionists should more accurately be saying there are no known subspecies that have evolved
from this species, and there are also no species alive today that this species is known to have
evolved from, and we have no fossil evidence of their ancestors or mutant offspring either. This
is a true statement for all species and in fact I have never heard of or read any evidence that
would contradict this statement for any species. It is truly frustrating to hear evolutionists use
language that seems to betray the fact that they havent even thought through for themselves
these basic tenets of a theory they so strongly support.
To reiterate the point that evolutionists themselves seem to overlook: a new beneficial, non-lethal
mutation in a male and female who meet and mate and have offspring today would not cause the
rest of the 7 billion humans on earth to go extinct in the next few generations. In 3 generations
the new mutant population would only have 1000 individuals at best. (How many great
grandparents have 1000 great grandchildren?) It seems that due to the careless communication
of those who teach evolution, the commonly perceived notion is that evolution would cause all
offspring of successive generations of a whole species to slowly and imperceptibly change over
thousands of years such that the whole human race should uniformly take on different
characteristics over time. Phrases such as this species has remained unchanged by evolution for
hundreds of thousands of years implies that if evolution had changed the species, then all
individuals of successive generations over the hundreds of thousands of years would have
gradually but uniformly acquired new characteristics. Evolution does not claim to change
species. The theory of evolution suggests that it produces new species by creating new genetic
material and codes through random genetic mutations followed by natural selection. Evolution
does not change a species. It produces a genetic mutation in one (or two) individuals of a
species. The parent species goes on unchanged.
According to evolutionists all the intermediate species have become extinct for all species
currently alive and there is still no fossil evidence of their existence. For the reasons explained
above, even if all of the common ancestors of all living species have died as evolutionists
theorize, there should still be plenty of A through Z relatives alive today as evidence of the
25

gradual genetic mutations that must have occurred. Some or even many of them may have
become extinct but it starts to go beyond the realm of reasonable credibility and plausibility to
accept that all recently related mutations of all currently living species have died and not left a
fossil trace. This leaves us with no fossil trace and no current manifestations of the expected
results of evolution.
The driving force behind evolution seems to be two-fold. Some people, for whatever their own
personal reasons may be, simply do not want to believe in God. I will leave this one alone
because for these people, no amount of scientific reasoning, logic, or outlandish astronomical
probabilities will have any effect. The problem is that very few if any of these individuals would
admit that this describes them. Most of these individuals would all claim to have difficulty
believing for scientific reasons. The other driving force would be the scientific observations that
Darwin was struck with, while in the Galapagos islands. These scientific observations carry on
today in further depth. In summary these observations show that species that belong to the same
kingdom, phylum, order, family and genus have characteristics that are progressively more
similar to each other as they are more closely related in this classification. Darwin was
astounded that he found birds and reptiles on the different islands that were very closely related
in appearance but that there were specific differences between the species from one island to the
next. He theorized that a pair of birds from one island must have flown to another island and that
over time environmental pressures caused them to start to have different characteristics, such as a
change in the structure of their beaks, and that this would make them better suited to their new
environment. When stated this way it all sound very smooth and plausible. He had no
knowledge at that time of course of the genetic complexity involved in this. Evolution does not
occur as a result of environmental pressures. Evolution occurs as a result of random genetic
mutations caused by radiation or chemicals. Ultraviolet light and benzene molecules do not
know anything! They do not know that a particular bird would benefit from a series of genetic
mutations so that its beak would become better suited to eating different types of seeds on this
new island. In spite of this, many people still talk about environmental pressures causing species
to develop beneficial mutations. Environmental pressures may lead to natural selection, but they
do not cause mutations.
If the changes that Darwin had noticed occurred by evolution he should have seen a spectrum
of that particular bird species, with each species being slightly, almost imperceptibly different
with respect to the shape of their beaks. Had he done the same genetic experiments that Mendel
performed and cross bred the birds from the different islands to determine what characteristics
the offspring had, he would have been able to determine if in fact they were the same species
with different alleles of the same genes or if in fact they were not breedable and therefore had
truly different genes and as such were different species.
The other difficulty is this: environmental pressures (such as harder seeds to crack open) do not
cause the desired random genetic mutations to automatically occur. To argue that given enough
time the proper mutations would occur, followed by natural selection is to completely ignore the
26

astronomical number of wrong combinations that would more than likely occur leading to death
of mutated birds, or perhaps survivable mutations but an almost innumerable number of other
species of mutated birds before just the right combination of genetic mutations occurred
sequentially in proper order and always at the same time in both a male and female (and assume
that they mate to produce offspring) such that lo and behold, a beak is formed perfectly suited for
the seeds available on the new island. By the time this happened, by random genetic changes
followed by natural selection, the new species of bird wouldnt even look anything like the
parent species of bird on the other island (or even be a bird at all). What Darwin should have
noticed is a plethora of bird species such that if he had caught one of each type he should have
been able to line them up side by side to see the gradual changes that occurred from the parent
species all the way to the new species which had the ideal beak but which by this time would
have had so many other random genetic changes, that it would have looked like a very different
species from the original parent species. Bird genomes vary in number of base pairs from 889
980 000 (hummingbird) to 2 112 480 000 (ostrich, over 2 billion base pairs). At the very least,
evolution has almost a billion genome base pairs to start randomly mutating, and it has 4 possible
combinations for each of these. Actually, it has 5 possibilities because a mutation could also
delete base pairs, but it will make no difference because both are beyond the realm of possibility
and comprehension.
4889 980 000 = (100.60206)889 980 000 =10535 821 350 (a number with over half a billion zeroes behind it)
Or: 5889 980 000 (100.69897)889 980 000 = 10622 069 320
These are all the possible mutations that evolution has at its disposal in order to take a pair of
birds and mutate them to have a more suitable beak. This number is so large and
incomprehensible that it almost becomes difficult to remember that there are not more than half a
billion possible combinations, the number of possible combinations has more than half a billion
zeroes. This number did not exclude the introns from the genetic code. Random genetic
mutations wouldnt know the difference anyway. I will not review the number of combinations
per second since the beginning of life on earth etc.
There is simply no natural explanation for this. Evolutionists would now have to resort to
nature somehow knowing which genetic mutations to make. This now enters the realm of
mysticism.
Those are the numbers and at each step of the way I have generously leaned in favour of
evolution (such as assuming a correct mutation 99.9999 % of the time and allowing for evolution
to be lucky to 1 chance in a trillion, etc.). I just dont think that people have really considered
the math behind the theory. Instead they have just accepted the theory as proven science when
in fact the simple math behind it slams the door shut on any reasonable probability.
So again, what causes people to believe in evolution? There has never been a species for which
a chain of intermediate species has been discovered. There is nothing about evolution that has
27

been repeated in a lab. We do not find fossils of any of the myriad of intermediates that must
have existed (over 2 000 000 000 as an extremely conservative estimate) for each and every one
of the estimated one million plus species of plant and animal that exist today. There is a
conspicuous lack of weird asymmetric and alien-like species. There should be a plethora of
branch point sub-species in existence for all current species alive today, but there arent. Words
cannot express how far the mathematical odds defy the probability of evolution beyond the point
of absolute absurdity. The answer I believe is essentially the same thing that prompted Darwin
to come up with the theory in the first place the similarity between species.
There are incredible and obvious patterns and similarities that occur among species that would
seem to have very little in common with each other in terms of the environment in which they
live and survive. For instance, why do whales that swim, people that walk on land and bats that
fly all have five metacarpal bones and phalanges? Evolutionists question why a creator wouldnt
modify the recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraffe to give it a more direct route instead of
travelling all the way down its neck only to have to do a U-turn and travel seven feet back up its
neck from where it came. I see no problem in understanding these things as the result of a
designer who created one species after another sticking to certain patterns. Why do all cars have
wheels, seats, windows, brakes, a motor etc. One design leads to the next with variations on the
details. Why would a car manufacturer design each new vehicle completely from scratch, so that
each one is a completely new concept. What truly astounds both creationists and evolutionists
alike is the incredible variety of creatures that can be made with relatively minor variations on
the same basic skeletal and body structure eg. whales, giraffes, cheetahs, bats , and humans are
all mammals and are all based on variations of the same basic musculoskeletal structure. To the
creationist, this is the awe-inspiring work of a designer and Creator. To the evolutionist, this is
the only piece of evidence to their theory. Other than continuing to show more examples of
similarities between species, evolutionists have not produced any new evidence to support their
theory since Darwin. Evolutionists have done some tweaking and modifying of their theories
since then but they have produced no fossil evidence when they should in fact have an
embarrassment of riches in fossil evidence. Evolutionists completely ignore the greater than
astronomical probabilities that cannot even be calculated on a hand held calculator without the
use of logarithms.
Another argument that evolutionists like to make is to question the design of the eye.
Evolutionists argue that it would make more sense for a creator to make the eye in such a way
that the nerves that come off from behind from the light sensing cells in the retina. As it is, the
nerves come off from in front of these cells. The blood vessels also lie in front of the rods and
cones. In fact, in some circumstances people are even able to perceive these blood vessels in
their sight. The argument then is that the design of the eye would be considered to be below the
standard of an omniscient and omnipotent God and therefore the eye could only be explained by
evolution. First of all, in practical terms, the presence of these structures in front of the retina
does not seem to produce any obstruction to our eyesight. If these structures were behind the
28

retina it is questionable whether it would make any difference to our visual acuity at all. Nobody
knows. Secondly, one can only guess at what problems there may exist if the eye was designed
with the nerves and the blood vessels located behind the retina. Again, nobody knows. Finally,
the eye of the eagle has the same basic design as that of a human and can spot prey over an area
of three square miles from 1000 feet up in the air. It is estimated that they can see an ant from
100 feet up in the air. It seems a bit desperate almost on the part of evolutionists to find fault
with such a complex system as the eye that works so well, when on the other hand nobody even
knows if it would make any difference or if a different design would be any better and in fact
may have many other problems associated with it. (The eye raises further evolutionary questions
by the way. How did the eye evolve the same basic way for birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, and
invertebrates? The evolutionist would answer that it developed very early on in the evolutionary
process, even before there was differentiation between these different phyla of species. My
question would be to ask what species is so basic and yet has such a complex eye structure? Of
course, the fossil evidence for this too, is missing. For that matter, where is all the fossil
evidence of species that existed before they became neatly divided in 5 different phyla? Surely,
this must have taken an enormous amount of time. Enough time to produce hundreds of millions
if not billions of creatures. Why has not even one fossil been found to exist that fits somewhere
between the simple bacteria and the more complex species that fit into the different phyla.
Creationists dont have the answers to all of the questions posed by evolutionists. Where did
God come from? Who did Cain (the son of Adam) marry, if they were the first people on earth?
Or did God also make other people and just not give us all the details? Why did God decide to
use the word day in the story of creation in Genesis 1 if in fact the 6 days of creation ended up
being approximately 13.8 billion years? Or did the word day simply refer to a period of time
as it does in some other parts of the Bible? Why did God design the giraffe with such a long
recurrent laryngeal nerve? Was it simply to stick with the basic pattern that He created for
mammals even though it caused such redundancy?
Actually, the only question that poses a big problem is the first question. In the Bible, God
explains that He exists outside of the dimensions of time and space. He does not exist within
time. He is not old. He is timeless. He is no older now than when He said, Let there be light
and the Big Bang occurred. Just because we cant comprehend this, does not make it untrue.
Scientists are discovering more and more things that they cannot comprehend but we still
believe. Dark matter, dark energy, subatomic particles that have no mass, quantum mechanics,
black holes and singularity, the number i (the square root of negative 1), the theory of
relativity, how can light act like a wave of energy but still be a particle, what causes gravity?
Everyone believes in gravity. We can describe it, but no one has been able to explain what it is
exactly or why it works. Were so simple and limited, that we dont even understand gravity yet.
The point is that just because we cant understand the nature of God, doesnt mean that He cant
be real. We cant explain gravity either, but it exists.

29

Evolutionists have enormous questions that they are unable to answer. How did the genetic code
evolve by random chance when the odds are stacked against this in unrealistic exponentially
astronomical proportions? How did life start in the first place? Why do we have consciousness?
Why do we have a conscience? How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? What caused the
Big Bang? How do you get something from nothing? What caused matter to start to clump
together in what we can now can photograph in the cosmic microwave background radiation?
How does order come from chaos when the laws of thermodynamics dictate otherwise? Why are
evolutionists so willing to ignore the laws of thermodynamics? Why are evolutionists so willing
to overlook the math? Whats the meaning to life? Can there be any meaning to life? Is there
any absolute truth? If truth has become only something that you make up for yourself and its
different for everyone, then whats the point of calling it truth? Do people have a soul? If so,
where did it come from? Is there life after death? If not, are you OK with that? What if you are
wrong?...
Neither side has all the answers. Each of us has to decide for him or herself, however, which set
of questions they are most comfortable with. Most people dont question what they are taught in
school. This is extremely unfortunate, as many of the greatest discoveries were made by those
who questioned the conventional thinking of their day. Most people ignore the facts (and the
numbers) and simply believe what they want to believe. What if they are wrong? What if there
is absolute truth and its the same for everyone, whether they want to agree with it or not?
Evolution seems to be only very remotely plausible if it is looked at in a superficial way as it was
by Darwin. In his day the complexity of chromosomes and genetics was not even dreamed of. It
all seems to sound good and simple with respect to random genetic mutation, followed by
environmental pressures and natural selection over great periods of time. Its so simple that it
can even be summarized in that one sentence. The problem is that there are essentially an
infinite number of mutations (because the same mistakes can recur an infinite number of times),
there has not been nearly enough time, the vast majority of mutations would be detrimental, there
are no known genetic processes that make evolution possible (ie. the gene copying/deletion
process), and finally, the logical ramifications and outcomes that would be empirically and
readily apparent today as a result of evolution, simply dont exist.
What is extremely disturbing is that so many people simply believe what they have been taught
without giving it any second thought. Increase in knowledge and understanding never happens
in this way! For those people who believe only what they want to believe, no amount of science
or mathematics can persuade them otherwise. For those who thought that evolution was an iron
clad proven truth and that there was no other possible explanation, it is my hope that in reading
this, you will start to reconsider what you have been taught and rethink the facts for yourself.
Tim Griffioen MD

30

GENESIS 1:1 IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
Hebrew is written from right to left. Since about 200 BC each letter has also functioned as a
numeral. The values are written above each letter. Each word represents a number obtained by
summing the letter values.

The calculation of 'pi' from within Genesis 1:1

(From the work of Vernon Jenkins, Craig Paardecooper, Peter Bluer and Bevan Williams)

17

Number of letters (28) x Product of the letters (2.3887872 x 1034) =3.1415 x 10

.

Number of words (7) x product of the words (3.0415353 x 1017)

The number pi correct to 5 digits! Genesis 1:1 was written 3500 years ago; long before the
value of pi was known to this accuracy, and long before the Hebrew letters were assigned
numeric values. It is not incredible that God knows the number pi. It is beyond incredible that
He encrypted this into the very first verse of the Bible, in case anyone should doubt who the
author was. This same equation also works for John 1:1 written in Greek, whose letters also
have numeric values. The end result does not equal pi, it equals e correct to 5 digits. This
number (2.718281828..) has only been known since the mid-18th century. It is a famous and
important number to mathematics. There is no way that the apostle John knew the number e.
There are 90 000 possible 5 digit numbers from 1.0000 to 9.9999 that could have occurred from
the above equation. The chance that 3.1415 occurs by coincidence is therefore 1/90 000. The
chance that the natural logarithm e is calculated from the Gospel of John 1:1 by the same
equation to 5 correct digits, is also 1/90 000. The chance that both of these occur by random
chance is 1/90 000 X 1/90 000 = 1/ 8 100 000 000. One in 8.1 billion.
These encrypted codes in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 have only been discovered in the past 10-15
years, but were planted there 3500 and 2000 years ago respectively by the only One who could
have done this. There is a God and the Bible is His Word. The message He wants us to
comprehend from His Word is that although He is a just and holy God, He takes great pleasure in
forgiving us through faith in His Son Jesus Christ, and in rewarding us, not judging us; but the
choice is ours.
31

CALCULATION OF THE NUMBER e FROM JOHN 1:1 IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK

The first verse of the Gospel of John, as rendered in the original Greek, reads as follows:

There are 17 words comprising a total of 52 letters. Since about 600 BC each letter has also functioned as
a number. The values are written above each letter. Each word represents a number obtained by summing
the letter values. These 17 results are recorded beneath the translation. It needs to be noted that the last
letter of the Greek word for beginning is seen to be subscripted by another letter, the iota, creating a
diphthong. In fact, therefore, the word has 5
letters; hence the entry "8 + 10" above the diphthong.
. Using the same equation as for Genesis 1:1:
Number of Letters (52) x Product of the letters (8.436251456 x 1075) = 2.718313*
Number of Words (17) x Product of the Words (9.493022414 x 1035)
The number e (2.718281828) correct to 5 digits! The book of John was written by the Apostle John
(one of Jesus disciples) 2000 years ago. The natural logarithm e was not discovered until the mid-18th
century. There is a choice: to believe that either by a one in 8.1 billion chance, both the numbers for Pi
and e occurred by coincidence in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 respectively, or that the Bible truly is the
inspired Word of God, and Jesus truly is the Son of God. In either case, the Bible is a book that everyone
should read for themselves. No one can make this choice for you. It is better to read it for yourself so
that you can make an informed choice. Dont let popular opinion tell you what to believe. The question
is too important. Read and decide for yourself.
*From the work of Vernon Jenkins, Craig Paardecooper, Peter Bluer and Bevan Williams.___________________________________

Tim Griffioen

32