The Genetic Apocalypse of the Human Race Made Simple

Poly-constrained message

Evolutionary theory holds that all of the diversity of life that we see – from dandelions to whales to hummingbirds to Vladimir Putin – all of this descended from a single ancestral genome. By accident. Somehow, life accidentally appeared from dead matter, and that first single-celled organism reproduced and, blindly and mindlessly, eventually led to increasingly “advanced,” “higher” life forms.

The biological process by which this all supposedly happened is this: random mutations plus natural selection. This is considered to be scientific fact in the sense that it is certain enough that it is no longer seriously questioned in secular academia. The assumption is that, over billions of years, the seemingly impossible has occurred innumerable times.

Materialist evolutionists claim that we know evolution is a fact because we can observe it occurring both in the laboratory and in the field. In saying this, they mean that we can observe mutations and natural selection giving rise to new species and newly adapted life forms.

Correcting a Common Misconception About Creationism
No one denies this. Natural selection and speciation are central to both creationist and evolutionist theory, but both worldviews disagree sharply on the role of natural selection and speciation. I would like to correct a common misunderstanding between the two worldviews. Here is where they disagree:

Creationists believe that mutations and/or natural selection can result in change and speciation within a given category of creature, but that there is a limit to what mutations and natural selection can accomplish. Dogs always produce dogs, and salmon always produce salmon. Mutations cannot create new genetic information of the type that is required to move an organism’s offspring in an “upwardly evolving” direction. For example, land bound reptiles could not have accidentally evolved into fully feathered, flying birds.

Evolutionists also believe that mutations and natural selection can result in change and speciation within a given category of creature, but they ascribe almost magical powers to the kind of change that mutations and natural selection can accomplish. Through gene duplication and other biological processes, they believe mutations can indeed add new genetic information of the type that would be necessary to move life from microbes to marimba players. For example, feathers accidentally evolved from scales via mutation, (or perhaps as some novel epidermal structure.)

100 years ago, microbes-to-mathematician evolution seemed like a viable possibility. Scientists had not yet discovered the astounding complexity of life at the cellular level, or seen the amazing complexity of the human genome. Within my lifetime we were told that humans and chimp DNA was about 99% similar. We were told that about 95% of our DNA served no function; that it was vestigial “junk DNA.” New research may be turning the tide of scientific opinion against these assertions.

In 2015, the director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, said in response to a question about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore. It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional. Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome turns out to be doing stuff.”

The Inevitability of Genetic Deterioration
I don’t really watch football. Instead, I’ve been a lifelong fan of following the creation/evolution “debate”. I’m no scientist, but I like to think I’m a (reasonably) intelligent designer. I’m willing to be convinced that all of life accidentally, mindlessly evolved from a single celled common ancestor, but I would have to at least be shown some natural process that could accomplish such a fantastical feat.

Probably the most important book I’ve read in the past year has been a book by Dr. John Sanford, entitled Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. I highly recommend it to everyone, regardless of your worldview.

You can Google Dr. J C Sanford to learn his credentials. He was a materialist, evolutionary geneticist for most of his career. He holds over 30 patents, and has over 80 scientific publications. However, his research has led him to conclude that naturalistic evolution as currently taught is scientifically indefensible. His book, Genetic Entropy, claims to demonstrate that the human genome is unavoidably deteriorating, and thus cannot possibly be millions of years old.

Sanford refers to the idea that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection as modern evolution’s “Primary Axiom.” The Primary Axiom is universally taught in academia and repeated in mainstream media.

Here is a brief excerpt from the prologue of Sanford’s book:

Late in my career, I did something that would seem unthinkable for a Cornell professor. I began to question the Primary Axiom…The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory. In fact, it is essentially indefensible…To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. This was the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought patterns only change very slowly (and, I must add, painfully.) What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understanding.

As to the substance of the book, below is a sampling of one of several arguments against the Primary Axiom. As you read this, bear in mind that a mutation can be simply understood as a misspelling or copying error in the genome:

  1. Poly-constrained DNA
    Most DNA sequences are
    poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let’s suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate (see illustration above). Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence form will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty…” (p 131.)

I would add a reminder that mutations are passed down to an organism’s offspring, accumulating with each generation. Sanford claims that all “higher genomes” are deteriorating, including ours. Mutations must ultimately move “higher” organisms in the wrong direction, “downward,” rather than in the direction needed for microbes-to-man evolution to occur. Far from solving the issue, deep time simply spells extinction.

Genetic entropy, if true, is not happy news for anyone, regardless of one’s worldview. If Sanford’s description of the world is correct, even a non-scientist can see important implications. From a theological perspective, I find it worth pausing to consider how pervasive are the effects of the fall of creation. Conversely, for those of us who hope in a Savior, it is worth considering how pervasive are the effects of the salvation that He has promised.
‘Got kids in your life that you love? Please sign up on my email list to receive notification when I release  new children’s storybooks, each designed to reinforce a biblical worldview in kids! Sign up here:


6 comments on “The Genetic Apocalypse of the Human Race Made Simple

  1. peshatbooks says:

    I have been working on another counter-evolutionist argument: that the ability of the mind to acquire data from the senses, conceptualise it, and evaluate it in context to derive information, is beyond the capabilities of organic processes. I introduced the argument in “The Dawkins Deficiency”, and in a later book, “Information, Knowledge, Evolution and Self”, I explained it more fully in the context of the functional requirements of digital computing and communications, all of which must be replicated in bio-ware (if there is such a term). Introduced in that book was the subject of my next book, “Knowing That You Can”, which explains that apart from the autonomous functions of physiology, any organism must either “know” or envisage that is can perform functions. This is often referred to as “instinct”, but such avoids the question of how instinct arose through evolution. Even if, for example, a bird evolved from a lizard, it still could not fly because it could not conceptualise that activity, and determine the complex muscle movements needed for controlled flight. If a squirrel evolved a membrane between its legs fore-and-aft, fell out of a tree, and partially glided to earth, it could not say to itself: “that was cool, I will try it again!” Understanding what happened requires a cognitive process involving conceptualisation, and all conceptualisation requires prior knowledge. It is axiomatic that all knowledge is built upon prior knowledge, and the unanswerable question for evolutionists is how could organisms acquire data through the senses (sight, hearing, etc.) whose functions it could not understand. Sight and hearing especially, are irreducibly complex “systems”: the system cannot work at all, not even minimally, in the absence of any component. Evolutionists make up stories about how the eye could have evolved, but ignore the deeper truth that without the communications protocols, encoding and decoding of messages through the optic nerve, the brain doing the necessary signal processing to decode and store the symbols, knowing from where to retrieve and correlate those encoded symbols as data, and then correlating that data into information, the eye would have no function and no reason to evolve. “Emergent property of the brain” is nothing more than a label for the evolutionists’ ignorance on that and related subjects.

    • Interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hadn’t really considered the idea that instinct would have also had to evolve coincidentally with any new mutant features in order for the organism to make use of the new physiological features.

      I trust that people can find your books by Googling peshatbooks.

      • peshatbooks says:

        Peshat Books is the name of my own small company of one (1). Publishing has been by various companies, and my books can best be found on Amazon by my name, Wayne Talbot, and the book title. They are available in both print and Kindle formats.

  2. Scott,

    Your introduction of “poly-constrained DNA” is, from the point of view of genetics, new to me, so I thank you for that.

    I’ve used a similar argument from the point of view that in all of natural phenomena, i.e., regarding physics & chemistry, there are boundary conditions. Neo-Darwinists conveniently ignore boundaries when it comes to the degree of change organisms are capable of making, even though the only empirical evidence of change we have is limited to that within a kind (and while “kind” is not a modern “scientific” category, its Biblical use, while not clearly defined, is sufficient to establish some legitimacy, especially when one considers that the nebulous definition of “species” must continually be revised when faced with counter-examples).

    In any case, Darwinism is riddled with insurmountable problems. It can never explain the origin of life, sentience, intelligence, volition, and such things that raise humans above the level of mere biological machines (nor can it explain continuity of personal identity and the ethical questions concomitant with an enduring self).


    C.S. Lewis made a similar argument as well as, more recently, Plantinga, i.e., that a non-teleological biological machine can’t know (assuming we even grant the powers of sentience) that its mental ideas correspond to an external world or that its senses accurately reflect anything objective about the world. If an organism is driven primarily to survive, why not believe that it holds false ideas if those false ideas aid in its survival? And if biology and external forces drive an organism to hold false ideas, why believe the Darwinist has arrived at his Darwinism for reasons and evidence instead of merely because of a drive to survive which need not consider the truth-value of Darwinism?

  3. peshatbooks says:

    The concepts of poly-functional and poly-constrained applies to all complex systems, where without any one component, or a change in a component, the system becomes dysfunctional. This is behind most computer software upgrades – a change has had unintended consequences not picked up by the testers, or too late to make a scheduled release date. The problem dates back to the early days of design, and limitations in computer size and power. The most efficient code is straight line, but due to the limitations as mentioned above, programmers would code in reusable modules which could be swapped in and out of memory that was limited in size. The first IBM mainframe I worked on had a memory of just 8Kb. Code modules also assisted in standardization. For a while, that worked well, especially when a module had only a single function, and when not called by many other modules. As systems became more complex, additional functionality was added to these reusable modules, increasing the complexity of the relationships with other modules and applications. As systems became larger, and much software development was outsourced, even overseas, the understanding and documentation of the complex interrelationships became correspondingly diminished. Thus, complex systems became poly-functional, but due the way they were implemented, they were correspondingly poly-constrained. In modern aviation, especially military, the largest component of cost, and cause of delay, is the complexity of the software. Now whilst these concepts apply to DNA and the genome, they apply even more to the brain/mind and our cognitive abilities.

Please share your thoughts...

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