Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
The Pre-Liver Created By Evolution
Let Evolution Design the Pre-Liver
So let us consider how evolution would design the pre-liver to help alcoholics survive and breed. After all, it sounds so simple when you read the pro-evolution literature.
The process or redesigning human DNA to create a complete pre-liver is so complex it could not be done in one generation by evolution. It would take many generations of humans for evolution to make the cumulative improvements to the DNA in order to have a generation with a complete pre-liver.
In fact, this is exactly the way evolution is supposed to work. Science knows that it is statistically impossible for a male and female to coincidently have the same changes to their DNA, in one generation. For such a complex situation as a new pre-liver; evolution would predict it would take many generations of small random mutations to create the new pre-liver.
Thus, successive generations of humans would have to slowly accumulate the changes to their DNA until the complete pre-liver was made.
Furthermore, each generation of cumulative "small mutations" would require the male and female to be born with the same exact "cumulative prior mutations" and to have the exact same "additional small mutations" in their generation.
This is one of the reasons the evolutionists are willing to compromise their integrity and allow knowingly flawed radiometric dating techniques to be used. The flaws make the dates of fossils seem much, much higher than they really are. All of this is to accommodate the massive time needed for "gradual" evolution.
One of many problems with the theory of gradual evolution is that there would be no survival benefit to the new species until the entire process of changing the DNA was complete and all of the pieces discussed previously, and many more, were completely in place. In other words, the pre-liver would not function correctly, and would not be beneficial to alcoholics, until all the pieces mentioned in the prior chapter were in place.
The creation of the pre-liver would be an incredibly complex task (an "irreducible complex" task to use creation science terminology). Until all of the hundreds of thousands of changes to the DNA were complete (which would include not just the pre-liver, but the changes to the circulatory system, the brain, the morphing of the embryo sections of the DNA, etc.), the pre-liver would not work and would not provide any survival benefit to alcoholics.
Let me repeat that last sentence because it is so important: Until all of the hundreds of thousands of changes to the DNA were complete (which would include not just the pre-liver, but the changes to the circulatory system, the brain, the morphing of the embryo sections of the DNA, etc.), the pre-liver would not work and would not provide any survival benefit to alcoholics.
The changes would take scores, if not hundreds, of generations of humans.
Let's make it simple and assume it takes exactly 100 generations for evolution to create the pre-liver. Also, we will assume that exactly 1% of the total cumulative changes to the DNA were accomplished each generation, so that it took exactly 100 generations to redesign the DNA and make the pre-liver by evolution.
Problem number one is that in each generation the exact same changes must randomly, blindly and without direction, be made in both a male and a female, in their germ cells (i.e. their sperm or egg). And one of these males and one of the females, which coincidentally have the exact same mutations, must breed (i.e. mate) in that generation.
In fact, as will be seen, it is actually more complicated for evolution to create the new pre-liver in small steps than it would be for evolution to create it in one giant step. This is because the DNA must align, male and female, for 100 consecutive generations.
While the total changes to the DNA are the same, whether it is done in one giant step or 100 small steps, getting the right male and right female to mate at the right time, adds a lot of complexity.
This is complicated, so let us go though it generation by generation.
The Zero Couple (the "Original Couple")
(Born With No Pre-Liver DNA Changes)
In the zero generation, or "zero couple," a man and a woman (who will be called the "original couple"), are born with none of the pre-liver changes to DNA. During their lifetimes, they must have the same random mutations (including the morphing of the embryo mutations) in their germ cells, in the same places in their DNA, and they must mate (i.e. they must marry in the case of humans).
At this point it doesn't matter if these two people are related to each other, but after this generation it will matter. The zero generation couple are normal human beings (i.e. they are born without any of the pre-liver DNA changes). However, during their lifetimes their DNA must mutate, in their germ cells, so that the 1% of the cumulative changes to DNA, which are necessary for the pre-liver, are made.
The First Couple
(Born With 1% of the Pre-Liver Changes)
In the first generation, or "first couple," are two of the children of the "original couple." Neither the male or female can be regular humans or else their DNA would not align. The male and female which mate in this generation must be brother and sister.
The "first couple" must mate. These are a new species, but they are only a transitional species. They are the first "people" to have pieces of the pre-liver at birth. However, they are born with only 1% of the necessary parts of the pre-liver.
In other words, the "original couple" must have at least a son and a daughter. And at least one son and at least one daughter, among their children, must mate. Any of their other children which mate (with non-siblings) will probably have sterile children or their children will not survive birth.
This key son and daughter are born with 1% of the pre-liver parts and pieces, which they inherited from their parents (the "original couple"). However, the DNA of the "first couple" must mutate (including the morphing of the embryo) so that their offspring have 2% of the cumulative pre-liver parts.
Remembering the discussion in prior chapters about the morphing of the embryo, it is insanely ludicrous to think that two children of the same couple would have just the right mutations to their DNA so that their offspring will have 2% of the parts of the pre-liver. It is even more ludicrous to think that 3 or 4 of their children will have exactly the same mutations!! Absurdity does have its limits.
Thus, it will be assumed that in every generation, exactly two of the children (and not 3 or 4) will have the necessary mutations to add another 1% to the pre-liver parts. In other words, the son who has these mutations will not have a choice (among his sisters) as to who to marry. The right son and the right daughter of the zero couple must marry. This is true in each generation.
However, there is no reason to suspect that the "right" male and "right" female will know who they are supposed to mate with. This adds another layer of complexity to multi-generation evolution.
Thus, the right brother and the right sister of the "original couple" must marry each other because they are the only two people on earth who were born with the first 1% of the pre-liver, plus they are the only ones among the children who had the necessary mutations to bring the cumulative percentage up to 2% for the next generation.
The Second Couple
(Born With 2% of the Pre-Liver Changes)
In the second generation, called the "second couple," a brother and a sister must mate. It must be a son and daughter of the "first couple" in order to be born with the complete 2% of the pre-liver parts and pieces.
Then, by totally random means they must have an identical 1% change to their DNA (in their germ cells) in order to achieve a 3% cumulative change for their children. Thus, the second couple must be born with, and have exactly similar random mutations to their DNA (including morphing of the embryo) in their germ cells.
In other words, the "right" brother and the "right" sister of the "first couple" must marry each other because they are the only two people on earth who were born with the first 2% of cumulative pre-liver changes and had the necessary mutations to bring the cumulative percentage up to 3% for the next generation.
By now the reader should see the pattern. This same process goes on in each generation until the pre-liver is complete.
(To keep this discussion simple, certain types of situations will not be discussed.)
The 100th Children
(Born With 100% of the Pre-Liver Changes)
In the one-hundredth generation, called the "one-hundredth children," all the parts of the pre-liver are in place and are fully functioning - at birth.
In other words, all of the children of the "ninety-ninth" couple, called the "one-hundredth children," are born with all the parts of the pre-liver. They are born with a fully functional pre-liver.
Note that at this point any of the brothers and sisters can intermarry (i.e. interbreed) because no more mutations are needed. However, the sons and daughters of the ninety-ninth couple must marry their siblings (i.e. their brothers or sisters), and have the last 1% of mutations, in order to have children who have the complete pre-liver (we have ignored some possibilities to keep it simple).
After this generation, first cousins, brothers and sisters can marry and drink all they want, as long as they are pure descendants of the "100th couple."
The Other Children
If we assume that each couple mentioned above (until the "100th Children") had 5 children, only 2 of which had the necessary mutations for the next generation, what happened to the other 3 children in each generation?
Starting with the children of the "first couple," the other 3 children were born with partial mutations, but they did not achieve the next level of mutations, thus their descendants could never be able to achieve a total pre-liver. Eventually they would marry someone with a different level of partial mutations (or no mutations at all), and they would not be able to have children which could have offspring with anyone (unless this other person just happened to have the right combination of partial mutations).
In other words, the 3 children in each generation would have no descendants after a few generations because they or their children would end up mating with people who did not have exactly the same cumulative percentage of mutations, thus they could not have children or their children could not have children.
For example, suppose someone with 97% of the pre-liver parts and pieces marries a person who was not a descendant of the original couple or only had 53% of the pre-liver mutations. Their children would never have a complete pre-liver and in fact they probably could not have children at all.
While this may explain the lack of transitional species found by paleontologists, the absurdity of the above sequence makes this a very poor explanation for the lack of transitional species. Remember, paleontologists only find bones.
A New Level of Absurdity
Can you imagine how absurd it is that any human with a complete pre-liver would exist via evolution?
It would take the "original couple" plus 99 more consecutive generations (though this is a simplification) of exact mutations of the "right" brother and the "right" sister (including the morphing of the embryo), in their germ cells. It is ludicrous to think this could happen in one generation, but to happen in 100 consecutive generations, just to get a new organ, is ridiculous beyond comprehension.
While this is a hypothetical situation, the mathematics are correct. The biggest problem in all of this is that a male and female must breed who were born with exactly the same mutations and have exactly the same mutations, in exactly the same places in their DNA, in the same generation. It is that ludicrous!!
It gets worse. Until the pre-liver was fully functional, after 100 consecutive generations, there would be no survival advantage to anyone in the previous generations (who only inherited partial mutations). In fact, even after 100 generations there would be no survival advantage compared to most humans because most humans are not "lushes" (i.e. alcoholics).
Yet, the evolution establishment wouldn’t hesitate to say such a complex process has happened many, many millions of times on this earth; all of them by pure accident and all of them taking many generations!!
Exactly where do the evolutionists draw the line of insane absurdity?
The whole concept of multi-generation changes to DNA, to achieve a desired result, is total nonsense.
It gets worse.
Inbreeding and Population Sizes
Evolutionists like to talk about populations. With huge populations the impossible events of evolution have a "higher" probability of happening. However, in the above example, no matter what the population size of the species is, a new species is in process and the "available population size" for new mutations, after the first generation, is exactly two in each and every generation, and they must be brother and sister (or close cousins).
For example, even if the species has a billion members, only two of them can participate in the "next" generation of mutations in any generation after the "original couple."
Thus, for 99 consecutive generations the "population size" for evolution to work with is exactly two.
Large population sizes do not help the cause of the theory of evolution one iota when multi-generation DNA changes are involved.
Note that in this scenario, because only a very small percentage of the population has each of the different stages of the pre-liver; in order for the pre-liver to be completed, there is much breeding (i.e. marriage) among brothers and sisters or close cousins.
For 99 consecutive generations there is total and absolute "inbreeding" because evolution is following the descendants of a single family.
Inbreeding (the breeding of close relatives) is well known to make a species vulnerable to death from a single disease. Inbreeding causes a massive loss of genetic information!!
In other words, the reason all people in the world don't die of the same disease is that there is a great variety in our DNA because inbreeding is illegal in civilized countries. Take away that vast variety of DNA by inbreeding and you get very little variety and the entire species could be wiped out by a single virus or bacteria.
Many species on the earth today are vulnerable to extinction because as the species gets smaller and smaller in population size, inbreeding becomes more common and more genetic information is lost.
For example, if dinosaurs and other long-ago extinct species ever lived on this earth, it is likely most of them became extinct due to a combination of genetic entropy and inbreeding.
A new species will inherit all of the genetic defects of its parent species and it is not likely any species could survive for a million years simply because of genetic entropy and the inherited flaws in their DNA which they accumulated from all of their ancestor species (assuming the theory of evolution).
As the species dropped in population size due to genetic entropy, their survival problems would have been massively compounded by inbreeding. Inbreeding would have caused a massive loss in their genetic information.
Genetic entropy and inbreeding are a two-edged sword.
From a religious perspective, Adam and Eve's children had to marry each other. However, there is absolutely no doubt that God, who is the ultimate authority on DNA, made the DNA of Adam and the DNA of Eve vastly different. Thus, their children and grandchildren, etc. could have safely married among themselves for many generations.
The Pre-Liver Is An Example
While the pre-liver is a hypothetical organ, the above discussion applies to many of the supposed evolutionary improvements to animals.
For example, each species likely has a unique liver designed specifically for that species.
But let us take a different example.
Let us take the seemingly simple evolutionary change in primates so they could walk on two legs. It is assumed that walking on four legs preceded the walking on two legs (e.g. humans). So let us discuss what it takes for a species to "evolve" from walking on four legs to walking on two legs.
First, the bone structure of the animal must change. In fact, the main way paleontologists look for the transition from walking on four legs to walking on two legs has to do with the bone structure. There is a significant difference in the bone structure of primates that walk on four legs versus two legs.
But that is just the beginning. There must also be major changes in the muscle structure of the animal. The muscles involved in walking on four legs are very different than the muscles involved for an animal that walks on two legs.
When you change the bones and muscles you must also change the blood vessels (i.e. the arteries and veins). Many blood vessels would no longer be needed during the transition and many new vessels would be needed.
When you change the muscles you also have to change the nerves which control the muscles. Not only that but you also have to change the brain so that it can control the vastly different movements of walking on four legs to walking on two legs.
Also, there must be a sophisticated mechanism to allow the animal that walks on two legs to balance itself. In humans, this balancing mechanism is controlled in the inner ear by three small bones passing information to the semicircular canals.
The semicircular canals are three half-circular, interconnected tubes in the inner ear. They are each like miniature gyroscopes and have a complex angular relationship to each other (i.e. they are on different geometric planes).
Each canal is filled with endolymph (a fluid) and contains a motion sensor which has little hairs whose ends are attached to a gelatinous structure. The three half-circular tubes work together and are so sophisticated they can tell the difference between when we change the angle of our head versus we change the angle of our body.
The semi-circular canals send electrical impulses to our brain. Walking on two legs requires a more sophisticated mechanism than walking on four legs. Thus the brain must be reprogrammed to interpret the added signals received from the sensors of the semi-circular canals.
Four legged animals (quadrupeds) have a tail, which is actually very important in helping them balance. Humans don't need a tail to help them balance. Thus, the brain must be reprogrammed to quit receiving these signals.
Scientists admit that the highly sophisticated changes to a quadruped that led to a bipedal animal (one which walks on two legs) did not happen in one generation, or even ten generations.
So how can these sophisticated transitions occur over a period of many, many generations? That was the main point of the discussion on the pre-liver. There is no benefit to the generations and generations of creatures who don't have all the mechanisms in place to walk on two legs, especially the mechanisms needed to form the signals from the inner ear.
In fact, there would be a huge, huge disadvantage to generation after generation of species which could not walk well on four legs or walk well on two legs. This is because for the generations in transition (which are transitioning between walking on four legs versus walking on two legs), they are very poor at walking on four legs or walking on two legs. Thus, they could not escape predators or be able to obtain food.
According to the theory of evolution, things like the semicircular canal are built by "trial and error." Considering how sophisticated it is it would take many, many thousands of generations of "trial and error" to get the semicircular canal just right (e.g. at the right angles, etc.). During these generations the primates could not stand up very well, much less be able to run from predators or be able to hunt food.
"Natural selection" would work against these transitional species.
These many generations would have a very, very low survival rate. This supplies a very, very low number of animals which are available for the "next" step in the semicircular canal "trial and error" construction. Remember, you constantly have brother and sister breeding. Thus, if just one son or daughter does not survive, the cumulative affect is lost forever and the entire process may have to start over from scratch.
You would also have a great loss of genetic information during the transition.
The whole concept of evolution, which takes hundreds of generations to complete a single change, is scientific nonsense.
The Other Option
The reader might think that instead of taking 100 generations; that a change could only take 10 generations.
If you lower the number of generations, statistically you gain nothing because the end result must be the same.
However, if you lower the number of generations; you add the complexity of massive numbers of complex changes to DNA being made in each of these 10 generations.
Evolution Has No Direction
As if all the above were not bad enough, it must also be remembered that evolution is directionless.
In each of the above generations of creating the pre-liver, it is assumed that evolution knows exactly where it left off (in creating the pre-liver) and where it is going (in order to complete the pre-liver). It is also assumed the "right" brother and "right" sister know who to mate with. This is all nonsense.
In reality, evolution has no direction. For example, the 10th generation of creating the pre-liver has an equal chance of creating proteins for the brain of a horse or creating proteins for the heart of a crab as it does in creating the 10th generation of creating the human pre-liver. The probabilities are the same!!
For example, in the fifth generation above, or any other generation, there is absolutely no reason to think that the mutations in that generation would have anything to do with a human pre-liver.
To think that 100 consecutive generations of evolution would consecutively create 100 consecutive incremental improvements to a human pre-liver; is total nonsense. Evolution has no intelligence, no idea where it is, and no idea where it is going.
Thus, the whole concept of multi-generation mutations is nonsense. It implies an "intelligence" is keeping track of what stage the cumulative mutations are at, and what the next stage should look like, in both the male and female germ cells. This is nonsense beyond imagination.
Yet, this kind of thinking is at the heart of multi-generation cumulative mutations for major structural changes or new organs. It is like a multi-generation cumulative "wishful thinking."
Yet for evolution to be true there would have had to be many millions of such multi-generational cumulative mutations in order to account for all the complex functions of complex animals on this earth!!
It is all scientific nonsense.
Evolutionists say these unlikely successes have happened many millions of times and in many cases they worked on species with small populations. Of course, the size of the population is irrelevant after the first generation because a brother and sister must mate, yielding a population size for transitional species of only 2 for many consecutive generations. And the mutations have to be in the germ cells of the brother and sister.
Then it must be mentioned that evolution has no direction for any of the generations.
Is there anything as ludicrous as multi-generation random evolution? However it ranks in the absurdity column, it is definitely close to the top of the list. But surprisingly, it is not at the top, "genetic chaos" will take that prize, as will be seen later.