Evolutionists seem to want to brush off discussion about the origin of the first life. They confess they don’t know how it could happen by natural processes but claim this “abiogenesis” isn’t part of evolution.
That’s odd, but let’s go with it and consider the case where eukaryotic life (i.e. other than bacteria and archaea) already exists. If man evolved from a simple organism, thousands of new genes with new information had to have been added to express (synthesize) all the new proteins our bodies need.
Proteins are long precise sequences of amino acid molecules. How would evolution add one gene for one protein? Was one amino acid added to the protein (or more precisely, one codon added to the gene) per mutation? Was a whole gene added at once? (Selected how, from where?) Was an existing gene duplicated and then just that gene heavily mutated? (If the whole genome is heavily mutated the organism would die.)
For discussion, let’s assume one random amino acid per mutation is added to a partial protein being evolved. (If this seems hokey, please suggest a plausible scenario.) Darwin required “numerous, successive, slight modifications” so the whole thing can’t jump together at once. What’s the probability of creating the particular needed protein?
There are 20 amino acids to choose from, so for a relatively small protein with only 100 amino acids, there are 20100 possible arrangements or permutations, or 10130. Only a handful of those permutations will work for any particular function. The probability that the right protein will be added is a small number in 10130.
Even if the universe were a trillion trillion trillion trillion years old with a non-stop trillion mutations (generations) per second, that would still be way, way, way too few for evolution to have produced even a single small protein.
I’m not exaggerating at all. A trillion is 1012 so this hypothetical universe could only produce 3x1067 mutations. Dividing by the 100 amino acids gives the number of complete proteins tried, which is infinitesimally small compared to the 10130 possibilities. The math is shocking but it shouldn’t be that tough to verify.
But it’s worse. Proteins don’t duplicate from proteins. Their code is stored in DNA which molecular machinery reads to express the gene and build the protein. So each new amino acid must be encoded in a three-nucleotide codon. So the probability is lower.
Some have argued that natural selection acts as a filter which significantly improves the probability. They claim incorrect sequences will get removed and the correct-but-incomplete proteins are kept. But that doesn’t work. Incomplete proteins don’t perform any valuable function, so there’s no mechanism for natural selection to determine if they’re correct or not.
This is my favorite argument that life was designed. You have to have a lot of blind faith in evolution to believe in it.