In this example different mutations of 100 base pairs in eight breeding pairs are combined in having offspring with a further 100 base pair mutation of their own. In turn, these children interbreed resulting in offspring with additional mutation of their own as before. Within just four generations of this taking place, the amount of combined mutation has risen to over 3,000.However, we now hit a different problem. The mutants must interbreed in this kind of way in order for all the mutations to be brought into the same population. But when the different mutations are combined like this, the point would be reached very quickly where the difference in the DNA of the individuals would be too great for conception to be possible, thus preventing the mutations from combining.

This can be seen quite clearly in the Galapagos finches. In their case, although they are all still 100% finches and no new genetic information has appeared that can begin to turn them into anything other than finches, we are told that it is still the case that the genetic drift prevents some of them from interbreeding.

If this is true for the finches, it is obvious that for the massive number of base pairs needing to mutate to produce modern humans and apes from a common ancestor, the difference between the mutants would rapidly become too high for conception to be possible. So trying to get around the problem of the vast amount of change needed in this way simply does not work.

University of Rochester evolutionary biologist, H. Allen Orr,  concluded:

"Given realistically low mutation rates, double mutants will be so rare that adaptation is essentially constrained to surveying - and substituting - one-mutational step neighbours."

Orr H A 2003 A minimum on the mean number of steps taken in adaptive walks. J. Theor. Biol. 220:241-47

However you juggle the figures, you cannot get away from the fact that either the amount of change needed in each mutation will be too high to be possible, or the number of transitional species will be too many to fit into the time-scale, too many for natural selection to select, and/or too many to leave no trace in the fossil record.

Up until the year 2012, the evolutionist’s ‘get-out’ was to say that 95% or more of human DNA is junk, therefore anything found in this area can be discounted. However, when the ENCODE findings were published, this excuse was no longer valid, since throughout that 95% of our DNA are vital ‘switches’ controlling the area that previously was believed to be the only useful part of DNA. All the evidence is that when we do finally discover what is going on, there will be very little, if any, DNA that has no use at all. Indeed, since that report further research has shown not merely that there is some function in the so-called 'junk' area, but that it is highly complex and shows a degree of 'computer programming' way in advance of anything humans have ever devised.

As mentioned in the note at the top of this page, the actual difference between chimps and humans is significantly larger than shown in the calculations in this challenge. If you cannot meet the challenge with these figures, and I do not believe you will be able to do, how can you meet it with the real ones?

Another way of describing the problem can be found here, with this quote:

"Think about it; in the evolutionary model there have only been 3–6 million years since humans and chimps diverged. With average human generation times of 20–30 years, this gives them only 100,000 to 300,000 generations to fix the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps. This includes at least 35 million single letter differences, over 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, nearly 700 extra genes in humans (about 6% not shared with chimpanzees), and tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements. Also, the chimp genome is about 13% larger than that of humans, but mostly due to the heterochromatin that caps the chromosome telomeres. All this has to happen in a very short amount of evolutionary time. They don’t have enough time, even after discounting the functionality of over 95% of the genome—but their position becomes grave if junk DNA turns out to be functional. Every new function found for Junk DNA makes the evolutionists’ case that much more difficult.”

A simple word game will demonstrate what evolution requires for modern man and chimps to have had a common ancestor. Turn the word 'list' into the word 'moans' by changing one letter at a time. Each time you must produce a valid word. E.g. List, Last, Mast, Most, Moat, Moan, Moans. If we say 'list' represents humans and 'moans' represents chimps, then the middle word will represent the common ancestor. Thus:

(common ancestor)

Most

Mast     Moat

Last              Moan

List                      Moans

(humans)              (chimps)

You will note the final word at the end of the chimp line has one more letter than the others. This is to reflect the fact that chimps have more DNA than humans.
 

The above word game is a very simplified version of exactly the same process evolutionists claim took place in DNA to produce all living things over a long period of time, only the 'word' of human DNA contains over 3 billion letters, not merely five or six, and each letter change is the result of mutation preserved by natural selection.
 

 In the New Scientist magazine, 7 April 2018 they reported a project to map the entire genome of every living thing on the planet, and said:
 

"Sequencing all life will also let us retrace evolution and see where each species sits in the family tree."
(Page 43)
 

With the ever-increasing power and speed of computers, it is not a very large leap from there to produce a programme like the word game I just described and show all the stages there would need to be between each ‘closely related’ life-form.

I predict, and guarantee with absolute certainty, that if they try to do this to show how humans and chimps evolved from some primitive creature, they will find it needs either an impossibly large number of 'letter' changes for each stage that could take place by random mutation and be preserved by natural selection; an impossibly large number of changes for every stage to produce something better than its parent so it can be selected for by natural selection; and an impossibly large number of stages to fit in with the evolutionary timetable. In other words it will conclusively prove that the only possible explanation for all the living things on the planet is that they were created by an Intelligent Designer.
 

THE CHALLENGE

​

Exactly how did the present difference we see between man and ape appear through random mutation in a time that fits in with evolutionary theory? If you have a valid answer, then please write either your answers to steps 3 & 5, or your brief description of a scenario that works, here.

​

Example Answer to The Challenge:

3: 13,333

5: 5,934

​

Other than the way I have described it here, the problem is by no means new: indeed it has been known by evolutionists for many years. The famous geneticist J. B. S. Haldane spelled out the problem in 1957, and thereafter it became known as Haldane’s dilemma! He calculated that it would take about 300 generations for a favourable mutation to become fixed in a population (every member having a double copy of it). In the sample answers I gave above, I calculated on just 20! So according to him, the process would take 15 times longer!

He calculated that in the approximately 6 million years since our supposed hominid ancestor split from the chimpanzee line, only about 1000 (fewer than 2000 according to ReMine) such mutations could become fixed. We now know the amount of change necessary to produce modern man and chimps from a common ancestor is orders of magnitude larger than this.

​

A technical explanation of his problem can be seen at JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(3) 2007 page 116, and a very good paper explaining why mutation is unable to work the required miracle can be seen here.

​

If you fail to produce a logical explanation to the challenge, you demonstrate that the kind of changes required to produce all life forms from a single cell are impossible and that the theory of evolution is no more than science fiction. Of course, your explanation must be based on what happens in the real world and not on the unrealistically optimistic figures I used here to illustrate the challenge.

​

The size of the problem is so great, you can calculate on the difference between chimps and humans being just 1% and mutations occurring in every single generation and it would still take 197,793,750 years, which is nearly 33 times longer to appear than the maximum evolutionary time-frame of around 6 million years.

​

(6 million years is the longest period I have seen claimed: much longer than this and the rest of evolution will not fit into the evolutionary time-frame.)

​

Stephen Hawking said,

“…you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory”

‘A Brief History of Time’, page 11.

​

This is the observation that disproves the theory of evolution. Evolutionists have been brushing it under the carpet ever since Haldane, assuming that later research would solve their problem; but, as has been predicted by creationists throughout this time (contrary to the claim constantly pushed by evolutionists that creationists can never predict anything!), the reverse is the case and the mapping of human and chimp genomes in the 21st century, along with the publishing of the ENCODE project results in 2012, shows the obstacle to the theory is insurmountable.

​

These show the difference between humans and chimps is at least 12% - more than double the 5% used in the calculations on this page. However. In 2018 it was revealed that the closer than 98% similarity claimed by evolutionists was mostly due to the chimp DNA samples being contaminated by human DNA, and the similarity is no more than around 84% and probably less! See here.

​

If you believe in the theory of evolution, then you can produce as much evidence in other areas as you like, but if you cannot meet the challenge I have set on this page then you will know in your heart that your belief flies in the face of scientific observation of mutation and natural selection in the real world, and is based on the religious belief that God does not exist.

​

“A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark: “The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them.””

Quoted  here.

​

Over 50 years later, the only answer evolutionists can give to this problem is to close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La, la, la,” very loudly. See this technical article, which goes into great depth with the mathematical impossibility for evolution either to begin at all or to go on to produce all life forms from a single cell, as discussed at the Wistar Symposium. It is very long, but you only have to read a few paragraphs to realise the fantastically impossible obstacle to evolution.

​

INDEX

​